What if you don't care about religion? [Archive]

JacobF

05-31-2009, 05:56 PM

Secular humanism is more a system of beliefs that outline what people must do to lead a good and happy life, rather than just an indifference towards god and religion. What you specify could be a secular humanist's response, but it could also be an atheist's or agnostic's response (just because they don't care about discussing god doesn't mean they don't hold any beliefs about god's existence).

I think secular humanism places more importance on ethics, morals, values etc. than atheism and agnosticism, which simply state "there is no god" or "there might be a god but we can never find out." Of course that does not mean atheists and agnostics are devoid of morality, but secular humanism as a system of beliefs has a particular set of morals/values that every atheist and agnostic may not agree with, even if their views about god and religion are similar.

But that quotation may very well be a secular humanist's response.

Mr Endon

05-31-2009, 05:58 PM

Quite right sir.

The "I don't care" in the title was just meant to be an eye-catcher; as for the "I don't care" in the post itself was surely a slip, as what I meant was clearly "I don't think it's relevant". This slip might be revealing of my recent investigation of nihilism and its origins.

Actually I've been torturing myself trying to pinpoint my own stance in the matter of religion (atheist or agnostic), and now that I finally know which one it is I've realised that ultimately it isn't relevant.

But I guess one can still be a secular humanist and an atheist or an agnostic, right? This is all rather confusing to me.

Jacob, I've only now read your reply, and must say, most illuminating, thank you.

As you can see above I do think it's important to be aware of one's own stance on religion, I just don't think it should take over the forum of discussion of ideas ('forum' here is meant in the general sense, I don't mean LitNet!) when we have more pressing issues at hand.

From what I understand, secular humanism isn't really a religious belief; this means that it's absolutely compatible with atheism/agnosticism, right?

JacobF

05-31-2009, 06:04 PM

But I guess one can still be a secular humanist and an atheist or an agnostic, right? This is all rather confusing to me.

Yes, you could be a secular humanist and an atheist or a secular humanist and an agnostic. Secular humanism I think focuses more on not conforming to religion (hence the word "secular") rather than believing in god.

From what I understand, secular humanism isn't really a religious belief; this means that it's absolutely compatible with atheism/agnosticism, right?

Yes

Mr Endon

05-31-2009, 06:08 PM

Right, then. Again, thank you. This forum (now I do mean LitNet) has been crucial in the self-discovery I've been undertaking.

RobinHood3000

05-31-2009, 06:24 PM

Indeed, secular humanism, atheism, and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive in any combination. I would consider myself all three, although I happen to be something of a secular humanist purely by coincidence.

By the by, Mr. Endon, a marvelous profile picture - Buster Keaton is a comedic genius.

Mr Endon

05-31-2009, 06:42 PM

Is that so, RobinHood3000? How interesting! I'm thinking I'm the three of them myself.

This I formulated today, so it may be fallacy-ridden or something: deep down I believe that there's no God; as for knowing that there's no God I don't, nor do I think it's possible. Hence atheist and agnostic. Is that how you've reasoned as well?

(Acknowledgement of your nicety concerning my avatar to be found in your profile page)

RobinHood3000

05-31-2009, 06:55 PM

Essentially, yes. I believe that no God exists, but I likewise believe that to prove or disprove the existence of God is impossible - hence, both. I became an atheist as a teenager, and opted to build a system of moral beliefs for myself - as it happens, it lies very close to secular humanism.

amarna

05-31-2009, 07:31 PM

If when asked
"do you believe in God?"
you respond
"frankly I don't care about discussing whether there's a God or not, as I don't believe it furthers the human cause",
what does that make you?
A secular humanist, maybe?

Maybe a pragmatic.

Same here, Mr. Endon. I'm sure that it has no effect to the existence or nonexistence of god how I think about it, so my opinion on this matter is irrelevant.

librarius_qui

05-31-2009, 10:13 PM

If when asked
"do you believe in God?"
you respond
"frankly I don't care about discussing whether there's a God or not, as I don't believe it furthers the human cause",
what does that make you?
A secular humanist, maybe?

Technical word for this will be agnosticism, however, to claim yourself as an agnostic, you'd need to go search for its meaning. I won't teach you that.

