I’m curious if there’s a name to the belief I have. I wouldn’t exactly call it atheist, though i generally lean that way, but I wouldn’t call it non-theist. The thing is, I just plain don’t care if God exists or not. They could, or they couldn’t, it really has no bearing on how I live my life. For that reason along I think I go in the atheist camp, but I always thought that was used to describe people who don’t think he exists.
Apatheism
An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods do exist or do not exist. The existence of a god or gods is not rejected, but may be designated irrelevant.
You’re an Agnostic.
Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is either unknowable in principle or unknown in fact.
Agnostic atheist. That’s a pretty standard position for atheists. It means you don’t believe in gods but you’re not claiming that they don’t exist. Proving that something doesn’t exist is logically impossible so there’s no point even bothering to try. So we’re willing to believe in gods, if someone presents convincing evidence for their existence. Until then we don’t.
Agnostic.
Gnostic / Agnostic is simply a claim about knowledge.
I’m agnostic as to whether my bread is stale. (I don’t know if my bread is stale).
I’m gnostic about the planets shape (I know it’s a sphere).
Theist / Atheist is a claim about belief.
Every person fits into one of the following:
-
A Gnostic Theist claims to know God exists (therefore implicitly believing)
-
A Gnostic Atheist claims to know God doesn’t exist.
-
An Agnostic Theist believes in God but doesn’t have sufficient evidence to make definitive claims.
-
An Agnostic Atheist doesn’t have sufficient evidence to make claims about God, and therefore doesn’t believe.
In terms of rationale, both Gnostic groups make definitive claims without sufficient evidence and should not be trusted.
The Gnostic Theists believe in something without evidence, this is a fallacy, but it’s something we all do every day. For example, I don’t know if it will rain, but I believe it might, so I bring an umbrella.
An Agnostic Atheist is the most rational. If you don’t have sufficient evidence to make a definitive claim, then why would you believe it?
What if I don’t know what I believe? Am I an agnostic agnostic?
I think that makes you amnesic
That’s fair 🤣
-
Apatheism: (apathy+theism) It’s unimportant if god exist or not, you just don’t care.
Practical Atheism: Just live your life not regarding any god.
The difference between those two is, a theist can be a practical atheist but not an apatheist.
To add to this, there’s also Apathiest Agnosticist
Agnostic atheist.
but I always thought that was used to describe people who don’t think he exists.
Agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists are both atheists. The only people who say “atheists by definition claim there is no god” are theists, so that atheism seems unreasonable.
I’d call you an atheist, but specify “agnostic atheist” to anyone who doesn’t understand the nuances of the terms.
OP is clearly God and just trolling us. Nice try God, we’re on to you
Does God like enchiladas? ^Because that’s what God’s getting^
That is what I call Atheist. You don’t care if one exists or not.
Atheist like us generally get thrown in with anti-theists (people who refuse an existence of gods) and are just as bad as a fundamentalist trying to prove they are right about a god existing or not.what I call Atheist. You don’t care if one exists or not.
The classical Atheist cares. He finds it important that God does not exist.
This here is an Agnostic.
You’re thinking of anti-theist.
Antitheism, also spelled anti-theism, is the philosophical position that theism should be opposed.
Atheists can merely not care if there was a god because they don’t see any proof of it.
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Atheism can also be more anti than that, but isn’t necessarily always that way
The classical Atheist cares. He finds it important that God does not exist.
I see you fall into my second line of lumping Atheists with anti-theists.
Agnostic is you believe there is something equating to a god but don’t believe in God
You’re capitalising God to mean some abraamic god or just whichever currently proposed god?
Nope, he finds it important no one uses what to him is a fictional character to push laws and regulations. You would also care if people prohibited you from doing something you like to do or think is important because Superman said it was wrong.
That’s a big difference, in general atheist don’t care about God(s), they care about people trying to use God(s) to push an agenda, but the people who’re trying to use God(s) to push that agenda rarely see the difference.
I have met some, but never this special type of Atheist. Better do not think that they are all like you ;-)
Do you find it important that Spider-Man does not exist? Do you think anyone in their right mind would find it important? No, but the moment someone starts to force you to do or not do stuff because Spider-Man thinks it’s bad it becomes important to make it clear that Spider-Man is not real.
The VAST majority of atheist are indifferent towards religion, unless that religion is trying to control them somehow. This is why you don’t see atheist complaining about Buddhism in western countries, if a religion is not trying to force itself into an atheist life he cares as much as you do about all of the thousands of other religions you’re an atheist towards. If you feel atheist are trying to impose their non-believe on you, it’s because you’re trying to impose your belief on them and they’re calling you on your bullshit.
Also, btw, I never claimed I was an atheist, so I see no reason for you to think that atheist should believe the same thing I do.
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word “God” has no coherent and unambiguous definition.
Also see theological noncognitivism.
