Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[idav]

then the lack of proof is the criteria for the hard atheist.

The problem with that is lack of proof is a very flimsy way of knowing something. Believing you know with no proof is faith.

 

[waitasec]

The problem with that is lack of proof is a very flimsy way of knowing something. Believing you know with no proof is faith.

i posit the same question to you:

i have 10 acres of land in malibu california for sale, real cheap...here's my paypal account...once you deposit $100,000 it yours.

now...yes malibu exists, so does my paypal account...you tell me whats missing in order for you to to know what i am saying is true

 

[Willamena]

A substantiated claim of ownership.

 

[waitasec]

A substantiated claim of ownership.

:yes:


the criteria is evidence....


:curtsy:

 

[Willamena]

Believing and Knowing are two separate issues.

They're also not.

Knowing doesn't lean on faith as much as believing.

By definition, faith requires believing. Knowing does, too: it is justified, true belief. Belief is paramount. Where reality slips behind the curtain, we can pay no attention to the man there, as the line suggests; or, in seeing that reality extends further than we know, we can pay him a tip of the hat.

It's all part of the narrative.

 

[work in progress]

I know i'm coming in late here, but i had to point out one thing. The problem with your statement is that you don't know whether or not their is proof one way or the other. So, based on the idea that an agnostic supposedly accepts there is no proof, that kind of implies that an agnostic isn't any better than the theist or the atheist.

I will however point out that there seems to be a malfunction here, as to people accepting and/or disagreeing what terms mean. I call myself an agnostic atheist. Why both? Cause i consider myself an agnostic, in so far as that i'm saying i don't know. I don't use the more hardcore version of agnostic, which is to say god is unknowable. I call myself an atheist, because i don't believe in god. I don't, however, use the more hardcore term of atheist, that implies that there is no god. If you put them together, using the terms as i use them, it means that i don't believe in god, but i don't know. I'm open to proof, evidence, etc. and so forth. The second part isn't inherently implied with the title, it's just true.

Essentially, if you want people to understand what you believe, you'll have to explain it, rather than just giving them a title they probably won't even understand as you mean it.

Welcome to the party! But, I think anyone who uses double definitions for their belief statement has to get accustomed to constantly explaining why they use both labels.

Personally, I reject anything called a knowledge statement -- i.e. "I'm an atheist, but I don't KNOW if there is no God. I feel that this sort of thinking comes out of a pre-20th century understanding of the mind and brain function. The facts coming in from the research psychologists and neuroscientists indicate that we have no capacity for absolute knowledge of anything...everything we believe is reinforced with varying degrees of emotional attachment.

I would prefer the term "agnostic" be left for those who say they really aren't sure what to believe. And the rest of us: some of us take the vanishing evidence for a creator and the randomness of biological processes and the workings of the Universe to mean that life and the Universe are emerging, and do not have a cosmic designer working behind the scenes. And of course, the majority believe that there is evidence of creation and a creator. But, everybody should be an agnostic on that question of knowing. So, whatever we think is right, all we have are beliefs that seem likely to us, but may not be accepted by others. So, I'll keep using the term atheist to describe my beliefs on the great cosmic question....even if I part company with a lot of other people who also call themselves atheists.

 

[idav]

Welcome to the party! But, I think anyone who uses double definitions for their belief statement has to get accustomed to constantly explaining why they use both labels.

Personally, I reject anything called a knowledge statement -- i.e. "I'm an atheist, but I don't KNOW if there is no God. I feel that this sort of thinking comes out of a pre-20th century understanding of the mind and brain function. The facts coming in from the research psychologists and neuroscientists indicate that we have no capacity for absolute knowledge of anything...everything we believe is reinforced with varying degrees of emotional attachment.

I would prefer the term "agnostic" be left for those who say they really aren't sure what to believe. And the rest of us: some of us take the vanishing evidence for a creator and the randomness of biological processes and the workings of the Universe to mean that life and the Universe are emerging, and do not have a cosmic designer working behind the scenes. And of course, the majority believe that there is evidence of creation and a creator. But, everybody should be an agnostic on that question of knowing. So, whatever we think is right, all we have are beliefs that seem likely to us, but may not be accepted by others. So, I'll keep using the term atheist to describe my beliefs on the great cosmic question....even if I part company with a lot of other people who also call themselves atheists.

