Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[InformedIgnorance]

Each side wants the other to try to prove their position; because both sides at least implicitly acknowledge that neither side can do so - so to make the other side prove what cannot be proven just makes them and by extension their position look less credible.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This tangent started when AmbiguousGuy objected to people "cheapening" God... IOW, he was implying that it would be wrong for anyone not to value God.

Actually, I consider it as wrong to devalue God as to devalue pepperoni on one's pizza. I like God. Most of my friends like football. We all have our natural preferences.

And I'm definitely the odd man out. Way more football fans than God fans, I think.

 

[rageoftyrael]

The emphasis there should be on the word ALL I believe CO.

Evidence might easily contradict a specific supernatural belief or even a series of beliefs, however to rule out all potential supernatural beliefs would require evidence of extraordinary scope and of incontestable validity - most if not all agnostics and theists would claim there is no evidence sufficient to rule out ALL supernatural beliefs. For that reason, to rule out the possibility that ANY supernatural belief is potentially valid is likely to rely on premises or reasoning that has insufficient evidence and is therefore a poorly constructed position - one not open to the possibility of fallibility and therefore close-minded.

Lol, you act as if all atheists discount all supernatural elements. I personally don't believe that anything is actually, "supernatural", but i don't have any problem believing that things that are considered supernatural might exist. Like ghosts, for example. I would just be trying to figure out how it works, if it works, etc...

Also, i notice you seem to think that atheists do things the way described here. I don't think most atheists discount all supernatural beliefs, just because there is evidence that one of them may be wrong. Of course, it only seems logical that after several supernatural claims have essentially been proven wrong, that a person would become skeptical, and that much less likely to believe a claim of the supernatural. Doesn't mean they would say it was wrong, or a lie, outright, they just aren't likely to believe, which, so long as they stay open to the facts presented to them, isn't actually a problem. Cause remember, it's the person making the claim who has to prove that claim. Everyone else can just sit back and wait till they do.... and of course, poke holes in any "evidence" that is brought forward, lol.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Actually, I consider it as wrong to devalue God as to devalue pepperoni on one's pizza. I like God. Most of my friends like football. We all have our natural preferences.

And I'm definitely the odd man out. Way more football fans than God fans, I think.

You simply have to understand this. If i don't believe that god exists, than there isn't really any reason for me to value god, is there? Besides, near as i can tell, if there is a god, he isn't doing much, so you aren't really doing anything except valuing the idea of god.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That was in response to WiP's post with the emphasis on the word all, therefore my comments were in regards to that mindset.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You simply have to understand this. If i don't believe that god exists, than there isn't really any reason for me to value god, is there?

Well, no. If you don't value God, then I see no reason for you to value God.

I'm a little curious about the way you have phrased your statement. Can I ask you a couple of questions which might help me understand?

Do you believe in justice? If you don't believe that justice exists, then there's obviously no reason for you to value justice, is there?

Besides, near as i can tell, if there is a god, he isn't doing much, so you aren't really doing anything except valuing the idea of god.

I lost my belief in the Santa Claus God as a very young child. It doesn't cross my mind that God might be capable of thinking thoughts, much less performing actions.

Can Justice think a thought?

Do we ever value anything other than the idea of that thing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, no. If you don't value God, then I see no reason for you to value God.

I'm a little curious about the way you have phrased your statement. Can I ask you a couple of questions which might help me understand?

Do you believe in justice? If you don't believe that justice exists, then there's obviously no reason for you to value justice, is there?

I think the way you've worded that may be confusing things a bit.

Justice exists as a concept whether or not it's actualized in the real world. It means something to believe in justice, even in an unjust world.

Now... are you using the same dichotomy between the concept and the thing with God? I mean, one of the roles I think God fills is that he's the personification of human ideals (or at least the ideals of the worshipper)... and I suppose that as an expression of these ideals, God could be valued whether or not he actually exists as a physical thing.

Is that kind of what you're getting at? Are you trying to suggest a value for God independent of the factual question of his existence?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think the way you've worded that may be confusing things a bit.

I'm sure you're right. My words and concepts often confuse people. I think it's the price of being a theologian, while my detractors think I'm simply confused. Only God knows, I guess.

Justice exists as a concept whether or not it's actualized in the real world. It means something to believe in justice, even in an unjust world.

I agree with that.

Now... are you using the same dichotomy between the concept and the thing with God? I mean, one of the roles I think God fills is that he's the personification of human ideals (or at least the ideals of the worshipper)... and I suppose that as an expression of these ideals, God could be valued whether or not he actually exists as a physical thing.

Yes, except I don't include the 'ideals' thing in my musings about God. But you are on track with the rest of it. There's the word, the concept, and the (purported) referent. Three different things in my way of conceiving it.

Is that kind of what you're getting at? Are you trying to suggest a value for God independent of the factual question of his existence?

Yes. It's why I use the parallel word 'justice' sometimes. I no more believe in the 'existence' of God than I believe in the existence of justice. Neither of them are things which takes up physical space, in my view of it.

