Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[waitasec]

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.

how to you interpret shouting from the roof tops?

is it because it is the antithesis of theism.
from what i gather, you know where an atheists stands as on as you would know where a theist stands...it's the fuzzy middle that seems to blur the focus of ones convictions

 

[Reverend Rick]

how to you interpret shouting from the roof tops?

is it because it is the antithesis of theism.
from what i gather, you know where an atheists stands as on as you would know where a theist stands...it's the fuzzy middle that seems to blur the focus of one convictions

In the middle is sanity. The Agnostic uses perfect logic. People who stick to belief and disbelief still have their head on straight.

It is the people who try to covert others by stating they hold exact truth are the liars at worst and deceivers at best.

To state something as fact with no proof is idiotic on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the middle is sanity. The Agnostic uses perfect logic. People who stick to belief and disbelief still have their head on straight.
It is the people who try to covert others by stating they hold exact truth are the liars at worst and deceivers at best.
To state something as fact with no proof is idiotic on both sides of the isle.

Fortunately, absolutely certain atheists are a rarity.
But I really hate fundamentalist agnostics....nothing to say, but they yell it at the top of their lungs!

 

[waitasec]

In the middle is sanity.

i don't want to be sane, to me that's mediocrity for lack of a better word...

edit:
maybe plain / normal are better words

The Agnostic uses perfect logic. People who stick to belief and disbelief still have their head on straight.

question, and i'm not trying to be cute, are you saying you are an agnostic theist?

It is the people who try to covert others by stating they hold exact truth are the liars at worst and deceivers at best.

so standing up with the courage of ones convictions is an act of converting others? wouldn't that assume that the others are not convinced of their own ideas?

To state something as fact with no proof is idiotic on both sides of the isle.

i don't know...at least you can look each other in the eye with a mutual respect that allows for both parties to say,"you're wrong"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Fortunately, absolutely certain atheists are a rarity.

And this is what I was thinking....It seems to be a generalization on his part that "Atheists that shout from the roof tops that there is positively no God....."

 

[Reverend Rick]

question, and i'm not trying to be cute, are you saying you are an agnostic theist?

No

so standing up with the courage of ones convictions is an act of converting others? wouldn't that assume that the others are not convinced of their own ideas?

It would be best to not assume anything. Just what is the courage of one's convictions? To proselytize?

i don't know...at least you can look each other in the eye with a mutual respect that allows for both parties to say,"you're wrong"

But that is not true is it? When neither side can prove anything they both look stupid to me. Never argue with a stupid person, bystanders cannot tell who is who. :no:

 

[Revoltingest]

But that is not true is it? When neither side can prove anything they both look stupid to me. Never argue with a stupid person, bystanders cannot tell who is who. :no:

A difference regarding belief without proof:
To believe that a single thing is absolutely true is one thing.
To believe that a book of thousands of things is absolutely true seems much loopier.

 

[waitasec]

No
It would be best to not assume anything. Just what is the courage of one's convictions? To proselytize?

not at all. it is to stand for ones belief just as the theist does.
the theist it +1
the atheist is -1
both are contending for the sum

But that is not true is it? When neither side can prove anything they both look stupid to me.

i wouldn't call it stupid i call it being honest.

Never argue with a stupid person, bystanders cannot tell who is who. :no:

are you saying never argue with someone who stands with their convictions that so happen to be the opposite of yours?
i don't think it's the battle of the will so much as it is the battle of persuasion when arguing an opponent when ones wits are concerned.


edit:
i'm not concerned with bystanders.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

Part of the problem is that you seem to have a strong need for the terms atheist and agnostic to each mean one, specific thing in the way that you specify. Many people use different definitions, which are all acceptable. It's difficult for a dialogue to have meaning when people are arguing different semantics. To be fair, there are people of all stripes who also seem to have a strong need for the definitions of these words to be black and white for them to fit into a scale from atheist to agnostic to theist. However, it's difficult to adequately convey your ideas when you try to force people to adapt to your semantics, which are not even the most widely used.

 

[Reverend Rick]

A difference regarding belief without proof:
To believe that a single thing is absolutely true is one thing.
To believe that a book of thousands of things is absolutely true seems much loopier.

