I don't mean to annoy you, nor to seem ignorant. And I would plead the case that any ignorance you detect leads directly from an argument I did not take the time to fully flush out. My apologies. I believe strongly in healthy debate, and I hope to walk away with an improved perspective whenever I'm lucky enough to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas.

We can argue semantics all day, and we won't be any further ahead. In every discussion I've ever engaged in on Atheism I have made the agnostic distinction, because I think it is unhelpful to have two such varying definitions, as you attempt to hold in atheism, under one flag. You may not be the kind of atheist that actively believes there is no god, but those atheists do exist. And I believe there is a problem there for the reasons I outlined in my previous emails.

There may also be a danger in the polar conflict between atheists and the church. Before I get into that, let me say I agree whole heartedly that individual responsibility is critical to social change. Religion is not alone in diffusing individual responsibility, science has created "psychology" to convince people that they act as they do because of their childhood, or a trama (I am speaking in generalizations about both religion and psychology, of course there are very useful and important branches of psychology for treating the truly ill, I am not Tom Cruise writing under an assumed name). I have also studied relationships between the work of Jean Paul Sartre, and Nietszche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" and believe that Nietzsche hit the nail on the head when he said that Christianity creates a debt that can never be repaid (Jesus died for your sins), and forces the once Noble man to internalize this guilt, thus becoming a slavish creature etc. etc. Sorry, lot's of summary there, but I hope you get the picture.

One thing is common in most Atheist arguments (as you would claim my above paragraph is part of) is that they are aimed at organized religions, and dead religious texts authored by human beings that wrote those texts partly out of belief, and partly to bring order to nomadic and barbaric societies. If we agree that organized religion, after doing us the favour of solidifying civilization against barbaric and nomadic cultures, has done more harm than good since then - does this settle the question of a higher intelligent power in the universe? No. They are seperate issues, and so many atheists seem to throw both issues in together. "I don't agree with Christianity or the bible, therefore I'm an atheist." In fact, to go back to Nietzche for a minute, I could use his ideas to say that the "belief" in atheism is a "negative will" as it is not possesed of a noble spirit to move forward, but rather is obsessed with tearing another idea down.

My fear is that as secular culture grows in power (though events in the U.S. make one wonder if the tide is turning against secular society) the stringent anti-religious anti-god sentiment will throw out the tiny baby in the foul bathwater. Yes, I would suggest there are some things wrong with secular society (shock!). Though I don't and would never attend church, I recognize that "church" as a function of religion created a "sameness" and community. Something that is being lost in non-religious society. Religion also stands as a powerful (if dumb and inconsistent) opponent of greed and selfish crime. What check will balance capitilist greed if we yank the underpinnings of religion? There are found even within the dead texts of christianity some truly beautiful and important philosophies.

So, why am I splitting hairs, or "waving my ignorant club" as you put it. I think that atheists need to learn to accept and welcome thinking agnostics (real ones, not just devil's advocates like myself) and even "religious" people who have left the church behind. All of these groups have reason to try to reform a society without the church. And if we ever truly expect that to work there is a lot of work to be done. That is why I object to those that have "faith" there is no god, and are happy to tear away at religion, seemingly so they can feel superior to the sheep in the church. There are much more serious problems to be tackled.

Oh, and to answer your question: there is no real philosophical reason to debate the existence of fairies. But very serious philosophical minds have debated "happy accident" vs. "creator/planned universe" for centuries. As I said above, this debate is profound and meaningful when removed from the soiled history of organized religion.

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 . 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 . 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.