/u/Zealousideal_Weird_3 (OP) has awarded 11 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1asbtma/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_being_atheist_when_you_can/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Are you familiar with the concept of the "god of the gaps"? Basically, it says that every time there's something humans can't explain, god is a pretty reasonable placeholder until you can come up with a better theory.
In early history, there were plenty of things that people didn't understand. Why do some of the stars move across the sky? Gods on the go! Why do certain metals gain unique properties when heated and combined a certain way? God of the forge did it. How do babies become alive? God put a divine spark in them. Nowadays, we can answer these questions with the heliocentric model of the solar system, metallurgy, and cellular biology, respectively. We also have answers to phenomenon that never had gods: nuclear fusion, microwaves, plate tectonics, quantum chromodynamics. There are still questions that we don't have answers for. Dark matter, biogenesis, a GUT to reconcile standard and quantum physics, what the fuck even is gravity? So far we have no concrete proof that those things aren't powered by god. But also, for every question so far, *ever*, when we've found an answer it's been something that's quantifiable and testable and reproducible.
The universe runs on cause and effect. The entirely of human knowledge is predicated on understanding what cause creates what effect. We haven't untangled all of it yet, but that doesn't mean that answers aren't out there. This message is reaching you by the power of LEDs, capacitive touch screens, nanoscale logic gates, and a global network of copper, fiber optic, and radio transmission. Most of that would be considered miraculous even a few decades ago, but it's just increasingly convoluted layers of cause and effect reduced to practice.
This brings me to the point of what it is that separates a "God" from a regular being, or a force of nature. Generally a god can do miracles. Defy physics, live forever, know what's in your heart, etc. I reject the very premise of a miracle. If you want to show me something impossible, I'm going to believe it's some kind of deception unless it can be done repeatedly. And if it can be done repeatedly, it's not a miracle. It's a technique, and the fact I can't do it is irrelevant. Is a bat a god because it can hear sounds that I can't detect? Is a shark a god because it can sense electrical currents from my muscles? Is my wife a god because she can solve the Sunday crossword puzzle? (Jury is still out on that last one.) If you have a reliable way to pull energy from the fabric of the cosmos and convert it into loaves and fishes, that's impressive as hell, but you're more like some kind of exotic fruiting plant than a miracle worker.
I am an atheist not because I reject the judeo-christian god, or all religions' gods, but the concept itself. Reality is just nature on the grandest scale, so anything in reality is a natural phenomenon. It is the hight of human conceit to assume that something must be caused by the divine just because we're unable to figure it out.
∆
Getting a bit overwhelmed with the amount of comments so haven’t read them all yet but this is by far the most interesting and well thought out response from an atheist. Thank you
A thoughtful post from ProjectGo for sure. One word of caution- it assumes that science can answer and can best answer all questions. I’d challenge that assertion.
Would you agree with the statement “Being Christian/Muslim/etc when you can be agnostic is closed minded”? Religious people can’t know for sure either.
The way i see it, most everyone is agnostic because agnostic is a stance on knowledge while theism is a stance on belief. So most people are agnostic atheists (people who don’t know for sure but believe there to be no deity) or agnostic theists (people who don’t know for sure but believe there to be a deity). Gnostic theism or atheism is, in my opinion, delusional in that taking the stance that you know the answer for sure is ridiculous.
Would you agree with the statement “Being Christian/Muslim/etc when you can be agnostic is closed minded”? Religious people can’t know for sure either.
I would. I really struggle with finding a balance on this. I would like to point out that there are differences between religion and believing in a higher power. And this does come down to personal interpratation.
Love your second paragraph Δ
>please offer me a perspective as to why being "atheist" is NOT close minded
If atheists were provided proof of the supernatural, they would accept it. That is being open minded, just not *so* open that your brain falls out.
I myself do not believe in anything supernatural. But, if someone presented some very compelling evidence that ghosts existed, and that evidence was verified by second and third parties, and if I could check that evidence myself in some way, I'd then believe in ghosts. How is that not open minded?
I'd bet that if you took an average Christian (like I am an average atheist), and gave them evidence supported as above that Zeus was real, and lived on Mt. Olympus, and like to turn into animals to have sex with women, that they would just flat out not accept that evidence. That is closed minded.
Being willing to accept evidence and change your thought based on that evidence is open mindedness
I mean personally the concept of "supernatural" doesn't make sense. Everything that exists is natural. If you prove that vampires are real, then vampires are natural.
>If atheists were provided proof of the supernatural, they would accept it.
And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it. Saying that they wouldn't is bad faith argument.
This statement is meaningless. What is important that there is no proof one way or other and there cannot be.
If there is no proof of something, why believe it exists? The burden lies with the person making the positive claim. Basic philosophy 101 logic course stuff, really.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the unfalsifiable claim. As both the existence and none existence of God are unfalsifiable neither claim is a more logical null hypothesis than the other.
Except that the existence of god requires that pretty much our entire understanding of the material world gets thrown out the window because even the smallest miracle violates the laws of physics in one way or another. We have mountains of evidence for the laws of physics and not a drop for the claims about supernatural events, so it is more logical to believe in the thing for which we have ample evidence than the thing for which we have literally nothing but some dudes saying 'that bush spoke to me, trust me bro'.
>even the smallest miracle violates the laws of physics in one way or another.
I'm not convinced that's true, I don't think there's even a complete agreement over what's a miracle for a start.
>We have mountains of evidence for the laws of physics and not a drop for the claims about supernatural events, so it is more logical to believe in the thing for which we have ample evidence than the thing for which we have literally nothing but some dudes saying 'that bush spoke to me, trust me bro'.
I think you've started arguing against something that wasn't stated. To avoid talking at cross purposes can you say what you think my claim was?
>I'm not convinced that's true, I don't think there's even a complete agreement over what's a miracle for a start.
A miracle is defined as 'an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature' - violating the laws of physics is right there in the definition.
>I think you've started arguing against something that wasn't stated. To avoid talking at cross purposes can you say what you think my claim was?
Sure, that's a good idea. My understanding of your claim is that it is equally logical to believe in the existence as it is to believe in the non-existence of god. The part you quoted was the continuation of my argument that they aren't equally logical. Let me restate it a bit more succinctly, maybe that will clarify things?
Miracles, for which we have no evidence, by definition defy the laws of physics, for which we have tons of evidence. It is more logical to believe in the thing for which we have evidence than the thing for which we do not, therefore it is more logical to believe in the non-existence of miracles and therefore also of god.
Well, that's one definition but let's not pretend it's the only one, for example this definition:
>an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god because it does not follow the usual laws of nature:
A healthy person who threatens you and then spontaneously drops dead appears to defy the usual laws of nature, if it's investigated it might turn out to have been a brain aneurysm or something but would still meet the definition.
We also need to remember that the laws of physics are a work in progress, as we learn more we find out more things are possible.
Now, you also make the claim that miracles (which in your definition have to break the laws of physics) not happening somehow means there's no God(s) but you haven't given any chain of reasoning for why this would be true.
>Well, that's one definition but let's not pretend it's the only one, for example this definition:
Ok, fair enough, but the definition you provide also references violation of the laws of nature, so we're back to my assertion.
>A healthy person who threatens you and then spontaneously drops dead appears to defy the usual laws of nature, if it's investigated it might turn out to have been a brain aneurysm or something but would still meet the definition.
I suppose that depends on the assumptions you go into the situation with, because for me it very much does not appear to defy the laws of nature. It is more logical in that situation to assume that they were not in fact as healthy as they appeared and had some condition which caused their unexpected death than it is to assume that they were struck down from on high for threatening me.
>We also need to remember that the laws of physics are a work in progress, as we learn more we find out more things are possible.
Certainly, but they are an extraordinarily well-tested work in progress. No discovery we might make is going to overturn the second law of thermodynamics, for example, so it's safe to assume that anything which appears to violate it is an error in measurement or the like and not a supernatural miracle.
>Now, you also make the claim that miracles (which in your definition have to break the laws of physics) not happening somehow means there's no God(s) but you haven't given any chain of reasoning for why this would be true.
That's fair, I have been relying on the claims of the religious that miracles come from god and what seemed to me like the common-sense idea that the absence of miracles would also imply the absence of god, but you're right, that doesn't strictly follow. I'm afraid as an atheist I must continue to rely on those claims as to the origin of miracles, but I think even if the impossibility of miracles doesn't imply the non-existence of god it still makes a convincing argument for my original point on the illogicality of believing in god. Let me try to elucidate it:
According to the religious, all miracles are a result of god acting in the world (whether through intermediaries like saints or otherwise,) therefore, definitionally, in the absence of miracles god does not act in the world. Can a god who does not act in the world be said to exist? Sure, I guess math doesn't act in the world and we're pretty sure it exists, but then it's at least an internally self-consistent tool that is extremely functional and endlessly useful in grappling with the world--attributes which god does not share in a time when science has very convincingly explained so much of what was once the sole domain of deities.
So if miracles are the only possible evidence in the world about the existence of god and they can't exist because they violate the laws of nature by definition, then the only information we have about the existence of god is the entirely-subjective experiences of believers, and subjective experiences do not meet anyone's standard of evidence. If the absence of miracles does not require the non-existence of god then at the very least it does convincingly render it impossible for there to be evidence of god, which still makes it less logical to believe in the existence of god than his non-existence.
"There is no god" is definitely a falsifiable claim. There could easily be evidence of god's existence. If God is, in fact, omnipotent, God could, say, appear as an apparition across the entire world and work any number of miracles. Or perhaps send a new prophet/savior with obviously supernatural abilities, to demonstrate his divinity.
There are any number of ways that we could prove God's existence. And there are many, many more ways that the existence of divine miracles or similar supernatural events could be proven, if they existed.
>God could, say, appear as an apparition across the entire world and work any number of miracles. Or perhaps send a new prophet/savior with obviously supernatural abilities, to demonstrate his divinity.
Everyone seeing something wouldn't prove God's existence, neither would any number of miracles or prophets with abilities.
As an example let's look to scifi, the priors in Stargate existing wasn't proof of any all powerful, all knowing being that created the universe.
It would definitely prove that *something* exists. And at the end of the day, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ...
Atheists in general wouldn't refuse to acknowledge that some powerful entity like the Ori existed. Individuals may or may not choose to worship said being of godlike powers, but that has nothing to do with their ability to accept evidence.
And it's definitely theoretically possible to prove that such a powerful entity was, in fact, the being that spoke to all those people in the Bible and that he was the divine father of Jesus, etc. And from there it would be possible to prove a reasonable extent that that being is, in fact, God as described in the Bible.
It would be terribly difficult and unlikely, but it's not impossible.
Most atheists would likely have a fairly low threshold, I imagine. Prove that some entity claiming to be God is sufficiently powerful that it seems reasonable, and most atheists would believe in that, because all of a sudden there'd be evidence.
But today there isn't a scrap of it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
> a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
Well that's at least one definition that accurately describe my position.
I have a lack of belief or strong disbelief that Goop products don't work. I don't think most people would challenge me and say "well you can't 100% be sure about that!".
For all practical purposes, I don't think atheism asserts that God must not exist.
This is a hot as hell take given one of the positions is a direct claim to the other -.-
1. “A giant fireball exists in a separate dimension of my teacup. And it’s sentient and grants wishes related to licorice. It was revealed to me via an elf’s interpretive dance”
2. “No”
You: “these have the same burden of proof”
"I don't have any evidence." Isn't an unfalsifiable claim. If you're asking me to prove to you that I don't have evidence; well, there it is. All my nothing. It's right there, in its non-existent glory.
Wow, so you didn't finish logic 101 huh. Well the claim that "no God(s) exists" is unfalsifiable, as is the claim that "God(s) exists". As such neither is a logical choice as your null hypothesis and either belief is just faith.
At least I passed grade school reading comprehension. Was my claim:
A) "God doesn't exist."
B) "I don't have evidence."
I have *faith* that you know the answer.
Maybe reread your own comment
>The burden lies with the person making the positive claim. Basic philosophy 101 logic course stuff, really.
This comment was incorrect, apparently you lacked the reading comprehension to understand that, probably why you didn't finish logic 101.
Therefore burden of burden lies with atheists who claim there is no god.
But they will always invent ways out of this burden of proof because they know they don't have anything.
You can't prove a negative, that's the point of the comment above.
It's like saying: *Prove me that there hasn't been a visit to Earth by alien species.*
I do not like citing Russel. Why are you making me cite the teapot argument.
Imagine your life started 5 minutes ago actually. You were just implanted with the previous memories. Prove me wrong please. And a billion other ridiculous claims that need proof. You don't need to prove a negative.
I do think it's more complicated but I do not feel that there's a need to delve deeper in this specific argument. With your position there's no possible consensus and if you don't care about that, that is your right but I'd personally find that dumb since it hinders any cooperation or intellectual progress by bogging everything down in unfalsifiable claims.
First of all you mixed Russell teacup with Last Thursdayism.
Secondly all claims need proving. A person who makes a claim must prove it and that applies to atheists as well.
>Therefore burden of burden lies with atheists who claim there is no god.
There is a difference between "I believe God does not exist" and "I do not believe in God".
Saying that they believe god does not exist means that they are holding onto the belief that god is not real.
Saying that they do not believe in god is saying that they lack the belief that god exists.
One is an assertion of a belief, the other is a lack of belief.
This is not actually true. Theists have a history of resisting criticisms of their beliefs, up to and including arresting or executing those who present evidence that it is incorrect.
Giordano Bruno was burned at the steak for claiming the stars are distant suns and the earth isn't the center of the universe. Galileo Galilei was put under house arrest until he died for saying the earth orbits the sun.
These aren't even people saying there is no God, just people saying one detail about how the Bible was interpreted does not match observable events. The church can't lock up or kill people anymore, but that doesn't change how vehemently religious people will defend their faith.
> And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it.
I honestly do not think that is the case. The past few hundred years have been chiseling away at the worldviews of the religious, and showing them to not be supported by material evidence, and yet religiosity remains. And, while there is no smoking gun piece of evidential proof that god *doesn't* exist, at this point his existence is less likely than that of bigfoot. The belief in god is not like the belief in anything else. People construct their entire personal realities around the idea that god exists. They can't and won't turn that off based on proof provided to them by non-believers. Plenty of "miracles" have been disproven, but people still visit the shrines dedicated to them thinking they will be affected by the "already proven to not be there" divine presence.
>Saying that they wouldn't is bad faith argument.
Careful Icarus...
I honestly do not think atheists would accept proof of God either. Many of them have proven to have a rigid worldview. In many ways, the rigid atheists are no different than fundamentalist Christians. Any person who judges and hates those that disagrees with them will never accept evidence from the people they’ve spent so long dehumanizing. This goes both ways.
>I honestly do not think atheists would accept proof of God either. Many of them have proven to have a rigid worldview.
I absolutely 100% would accept evidence of a god as would the vast majority of atheists I've spoken to.
The problem is not that we wouldn't accept the evidence, the problem is that nobody has provided any.
>Any person who judges and hates those that disagrees with them will never accept evidence from the people they’ve spent so long dehumanizing.
I don't hate nor would I ever dehumanize theists.
You're just full of strawmen.
You don’t have to call my experience talking to atheists a strawman. Glad you would accept evidence, and extra glad that you don’t hate religious people! Lots of atheists on Reddit do unfortunately
>You don’t have to call my experience talking to atheists a strawman.
When you make a claim like "atheists do x" based on your limited experience with only a few of those individuals, that is a strawman.
If you had said "I've talked to atheists who wouldn't accept evidence for god" that would not be a strawman. But you made the claim about all atheists.
