Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[Photonic]

What does 'open minded means?' to some people beliefe in supernaturalism, and other acitivities or theologies which defy the natural course of events are not even an act of being open minded.
this is not how I categorise open mindedness personally.

Open minded to many theists seems to be "someone who they can readily convert."

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Why is it assumed that atheists are closed minded.

It would seem to me that not accepting every ridiculous story you are told would be very open minded.

 

[work in progress]

No, you've got your definitions a bit wrong. Yes, a theist BELIEVES in a god and an atheist DOES NOT BELIEVE in a god, however, agnosticism and gnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with KNOWLEDGE. An agnostic either claims that a god is unknowable or that they do not know whether a god exists. There's no belief involved with agnosticism.

And I'd go a bit further and say that most agnostics are in fact atheists. Because when you ask if they believe that a god exists, the answer invariably will be, no, I'm agnostic. They do not believe that a god exists, and thats all that it takes to be an atheist.

I think this double definition: atheist/agnostic or Christian/agnostic etc. should be scrapped. I don't want to hear anyone calling themselves an agnostic unless they really aren't sure what to believe. Because that's what we are essentially talking about here -- beliefs, not knowledge! If someone claims to know, they're just a babbling idiot who should be ignored. Nobody knows for sure whether or not there is an intelligent force that is either part of the universe or acting upon the universe, case closed!

So all this claptrap from Dawkins and his acolytes that goes something like -- my belief claim is atheism, but my knowledge claim is agnosticism -- does is create confusion, and possibly for the purpose of denying agnostics their own separate space, and lumping them in with some broader atheist movement.

Back over a hundred years ago when Julian Huxley wrote an essay where he created the term "agnosticism" to describe his own worldview, there were atheists in academic circles, so why did he go through the trouble of creating a new definition for his own views instead of just accepting the already existing atheist label?

As for whether atheists are closed-minded, that's an impossible question to answer without knowing all of the baggage that comes along with their atheist perspective. As gets pointed out through endless repetition, atheism just defines non-belief, not a belief position; but nature abhors a vacuum, so if someone is an atheist, they still have beliefs that they use to create their worldview. Many atheists are secular humanists or naturalists or existential nihilists etc.

What I've noticed in recent years, with the advent of the internet and online virtual communities, is that there is a loosely organized activist atheist movement which has added extra philosophical baggage that doesn't directly come from being an atheist. For example, the belief that atheists should or need to unite together in some common movement to promote rationalism and work towards ending or at least confronting all forms of religion -- both moderate and fundamentalist, as an enemy force. And that's probably why the vast majority of atheists don't join atheist groups.

 

[work in progress]

What does 'open minded' means? to some people beliefe in supernaturalism, and other acitivities or theologies which defy the natural course of events are not even an act of being open minded.
this is not how I categorise open mindedness personally.

I don't believe in any supernatural concepts, but I consider open-minded regarding these beliefs, as reserving judgment that they are universally harmful and detrimental to the believers. Some supernatural beliefs are clearly harmful, some are innocuous in most situations, and some may be beneficial to some people. For an example, I'm not a big fan of the concept of immortality or life after death. I know of many situations of religious people obsessing over whether they will get to heaven or not, instead of living this life better...but, there are people who are very attached to the belief in souls and eternal life, and I don't think it's doing them any favours to try and take it away from them....especially if they are getting near to the end of their lives.

 

[Caladan]

I don't believe in any supernatural concepts, but I consider open-minded regarding these beliefs, as reserving judgment that they are universally harmful and detrimental to the believers. Some supernatural beliefs are clearly harmful, some are innocuous in most situations, and some may be beneficial to some people. For an example, I'm not a big fan of the concept of immortality or life after death. I know of many situations of religious people obsessing over whether they will get to heaven or not, instead of living this life better...but, there are people who are very attached to the belief in souls and eternal life, and I don't think it's doing them any favours to try and take it away from them....especially if they are getting near to the end of their lives.

Its beyond me why you think that any of this is relevant, or that it has anything to do with my post or even this thread. this thread is not about believers or people who have religious beliefs, it is obvious that the OP is asking about atheists.

 

[Revoltingest]

I stated that my first post

I missed it, but I'm glad to be in good company.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the emotions involved with being an Atheist.
Myself, I have had a religious experience that left me stoked. I'm all pumped up. I'm closed minded.
An Atheist has found no evidence for God and has reached an anti-climatic realization that there is no God. I see no comparison of the level of emotion that is involved here.

No emotion or religious experiences here.

I don't believe an Atheist is closed minded, but I'm not sure why the absence of proof equates that there is no God.

For most of us, disbelief in gods is speculative.
After all, we can't prove there isn't an undetectable supreme being.
I subscribe to Occam's Razor, & eschew superfluous explanations.

There is absence of proof of quantum physics too following that logic.

One can perform all sorts of tests upon scientific assertions.
This is why so many theories have been discarded as new evidence arrives & our understanding improves.
Quantum physics still makes useful & reliable predictions....but even it is still a work in progress.

Honestly, lack of proof is just that, lack of proof. It does not prove or disprove anything.
The honest logician should have no choice but to be Agnostic.

Disbelief in gods requires no logic whatsoever, nor is honesty in question.
I can't speak for all, but many of us atheists are also agnostic.

Does this help?

 

[Iti oj]

No we are/they are not... and that's the end of the story.....but seriously. its about context and claim.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Atheism and agnisticism address two different issues. Atheism addresses belief while agnosticism addresses knowledge. It's possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic because they aren't mutually exclusive. But don't conflate the two as if they are the same type of thing. So, to answer your question, no. There is nothing close minded about not believing a claim for which evidence is not sufficient to accept the claim.

