Why did you end up agnostic?

Well, I've come to the end of the line on this one, so here's the obligatory index post.

If you'd like to read them from beginning to end, here they are again:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Please enjoy, and feel free to comment.

Why did you end up agnostic? (Part 3)

This is Part 3.

Part 2 is here.

Part 1 is here.

This should probably be titled Part 3A. The reason for this is that I had typed up about two thirds of a post, then I came across this site which kinda said nearly all of what I wanted to say. So I deleted what I had typed and started again.

But let's go back a few steps, first.

In Part 1, we discussed how I grew up as an archetypal apatheist. About the only thought I had on religion was that ECP (Evangelical/Charismatic/Pentacostalist) Christianity was very funny, while traditionalist Christianity was mind-blowingly boring. I had what's commonly described as 'care-factor zero' with regards to Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sufism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Baha'iism, Confucianism and everything else.

In Part 2, I found myself as an agnostic.

I have now come to the point where I defend my decision not to do what everyone else appears to think is obvious. That is, why I don't go 'all the way' and become an atheist?

And for my regular readers, yes. This is where I get semantic.

Gotta warn you now - there is some seriously boring pedantry approaching. Go and play with MySpace folks - this could put you to sleep.

I discovered evilbible.com on the weekend. Not sure why I haven't seen this one before.

This is a rather interesting website maintained by what I like to call a 'large-a atheist', named Chris 'Ali-Baba' Thiefe. He's dedicated it to:

...promote atheism by revealing the wicked truth about the Bible and religion.

Now, large-a and small-a atheists is a delineation that you might not have come across before. That's pretty much because I think that I'm the only one who uses this terminology. But anyway, I call a large-a atheist someone who follows the dictionary definition of atheism, and a small-a atheist, one who follows the 'disbelief' definition.

Thiefe likes to call them 'strong' and 'weak' atheists.

What I'm going to do today is let Thiefe do the talking, and then I'll butt in with my two cents every now and then.

Thiefe is, as I mentioned before, a large-a atheist and is not afraid to go head to head with what appears to be fast becoming the accepted groupthink around the definition of atheism.
His opening paragraphs read as follows:

It has come to my attention that some atheists on the internet are trying to redefine the words “atheism” and “atheist” to mean anyone who simply lacks a belief in gods. This definition would include babies, agnostics, and people who have not come to a conclusion about the existence of gods.

Some proponents of this definition can be found in the alt.atheism newsgroup and at the following web sites:

• http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
• http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_atheism101.htm
• http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/questions/atheist.htm
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

A “lack of belief” definition is a bad definition for many reasons. It is not commonly used. It is not defined that way in any reputable dictionary. It is too broad because most agnostics and babies don’t consider themselves atheists. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

These atheists are usually motivated to redefine the word “atheist” because they want to enlarge the definition of “atheist” to include as many people as possible, or because they perceive it to be an advantage in debates with theists. Unfortunately, some of these people have used lies and distortions to support their opinions, and some have made extremely ignorant and grossly incorrect statements that may reflect badly on all atheists.

Goodness gracious me! Them's fighting words, alright, and Thiefe is clearly upset about this as well he might be. It may be a touch hyperbolic, but let's see where he's going with this.

After mentioning that he plans to correct some of these 'lies and distortions' he points out that there are three types of people out there:

Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).

Group B neither believes that at least one god exists nor do they believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies, and the undecided.

Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).

The crux of this is that that the 'lack of belief' definition, Thiefe maintains, renders the word atheism meaningless, as it could also cover, as he points out, 'agnostics, babies, and the undecided.'

Atheists can slot into either groups A or B depending on what meaning they assign to the word.

Conversely, small-a atheists are claiming the middle group as weak atheists and the top group as strong atheists.

Thiefe's arguments are many and really has the impact of rendering the above paragraphs unnecessary. But where he later returns to the question of meaning, he doesn't do so quite so effectively.

Let's look at Thiefe's main arguments one by one:

Stupid Argument #1: The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".

A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods".

I actually don't like the etymology argument, but not for the reasons that Thiefe gives. The etymology of the word atheism is irrelevant. The Oxford (definitive to all of us outside of North America) at AskOxford.com defines atheism as:

atheism

/aythi-iz’m/

• noun the belief that God does not exist.

