The Proper Labeling for a Specific Religious Belief

I don't quite follow the question....

Are you saying that you, for example, fully believe in God, but also reject him at the same time? If thats the case then I guess its just a loss of faith is it not?

I believe you are looking for the word agnostic...

You are not an atheist but not sure that there is God or the one that is popular is the right one

quote Tumbles

quote soopiemeister

I believe you are looking for the word agnostic...

You are not an atheist but not sure that there is God or the one that is popular is the right one

While that is, unfortunately, the definition of 'agnostic' that many people use, it is incorrect from a philosophical point of view. Gnosticism is a claim to knowledge - to be agnostic about something is to say we cannot have knowledge of it. While this will carry some implications toward a persons' belief, it is a separate position from belief (in this case, deities).

OP is a theist. You don't have to like what you believe in, but you still believe in it.

I understand it could be a stretch but based on description most people who feels that way labels it so.
You could say than it is Iconoclast but I feel that it lacks the fervor of not agreeing with popular beliefs

quote Styot

He's definitely not Agnostic as he claims to know God exists. This seems to fit the bill: Dystheism

This is perfect. Thank you, everyone, for the help; it's nice to put a name to the thought.

quote Praetorian_Lord

quote Wikipedia

Dystheists may themselves be theists or atheists

The hell does that work?

Thinking a god is an asshole does not require you to believe in that god.

quote Praetorian_Lord

How can God be an asshole unless he exists? I can understand something along the lines of 'if God exists, then God's an asshole', but that seems more agnostic than atheist.

This is really not difficult. Have you ever described a fictional character as a dick? Does that character not existing somehow make them not a dick? Ta-da.

quote Tumbles

This is really not difficult. Have you ever described a fictional character as a dick? Does that character not existing somehow make them not a dick? Ta-da.

Don't patronise me, pup. Your argument doesn't follow: Yes, I've described a fictional character as a dick. And yes, that character not existing means they're not actually a dick. Calling them a dick is just an abbreviated way of describing the way in which that character is portrayed to a person who will also be very much aware that said character is fictional.

Lumping both theist and atheist 'dystheists' in together is stupid: 'I believe that God exists, and that he's an asshole' holds some meaning, while 'I don't believe in God but the fictional character is an asshole' has to be one of the most inane and pointless beliefs you could subscribe to while still claiming group membership. Honestly, if your dystheistic stance refers to what you believe the portrayal of a fictional character, would you really bother to call yourself a dystheist?

'The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a complete dick.' Lookee me, I'm a dyspastaist. Derp.

quote KR_1250

It depends how its being used.

I have heard that argument from hardcore atheists. "If god does exist he must be a complete d*ck becuase worms inhabit babies eyeballs or kids get mollested by priests etc etc"

It can be a pretty atheistic argument in that sence. Though it is'nt a very well thought out or mature way of saying it.

That was my first point though - the 'if god does exist' implies agnosticism, not atheism. The argument can be used by an atheist to discredit the New Testament portrayal of God, sure, but what you've written is different from 'God does not exist but he is a complete d*ck', which, as above, is a pretty pointless statement.