Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[AmbiguousGuy]

I respect what you are saying, but this seems much more common with non-belief than belief.

I dont see weak Theists for example or a least people who want to be identified as such anyway.

I agree with your assessment. Theism is usually about faith -- being proud of one's faith. I am strong in the Lord! is ambiguous, but I interpret it as an exclamation of my dedication to the lord. I have great faith.

A weak theist? Nay, never.

 

[Reverend Rick]

All this talk about being open minded if any proof comes along is intellectually dishonest.

Being a man of faith, I do not expect this proof to come along, so if someone does not have faith, just how much faith do they have any proof is going to come along?

They say they are waiting at a bus stop where there has never been a bus come this way.

They want to appear to be open minded, but my position is, if they have an open mind about this, they are Agnostic.

Atheism should be the polar opposite of Theism.

Agnostics can hold the position that they don't believe in God because they don't see any proof or disproof.

It is my position that many folks who call themselves Atheists are in fact Agnostics.

If you have an open mind, your most likely an Agnostic who does not believe in God.

People can pretend they have an open mind, but when they ask for proof positive that they know is not going to happen, that is an exercise in mental masterbation.

 

[Revoltingest]

A request:
Could we replace "intellectual dishonesty" with "intellectual discrepency"?

 

[9Westy9]

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

Atheism is a position on belief. Agnostic is on how strong the belief is.

Atheism - I don't believe in a god.

Agnosticism - I don't believe it can be known, or is currently known, either way

This can be seen by the existence of agnostic atheism and agnostic theism.

 

[Reverend Rick]

A request:
Could we replace "intellectual dishonesty" with "intellectual discrepency"?

If you could explain the difference I might be able to answer.

Just for clarification, I believe many Atheists may be very open minded people in general, just not on this issue with few exceptions.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you could explain the difference I might be able to answer.

"Dishonesty" is an attempt to deceive.
"Discrepancy" is simply conflict between statements. It might or might not be the result of dishonesty. It avoids a judgmental connotation.

Just for clarification, I believe many Atheists may be very open minded people in general, just not on this issue with few exceptions.

I already know that yer just big soft new agey sensitive multicultural guy.

 

[Reverend Rick]

"Dishonesty" is an attempt to deceive.
"Discrepancy" is simply conflict between statements. It might or might not be the result of dishonesty. It avoids a judgmental connotation.

Yes, I can change my statement to Discrepancy.

I already know that yer just big soft new agey sensitive multicultural guy.

I am just a man with many faults who tries his best to do right in this world with fairness and honesty. I also have a low tollerance for B.S.

 

[Trimijopulos]

What is an atheist? Well, he or she is a guy who would assent to the following statement: [fill in the statement, just be sure it's got the word 'God' in it and some kind of rejection of that word.]

[Τhe God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully]!!

And once you create that set of words, you'll start getting disagreement. Atheists will start falling away from (your definition of) atheism until there are only a couple of them left in the world.

I guess you are right!
Things, however, could have been different if in the above description of God Dawkins had omitted the phrase “in all fiction” and you have omitted the phrase “some kind of rejection of that word.”

What if instead of believing that such a God cannot exist, atheists believed that he once –at the time of the ancestors who wrote OT and before- he did?

It sounds paranoiac but truly believing in the description of the God as it is found in the OT, one can be a strong atheist.

P.S. someone please could tell where to click in order to create a signature?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I can change my statement to Discrepancy.

My request was to all.
No need to change existing posts.

I am just a man with many faults who tries his best to do right in this world with fairness and honesty. I also have a low tollerance for B.S.

Yer OK.

 

[Reverend Rick]

P.S. someone please could tell where to click in order to create a signature?

Click on User CP and look to the left for signature option

 

[Willamena]

It looks to me like many of you are conflicted.

I'm not --she is!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is my position that many folks who call themselves Atheists are in fact Agnostics.

OK. It's my position that no such things as atheists and agnostics (and Christians and Jews, etc.) really exist except within the personal opinion of each speaker. It's not like they are real objects out in the world.

You're saying that you want to define 'atheist' and then decide whether some particular guy fits your definition. I'm saying that I prefer to study people who call themselves atheists and form an opinion about what 'atheism' really is.

When I make that study, I conclude that most atheists are open-minded, though not all. A few of them will assert that God could not possibly exist and that nothing will ever change their minds, but only a few.

 

[bobhikes]

OK. It's my position that no such things as atheists and agnostics (and Christians and Jews, etc.) really exist except within the personal opinion of each speaker. It's not like they are real objects out in the world.