Oh I agree. I'm still sorting through the book and working this out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh I agree. I'm still sorting through the book and working this out.

I figger you'd take a reasonable approach.

Oops...forgot again where I am.
You're utterly bonkers!
Hereafter, please just presume that my attitude is abusive & my thoughts rude.

 

[Tristesse]

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.

Thats not true. As I explained earlier, an atheist doesn't have a belief in a god. The same is true with the agnostic, they also don't hold a belief in a god. Now, that being said, there is also strong atheism and weak atheism. And yes, some atheists may say they know a god doesn't exist(strong atheism), but it very much depends on how we define knowledge, because in the same terms that it might be ok to say that I know fairies doesn't exist, then in those terms I think it would be equally ok to say I know god doesn't exist. But this doesn't mean I know for certain that a god doesn't exist, because I don't think we can know anything for certain, just like we can't know for certain that pixies don't exist.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Thats not true. And yes, some atheists may say they know a god doesn't exist(strong atheism), but it very much depends on how we define knowledge,

When you state something as fact with no proof, in my opinion you are an bafoon.

These "strong Atheists" are no better than the Bible thumpers they rail against.

If you say, "I see no reason to believe in a God" That would be Agnosticism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you say, "I see no reason to believe in a God" That would be Agnosticism.

That would actually be skepticism. Agnosticism and atheism (absence of belief in god) are merely natural conclusions of a rational skeptical worldview.

 

[Tristesse]

When you state something as fact with no proof, in my opinion you are an bafoon.

These "strong Atheists" are no better than the Bible thumpers they rail against.

If you say, "I see no reason to believe in a God" That would be Agnosticism.

Again, if they said, "I see no reason to BELIEVE in a god" that is atheism. Thats my position and I'm an atheist. Now, if they said, "the question of a god is unKNOWABLE" that would be a form of agnosticism. See the difference? Please don't make me repeat myself for the 50th time. Atheism is about belief while agnosticism is about knowledge.

 

[Quiddity]

I prefer to go with "evidence" rather than "proof", but here's how it works for me: the premise "God" creates a fair bit of expectation for evidence. When the evidence that the premise suggests should be there isn't there, then this is evidence that the premise is wrong.

Really, for me it comes down to a matter of knowledge: the theist says "God exists". While I agree that this may be coincidentally true or not, this is a separate matter from whether the theist has good reasons behind his claim. And if a claim isn't rationally supported, then there's no particular reason why I'm compelled to believe it or accept it.

So... if the claim is rational and supported, then there should be evidence to be had. And I think that aspects of the God-claim itself imply that there definitely is evidence to be had. This means that when evidence is lacking, this speaks against the validity of the claim.

Something can be rational and yet lack evidence. Once you enter the realm of philosophy (which is tied to logic, reason, and science) you have to be able to accept that priori. In fact, you can’t even do science without accepting that priori.

A bit off topic, but just sayin....

 

[Tristesse]

Something can be rational and yet lack evidence. Once you enter the realm of philosophy (which is tied to logic, reason, and science) you have to be able to accept that priori. In fact, you can’t even do science without accepting that priori.

A bit off topic, but just sayin....

It's the evidence that makes a claim rational. If a claim is lacking in evidence, then at what point is it still rational?

 

[Quiddity]

It's the evidence that makes a claim rational. If a claim is lacking in evidence, then at what point is it still rational?

Nope. There are other pervues of knowledge than the empirically attainable (which is what evidence deals with). I don't want to discuss this here and I will only tell you that you may perhaps under estimate just how much science calls upon metaphysics.

 

[Tristesse]

Nope. There are other pervues of knowledge than the empirically attainable (which is what evidence deals with). I don't want to discuss this here and I will only tell you that you may perhaps under estimate just how much science calls upon metaphysics.

Thats asinine. But perhaps is best left for a different thread.

 

[Willamena]

In the middle is sanity. The Agnostic uses perfect logic. People who stick to belief and disbelief still have their head on straight.

It is the people who try to covert others by stating they hold exact truth are the liars at worst and deceivers at best.

To state something as fact with no proof is idiotic on both sides of the aisle.

Is that a fact? hmm