I consider agnosticism a step #2 of atheism. (People get mature, and go from atheism into agnosticism.)

This is my view, though.

I believe in a god.~

JBI

05-31-2009, 10:19 PM

Western culture doesn't want to accept it. Dante himself gave nonbelievers a nice a hot circle in the Inferno (with his mentor Cavalcanti amongst them). Certain cultures don't particularly make the distinction, but the "west" (which is a self-styled label in itself mind you) likes a sort of "You are either a believer in something, or an atheist." this sort of labeling is an abstract way of saying who is in and who is out - the only way to really negotiate through it is to wear your label with pride. Quite simply though, if you asked a Confucian or a Classical Buddhist what his religion was, you would get a strange answer as those concepts of "belief" if you will are philosophical discourses, within a frame where the frame doesn't label. Since Hellenic period though, and perhaps since Aristotle's work on Categories, we have a tendency in the west to assume labels on things - Christian or Pagan, Jew or Goy - in truth, one could argue that the very nature of such religions that dominate in these cultures, notably the different Christian sects, by their very formation only encourage a binary. Essentially, according to dogma, you either believe in this or you rot in hell, or you either do this or you are an enemy of freedom. The construction of the other is built on the absolute submission provoked by the text, where there should only be one God, and no other.

To a Taoist, I would argue, the way of the Tao is there regardless of whether someone describes himself as a Taoist, and someone can be following it regardless of whether they know of its secrets. Yet the insistence on a "with me or against me" bit, really limits the capacity, and I think is what has lead to these religions, as organisms, being so successful. To disobey is to rot in hell, and to be outside the circle - everything else is within the other, and somehow "less", to the point where someone cannot even not practice anything without being a "non-practitioner".

Mr Endon

06-01-2009, 04:32 AM

Maybe a pragmatic.

Same here, Mr. Endon. I'm sure that it has no effect to the existence or nonexistence of god how I think about it, so my opinion on this matter is irrelevant.

A pragmatic, eh? Can that be a philosophical orientation? And glad you share my worldview!

Technical word for this will be agnosticism, however, to claim yourself as an agnostic, you'd need to go search for its meaning. I won't teach you that.

I consider agnosticism a step #2 of atheism. (People get mature, and go from atheism into agnosticism.)

This is my view, though.

I believe in a god.~

Yeah, I did go from atheist to agnostic, that that's usually the way it goes, isn't it? The only difference is that now I'm both.

Western culture doesn't want to accept it. Dante himself gave nonbelievers a nice a hot circle in the Inferno (with his mentor Cavalcanti amongst them). Certain cultures don't particularly make the distinction, but the "west" (which is a self-styled label in itself mind you) likes a sort of "You are either a believer in something, or an atheist." this sort of labeling is an abstract way of saying who is in and who is out - the only way to really negotiate through it is to wear your label with pride. Quite simply though, if you asked a Confucian or a Classical Buddhist what his religion was, you would get a strange answer as those concepts of "belief" if you will are philosophical discourses, within a frame where the frame doesn't label. Since Hellenic period though, and perhaps since Aristotle's work on Categories, we have a tendency in the west to assume labels on things - Christian or Pagan, Jew or Goy - in truth, one could argue that the very nature of such religions that dominate in these cultures, notably the different Christian sects, by their very formation only encourage a binary. Essentially, according to dogma, you either believe in this or you rot in hell, or you either do this or you are an enemy of freedom. The construction of the other is built on the absolute submission provoked by the text, where there should only be one God, and no other.

That's the problem with religion, you see. Not the personal belief itself, but this "gross dichotomizing", the Crusades, the holy wars. I believe that everyone is entitled to their own religion, but it's the religious zeal of the recruiters that worries me. It's the Fox News bigotry and intolerance towards nonbelievers that I rail against. Why should I care if someone believes in Zeus, or in Thor, as long as they don't harm anyone? Why do we need an "other"? That's something I may never understand.

NikolaiI

06-01-2009, 05:47 AM

Mr Endon

06-01-2009, 06:11 AM

Yes, the Christians do it, the Muslims do it, some of every religion do it, while some do not, but the atheists do it to. Look no further than the God Delusion, or I could name at least 5 atheists on this site who seem to be particularly desirous of calling random people delusional. Religionists have certainly hurt non-religionists in the past, but to copy and reverse the action is certainly no solution. Atheists who attack or hurt religionists are no better than 'religionists' who attack or hurt atheists.

