Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[Willamena]

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.


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.

Not knowing = 'God'

 

[Willamena]

"Existence" is known, as is "no existence."

"I don't know," is surrender.

"I know nothing," is the wisdom of Socates.

 

[Caladan]

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.

That is prime BS. atheists don't believe that supernatural beliefs are delusional because they are close minded. but because of inquisitive minds which favor the objective and the scientific. being open minded today seems to be taken completely out of context.
I am open minded enough to try exotic dishes before judging them, or travel exotic places and cultures. I am certainly not open minded enough to consider that I can cure cancer by drinking orange juice every morning or by visualizing my chakras.

 

[work in progress]

As something of a fan of Sam Harris, I'd say it is the consideration that these religious memes are inherently harmful.

I question the whole notion that memes are a valid analogy for the propagation of ideas and concepts. There are more likely models for how cultural ideas develop and propagate, that can explain how religious systems utilize our natural predispositions that have been based on our intuitive assumptions about the nature of self and how the world works.

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.

It seems that the modern, scientific approach is superior at gaining new knowledge and understanding about the world, but science is utilizing a lot of theories and facts that are counter-intuitive to the way things seem to work at a simple, basic level. And that's why religious systems of thought are always going to have an advantage at promoting their way of thinking. I would go with trying to bring religion more up to date, rather than go on some fools quest to end religion and usher in a new age of rationalism.

I don't think there is anything to gain by trying to turn nature into a form of worship or this mumble jumble about having a "sense of awe" about the universe is any replacement for religion. All it will do is to create a mythology around scientific materialism, and probably won't be a satisfying replacement for religion to most people. It didn't work during the French Revolution, and it's not likely going to work this time either!

 

[riley2112]

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.

Are we talking about the Bible God or just a God. What kind evidence would you need? Just wondering.

 

[Hexavibrongal]

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.

Then what is a person who is unsure whether it's possible to know whether there's a God or not? Maybe a 'weak agnostic'? Relative to that position, atheism is (to some degree) closing your mind off to the possibility of God, and discontinuing that search. But also a theist is closing themselves off to the possibility of there not being a God, and an 'strong agnostic' is closing themselves off to the possibility that there may be a way to know with reasonable confidence one way or the other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then what is a person who is unsure whether it's possible to know whether there's a God or not? Maybe a 'weak agnostic'?

I'm not sure what that would be. At some point, it's probably impractical to come up with a specific term for every nuance of every possibility.

However, as for "weak agnostic", I've heard that term defined as someone that thinks that the existence of God is unknowable now but leaves room for it being known one way or the other in the future (i.e. "we don't have the evidence yet, but if we keep looking, we might find it"), while a "strong agnostic" is someone who believes that the existence of God is inherently unknowable and that the question will never be answered no matter how much we look or what evidence we obtain.

Relative to that position, atheism is (to some degree) closing your mind off to the possibility of God, and discontinuing that search. But also a theist is closing themselves off to the possibility of there not being a God, and an 'strong agnostic' is closing themselves off to the possibility that there may be a way to know with reasonable confidence one way or the other.

I think you're reading a certain degree of finality and certainty into the terms "atheist" and "theist" that I don't think is really in them... or at least doesn't have to be in them.

There's a difference between a person thinking that the question of God is unknowable and a person who's taken a position on the issue but is open to his or her mind being changed if new evidence points in a different way. That second person would be a theist or an atheist, but wouldn't be closed-minded.

A person who has made a conclusion on the question of God's existence is either a theist or an atheist. This conclusion might be made with certainty or it might be tentative, but the mere fact that it is tentative wouldn't make the person an agnostic.

 

[cablescavenger]

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

I would consider myself anti theist, but I describe myself as atheist for simplicity.

 

[Reverend Rick]

There is a big difference between a person who does not believe in God because they see no proof or reason to believe and a person who says flat out that there is no God.

The latter is making a statement that they cannot prove.

 

[waitasec]

There is a big difference between a person who does not believe in God because they see no proof or reason to believe and a person who says flat out that there is no God.

The latter is making a statement that they cannot prove.

what is the difference between that and a person who says flat out there is no god because they see no proof or a reason to?

isn't the lack of proof for someone who requires proof enough proof?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Lack of evidence is evidence - But - Lack of proof is not proof


Edit:
Particularly given that proof of any position may be impossible

 

[rageoftyrael]

I don't see how these hybid beliefs play any part of this discussion other than to confuse.

A Theist believes in God.
An Atheist does not believe in God.
An Agnostic does not believe or disbelieve in God.

Actually if you think about it, an Agnostic has the most sound reasoning and is the most open minded of the three.

