Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[riley2112]

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 see weak theist all of the time but you are right about one thing none of them what to be identified as one. But what would you call someone that Believes in God but doubts the Holy book, be it the Bible or whatever it may be?

 

[Trimijopulos]

But what would you call someone that Believes in God but doubts the Holy book, be it the Bible or whatever it may be?

I will answer that question, if you don’t mind.
I would call him a believer in theology and not in God. Today’s theologians’ God resides in the outskirts of the universe and not in the holy scriptures.

In every generation of the past, theologians’ gods were always a step ahead of the ordinary gods of their time. In essence, the definition for God varies with time.
Creation of people according to the ancient Near Eastern theology, for example, was originally realized by a goddess whom the gods summoned for the job. Later, when the ancient theologians decided to dispense with the goddess, a god was producing offspring through masturbation and when sex eventually was entirely banned, the god was creating humans in the potter’s wheel.

So, when we are arguing for or against the existence of God we are referring to today’s God who will definitely not exist for the people of the next or the one after the next generation.

 

[riley2112]

I will answer that question, if you don’t mind.
I would call him a believer in theology and not in God. Today’s theologians’ God resides in the outskirts of the universe and not in the holy scriptures.

In every generation of the past, theologians’ gods were always a step ahead of the ordinary gods of their time. In essence, the definition for God varies with time.
Creation of people according to the ancient Near Eastern theology, for example, was originally realized by a goddess whom the gods summoned for the job. Later, when the ancient theologians decided to dispense with the goddess, a god was producing offspring through masturbation and when sex eventually was entirely banned, the god was creating humans in the potter’s wheel.

So, when we are arguing for or against the existence of God we are referring to today’s God who will definitely not exist for the people of the next or the one after the next generation.

I think I am more confused that before.:sad:Here is how I feel and think about God and the way man deals with Him. First and foremost , I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in heaven, I have doubts about hell. However I believe in Satan, the devil ,whatever you call him. The problem I have with all of this is the fact that man seems to make God into whatever fits what they want. The Bible has so many terrible things in it that I find it hard to accept it came from a God that is loving and merciful . It is like Jesus died and man could not wait to take the words of Jesus/God and twist them around in a way that would benefit themselves to gain money , power , and control over those that just wanted to worship God.
Or am I guilty of just trying to make God into something that I can deal with. If that is true then I am no better.

 

[Photonic]

I think I am more confused that before.:sad:Here is how I feel and think about God and the way man deals with Him. First and foremost , I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in heaven, I have doubts about hell. However I believe in Satan, the devil ,whatever you call him. The problem I have with all of this is the fact that man seems to make God into whatever fits what they want. The Bible has so many terrible things in it that I find it hard to accept it came from a God that is loving and merciful . It is like Jesus died and man could not wait to take the words of Jesus/God and twist them around in a way that would benefit themselves to gain money , power , and control over those that just wanted to worship God.
Or am I guilty of just trying to make God into something that I can deal with. If that is true then I am no better.

Almost everything you've heard about Satan or Hell is made up. Hell is a place where Lucifer went, not a place he rules over. The serpent in the book of Genesis was never seen as lucifer until fairly recently. It was just a deception figure. Satan is actually "The Satan" from the book of Job, a word that means "the accuser." The Satan is Job's prosecutor and the Goel (redeemer) is the equivalent of his defense attorney.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I will answer that question, if you don’t mind.
I would call him a believer in theology and not in God. Today’s theologians’ God resides in the outskirts of the universe and not in the holy scriptures.

In every generation of the past, theologians’ gods were always a step ahead of the ordinary gods of their time. In essence, the definition for God varies with time.
Creation of people according to the ancient Near Eastern theology, for example, was originally realized by a goddess whom the gods summoned for the job. Later, when the ancient theologians decided to dispense with the goddess, a god was producing offspring through masturbation and when sex eventually was entirely banned, the god was creating humans in the potter’s wheel.

So, when we are arguing for or against the existence of God we are referring to today’s God who will definitely not exist for the people of the next or the one after the next generation.

