[Frooxius]

What does the word "atheist" even mean?
I'm just a normal person who didn't choose to believe in something imaginary people or groups of people created.

In the simplest form it means lack of belief or rejection of the claims for existence of god. Simply put if you answer to "There is a god?" anything but "yes" (or some other form of agreement) you fit the definition.

There are many other terms that help to clarify your exact position, for example I am strong agnostic atheist, also anti-theist and many other things.

Perhaps it has little in relation to the topic, but I'd take this opportunity to say something about agnostics.
I'm an agnostic. I'm all ears.

I'm actually agnostic too! (A)gnosticism and (a)theism deal with different questions and they're not mutually exclusive. Although there's somewhat common idea that "agnostic" is something in the middle between theist and atheist, that's not really true (I thought that myself for some time, until I looked into it more). Let me clarify:

(A)gnosticism deals with knowledge (gnōsis - knowledge in ancient greek) that if it's possible to know if something is true or not.

(A)theism deals with belief in deity (but also often refers to other supernatural claims) or lack of that belief.

Belief and knowledge are a bit different things, but they also go hand in hand. There are actually 4 main groups of people:

Gnostic theist - person who believes there's a god and claims to know there is a god.
Agnostic theist - person who believes in god, but thinks that it's not possible to know if she exists or not
Gnostic atheist - person who doesn't believe in god and claims to know there's no god
Agnostic atheist - person who doesn't believe in god, but thinks that's it's not possible to know if she exists or not.

So you can be agnostic and still believe in god (but from what you wrote you sound more like agnostic atheist).

I think it is the most rational position (although it depends on the god - we can show with fair certainty that some kinds of gods just don't exist), since there's no solid reason/evidence to believe in a deity, but there still could be one.

Like I said in my previous post - the right approach is to make a claim and then support it with evidence. Otherwise we can make any number of claims and believe in them just because they weren't disproven. And you can even (and that's what many apologists do) keep making excuses why the claim still wasn't disproven.

Some claims can be true, but until we have evidence, we just don't know and in some cases we can't even know (such as transcendental gods that have no effect on our universe - they're indistinguishable from our viewpoint from something that doesn't exist). Therefore we can't claim to know that there's absolutely no kind of god, but neither there's reason to believe in one.

Of course, if some solid evidence was found, then it would be reasonable to believe in the kind of deity that given evidence supports, but until then, you can't distinguish that claim from any others that have no supporting proof.

While I don't believe religion or Gods or things those books tell me, believing in a greater good (faith) helps calm your mind. It's not something to rely on imo, but I believe in truth because it helps me be good and do good regardless of anything which may come.

Yes, it can be calming, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. The validity and truth of claims isn't judged by emotional appeal (although that's a logical fallacy / manipulation tactic used by a lot of people to make others believe their claims), but by evidence.

Think about it: Lie can be comforting as well, but it doesn't make it true, does it?

The idea of a supreme being doesn't matter to me because it shouldn't.
For me if there is a God he would never help you, because then you'll stop relying on self.
He couldn't care less if he is being prayed to or not, if he is really good then he won't like the attention.
If there is a God he would never let the world know of his existence, so it doesn't really matter there is one or not.

Finally, consider your life a job and do it honestly. Don't worry about supervision.

Yeah, it doesn't really matter and I think people should definitely rely on themselves and on evidence when making decisions. Because the more you know about the world, the better your decisions can be.

My problem is that a lot of people don't behave that way and in many cases they force irrational beliefs to others: I'm fine if they have their beliefs, I'm fine if they discuss them in public forum (I don't mean necessarily on the internet - anywhere in public), the same way I do.

But the moment they start pushing it on people via legislations or forcing other people to behave in accordance with their own believes, it becomes a big problem.

Even if they didn't force others though, I would continue promoting reasonable thought and science and push people to think about what they believe and why, the same way they can push me. It's of course their free choice to believe what they want, but I can still be there, offering my view and perhaps help some people to change the way they think and don't fall for someone's mind tricks :-)

That's the thing about free speech - we can discuss our beliefs and positions freely, without forcing anyone anything and change our minds when we see fit.