With nobody having the capacity to have absolute knowledge it makes the term 'agnostic' rather meaningless because then everyone is agnostic no matter how they want to label their beliefs.

 

[idav]

They're also not.


By definition, faith requires believing. Knowing does, too: it is justified, true belief. Belief is paramount. Where reality slips behind the curtain, we can pay no attention to the man there, as the line suggests; or, in seeing that reality extends further than we know, we can pay him a tip of the hat.

It's all part of the narrative.

The point is believing doesn't require knowledge. Belief can consider knowledge but it is not required, especially religious faith. I would say that knowledge does not require belief either but that gets a little hazy. Ideally true knowledge should require no faith and belief would just be a result of knowing.

 

[Willamena]

The point is believing doesn't require knowledge. Belief can consider knowledge but it is not required, especially religious faith. I would say that knowledge does not require belief either but that gets a little hazy. Ideally true knowledge should require no faith and belief would just be a result of knowing.

See, your first line and your last line are polar opposite positions.

 

[idav]

i have 10 acres of land in malibu california for sale, real cheap...here's my paypal account...once you deposit $100,000 it yours.

now...yes malibu exists, so does my paypal account...you tell me whats missing in order for you to to know what i am saying is true

Cool you have a bridge to sell me too? There is a lot missing. Type of thing I'd rather do in person.

 

[idav]

See, your first line and your last line are polar opposite positions.

Yes this is true. Belief doesn't require knowledge but doesn't mean it doesn't have it. You can believe something that has no proof as well as believe anything that does have proof and factual basis. As such you can be atheist/theist independently of having any proof so belief and knowledge are separate issues to be considered.

 

[Reverend Rick]

can you explain to me the difference between belief and knowing for sure?

I believe i can sell my farm for one million. I know I can when the check has cleared the bank.

The fighter believes he is the best, he knows he is when he wins the title fight.

The theist believes there is a God. He knows there is when he gets to Heaven.

The atheist believes there is no God. He never knows if he is right.

 

[Tristesse]

I believe i can sell my farm for one million. I know I can when the check has cleared the bank.

The fighter believes he is the best, he knows he is when he wins the title fight.

The theist believes there is a God. He knows there is when he gets to Heaven.

The atheist believes there is no God. He never knows if he is right.

No, the atheist doesn't believe there is a god, thats different from believing there is no god. While the latter entails atheism as well, it's not a requirement to be an atheist.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No, the atheist doesn't believe there is a god, thats different from believing there is no god. While the latter entails atheism as well, it's not a requirement to be an atheist.

There are many Atheists who state as a fact there is no God.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There are many Atheists who state as a fact there is no God.

Really? Can you provide some kind of source for that? Personally, I've met almost no atheists who would make such a blanket claim.

 

[idav]

There are many Atheists who state as a fact there is no God.

Yup I've come across a few gnostic atheists though rarely.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are many Atheists who state as a fact there is no God.

How many is "many"?

 

[Tristesse]

There are many Atheists who state as a fact there is no God.

Ok, I have yet to meet any, but thats not the point. Your characterization of atheism is not correct. I'm an atheist and I wouldn't say that I know for a fact that a god doesn't exist. The atheists position is that theists claims have failed to meet their burden of proof sufficient for the atheist to believe them. Thats different from making the additional claim that a god doesn't exist.

 

[riley2112]

Really? Can you provide some kind of source for that? Personally, I've met almost no atheists who would make such a blanket claim.

I have heard atheist say that God is an imageanary friend and that there is no God. I am not saying that all atheists say that , Most are smart enough that if there was any evidence of a God then I am sure they would believe. As for where I have read this ,whywontgodhealamputees.com - Index I have found most of them to be fair as long as you have evidence of what you post.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Ok, I have yet to meet any, but thats not the point. Your characterization of atheism is not correct. I'm an atheist and I wouldn't say that I know for a fact that a god doesn't exist. The atheists position is that theists claims have failed to meet their burden of proof sufficient for the atheist to believe them. Thats different from making the additional claim that a god doesn't exist.

You just described an Agnostic