A most excellent message, dtango. You nailed it. Redefining God is an honorable and necessary vocation, I think.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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

Hi, Nakosis. Keep in mind that I don’t believe in atheists. So to my eyes, your question looks like this: “If Nakosis believes in two gods, would that incline AmbigGuy to label him as an atheist?”

And my answer is No. I’d most likely consider you a theist. But that would depend on the nature of your gods. I’d have to hear you go on and on about them before deciding whether they look like actual gods to me. I believe in all sorts of God conceptions, but I’m also very comfortable calling myself an atheist.

Anyway, I would tend to accept whatever you claimed yourself to be. If you claimed atheism, I would almost certainly accept you as an atheist.

I think the common usage of the term atheist means an active disbelief or denial of any God existing.

But what’s a God? Do you mean that the atheist must deny the word God itself? Or deny any possible conception behind the word God?

You can try to redefine the term and I think this is what some Atheists try to do.

Not in my experience. Most atheists simply deny the common understanding of God. They reject That Guy In The Bible.

Theologians redefine God. Some theologians, like me, redefine God in such radical new ways that we encounter lots of difficulty in communication.

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.

What’s a God? Can you define it for me?

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.

Yes, it’s why I come to this sort of place. In front of a general audience, I can’t talk about God the way I can here.

 

[waitasec]

Because open-mindedness isn't jumping off one horse and getting on another. It's, having been on both horses, being able to jump on either horse.

i've been on both horses...
the horse i'm riding on now seem to be more agreeable with my rhythm

 

[crystalonyx]

Just because you were open at one point does not mean that you will continue to be; it is possible to be open minded and embrace an idea and become close minded over time to alternate ideas. That is what the 'strong' indicates, if you are an atheist, theist or even an agnostic (yes! I am talking to you close minded agnostics out there, insisting that proof one way or the other is impossible, strong agnosticism is almost as close minded as strong atheism or strong theism, it is just the emphasis of what they believe is CERTAINTY is different, in theists or atheists it is about the existence of 'God' for a strong agnostic it is the incapacity for proof - I am strongly agnostic by the way)

Maybe true, but one must eventually settle on some belief and stick with it, otherwise you would constantly be wavering back and forth between beliefs your entire life.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well, you could maintain a position weak agnosticism indefinitely without too much trouble (and still never be a strong agnostic if you maintain open to the possibility that proof might be possible).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many people have implied that my definitions where way off base.

In a binary world, there would be Theist and Atheist. Once we start to expand, Agnostic becomes an option. One would think that would be good enough.

It is good enough. The two labels "theist" and "atheist" are mutually exclusive and completely exhaustive: IMO, every single person in the world is either an atheist or a theist, is not both, and is not neither.

All the other labels we use are just a matter of applying nuance, or of categorizing the world according to things other than belief in gods.

Why do we not have weak and strong Theists?

Because theism is a positive claim that has to be explicitly accepted if it's going to be held at all. IOW, a "weak theist" (with "weak" in the sense of "implicit", not as in "wishy-washy" or something like that) is an impossibility.

It seems silly to me to have so many different non-beliefs.

It is almost like we have as many people as we have beliefs.

What on earth would be the difference between a Weak Atheist and a Strong Agnostic? Would it be that hard to choose between the two and eliminate one?

Weak agnostic: "the question of God's existence is unanswerable in the here-and-now."
Strong agnostic: "the question of God's existence is fundamentally unanswerable."

 

[gnostic]

Not believing in a claim doesn't make one close minded.

I would be more than happy to believe in a God as soon as there is sufficient evidence of his existence.

Since none exists, I take the default position of not accepting a claim that can't be substantiated.

I'll second that.

Instead of being atheist, I'm an agnostic. My default position is that he doesn't exist, unless evidences are available to prove it. It is called "empirical agnostic" or "weak agnostic". He is a definition for this type of agnosticism, as given by Wikipedia:

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

My agnosticism is that skeptic agnostic.

 

[Trimijopulos]

I think I am more confused that before.

[...]
Here is how I feel and think about God and the way man deals with Him. First and foremost , I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in heaven, I have doubts about hell. However I believe in Satan, the devil ,whatever you call him. The problem I have with all of this is the fact that man seems to make God into whatever fits what they want.