Yes, the atheists do it too. You rightly point out that the fact that atheists have been killed by the thousands throughout the centuries doesn't legitimate their actions. But the fact that they do retaliate doesn't make it alright for the believers to continue their hate campaign either.
I'm not at all advocating for supremacy of atheism over Christianity or whatever; what I'm saying, as stated in my OP, is "sure, it's important to know what you believe in, but for heaven's sake let's not fight about it, that'll get us nowhere".

Anyway, the term atheist itself is a fallacy. No one is an atheist. No one is Christian, or anything else. The term is part of a construct which is arbitrary. Reality is in flux and we try to put labels on it. I am not an atheist, Christian, or Hindu, any more than the grass, trees, animals, water, and the sky is. And what is behind the grass, the water, the animals, behind all forms? That is what we truly are.

Of course. I take it that you're essentially saying that words are labels, human constructs, that they don't provide us with a direct relationship with the thing in itself. Sure. I mean, that's something I very much agree with. But where does that leave us? I don't think it's productive to argue that the word "atheist" is a fallacy, as, by that token, any other epithet you might use is a fallacy as well. For convenience's sake let's assume that "atheist" and "Christian" actually mean something so that we can have an exchange of ideas.

JBI

06-01-2009, 06:38 AM

You only reinforce it though - militant atheism, though I guess it has always had a presence, particularly in England, has only recently taken off as a "chic" thing to do. In many ways, this brand of atheism is exactly what its opponents describe it as - a self-centered, egotistical movement of self assertive, often bigoted (generally islamophobic) people, who think, because they follow Dawkins instead of Jesus that they somehow are more enlightened. In truth, it has become a joke based on a series, and important movement.

But, for instance, I am a fan of Confucius and Lao Zi. Does that make a Confucianist, or a Taoist? I don't particularly think so, and I don't particularly think those are quite "religions" in the Western sense of the word. The term Religion is a construct in itself. Certainly, much of Eastern thought has been constructed in this frame from a Western perspective - I have read scholarship, for instance, which describes Hinduism as a construct of colonial efforts to label a set of traditions and practices under one heading. Certainly atheism has been constructed in a similar fashion.

The problem then, comes with the fact, that many religions and atheists, are trying to convert people at a disgustingly zealous level. There has, for instance, always been someone bringing the Bible in one hand, and a sword in the other. Perhaps the scariest bit though, is the zeal in which these missionaries convert people to become other missionaries. On a small scale, the annoying knock on the door is tolerable - on a large scale, the spread of one religion forcefully, as a hegemonic product, has been proven to be disastrous. Atheism then, in a sense, is a reaction to religion, and not an actual set of beliefs. Unfortunately, it now acts as a religion, but the concept itself is constructed as a negation, which is rather silly, since one should not be defined by negations, but rather by assertions. It's just a shame though, that atheism has become the new communism amongst many youth; not saying I don't support a disbelief in God, as I can say that I don't personally believe in any Gods, but they should simply define themselves as people - not secular humanists, which is a label in itself - but simply not affiliated. I don't think the West can handle that though, at least not at this time. There certainly is a great lack of acceptance of anything that deviates from the status quo within "western" culture.

Mr Endon

06-01-2009, 07:12 AM

I am not a militant atheist. I'm just as disgusted at Bill O'Reilly's antics as at George Carlin's preachy, demagogic, self-righteous atheism.

Atheism may be a religion for some, but for me it's a set of beliefs. Actually, one only: I believe that there is no higher power. Is that creating an identity in a negative way? So be it. What other choice do I have? Should I conform to a worldview I don't believe in just because it's the only one that is possible to be construed positively? How do you say that something doesn't exist without using a negative distinction?

Labels aren't something exclusive from the Western world. When you see something for the first time (and by you I mean anyone, either an academic or a feral child) you instantly make a judgement about it and assign a label to it. You can't help it. Labelling has always been a survival instinct. Now it's more for us to better function in society.