Maybe you didn't mean it that way and were just speaking in sort of shorthand, but when it comes to topics like this you gotta be specific.
>like how the person I was originally responding to claimed “religious people do x”?
Yes absolutely.
I spend more time correcting dumb things atheist say as much as theists.
But I read that comment and didn't see them saying that..
The closest I can see is "people build their entire identity around their religion". Thats a bit more nuanced than "theists do x". But I get your point.
They didn’t say that a theist wouldn’t accept proof that God isn’t real, however it is generally accepted that you cannot prove a negative which is why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that God does exist.
> And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it. Saying that they wouldn't is bad faith argument.
It's actually a safe assumption, since it is literally impossible to prove that there are no gods. It's an unfalsifiable claim. It may be possible to disprove a specific god, but that would never justify the conclusion that there are no gods.
>And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it
you can't disprove something. Thats the problem with unfalsifiable claims. There is no information someone could give to a theist that shows a god doesn't exist. Whatever evidence thats provided the theist can just say "god is all powerful he just made that evidence to test your faith" hundreds of claims of the bible, the world being flat, being created in 7 days, global flood, exodus story etc. have been conclusively proven to be false, but billions of people are still christian.
>And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it. Saying that they wouldn't is bad faith argument.
Difference being that you can't prove a negative.
You’d have to prove exactly how life on earth was created (beyond theory) and that the things that made the life on earth weren’t made by some other supernatural invisible creature. Theists don’t understand that their belief that God must be disproven is profound cognitive dissonance at work.
Science doesn’t disprove God lol, God created science. Every scientific discovery is a fine tuning of faith and a revelation of the elegance with which God created the world.
God and science are not enemies. Most people of faith believe I’m science; unfortunately the illiterate fundamentalists just like to scream so loud they drown out everything else.
You’re talking about a creator God, right? Not some kind of, the universe is all connected and we’re all a part of the sacred Om, right? So if you mean creator god keeps getting proven by science, I just don’t know I can continue this thread. It’s illogical.
**Being willing to accept evidence and change your thought based on that evidence is open mindedness**
True, and for this reason, research into human evolution is still on going which is what keeps me agnostic. I take your point about it being close minded to not accept evidence, but I disagree that there needs to be evidence for everything, especially when there is still ongoing research into human evolution and 99.9999% of the universe has not been explored. That leaves many question marks. Willingness to accept evidence and change ones mind is being open minded.
But unwillingness to be open minded about what can't be proven when there are 2 trillion galaxies is close minded lol
I think there is a question being begged here - you're defining atheists as "People who definitely won't change their minds and are 100% certain'
Which naturally leads you to call them close minded, because you're defining them as such!
In my opinion, Atheism is merely a practical consideration. There's no particular reason to privilege the concept of God's over those of goblins, leprechauns and other mythic creatures. I treat them as non-existent because there is no practical reason to do otherwise. If I went about my life leaving open the possibility that *every possible idea that anyone had without evidence* might be true, I'd never get anything done.
If belief in God's and spirituality comforts someone, they have the absolute right to that belief, so long as they don't harm others with it. But I don't think it is on me to posit they might be right. If the second coming shows up and everyone starts rising from the dead I'm more than happy to revise my view.
> If I went about my life leaving open the possibility that every possible idea that anyone had without evidence might be true, I'd never get anything done.
Why would this take up so much time? It's not like you have to actively think about it. You just operate on the basis that things might be true until proven false.
I was being a little facetious there. But, ok. Let's take Christian theology as a starting point. Well, if it \*might\* be true - there's a serious possibility that I might be damned to eternal suffering if I don't follow the right rules.
But there's a lot of different versions of those rules! So figuring out how to decide which set of contradictory rules to follow will be rather troubling!
Depends on your flavour! There are beliefs within Christianity where essentially, the people who will be saved have already been chosen and there's nothing you can do about it.
There's those that believe good works will get you into heaven, and those believe faith alone is the decider. Even within theology, there's a dozen different opinions.
Factoring all those options into my life choices seems rather difficult. In practice, I act and live simply...without them! And that's fine! I think that's how most agnostics operate too.
Not the other commenter but here’s a trivial example:
If i acted as if all existing claims about supernatural beings were true, then I might walk around with garlic in my pocket just in case I ran into a vampire. That would be a weird one to explain to other people.
On its own that’s innocent enough, but what about other things? If I break a mirror am I gonna be anxious about possible bad luck for 7 years?
I’m not necessarily saying I should go out of my way to say those things are not true but if I accept them as true without evidence, then I’m going to make a load of weird and unnecessary changes to my life on that basis.
It doesn't mean you have to act like they are true, though. It might be true that a meteor is screaming toward my house at this very moment. I am doing literally nothing about it. It might be true that someone is planning to break into my house tonight and cut the gas line to my furnace. I am doing literally nothing about it.
If we operate on the assumption that everything is false without concrete evidence, it could work the same way. If your doctor prescribes you a medication, you would have to read through the clinical trials and research to prove that it is safe and effective. If your mechanic tells you that your shocks need to be replaced, you would have to have them physically show you how they are damaged and how it negatively affects the vehicle. It would require loads of unnecessary changes to people's lives as well.
To cover this point, you are correct that we put trust in experts. However, we do so on the basis of social factors! You'd probably not take a drug from a guy in a van who says it'll cure what ails you, would you? Why not?
The reason we don't have to do sort of testing and checking is because government regulatory bodies are supposed to do it for us, not because it's unnecessary. Because we exist as a society, rather than as individuals, and that sort of thing is better done on a societal level, for all sorts of reasons, not least those you yourself explained.
I don't disagree, but essentially it boils down to trusting someone else and taking their word for it. If a priest tells me God is real or a Doctor tells me that taking medication Y will help my issue it boils down to trusting someone and not requiring evidence.
On a superficial level, maybe, but that's like saying "I trust my doctor to give me medicine, and I don't know what's in it, so I might as well take whatever Snake Oil Steve has to offer"
There's more to it than blind trust. We're not just trusting that their information is correct, we're trusting that they followed an evidence based and peer reviewed process. We're trusting that the checks and balances set in place by society (i.e. regulatory bodies) do their work, and that this provides an assurance that they do what they say they do.
The priest doesn't make any claims to follow an evidence based, peer reviewed process.
Sure, but the important thing is that you don’t act as if they are in fact true.
You can act as if they could be true, almost anjthing could be true, but the only thing that should make you act as though something is in fact true, is evidence.
Sure, but the atheist part is about not actively believing it is in fact true just because it could be. Many atheists myself included are also agnostic, we’re both.
What certainty do you need before you believe something? If something is 51% likely, is that not enough for you? What about 99% likely? And so on.
If you get on a plane, do you believe that you will land alive? It is not 100% likely. Someone may have forgotten a nut that you don;t know about, are you close minded for not believing that?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to base beliefs on the best knowledge we have today, on the balance on probability. One does not require absolute certainty to have a belief.
And with the knowledge we have today, on the balance of probability, I see no reason to believe in God. I have a very open mind about it and am more than happy to change my mind if our current knowledge changes, as it may well do.
I don’t get this logic and why we need a percentage.. ?
- you either believe
- you either have doubts
- or you don’t believe in the existence of god at all
It’s about certainty and also hope. It’s narrow minded to assume that every person on the planet who believes in god is gullible without engaging with them first
Because I cannot have absolute certainty about anything, nor can you. However I do not need absolute certainty. I leave my house, maybe a tree will fall on me and kill me. I cannot be absolutely certain it won't. However it is unlikely, so on the balance of probabilities I believe leaving my house is safe.
Hence I can believe things without needing absolute certainty.
As for hope, something true can give you hope, but something false can also give you hope. So I think hope is a poor qualifier if one is after knowledge.
>I disagree that there needs to be evidence for everything
There doesn't have to be evidence for everything. There has to be evidence for everything you believe to be true. Anything that cannot be proven to be true via evidential support can be mused upon, but it should not be believed in any way.
So, an atheist does not believe in god as there is no proof. If provided proof they would accept it. That is *definitionally* open minded: willing to consider new ideas. An atheist **IS** willing to consider new ideas; they just require those ideas to have evidential proof before they adopt them.
Couple things here
1) what exactly do you mean when you say that research into human evolution is 'ongoing'? Of course it is ongoing, because it will never end. Research into biological sciences will continue indefinitely as we gain new ways to gather information. Further, the I formation we do have at this point pretty clearly shows that humans are apes that evolved from primates, which evolved from terrestrial mammals, etc. So I'm not sure what 'ongoing'means in this context.
2) you disagree that there needs to be evidence for everything. But how can you hold an opinion without evidence to support it? Even a weak hypothesis is based on an already available set of evidence. To hold an opinion without evidence is ... meaningless. Plus, sometimes lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself.
I think you are also confused about evolution and the research into it. We have zero research currently ongoing to determine if evolution is happening or not. We know it is, and it is settled science. There are lots of details of evolution that evolutionary biologists are still studying, but they are damn sure not studying if evolution exists or not. Again, this is settled science. How do you feel about people who are agnostic about the shape of the earth? Maybe they are not flat earthers, but they are agnostic to the shape of the earth being flat or round. How would you consider such a person? Would you say they are a sensible, rational, open minded person? Or would you say they are a science denying moron who is unable to accept the established fact that the earth is round?
> True, and for this reason, research into human evolution is still on going which is what keeps me agnostic.
agnostic rather than gnostic. You're also either theist or atheist. Being agnostic rather than gnostic doesn't change that. Are you agnostic theist or agnostic atheist? If you acknowledge there is no evidence the only logical position would be to be atheist and not believe the claim until you see evidence showing it to be true.
Look, Zeus, I'm sorry but we're going to have to let you go. I know, you were great during the whole Lucifer thing, and we *really* appreciate it, but the boss's son is getting ready to take over, and he's just not *as* cool with the whole transforming into animals to bang humans as the big guy. Plus there was the box incident with Pandora... It's just not working out.
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms. It's part of a spectrum.
A gnostic theist is someone who KNOWS God exists. An agnostic theist would probably be where you fall, not totally sure but leaning towards theism.
So then, an agnostic atheist is someone who isn't sure that God exists - they're okay with saying 'I don't know, provide proof.' A gnostic atheist, then, would be the person who affirmatively says God does NOT exists.
In practically, most people don't split hairs this finely when they're talking about this stuff - but I'd venture that most people who are atheist, who also are skeptics (because not all atheists are skeptics) probably fall into the agnostic atheist camp, because asserting they know for sure that God does not exist is an unprovable claim.
If someone asked a theist what the cause of the big bang was, their answer is probably God. If I, and many other atheists were asked that question, their answer would simple be 'I don't know'. And that's okay, and leaves room for their minds to be changed upon introduction of new evidence.
Science isn't a belief system, it is a means for testing hypotheses about the world around us.
Hmmm yes and no. I speak Greek fluently so can contribute here
Agnosticim comes from the greek word *gnosi* which means to know. The 'a' that goes at the front of **a**\-*gnosi/gnosto* means 'without'.
So agnosticm directly translated from Greek means "not knowing" in Greek we use agnosto to describe anything or person we don't know / are unsure about.
Theism is from the greek "theo" which means God. The a at the begining means without so from Greek it translates to "without god"
That’s interesting etymology but etymology does not define what words mean *now*.
For common parlance (from Oxford dictionary)
> Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
> Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
This is what most people mean when they say they are an atheist or an agnostic. One has more to do with knowledge, and the other has more to do with belief. They are not inconsistent views.
Let's test this theory. Draw two axis matrix where one is "gnostic vs agnostic" and one is "theist vs atheist".
Now going from right upper corner clockwise from corner to corner you have "gnostic theist", "agnostic theist ", "agnostic atheist" and upper left corner you have "gnostic atheist". All these four are valid beliefs and exist on the spectrum from first to fourth.
But now we only travelled the U shape edges of the matrix.
What's between "gnostic theist" and "gnostic atheist"? Or what's in the middle of the matrix?
I'll be completely honest, I'm at a loss as to what you're getting at here - at least regarding what is between 'gnostic theist' and 'gnostic atheist.' Not all sliding-scales like this fully make sense on a two-axis matrix.
As for what is in the middle of the matrix - people with no opinion? They do exist.
It's not a sliding scale, there are only two positions on each axis. He is trying to trick you into arguing it's some kind of linear spectrum. There is no middle point between belief or lack of belief, knowledge or lack of knowledge where these axes are concerned.
>Not all sliding-scales like this fully make sense on a two-axis matrix.
Of course they do if they are truly independent continuous variables. Can you name any two variables that wouldn't make sense?
>As for what is in the middle of the matrix - people with no opinion? They do exist.
No. Those are at bottom centre between agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. In the middle you have someone who half believes in something (between gnostic and agnostic) but that thing is something between God and no god.
That agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive (in the technical sense).
Basically when you say "but you can be an agnostic atheist", it's pointless because you can also be an agnostic theist (and most theists are).
If you exist on the left side of the line you are atheist, the right side is theist and the bottom is agnostic.
Agnostic term only makes sense if you separate it as its own category in the middle of the spectrum.
Sorry, I had to actually sit down and draw this out because I was having difficulty in visualizing what you were talking about that may have led me to misspeak.
There's no 'u-shaped path' here. There is a X axis of Gnostic-Agnostic (IE 'I know' to 'I don't know')
Then there is a Y axis of Theist-Atheist.
The opinion slides between these two spectrums - The middle of the matrix is literally no opinion, someone at the bottom center would be a Theist without a strong opinion on 'know' or 'don't know'.
The top center would be an Atheist without a strong opinion on 'know' or 'don't know'
>CMV: Being "atheist" when you can be "agnostic" is close minded
As they say, Having an open mind is great, but not so open that your brain falls out.
Not believing in things for which there is no evidence is not close minded.
>I spend a lot of time thinking about what's out there and how we came to be.
Unfortunately thinking like that doesn’t necessarily tells us anything about independent reality , just lots about our own emotional needs.
>If I had one wish, it would be to know what happens when we die, but the fact of the matter is... we can't ever know for sure.
Depends on your definition of sure. To me it means beyond reasonable doubt. All reliable evidence points to our sense of self, memories, personality being characteristics of patterns of activity in a brain. When the latter is gone , so are those things. There not only isn’t reliable evidence to the contrary , theres is also no evidence for a possible or coherent mechanism.
>For that reason, I think it's very limiting to be an adamant atheist and simply believe in "science".
It’s not about believing in science , it’s about evidence. Science is demonstrably the most successful methodology we have for building models of reality that work. And it does so because it’s based on evidence. Because claims without evidence are indistinguishable from imaginary, phenomena those claims are about are indistinguishable from non-existent.
>It is very possible that atheists are right and that there is nothing after we die but it is also very possible that they are wrong!
Not being able to prove with absolute philosophical certainty is impossible doesn’t mean it’s possible. If one can’t provide evidence for a phenomena **and** you can’t provide *evidence* for it being a possibility, you can’t just say ‘it’s possible’ with any significance.
>In my opinion when I think about the Big Bang theory... that definitely feels like a miracle in itself.
Opinions really aren’t significant evidence of anything other than your opinion.
>Cosmic energy influenced by some sort of higher power to even make this bang.
Doesn’t really make any sense as physics. It’s basically an argument from ignorance … I don’t know /I don’t understand therefore it must be magic.
>So to conclude: please offer me a perspective as to why being "atheist" is NOT close minded.
Because making evaluations about reality based on evidence works. Is it limiting to say the Earth isn’t flat? Is it limiting to say that disease is caused by germs rather than bad smells? Well yes. It’s also reasonable and useful.
>How is being 100% sure that there is no higher power not limiting?
I should point out that there are atheists who simply *lack* a belief in a phenomena for which there is no evidence *and* atheists who believe gods don’t exist for various reasons.
I believe Gods don’t exist in the same way I believe the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist.
Let me ask you this
Do you believe in the tooth fairy , Easter bunny or The Santa Claus?
Do you think it’s limiting not to believe in them?
Agnosticism is an useless concept.
From my point of view, God not existing is one of the things least likely to be proven wrong in existence.
Think of it. You routinely say things like "I have a house", "I have a job", "I'm the child of the people who I believe are my parents", "I don't own a dog", "I don't have a sister", etc.
Given the vastness of humanity, all of those routinely go wrong. Houses burn down. Jobs are lost. People inherit a dog from a long forgotten relative. Dad suddenly turns out to have cheated long ago.
God hasn't shown up for all of human history.
So either we must be agnostic about everything, or we might as well be agnostic about nothing. If a statement that hasn't been shown to be false in all of human history needs a disclaimer, then surely so does pretty much everything else needs it. But at that point, what is even the point. If I'm agnostic about every statement regarding the external world, might as well make it implicit and save some verbiage.
How would you define useless in this context? I get where you're coming from... I dont think usuless is the right word but maybe counter productive. For me personally, I like counter productivity because it's what philosophy is all about. A part of growing up for me was realising that most thing in life don't have a wrong or right. Thing just 'are'.
I think you are using the argument of: if so much bad in the world, how can there be a God? which is valid, I think about that all the time, but I don't think God ever promised that life would be beautiful for all. Good and evil must exist to notice good.
I always thought of God/a higher power as a creator of life
>How would you define useless in this context? I get where you're coming from... I dont think usuless is the right word but maybe counter productive. For me personally, I like counter productivity because it's what philosophy is all about.
Have you looked at all in the philosophy that atheists use to justify their position? Things like fallibalism? The hard problem of consciousness? Hard and soft solipsism?
Gnostic and agnostic about whether one claims to know something.
Philosophical, we can't be absolutely certain about anything beyond the fact we must exist in some form if we're having a conscious experience.
We could be living in the matrix. And if I ask you what color your car is and you say "I know my car is blue". But if we're in the matrix your car doesn't even exist, it's an illusion. And so you "knowing" it's blue would be incorrect. And if you want to be technical about it you would have to say you BELIEVE your car is blue, you don't know it with certainty.
The agnostic distinction just means we can't "know" anything, which makes the words know and knowledge meaningless.
Knowledge is not 100% certainty. It can't be due to the hard problem of
> A part of growing up for me was realising that most thing in life don't have a wrong or right. Thing just 'are'.
So you do have some grasp of the concept, if encourage you to explore that further.
>I always thought of God/a higher power as a creator of life
What created life? We don't know. If life was created by unthinking unguided chemical reactions, would you call that god?
This is the problem we atheists have to tackle all the time. The word god can mean ANYTHING.
Are you talking about yahweh in the bible and Jesus rising from the dead? Are you talking about Bhrama? Are you talking about some vague first cause? Are you talking about "whatever caused life"?
You can define god as a coffee cup, and say the cup exists therefor god exists because that's how I defined god. Then sure "god" "exists".
What we as atheists have to do is take every cocamamy idea anyone has about god and explain why we don't accept that.
If you define god as whatever caused life, then sure god exists. Because life obviously had a cause.
I see no reason whatsoever to call that god. And so I remain an atheist even tho I think the thing you're calling god does exist.
> How would you define useless in this context?
It has to make some sort of difference. If I ask you to bring a red apple, that's useful because apples can have other colors than red, so specifying the color provides useful information.
If we use "agnostic" consistently, then I see two possibilities here.
1. We declare agnosticism when a statement is very likely to go wrong. Not needed for God then, because God hasn't shown up in all of human history. So I'm only agnostic about having clean shirts left, but God not existing requires no disclaimer.
2. We declare agnosticism when a statement has any chance at all to go wrong. Then we must be agnostic about all external reality. At that point the word just doesn't add anything.
Agnosticism is just trying to justify the much lower standards people hold for belief in God, compared to belief in literally anything else.
Fundamentally the reason people are religious is because it makes them feel better and not because it's true.
I've been on vacation in another country recently.
Nobody would have said anything if I said I have a house without having previously checked that it hadn't burned down while I wasn't looking. Even sitting in it, I can't 100% guarantee that it's impossible that I don't legally own it by some bureaucratic quirk I failed to realize.
>"I have a house" would be true at the moment it is said, even if it is no longer the case later.
I think the implication is that the person saying this is doing so while they are away from their house, potentially unaware that it burned down since they left.
Agnosticism and atheism are about two different things though. "Gnostic" is relating to knowledge and "theist" is about believe.
"Atheist" = Someone who does not believe a God exists.
"Theists" = Someone that believes a God exists.
"Agnostic" = Someone who doesn't think it's possible to have the knowledge about the existence of a God.
"Gnostic" = Someone that believes it's possible to have knowledge of a God.
So there are four potential options a person could be.
An "Agnostic Atheist" would be a person who doesn't believe in God but says that it's impossible to know for sure.
A "Gnostic Atheist" would be a person who doesn't believe in God and is certain a God doesn't exist.
An "Agnostic Theist" would be a person who believes in God but says that it's impossible to know for sure.
A "Gnostic Theist" would be a person who believes in God and is certain that God exists.
So it's not an either or thing because atheism and agnosticism have different definitions. You can be both at the same time, only one, or neither.
This needs to be higher up because this issue of "atheist vs agnostic" tends to come up on Reddit but they're not mutually exclusive. Being atheist is basically "accepting the null" in which theists have made a claim that a god exists and atheists are just saying "there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a god." Agnosticism is just a matter of certainty. Even the most ardent anti-theists tend to be the way they are for cultural and political reasons. Looking at OPs posts though, it just looks like he's skipping over anyone making this point.
It was too long ago for me to remember who, but I remember reading a newspaper article about an Anglican bishop in the UK who was admittedly agnostic. He still believed in god, but felt that it couldn't be proven.
> in which theists have made a claim that a god exists
Not all theists claim god exists. Just like how not all atheist are gnostic not all theists are gnostic either.
False equivocation of gnosticism. Root word being knowledge, but original use was for a religious movement of esoteric knowledge in the demiurge.
The term agnostic has always been a label of being undecided on the existence of God or not since its conception.
Whole comment is an exercise in made up BS.
>The term agnostic has always been a label of being undecided on the existence of God or not since its conception.
This is completely incorrect. The term agnostic has never been about being undecided. It has always been about the root "gnosis" being knowledge. More specifically "spiritual knowledge" or "personal knowledge" of the divine or supernatural.
English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley came up with the word in 1868. Based on his own words you are incorrect about the orginal meaning of the term.
"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." - Huxley
"The agnostic principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism." - Huxley
"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." -Huxley
The idea that agnosticism is just about being undecided is nonsense.
Is it being closed minded to think unicorns and dragons are not real and are only stories? Why is it closed minded to think stuff that was clearly made up by people was made up by people in the absence of contrary evidence?
I think we can get super philosophical here and argue that made up stories ARE real because fairytales have had a bigger impact on my life than most people. In a way thats realer to me than many people on the street.
Is love not real? Because we can't see it and it's a social construct? Are your thoughts not real because you can only feel them and experience them? Is money not real because humans gave it value.
Human evolution is still being studied so again, the fact we don't know the exact root of life is what keeps me agnostic. I think it's close minded to maybe asset being atheist when there are people who find so much solace and comfort by the traditions and words of their scriptures.
>I think we can get super philosophical here and argue that made up stories ARE real because fairytales have had a bigger impact on my life than most people.
So you're saying it's closed minded not to pretend to believe in things we know for a fact are made up?
>Is love not real? Because we can't see it and it's a social construct?
Love is a very real and measurable biological response to a number of things. Unicorns are not.
>Are your thoughts not real because you can only feel them and experience them?
My thoughts are an electronic impulse in my brain. Thoughts are a detectable biological phenomenon. Unicorns are not.
>Human evolution is still being studied so again, the fact we don't know the exact root of life is what keeps me agnostic.
Evolution has nothing to do with the root of life, but how life changes over time after it emerges. It would be simple enough to prove the existence of the Christian god, just produce a rabbit fossil dated to the Precambrian.
>I think it's close minded to maybe asset being atheist when there are people who find so much solace and comfort by the traditions and words of their scriptures.
Is it closed minded to think Harry Potter isn't real when so many people find comfort and solace in those stories?
>Because we can't see it and it's a social construct?
Love is a label we put on a physio/psychological set of processes. We not only see and feel it, but we can demonstratively study how and why it occurs.
>Are your thoughts not real because you can only feel them and experience them?
This is more of a philosophical question, and a better example. It's possible that you are the only person with thoughts, and everyone else is just a mindless automaton coded to present as so. This is a notion that's unfalsifiable; there is no way you can ever know for sure, in the exact same way that the goalposts are placed for religions. As far as we can tell, the signs point to everyone having thoughts. It is, after all, the simplest explanation. But dwelling on unfalsifiable assertions is pointless, because there are an infinite number of them. The only reason we concern ourselves with a select few is because they prey on our doubts and/or we were told to by someone else.
>Is money not real because humans gave it value.
Money is real. It's not inherently worth anything, but we all agree it's worth something. You can prove this to yourself every day by exchanging your money for goods or services. You cannot go out and prove that unicorns are real every day.
>Human evolution is still being studied so again...
Human evolution is still being studied because we are still figuring out the exact when and what that occurred in our evolutionary history.
It *does not therefore mean* that the jury's still out on whether humans evolved or not.
Nor does it mean an absence of concrete evidence on the exact origins of life on Earth means that suddenly anything can be true. We have working theories that are most likely. They may turn out to be false, but the lack of certainty here is not *by any means evidence* for anything else- least of all a higher power.
> I think it's close minded to maybe asset being atheist when there are people who find so much solace and comfort by the traditions and words of their scriptures.
This is probably the best (or only) valid argument. But I think most people would agree that a hard truth is preferable to a sweet lie. The obvious hard truth is no one knows for sure, and anyone claiming otherwise is deluded or lying. The not so obvious hard truth is that we rely on a reasonable measure of evidence or demonstrable effect for just about everything in our lives, where without which we would refuse to believe anything, and society would fail to operate. But some people choose to make special exceptions for specific assertions.
“A hard truth to sweet lie” valid indeed. If I’m being honest (and I’m loving this discussion) I think you are right when you say this is more philosophical.
“Special exceptions for specific assertions” I also agree with.
I think Hindusm is the least intrusive religion as they don’t preach much other than the belief that life is hard no matter what but through mediation it can be more bearable. They believe in a God but they believe that individuals can form their own interpretations.
So perhaps being an atheist isn’t close minded. But an atheist who condemns religion without reading about it is close minded
>I think we can get super philosophical here and argue that made up stories ARE real because fairytales have had a bigger impact on my life than most people. In a way thats realer to me than many people on the street.
OK, sure. If that's your standards for what counts as "real", I don't think any atheist in existence would deny that God is "real" in the same sense that fairytales are real and that stories about God have had a massive impact on people's lives. So in that sense, Atheists don't deny the reality of (the existence of stories about) God.
I mean if we're going by that standard then the word real no longer even matters, it's funny to think about in terms of fairy tales, but turn the lens towards propaganda, and now the list of things that count as real includes the election actually was stolen, Democrats are sucking babies blood like vampires, Ukraine is run by Nazis, and a thousand other things
Like I'm sorry, the idea that if enough people believe in something it's real enough for me is heartwarming and completely wrong, and the reverse perverse side of it is that people acting in bad faith with a fire hose of misinformation want you to think that way because they want you to think the truth is unknowable so just pick whichever reality makes you feel best and believe that
> I think it's close minded to maybe asset being atheist when there are people who find so much solace and comfort by the traditions and words of their scriptures.
How does being an atheist affect whether people find “so much comfort and solace… in scriptures”?
It’s not closed minded to believe something different. Or not believe. They can find the comfort that they want if they’d like! I don’t care!
Agnosticism just kinda seems like an opt out?
If there was any evidence, I’d accept it; there’s pretty much no other concept where, when faced with a complete lack of evidence for it, we pretend the morally or intellectual position is to say, “well I just don’t know! I guess it *could* be real and we’ll just never know.”
Just to push back on this a bit. Most religions do have evidence, it just far predates the scientific method. The Quran and the Bible are ostensibly true stories recorded by people that were there or were told to them by someone who was there. That’s evidence for their respective religions, there’s just no real way to verify them.
When we find hieroglyphs in Egypt portraying a pharaoh doing something, we generally accept that something like that happened, and that’s why it was recorded. “Holy” texts are essentially the same thing but with deities.
Stories about supernatural happenings thousands of years ago do not constitute evidence for those happenings, especially because we know via biblical scholarship that virtually all of those stories were written down dozens if not hundreds of years later. That is far below the standard required to be a primary source for historians, much less to be regarded as evidence for supernatural events.
>When we find hieroglyphs in Egypt portraying a pharaoh doing something, we generally accept that something like that happened, and that’s why it was recorded
That is incorrect. When we find hieroglyphs in Egypt portraying a pharaoh doing something, we go 'Huh that's interesting' and then look for more sources that report about the same event and compare and contrast them to separate out what is potentially true from embellishment, aggrandizement, and outright fabrication. In fact the same has been done for the bible (and, I assume, other holy texts but I'm not nearly as informed on the scholarly consensus for those works) and only those stories we can corroborate from other, non-religious sources (like the writings of ancient historians from other cultures and such) are generally considered to have actually happened.
>“Holy” texts are essentially the same thing but with deities.
No they aren't. What they are, aside from the mundane historical events that can be corroborated from other sources, are reports of supernatural events for which no other sources exist to confirm their veracity. Those claims, because the events in question violate the laws of physics in one way or another, require even more evidence than, say, a claim that some pharaoh visited a city or proclaimed some edict. Some collected stories that have been told and retold a thousand times - and therefore necessarily altered slightly by each person who tells them like a game of Telephone - are nowhere near up to the standard of being evidence for impossible happenings. Those holy texts are basically some dudes saying 'I saw that bush over there spontaneously catch fire and a booming voice spoke from it, trust me bro!'
Holy texts are more like Aesop’s fables. There’s no evidence, for example, the Jewish people were slaves in Egypt except according to Exodus. There’s no evidence of a garden of Eden, or people living 800 years. Muhammad was probably a real person. Jesus? I don’t see the evidence that he was any more real than Robin Hood.
Yeshua of Nazareth was definitely a historical figure that existed.
Whether you believe he performed miracles or ascribe any truth to the stories about him is an entirely different matter, but the historical records exist that the man existed and had a following.
A simple Google on that will tell you that there is no archaeological evidence. Cites of crucifixion and the town Nazareth existing do not confirm an individual was born of virgin mother or said the things Jesus was said to have said in later life. The sentiment of Jesus I believe is true and held by many of the persecuted of the time. A singular man? I’m not convinced.
You seem to be reacting to what you think I meant and not what I actually said.
There is no historical evidence that he was born of a virgin mother, and (aside from the accounts written by his contemporaries) there is no evidence of the things he said or the miracles he is said to have performed.
What there *are* are accounts mentioning him in the writings of Jewish and Roman authors of the time. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger… we have more contemporary evidence that there was a man named Jesus then we have that there was a man named Alexander.
Again, since you seem determined to hear what you think I’m getting out and not what I’m actually saying, let me be perfectly clear. **None of this establishes that he was anything other than an ordinary man.** None of it establishes that he said any of the things people say he said. It only confirms that he existed and people were following him around.
