Are there any Apatheists here?

[CLANG]

The religion of "don't know, and don't care"? I consider myself to be an indifferent apatheist.

[darkstar3]

1. I'm gonna guess there aren't too many.

After all, why get on a discussion board about it if you don't care?

[CLANG]

2. You make a good point - DOH!!

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Isn't that much the same thing as weak atheism

as opposed to strong atheism?

[CLANG]

5. No because an atheist says there is no God.

An apatheist does not profess to know, but finds the question irrelevant to his own life. At least that is my interpretation.

[laconicsax]

6. No, an atheist doesn't believe in gods.

There's a difference.

[CLANG]

7. Did you respond to the wrong post?

:shrug:

[laconicsax]

10. Nope. n/t

[CLANG]

11. No, an atheist doesn't believe in gods.

An apatheist does not profess to know, but finds the question irrelevant to his own life. At least that is my interpretation.

(is that better - it still works for me)

[laconicsax]

12. Whether or not you profess to know, you either do or don't believe.

Professing agnosticism is answering a different question.

This may come across as simplistic, but if you find the question irrelevant to your life, chances are you don't believe they exist. If someone asked you if you believe in a god (any will do) and gave you two choices: yes or no, which would you choose?

Atheists don't profess to know, just that they don't believe.

[CLANG]

14. I don't know, and I don't care

Apatheism (a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic or critically as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief, or lack of belief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life.

[laconicsax]

15. So you don't believe they exist.

If apatheism is known as pragmatic or practical atheism, then it stands to reason that it is an atheist position (i.e. one without belief in gods).

[CLANG]

17. You are wrong.

I do not believe in the existence of God, nor do I disbelieve. I don't see enough evidence to satisfy me either way. I truly do not know, nor do I care. Now can we go our separate ways?

[laconicsax]

18. Repeat that first part again.

Specifically the first nine words of your reply. Once you do that, try to explain how the next bit has any relevance unless you're trying to have it both ways. You can't simultaneously believe and not believe the same thing. It's logically impossible.

Sorry if I offended you. I assumed that someone posting on a discussion forum would be open to discussion. Clearly that wasn't your intent.

[CLANG]

21. If you can't understand the first sentence you are either

being ingenuous or are illiterate. You are the one that doesn't want a discussion. You only want to be right. I'll say it again - you are wrong.

"I do not believe in the existence of God, nor do I disbelieve."

That means I NEITHER believe or disbelieve.

BELIEVE

intransitive verb 1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>transitive verb 1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2 : to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon>

DISBELIEVE

transitive verb:
to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb :
to withhold or reject belief

[laconicsax]

28. Clearly, you don't understand what you wrote.

Belief is one of those either/or things. Absence of one indicates presence of the other.

Stating that you don't believe means that you don't believe. Stating that you don't disbelieve means that you believe. You stated both--that you both believe and don't believe. That's a logical contradiction.

Agnostics bug me because they have a tendency to be atheists who argue like theists.

[immoderate]

19. A-theist means "without god."

If you are without god, you qualify. Whatever other neologisms you might think apply, indulge. But I know you're an atheist.

--imm

[CLANG]

22. You are correct about the greek origin of the word

but in today's vernacular it means:

–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

Neither of these definitions applies to me. I truly do not know, as there is no way to prove there is a God(s) or not. Anyone with sound logic skills would realize this truth.

[immoderate]

23. Those definitions are usually edited by theists.

Do you have any trouble apprehending that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Boogie Man are imaginary beings? There is no way to prove their existence either. So are you an apSanta Clausist?

Sure you do not have absolute knowledge. But you may know enough about natural processes to see that god is excluded from the explanations that we have for the universe around us. If he did exist, he would be out of a job.

--imm

[CLANG]

26. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Boogie Man

have never been considered as God. Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. You are really stretching to make your point. Take the last word if you want, as I think my point has been well made. Nice chatting with you! :dilemma:

[immoderate]

27. Stretching a point?

They are all imaginary beings. Characters from stories and mythology. Haven't you noticed that Santa Clause is god dressed up in a red suit?

OK, so let's take Zeus, Ba'al, and Zoroaster. They HAVE been considered god. How does that fit into your theology? Sorry for my obtuseness, but I still don't get the point. You don't have a god or a religion. You're atheist.