You're saying that you want to define 'atheist' and then decide whether some particular guy fits your definition. I'm saying that I prefer to study people who call themselves atheists and form an opinion about what 'atheism' really is.

When I make that study, I conclude that most atheists are open-minded, though not all. A few of them will assert that God could not possibly exist and that nothing will ever change their minds, but only a few.

I like the start but don't concur with the ending. In my study few people are truely open-minded most acccept only their definitions based on their experiences. If this isn't true there really is no reason for debating.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It sounds paranoiac but truly believing in the description of the God as it is found in the OT, one can be a strong atheist.

I agree. I don't think we can talk about theism/atheism in any detail without first defining God. What sense does it make to argue over embracing/rejecting God unless we can agree on the meaning of God?

As the atheists sometimes say, "We're both atheists; I just believe in one less God than you do."

As for the OT God... yeah, He's an easy One to reject.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In my study few people are truely open-minded most acccept only their definitions based on their experiences. If this isn't true there really is no reason for debating.

Hi, Bob. Maybe the point of debate is to see whether the other guy has better definitions and a better way of integrating them than we do.

 

[bobhikes]

Hi, Bob. Maybe the point of debate is to see whether the other guy has better definitions and a better way of integrating them than we do.

That would be discussing.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That would be discussing.

Well, that would depend on one's personal definition of 'discuss' vs. 'debate'.

 

[bobhikes]

Well, that would depend on one's personal definition of 'discuss' vs. 'debate'.

You understand. :clap

 

[Nakosis]

I agree. I don't think we can talk about theism/atheism in any detail without first defining God. What sense does it make to argue over embracing/rejecting God unless we can agree on the meaning of God?

As the atheists sometimes say, "We're both atheists; I just believe in one less God than you do."

Yes, but say you believe in three Gods and I believe in only two. Does that make me an atheist?

As for the OT God... yeah, He's an easy One to reject.

I think the common usage of the term atheist means an active disbelief or denial of any God existing. You can try to redefine the term and I think this is what some Atheists try to do. However I think in common use it means disbelief in the existence of any God. I think originally the term meant someone who denies God's existence.

While people can try to redefine the term, it's probably best to stick with its commonly understood meaning in dealing with a general audience.

 

[Tristesse]

All this talk about being open minded if any proof comes along is intellectually dishonest.

No, it's not. Is there any other area in your life, where asking for evidence of a claim would be intellectually dishonest? Particularly a claim of this magnitude.

Being a man of faith, I do not expect this proof to come along, so if someone does not have faith, just how much faith do they have any proof is going to come along?

I reject faith(as I define it) as useful or good. So, why would you need faith to believe this claim, especially, when you consider that if the claim of a god is true, this would massively effect the way science operates etc... If anything, this claim of a god would need massively more evidence for it's existence than almost anything else. But you're saying that in this one area, faith is required. That to me, this seems dishonest.

They want to appear to be open minded, but my position is, if they have an open mind about this, they are Agnostic.

Again. rick, the two claims are not mutually exclusive. I'll give you an example. Person A says that a god exists, I say whats your evidence for this, and if they fail to convince me, I do not believe their claim. Person B says that no god exists, I say whats your evidence for that, and if they fail to convince me, I don't believe that claim either. This makes me an atheist, I do not believe that a god exists, anything else I might claim is irrelevant because I just said that I don't believe a god exists. but I also don't claim to know, which is agnosticism. You can be both.

Atheism should be the polar opposite of Theism.

Well, in a way it kind of is. A theist believes that a god exist and an atheist is unconvinced of that claim.

Agnostics can hold the position that they don't believe in God because they don't see any proof or disproof.

Rick, why is this so difficult for you to grasp? You don't use agnostic and belief and link them together, because as I've explained, agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it's about knowledge. Atheism is a belief position.

It is my position that many folks who call themselves Atheists are in fact Agnostics.

You can be both, because one deals with knowledge while the other deals with belief. Give you another example. Someone askes, do you believe in a god? My answer is no. Then they ask, do you know whether or not a god exists? My answer again is, no. This makes me an atheist with regard to belief, but an agnostic with regard to knowledge. Make sense?

If you have an open mind, your most likely an Agnostic who does not believe in God.

What you just described is an atheist. Stop strawmanning atheism as an asertion that no gods exist. And stop misrepresenting agnosticism as a belief claim, it's not.

People can pretend they have an open mind, but when they ask for proof positive that they know is not going to happen, that is an exercise in mental masterbation.

How do you know that "no proof" will be forthcoming? If people claim that a god exists, and we normaly have evidence for things that exist, why would a god be exempt from that requirement? Unless people who believe in this god have a really weird definition of exist.