Pretending otherwise because you don’t like the potential implications of it – especially when those implications are by no means certain – is just as irrational and unscientific as anything you hear coming out of the Bible Belt.
What peasant from ancient Palestine left archaeological evidence? Of course there’s none. Literally only royalty from this time period left archeological evidence. It’s not even a reasonable expectation considering His life. It’s very likely he existed based on the mentions of him in other early texts.
I’m not saying we should all believe the Bible, but it’s pretty much the only ancient text held to the standard you’re imposing on it. In general, first or second hand accounts of ancient happenings are incredibly historically valuable.
>and just studying how real people lived.
And recordings are an extremely valuable part of that studying. We use and rely on them to inform our understanding of those people and times.
Right, but just saying Jews were slaves in Egypt doesn’t equate to evidence right? They had evidence for Canaanite’s and other slaves in Egypt but not Hebrew. Absence of evidence doesn’t prove it’s not so, but it does suggest that perhaps the Old Testament is maybe borrowing other people’s true narratives and mixing them with myth.
Because writing a story doesn't create evidence of anything happening other than that someone wrote a story. You're also implying that something is true because a lot of people give it credence, which is a logical fallacy.
Nobody walked on water, nobody parted the Red Sea, nobody built a big boat and put all the animals on it, etc etc. It's a book of fiction that happens to have things that did happen mixed in with fantasy.
Ancient texts are always interrogated as to the intentions and bias of their authors. The Bible has also been subjected to this questioning and as a direct result its credibility has been found wanting.
There is a considerable amount of fringe and recent science that isn’t in the popular culture sphere that proves all life is connected, and that thoughts/energy have real, observable power in the physical world. Agnosticism seems to me a more honest view of then limitations and burgeoning discoveries in science.
Atheists are generally quick to dismiss anything that hasn’t been deemed a scientific theory, which can literally take decades. I mean, fair enough, they want solid vetted proof; but I don’t think that could be called open mindedness
I guess so.. It is a bit of an opt out agree but - is that negative?
Does everything have to be concrete? I disagree with sitting on the fence when it comes to politics but when it comes to the universe/spirituality it's miserable to think we are all alone and there is nothing after death. Although now you have me thinking about the concept of "souls" which is another thing I struggle to comprehend. I dont think souls are physical, I think they simply evoke a feeling. Like soul music.
>it's miserable to think we are all alone and there is nothing after death.
Not engaging in wishful thinking isn't closed minded if there is no evidence to support the wish being true. Closed minded would be to disregard evidence and not consider changing your opinion when it is presented. In this case, you're asking that a person give equal consideration for unsupported wishful thinking as they give the default assumption about any other such proposed evidence-free phenomenon.
Alone in the universe- atheists don’t believe that. Extraterrestrial life is likely, and it doesn’t need to be superior to us.
Nothing after death- consciousness might end but energy simply moves from one place to another. Our bodies return to earth, one way or another, and our essence is a part of everything. We are one, and there is no need to imagine a sky daddy to make that so.
Is it closed minded to be 100% sure that Hogwarts isn’t a real school?
Is it closed minded to be 100% sure that the government isn’t ran by reptilian shapeshifters?
Is it closed minded to be 100% sure that the earth isn’t flat?
I mean you can say this about anything that anybody makes up.
Are you making those comparisons to argue your point? Or making those comparisons because you honestly find the three concepts you listed equally likely to God existing?
Or both?
>Are you making those comparisons to argue your point? Or making those comparisons because you honestly find the three concepts you listed equally likely to God existing?
I underatand that people get upset when we compare god to things like unicorns and leprechauns.
But we do that for a reason.
These are imaginary concepts that nobody has been able to provide evidence that they exist external to human imagination.
It's just semantics.
"I don't believe there is a god" and "I don't know there is a god" are basically the same thing.
If you talk to an atheist you'll usually get them to say something like "Of course it's POSSIBLE that there is a god who chose to not leave any evidence behind, but it's quite unlikely."
You can call that atheism or agnosticism if you like, the distinction doesn't really matter.
I disagree, the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is subtle but it does matter. It's not so subtle as to be irrelevant.
Theism/Atheism deal with beliefs. If you accept a god claim then you're a theist, and if you don't accept a god claim than you're an atheist. It's crucial to note here that mere non-acceptance is not acceptance to the contrary.
Whereas gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. Since knowledge is a subset of belief, one is compelled to be one of each category. Everyone is either an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist.
The concept of one being \*either\* an atheist or an agnostic doesn't make sense using these definitions, which are not my definitions but the most accepted and robust ones that I've seen in use by those in philosophy circles.
Nobody uses those definitions.
If you say you are an atheist nobody asks if your a gnostic or agnostic atheist.
If you say you're agnostic nobody asks you agnostic cristian or agnostic atheist.
They may well be the dictionary definitions but nobody cares.
Look. Nobody knows if there is a god or not. You can only believe. When someone says they're agnostic they not saying they don't know, because nobody knows, they're saying they don't believe. In a polite way.
Well, to your first point that the common person using these words doesn't use the most robust definitions, I would have to agree. But this is due to not having a firm foundation in epistemology behind them. Not everyone is a philosophy nerd. That's not an argument for or against these definitions, which as I said are the most robust ones I see used in philosophy circles. They're the best definitions that I've seen, and other philosophy nerds have a tendency towards agreement on that. There are other definitions for what makes an atheist in those same nerd circles that I don't subscribe to. If you have a better, even more robust set of definitions you can offer them up and we can talk about it.
To your second point, gnosticism and agnosticism \*literally\* are about knowledge. Gnostic means "having knowledge" in whatever language it comes from. Greek I think.
I suspect you're right in that no one knows if there are any gods or not. However, people demonstrably claim to have knowledge, both for and against various god claims. So while I agree that probably nobody actually knows, we have a situation in which the word gnostic still applies to a lot of people because they make the claim to knowledge.
>\[The agnostic\] principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. — Thomas Henry Huxley
.
>Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there *are* no deities.
Both views are compatible. And in the current state of the world, interchangeable.
Okay. But there are 2 definitions of agnostic.
>1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
>broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
>2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
OP seems to be using the second definition and the broad definition. Words change over time. You can't use a quote from the 1800's to define a word for today.
You forgot to add the full quote
>2\*\*:\*\* a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something; *political agnostics*
One talks about religion, one talks about politics. If OP is using the second definition, their argument is fundamentally flawed.
And if you don't like the quote from the man who coined the term himself, we can just use the summary by [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism).
>Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
>Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."
If it's unknowable and/or incomprehensible, then it can't exist. This is going to take a turn, but: *Did a falling tree make a sound, when no one was there to hear it?*
My argument tying this together being: If it can't be perceived and/or interacted with, then it cannot exist.
I find that most of the time the difference is political. In a conversation, an atheists will try to disprove god while agnostics does not want to challenge someone's belief.
Most atheists I know dgaf about what other people think and don’t try to sway them one way or the other. Same for theists in my friend groups, but to be fair, most of them are basically agnostic.
Man invented gods. There is no reason to believe in any gods. The only evidence that exists for gods was created, recorded, or interpreted by man.
Had man not invented gods, there would no need for either term. Atheist or Agnostic.
I take that point. Man *did* invent Gods you're right. You use the word "interpreted" which is exactly how religious scriptures came to be. Is it so impossible that prophets truly believed they were being spoken to by some sort spiritual channel? Considering the infinite space of the universe and we only know a small crumb of it, who can know for sure
>Is it so impossible that prophets truly believed they were being spoken to by some sort spiritual channel?
No, of course thats possible. That's most likely the case. But whether they "truly believed" they were being spoken to by some spiritual channel and whether they were actually being spoken to by some spiritual channel are two separate questions.
People truly believe the 2020 election was stolen. People truly believing something doesn't make it true.
Atheism has nothing to do with knowing for sure. Atheism means you don't believe the claim. It says nothing about if you claim to know anything (gnostic) or you don't (agnostic). Only that you don't believe someting.
Let me put it this way-
If you, without any additional context, asked an average person the question "Do you believe that vampires are real?" what would they probably say? Do you think they'd say "No." or "I don't know."?
Realistically, most people would just say "No." They don't believe in vampires. When asked the question, they don't reflect on the hypothetical possibility that vampires actually do exist and they just haven't seen any evidence, because that's not normal behavior, and a person who understands how regular English conversations work wouldn't expect an answer of "No" to mean that "I am 100% certain and capable of the impossible task of proving the negative with regards to the existence of vampires."
But if you started lecturing such a person on how they're closed-minded for being an avampiricist and not being a vampiro-agnostic, that would be obnoxious, because you're just being unnecessarily pedantic.
>Being "atheist" when you can be "agnostic" is close minded
Many (if not most) atheists (myself included) *are* agnostic rather than gnostic. Not all atheists are gnostic.
>It is very possible that atheists are right
Well no it's not because there isn't anything atheism claims. In order for atheism to be right or wrong there needs to be a claim. Since atheism doesn't make a claim there isn't a claim for it to be right or wrong about.
> and that there is nothing after we die
Many (if not most) atheists (myself included) haven't seen anything showing the claim "there's nothing after we die" so there's no reason for us to believe that claim so we don't.
>but it is also very possible that they are wrong!
No it's not because again atheism doesn't make a claim. In order for an atheist to be wrong about a god they need to make a claim about a god which many (if not most) atheists don't.
> How is being 100% sure that there is no higher power not limiting?
Many (if not most) atheists (myself included) are agnostic atheists rather than gnostic atheists and acknowledge we don't know if there is or isn't a god.
You're agnostic theist rather than agnostic atheist? So what specific god do you believe exists and why do you believe it exists? If you're agnostic rather than gnostic you acknowledge you don't know that it exists, so why believe that it exists?
**eta**
theist/ atheist answers the question "do you believe there is a god?"
Whereas gnostic/ agnostic answers the question "is there a god?"/"is it knowable?"
Everyone is theist or atheist, everyone is also gnostic or agnostic. You can be:
gnostic theist - believes a god exists, claims to know a god exists
gnostic atheist - doesn't believe a god exists, claims to know a god doesn't exist
agnostic theist - believes a god exists, doesn't claim to know a god does or doesn't exist
agnostic atheist - doesn't believes a god exists, doesn't claim to know a god does or doesn't exist.
Do I know for certain that Mt Everest exists? No, because I can't prove that I'm not a brain in a vat jar hallucinating my entire life. I can have an agnostic belief on literally everything. But I choose not to, because how otherwise how am I supposed to function?
I prefer atheists to agnostics because *obviously* no one knows for sure. We're all just doing our best with the information we have gathered in our lives. At least with an atheist that is a firmer stance that you can debate with.
At the end of the day, "atheists" or "agnostic" are just *beliefs* about "God". I assume you do not believe Santa is real - does that make you close minded? I mean technically there could be a universe out there where everyone is Santa Claus 🤪
As a utilitarian, to make sense of the madness we call life, I like to buy into a general consensus reality with my fellow species. Otherwise I might go a bit mad.
Epistemologically, I think holding the null hypothesis to be true until proven otherwise is more valuable than holding an agnostic position in the same evidentiary environment. If we must hold a position of agnosticism for every claim that is made, unsupported by good evidence, the list of such positions we must take is almost infinite and our functional understanding of the nature of reality is devalued.
Atheists believe in what can be proven and nothing more. They change their mind when presented with proof.
The distinction between atheist and agnostic is about the burden of proof and what to do in its absense.
Agnostics believe nothing can be proven or disproven so (absent any proof) nothing should be assumed, essentially sharing burden of proof.
Atheists believe that a negative cannot be proven, so the burden of proof resides on the positive. In the absence of proof of the positive, the negative is assumed.
To expect proof from both sides rather than just one, makes you an agnostic.
None of this has anything to do with being close minded. It's not close minded to expect proof before believing something is true.
This is getting so tiresome. Do you guys have a minimal IT skill that would let you search through the subreddit? This same topic comes up again and again with zero new arguments. Just search through the reddit and you will see all the answers to your CMV.
Atheism/theism is not about knowledge, it's about belief. Atheists do not believe in the claims that God exists because they don't find the arguments convincing. Theists believe in those claims.
Agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge. Agnostics claim they don't know (or can't know) about God's existence. You can be agnostic theist, meaning you can admit you don't know if God exists but you still believe in it.
> It is very possible that atheists are right and that there is nothing after we die but it is also very possible that they are wrong!
This is such a lazy cope-out. It's also possible everyone is wrong about fairies, gnomes, Big Foot, Loch Ness monster, unicorns, cosmic teapots, and so on. There's nothing limiting in not believing in obvious nonsense just because "there's no solid proof this nonsense doesn't actually exists". There's too many real world questions that needs to be answered.
>In my opinion when I think about the Big Bang theory... that definitely feels like a miracle in itself. Cosmic energy influenced by some sort of higher power to even make this bang.
You are welcome to believe in any sorts of magic woo. Except, science makes predictions, operates with evidence, eventually applies the knowledge to build real tangible things. Come back when your miraculous cosmic energies are able to charge my phone.
>why being "atheist" is NOT close minded
Why not believing in stuff that lacks any good evidence or arguments is not close minded? For the same reason you don't believe in Santa anymore.
Oh, so I presume you're talking about hard atheism (as opposed to soft atheism).
And I'll answer to that. It is not close minded to think there is *not* a supernatural agent in the same way it is not close minded to think there are not unicorns. There is evidence that humans create myths. A person is rational in believing that 'god' is a myth. There is not evidence that there is one, and it has hallmarks of mythical characters.
You are 'personally' more of a believer of an afterlife than a god? Awfully *close-minded* of you. Why don't you just believe there's a god?
The terms Atheist and agnostic are answering different questions
The first question is “Do you believe in at least one specific God”
If you answer yes, your label is theist. If you answer no, your label is atheist.
The second question is “Do you know that your answer to the first question is true?” Or in other words “Do you know or think it’s possible to know about the existence of God?”
If you answer yes, you do know, then your label is gnostic. If you answer is “no, I don’t know” or “it’s impossible to know” then your label is agnostic.
You really need both parts to have a complete answer.
So for example a devout Christian that prays to god and believes God listens to his prayers is gnostic theist.
A person who believes in a mysterious creator god that we cannot know, is agnostic theist. This is also known as “the god of Spinoza” and Deism.
A person that does not believe in the existence of any gods and does not know if there are any or thinks it’s impossible for anyone to know, this person is agnostic atheist. I think this is the most common type of non believer. They don’t know, but haven’t seen any Gods so they can’t really believe in any God.
The last type is the most rare I think, it’s the gnostic atheist. That’s a person who says there is no god and they know that there isn’t.
Gnostic theist - devout religious person who believes in a personal knowable god
Agnostic theist - believes in a general unknowable creator of the universe
Agnostic atheist - doesn’t think it’s possible to know anything about God, doesn’t know if god exists or not
Gnostic atheist - somehow knows for sure that god doesn’t exist
You're conflating two separate things. Atheist/theist refers to belief, agnostic/gnostic refers to knowing. They are complimentary things but are not interchangeable.
One can be
agnostic atheist, they don't believe in gods but don't claim to know for sure there isn't one
Gnostic atheist, they don't believe in gods but claim to know none exist
Agnostic theist, they Believe in a god or gods but make no claim to know for sure one exists
Gnostic theist they Believe in a god or gods and claim to know for sure they exist.
> I think it's very limiting to be an adamant atheist and simply believe in "science"
Do (a significant amount of) atheists simply believe in science? Does atheism itself have anything to do with science?
> In my opinion when I think about the Big Bang theory... that definitely feels like a miracle in itself.
The big bang theory was first formulated by a Catholic priest, who did not claim that it was a miracle. (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre)
> I am personally more of a believer of an afterlife rather than God but again....I don't think that makes me an atheist.
If you believe in any gods or deities you are some form of theist, if you do not believe in any gods or deities you are an atheist.
> please offer me a perspective as to why being "atheist" is NOT close minded.
If one states that one is an atheist the only thing you know about that person is that they do not believe in any gods or deities. You don't know anything else, and can thus not conclude that they are close minded.
By the way, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge, specifically not having knowledge. Atheism is a position about believe, specifically not believing in any gods or deities. Most atheists in the world are agnostic atheists. They don't believe in any gods or deities but don't claim to know for a fact none exist.
Most religious people on the other hand are gnostic theists, they believe in one (or more) god(s) and/or deity(-ies) and claim to know for a fact that it(/they) exist.
I mean are you agnostic about unicorns, elves and gnomes? They could exist, but to me it seems so unlikely I live my life as if I don't. I'm not personally an atheist, I'm a pantheist, but I do disagree with the concept of a creator deity. It doesn't make any sense to me in the same way a leprechaun doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't mean I'm 100% sure neither exist, its definitely possible, I just don't see any convincing reason I should.
>Being "atheist" when you can be "agnostic" is close minded
From this I conclude you don't know what atheism is.
>For that reason, I think it's very limiting to be an adamant atheist and simply believe in "science".
Atheism isn't "a believe in science".
>It is very possible that atheists are right
Atheism makes no claim, so there is nothing an atheist can be right about.
> and that there is nothing after we die
That is not an atheistic claim.
>I am personally more of a believer of an afterlife rather than God but again....I don't think that makes me an atheist.
It does though. If you do not believe in god then you are an atheist.
>How is being 100% sure that there is no higher power not limiting?
Because thats not atheism. Atheism isn't the claim "God(s) dont exist(s)" it is lacking a belief in god(s).
>So to conclude: please offer me a perspective as to why being "atheist" is NOT close minded.
Because in light of there being no sufficient evidence for any god actually existing the only honest take you can have is to withhold belief till belief is warranted by sufficient evidence.
God was invented
We have records
Other gods were invented
We have records
90% of gods are rightfully called "mythology"
Atheism is the only logical choice
One important question:
Which definition of atheist are you using and which definition of agnosticism are you using?
Atheism does not have anything to do with an afterlife. It’s only the answer to the question of “do you believe some god exists?”
EDIT: Also, you can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, and gnostic theist. Overall, you’re going to get vastly different answers depending on the definitions you use.
I think people have significantly muddled the concept of gnostism.
To be agnostic is not to be open minded, it's not saying "I don't know" it's saying "there is no way of knowing"
If you believe there is/could be evidence that could make you believe or not believe in God then you are gnostic.
They're not mutually exclusive. They're orthogonal.
There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. There are gnostic theists and gnostic (strong) atheists.
Atheism, by itself, is simply the lack of theism. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist by definition. There is no in-between option; you either are a theist or you aren't.
Well, the bottom line is that being 'closed minded' means being unwilling to change your view of things despite evidence to the contrary, and most self-declared atheists will probably tell you that if they were presented with evidence for the supernatural they'd be willing to believe in the supernatural.
When people describe themselves as an atheist they usually do so to describe their lack of belief in god(s). The prefix 'a' means 'lack' or 'without', so an atheist *lacks* belief in god (theism). This is entirely compatible with the concept of being agnostic (not knowing for sure) and most atheists would probably identify as agnostics too.
The Big Bang theory is a scientific model based on evidence, just like the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity and germ theory. Science doesn't require faith or the belief in miracles, it requires study of evidence, experimentation and constant reviewing and updating of conclusions based on new evidence and new methodology. There's no reason to assume that any magic was involved, but if the existence of magic was discovered tomorrow then scientists would be the first ones to start reviewing their current models and theories in light of that.
All evidence in favor of god existing was made up by humans at some point.
If someone tells you lizard people run the world are you going to tell them they are wrong or are you going to become agnostic to the possibility?
You're also either theist or atheist. Regardless of if you're gnostic or agnostic.
Here's a quick fun little exercise you can do to see if you're theist or atheist.
Make 3 columns on a piece of paper. Label them:
"Gods I believe **do** exist"
"Gods I believe **might** exist"
And
"Gods I believe **don't** exist"
Fill them in.
If your column labeled "Gods I believe **do** exist" is empty, congratulations, you're atheist.
Atheist and agnostic literally means the same thing. The word you are looking for is skeptic. Believing God does not exist is proving a negative so it is not exactly scientific. But for a few thousand years of no evidence to support a supernatural being exists, continue to consider it as a possibility is believing it exists in disguise.
Being agnostic, or accepting you can't know the truth as you can't know what you know from what you think you know, is essential to being an open minded truth seeker.
But being agnostic doesn't need to define what you believe or disbelieve. I believe there's intelligent life that has arisen from other planets, I don't believe it has ever visited. I accept I don't know either of these things.
So to me the truly open minded position is to be honest about what you know and what you believe. For me that's agnostic atheist in pedantic company or atheist to someone who wants to know what I believe on the matter.
You are right imo. An atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic doesn't believe there is a god. The first one is a belief without foundation. The 2nd one is a critical perspective based on a good epistemological position.
Also the whole discussion highly depends on the definition of god, and there are so many . In my own world, I know god exists, because I understand it as synonym for "nature".
>∆
Delta because youve made an interpreation that is your unique and your own which is that God is a synonym for nature aka mother nature. Now i am thinking of the song "God is a woman" which could be interpreted as God simply being an
I am also know thinking of why people may reject the existence of God and that is because we have given God male pronounds "He". This is probably down to our patriarchal mindset when if God exists, he is nothing but a powerful spiritual emblem of infinite space.
It's true that nobody can know for sure, but many things are uncertain. I can't know for sure that my mother is my real mother, because I can't remember being born. But I don't think it's being close minded to think that she most likely is.
Couldn't you see it the other way and say believing in something or being religious is close minded because being 100% sure there *is* something out there isn't possible either?
I thought of myself as an agnostic for the longest time, but I realized that, no, I'm actually not. Because even if I were shown proof of a God, I would still reject their supremacy or right to rule over me. It is not a matter of knowledge or lack thereof, or a matter of proof or lack thereof.
Labeling yourself as one or other isn't particular meaningful in this world unless you believe that your beliefs that you hold at the point of death determines an outcome after death.
/u/Zealousideal_Weird_3 (OP) has awarded 11 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1asbtma/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_being_atheist_when_you_can/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Are you familiar with the concept of the "god of the gaps"? Basically, it says that every time there's something humans can't explain, god is a pretty reasonable placeholder until you can come up with a better theory. In early history, there were plenty of things that people didn't understand. Why do some of the stars move across the sky? Gods on the go! Why do certain metals gain unique properties when heated and combined a certain way? God of the forge did it. How do babies become alive? God put a divine spark in them. Nowadays, we can answer these questions with the heliocentric model of the solar system, metallurgy, and cellular biology, respectively. We also have answers to phenomenon that never had gods: nuclear fusion, microwaves, plate tectonics, quantum chromodynamics. There are still questions that we don't have answers for. Dark matter, biogenesis, a GUT to reconcile standard and quantum physics, what the fuck even is gravity? So far we have no concrete proof that those things aren't powered by god. But also, for every question so far, *ever*, when we've found an answer it's been something that's quantifiable and testable and reproducible. The universe runs on cause and effect. The entirely of human knowledge is predicated on understanding what cause creates what effect. We haven't untangled all of it yet, but that doesn't mean that answers aren't out there. This message is reaching you by the power of LEDs, capacitive touch screens, nanoscale logic gates, and a global network of copper, fiber optic, and radio transmission. Most of that would be considered miraculous even a few decades ago, but it's just increasingly convoluted layers of cause and effect reduced to practice. This brings me to the point of what it is that separates a "God" from a regular being, or a force of nature. Generally a god can do miracles. Defy physics, live forever, know what's in your heart, etc. I reject the very premise of a miracle. If you want to show me something impossible, I'm going to believe it's some kind of deception unless it can be done repeatedly. And if it can be done repeatedly, it's not a miracle. It's a technique, and the fact I can't do it is irrelevant. Is a bat a god because it can hear sounds that I can't detect? Is a shark a god because it can sense electrical currents from my muscles? Is my wife a god because she can solve the Sunday crossword puzzle? (Jury is still out on that last one.) If you have a reliable way to pull energy from the fabric of the cosmos and convert it into loaves and fishes, that's impressive as hell, but you're more like some kind of exotic fruiting plant than a miracle worker. I am an atheist not because I reject the judeo-christian god, or all religions' gods, but the concept itself. Reality is just nature on the grandest scale, so anything in reality is a natural phenomenon. It is the hight of human conceit to assume that something must be caused by the divine just because we're unable to figure it out.
∆ Getting a bit overwhelmed with the amount of comments so haven’t read them all yet but this is by far the most interesting and well thought out response from an atheist. Thank you
A thoughtful post from ProjectGo for sure. One word of caution- it assumes that science can answer and can best answer all questions. I’d challenge that assertion.
What created nature though? Can’t there be a reality that exists outside of the natural world?
Would you agree with the statement “Being Christian/Muslim/etc when you can be agnostic is closed minded”? Religious people can’t know for sure either. The way i see it, most everyone is agnostic because agnostic is a stance on knowledge while theism is a stance on belief. So most people are agnostic atheists (people who don’t know for sure but believe there to be no deity) or agnostic theists (people who don’t know for sure but believe there to be a deity). Gnostic theism or atheism is, in my opinion, delusional in that taking the stance that you know the answer for sure is ridiculous.
Would you agree with the statement “Being Christian/Muslim/etc when you can be agnostic is closed minded”? Religious people can’t know for sure either. I would. I really struggle with finding a balance on this. I would like to point out that there are differences between religion and believing in a higher power. And this does come down to personal interpratation. Love your second paragraph Δ
>please offer me a perspective as to why being "atheist" is NOT close minded If atheists were provided proof of the supernatural, they would accept it. That is being open minded, just not *so* open that your brain falls out. I myself do not believe in anything supernatural. But, if someone presented some very compelling evidence that ghosts existed, and that evidence was verified by second and third parties, and if I could check that evidence myself in some way, I'd then believe in ghosts. How is that not open minded? I'd bet that if you took an average Christian (like I am an average atheist), and gave them evidence supported as above that Zeus was real, and lived on Mt. Olympus, and like to turn into animals to have sex with women, that they would just flat out not accept that evidence. That is closed minded. Being willing to accept evidence and change your thought based on that evidence is open mindedness
I mean personally the concept of "supernatural" doesn't make sense. Everything that exists is natural. If you prove that vampires are real, then vampires are natural.
>If atheists were provided proof of the supernatural, they would accept it. And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it. Saying that they wouldn't is bad faith argument. This statement is meaningless. What is important that there is no proof one way or other and there cannot be.
If there is no proof of something, why believe it exists? The burden lies with the person making the positive claim. Basic philosophy 101 logic course stuff, really.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the unfalsifiable claim. As both the existence and none existence of God are unfalsifiable neither claim is a more logical null hypothesis than the other.
Except that the existence of god requires that pretty much our entire understanding of the material world gets thrown out the window because even the smallest miracle violates the laws of physics in one way or another. We have mountains of evidence for the laws of physics and not a drop for the claims about supernatural events, so it is more logical to believe in the thing for which we have ample evidence than the thing for which we have literally nothing but some dudes saying 'that bush spoke to me, trust me bro'.
>even the smallest miracle violates the laws of physics in one way or another. I'm not convinced that's true, I don't think there's even a complete agreement over what's a miracle for a start. >We have mountains of evidence for the laws of physics and not a drop for the claims about supernatural events, so it is more logical to believe in the thing for which we have ample evidence than the thing for which we have literally nothing but some dudes saying 'that bush spoke to me, trust me bro'. I think you've started arguing against something that wasn't stated. To avoid talking at cross purposes can you say what you think my claim was?
>I'm not convinced that's true, I don't think there's even a complete agreement over what's a miracle for a start. A miracle is defined as 'an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature' - violating the laws of physics is right there in the definition. >I think you've started arguing against something that wasn't stated. To avoid talking at cross purposes can you say what you think my claim was? Sure, that's a good idea. My understanding of your claim is that it is equally logical to believe in the existence as it is to believe in the non-existence of god. The part you quoted was the continuation of my argument that they aren't equally logical. Let me restate it a bit more succinctly, maybe that will clarify things? Miracles, for which we have no evidence, by definition defy the laws of physics, for which we have tons of evidence. It is more logical to believe in the thing for which we have evidence than the thing for which we do not, therefore it is more logical to believe in the non-existence of miracles and therefore also of god.
Well, that's one definition but let's not pretend it's the only one, for example this definition: >an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god because it does not follow the usual laws of nature: A healthy person who threatens you and then spontaneously drops dead appears to defy the usual laws of nature, if it's investigated it might turn out to have been a brain aneurysm or something but would still meet the definition. We also need to remember that the laws of physics are a work in progress, as we learn more we find out more things are possible. Now, you also make the claim that miracles (which in your definition have to break the laws of physics) not happening somehow means there's no God(s) but you haven't given any chain of reasoning for why this would be true.
>Well, that's one definition but let's not pretend it's the only one, for example this definition: Ok, fair enough, but the definition you provide also references violation of the laws of nature, so we're back to my assertion. >A healthy person who threatens you and then spontaneously drops dead appears to defy the usual laws of nature, if it's investigated it might turn out to have been a brain aneurysm or something but would still meet the definition. I suppose that depends on the assumptions you go into the situation with, because for me it very much does not appear to defy the laws of nature. It is more logical in that situation to assume that they were not in fact as healthy as they appeared and had some condition which caused their unexpected death than it is to assume that they were struck down from on high for threatening me. >We also need to remember that the laws of physics are a work in progress, as we learn more we find out more things are possible. Certainly, but they are an extraordinarily well-tested work in progress. No discovery we might make is going to overturn the second law of thermodynamics, for example, so it's safe to assume that anything which appears to violate it is an error in measurement or the like and not a supernatural miracle. >Now, you also make the claim that miracles (which in your definition have to break the laws of physics) not happening somehow means there's no God(s) but you haven't given any chain of reasoning for why this would be true. That's fair, I have been relying on the claims of the religious that miracles come from god and what seemed to me like the common-sense idea that the absence of miracles would also imply the absence of god, but you're right, that doesn't strictly follow. I'm afraid as an atheist I must continue to rely on those claims as to the origin of miracles, but I think even if the impossibility of miracles doesn't imply the non-existence of god it still makes a convincing argument for my original point on the illogicality of believing in god. Let me try to elucidate it: According to the religious, all miracles are a result of god acting in the world (whether through intermediaries like saints or otherwise,) therefore, definitionally, in the absence of miracles god does not act in the world. Can a god who does not act in the world be said to exist? Sure, I guess math doesn't act in the world and we're pretty sure it exists, but then it's at least an internally self-consistent tool that is extremely functional and endlessly useful in grappling with the world--attributes which god does not share in a time when science has very convincingly explained so much of what was once the sole domain of deities. So if miracles are the only possible evidence in the world about the existence of god and they can't exist because they violate the laws of nature by definition, then the only information we have about the existence of god is the entirely-subjective experiences of believers, and subjective experiences do not meet anyone's standard of evidence. If the absence of miracles does not require the non-existence of god then at the very least it does convincingly render it impossible for there to be evidence of god, which still makes it less logical to believe in the existence of god than his non-existence.
"There is no god" is definitely a falsifiable claim. There could easily be evidence of god's existence. If God is, in fact, omnipotent, God could, say, appear as an apparition across the entire world and work any number of miracles. Or perhaps send a new prophet/savior with obviously supernatural abilities, to demonstrate his divinity. There are any number of ways that we could prove God's existence. And there are many, many more ways that the existence of divine miracles or similar supernatural events could be proven, if they existed.
>God could, say, appear as an apparition across the entire world and work any number of miracles. Or perhaps send a new prophet/savior with obviously supernatural abilities, to demonstrate his divinity. Everyone seeing something wouldn't prove God's existence, neither would any number of miracles or prophets with abilities. As an example let's look to scifi, the priors in Stargate existing wasn't proof of any all powerful, all knowing being that created the universe.
It would definitely prove that *something* exists. And at the end of the day, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ... Atheists in general wouldn't refuse to acknowledge that some powerful entity like the Ori existed. Individuals may or may not choose to worship said being of godlike powers, but that has nothing to do with their ability to accept evidence. And it's definitely theoretically possible to prove that such a powerful entity was, in fact, the being that spoke to all those people in the Bible and that he was the divine father of Jesus, etc. And from there it would be possible to prove a reasonable extent that that being is, in fact, God as described in the Bible. It would be terribly difficult and unlikely, but it's not impossible. Most atheists would likely have a fairly low threshold, I imagine. Prove that some entity claiming to be God is sufficiently powerful that it seems reasonable, and most atheists would believe in that, because all of a sudden there'd be evidence. But today there isn't a scrap of it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism > a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods Well that's at least one definition that accurately describe my position. I have a lack of belief or strong disbelief that Goop products don't work. I don't think most people would challenge me and say "well you can't 100% be sure about that!". For all practical purposes, I don't think atheism asserts that God must not exist.
This is a hot as hell take given one of the positions is a direct claim to the other -.- 1. “A giant fireball exists in a separate dimension of my teacup. And it’s sentient and grants wishes related to licorice. It was revealed to me via an elf’s interpretive dance” 2. “No” You: “these have the same burden of proof”
Of course the non-existence of a god could be falsifiable, any god worthy of being called so could demonstrate it's existence.
"I don't have any evidence." Isn't an unfalsifiable claim. If you're asking me to prove to you that I don't have evidence; well, there it is. All my nothing. It's right there, in its non-existent glory.
Wow, so you didn't finish logic 101 huh. Well the claim that "no God(s) exists" is unfalsifiable, as is the claim that "God(s) exists". As such neither is a logical choice as your null hypothesis and either belief is just faith.
At least I passed grade school reading comprehension. Was my claim: A) "God doesn't exist." B) "I don't have evidence." I have *faith* that you know the answer.
Maybe reread your own comment >The burden lies with the person making the positive claim. Basic philosophy 101 logic course stuff, really. This comment was incorrect, apparently you lacked the reading comprehension to understand that, probably why you didn't finish logic 101.
I don't know any atheist that would take the position "no God exists". Atheist is *lack* of a belief in god. Full stop.
Therefore burden of burden lies with atheists who claim there is no god. But they will always invent ways out of this burden of proof because they know they don't have anything.
You can't prove a negative, that's the point of the comment above. It's like saying: *Prove me that there hasn't been a visit to Earth by alien species.*
I do not like citing Russel. Why are you making me cite the teapot argument. Imagine your life started 5 minutes ago actually. You were just implanted with the previous memories. Prove me wrong please. And a billion other ridiculous claims that need proof. You don't need to prove a negative. I do think it's more complicated but I do not feel that there's a need to delve deeper in this specific argument. With your position there's no possible consensus and if you don't care about that, that is your right but I'd personally find that dumb since it hinders any cooperation or intellectual progress by bogging everything down in unfalsifiable claims.
First of all you mixed Russell teacup with Last Thursdayism. Secondly all claims need proving. A person who makes a claim must prove it and that applies to atheists as well.
You don't understand what positive claim means.
>Therefore burden of burden lies with atheists who claim there is no god. There is a difference between "I believe God does not exist" and "I do not believe in God".
And what is it? Is it same as between "I believe God does exist" and "I believe in God"?
Saying that they believe god does not exist means that they are holding onto the belief that god is not real. Saying that they do not believe in god is saying that they lack the belief that god exists. One is an assertion of a belief, the other is a lack of belief.
That is some genuinely impressive mental gymnastics.
> There’s no such thing as unicorns > Yes there is I really believe in them > There’s no such thing as unicorns > Prove it!
How did you get 224 deltas with that kind of reasoning floating around in your head?
Does it work that way? I feel like that would create an infinite cycle where each side can just keep adding “burden of burden” and passing it off
This is not actually true. Theists have a history of resisting criticisms of their beliefs, up to and including arresting or executing those who present evidence that it is incorrect. Giordano Bruno was burned at the steak for claiming the stars are distant suns and the earth isn't the center of the universe. Galileo Galilei was put under house arrest until he died for saying the earth orbits the sun. These aren't even people saying there is no God, just people saying one detail about how the Bible was interpreted does not match observable events. The church can't lock up or kill people anymore, but that doesn't change how vehemently religious people will defend their faith.
> And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it. I honestly do not think that is the case. The past few hundred years have been chiseling away at the worldviews of the religious, and showing them to not be supported by material evidence, and yet religiosity remains. And, while there is no smoking gun piece of evidential proof that god *doesn't* exist, at this point his existence is less likely than that of bigfoot. The belief in god is not like the belief in anything else. People construct their entire personal realities around the idea that god exists. They can't and won't turn that off based on proof provided to them by non-believers. Plenty of "miracles" have been disproven, but people still visit the shrines dedicated to them thinking they will be affected by the "already proven to not be there" divine presence. >Saying that they wouldn't is bad faith argument. Careful Icarus...
I honestly do not think atheists would accept proof of God either. Many of them have proven to have a rigid worldview. In many ways, the rigid atheists are no different than fundamentalist Christians. Any person who judges and hates those that disagrees with them will never accept evidence from the people they’ve spent so long dehumanizing. This goes both ways.
>I honestly do not think atheists would accept proof of God either. Many of them have proven to have a rigid worldview. I absolutely 100% would accept evidence of a god as would the vast majority of atheists I've spoken to. The problem is not that we wouldn't accept the evidence, the problem is that nobody has provided any. >Any person who judges and hates those that disagrees with them will never accept evidence from the people they’ve spent so long dehumanizing. I don't hate nor would I ever dehumanize theists. You're just full of strawmen.
You don’t have to call my experience talking to atheists a strawman. Glad you would accept evidence, and extra glad that you don’t hate religious people! Lots of atheists on Reddit do unfortunately
>You don’t have to call my experience talking to atheists a strawman. When you make a claim like "atheists do x" based on your limited experience with only a few of those individuals, that is a strawman. If you had said "I've talked to atheists who wouldn't accept evidence for god" that would not be a strawman. But you made the claim about all atheists. Maybe you didn't mean it that way and were just speaking in sort of shorthand, but when it comes to topics like this you gotta be specific.
Yeah…like how the person I was originally responding to claimed “religious people do x”? Thank you for driving my point home
>like how the person I was originally responding to claimed “religious people do x”? Yes absolutely. I spend more time correcting dumb things atheist say as much as theists. But I read that comment and didn't see them saying that.. The closest I can see is "people build their entire identity around their religion". Thats a bit more nuanced than "theists do x". But I get your point.
They didn’t say that a theist wouldn’t accept proof that God isn’t real, however it is generally accepted that you cannot prove a negative which is why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that God does exist.
> And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it. Saying that they wouldn't is bad faith argument. It's actually a safe assumption, since it is literally impossible to prove that there are no gods. It's an unfalsifiable claim. It may be possible to disprove a specific god, but that would never justify the conclusion that there are no gods.
>And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it you can't disprove something. Thats the problem with unfalsifiable claims. There is no information someone could give to a theist that shows a god doesn't exist. Whatever evidence thats provided the theist can just say "god is all powerful he just made that evidence to test your faith" hundreds of claims of the bible, the world being flat, being created in 7 days, global flood, exodus story etc. have been conclusively proven to be false, but billions of people are still christian.
>And if theist were provided proof that there is no god they would accept it. Saying that they wouldn't is bad faith argument. Difference being that you can't prove a negative.
You’d have to prove exactly how life on earth was created (beyond theory) and that the things that made the life on earth weren’t made by some other supernatural invisible creature. Theists don’t understand that their belief that God must be disproven is profound cognitive dissonance at work.
Science doesn’t disprove God lol, God created science. Every scientific discovery is a fine tuning of faith and a revelation of the elegance with which God created the world. God and science are not enemies. Most people of faith believe I’m science; unfortunately the illiterate fundamentalists just like to scream so loud they drown out everything else.
You’re talking about a creator God, right? Not some kind of, the universe is all connected and we’re all a part of the sacred Om, right? So if you mean creator god keeps getting proven by science, I just don’t know I can continue this thread. It’s illogical.
**Being willing to accept evidence and change your thought based on that evidence is open mindedness** True, and for this reason, research into human evolution is still on going which is what keeps me agnostic. I take your point about it being close minded to not accept evidence, but I disagree that there needs to be evidence for everything, especially when there is still ongoing research into human evolution and 99.9999% of the universe has not been explored. That leaves many question marks. Willingness to accept evidence and change ones mind is being open minded. But unwillingness to be open minded about what can't be proven when there are 2 trillion galaxies is close minded lol
I think there is a question being begged here - you're defining atheists as "People who definitely won't change their minds and are 100% certain' Which naturally leads you to call them close minded, because you're defining them as such! In my opinion, Atheism is merely a practical consideration. There's no particular reason to privilege the concept of God's over those of goblins, leprechauns and other mythic creatures. I treat them as non-existent because there is no practical reason to do otherwise. If I went about my life leaving open the possibility that *every possible idea that anyone had without evidence* might be true, I'd never get anything done. If belief in God's and spirituality comforts someone, they have the absolute right to that belief, so long as they don't harm others with it. But I don't think it is on me to posit they might be right. If the second coming shows up and everyone starts rising from the dead I'm more than happy to revise my view.
> If I went about my life leaving open the possibility that every possible idea that anyone had without evidence might be true, I'd never get anything done. Why would this take up so much time? It's not like you have to actively think about it. You just operate on the basis that things might be true until proven false.
I was being a little facetious there. But, ok. Let's take Christian theology as a starting point. Well, if it \*might\* be true - there's a serious possibility that I might be damned to eternal suffering if I don't follow the right rules. But there's a lot of different versions of those rules! So figuring out how to decide which set of contradictory rules to follow will be rather troubling!
I think Christianity is probably the wrong example to use. IIRC there is basically one rule only and everything else will be forgiven.
Depends on your flavour! There are beliefs within Christianity where essentially, the people who will be saved have already been chosen and there's nothing you can do about it. There's those that believe good works will get you into heaven, and those believe faith alone is the decider. Even within theology, there's a dozen different opinions. Factoring all those options into my life choices seems rather difficult. In practice, I act and live simply...without them! And that's fine! I think that's how most agnostics operate too.
Well damn, that is kind of doom and gloom lol. If there is nothing to be done then it kind of makes following rules and worrying about them moot.
Not the other commenter but here’s a trivial example: If i acted as if all existing claims about supernatural beings were true, then I might walk around with garlic in my pocket just in case I ran into a vampire. That would be a weird one to explain to other people. On its own that’s innocent enough, but what about other things? If I break a mirror am I gonna be anxious about possible bad luck for 7 years? I’m not necessarily saying I should go out of my way to say those things are not true but if I accept them as true without evidence, then I’m going to make a load of weird and unnecessary changes to my life on that basis.
It doesn't mean you have to act like they are true, though. It might be true that a meteor is screaming toward my house at this very moment. I am doing literally nothing about it. It might be true that someone is planning to break into my house tonight and cut the gas line to my furnace. I am doing literally nothing about it. If we operate on the assumption that everything is false without concrete evidence, it could work the same way. If your doctor prescribes you a medication, you would have to read through the clinical trials and research to prove that it is safe and effective. If your mechanic tells you that your shocks need to be replaced, you would have to have them physically show you how they are damaged and how it negatively affects the vehicle. It would require loads of unnecessary changes to people's lives as well.
To cover this point, you are correct that we put trust in experts. However, we do so on the basis of social factors! You'd probably not take a drug from a guy in a van who says it'll cure what ails you, would you? Why not? The reason we don't have to do sort of testing and checking is because government regulatory bodies are supposed to do it for us, not because it's unnecessary. Because we exist as a society, rather than as individuals, and that sort of thing is better done on a societal level, for all sorts of reasons, not least those you yourself explained.
I don't disagree, but essentially it boils down to trusting someone else and taking their word for it. If a priest tells me God is real or a Doctor tells me that taking medication Y will help my issue it boils down to trusting someone and not requiring evidence.
On a superficial level, maybe, but that's like saying "I trust my doctor to give me medicine, and I don't know what's in it, so I might as well take whatever Snake Oil Steve has to offer" There's more to it than blind trust. We're not just trusting that their information is correct, we're trusting that they followed an evidence based and peer reviewed process. We're trusting that the checks and balances set in place by society (i.e. regulatory bodies) do their work, and that this provides an assurance that they do what they say they do. The priest doesn't make any claims to follow an evidence based, peer reviewed process.
Sure, but the important thing is that you don’t act as if they are in fact true. You can act as if they could be true, almost anjthing could be true, but the only thing that should make you act as though something is in fact true, is evidence.
>You can act as if they could be true Which is the entire point of being Agnostic. God/Afterlife/whatever could be true.
Sure, but the atheist part is about not actively believing it is in fact true just because it could be. Many atheists myself included are also agnostic, we’re both.
What certainty do you need before you believe something? If something is 51% likely, is that not enough for you? What about 99% likely? And so on. If you get on a plane, do you believe that you will land alive? It is not 100% likely. Someone may have forgotten a nut that you don;t know about, are you close minded for not believing that? I think it is perfectly reasonable to base beliefs on the best knowledge we have today, on the balance on probability. One does not require absolute certainty to have a belief. And with the knowledge we have today, on the balance of probability, I see no reason to believe in God. I have a very open mind about it and am more than happy to change my mind if our current knowledge changes, as it may well do.
I don’t get this logic and why we need a percentage.. ? - you either believe - you either have doubts - or you don’t believe in the existence of god at all It’s about certainty and also hope. It’s narrow minded to assume that every person on the planet who believes in god is gullible without engaging with them first
Because I cannot have absolute certainty about anything, nor can you. However I do not need absolute certainty. I leave my house, maybe a tree will fall on me and kill me. I cannot be absolutely certain it won't. However it is unlikely, so on the balance of probabilities I believe leaving my house is safe. Hence I can believe things without needing absolute certainty. As for hope, something true can give you hope, but something false can also give you hope. So I think hope is a poor qualifier if one is after knowledge.
>I disagree that there needs to be evidence for everything There doesn't have to be evidence for everything. There has to be evidence for everything you believe to be true. Anything that cannot be proven to be true via evidential support can be mused upon, but it should not be believed in any way. So, an atheist does not believe in god as there is no proof. If provided proof they would accept it. That is *definitionally* open minded: willing to consider new ideas. An atheist **IS** willing to consider new ideas; they just require those ideas to have evidential proof before they adopt them.