--imm

[omega minimo]

32. Who's on first

I don't know's on second. :spray:

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DavidDvorkin]

8. A strong atheist says there is no god

A weak atheist says there's no evidence for the existence of God, and the question isn't worth discussing without any evidence.

[CLANG]

9. It's not really the same, IMO. We can agree to disagree.

[and-justice-for-all]

25. There is no god(S) because there is no evidence for them or it...

ZERO.

[MrModerate]

31. I guess I don't buy the notion that additional slicing of the term "atheist" . . .

Is particularly useful.

Last I heard, the term "agnostic" pretty much covered the territory of those still struggling with the concept of "no gods." So let's just define atheist as one with no belief in god(s). The classical meaning, in other words. Then you can, in context, discuss one's intensity and/or viewpoint using any modifiers you want -- just avoid the impulse to create categories to put people in simply because they've expressed a (perhaps transitory) point of view on the subject.

As an example, my point of view is pretty clear, but unlabeled: There is no god and it's not worth discussing (outside of the context of intellectual Parcheesi, such as discussion boards).

I'd also argue whether distinctions about varieties of atheism are "in the vernacular" since neither religious people nor most atheists really give a damn -- it's only a tiny coterie of inveterate categorizers who care at all.

[iris27]

34. Ugh, we have to deal with this misconception enough in R/T, do we really need it in A&A too?

"Atheists" as an general category do not say "there is no God"; we simply lack belief in a god.

There is a subset of atheism, usually called strong or explicit atheism, which does make that claim, but I have yet to meet anyone who actually holds this position in real life.

Most atheists eschew any unprovable assertions; this applies equally to both "there are no gods" and "Jesus is magic".

[MrModerate]

20. Phooey! I'm a strong atheist: I really, really, really don't care! n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

24. However, that's not the meaning of 'strong atheism"

It has nothing to do with how strongly one feels about it.

[MrModerate]

30. Which was my point. Not all jokes work, sadly. n/t

[onager]

4. This author calls himself an apatheist...

Shopping for God: How Christianity Went from In Your Heart to In Your Face by James B. Twitchell.

He defines apatheism as: "...a disinclination to care all that much about one's religion and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's."

But he admits that he enjoys visiting megachurches for the experience. And despite "not caring," in this book he wrote several hundred pages on the mass marketing of Xianity.

I read the book a couple of years ago. I mostly agree with the Publisher's Weekly review:

...Although often incisive and insightful, Twitchell's analysis is marred by an annoyingly colloquial tone and an occasional ahistoricism.

Although Twitchell is clearly familiar with other historical moments in which Christianity was marketed, he seems to imagine that in some bygone era, American religion was private.

The claim that the old-style celeb kept his religion to himself overlooks the fact that many old-time celebs, such as Henry Ward Beecher, were preachers. Although he rehearses the history of the Great Awakening—when newspapers puffed revivalists—he suggests that religion's status as big news for journalists is a new development.

http://www.amazon.com/Shopping-God-Christianity-Went-Heart/dp/0743292871/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&sr=8-1

[laconicsax]

13. That reminds me of Karen Armstrong

You know, the one who claims that 'God' is unknowable, but can't seem to stop writing books on the subject.

[Twillig]

29. Dawkins coined a new word the other day for her brand

of believing in, what exactly? (since we're talking about new words here)

apophatuous


The Washington post "The faith trap"
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/the_faith_trap.html

On the face of it, the disillusioned clergymen who form the subject of Dan Dennett's and Linda La Scola's study are less immune to the charge of hypocrisy. They are professionals, who accept a salary for preaching Christianity to a trusting flock. And what is true of atheist clergymen is scarcely less true of those who shelter behind Karen Armstrong-type apophatuousness, or 'ground of all being' obscurantism. That won't wash, for the simple reason that it wouldn't wash with the parishioners. To the trusting congregation, Karen Armstrong would be nothing more than a dishonest atheist, and who could disagree?

[cynatnite]

16. Apatheism can take various brands:

Absence of religious motivation—belief in gods do not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;

Active exclusion of the issue of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action; or

Indifference—the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion;

Not In My Power—if god/s want people to believe in them, they need only to demonstrate their existence. There is nothing humans can do to prove the existence of a god, and gods are the only force that can prove their existence, therefore the choice of human faith lies not on the shoulders of humans, but god

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism