Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

What always takes me aback in these debates is the apparent belief that such things as 'agnostics' and 'atheists' actually exist... in the same way that apples and rocks seem to exist. It's perplexing.

I'm both a conservative and a liberal at the same moment. It's easy. I'm also an agnostic, an atheist, and a theist at the same time. Or I'm none of those things, in the same moment.

Which is why I try to avoid any sort of labelling based on philosophical stance. I think it only confuses the dialogue.

 

[Tristesse]

What always takes me aback in these debates is the apparent belief that such things as 'agnostics' and 'atheists' actually exist... in the same way that apples and rocks seem to exist. It's perplexing.

I'm both a conservative and a liberal at the same moment. It's easy. I'm also an agnostic, an atheist, and a theist at the same time. Or I'm none of those things, in the same moment.

Which is why I try to avoid any sort of labelling based on philosophical stance. I think it only confuses the dialogue.

You can't be both an atheist and a theist at the same time. However, you can be an atheist and an agnostic, or a theist and an agnostic, because those two terms gnosticism and theism explain two different things. Gnosticism refering to knowledge and theism refering to belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That wasn't my point , it's just what you made it out to be. Now that's communication.
Edit: I've been through this before, I think also with you: the onus is not on one person to MAKE another understand with his words. The onus isn't on the impossible task. You cast, and if you're lucky, a spell is born.

If communication about God is impossible, then any theist who didn't acquire his or her knowledge by direct experience of God has built his or her faith on sand.

OTOH, if people can communicate and share ideas with each other to the point where a person can become a theist by learning from others, then the same avenues of communication allow a person to take in the same ideas and reject them.

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.

Really?

Whatever weight the theist put in their certainty of an afterlife would be all for nothing. When a person foregoes seeking to create justice themselves because they have the "knowledge" that some god will swoop down and do it for them, when this fails to happen, it represents a profound loss, both to humanity, who has missed out on good-hearted actions to make things better, and to the person himself/herself, who, out of misunderstanding, chose a path that actually went against his or her wishes and values.

For me, this isn't something to gloat over; it's tragic.

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.

But again: this is no less true of agnosticism. "God is unknowable" is a positive claim that may very well be wrong.

Also, if you take it a step or two further to some sort of "strong" agnosticism and assert a claim like "both theism and atheism are too tenuous to accept either as true, even tentatively", then there's a darned good chance that the agnostic is going to be wrong.

I just don't see how agnosticism is the "safe" option here.

 

[riley2112]

If communication about God is impossible, then any theist who didn't acquire his or her knowledge by direct experience of God has built his or her faith on sand.

OTOH, if people can communicate and share ideas with each other to the point where a person can become a theist by learning from others, then the same avenues of communication allow a person to take in the same ideas and reject them.


Really?

Whatever weight the theist put in their certainty of an afterlife would be all for nothing. When a person foregoes seeking to create justice themselves because they have the "knowledge" that some god will swoop down and do it for them, when this fails to happen, it represents a profound loss, both to humanity, who has missed out on good-hearted actions to make things better, and to the person himself/herself, who, out of misunderstanding, chose a path that actually went against his or her wishes and values.

For me, this isn't something to gloat over; it's tragic.

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


But again: this is no less true of agnosticism. "God is unknowable" is a positive claim that may very well be wrong.

Also, if you take it a step or two further to some sort of "strong" agnosticism and assert a claim like "both theism and atheism are too tenuous to accept either as true, even tentatively", then there's a darned good chance that the agnostic is going to be wrong.

I just don't see how agnosticism is the "safe" option here.

I find your out look on this refreshing , Thank you for your thoughts. It has been of help to me. Just saying.

 

[Nakosis]

But again: this is no less true of agnosticism. "God is unknowable" is a positive claim that may very well be wrong.

Also, if you take it a step or two further to some sort of "strong" agnosticism and assert a claim like "both theism and atheism are too tenuous to accept either as true, even tentatively", then there's a darned good chance that the agnostic is going to be wrong.

I just don't see how agnosticism is the "safe" option here.

Agnosticism is generally the idea that man doesn't know whether God exists or not.

The statement that "God is unknowable" seems more like a religious claim I've come across occasionally. That more in line with the idea the God is not comprehensible to human understanding.

Further an agnostic generally views it as not being able to rationalize a belief or disbelief in the existence of a God with the knowledge that is available to them.

A positive statement like that wouldn't usually fit with the concept of agnosticism.

 

[Quiddity]

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.

It's not the same. On the one hand you are trying to prove a negative on the other hand you are trying to prove a positive (with one being more extensive then the other). An afterlife may not tell you either way but I'll bet you my spaghetti monster t-shirt it'll get you thinking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agnosticism is generally the idea that man doesn't know whether God exists or not.