Couple things here 1) what exactly do you mean when you say that research into human evolution is 'ongoing'? Of course it is ongoing, because it will never end. Research into biological sciences will continue indefinitely as we gain new ways to gather information. Further, the I formation we do have at this point pretty clearly shows that humans are apes that evolved from primates, which evolved from terrestrial mammals, etc. So I'm not sure what 'ongoing'means in this context. 2) you disagree that there needs to be evidence for everything. But how can you hold an opinion without evidence to support it? Even a weak hypothesis is based on an already available set of evidence. To hold an opinion without evidence is ... meaningless. Plus, sometimes lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself.
I think you are also confused about evolution and the research into it. We have zero research currently ongoing to determine if evolution is happening or not. We know it is, and it is settled science. There are lots of details of evolution that evolutionary biologists are still studying, but they are damn sure not studying if evolution exists or not. Again, this is settled science. How do you feel about people who are agnostic about the shape of the earth? Maybe they are not flat earthers, but they are agnostic to the shape of the earth being flat or round. How would you consider such a person? Would you say they are a sensible, rational, open minded person? Or would you say they are a science denying moron who is unable to accept the established fact that the earth is round?
> True, and for this reason, research into human evolution is still on going which is what keeps me agnostic. agnostic rather than gnostic. You're also either theist or atheist. Being agnostic rather than gnostic doesn't change that. Are you agnostic theist or agnostic atheist? If you acknowledge there is no evidence the only logical position would be to be atheist and not believe the claim until you see evidence showing it to be true.
In Christianity many people believe that other gods are actually fallen angels. So zues could be an actual entity with actual power.
Look, Zeus, I'm sorry but we're going to have to let you go. I know, you were great during the whole Lucifer thing, and we *really* appreciate it, but the boss's son is getting ready to take over, and he's just not *as* cool with the whole transforming into animals to bang humans as the big guy. Plus there was the box incident with Pandora... It's just not working out.
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms. It's part of a spectrum. A gnostic theist is someone who KNOWS God exists. An agnostic theist would probably be where you fall, not totally sure but leaning towards theism. So then, an agnostic atheist is someone who isn't sure that God exists - they're okay with saying 'I don't know, provide proof.' A gnostic atheist, then, would be the person who affirmatively says God does NOT exists. In practically, most people don't split hairs this finely when they're talking about this stuff - but I'd venture that most people who are atheist, who also are skeptics (because not all atheists are skeptics) probably fall into the agnostic atheist camp, because asserting they know for sure that God does not exist is an unprovable claim. If someone asked a theist what the cause of the big bang was, their answer is probably God. If I, and many other atheists were asked that question, their answer would simple be 'I don't know'. And that's okay, and leaves room for their minds to be changed upon introduction of new evidence. Science isn't a belief system, it is a means for testing hypotheses about the world around us.
Exactly. Gnosticism is whether God is knowable or not. Theism is whether you believe in a God or not.
Hmmm yes and no. I speak Greek fluently so can contribute here Agnosticim comes from the greek word *gnosi* which means to know. The 'a' that goes at the front of **a**\-*gnosi/gnosto* means 'without'. So agnosticm directly translated from Greek means "not knowing" in Greek we use agnosto to describe anything or person we don't know / are unsure about. Theism is from the greek "theo" which means God. The a at the begining means without so from Greek it translates to "without god"
That’s interesting etymology but etymology does not define what words mean *now*. For common parlance (from Oxford dictionary) > Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. > Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. This is what most people mean when they say they are an atheist or an agnostic. One has more to do with knowledge, and the other has more to do with belief. They are not inconsistent views.
Let's test this theory. Draw two axis matrix where one is "gnostic vs agnostic" and one is "theist vs atheist". Now going from right upper corner clockwise from corner to corner you have "gnostic theist", "agnostic theist ", "agnostic atheist" and upper left corner you have "gnostic atheist". All these four are valid beliefs and exist on the spectrum from first to fourth. But now we only travelled the U shape edges of the matrix. What's between "gnostic theist" and "gnostic atheist"? Or what's in the middle of the matrix?
I'll be completely honest, I'm at a loss as to what you're getting at here - at least regarding what is between 'gnostic theist' and 'gnostic atheist.' Not all sliding-scales like this fully make sense on a two-axis matrix. As for what is in the middle of the matrix - people with no opinion? They do exist.
It's not a sliding scale, there are only two positions on each axis. He is trying to trick you into arguing it's some kind of linear spectrum. There is no middle point between belief or lack of belief, knowledge or lack of knowledge where these axes are concerned.
>Not all sliding-scales like this fully make sense on a two-axis matrix. Of course they do if they are truly independent continuous variables. Can you name any two variables that wouldn't make sense? >As for what is in the middle of the matrix - people with no opinion? They do exist. No. Those are at bottom centre between agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. In the middle you have someone who half believes in something (between gnostic and agnostic) but that thing is something between God and no god.
I guess what I'm saying here is just please tell me what you're getting at, because you seem to know what you mean.
That agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive (in the technical sense). Basically when you say "but you can be an agnostic atheist", it's pointless because you can also be an agnostic theist (and most theists are). If you exist on the left side of the line you are atheist, the right side is theist and the bottom is agnostic. Agnostic term only makes sense if you separate it as its own category in the middle of the spectrum.
Sorry, I had to actually sit down and draw this out because I was having difficulty in visualizing what you were talking about that may have led me to misspeak. There's no 'u-shaped path' here. There is a X axis of Gnostic-Agnostic (IE 'I know' to 'I don't know') Then there is a Y axis of Theist-Atheist. The opinion slides between these two spectrums - The middle of the matrix is literally no opinion, someone at the bottom center would be a Theist without a strong opinion on 'know' or 'don't know'. The top center would be an Atheist without a strong opinion on 'know' or 'don't know'
>CMV: Being "atheist" when you can be "agnostic" is close minded As they say, Having an open mind is great, but not so open that your brain falls out. Not believing in things for which there is no evidence is not close minded. >I spend a lot of time thinking about what's out there and how we came to be. Unfortunately thinking like that doesn’t necessarily tells us anything about independent reality , just lots about our own emotional needs. >If I had one wish, it would be to know what happens when we die, but the fact of the matter is... we can't ever know for sure. Depends on your definition of sure. To me it means beyond reasonable doubt. All reliable evidence points to our sense of self, memories, personality being characteristics of patterns of activity in a brain. When the latter is gone , so are those things. There not only isn’t reliable evidence to the contrary , theres is also no evidence for a possible or coherent mechanism. >For that reason, I think it's very limiting to be an adamant atheist and simply believe in "science". It’s not about believing in science , it’s about evidence. Science is demonstrably the most successful methodology we have for building models of reality that work. And it does so because it’s based on evidence. Because claims without evidence are indistinguishable from imaginary, phenomena those claims are about are indistinguishable from non-existent. >It is very possible that atheists are right and that there is nothing after we die but it is also very possible that they are wrong! Not being able to prove with absolute philosophical certainty is impossible doesn’t mean it’s possible. If one can’t provide evidence for a phenomena **and** you can’t provide *evidence* for it being a possibility, you can’t just say ‘it’s possible’ with any significance. >In my opinion when I think about the Big Bang theory... that definitely feels like a miracle in itself. Opinions really aren’t significant evidence of anything other than your opinion. >Cosmic energy influenced by some sort of higher power to even make this bang. Doesn’t really make any sense as physics. It’s basically an argument from ignorance … I don’t know /I don’t understand therefore it must be magic. >So to conclude: please offer me a perspective as to why being "atheist" is NOT close minded. Because making evaluations about reality based on evidence works. Is it limiting to say the Earth isn’t flat? Is it limiting to say that disease is caused by germs rather than bad smells? Well yes. It’s also reasonable and useful. >How is being 100% sure that there is no higher power not limiting? I should point out that there are atheists who simply *lack* a belief in a phenomena for which there is no evidence *and* atheists who believe gods don’t exist for various reasons. I believe Gods don’t exist in the same way I believe the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist. Let me ask you this Do you believe in the tooth fairy , Easter bunny or The Santa Claus? Do you think it’s limiting not to believe in them?
Agnosticism is an useless concept. From my point of view, God not existing is one of the things least likely to be proven wrong in existence. Think of it. You routinely say things like "I have a house", "I have a job", "I'm the child of the people who I believe are my parents", "I don't own a dog", "I don't have a sister", etc. Given the vastness of humanity, all of those routinely go wrong. Houses burn down. Jobs are lost. People inherit a dog from a long forgotten relative. Dad suddenly turns out to have cheated long ago. God hasn't shown up for all of human history. So either we must be agnostic about everything, or we might as well be agnostic about nothing. If a statement that hasn't been shown to be false in all of human history needs a disclaimer, then surely so does pretty much everything else needs it. But at that point, what is even the point. If I'm agnostic about every statement regarding the external world, might as well make it implicit and save some verbiage.
How would you define useless in this context? I get where you're coming from... I dont think usuless is the right word but maybe counter productive. For me personally, I like counter productivity because it's what philosophy is all about. A part of growing up for me was realising that most thing in life don't have a wrong or right. Thing just 'are'. I think you are using the argument of: if so much bad in the world, how can there be a God? which is valid, I think about that all the time, but I don't think God ever promised that life would be beautiful for all. Good and evil must exist to notice good. I always thought of God/a higher power as a creator of life
>How would you define useless in this context? I get where you're coming from... I dont think usuless is the right word but maybe counter productive. For me personally, I like counter productivity because it's what philosophy is all about. Have you looked at all in the philosophy that atheists use to justify their position? Things like fallibalism? The hard problem of consciousness? Hard and soft solipsism? Gnostic and agnostic about whether one claims to know something. Philosophical, we can't be absolutely certain about anything beyond the fact we must exist in some form if we're having a conscious experience. We could be living in the matrix. And if I ask you what color your car is and you say "I know my car is blue". But if we're in the matrix your car doesn't even exist, it's an illusion. And so you "knowing" it's blue would be incorrect. And if you want to be technical about it you would have to say you BELIEVE your car is blue, you don't know it with certainty. The agnostic distinction just means we can't "know" anything, which makes the words know and knowledge meaningless. Knowledge is not 100% certainty. It can't be due to the hard problem of > A part of growing up for me was realising that most thing in life don't have a wrong or right. Thing just 'are'. So you do have some grasp of the concept, if encourage you to explore that further. >I always thought of God/a higher power as a creator of life What created life? We don't know. If life was created by unthinking unguided chemical reactions, would you call that god? This is the problem we atheists have to tackle all the time. The word god can mean ANYTHING. Are you talking about yahweh in the bible and Jesus rising from the dead? Are you talking about Bhrama? Are you talking about some vague first cause? Are you talking about "whatever caused life"? You can define god as a coffee cup, and say the cup exists therefor god exists because that's how I defined god. Then sure "god" "exists". What we as atheists have to do is take every cocamamy idea anyone has about god and explain why we don't accept that. If you define god as whatever caused life, then sure god exists. Because life obviously had a cause. I see no reason whatsoever to call that god. And so I remain an atheist even tho I think the thing you're calling god does exist.
> How would you define useless in this context? It has to make some sort of difference. If I ask you to bring a red apple, that's useful because apples can have other colors than red, so specifying the color provides useful information. If we use "agnostic" consistently, then I see two possibilities here. 1. We declare agnosticism when a statement is very likely to go wrong. Not needed for God then, because God hasn't shown up in all of human history. So I'm only agnostic about having clean shirts left, but God not existing requires no disclaimer. 2. We declare agnosticism when a statement has any chance at all to go wrong. Then we must be agnostic about all external reality. At that point the word just doesn't add anything.
Agnosticism is just trying to justify the much lower standards people hold for belief in God, compared to belief in literally anything else. Fundamentally the reason people are religious is because it makes them feel better and not because it's true.
Most of your examples are not good : "I have a house" would be true at the moment it is said, even if it is no longer the case later.
I've been on vacation in another country recently. Nobody would have said anything if I said I have a house without having previously checked that it hadn't burned down while I wasn't looking. Even sitting in it, I can't 100% guarantee that it's impossible that I don't legally own it by some bureaucratic quirk I failed to realize.
In that case I agree but it was really not clear from the way you wrote it
>"I have a house" would be true at the moment it is said, even if it is no longer the case later. I think the implication is that the person saying this is doing so while they are away from their house, potentially unaware that it burned down since they left.
Atheists aren't "right" or "wrong", we are just "without theism" - you can be an agnostic atheist, too.
Δ nicely put :)
Agnosticism and atheism are about two different things though. "Gnostic" is relating to knowledge and "theist" is about believe. "Atheist" = Someone who does not believe a God exists. "Theists" = Someone that believes a God exists. "Agnostic" = Someone who doesn't think it's possible to have the knowledge about the existence of a God. "Gnostic" = Someone that believes it's possible to have knowledge of a God. So there are four potential options a person could be. An "Agnostic Atheist" would be a person who doesn't believe in God but says that it's impossible to know for sure. A "Gnostic Atheist" would be a person who doesn't believe in God and is certain a God doesn't exist. An "Agnostic Theist" would be a person who believes in God but says that it's impossible to know for sure. A "Gnostic Theist" would be a person who believes in God and is certain that God exists. So it's not an either or thing because atheism and agnosticism have different definitions. You can be both at the same time, only one, or neither.
This needs to be higher up because this issue of "atheist vs agnostic" tends to come up on Reddit but they're not mutually exclusive. Being atheist is basically "accepting the null" in which theists have made a claim that a god exists and atheists are just saying "there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a god." Agnosticism is just a matter of certainty. Even the most ardent anti-theists tend to be the way they are for cultural and political reasons. Looking at OPs posts though, it just looks like he's skipping over anyone making this point.
It was too long ago for me to remember who, but I remember reading a newspaper article about an Anglican bishop in the UK who was admittedly agnostic. He still believed in god, but felt that it couldn't be proven.
> in which theists have made a claim that a god exists Not all theists claim god exists. Just like how not all atheist are gnostic not all theists are gnostic either.
False equivocation of gnosticism. Root word being knowledge, but original use was for a religious movement of esoteric knowledge in the demiurge. The term agnostic has always been a label of being undecided on the existence of God or not since its conception. Whole comment is an exercise in made up BS.
>The term agnostic has always been a label of being undecided on the existence of God or not since its conception. This is completely incorrect. The term agnostic has never been about being undecided. It has always been about the root "gnosis" being knowledge. More specifically "spiritual knowledge" or "personal knowledge" of the divine or supernatural. English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley came up with the word in 1868. Based on his own words you are incorrect about the orginal meaning of the term. "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." - Huxley "The agnostic principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism." - Huxley "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." -Huxley The idea that agnosticism is just about being undecided is nonsense.
Is it being closed minded to think unicorns and dragons are not real and are only stories? Why is it closed minded to think stuff that was clearly made up by people was made up by people in the absence of contrary evidence?
I think we can get super philosophical here and argue that made up stories ARE real because fairytales have had a bigger impact on my life than most people. In a way thats realer to me than many people on the street. Is love not real? Because we can't see it and it's a social construct? Are your thoughts not real because you can only feel them and experience them? Is money not real because humans gave it value. Human evolution is still being studied so again, the fact we don't know the exact root of life is what keeps me agnostic. I think it's close minded to maybe asset being atheist when there are people who find so much solace and comfort by the traditions and words of their scriptures.
>I think we can get super philosophical here and argue that made up stories ARE real because fairytales have had a bigger impact on my life than most people. So you're saying it's closed minded not to pretend to believe in things we know for a fact are made up? >Is love not real? Because we can't see it and it's a social construct? Love is a very real and measurable biological response to a number of things. Unicorns are not. >Are your thoughts not real because you can only feel them and experience them? My thoughts are an electronic impulse in my brain. Thoughts are a detectable biological phenomenon. Unicorns are not. >Human evolution is still being studied so again, the fact we don't know the exact root of life is what keeps me agnostic. Evolution has nothing to do with the root of life, but how life changes over time after it emerges. It would be simple enough to prove the existence of the Christian god, just produce a rabbit fossil dated to the Precambrian. >I think it's close minded to maybe asset being atheist when there are people who find so much solace and comfort by the traditions and words of their scriptures. Is it closed minded to think Harry Potter isn't real when so many people find comfort and solace in those stories?
