Atheists: Is that your final answer?

[Katzpur]

Okay, so I got myself into all kinds of trouble the other night by suggesting that atheists are closed-minded about the possibility of God existing. So I'm here to ask you, isn't an atheist who might be willing to change his mind about God existing really just an agnostic?

I've always figured that agnostics (weak or strong) doubt the existance of God, but believe it's really impossible to know for sure. I've always thought that theists were absolutely convinced that there is a God and that atheists were absolutely convinced that there isn't one. So when an atheist tells me that if the supposedly non-existant God were to do such and such, he'd believe in Him, I counter with the statement that I don't believe he would. If he's an atheist, he's made up his mind already. Then all hell breaks loose and I have to run for my life.

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer? And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

 

[linwood]

Because agnostic isn`t a noun, it`s an adjective.

One can be an agnostic theist.."I`m not certain their is a god but I believe there is.
One can be an agnostic atheist...I`m not certain there is no god but I don`t believe there is.

Agnostic is a pretty tricky word because it has been used by many atheists throughout history to publicly describe their beliefs without having to say that other "A" word in public.

If I told my mother I was agnostic she`d shrug and figure I`d get over it
If I told her I was atheist she`d freak out thinking I was going to burn in hell.

I`m a strong atheist, no agnosticism here.
I became this way by understanding the world around me with a material/naturalistic method.

If confronted with empirical evidence of a deity I would immediately become a theist.

This is not a choice for me

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in gods.
It is not defined as a refusal to believe in gods.

 

[ifndef]

Katzpur, your understanding and definition of an atheist is completely wrong... but in your defense that is how most people would define atheism.

Like Linwood said, atheism is the lack of belief in any deity; this is the general definition of atheism. However, some atheists go further and claim that there is no god (or gods); they are making an assertion. For this group, we define them as being strong atheists. Most atheists are not strong atheists though.

I am an atheists and I would never make the claim that there is no god. I simply examine all the claims of theists as well as pondering the question on own and I reject them all for complete lack of evidence. However, if in the future substantial evidence came forward to strongly support the existence of a god... I would no longer reject the claims.

So as to your question "Is that your final answer?" -- we are not saying "There is no god", we are just rejecting your claims and don't believe in something that doesn't provide evidence to support it. It is as if you tried telling me that there is life on Mars. At the moment I reject your claim (as you wouldn't be able to provide good evidence) but I am not going to say you are wrong. There very well could be some type of bacteria or something on Mars... but until I see proof or substantial evidence.. I do not believe it is true.

Linwood hit it right on the nail about the negative connotation attached to the word "atheist". For some reason, this word invokes images of negativity, evil, and immorality in mainstream America. I think that most people that call themselves agnostic are really atheists but use the word agnostic to avoid being wrongly judged by theists.

 

[Katzpur]

Because agnostic isn`t a noun, it`s an adjective.

Not in my dictionary, it's not. "Agnostic, n. One who believes in agnosticism; one who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God or a future life, or anything beyond material phenomena."

One can be an agnostic theist.."I`m not certain their is a god but I believe there is.
One can be an agnostic atheist...I`m not certain there is no god but I don`t believe there is.

Personally, I think we're all one of these two things. I'm an agnostic theist myself.

I`m a strong atheist, no agnosticism here.

If confronted with empirical evidence of a deity I would immediately become a theist.

See, to me this means that you are an agnostic atheist. If there is "no agnosticism here," doesn't that mean you've already made your decision? I'm just trying to understand.

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in gods.
It is not defined as a refusal to believe in gods.

Webster's defines it as "Atheist, n. one who believes that there is no God." That's kind of somewhere between your definition and mine. "Lack of belief" implies the lack of a firm conviction. Believing that there is no God implies that the decision has been made.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi, neighbor! Welcome to RF! An atheist in Idaho, huh? Must be lonely.

Katzpur, your understanding and definition of an atheist is completely wrong... but in your defense that is how most people would define atheism.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

Like Linwood said, atheism is the lack of belief in any deity; this is the general definition of atheism. However, some atheists go further and claim that there is no god (or gods); they are making an assertion. For this group, we define them as being strong atheists. Most atheists are not strong atheists though.

I am an atheists and I would never make the claim that there is no god. I simply examine all the claims of theists as well as pondering the question on own and I reject them all for complete lack of evidence. However, if in the future substantial evidence came forward to strongly support the existence of a god... I would no longer reject the claims.

So why wouldn't you call yourself an agnostic?

So as to your question "Is that your final answer?" -- we are not saying "There is no god", we are just rejecting your claims and don't believe in something that doesn't provide evidence to support it.

But the fact of the matter is that I could quote dozens of atheists on this forum alone who have specifically said, "There is no God!"

 

[Yerda]

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer? And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

I wouldn't say "There is no God", Katzpur. It's a wee bit complicated, and gets more confusing with time and learning but the quick answer is that I'm unconvinced. I'm an atheist because of this. I cannot dismiss the possibility of finding things in the future that lead me to become convinced (and the atheists who say so are fooling themselves).

 

[linwood]

Not in my dictionary, it's not. "Agnostic, n. One who believes in agnosticism; one who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God or a future life, or anything beyond material phenomena."

Websters also defined atheism as "immoral" just a few years ago.
They have very recently changed the definition and now have "wickedness" as an archaic synonym for atheism.

See, to me this means that you are an agnostic atheist. If there is "no agnosticism here," doesn't that mean you've already made your decision? I'm just trying to understand.

ifndef and I have a philosophical disagreement about strong atheism.
He is technically correct in his assessment that one cannot "know" there is no god but to me it`s just a case of semantics.
I "know" there is no god the same way I "know" Russels teapot isn`t orbiting Jupiter's moon or that unicorns don`t exist.

The distinction matters to him, it doesn`t to me.

Webster's defines it as "Atheist, n. one who believes that there is no God." That's kind of somewhere between your definition and mine.

Websters..is wrong.
Trust me, it isn`t the first time.

"Lack of belief" implies the lack of a firm conviction. Believing that there is no God implies that the decision has been made.

For some of us it has.
I don`t define "belief" as lack of conviction.
There are many levels of "belief" it doesn`t require firm conviction.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer?

Oh, it surely is.

And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

Actually, I do. But that doesn't make me any less atheistic.

 

[LuisDantas]

See, to me this means that you are an agnostic atheist. If there is "no agnosticism here," doesn't that mean you've already made your decision? I'm just trying to understand.

Atheism is not much of a decision. More of a recognition, really.

(Personally I see no contradiction between Strong Atheism and Agnosticism, but many disagree).

(...)"Lack of belief" implies the lack of a firm conviction. Believing that there is no God implies that the decision has been made.

Nope, it is simply belief that there is no God. Not a big deal at all, really.

Why do you think there is a decision to be made?

 

[Katzpur]

Oh, it surely is.

So, if I were to describe you as "closed minded" about the existance of God, would you see it as an insult or as a statement of fact?

 

[Katzpur]

Atheism is not much of a decision. More of a recognition, really.

Why do you think there is a decision to be made?

Actually, I don't. I probably shouldn't have put it that way because I have often argued that my being a theist wasn't a decision.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, if I were to describe you as "closed minded" about the existance of God, would you see it as an insult or as a statement of fact?

It would be an insult... were it not so obviously a misguided statement. It is much like claiming myself to be "closed minded" about the number of fingers on my hand, for instance.

More absurd, even, since God is so obviously a human creation.

Quite frankly, it is not very respectful to even consider a relationship between how "open-minded" one is and whether he believes in God or not.

The only way to instill some semblance of meaning in such a link would be by assuming that belief in God is some sort of conscious choice... and that could only be true if God did not exist AND belief in him was a voluntary act of falsehood. There is no defensible point in attempting to "open one's mind to God".

 

[Katzpur]

It would be an insult... were it not so obviously a misguided statement.

Well, I already made the mistake once and I'm not likely to make it again soon. I really don't try to offend people, but occasionally I say something stupid.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, I don't. I probably shouldn't have put it that way because I have often argued that my being a theist wasn't a decision.

Oh, now we're arriving at the same page. Belief (or disbelief) is indeed not a decision. It is rather a matter of aesthetical preference.

