Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[InformedIgnorance]

They don't believe but they don't disbelieve??

Agnosticism separates knowledge from belief; this is critical. They look at some evidence and say... well I can't be sure one way or another, it could be true, it could be false - and I believe _____

KNOWLEDGE
If they believe that that metaphysical truth cannot ever be known, by themselves or any other entity in our existence (because anything we can conceive or perceive is inherently limited to the physical existence, and any perception of the metaphysical can be attributed to other things, such as subjective emotional responses to things we do not understand) then this is part of Strong Agnosticism. On the other hand, those who believe that we might some day find a way to understand the metaphysical concept (eg 'god') are instead part of Weak Agnosticism.

BELIEF
In Agnosticism, the person believes they don't KNOW the truth, but that does not mean that they do not believe it to be true (believing it to be true yet not being certain is Agnostic Theism), they MAY believe it to be true, but they may instead believe it to be false (which is Agnostic Atheism). Then you have those who say they do not know and it really does not matter, since if there is some god out there, it seems not to involve itself in our affairs so our belief does not matter (this is Apathetic Agnosticism).



Some people also hold that Ignosticism is part of Agnosticism, but I do not hold this to be so; personally I believe that Ignosticism is more aptly described as an approach to evaluating metaphysical concepts rather than a theological position itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You persist in misinterpreting what I said. To address your point, people can communicate and share ideas.

Are you sure? I'm almost at the point where I'm ready to assume that this "what you're responding to isn't what I mean" game is part of some attempt on your part to demonstrate by practical example that we can't truly express the thoughts we have in our heads to others.

The idea rejected, i.e. not shared, is rejected for a reason.

You're begging the question. Exactly how does "rejected" imply "not shared"?

By my understanding of the terms, an idea can't be rejected UNTIL it's shared.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well that depends... sharing can imply either communication or some sort of commonality, two very different things.

 

[gnomon]

Maybe we need to break it down further.

Let's start with the letter A, spend ten threads and a few hundred posts on that, and than we can move on to the letter T. Well get the meaning of this word down eventually.






I'm just being snarky.

 

[Songbird]

Maybe we need to break it down further.

Let's start with the letter A, spend ten threads and a few hundred posts on that, and than we can move on to the letter T. Well get the meaning of this word down eventually.






I'm just being snarky.

Now that you mention it, I think most debates here seem to come down to disagreements on definitions. I had a curiously long debate with someone on another forum about using the word "skillfulness" in place of "morality", because I had negative associations with "morality"....anyway, I wonder if much of our different viewpoints are due to different experiences we attach to words, phrases, etc.

 

[Willamena]

Are you sure? I'm almost at the point where I'm ready to assume that this "what you're responding to isn't what I mean" game is part of some attempt on your part to demonstrate by practical example that we can't truly express the thoughts we have in our heads to others.

You're begging the question. Exactly how does "rejected" imply "not shared"?

By my understanding of the terms, an idea can't be rejected UNTIL it's shared.

It can't be an idea that's shared by two parties if it's been rejected by one party.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

As I mentioned, sharing can refer to mere communication of something, rather than some sort of mutual adoption.

Most of the words in the english language are polymorphic to one extent or another; getting upset because someone does not know to which particular meaning you are referring to in your use of words is not very helpful in establishing meaningful discussions - nor is getting upset because someone does not agree with your particular meaning... agree on some term to convey the particular CONCEPT you wish to discuss then use that particular term, even if you do not think it is absolutely correct in its technicalities or its implications - provided that you communicate those reservations you can still get on with it.

If someone does not seem to understand what you attempting to say (or vice versa) then check the terms used in the exchange - are they polymorphic? Can they be interpreted differently, and if they were interpreted differently, would it make sense? Then check with the other person if that is what they meant... simple no? No need for face-palming or head-desking.

 

[Willamena]

The face-palm is because he built and continues to build my argument for me, one that I'm not interested in making.

 

[Tristesse]

Actually, I can be both at once. It's easy. Let me know if you'd like to discuss it in depth.

Seeing as how that defies logic, I don't see any reason to discuss it in depth.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

You can be an atheist about particular (or even the majority of) concepts for 'god's but not an atheist - you can still believe in some concept for 'god's and therefore actually be a theist about that concept.

 

[Iti oj]

You can be an atheist about particular (or even the majority of) concepts for 'god's but not an atheist - you can still believe in some concept for 'god's and therefore actually be a theist about that concept.

I was trying to point that out at the 3rd page or so. Atheist about that/your god agnostic about a god...albeit i still have an atheist lean since i see no need for a god.

 

[Reverend Rick]

They don't believe but they don't disbelieve??

It's not that difficult. You cannot believe in something unproven but you cannot disbelieve for the same reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not that difficult. You cannot believe in something unproven but you cannot disbelieve for the same reason.

Sure I can disbelieve.
I just recognize that there's no certainty.

 

[idav]

It's not that difficult. You cannot believe in something unproven but you cannot disbelieve for the same reason.

I see no difference between not believing and disbelieving especially for an unknown being. It would be an unknown for agnostics or atheists.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You cannot believe in something unproven

Sure you can. I mean this is main theme in most religions on the planet. "God" is (unproven) yet there are believers.

but you cannot disbelieve for the same reason.

Sure I can. There is no empirical evidence for gods, angels, ghost, fairies etc...etc...thus I am a nonbeliever in such.

 

[riley2112]

Sure I can disbelieve.
I just recognize that there's no certainty.

If there is no certainty for it to be , then there is no certainty that it is not.

 

[idav]

If there is no certainty for it to be , then there is no certainty that it is not.

You don't have to be certain to believe something. You just pick the one you think is more likely.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sure you can. I mean this is main theme in most religions on the planet. "God" is (unproven) yet there are believers.

Now you are quoting me out of context. We are talking about being an Agnostic.

 

[outhouse]

It takes alot more imagination to believe in the invisible that you never touched, seen or heard.

It takes some imagination just to say your not sure about the invisible.


It doesnt take imagination at all to say people created this imagination through fear and wants and needs .

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Now you are quoting me out of context. We are talking about being an Agnostic.

Personally I don't think I did...but how does it change what I responded to..?