Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[Dirty Penguin]

Atheists are pre-theist or post-theist.

I disagree with you here. If you're an Atheist then surely you don't speak for all of us....

Personally I was born Atheist. As I got older I never held a "belief" in any religion. I find the subject as to what people believe interesting but not so much that I would be indoctrinated one way or another. While there is "some" truth to your statement it's certainly not true with all of us.

 

[Willamena]

I agree with Willamena. It's a rare duck that can express it. Atleast to the level where an atheist can't bombard him/her with every logical trick and pony up his sleeve. I was telling Meow Mix just the other day how you can easily get a PhD in metaphysics without ever encountering any medieval philosophy and classical theistic arguments. They are extremely complex. Some of the brightest philosphers barely have a grasp of it. I know I don't and I ask these guys questions constantly.

I was lying in bed last night, going through some thoughts, and I accidentally stumbled on Leibniz's monads. I never understood them before, and then there they were. Delayed spell-casting is a marvelous thing.

 

[waitasec]

Agreed, but it is a valid point. An Atheist will never know for sure if they are right. :sorry1:

oh the irony....

 

[riley2112]

oh the irony....

no but if you take the bible for what it says, ( not saying I do) then they will know if they are wrong

 

[waitasec]

no but if you take the bible for what it says, ( not saying I do) then they will know if they are wrong

not everyone who takes the bible for what it is, whatever that is, is going to agree.

 

[riley2112]

not everyone who takes the bible for what it is, whatever that is, is going to agree.

again, if you believe the Bible how could you not agree? just wondering
Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

John 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

Matthew 7:2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you

 

[waitasec]

again, if you believe the Bible how could you not agree? just wondering
Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

John 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

Matthew 7:2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you

because i have had many discourses with people who do not believe in that...
for whatever reason...
i can't deny that now can i? but really, does it matter? i don't believe so, in fact i know so...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Agreed, but it is a valid point. An Atheist will never know for sure if they are right. :sorry1:

Not true. The existence of an afterlife doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a god. Perhaps, we find out in the afterlife that there is no god. This is equally as likely as finding out in an afterlife that there is a god, and each rely on the same premise that there is an afterlife.

 

[riley2112]

Not true. The existence of an afterlife doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a god. Perhaps, we find out in the afterlife that there is no god. This is equally as likely as finding out in an afterlife that there is a god, and each rely on the same premise that there is an afterlife.

with that I can agree.

 

[Quiddity]

Not true. The existence of an afterlife doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a god. Perhaps, we find out in the afterlife that there is no god. This is equally as likely as finding out in an afterlife that there is a god, and each rely on the same premise that there is an afterlife.

True, but that really puts a dent on the whole emperical evidence thingy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

True, but that really puts a dent on the whole emperical evidence thingy.

Exactly, either a theist, or an atheist, assuming there is an afterlife is not doing so based on empirical evidence. As such, any assumptions about whether said afterlife would imply the existence of a god or not, would be equally valid. Thus, Rev's conclusion that an atheist could never know for sure if they were right, is invalid. Or, more simply, there is just as much a possibility of an atheist finding out there is no god, as there is a theist finding out there is a god.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Exactly, either a theist, or an atheist, assuming there is an afterlife is not doing so based on empirical evidence. As such, any assumptions about whether said afterlife would imply the existence of a god or not, would be equally valid. Thus, Rev's conclusion that an atheist could never know for sure if they were right, is invalid. Or, more simply, there is just as much a possibility of an atheist finding out there is no god, as there is a theist finding out there is a god.

That statement really bothered you? :slap:

I guess I need to read the new thread about Atheists and after life.

I have never met an Atheist that believed anything like that, so I stand by my statement.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That statement really bothered you? :slap:

I guess I need to read the new thread about Atheists and after life.

I have never met an Atheist that believed anything like that, so I stand by my statement.

Why would you think it bothered me?

Doesn't bother me at all - just pointing out that there's nothing more inherently logical about a theist finding out they are right, than an atheist finding out they are right. Doesn't really matter what any theists or atheists believe - the logic is equally valid.

Do you see that the assumption that the afterlife implies the existence of a god isn't logically more valid than an afterlife without a god? Seems like a simple limit of imagination to assume so.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Do you see that the assumption that the afterlife implies the existence of a god isn't logically more valid than an afterlife without a god? Seems like a simple limit of imagination to assume so.

It may not be more valid, but it is factual that Atheists do not believe in God or an afterlife so if they are right about these things, they will never know.

