There are two kinds of atheist -- those who say that there is no god, and those who say they don't have sufficient reason to believe in a god. I am of the latter sort.

I agree with you that there is no proof that there is no god. Where we differ is that I allow the possibility that there is proof for the existance of god that I have not thought of yet. From my perspective, it is you who are making a statement of faith -- that there is no possible proof for the existence of god that you have not thought of.

That -- plus the fact that I don't want to define my beliefs by what I don't know -- is why I don't call myself agnostic.

I really hate argument via Web links, but here we go.

You are incorrect that the definition of atheist is "narrow wherever you look." Dictionaries, for example, are not in agreement about the definition of atheism, and many include those who disbelieve in the existence of god as well as those who deny the existence of god. Examples:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist
http://www.answers.com/topic/atheist?method=22
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

Personally, I would avoid dictionaries in this case, because they reflect what the majority thinks, and atheists are not the majority. Far better is to look at what atheists themselves think, and there are plenty who think as I do.

You are incorrect about there only being one form of atheistm. I suggest that you read the articles on atheism located here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

There is also a very useful passage in the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is interesting even though I would quibble with some of the wording:

Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance--e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or "God" is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.

I do not have faith that there is no god any more than I have faith that there are no fairies. Do you consider yourself agnostic on the subject of fairies in that there is probably no way to prove that they do not and have never existed? If not, why do you give god special treatment?

As for having my "rebel cake" -- I do not consider myself a rebel. I am not acting against anything or rejecting anything. I simply have not been convinced that there is a deity.

What is there that I know that I define my belief by? I know that the world would be a better place if people treated each other better and took responsibility for their own actions. I know that it is more difficult to deceive a group of people if that group knows how to think scientifically. I also know that you will win more friends and change more minds through thoughtful discussion than through attacking beliefs.

You may have gotten the hint that I find your correspondence truly annoying. Why? Because we really should be on the same side in this, but you choose to write to me in what I perceive as an inflamatory tone because you disagree with my definition of atheism. Personally, I think it is, in general, a bit silly to call yourself an agnostic, but that's not a big deal to me so long as the philosophy behind the belif is sound. What is a big deal is that you are waving your ignorance like a club, and that doesn't do anyone any good.

Wow, what an excellent response! I think I now have a much better feeling for where you are coming from.

You're right that arguing semantics will probably get us nowhere at this point, since I think we understand each other. One thing I have learned in my years of discussing atheism is that it is very important to get definition of terms (particularly terms like "god" and "good") out of the way first so that we're all on the same footing.

I understand your thinking it's unhelpful to have more than one type of atheism. I tend to agree, but this is a common problem in this area of philosophy. For example, there is significant disagreement on who qualifies as a "Christian".

There are certainly plenty of atheists who hold that there is no god, and I think that your reasons for not liking that philosophy are sound. Personally, I have yet to meet one of these "strong" atheists who had a philosophical leg to stand on.

I prefer atheism in the literal sense of the term (a-theism, or without religion). If I were to call myself an agnostic, I feel that this would be defining my personal beliefs in religious terms when the whole point is that I don't have religion. I also would feel uncomfortable with what might appear to be an "undecided" stance, since that is not at all how I feel -- I make no decisions based on the possibility that there are deities, so I don't want to define myself in terms of the possibility deities exist.

You mention atheists who say "I don't agree with Christianity or the bible, therefore I'm an atheist." This type of atheism is incredibly philosophically weak and, as you pointed out, is another example of defining one's self in terms of something you say you don't believe in. In this category I would also put those who say they are atheists because they are mad at the church for some reason or are just rebelling against their parents. I don't even like being associated with these people, but I'm kind of stuck there because I choose to use the word "atheist." One of my goals is to show people that not all atheists are like that.

The most important point in all of this is that we generally won't get anywhere just being "anti." An atheist who condemns all Christians -- even those whose goal in life is to help the needy and comfort the sick -- is taking too narrow a view of too wide a subject. In my opinion, religious people in general are not stupid or ignorant. They are, at worst, incorrect. And since I could be incorrect, too, I can't condemn them for that.

For many people, there are a lot of benefits, in terms of community and comfort particularly, in religion. I do not seek to deny anyone these benefits, or to assert (as some atheists do) that they do not exist.

You ask what check there will be on "capitalist greed" if we dispose of religion. Well, a libertarian might say that "capitalist greed" is just what we need, but I don't even want to go there <G>. I believe that attempts to eliminate religion wholesale, such as has been attempted in the aftermath of Communist revolutions, leaves exactly the kind of moral gap that you fear. I also believe that there are far too many people today who say that they are living a moral life because they are religious without really practicing (or, in some cases, understanding) the morality their religion preaches.

What is the solution? I believe that strong morality not based on religion is a worthwhile goal, and I do my best to push people in that direction. In fact, I argue that non-religious morality should be practiced by everyone, whether they are religious or not. If we were all practicing the same morality, it wouldn't really matter if some people still needed religion for comfort and some did not. We would all be, in a sense, on the same page. And if someone's religion added an additional layer of morality for them (requiring them to eat certain foods, follow certain rituals, refrain from certain practices, etc.), that would be fine.

The big difficulty I run into here is that many religious people equate "morality not based on god" as either no morality or god-excluding morality. I have been told, repeatedly and in so many words, that if there is no god you can't say that murder is wrong, so you can't have morality without god. To me, this is just as foolish as an atheist who rejects everything related to religion because it's related to religion.

You talk about atheists needing to accept thinking agnostics. I would take this a step further and say that everyone should be respectful of anyone who has a deeply felt, well-thought-out philosophy. I'll take a thoughtful Christian over a knee-jerk atheist any day of the week.

Finally, the "fairies" question. Arthur Conan Doyle might have disagreed with you that there is no serious debate about the existence of fairies, but he was kind of a nut <G>. Your point is well taken that there is more meaningful debate on religious topics than on fairy topics. However, I do not feel comfortable defining my beliefs based on how much worthwhile debate there is. Currently, there are a lot of subjects (such as communication with the dead, visits from extraterrestrials, and homeopathy) that are hotly debated but that, from my perspective, have significantly insufficient evidence on the "pro" side. I would not want to say that I am agnostic about, say, dowsing because there is a lot of debate on this ancient subject and some people believe that it cannot be objectively tested. I'd rather say that the evidence for dowsing has not convinced me.

Thank you again for the enlightening correspondence.