Let me give you an example: I come from the village T. That's near the town C. That's 90km from my country's capital, L. So when a foreigner asks me where I'm from, I don't say "well I'm from T, which is actually pretty close to the town C, which isn't too far from L". I say "near L". If they happen to know my country, I may then further specify and say "near C".

Just because I say "near L" doesn't mean I forget where I really come from (T). The same with religion. If someone asks you what is your religion, do you go on a tirade about how you're not actually affiliated to a particular view but you like this man's views and that man's and you further sympathise with this view and that view? I give them an idea by saying "I'm an agnostic". If we have time and the listener's willing to know more, I'll explain to them what my beliefs are.

Right, so I'm quite aware of the shades of meaning, and of the dangers of misinterpretation, but I'm also more than aware of the importance of labels. It's very nice to refuse labels in a forum where you have time to explain your worldview to the utmost detail. In real life, however, if someone asks about your political/religious views, it's either a label or "none that you would know" and no one is any wiser.

You may say "if there's no time to discuss religion or politics in any depth, maybe it should not be brought to the discussion at all". Well, I agree. It's just that my experience tells me that it's impossible to only either talk about those matters very thoroughly or not at all.

Mr Endon

06-01-2009, 07:44 AM

Okay, now I'm thinking I might have been a bit disingenuous. Did you mean that I shouldn't feel the need to give my beliefs a label? Well first, and for the abovementioned reasons, it's always useful to have some sort of label, even if after it you add "but not quite". As for my actual belief, I think you're right, and I did trouble my head over whether I was just prescribing to an already existent view. I don't think I am, because I don't consider myself just an atheist, or just an agnostic, or just a secular humanist, but an interesting amalgam of the three.

amarna

06-01-2009, 02:21 PM

A pragmatic, eh? Can that be a philosophical orientation?
If there's a need for an Ism, what's about indifferentialism? It has a lot of academic varieties. Theological indifferentialism means not not care about religion, semiotic indifferentialism not to care what to say, feminist indifferentialism is not interested in gender problems, freudian indifferentialism is indifferent about parents, phenomenological indifferentialism, hm, well, thats too difficult to explain, and behavioral indifferentialism would mean to give no serious answer to a serious question. Just kidding. The question is serious but it is absurd. Thinking about theories of thought finally results in an apory: All these theories structurise the same complex reality in different ways by overemphasising one aspect and neglecting others. Finally it's arbitrary which aspect is picked, and how this complexity is structured. All the ways to do it are finally of equal value. It's indifferent from this point of view wich one you'll prefer. Perhaps this is the absurdity Camus spoke of in Myth of Sisyphos, don't know. (I can't explain that better for I'm handicapped by this tricky grammar and my fragmentary vocabulary. Argh.)

NikolaiI

06-01-2009, 03:11 PM

Yes, the atheists do it too. You rightly point out that the fact that atheists have been killed by the thousands throughout the centuries doesn't legitimate their actions. But the fact that they do retaliate doesn't make it alright for the believers to continue their hate campaign either.
I'm not at all advocating for supremacy of atheism over Christianity or whatever; what I'm saying, as stated in my OP, is "sure, it's important to know what you believe in, but for heaven's sake let's not fight about it, that'll get us nowhere".

Yes, and

You only reinforce it though - militant atheism, though I guess it has always had a presence, particularly in England, has only recently taken off as a "chic" thing to do. In many ways, this brand of atheism is exactly what its opponents describe it as - a self-centered, egotistical movement of self assertive, often bigoted (generally islamophobic) people, who think, because they follow Dawkins instead of Jesus that they somehow are more enlightened. In truth, it has become a joke based on a series, and important movement.

Yes.

I disagree with people being militant about anything. If you can observe anyone who thinks one religion or idea is true to the exclusion of all others, you can tell easily that, even if they are not clearly wrong, then at least they are excluding themselves from a greater variety of viewpoints and perspectives. Maybe no perspective alone is true, and the only way to come closer to truth is to understand the views of as many perspectives as possible.

Anyway, for a while now I have been gravitating toward this; sort of becoming the opposite of the view that "my religion, or my idea, is exclusively true," to realizing that all humans, indeed all beings, have a valuable perspective.

