Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[work in progress]

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.

I figured you should be able to figure it out! An atheist who believes that all supernatural beliefs are delusional and dangerous is not going to be open-minded.

 

[Tristesse]

I figured you should be able to figure it out! An atheist who believes that all supernatural beliefs are delusional and dangerous is not going to be open-minded.

The atheist is not going to be "open-minded" to that particular thing(supernatural), however, the person making the supernatural claim has to demonstrate the truth of what their saying before we start talking about being open-minded. But If your definition of "open-minded" is accepting at face value things that are not supported by evidence, then I'm glad I'm not "open-minded" in that sense.

 

[Erebus]

when I consider how my worldview would be different if I did believe in God, I have to say that I think - at least for me - a godless worldview has more room for hope and purpose in my life than a "godly" one would have.

Now that is the best reason to be an atheist In my opinion

 

[work in progress]

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.

I agree that many people want simple definitions, and nothing is simpler than having just one definition for any given term.

For my part, my main objection to using this atheist/agnostic hybrid label is because I believe it is based on an antiquated understanding of the mind -- specifically the idea that we can have perfect knowledge about anything. Everything we understand about ourselves, others and the world around us is a belief, not knowledge. Some beliefs may have a higher degree of reliability than others, but that still does not make them absolute, so I reject any system that treats beliefs and knowledge as two separate categories, such as this atheism/agnosticism page on the Iron Chariots Wiki

The science of how are beliefs are derived is shrouded in mystery, because, as neurologist Robert Burton points out in his book: The Certainty Epidemic, and the brief Salon article highlighting the main points -- "our sense of conviction, represent the conscious experiences of unconsciously derived feelings."


My takeaway is that we can provide evidence to support our beliefs and make the case for them to others, but our beliefs are still wrapped in degrees of certainty based on sensations produced at an unconscious level. In this realm of talking about whether the Universe has a guiding force, or whether there is meaning and purpose that includes us, are questions that no one can make a legitimate knowledge claim about, so we all have beliefs from one end of the spectrum to the other, and with varying degrees of conviction that we have the right belief.

 

[work in progress]

The atheist is not going to be "open-minded" to that particular thing(supernatural), however, the person making the supernatural claim has to demonstrate the truth of what their saying before we start talking about being open-minded. But If your definition of "open-minded" is accepting at face value things that are not supported by evidence, then I'm glad I'm not "open-minded" in that sense.

There are a lot of supernatural claims that I am not open to either...likely most of them strike me as completely implausible, but my objection to supernaturalism is based on whether they cause harm to the people who accept them, or to those who reject them.

If you notice a lot of comments about believing scientists who have been active on the subject of teaching evolution -- Ken Miller and Francis Collins in particular -- you will find a lot of scorn and derision for them on many atheist discussion boards, and also for groups that support the premise that evolutionary theory does not necessarily negate someone's religious beliefs, such as the NCSE. My problem on this subject is the noisy, evangelical atheists like Dawkins, Harris, PZ Meyers, Jerry Coyne, who agree with the creationists that their religions cannot accommodate new scientific understanding, such as evolution. What sense does this sort of attitude make? If Francis Collins wants to be an Evangelical Christian, and seems to be able to do it while being on the right side of science and social issues, why is it necessary to attack his religious convictions...even if his conversion story sounds a little silly to me?

 

[theirreverentconcubine]

LHP have always intrigued me for some of their other positions ... though to be truthful I do not know so much of the ToS in terms of how it stacks up to what I have heard of other LHP, especially in terms of their position (for this thread) on singular/plural metaphysical entity(ies) as forces that supersede physical laws; as some but not all LHP seem to think such entities exist.

All us lefties seem to go for self-knowledge. The Temple of Set is a general frequency in harmony with my specific wavelength. Some Setians seem to go with agency and Set as a form of deity, while I go with Set as primal archetype; and yet this kind of individualism is encouraged by the Temple.