And, given that the Oxford is a reflective dictionary, and not a proscriptive one, this should be the be all and end all. If that is how the word is used, then that is what it means.

Let's, just for argument's sake, consider the etymology of atheism whilst pondering the definition of 'anti-semitism', and for all the idiots out there deconstructing this, I am NOT equating atheism with anti-semitism:

anti-Semitism

• noun hostility to or prejudice against Jews.

See? Not one mention of Semites at all.

All in all, the etymology argument is a pretty weak one. Thiefe and the small-a atheists can duke this one out without me. An argument this feeble is a waste of everyone's time.

Thiefe's next argument moves from etymology to the definition itself:

Stupid Argument #2: Most Dictionaries Define "Atheism" as a "Lack of Belief".

I see this lie quite often on the internet. The truth of the matter is that no reputable dictionary has a "lack of belief" definition. See page 3 for more on this subject.

This is quite an allegation. Dictionary shopping is one thing, and we'll talk some more about that later.

But to lie outright about the contents of the world's dictionary's?

(Incidentally, he quotes the 1989 Oxford which does use a 'lack of belief' definition. I'll let him get away with this, because ostensibly, he's American, but absolutely no one outside North America would ever describe the Oxford as 'no reputable dictionary'. I believe it's a hanging offense in some parts.

AskOxford is currently sourced from the 2005 Compact Oxford, which itself is sourced from the 2004 Concise Oxford, both of which post-date the 1989 version.)

If Thiefe is correct about this claim, then this is an absolute DISGRACE!!!

Not sure who to award this to. Thiefe puts this claim to bed pretty efficiently. On the other hand, I'm having great difficulty believing that an atheist would make such a patently dishonest claim.

It's here that I'm going to talk on the subject of dictionary shopping.

This is an appalling practice that really must cease.

The number of times I've been confronted by, for example, an Australian quoting definitions out of something like the 'American Heritage Dictionary' just because it happens to have the definition they're after is getting beyond a joke.

We've all been guilty of dictionary shopping. I'm disgracefully hypocritical, but I'm at least making an effort to be consistent. One of these days, I'll post a style guide for this blog, but I am really making an effort to only use the Oxford.

I'm going to award Thiefe a point at this juncture, as he has the good grace to use (other than the Oxford) up to date definitions here with encyclopaedia excerpts here. But then I'll dock him that same point, due to the outlandishness of his claim.

Thiefe's next argument looks at the reasoning behind the argument:

Stupid Argument #3: Most Dictionary Definitions of "Atheism" are Wrong Because They are Written by Biased Christians.

This absurd claim is totally unsupported by any facts, much like the gigantic government conspiracy to cover-up UFO landings.

I don't really see the need to add much to this.

The number of times I have heard atheists trot out this line astounds me. Needless to say, it's really, really pathetic. Atheists (of all people) should know better than to use this one. This is a slam dunk for Thiefe, with high fives all round.

Stupid Argument #4: Only Atheists get to Define What the Word "Atheist" Means.

This argument is absurd for two reasons. First of all, words are defined by common usage, not by the people who fit that definition. For example the word "handicapped" is defined by common usage not just by handicapped people.

Secondly, a "lack of belief" definition for the word "atheist" would include so many agnostics, babies, infants, and the undecided that the self-identified atheists would be a very small minority. Babies and infants would make up a majority of the "lack of belief" atheists and I haven't heard of any of them who could express a coherent definition.

Thiefe's really making two claims here. The first is the sub-heading itself. I've really never heard anyone make this claim so Thiefe ain't getting a point for this.

His second one is his one that he alluded to at the start, that is, by expanding the definition of atheists to include people who normally wouldn't meet the requirement, the word atheism is rendered meaningless. This is a much better claim, but it's one that I'm undecided about.

Is there anything wrong with atheism embracing more potential atheists? It's certainly better (and more inclusive) than a cookie-cutter "no true Scotsman" fallacy that a lot of theists (especially Christians) like to come out with when they exclude people. And it makes a lot of people feel included.

On the other hand, this way of thinking does give rise to blatant absurdities such as this one:

'I put it to you that you're an atheist, you just disbelieve one less god than what I do.'

Yeah, it's witty and all, and you can get a laugh at parties with it (I know, I've tried. Successfully, too). But really, if the word 'atheist' was a person, it would be on life support in a full plaster cast after that sentence. Every last ounce of meaning was squeezed out of it just like a tube of toothpaste that's down to its last dregs.