Say you have a jar full of jellybeans. We know that the number of whole jellybeans in the jar must be either even or odd.
If someone asks you if you believe the number of jellybeans in the jar is even, you can and should say “no” if you haven’t counted them or otherwise gathered any evidence to support that conclusion. To believe something is to say you feel it is more likely true than false, and you can’t say that about the given proposition.
Importantly, this does not mean you do believe the number of jellybeans is odd. The fact that one of those two things must be true does not mean you have to pick one to believe and one to disbelieve. It is perfectly rational to reserve belief either way until you have evidence one way or the other. You do not believe it’s even, nor do you believe it’s odd.
So, if we define “atheist” as “someone who does not believe in any gods”, I think you meet the definition of atheist. Just like the person in the above example does not believe the jellybeans are even & also does not believe they are odd, you don’t need to believe “there are no gods anywhere” to not believe “there is at least one god”.
If you do not believe there is at least one god, don’t you automatically believe there is at most zero gods? Isn’t that how logic works? If you don’t know you say you don’t know, not you dont believe. When you say you do not believe you think have proof it isn’t…
The purpose of my jellybean thought exercise was to show that “I don’t know” and “I don’t believe” are not mutually exclusive. Basically:
I do not believe [x] != I believe [not x]
I don’t believe in String Theory. String Theory may be correct for all I know: I am not a physicist, and my understanding of String Theory is cursory at best.
Because I do not have enough evidence to warrant belief, I cannot say I believe in String Theory. But that same lack of understanding means I must also say I don’t believe that String Theory is false.
TL;DR, it sounds like agnostic.
I’ve seen people differentiate between “agnostic atheist” and “gnostic atheist” but I am not sure if those are commonly used terms or just the result of a viral meme about it.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.
- Implicit “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists who lack a belief in God without explicitly denying the concept, includes very young children, those who are unacquainted with the concept or are truly undecided.
- Explicit “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists who do not believe that God exists necessarily.
- Explicit “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists who firmly believe that God doesn’t exist.
When you say
The thing is, I just plain don’t care if God exists or not. They could, or they couldn’t, it really has no bearing on how I live my life. For that reason along I think I go in the atheist camp, but I always thought that was used to describe people who don’t think he exists.
To me that sounds like negative Atheism. You don’t assert there is a divine being. Whether or not that is implicit or explicit is sort of hard to judge based on these statements.
For example, what you are saying is more about how you would react to a god, not necessarily how you’d believe in one. One might argue you’re on the fence about Deism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism Because the type of god they believe in is one that is impersonal and does not intervene in their creation. In a sense that’s not really contradictory with your statement.
All in all, asserting that the existence of a god would have no effect on how you live your life doesn’t really have to do with your potential beliefs in god. For example, someone could believe in the Christian god exclusively but specifically not follow any doctrines they set forth. Perhaps as a means of rebellion or perhaps apathy.
Agnostic fits well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism You say God could exist or not. If you believe it’s impossible to prove them that makes you an atheist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/?ref=whcolony.com#DefiAgno
The terms “agnostic” and “agnosticism” were famously coined in the late nineteenth century by the English biologist, T.H. Huxley. He said that he originally
invented the word “Agnostic” to denote people who, like [himself], confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters [including of course the matter of God’s existence], about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence. (1884)
A human
I always considered atheist to mean “don’t believe at all” ans agnostic as “willing to believe, but won’t live any differently”
I’d say YoFrodo’s answer of apatheism is possibly the closest you’re going to get, but speaking in general terms of not believing or caring one way or the other, you’d be agnostic, not an atheist. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods. Those saying you’re atheist don’t know what one is.
Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.
No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.
Maybe look up atheism then try correcting your own comment instead of mine.
What I said is absolutely correct. If you have a disagreement perhaps you should be more clear and less snarky.
Sorry but it really is. Basic language (a)theism is the antithesis to theism, meaning non-belief. Otherwise, that’s what we have “agnostic” for. Like I said, correct yourself before someone who’s got more of a clue.
Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist. Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief, which is why you can have an agnostic theist. Agnostic is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground. I can correct you, but I can’t make you understand it.
And I can’t beat knowledge into the unreceptive, ignorant and assumptive, so I guess we’re at an impasse.
Yes, I’m on one side, with dictionaries, etymology, and the majority of atheists, and you’re on the other side. I would agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.
Google:
noun: atheism. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Gnostic - adjective. relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
Me:
Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist.
Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief
Maybe look up atheism then try correcting your own comment instead of theirs :)
In all seriousness, I think your definitions are a few centuries out of date. It’s been drifting toward meaning a-gnostic instead of undecided. Contemporarily, it’s used to explain one’s believed level of knowledge on a claim. I can, for instance, be agnostic toward plate tectonics, and be made gnostic of them by evidence.
Sounds like you need to look it up too.
ha, gotem