 

[Willamena]

How does an agnostic atheist differ from an atheist?

The atheist looks at the evidence and says, "I don't believe 'god' exists."

The agnostic atheist looks at the evidence and says, "I don't believe we can know if 'god' exists, so I can't say I believe 'god' exists."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

What you just said....

 

[Quiddity]

The atheist looks at the evidence and says, "I don't believe 'god' exists."

The agnostic atheist looks at the evidence and says, "I don't believe we can know if 'god' exists, so I can't say I believe 'god' exists."

Ok, now keep it going...

What about the agnostic theist vs. agnostic atheist?

 

[theirreverentconcubine]

There are a lot of supernatural claims that I am not open to either...likely most of them strike me as completely implausible, but my objection to supernaturalism is based on whether they cause harm to the people who accept them, or to those who reject them.

If you notice a lot of comments about believing scientists who have been active on the subject of teaching evolution -- Ken Miller and Francis Collins in particular -- you will find a lot of scorn and derision for them on many atheist discussion boards, and also for groups that support the premise that evolutionary theory does not necessarily negate someone's religious beliefs, such as the NCSE. My problem on this subject is the noisy, evangelical atheists like Dawkins, Harris, PZ Meyers, Jerry Coyne, who agree with the creationists that their religions cannot accommodate new scientific understanding, such as evolution. What sense does this sort of attitude make? If Francis Collins wants to be an Evangelical Christian, and seems to be able to do it while being on the right side of science and social issues, why is it necessary to attack his religious convictions...even if his conversion story sounds a little silly to me?

As something of a fan of Sam Harris, I'd say it is the consideration that these religious memes are inherently harmful. I disagree with Harris completely about his use of the term "faith," however. When atheists try to reduce the natural to the rational, I feel that they are stepping outside the bounds of the scientific method. Nature remains to be irrational, as people and a lack of a Higgs continues to demonstrate; but in my calculations, nature has no need of the enhancement "super." Mother Nature is all the super one needs to keep it real.

 

[Willamena]

What about the agnostic theist vs. agnostic atheist?

The theist has subscribed to a worldview that includes some component they call 'god' in the big picture, and so can say that there is deity that they believe in.

The agnostic theist has subscribed to a worldview that includes some component that they acknowledge as unknown or unknowable, but that they call 'god' or un-namable in the picture, and so can say that there is deity that they believe in.

The agnostic atheist has a much smaller worldview.

These are just my thoughts, mind you.

 

[Photonic]

The theist has subscribed to a worldview that includes some component they call 'god' in the big picture, and so can say that there is deity that they believe in.

The agnostic theist has subscribed to a worldview that includes some component that they acknowledge as unknown or unknowable, but that they call 'god' or un-namable in the picture, and so can say that there is deity that they believe in.

The agnostic atheist has a much smaller worldview.

These are just my thoughts, mind you.

I would say the opposite.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I'm really not sure how your definitions work here.

While I acknowledge philosophical limits to humanity's ability to know anything with certainty and I don't claim that I hold all the knowledge in the universe, I think that every god-concept I've ever encountered shows signs of being manmade, and for all practical purposes, I live my life as if no gods exist. Where do I fall in under your category system? I don't seem to be a good fit for either "atheist" or "agnostic" as you've defined the terms above.

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

I don't think that necessarily follows. "I have taken no position on this issue" does not exclude "I think your position is poorly thought out."

And speaking from experience here, I've seen more than one self-proclaimed agnostic who seemed to think that their position on the fence was the perfect perch from which to throw rocks at both sides.

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.

Actually, I think that the very definition of the word "god" (which can be kinda fuzzy, I know, but includes "object of worship" in every accepted definition, IMO) keeps the burden of proof on the theist. An entity that someone might worship if they knew about it except they don't because they don't is not a god.