Plus it's just plain wrong. It's the atheist cliché version of Sandi Thom's I wish I was a punk rocker with flowers in my hair. Describing a theist as an atheist is the kinda thing Edward Lear would have done just to annoy Lewis Carroll. Except Lear would have written a limerick, and possibly referred to a 'runcible spoon'.

Lastly, you end up with not a lot of difference between atheists, 'agnostics, babies, and the undecided', as well as apatheists, ignostics and others.

I'm provisionally awarding this round to Thiefe, but only because a more inclusive definition seems a bit like a hippie love-in.

Thiefe starts waffling a bit here:

Stupid Argument #5: Most Atheists Want a "Lack of Belief" Definition.

This argument is usually presented as fact without any actual surveys to back it up. The first problem with this is the "babies and infants" problem described above. The second problem is that most scientific surveys of religious beliefs show that only a minority of the non-religious people self-identify as atheists. For example the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) shows that 13.2% of the US population self-identified as "no religion" while 0.4% self-identified as atheists and 0.5% self-identified as agnostics. The 2000 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year also shows similar numbers.

Again, same as the previous one, I've never really heard anyone make this claim.

Thiefe dazzles us with stats, but I'm not sure if they really support his argument or not. Not touching this and therefore, no points for Thiefe, here.

After covering some fairly minor points so far regarding the underlying philosophy of the definition of 'atheism', he decides to actually have a go at the disbelief definition itself:

Stupid Argument #6: The Phrase "Tom does not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "Tom believes that God does not exist."

This idiotic argument is sometimes presented by brain dead morons who don't understand basic English grammar. I really don't expect most people to know that "raising" is the technical name for the location of the negative in the first sentence, or that raising simply shifts the negative from the subordinate clause where it logically belongs to the main clause, especially when the main clause’s verb is suppose, think, believe, seem, or the like. (Here are two links from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English that explain it: Link 1, Link 2)

However, I find it impossible to believe that anyone with half a brain would use this argument. The English language is literally filled with many common examples of raising. I'll post a few for clarity:

A) "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.

B) "I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.

C) "I don't think the kicker can make a 55 yard field goal" means "I think that the kicker can not make a 55 yard field goal". It does not mean that I did not think about the kicker making a field goal.

D) "I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.

After a couple of misses, Thiefe really starts kicking goals here - which really goes to show that he was wrong about point C.

The end result is Thiefe's inference that there is no difference between a 'strong' or 'weak' atheist. Mind you, I don't recall 'raising' when I was studying English at school, but you don't really need to really understand it to get the gist of the four examples that he has cited. They are four exceptionally well chosen examples.

Thiefe gets full marks for this one.

OK. So we've looked at the underlying philosophy behind the disbelief definition, and we've looked at the fundamental raising flaw in that definition.

What would motivate a small-a atheist to move this kind of re-definition?

Stupid Argument #7: A "Lack of Belief" Definition is Useful in Debates.

Some people think that a "lack of belief" definition of atheist shifts the burden of proof to the theist and requires them to prove the existence of their god. The truth of the matter is that the theist's claim of a supernatural god with magical powers is an extraordinary claim and requires substantial evidence if it is to be logically believed. The burden of proof is on the theist regardless of the definition of the word "atheist".

As an analogy, if someone claimed that flying pigs existed, then they would have the burden of proof to prove this regardless of whether I told them I "lacked belief" in the existence of flying pigs or if I told them that I believed that flying pigs did not exist.

You know, I once complained that there was something not quite right about the disbelief definition. Something almost suspicious. And I could not put my finger on exactly what it was.

Until now.

I think that this is particularly loathsome. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that this argument is a deliberate attempt to shift the burden of proof - unless the atheist doing it genuinely thinks that to be within the same 5,000 words as belief is bad.

Thiefe handled that one pretty well. Thus, he wins here, too.

This raises a point about the word 'belief':

The small-a atheist's fear of the word 'belief' and derivations thereof is way lame. It is so completely lame, it's funny. It's hilarious I think, because it's like those kiddies who get petrified about stepping on cracks because they actually think they'll break their mother's back. That's what it reminds me of.