It is almost bittersweet. If I was an Atheist, I would want to rub it in theist's face if I was right but alas that will not be happening.

I have much more respect than to pose the opposite situation. We have had enough of those threads. :yes:

Anyway, I go back to the point of this OP which was Agnosticism holds the only sound logic. The other two beliefs deploy assumptions and there is a real possibility that one side is going to be wrong.

Not seeing a reason to believe is different than non-belief.

 

[work in progress]

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.

No, because there are people out there who say they really aren't sure which way to go with the big cosmic question, and don't feel they belong in either category of beliefs. That's the problem with double definitions used by Dawkins and others. Some agnostics, such as a former Anglican priest - Mark Vernon, feel that the appropriation of the term "agnostic" by atheists, is offensive and false; and just an attempt to add them to their numbers for the virtual atheist community. As Vernon says:' if the creator of the term - Julian Huxley, really thought he was an atheist, he wouldn't have bothered to create a new term and write an essay describing the agnostic worldview.

And I would agree that "agnostic" should apply when it comes to real knowledge of this issue. Some people think they know -- but all that proves is that they are more sure of themselves and their beliefs than others.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It may not be more valid, but it is factual that Atheists do not believe in God or an afterlife so if they are right about these things, they will never know.

Bzzzzzzzt Rev! Not believing in an afterlife is no part of the definition of atheism. I would assume most atheists who are rationalists also do not hold the belief that there is an afterlife, but that's a result of being rational, not being an atheist - and there's nothing stopping atheists from believing in an afterlife, just as there is nothing stopping a theist from not believing in an afterlife.

It is almost bittersweet. If I was an Atheist, I would want to rub it in theist's face if I was right but alas that will not be happening.

Unless, of course, we find out that there is no god after we die - as valid and likely a possibility as any other.

Anyway, I go back to the point of this OP which was Agnosticism holds the only sound logic. The other two beliefs deploy assumptions and there is a real possibility that one side is going to be wrong.

And back to your pointed ignoring that atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive, and that the narrow and specific definition which you seem to need to hold onto, doesn't represent how most people use the words.

Not seeing a reason to believe is different than non-belief.

My not seeeing a reason to believe necessarily results in me not believing. This is a natural result of my strong internal sense of honesty and consistency.

 

[Reverend Rick]

My not seeeing a reason to believe necessarily results in me not believing. This is a natural result of my strong internal sense of honesty and consistency.

In other words you have faith in your logic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In other words you have faith in your logic.

I have faith in my ability to accurately and thoroughly apply logic. A faith borne of my strong internal sense of honesty and consistency, and the intellectual capacity to follow through. Additionally, I have faith in my honesty, which allows me to accept when someone points out an error in my logic, or makes a more rational and consistent argument. Wanna give it a shot?

 

[idav]

No, because there are people out there who say they really aren't sure which way to go with the big cosmic question, and don't feel they belong in either category of beliefs. That's the problem with double definitions used by Dawkins and others. Some agnostics, such as a former Anglican priest - Mark Vernon, feel that the appropriation of the term "agnostic" by atheists, is offensive and false; and just an attempt to add them to their numbers for the virtual atheist community. As Vernon says:' if the creator of the term - Julian Huxley, really thought he was an atheist, he wouldn't have bothered to create a new term and write an essay describing the agnostic worldview.

A person who is unsure may be agnostic but whether they choose to believe something or not is irrelevant. Agnostics can be atheist/theist or choose not to make a claim.

And I would agree that "agnostic" should apply when it comes to real knowledge of this issue. Some people think they know -- but all that proves is that they are more sure of themselves and their beliefs than others.

I might agree there is no such thing a true gnostic theist/atheist but some people are sure they know. Not being able have absolute knowledge doesn't prevent people from claiming that they have full knowledge of theism/atheism. That is another issue though.

 

[Tristesse]

It may not be more valid, but it is factual that Atheists do not believe in God or an afterlife so if they are right about these things, they will never know.

It is almost bittersweet. If I was an Atheist, I would want to rub it in theist's face if I was right but alas that will not be happening.

I have much more respect than to pose the opposite situation. We have had enough of those threads. :yes:

Anyway, I go back to the point of this OP which was Agnosticism holds the only sound logic. The other two beliefs deploy assumptions and there is a real possibility that one side is going to be wrong.

Not seeing a reason to believe is different than non-belief.

Setting aside some of the false assumptions in your post. If you believe that agnosticism is the only position that is logically sound, does that mean that you're an agnostic? If not, are you admitting that your position is not logical? And if you admit that your position is not logical, then why hold to that belief?