Yea... what you said....:yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

One could say that the atheist has simply gone to the next logical step, or that they have simply stopped trying to look. Even as an agnostic, I would not call atheists "close minded" or any similar slur.

The atheist opens the box. Looks in and sees that it is empty. Then reaches in and feels around. Still nothing. Runs the box through a metal detector, a CT scanner, and chemically analyzes the cardboard of the box itself. Upon still finding nothing, the atheist has cast the box aside as being truly empty.

We do that as well as look outside the box and we still find nothing so we reach a logical conclusion that gods are the construct of the minds of men and until evidence is put forth to substantiate the claims that gods exist we simply take the default position to not have a belief in gods. Personally I was born Atheist and was never a believer nor was I ever indoctrinated into one set belief but took it upon myself to get an understanding as to what others believe.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Disbelief in gods requires no logic whatsoever, nor is honesty in question.
I can't speak for all, but many of us atheists are also agnostic.

Does this help?

No it does not. :sorry1:

I can understand why people don't believe in God. That is Agnostic.

Atheism is much different, It holds a stronger conviction. It means to them that there is no God period.

I don't think you can be both Atheists and Agnostic.

If you believe there is absolutely no way God exists and Theists are wrong, you are an Atheist.

If you are not sure either way, you are Agnostic.

I'm going out on a limb here, I would say that there are less Atheists than folk realize.

The Agnostic does not have to prove anything because they don't pass judgement on either side.

I follow that lack of proof equals non belief, but if you go further and state that there is no God, you have made a statement now and the burden of proof is on you.

When you believe or disbelieve with no evidence for your position you are making an emotional decision not a rational decision.

 

[Reverend Rick]

When you say you believe or don't believe, there is no burden of proof.

When you state positively that there is or is not a God, you now have the burden of proof to back up your statement.

If you say there is no God, your an Atheist. If you don't believe in God but offer no proof, you are an Agnostic.

Theists should bare the same burden. You can believe in anything you like, but when you speak in absolutes you should be required to have proof.

I can say I believe in God, I cannot absolutely say there is a God

 

[Revoltingest]

No it does not. :sorry1:
I can understand why people don't believe in God. That is Agnostic.
Atheism is much different, It holds a stronger conviction. It means to them that there is no God period.
I don't think you can be both Atheists and Agnostic.
If you believe there is absolutely no way God exists and Theists are wrong, you are an Atheist.
If you are not sure either way, you are Agnostic.

You use different definitions then.
I believe there are no gods.
I also believe that no rich uncle will die & leave me a fortune tomorrow.
I have no certainty about either, but neither have I been shown wrong yet.
As I said, such beliefs are speculative.
I am an atheist, but I'm also an agnostic, since I cannot verify there are no gods.

When you believe or disbelieve with no evidence for your position you are making an emotional decision not a rational decision.

I don't see it as emotional at all. Again, I see that Occam's razor is useful (based upon experience), so I apply it.
Seems rational to me.
Irrationality would be certainty about the unprovable.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Irrationality would be certainty about the unprovable.

Unless you had a personal experience, I agree.

You see, I acknowledge that a personal experience is not proof positive so I do not state that there is a God and you should worship him.

I have a personal relationship with God, your mileage may vary.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unless you had a personal experience, I agree.
You see, I acknowledge that a personal experience is not proof positive so I do not state that there is a God and you should worship him.
I have a personal relationship with God, your mileage may vary.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Oh, wait....I forgot where I am.
You're a loon...a buffoon....a poopie head....a blithering poodle walker!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sounds reasonable to me.

Oh, wait....I forgot where I am.
You're a loon...a buffoon....a poopie head....a blithering poodle walker!

POODLE WALKER??? That's where I draw the line :slap:

 

[Revoltingest]

POODLE WALKER??? That's where I draw the line :slap:

You walk the line....with a poodle.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You walk the line....with a poodle.

Your shield of the Jester is well earned sir. :yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

When you say you believe or don't believe, there is no burden of proof.

True

When you state positively that there is or is not a God, you now have the burden of proof to back up your statement.

True...but as you can see, using your own logic, is if the person says it (categorically)...but the pendulum swings both ways you know...

If you don't believe in God but offer no proof, you are an Agnostic.

Can you clarify?....because I don't believe in gods yet I'm an Atheist.

There are plenty of gods from other religions you don't believe in yet you're still a Christian...

Theists should bare the same burden. You can believe in anything you like, but when you speak in absolutes you should be required to have proof.

Ok...so we're waiting for your "proof"....:sad:

I can say I believe in God, I cannot absolutely say there is a God

So you don't believe that "God" exist...(absolutely)...?

Wouldn't that make you an Agnostic?

 

[Corkscrew]

When considering whether there is a biblical or religious God, I consider myself an atheist, I do not believe in man’s religion at all. I feel the whole premise is absurd and I can find no reason to entertain its possibility. But I do theorize about the possibility that there might be something unknown to us behind the energy of the universe. I cannot shut that door until we know all there is to know about our existence. The problem is how will we know when we have reached that stage?

 

[Reverend Rick]

True...but as you can see, using your own logic, is if the person says it (categorically)...but the pendulum swings both ways you know...



So you don't believe that "God" exist...(absolutely)...?

Wouldn't that make you an Agnostic?

I do not say it categorically so that make me a man of faith. If I had proof, I would not need faith.

If I said,"There is a God and you need to worship him". I should provide proof which we both know is not gong to happen.

An Agnostic has no faith. They stick to the facts which are there is no proof that God exists or not.

It is the Atheists that shout from the roof tops that there is positively no God that are the irrational group.