Athiests who show this fear are at least consistent to the point of anal-retentiveness about it. So much so, that this blogger has engaged in the odd argument here and there and introduced ludicrous straw men as, 'I don't believe X,' or, 'I refuse to believe Y,' in order to test it out.

And while atheists are generally too consistent (and polite) to argue such points, it gets seen through straight away as the phony counter-argument that it is in other forums.

On the other hand, if an argument goes anywhere near accusing the small-a atheist of holding a belief of some sort, they get extremely and irrationally flustered.

This is a scenario that happens all too often:

Theist says (in all naïveté) that, 'I do not believe that there is no god.'

I've actually seen an atheist (with sheer audacious nerve) accuse the theist of putting up a Straw Man.

Amazing. Like I said, the fear that small-a atheist has for the word 'belief' is really quite incredible.

And it speaks volumes about your average small-a atheist's ability to tell the difference between an extraordinary claim and the null hypothesis. None of them good.

Incidentally, while I haven't heard the 'shifting the burden of proof' argument, I have seen another instance where this kind of rationale is invoked - one atheist I was engaged in a discussion with posited that to use the word belief provides theists with ammunition to pretend that atheism is a religion and therefore muck around with school curricula under this flimsy pretext. This is particularly relevant in countries where a separation of church and state exists.

Needless to say, that under whatever definition you care to throw at 'atheism', atheism is not a religion. It would be absurd to think otherwise.

Stupid Argument #8: All Atheists Lack a Belief in Gods so Anyone who Lacks a Belief in Gods is an Atheist.

This argument is so damn stupid that it is rarely expressed explicitly. Usually it is only vaguely implied by statements such as "the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods".

The logical mistake here should be self-evident to any adult with half a brain, so I won't explain it. But if you are in a child in elementary school, try to figure it out with this analogy: All dogs have fur so anything with fur is a dog.

Thiefe is wrong when he says that this one is rarely expressed explicitly. The number of athiests who trot out the cliché about, '...One less god...' in all seriousness, is the rule, rather than the exception, IMHO.

Given that this argument has a different flavour to the others here, I'm not rating this.

Out of Thiefe's 8 arguments, I've given him 4, but given his pretty decisive handling of arguments 3, 6 and 7, this is a resounding victory for Thiefe.

I had a conversation with my good buddy 'Bob' about this. Bob is a small-a atheist.

We might leave the last word to him:

Me: Bob, you've had a chance to read Thiefe's arguments. What are your thoughts on them?

Bob: Rubbish.

Me: So you don't agree that you believe that there are no deities.

Bob: I have nothing to say on the matter. Incidentally, if Thiefe's grammar holds, doesn't this mean that you hold an untenable position?

Me: What do you mean?

Bob: Well, you don't believe or disbelieve the existence of deities, yet you also don't believe or disbelieve in their non-existence. Thiefe's grammar has this as being rather contradictory.

Me: Nup. I don't believe or disbelieve either. So they all kinda cancel out. But I do know which of these is the extraordinary claim. You, on the other hand don't believe in deities, Bob.

Bob: Yep.

Me: And, because of your craven fear of the word belief, you also refuse to believe in the non-existence of deities.

Bob: I wouldn't put it quite like that...

Me: So here's the $64,000 question: Doesn't this make you an agnostic?

Still waiting for that last word, Bob.

Why did you end up agnostic? (Part 2)

This is Part 2.

Part 1 is here.

We were discussing in the previous part about how, thanks to no pressure at all from anyone, I grew up an apatheist.

I did point out in that part that atheists and theists have a problem with apatheism in that they don’t understand it.

If you're an atheist or a theist who doesn't get it, I can probably tell you about apatheism by asking the following question:

When cutting a 100mm slab to put in an air-con drain pipe, and assuming that the cut required is 50mm deep by 50mm wide, is there a school of thought as to whether this is allowable based on current building regulations?

Some would suggest that if it’s roof slab, you need to be aware of the rate of decay of the reinforcing bars, regardless of re-concreting over and waterproofing.

Others would add to this any time that the slab covers a void of some sort, including basements, crawlspaces, passageways etc.

In my honest opinion, this is all very important stuff and all, and it probably affects every apartment block ever built, but do I really care?

Getting it wrong can affect tens or hundreds of lives. But do I really care?

I mean, really. Should I care?

