Oh, but wait, I had it right the first time. It’s just that you both seem to be saying the same thing…
And hey, maybe that’s a way to thwart the Christians who try to talk to atheists, just start giving them all the atheism definitions. It’ll make their heads spin too.:smack:
I love that there’s a word for this. I’m big on apatheism. I’d spread the word about it, but my shows are on tonight.
Diogenes was talking about definitions of atheism, and I was talking about definitions of God. Not that I’m disagreeing with him, just not echoing him, I hope.
In any case the statement “I believe no gods exist” is much weaker than the statement “I know no gods exist” or saying you can prove the same. Many theists who say truthfully that they believe in God wouldn’t go so far as to say they can prove God. We should also distinguish belief with a preponderance of evidence from belief without evidence, which is faith.
Would a deist be an apathist? By definition, the deistic god has nothing to do with human affairs.
It seems lots of church advertising is targeted to apathetic theism - those who believe in god but who never go to church and act identically to an atheist. They might shame this class of people into showing up, but the tactic doesn’t work very well on real atheists.
I wouldn’t see why not. You can have the theistic apatheist, who knows or just figures there’s probably a god, but doesn’t care; you’ve got the atheistic apatheist, who figures there’s probably not a god, but doesn’t care; and you’ve got the agnostic apatheist, who doesn’t know and doesn’t care. 
None of those positions seem inconsistent to me. One can believe, but also believe that whatever god they might believe in has no ability to affect the material world, so it’s useless to spend much time thinking about it.
I agree, and this is something I was thinking earlier when this first came up (but then we ventured off into atheist definitions). If a proselytizing Christian hears someone say a “weaker” version of the “no God” declaration, s/he is likely to perceive it as if the person making the statement is actively offering an invitation to the proselytizer. (I firmly believe that proselytizers hear things differently than other more “apatheistic” Christians.) An atheist making a firm unequivocal “no God” declaration gives a different impression than one who says it in a less black/white way. The result is that the former is seen as a lost sheep that is seeking God, and might get a long-winded sermon, and an invitation to come to church services. The latter type might just get an intercessory prayer.* (And if the Christian also makes a swift exit, that would be like the Voyager Effect you mentioned up-thread. :D)
It’s my belief that the proselytizer finds the apathetic theist even more appealing than the atheists. A believer who seems to be flapping in the wind and is not in church is an overwhelming temptation to an evangelical Christian. Flapping in the wind might not be how the apatheist feels, but that’s likely how s/he will be viewed by the Christian.
*intercessory prayer = “you’re so far out of reach, and bound deep within the clutches of Satan, so I’m going to pray real hard while turning this one over to the Big Guy pronto.”
Now this would be a fascinating experiment - having actors give specific atheist lines and seeing how evangelicals hear them. I rather suspect you are correct about this. Someone very positive about god, as a believer, may not hear someone saying he doesn’t believe, but interpret it as being positive in the opposite direction. I also think that they would have a hard time understanding the philosophical don’t care position.
I’m also sure you’re right about them eager to talk to apathetic theists. I have an ad for the Lutherans made by Stan Freberg which assumes you believe but are not going to church because you’d rather play golf on Sunday. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an ad addressing the real atheist position.
I have a suspicion that some of the objection to the atheist revival books is that we are supposed to be ashamed of our position in some way, and having the nerve to publish a book saying we’re not in the least ashamed is obnoxious. Most negative reviews I’ve seen of them are of the “they’re just repeating the same old stuff” variety, and they try to refute the statements about theists, never the ones about god.
Just a passing thought about deism. If the deistic God is still the creator and sustainer of creation I’m not sure that God would have nothing to do with human affairs. Perhaps it just means that the universe is created to operate a certain way and we are free to discover the best path or choices for ourselves as humans. We have discovered a lot about how our universe works but there’s still much left to discover.
It occurs to me that a deistic God might be similar to Buddhism. We are responsible to discover the way {for example} and implement the actions, ideas, and even emotions that lift ourselves up in accordance with the truth of how things actually work.