Or you could pick the definition of atheism that says it's simply a lack of belief in the existence of gods. This may fit better the people who find that knowledge - or at least evidence of - of such gods is possible but unlikely (and non-existent at the moment). Agnosticism means you're not sure presently, while an atheist as I describe can be quite sure of their experiences while accepting the possibility that they could be wrong with some of their inferences. Thus, their statement "there is no gods" can be quite true when it is based on their experience, and the agnosticism label would have the unacceptable implication that they aren't aware of their own experiences.

I do agree with you, Jediphile, that the hardline atheists who definitively state "there is no god" have faith in their incredible assumption that they have knowledge of everything. In my opinion, these atheists are as far removed from the atheists I talked about above as the hardcore religious. For convenience these two types are generally called "strong" and "weak" atheists, as they share nothing except the idea that there are no gods (and even that, one holds tentatively while the other definitively).

It is well to note the difference between the two, because if theists do not they run the risk of setting up an argument for a non-existent opponent! ;)

What would you calls someone who doesn't know if god exists, but also doesn't care because he or she thinks that whether god exists or not doesn't matter, since it has no bearing or matters in any way to his or her existence?

Well, I guess if that person didn't care enough to form an opinion one way or another about it, I'd have to call them some variant of agnosticism (they are not claiming to have knowledge of whether gods exist or not, just that it doesn't matter to them).

I'm not sure how someone could hold that position, however. The idea of god necessarily entails some degree of influence by it, even if they were to hold a non-personal view of god. If they said they knew that the influence of a god is equivalent to that of no god, I'd wonder how they know so much about what gods do, especially since they've said already they don't even know if gods exist. My offhand guess is that they wouldn't have an answer for me. :p

Well, I guess if that person didn't care enough to form an opinion one way or another about it, I'd have to call them some variant of agnosticism (they are not claiming to have knowledge of whether gods exist or not, just that it doesn't matter to them).

I'm not sure how someone could hold that position, however. The idea of god necessarily entails some degree of influence by it, even if they were to hold a non-personal view of god. If they said they knew that the influence of a god is equivalent to that of no god, I'd wonder how they know so much about what gods do, especially since they've said already they don't even know if gods exist. My offhand guess is that they wouldn't have an answer for me. :p

I guess the obvious response to that is how a person can hold any sort of knowledge of god's existence given that - by definition - believing in god is belief and not knowledge. There is no proof of god, and so it seems impossible to say factually that he (or she or it) exists. If there was proof, there would be no discussion, but also no faith. And it would be equally valid to ask how people of faith know so much about god that they know he exists.

In most cases religious people tend to base this on how they feel the presence of god. Fair enough. But then it would seem equally valid for someone to feel the absence of a higher being, or even that this being's existence has no influence on this person's life, wouldn't it?

For example, I may quite willingly accept that there are people who are smarter or more powerful than me (or both, for that matter). In that sense they could be considered higher beings. But do they matter to my life for that reason? No. So what do they matter to me (directly, I mean, not in the sense that I won't care if something bad happens to them or won't feel for them)?

Hm.. let's see --

Weak atheism: the weak atheist is not convinced that there are gods. The existence of gods is not necessarily denied, there is just the statement that there is no objective and rational reason to believe in the existence of any god.

Strong atheism: the strong atheist is convinced there are no gods. The existence of gods is clearly denied.

Agnosticism is basically the idea that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of higher beings or gods, strong agnosticism categorical denies the possibility to ever do so, while weak agnosticism states it is not yet possible.


What would you calls someone who doesn't know if god exists, but also doesn't care because he or she thinks that whether god exists or not doesn't matter, since it has no bearing or matters in any way to his or her existence?I think that refers to ignosticism or igtheism.


I'm not sure how someone could hold that position, however. The idea of god necessarily entails some degree of influence by it, even if they were to hold a non-personal view of god. If they said they knew that the influence of a god is equivalent to that of no god, I'd wonder how they know so much about what gods do, especially since they've said already they don't even know if gods exist. My offhand guess is that they wouldn't have an answer for me.I have an answer, and I put it into some small graphic once:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/RayJones/raymeetgod.png)

People turn to atheism because they see the church as rotten, the whole god thing is too illogical, a religion of peace has caused so much harm in the world, correct? Atheists are not life time members. They may question the morality they see in other atheists, feel they do not want to be wrong (Pascal's Wager) or feel atheism is a downer looking at the world through cold, logical, the world is small, nasty, complicated and everybody dies alone' eyes and seek more out of life.

They may question the morality they see in other atheistsNot more than I may question the morality of anybody else.

feel they do not want to be wrongSo, with atheism, I'd be wrong? How could I miss that fact? Also, what's wrong with being wrong?

feel atheism is a downer looking at the world through cold, logical, the world is small, nasty, complicated and everybody dies alone' eyes and seek more out of life.Not quite sure, does that mean the world isn't "small, nasty, complicated and everybody dies alone" and only non-atheists are able to see that, or is it that the world is "small, nasty, complicated and everybody dies alone" and everybody but the atheist is denying that?

What is wrong with being wrong? The atheist might begin to get scared of what might await them when they die, and seek to make amends before it is too late. Of course this is purely speculation. As for whether you have to be religious to turn away from the harsh realities of the world, no I do not think that. What I am saying is that for some they may need religion as sort of a crutch to help them in life.

I guess the obvious response to that is how a person can hold any sort of knowledge of god's existence given that - by definition - believing in god is belief and not knowledge. There is no proof of god, and so it seems impossible to say factually that he (or she or it) exists. If there was proof, there would be no discussion, but also no faith. And it would be equally valid to ask how people of faith know so much about god that they know he exists.Sure, I agree. Of course, you run into this problem with any kind of knowledge, so it just means that you can't state "god exists" as something undoubtedly true.

In most cases religious people tend to base this on how they feel the presence of god. Fair enough. But then it would seem equally valid for someone to feel the absence of a higher being, or even that this being's existence has no influence on this person's life, wouldn't it?For people with different experiences, they may well draw different (and completely correct!) logical conclusions. That's not necessarily a problem with the method, that's a problem with not being omniscient. :p

For example, I may quite willingly accept that there are people who are smarter or more powerful than me (or both, for that matter). In that sense they could be considered higher beings. But do they matter to my life for that reason? No. So what do they matter to me (directly, I mean, not in the sense that I won't care if something bad happens to them or won't feel for them)?Well, I think your analogy probably doesn't apply to a creator god, given that the very act of creation would be a not insignificant influence. Also, typical conceptions of God by many religions consist of it having the perfections of goodness, etc., and the knowledge of how to be a better person is a highly attractive thought. Indeed, if you were to not to try to find out what this god wanted given that you knew it existed, I would consider you liable for your immorality (as clearly it would be a chosen attribute instead of a result of ignorance). There are other similar reasons why a god would matter a great deal to you personally, even if it didn't interact with you specifically.

Agnosticism is basically the idea that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of higher beings or gods, strong agnosticism categorical denies the possibility to ever do so, while weak agnosticism states it is not yet possible.


Yes, the only thing you have to prove is that you don't know. :)