This is how religion appears to the apatheist. Irrelevant. Boring. Full of rules that make no sense at all to the uninitiated. Or, more accurately, indoctrinated.

Ask yourself this: Football. Music. Chicks. Religion. Is it really any wonder that the last one just couldn’t find space in my short attention span?

Oh, I forgot to try to cram schoolwork in there, too.

I think that it was third year uni when I began to start thinking a little more deeply about religion than what I had in the past.

It all happened one lunchtime in Union House. I was manning the ticket table for a play that was being staged at the residential college where I lived at the time. I had, at various times that day, been approached by various members of all three major Christian campus groups and asked about my thoughts about the meaning of life, whether I believed that Jesus had died for my sins and whether I would like to come along to a prayer meeting or three.

The major campus Christian groups had tables set up somewhat permanently in Union House, and would be hassling everyone who passed by to come along on a daily basis. I thought that by virtue of manning another table, I’d be immune, but I still got hassled.

In fairness, I also got hassled by a rather attractive brunette in a top showing her bellybutton with a tray of brightly coloured drinks that I was assured would make me smarter.

Even though I was in third year at university, the pseudoscience of Smart Drinks™ would probably have been completely plausible to me, had I heard a word that she was saying. As it was, I suspect that I was concentrating on flirting way too hard to actually take in anything that she was saying and can only dimly recall the words “amino acids”. I had about three different coloured thimble-sized samplers that day, and I can tell you right now, felt no different at all.

Anyway, being hassled by the campus Christians was a daily occurrence. Being hassled by scantily-clad marketers on campus was slightly more unusual – the Womens’ Collective normally would frighten this sort of marketing initiative off into another state.

But the “wimmin” didn’t appear to be around today, so our young Smart Drink™ sample dispenser could go berzerk. I’m sure that it wasn’t lost on her that every bloke who went up to her to sample her wares was flirting with her big time, if not hitting on her outright, but I’m digressing here. The sight of those flawless, tanned, athletic legs disappearing into a ridiculously short pleated mini-skirt was, I’m sure, not noticed by anyone there that day.

I had just breathed a sigh of relief as a third, over-ardent young Christian tacitly admitted defeat in getting me to attend one of their prayer meetings. He’d scarcely handed me one of his group’s flyers and gone on his way when another young gentleman came up to me.

Swearing under my breath, I greeted our new addition, whom I’ll call “The Dude,” with bemused insincerity. Our conversation went a little like this:

Dude: I see the campus Christians won’t leave you alone either.

Me: *winces and waits for inevitable approach line*

Dude: My name’s The Dude, and I was wondering what your thoughts on religion are?

Me: Dude, I don’t have any thoughts on religion.

Dude: That’s great, cause you know, our group is always looking for fresh ideas and thoughts especially with regards to the relentless bombardment of everyone with other students forcing their religion down others' throats.

Me: Um, when I said, ‘I don’t have any thoughts on religion,’ what I meant to say was, ‘I have no interest in religion.’

Dude: And that’s fine. Our members have no interest in religion, either. In fact, one of our topics this week will be taking action to stop the insane amount of proselytising that all the campus Christians have been doing lately…

Me: What did you say your group was called?

Dude: We’re the University Atheist Society.

Me: Dude, has anyone noticed that you’re proselytising?

Dude: No I’m not… That’s like saying atheism is a religion and it’s not… And there has to be a belief system for proselytising… [Insert atheist cliché here]… [And here]… Blah blah-dy blah.

Me: Right. When you stop rambling, please try to understand this. I have no interest in religion. This directly implies that I have no interest in joining the uni’s atheist society.

Dude: But atheism isn’t a religion.

Me: I never said it was. But it's irrelevant anyway - having no interest in religion almost completely infers no interest in atheism.

Dude: No it doesn’t…

Me: Don’t argue, Dude. And, let me finish – I don’t really care who comes up to sell their wares to me, be they Christians, atheists or nubiles with Smart Drinks…

Narrator: At this point we both looked over at the sensuous figure in the pleated mini-skirt and crop top as she had a laugh with another bloke who must have been on his fifth or sixth Smart Drink sample.

Me again: …all I ask is that they don’t get hypocritical or sanctimonious. Do you understand?

Dude: Yes. I’m sorry I disturbed you.

And then he slunk off. I felt a bit bad, actually, like I’d been too hard on him, but it was nearly the end of my shift on the table, and quite frankly I was a bit rattled. I may also have been hung-over, although I don’t recall this specifically.