I'm also a fan of Taoism, JBI, though I've only read parts of a couple of Daoist books and parts of the Tao Te Ching. I had nice meditative experiences meditating on the Tao Te Ching. Pure Land Buddhism, actually, seems to have some things in common with Taoism.

I was an atheist at one time, I gradually shifted my beliefs to monism and then theism, but I don't think I was wrong when I was an atheist; just that now I see a little more. But I don't see a difference actually between monism, theism, or atheism or anything. It's all infinitely complex. I think there are universals, but I also think that reality is one, constant. I do believe in a higher power, but that higher power for me is just reality, or the root of reality. The mystics of different religions have all sort of had the same ideas; just that there is a peace beyond peace, which is the center of all. And in every religion of the world today, beneath pageantry, there are sincere and brilliant saints, who were original and simply told the way they had gone, in attaining liberation and finding peace.

JBI

06-01-2009, 04:24 PM

Atheism may be a religion for some, but for me it's a set of beliefs. Actually, one only: I believe that there is no higher power. Is that creating an identity in a negative way? So be it. What other choice do I have? Should I conform to a worldview I don't believe in just because it's the only one that is possible to be construed positively? How do you say that something doesn't exist without using a negative distinction?

look at the words - I have a belief that...

Notice, that you have a belief that there is no higher being, as apposed to nothing. Look at that assertion. It's like saying, I have a belief that I am me, as apposed to simply knowing yourself. In a sense, perhaps it makes things easier, given the demographic devision, but there is still an assertion of non-belief, instead of a simple not believing.

you continue to go on to explain what your beliefs are, but that merely inforces the point - you hold a belief about something, rather than simply don't believe. It's like saying, I believe Jesus Christ was the messiah, or I am a Christian, except that, given the nature of non-belief, you cannot possibly believe in a system that by definition negates itself.

The declaration of atheism, in that sense, defines the atheist. Atheism does not exist without theism within a Western frame. Non-theism cannot exist without theism. The language of atheism then, is limited to a position of opposition. To declare oneself an atheist, one ultimately must declare themselves as being outside of the sphere, and thereby being part of an "other", or from their perspective an "us". That very property is degrading to the dignity of free thought, as it shackles down the non-believer as hard as the church does the believer. Throw in the xenophobic, Islamophobic, anti-evangelical, pseudo-neo-conservative, militant energy that accompanies the movement, and you are left with another religion in itself, one designed on politics rather than shared values - a movement of opposition rather than a movement of assertion.

Mr Endon

06-01-2009, 04:55 PM

Dear me, 'an assertion of non-belief, instead of a simple not believing'? And why do you have to deconstruct the atheist belief (yes, it is a belief) into a mere 'movement of opposition'?

Alright, let me try once more:

Imagine a room. The room is empty as far as the eyes are concerned. Just empty. I look at it and inwardly make an assessment: "this room is empty". That's what I think about it. That's my belief.

Another person looks at it and sees it differently. They say, "I believe there's a person/life-force in the room".

I say, "Actually, I believe the room is empty".

Please tell me why this is, as you say, pure antagonism.

JBI

06-01-2009, 07:10 PM

Because, you label yourself. Assuming there is nothing in the room, you wouldn't call yourself a non-full-roomist, in opposition to the full-roomist. That's silly; why adopt a label for something that shouldn't be a belief in itself? It's like saying, for instance, that since you don't believe that humans can change colors, you are by definition an anti-color-morphologist. It's ridiculous on so many levels. I don't hold many of the beliefs as most atheists. I simply do not have a belief in God - I don't believe that there isn't a god, I simply don't believe in God. See the difference - one forces one to have a belief in an absence, whereas the other one is merely a lack of belief in an affirmative. The non-believer, in a logical frame, would ultimately not have a belief, but instead, the very term atheist declares itself as holding a view that believes against a belief in god, an anti, an opposition. You have, technically, to believe that there is no God to be an atheist. Why? Why does one need to believe to not have a belief? Merely because the system has been created to force one to do so. The fact that anyone should need to declare a non-affiliation to a religion is ridiculous. The fact that anyone should need to believe that something doesn't exist, is illogical. To not believe in something, and to believe it doesn't exist are two different modes of thinking. One of them is based on a lack of evidence, whereas the other one, by necessity, acknowledges an oppositional stance to a widely held view.