To believe that there is no god, I only need to consider humanity's predisposition to just make up gods (which I think even a theist would have to agree with: look at all the other god-claims out there besides the one that you decided to accept as true), and, maybe, consider the specific god-claims that are presented to me directly. I think that just that is enough to be a rational basis for atheism as you've defined it.

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.

I think your definitions of the terms we're using differs pretty significantly from my definitions.

 

[Quiddity]

The theist has subscribed to a worldview that includes some component they call 'god' in the big picture, and so can say that there is deity that they believe in.

The agnostic theist has subscribed to a worldview that includes some component that they acknowledge as unknown or unknowable, but that they call 'god' or un-namable in the picture, and so can say that there is deity that they believe in.

The agnostic atheist has a much smaller worldview.

These are just my thoughts, mind you.

Hmm......I guess it would depend on what is meant by some component.

Whatever that might be, I have a sneaking suspicion you may also attach some component to agnostic theist and even atheist for that matter.

The only difference is the agnostic theist and atheist would be sure to let you know it's not from god?

Also, agnostic theist almost sounds Deistic to me.

 

[Willamena]

Hmm......I guess it would depend on what is meant by some component.

In my experience the component is more often a notion of 'substance'.

Whatever that might be, I have a sneaking suspicion you may also attach some component to agnostic theist and even atheist for that matter.

The only difference is the agnostic theist and atheist would be sure to let you know it's not from god?

Also, agnostic theist almost sounds Deistic to me.

Why do you imagine the agnostic theist and the atheist would approach things similarly?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

There are people who say the god (or some other metaphysical concept) called _____ exists; and they know/believe this to be true.
There are people who say the god (or some other metaphysical concept) called _____ does not exist; and they know/believe this to be true.

Either one of those individuals may be open/close minded about their beliefs and those of others (competing or even complementary for that matter); what they actually believe or believe they know is immaterial. These only represent either end of the spectrum, they do not actually cover the majority of the different positions that an individual may have on particular metaphysical concepts, which include the possibility of existence in a specified form or in some other form; the belief about that entity's nature, possible interaction and so forth.

I think -I- said it best (*rolls eyes*) when I said...
>> There are those who say they know the truth and believe it should be enforced on others
>> There are those who say they know the truth
>> There are those who say they do not know, yet believe
>> There are those who say they do not know, nor believe
>> There are those who say it does not matter what the truth is
Of all of those, the first is dangerous, the second has faith unconstrained by logic, the third is a believer, the fourth is a sceptic and the fifth is a pragmatist.

And no, being unconstrained by logic is neither good nor bad.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Are there any more comments?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also, agnostic theist almost sounds Deistic to me.

Wait... why?

I guess one possible explanation for the idea that God hasn't left a basis for a valid knowledge claim of his existence would be that he's simply not active in the world and not sprinkling around evidence in the process, but I get the impression from the agnostic theists I've spoken to that they believe that God is active in the world, but the nature of his actions are such that they're not very compatible with independent verification: things like "working in our hearts and minds" or appearing as visions to lone people with nobody else around, or healing diseases that sometimes get better on their own anyway, etc.

 

[Willamena]

That the agnostic theist acknowledges 'god' as "unknown or unknowable" doesn't mean there is no basis for valid knowledge claim. Depending on the person and their beliefs, it may be that the basis isn't knowledge about 'god' but about knowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That the agnostic theist acknowledges 'god' as "unknown or unknowable" doesn't mean there is no basis for valid knowledge claim.

It's built into the term "agnostic". When it comes right down to it, an agnostic, whether atheist or theist, is someone who thinks that the knowledge claims "God exists" or "God does not exist" cannot be made validly.

If a person doesn't believe this, then they're not an agnostic.

Depending on the person and their beliefs, it may be that the basis isn't knowledge about 'god' but about knowledge.

So... by believing something about the nature of knowledge generally, this would flow through to all specific cases to which the general case applies... for instance, knowledge of God. It seems to me like I'm talking about the end result and you're talking about the process used to arrive at it.