But we can still value and discuss both of them. Hoping not to offend anyone too badly, I consider the Santa Claus God to be a primitive conception which I'd like to see left behind along with holy words (scriptures), magic (prophecy, miracles), Joseph-Smith-style prophets, and other remnants of earlier religious beliefs.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Well, i'll be honest. There is most likely no explanation you can give me of "god" that i'll value. Why? Because if god isn't a being of some sort, and is simply an idea or a value, or what have you, then why call it god? Why not simply call it justice, as your analogy implies? I value justice, honesty, integrity, etc. And while these are worthwhile ideas, and or values, i see no reason to label them god.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Actually, I consider it as wrong to devalue God........

I lost my belief in the Santa Claus God as a very young child. It doesn't cross my mind that God might be capable of thinking thoughts, much less performing actions.

So you place value on "God"....but not on Santa...?

What is the difference....?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So you place value on "God"....but not on Santa...?

What is the difference....?

I don't know. Santa just isn't very sexy for me, while God is the sexiest word in my vocabulary. Maybe God's sexiness has to do with his vague, mysterious nature. Maybe it's because God can be seen as central to the whole meaning of life and the universe, while Santa is a red-suited reindeer-riding gnome.

Hard to say, really, what makes one thing sexy and another not.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, i'll be honest. There is most likely no explanation you can give me of "god" that i'll value.

OK. Thankfully, I have no interest in explaining God to you in a way which will make you value God. You'd have to beg me before I'd do that.

Why? Because if god isn't a being of some sort, and is simply an idea or a value, or what have you, then why call it god?

Why call justice 'justice'?

Why not simply call it justice, as your analogy implies?

Huh? You think of God and justice as the same things?

I'm afraid you've lost me here. I don't know what you mean.

I value justice, honesty, integrity, etc. And while these are worthwhile ideas, and or values, i see no reason to label them god.

I think it would be most strange, even bizarre, to label those ideas as 'God'.

So I guess we agree.

 

[D-MITCH777]

How about it, what is the difference between the two?

This is how I would define them

Atheist= Someone that comes to the conclusion that based upon the evidence we have so far, there is no God/creator.

Agnostic=Someone that comes to the conclusion that based upon the evidence we have so far, they can concluded whether or not there is a God/creator.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is how I would define them

Atheist= Someone that comes to the conclusion that based upon the evidence we have so far, there is no God/creator.

Agnostic=Someone that comes to the conclusion that based upon the evidence we have so far, they can concluded whether or not there is a God/creator.

Finally, a post I can work with.

An Agnostic does not believe or disbelieve based on the same lack of evidence that an Atheist has to conclude God does not exist.

Do you use the same qualifiers for quantum physics?

My only point is, the Agnostic is the only group that employs pure logic with no speculation.

 

[idav]

Finally, a post I can work with.

An Agnostic does not believe or disbelieve based on the same lack of evidence that an Atheist has to conclude God does not exist.

Do you use the same qualifiers for quantum physics?

My only point is, the Agnostic is the only group that employs pure logic with no speculation.

But do you see that the agnostic in that definition did not really come to a conclusion while the atheist is concluding based on current evidence. Based on current evidence is an acknowledgement that there are still unknowns. I do see your point that making a conclusion before all evidence is available is a bit illogical, which is one reason I'm not atheist, but the trend is on the side of the atheist so it is a valid prediction. Not to speak for atheists but it seems like they are saying that evidence will not be found now or in the future because it doesn't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Finally, a post I can work with.

An Agnostic does not believe or disbelieve based on the same lack of evidence that an Atheist has to conclude God does not exist.

Do you use the same qualifiers for quantum physics?

My only point is, the Agnostic is the only group that employs pure logic with no speculation.

That makes it sound like inference and "pure logic" are mutually exclusive things.

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you: Bob tells us that he has a pet dog. While we're visiting his house, we don't see any dog. We also don't see any dog food, water bowls, dog hair on the furniture, droppings in the yard, or photos of the dog, despite seeing the whole house.

You ask Bob if he still has the dog. "Of course! He's right here in the house!"

All we have to inform our opinion of whether Bob has a dog is Bob's say-so and a lack of evidence for an actual dog. And despite what we've seen, I say to you, "I'm still open to the idea that Bob has a dog, and no amount of dog-free house or lack of dog is ever going to convince me otherwise."

Now... keeping in mind that lack of evidence can itself be evidence (as in the case of the dog-free house), would you say that I would be open-minded or closed- minded to the evidence by taking that position?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My only point is, the Agnostic is the only group that employs pure logic with no speculation.

Not believing something requires no speculation. It simply requires not holding a belief.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Not believing something requires no speculation. It simply requires not holding a belief.

Exactly, it requires non-belief. The truth is, we don't know for sure.

The big bang for instance. Nothing just goes bang for no reason. What caused the bang? Something right? The truth of the matter is, we just don't know.

 

[Willamena]

It requires withholding belief.

 

[riley2112]

It requires withholding belief.

Please correct me if I am wrong, But in order to withhold something don't you need to have it?