The statement that "God is unknowable" seems more like a religious claim I've come across occasionally. That more in line with the idea the God is not comprehensible to human understanding.

Further an agnostic generally views it as not being able to rationalize a belief or disbelief in the existence of a God with the knowledge that is available to them.

A positive statement like that wouldn't usually fit with the concept of agnosticism.

"The concept of agnosticism" was arguably created by T. H. Huxley... or at least he was the one who coined the term. My definition is in line with how he (and Robert Green Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell, two other prominent agnostic thinkers) used the term. This dilution of the definition in informal usage to something like "I don't know" is relatively recent.

 

[outhouse]

I just don't see how agnosticism is the "safe" option here.

Its not a safe option.


1 God exist
2 doesnt exist
3 not sure

1 No evidence he does

2 evidence he was created after a compilation of El and Yahweh both previous deities to the ancient hebrews.

3 not sure about the evidence he doesnt exist




For me and its just my opinion but for those who fit #3,,,, I only see as not doing enough homework on the formation of these deities in previous religions before they made it to the hebrew culture. funny we know quite a bit about El, Yahweh we are limited on.

I dont see how #3 is a safe option

#1 I say belief in what exactly? because few agree with the abrahamic deity

#2 we are born with as a default position

 

[rageoftyrael]

Lol, a minor quibble, but while an atheist may not believe in god, and he may be right, that doesn't automatically mean that we cease to exist at death. That is one thing i find annoying, is that people assume that is our belief. I personally haven't the foggiest what will happen. I personally am not sure if we even have souls. I see what i believe is evidence for them, but am not at all convinced of their existence. But perhaps we have them. Perhaps we continue in some other form after death, albeit with no god lording it over us. So, if that is the case, we could well know we were right. Just saying

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.

Okay, i might come off as a dick here, but if you go back, you'll see that i wrote these things several pages back. Why is everyone bringing this stuff up like they just thought it up? I don't much like being ignored....

 

[Reverend Rick]

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?

When we deal with what can be proven, I concede that my beliefs are illogical. I hold my beliefs because of personal enlightenment and experiences.

If you put me under the microscope, my experiences are emotional not logical.

Conversely, Atheists are just as guilty as I am.

If you despise Theism, that is an emotional motivator as well.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Whatever weight the theist put in their certainty of an afterlife would be all for nothing. When a person foregoes seeking to create justice themselves because they have the "knowledge" that some god will swoop down and do it for them, when this fails to happen, it represents a profound loss, both to humanity, who has missed out on good-hearted actions to make things better, and to the person himself/herself, who, out of misunderstanding, chose a path that actually went against his or her wishes and values.

For me, this isn't something to gloat over; it's tragic.

The thing is, if I am wrong, I will never know this.

My point is simple. Would you rather not know you are right or wrong?

It is a small consideration I admit, but many refuse to acknowledge this whatsoever.

 

[Revoltingest]

The thing is, if I am wrong, I will never know this.
My point is simple. Would you rather not know you are right or wrong?
It is a small consideration I admit, but many refuse to acknowledge this whatsoever.

"Knowing" is illusory & over-rated.
We merely have opinions....some more reliable than others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The thing is, if I am wrong, I will never know this.

My point is simple. Would you rather not know you are right or wrong?

It is a small consideration I admit, but many refuse to acknowledge this whatsoever.

All else being equal, of course I'd want to know.

What I'm objecting to is the other message in what you're saying: that if a negative outcome happens in a way we're not aware of, this makes it okay somehow.

 

[Willamena]

If communication about God is impossible, then any theist who didn't acquire his or her knowledge by direct experience of God has built his or her faith on sand.

OTOH, if people can communicate and share ideas with each other to the point where a person can become a theist by learning from others, then the same avenues of communication allow a person to take in the same ideas and reject them.

You persist in misinterpreting what I said. To address your point, people can communicate and share ideas. The idea rejected, i.e. not shared, is rejected for a reason.

 

[Reverend Rick]

All else being equal, of course I'd want to know.

What I'm objecting to is the other message in what you're saying: that if a negative outcome happens in a way we're not aware of, this makes it okay somehow.

Respectfully, it never makes it OK, thats not what I am saying.

If I am not aware I am wrong, it makes it painless.

Conversely, the other position is robbed of the validation, thats all.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Perhaps the important thing is that they know it now.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Perhaps the important thing is that they know it now.

I hear you, but they don't know for sure. They are guessing.

 

[Willamena]

I hear you, but they don't know for sure. They are guessing.

Does "believe" imply certainty? or reality?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Does "believe" imply certainty? or reality?

No it does not, but you said "know".

 

[Willamena]

No it does not, but you said "know".

Yes, I did, but I was starting a new tact. Nevermind.