I also may have been a bit dishonest with him – I rather liked our young Smart Drink dispenser looking for conversation and picking me out of everyone there. That is, I probably would have tolerated a bit of hypocrisy or sanctimoniousness from her.

This event was a bit of an epiphany for me, as I now went out of my way to learn a bit more about religion, atheism and the like. This took about two or three years.

Apathy does take a long time to shift.

Atheism, I saw in the dictionary, was one who believed that God doesn’t exist. Tossed that one around in my head for a bit. Decided it was too “final” for me.

I came back to agnosticism, which was a word that I recalled learning at school. I remember having someone tell me that an agnostic was one who doubted.

I looked it up and noticed that this particular definition was right up my alley – agnostics expect that evidence will never be found concerning the existence or otherwise of God.

I had been listening to the long running Skeptics show on 3RRR (don’t think it’s on anymore which is a real shame because it was an excellent show put together by the Australian Skeptics that introduced me to the work of James Randi) and I noticed that you could turn this definition on its head and view it another way – that is, an agnostic will not accept a position concerning the existence or otherwise of God without evidence.

This fitted me like a glove at the time, and I don’t believe that I’ve changed all that much since then.

I have however, noticed that theists and atheists really, really don’t understand agnostics. Probably more so than how they don’t understand apatheists.

And I’ll discuss this some more in part 3.

Why did you end up agnostic? (Part 1)

I get asked lots about this, so I thought I'd put this one on the table. For some reason, theists and atheists alike can't handle the agnostic point of view.

I don't actually get this myself, because, to me anyway, it's a very easy perspective to grasp.

And, for reasons that I'll explain later, I suspect most people who claim to be atheists are really agnostic anyway.

But I'll get on with it.

My parents brought me up to believe that someone's thoughts on religion or the like were their own business. In other words, you never ask and you certainly don't proselytise.

To this day, I have not the faintest idea whether my parents are even remotely religious - they never made us go to Sunday school, they never went to church. I don't ask, because this little voice in the back of my head reminds me that, "It's none of your business."

My mother's parents never rammed religion down her throat. My father's dad was a Methodist minister who insisted on saying grace before all meals and who never touched a drop of alcohol in his life.

I secretly think my mum is an atheist and my dad is agnostic. But this is me just speculating based on various things they've said over the years. I could be 100% wrong.

Anyway. As a result of all of this, I grew up apatheistic.

Apatheism is another concept that is completely misunderstood by atheists and theists. Wikipedia, for example, considers apatheism to be a subset of atheism. And that is clearly wrong.

Now, apatheism, as I understand it, is where you don't even consider the god(s) question, for one or more of the following reasons:

1. You don't consider the question to be relevant or important; and/or
2. You don't even know that such a question exists.

Belief or disbelief doesn't even come into it when the question either is refused to be considered, or doesn't even make it to the interviewee in the first place.

Now this can completely bamboozle your average person. Mainly because most people are prompted at some stage to consider the god(s) question. I was.

But I never directly answered it, as I never believed it to be a question that added value to my life.

Sorry, I never perceived it to add any value. I’ll discuss the “belief” word later.

So I became a happy little apatheist doing my own thing and not really giving a stuff about God, religion, or anything like that.

Oh sure, I was approached by many people along the way to convert me. One of my friends from high school joined a megachurch in the Upper North Shore area of Sydney and managed to get me along to a few shows (services? They always seemed too showy for this word). I went a couple of times out of curiosity, and tried unsuccessfully to pick up one of the girls there.

But after these little fact finding missions – I was the guy with his mouth wide open in the back row as the “congregation” (not sure what you call the parishioners in a megachurch. Not sure if “parishioners” is correct, either) went into the undignified hysteria that is glossolalia – I came out of there with the impression that (a) these guys were nuts and (b) they had no decorum.

So I started at university in Melbourne and continued on as a happy little apatheist.

While I had no ostensible interest in religion, I did have my own thoughts. The overriding ones were that evangelical/charismatic/pentacostal (I’ll call it ECP from now on) Christianity was extremely funny, and traditionalist Christianity was incredibly tedious.

And I continued like that until one day, in about second or third year uni when things changed and I became an agnostic.

And I’ll tell you about that next time.