As for the part of the question about us possibly being in a simulation: have a look at this question.

My take: you can drive yourself nuts with such speculation, but if the simulation is perfect, with no possibility of us detecting it, there’s no point in worrying about it, is there? We do the best we can, with the information and tools available to us, and focus on the life we have and the people around us.

Posted: December 4th 2008

See all questions answered by brian thomson

I think that “atheist-leaning agnostic” is a cop-out, though I do recognize that agnostic is a softer word than atheist is therefore may be useful in some situations.

I believe that gods – at least based on the definitions that I’ve run across – do not exist, and I live my life based on that.

I also believe that there is an objective reality out there that I am experiencing.

But neither of those are important. I could, as you say, be experiencing a very complex simulation, but if there’s no way for me to tell that it exists than it doesn’t matter.

I frankly don’t have a lot of use for philosophy since it doesn’t seem to have a lot of bearing on reality.

Posted: November 26th 2008

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

How can one be an atheist and not merely an atheism-leaning agnostic?

Not a single Atheist I know will say, “There is no possibility of a god’s existence.” All Atheists are Atheist-Agnostics, at least all the rational ones. And if it’s patronising to say so, fine. I’ll be patronising to the few Atheist-Gnostics who live in their mothers’ basements and swear by the Rational Response Squad.

I don’t believe in a god. I’m not 100% certain there isn’t a god, but I’m certain enough to say that I don’t need to sing the improbable oaf hymns of praise every Sunday.

Posted: November 25th 2008

See all questions answered by Reed Braden

Atheism is not believing in gods. You either believe in god(s) or you don’t. I have a hard time envisioning an in-between state. Agnosticism does not mean that you yourself do not know if you believe in god(s)! (EDIT: Of course, you can know that you are undecided in your believing in god(s) or not.) Hence the descriptive term, atheist, does its job very well. One does not believe in god(s).

As many of us have pointed out recently in answers to several different questions (feel free to search the descriptive terms of atheism and agnosticism at our site), one can be an atheist and an agnostic (One does not know if there are no gods as the proof of evidence for an null hypothesis is on the believers’ shoulders, and so far they have not cough it up making blind faith necessary to substitute for such substantial evidence).

Posted: November 25th 2008

See all questions answered by logicel

I’m not sure, but I’m sure enough.

I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist, which isn’t far from your idea of an “atheism-leaning agnostic”. I accept a non-zero probability that some god exists, whether in the circumstances you describe or otherwise.

I’m happy to simply call myself an atheist because I gauge that probability to be not just small, but negligible. I think there’s almost no chance. I live my life as if there are no gods, and the possibility that I’m wrong bothers me no more than the possibility that I will be hit by a meteorite. I’m an atheist for all practical purposes. What I’m not is a “strong atheist”, who positively believes or “knows” that there are no gods.

I could also call myself an agnostic, since the definitions aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t like to, however, because it gives the first impression that I’m roughly halfway between belief and non-belief. This is far from the case. “Atheism-leaning agnostic” would solve this ambiguity, but “agnostic atheist” is punchier and just plain “atheist” has the same meaning to me.

Posted: November 24th 2008

See all questions answered by SmartLX