An Agnostic accepts that there is no proof either way, which honestly is the truth of the matter if you use reasoning and not probability in your thinking.

I know i'm coming in late here, but i had to point out one thing. The problem with your statement is that you don't know whether or not their is proof one way or the other. So, based on the idea that an agnostic supposedly accepts there is no proof, that kind of implies that an agnostic isn't any better than the theist or the atheist.

I will however point out that there seems to be a malfunction here, as to people accepting and/or disagreeing what terms mean. I call myself an agnostic atheist. Why both? Cause i consider myself an agnostic, in so far as that i'm saying i don't know. I don't use the more hardcore version of agnostic, which is to say god is unknowable. I call myself an atheist, because i don't believe in god. I don't, however, use the more hardcore term of atheist, that implies that there is no god. If you put them together, using the terms as i use them, it means that i don't believe in god, but i don't know. I'm open to proof, evidence, etc. and so forth. The second part isn't inherently implied with the title, it's just true.

Essentially, if you want people to understand what you believe, you'll have to explain it, rather than just giving them a title they probably won't even understand as you mean it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

what is the difference between that and a person who says flat out there is no god because they see no proof or a reason to?

isn't the lack of proof for someone who requires proof enough proof?

The lack of proof is enough to not believe. Lack of proof is not enough to know for sure.

 

[rageoftyrael]

what is the difference between that and a person who says flat out there is no god because they see no proof or a reason to?

isn't the lack of proof for someone who requires proof enough proof?

Okay, a soft atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, because they don't see any proof or evidence for the existence of god. A hard atheist is someone who says that there is no god, because they don't see any proof or evidence for the existence of god. The difference is simple. The soft atheist says"i don't believe your claim, due to the lack of proof". The hard atheist says"there is no god, due to the lack of proof". One is stating a lack of belief. The other is stating a counter-claim, that they now have to prove.

And no, lack of proof for someone who requires proof isn't enough proof. It may be, for that specific person, but using logic, and being rational, means that it isn't good enough. Not to make a claim, anyway.

 

[Reverend Rick]

One is stating a lack of belief. The other is stating a counter-claim, that they now have to prove.

but using logic, and being rational, means that it isn't good enough. Not to make a claim, anyway.

This is exactly right. :bow:

 

[Sunstone]

Okay, a soft atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, because they don't see any proof or evidence for the existence of god. A hard atheist is someone who says that there is no god, because they don't see any proof or evidence for the existence of god. The difference is simple. The soft atheist says"i don't believe your claim, due to the lack of proof". The hard atheist says"there is no god, due to the lack of proof". One is stating a lack of belief. The other is stating a counter-claim, that they now have to prove.

And no, lack of proof for someone who requires proof isn't enough proof. It may be, for that specific person, but using logic, and being rational, means that it isn't good enough. Not to make a claim, anyway.

Frubal.

 

[waitasec]

The lack of proof is enough to not believe. Lack of proof is not enough to know for sure.

can you explain to me the difference between belief and knowing for sure?

 

[riley2112]

can you explain to me the difference between belief and knowing for sure?

Look at it this way. I can be in a store and say that I believe my car is in the parking lot. However I can not know that for sure, because it may have been stolen , it could have been towed. Even if I believe it is still there it may not be.
as for knowing for sure. I can say I know for sure I am in the store. because I am here so I know for sure.
Hope that helps alittle

 

[idav]

Not knowing = 'God'

Believing and Knowing are two separate issues. Knowing doesn't lean on faith as much as believing.

 

[waitasec]

Okay, a soft atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, because they don't see any proof or evidence for the existence of god. A hard atheist is someone who says that there is no god, because they don't see any proof or evidence for the existence of god.

then the criteria one holds for oneself in order for something that was once believed into something that is known beyond a shadow of a doubt, is what exactly? i don't think people have different standards for the different things they know to be true....the criteria, whatever it is, has to be fulfilled for that person.

The difference is simple. The soft atheist says"i don't believe your claim, due to the lack of proof". The hard atheist says"there is no god, due to the lack of proof". One is stating a lack of belief. The other is stating a counter-claim, that they now have to prove.

then the lack of proof is the criteria for the hard atheist.

And no, lack of proof for someone who requires proof isn't enough proof. It may be, for that specific person, but using logic, and being rational, means that it isn't good enough. Not to make a claim, anyway.

i have 10 acres of land in malibu california for sale, real cheap...here's my paypal account...once you deposit $100,000 it yours.

now...yes malibu exists, so does my paypal account...you tell me whats missing in order for you to to know what i am saying is true