Modified, of course, by peer pressure (a remarkably strong social force) and whatever personal conceptions of the world and of God one has. Such perceptions vary quite a lot, that of God probably most of all - even among theists, and I dare say, even among Christians (which I know LDS consider themselves to be part of).

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I already made the mistake once and I'm not likely to make it again soon. I really don't try to offend people, but occasionally I say something stupid.

Actually, I feel a bit ashamed now. I sound like I want you to shut up... but in fact I would much rather have you speak up, since the alternative is basically that you think so anyway and don't let us know about that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer? And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

This has been touched on before, but I consider atheism and agnosticism to be describing two distinct things, not as ranges on a single scale. In my mind, theism/atheism are about belief, and agnosticism is about knowledge.

However, even if you consider agnosticism to be the "I'm not completely sure" section of the belief spectrum, I still generally call myself an atheist. I suppose I don't have a certain knowledge of anything, and therefore don't have a certain knowledge about the existence of God/god/gods, but for all practical purposes, I treat the subject with certainty. I conduct my life in accordance with the idea that no gods exist.

Using the "I'm not certain" definition of agnostic, I'm "agnostic" about God in the same way that I'm "agnostic" about, say, the potential that the random movement of the electrons in my chair will cause them all to suddenly leap into my body and electrocute me. I acknowledge that theoretically, the probability of it happening is non-zero, but practically, I treat it as so close to zero that it may as well be zero.

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, I feel a bit ashamed now. I sound like I want you to shut up... but in fact I would much rather have you speak up, since the alternative is basically that you think so anyway and don't let us know about that.

Don't feel ashamed. Actually, it's probably best that we don't all say everything we're thinking. Tact can be a good thing sometimes. :yes: It's not even as if I had given it all that much thought. Now and then I stumble onto some thread started by an atheist in which a challenge is made to theists to prove the existance of God. Well, I hardly ever participate in such threads because they just end up going nowhere, and I'm the kind of person who likes to see questions logically resolved at some point. Anyway, I made the mistake of putting in my two cents worth on such a thread the other day and really got raked over the coals. But it got me wondering why, if someone was absolutely convinced that there was no God, he would be all that put out by my pointing out that it didn't seem to me as if there was any chance of him changing his mind. I started wondering about how atheists see atheism as opposed to agnosticism, so I thought I'd start this thread. I really have nothing against atheists and I see myself as firm in my convictions as they are in theirs. So if they're "closed minded," so am I.

 

[Katzpur]

I suppose I don't have a certain knowledge of anything, and therefore don't have a certain knowledge about the existence of God/god/gods, but for all practical purposes, I treat the subject with certainty. I conduct my life in accordance with the idea that no gods exist.

...I acknowledge that theoretically, the probability of it happening is non-zero, but practically, I treat it as so close to zero that it may as well be zero.

That is totally understandable. Mormons are so accustomed to saying, "I know..." with respect to their beliefs, and I've always been uncomfortable saying that. I would have to say that "for all practical purposes, I conduct my life in accordance with the idea that there is a God. To me, the chance that there is not a God is so close to zero that it may as well me zero."

I'm just not comfortable saying "I know..." when it comes to things I can't actually prove. On the other hand, I find it very frustrating to be told that because I can't prove what I so strongly believe, I'm gullible and naive.

 

[Buttercup]

Because agnostic isn`t a noun, it`s an adjective.

I just checked six online dictionaries....in every one of them agnostic is listed as a noun first. Phew. Guess I get to keep my agnosticism label.

 

[StudentOfGod]

I think that if one came by atheism via rational, scientific thought, then they would only reconsider their stance regarding the existence of God when offered incontrovertible proof that God existed. Whatever that proof may be, I don't know, but it would have to be absolutely solid, repeatable, scientific proof of God's existence. Since it is the lack of this proof that would have led the rational atheist to the conclusion of God's non-existence, it stands to reason that if offered this proof, an intelligent atheist would be forced to change their minds.

The question is why is the onus on the atheist to disprove the existence of God as opposed to the onus on the theist to prove God's existence?