Of course, many atheists realize that. Dawkins, for instance, likes the phrase, "Everyone is atheist toward the gods they don't believe in, I just take it one step further." That phrase deliberately sets up the binary, with him in opposition. He doesn't simply not believe, he believes that all those Gods do not exist. If I tell someone, "I don't believe in your god," if they are a rational person, they won't care much. If I tell them, "I believe your god does not exist," then I am setting myself up as an opponent, as someone whose belief is as convicted, and whose belief is directly challenging the other persons. That is militancy, and thanks primarily to the internet, as well as Islamophobia, it is a popular viewpoint to carry now.

librarius_qui

06-02-2009, 12:53 AM

Yeah, I did go from atheist to agnostic, that that's usually the way it goes, isn't it? The only difference is that now I'm both.

(to be both doesn't make sense, and only shows that, in fact, you don't know what any of these faiths are)~

:crash:

Jozanny

06-02-2009, 04:04 AM

(to be both doesn't make sense, and only shows that, in fact, you don't know what any of these faiths are)~

:crash:

Mmm, JBI's distaste for accuracy of definitions aside, agnosticism is not a faith by any means, and if anything, is an affirmation of Doubt (do see the play or the movie, it is excellent, at least for US audiences it is rather a brilliant modern parable; I intend to see or view it in theater a few more times). Agnostics "aren't sure" whether god exists or doesn't. This may be a moderating position, but how is it a faith? I have faith I will not have a major cardiac event until I complete my change of life through menopause. I might be wrong, but it would be silly to assert my doubt about my heart health, subsequently, as any kind of faith.

Atheism may require a kind of faith given what it asserts, but it is not a religion, and has no doctrine on the basis of its imperative insistence; it may have the subtext of seeing itself as a rational counterargument to metaphysics, but I have my doubts as to whether even Dawkins sees himself as the high priest for hard materialism.

Damon Linker, an independent philosopher I admire despite the fact that I disagree with him about 1/3 of the time, aptly hit it on the head when he said the uproar between atheism and theism is one, in actuality, of truth-value systems, which is why I have wearied significantly when it comes to having these debates, and I part company with The Atheist on being a true advocate for hard materialism--which in some ways becomes a trap for genetic determinism.

I am an atheist, but somewhat discontent with wearing it like a tattoo--I am more intellectually compatible with secular humanism. I observe, develop a thesis, and enjoy falling in love with my own theories. I know for a fact, however, that I can never again entertain any of the major monotheistic traditions.

Mr Endon

06-02-2009, 05:49 AM

Right, JBI, I'll compromise, because I think I see the problem now. Let's admit it, you're pretty much nitpicking!, but yes, the distinction is there, and I'll address it.

As I'm fundamentally an agnostic, i.e. I don't think it's possible to ever know whether there's a God or not, I usually cringe when I hear hardline atheists ridicule others' beliefs in higher powers. So yes, I'd say that "I don't believe in God" suits me better than "I believe God doesn't exist". (please see this post's last paragraph)

Lib, that was rude and not informative at all. You should really be more careful.
The first step to write a sensible post is to read relevant posts before blurting out quasi-insulting remarks:

deep down I believe that there's no God; as for knowing that there's no God I don't, nor do I think it's possible. Hence atheist and agnostic.

In other words, if you give me a "yes or no" question regarding God, I'd have to say "I don't believe in God". That's what my "gut" tells me, so to speak. However, I'm also aware that God could exist for all I know, that there's really no way of knowing whether God exists.

Like Jonnazy very aptly said, agnosticism is not a faith by any means, whereas atheism requires faith. "Theism" has to do with deities. "Gnosis" with knowledge. Though there may be points of contact, they don't necessarily collide.

Do tell me how they collide. Do refute my quote above with an actual argument.

Before insulting other people's intelligence, maybe you should have a spoonful of humility and entertain their thoughts in your mind for a second, measure them up against your own. Question your own definitions before attacking others'.

---
Actually, this man expresses what I tried to very neatly:

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

(from http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm; my emphasis)

Have your say.

(also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)

JBI, I believe that what you were referring to is weak atheism, as opposed to strong atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism). Now I see that your distinction does matter a good deal, I apologise for having suggested otherwise.