If you believe in God and you want to keep your faith, you should stop asking questions.
If you have no real need of the God you believe in and you want to know and evaluate the concepts of heaven, hell, afterlife and Devil, you should buy a book published by the Princeton University Press: “Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament”
It is a rather expensive book and a large one, 700 pages of A4 size, but you will learn that all the Christian concepts and ideas predate Christianity.

As an example, lets us consider original sin.
In a Sumerian poetic essay entitled “Lamentation to a man’s god” there is a verse that reads:

Never was a sinless child born to its mother

The poem is a Sumerian variation of the “Job” motif. ”The Sumerians, like all peoples throughout the ages, were troubled by the problem of the human sufferings, particularly relative to its rather enigmatic causes and potential remedies,” writes the translator of the cuneiform script, S.N.Kramer, and continues: ”The main thesis of our poet is that in cases of suffering and adversity, no matter how seemly unjustified, the victim has but one valid and effective recourse, and that is to continually glorify his god and keep wailing and lamenting before him until he turns a favourable ear to his prayers”. As you see not only original sin, but the story of Job in the OT is but a copy of a preexisting theological idea.

“Devil” or “Satan” comes right out of the Egyptian funerary texts and although he is the enemy of the gods, in essence he is their victim because in the funerary texts the gods regard as their enemies those whom they don’t like for being inferior. That is, for having been created inferior by the same gods who eventually kill him not because he is a sinner but an inferior creature, the result of the gods’ imperfect creation!!

Am I helping?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Or am I guilty of just trying to make God into something that I can deal with. If that is true then I am no better.

Everyone of us has flaws. The one thing we all have in common is we all are searching for truth.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you believe in God and you want to keep your faith, you should stop asking questions.

That goes for everyone, religious and non-religious alike. If you want to keep any of your current faith, stop asking questions.

 

[Panda]

I've not read through the entire thread so sorry if this has already came up but could we not say the same about theists? By not accepting the possibility there may not be a deity isn't that just as "close minded" as saying there is not one?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is good enough. The two labels "theist" and "atheist" are mutually exclusive and completely exhaustive: IMO, every single person in the world is either an atheist or a theist, is not both, and is not neither.

Hey, Penguin. Can I ask if you think the same way about Christians, just as an example? Can a person be a Christian and a non-Christian at the same time?

What about liberal and conservative? Can I be both at once, in your view?

 

[riley2112]

If you believe in God and you want to keep your faith, you should stop asking questions.


Am I helping?

Yes , I do believe you are being of help. I will inquiry about the books you mentioned. As for me believing in God, I do. As for me stopping the questions, I think I will keep asking. If God is truth , then no matter how many questions I ask , at the end of it all God will be there. If not, then He was never true to Begin with. That is my quest and I must know. I only wished I knew why it was so important to me. Because other than that I am a normal guy , married , raising kids, trying to meet the mortgage. But the idea of God seems to burn in my mind. Oh well, it will be what it will be. Thank you for the information you have shown me.

 

[riley2112]

That goes for everyone, religious and non-religious alike. If you want to keep any of your current faith, stop asking questions.

Keeping your faith means to me believing what is true. As Rev. Rick said, we are all seeking the truth. Without the true , nothing is important.

 

[riley2112]

I've not read through the entire thread so sorry if this has already came up but could we not say the same about theists? By not accepting the possibility there may not be a deity isn't that just as "close minded" as saying there is not one?

Yea , I think you are right on the mark there. I am sure that there are many theists that will believe ,no matter what evidence you could show them that God exists. I think the only problem with it, is the fact that , well, how can you prove there is no God, you can't. Just like at this time, You can not prove there is.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I've not read through the entire thread so sorry if this has already came up but could we not say the same about theists? By not accepting the possibility there may not be a deity isn't that just as "close minded" as saying there is not one?

While this thread was not supposed to be about Theists, I have readly admitted I am just as closed minded if not more.

My position is, both Theists and Atheists have the same degree of open mindedness and logically Agnostics hold the monopoly on open mindedness.