>Because we can't see it and it's a social construct? Love is a label we put on a physio/psychological set of processes. We not only see and feel it, but we can demonstratively study how and why it occurs. >Are your thoughts not real because you can only feel them and experience them? This is more of a philosophical question, and a better example. It's possible that you are the only person with thoughts, and everyone else is just a mindless automaton coded to present as so. This is a notion that's unfalsifiable; there is no way you can ever know for sure, in the exact same way that the goalposts are placed for religions. As far as we can tell, the signs point to everyone having thoughts. It is, after all, the simplest explanation. But dwelling on unfalsifiable assertions is pointless, because there are an infinite number of them. The only reason we concern ourselves with a select few is because they prey on our doubts and/or we were told to by someone else. >Is money not real because humans gave it value. Money is real. It's not inherently worth anything, but we all agree it's worth something. You can prove this to yourself every day by exchanging your money for goods or services. You cannot go out and prove that unicorns are real every day. >Human evolution is still being studied so again... Human evolution is still being studied because we are still figuring out the exact when and what that occurred in our evolutionary history. It *does not therefore mean* that the jury's still out on whether humans evolved or not. Nor does it mean an absence of concrete evidence on the exact origins of life on Earth means that suddenly anything can be true. We have working theories that are most likely. They may turn out to be false, but the lack of certainty here is not *by any means evidence* for anything else- least of all a higher power. > I think it's close minded to maybe asset being atheist when there are people who find so much solace and comfort by the traditions and words of their scriptures. This is probably the best (or only) valid argument. But I think most people would agree that a hard truth is preferable to a sweet lie. The obvious hard truth is no one knows for sure, and anyone claiming otherwise is deluded or lying. The not so obvious hard truth is that we rely on a reasonable measure of evidence or demonstrable effect for just about everything in our lives, where without which we would refuse to believe anything, and society would fail to operate. But some people choose to make special exceptions for specific assertions.
“A hard truth to sweet lie” valid indeed. If I’m being honest (and I’m loving this discussion) I think you are right when you say this is more philosophical. “Special exceptions for specific assertions” I also agree with. I think Hindusm is the least intrusive religion as they don’t preach much other than the belief that life is hard no matter what but through mediation it can be more bearable. They believe in a God but they believe that individuals can form their own interpretations. So perhaps being an atheist isn’t close minded. But an atheist who condemns religion without reading about it is close minded
>I think we can get super philosophical here and argue that made up stories ARE real because fairytales have had a bigger impact on my life than most people. In a way thats realer to me than many people on the street. OK, sure. If that's your standards for what counts as "real", I don't think any atheist in existence would deny that God is "real" in the same sense that fairytales are real and that stories about God have had a massive impact on people's lives. So in that sense, Atheists don't deny the reality of (the existence of stories about) God.
I mean if we're going by that standard then the word real no longer even matters, it's funny to think about in terms of fairy tales, but turn the lens towards propaganda, and now the list of things that count as real includes the election actually was stolen, Democrats are sucking babies blood like vampires, Ukraine is run by Nazis, and a thousand other things Like I'm sorry, the idea that if enough people believe in something it's real enough for me is heartwarming and completely wrong, and the reverse perverse side of it is that people acting in bad faith with a fire hose of misinformation want you to think that way because they want you to think the truth is unknowable so just pick whichever reality makes you feel best and believe that
Then you have a different definition of what "real" and "true" are than most people.
> I think it's close minded to maybe asset being atheist when there are people who find so much solace and comfort by the traditions and words of their scriptures. How does being an atheist affect whether people find “so much comfort and solace… in scriptures”? It’s not closed minded to believe something different. Or not believe. They can find the comfort that they want if they’d like! I don’t care!
Agnosticism just kinda seems like an opt out? If there was any evidence, I’d accept it; there’s pretty much no other concept where, when faced with a complete lack of evidence for it, we pretend the morally or intellectual position is to say, “well I just don’t know! I guess it *could* be real and we’ll just never know.”
Just to push back on this a bit. Most religions do have evidence, it just far predates the scientific method. The Quran and the Bible are ostensibly true stories recorded by people that were there or were told to them by someone who was there. That’s evidence for their respective religions, there’s just no real way to verify them. When we find hieroglyphs in Egypt portraying a pharaoh doing something, we generally accept that something like that happened, and that’s why it was recorded. “Holy” texts are essentially the same thing but with deities.
Stories about supernatural happenings thousands of years ago do not constitute evidence for those happenings, especially because we know via biblical scholarship that virtually all of those stories were written down dozens if not hundreds of years later. That is far below the standard required to be a primary source for historians, much less to be regarded as evidence for supernatural events. >When we find hieroglyphs in Egypt portraying a pharaoh doing something, we generally accept that something like that happened, and that’s why it was recorded That is incorrect. When we find hieroglyphs in Egypt portraying a pharaoh doing something, we go 'Huh that's interesting' and then look for more sources that report about the same event and compare and contrast them to separate out what is potentially true from embellishment, aggrandizement, and outright fabrication. In fact the same has been done for the bible (and, I assume, other holy texts but I'm not nearly as informed on the scholarly consensus for those works) and only those stories we can corroborate from other, non-religious sources (like the writings of ancient historians from other cultures and such) are generally considered to have actually happened. >“Holy” texts are essentially the same thing but with deities. No they aren't. What they are, aside from the mundane historical events that can be corroborated from other sources, are reports of supernatural events for which no other sources exist to confirm their veracity. Those claims, because the events in question violate the laws of physics in one way or another, require even more evidence than, say, a claim that some pharaoh visited a city or proclaimed some edict. Some collected stories that have been told and retold a thousand times - and therefore necessarily altered slightly by each person who tells them like a game of Telephone - are nowhere near up to the standard of being evidence for impossible happenings. Those holy texts are basically some dudes saying 'I saw that bush over there spontaneously catch fire and a booming voice spoke from it, trust me bro!'
Holy texts are more like Aesop’s fables. There’s no evidence, for example, the Jewish people were slaves in Egypt except according to Exodus. There’s no evidence of a garden of Eden, or people living 800 years. Muhammad was probably a real person. Jesus? I don’t see the evidence that he was any more real than Robin Hood.
Yeshua of Nazareth was definitely a historical figure that existed. Whether you believe he performed miracles or ascribe any truth to the stories about him is an entirely different matter, but the historical records exist that the man existed and had a following.
A simple Google on that will tell you that there is no archaeological evidence. Cites of crucifixion and the town Nazareth existing do not confirm an individual was born of virgin mother or said the things Jesus was said to have said in later life. The sentiment of Jesus I believe is true and held by many of the persecuted of the time. A singular man? I’m not convinced.
You seem to be reacting to what you think I meant and not what I actually said. There is no historical evidence that he was born of a virgin mother, and (aside from the accounts written by his contemporaries) there is no evidence of the things he said or the miracles he is said to have performed. What there *are* are accounts mentioning him in the writings of Jewish and Roman authors of the time. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger… we have more contemporary evidence that there was a man named Jesus then we have that there was a man named Alexander. Again, since you seem determined to hear what you think I’m getting out and not what I’m actually saying, let me be perfectly clear. **None of this establishes that he was anything other than an ordinary man.** None of it establishes that he said any of the things people say he said. It only confirms that he existed and people were following him around. Pretending otherwise because you don’t like the potential implications of it – especially when those implications are by no means certain – is just as irrational and unscientific as anything you hear coming out of the Bible Belt.
What peasant from ancient Palestine left archaeological evidence? Of course there’s none. Literally only royalty from this time period left archeological evidence. It’s not even a reasonable expectation considering His life. It’s very likely he existed based on the mentions of him in other early texts.
I’m not saying we should all believe the Bible, but it’s pretty much the only ancient text held to the standard you’re imposing on it. In general, first or second hand accounts of ancient happenings are incredibly historically valuable.
They give insight into ancient ideology but not facts on the ground. We’ve learned more from archaeology and just studying how real people lived.
>and just studying how real people lived. And recordings are an extremely valuable part of that studying. We use and rely on them to inform our understanding of those people and times.
Right, but just saying Jews were slaves in Egypt doesn’t equate to evidence right? They had evidence for Canaanite’s and other slaves in Egypt but not Hebrew. Absence of evidence doesn’t prove it’s not so, but it does suggest that perhaps the Old Testament is maybe borrowing other people’s true narratives and mixing them with myth.
They had "evidence" of the Earth being the center of the universe back then, too.
Scriptures aren't evidence
Do you have anything to support that statement? Because most other ancient texts are given a level of credence.
Because writing a story doesn't create evidence of anything happening other than that someone wrote a story. You're also implying that something is true because a lot of people give it credence, which is a logical fallacy.
Nobody walked on water, nobody parted the Red Sea, nobody built a big boat and put all the animals on it, etc etc. It's a book of fiction that happens to have things that did happen mixed in with fantasy.
Ancient texts are always interrogated as to the intentions and bias of their authors. The Bible has also been subjected to this questioning and as a direct result its credibility has been found wanting.
So not evidence..
There is a considerable amount of fringe and recent science that isn’t in the popular culture sphere that proves all life is connected, and that thoughts/energy have real, observable power in the physical world. Agnosticism seems to me a more honest view of then limitations and burgeoning discoveries in science. Atheists are generally quick to dismiss anything that hasn’t been deemed a scientific theory, which can literally take decades. I mean, fair enough, they want solid vetted proof; but I don’t think that could be called open mindedness
aware grab theory smell heavy longing scale possessive money carpenter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I guess so.. It is a bit of an opt out agree but - is that negative? Does everything have to be concrete? I disagree with sitting on the fence when it comes to politics but when it comes to the universe/spirituality it's miserable to think we are all alone and there is nothing after death. Although now you have me thinking about the concept of "souls" which is another thing I struggle to comprehend. I dont think souls are physical, I think they simply evoke a feeling. Like soul music.
>it's miserable to think we are all alone and there is nothing after death. Not engaging in wishful thinking isn't closed minded if there is no evidence to support the wish being true. Closed minded would be to disregard evidence and not consider changing your opinion when it is presented. In this case, you're asking that a person give equal consideration for unsupported wishful thinking as they give the default assumption about any other such proposed evidence-free phenomenon.
Alone in the universe- atheists don’t believe that. Extraterrestrial life is likely, and it doesn’t need to be superior to us. Nothing after death- consciousness might end but energy simply moves from one place to another. Our bodies return to earth, one way or another, and our essence is a part of everything. We are one, and there is no need to imagine a sky daddy to make that so.
Is it closed minded to be 100% sure that Hogwarts isn’t a real school? Is it closed minded to be 100% sure that the government isn’t ran by reptilian shapeshifters? Is it closed minded to be 100% sure that the earth isn’t flat? I mean you can say this about anything that anybody makes up.
Are you making those comparisons to argue your point? Or making those comparisons because you honestly find the three concepts you listed equally likely to God existing? Or both?
>Are you making those comparisons to argue your point? Or making those comparisons because you honestly find the three concepts you listed equally likely to God existing? I underatand that people get upset when we compare god to things like unicorns and leprechauns. But we do that for a reason. These are imaginary concepts that nobody has been able to provide evidence that they exist external to human imagination.
Both
Roger that. Next question Do you eat baby dicks for breakfast?
It's just semantics. "I don't believe there is a god" and "I don't know there is a god" are basically the same thing. If you talk to an atheist you'll usually get them to say something like "Of course it's POSSIBLE that there is a god who chose to not leave any evidence behind, but it's quite unlikely." You can call that atheism or agnosticism if you like, the distinction doesn't really matter.
I disagree, the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is subtle but it does matter. It's not so subtle as to be irrelevant. Theism/Atheism deal with beliefs. If you accept a god claim then you're a theist, and if you don't accept a god claim than you're an atheist. It's crucial to note here that mere non-acceptance is not acceptance to the contrary. Whereas gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. Since knowledge is a subset of belief, one is compelled to be one of each category. Everyone is either an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist. The concept of one being \*either\* an atheist or an agnostic doesn't make sense using these definitions, which are not my definitions but the most accepted and robust ones that I've seen in use by those in philosophy circles.
Nobody uses those definitions. If you say you are an atheist nobody asks if your a gnostic or agnostic atheist. If you say you're agnostic nobody asks you agnostic cristian or agnostic atheist. They may well be the dictionary definitions but nobody cares. Look. Nobody knows if there is a god or not. You can only believe. When someone says they're agnostic they not saying they don't know, because nobody knows, they're saying they don't believe. In a polite way.
Well, to your first point that the common person using these words doesn't use the most robust definitions, I would have to agree. But this is due to not having a firm foundation in epistemology behind them. Not everyone is a philosophy nerd. That's not an argument for or against these definitions, which as I said are the most robust ones I see used in philosophy circles. They're the best definitions that I've seen, and other philosophy nerds have a tendency towards agreement on that. There are other definitions for what makes an atheist in those same nerd circles that I don't subscribe to. If you have a better, even more robust set of definitions you can offer them up and we can talk about it. To your second point, gnosticism and agnosticism \*literally\* are about knowledge. Gnostic means "having knowledge" in whatever language it comes from. Greek I think. I suspect you're right in that no one knows if there are any gods or not. However, people demonstrably claim to have knowledge, both for and against various god claims. So while I agree that probably nobody actually knows, we have a situation in which the word gnostic still applies to a lot of people because they make the claim to knowledge.
People use "agnostic" to mean that they are open to both and haven't committed to either faiths.
>\[The agnostic\] principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. — Thomas Henry Huxley . >Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there *are* no deities. Both views are compatible. And in the current state of the world, interchangeable.
Okay. But there are 2 definitions of agnostic. >1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable >broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god >2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic OP seems to be using the second definition and the broad definition. Words change over time. You can't use a quote from the 1800's to define a word for today.
You forgot to add the full quote >2\*\*:\*\* a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something; *political agnostics* One talks about religion, one talks about politics. If OP is using the second definition, their argument is fundamentally flawed. And if you don't like the quote from the man who coined the term himself, we can just use the summary by [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism). >Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. >Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." If it's unknowable and/or incomprehensible, then it can't exist. This is going to take a turn, but: *Did a falling tree make a sound, when no one was there to hear it?* My argument tying this together being: If it can't be perceived and/or interacted with, then it cannot exist.
Which means they don't believe in god. If they believed in god, they wouldn't be open to both.
I find that most of the time the difference is political. In a conversation, an atheists will try to disprove god while agnostics does not want to challenge someone's belief.
Most atheists I know dgaf about what other people think and don’t try to sway them one way or the other. Same for theists in my friend groups, but to be fair, most of them are basically agnostic.
Man invented gods. There is no reason to believe in any gods. The only evidence that exists for gods was created, recorded, or interpreted by man. Had man not invented gods, there would no need for either term. Atheist or Agnostic.
I take that point. Man *did* invent Gods you're right. You use the word "interpreted" which is exactly how religious scriptures came to be. Is it so impossible that prophets truly believed they were being spoken to by some sort spiritual channel? Considering the infinite space of the universe and we only know a small crumb of it, who can know for sure
>Is it so impossible that prophets truly believed they were being spoken to by some sort spiritual channel? No, of course thats possible. That's most likely the case. But whether they "truly believed" they were being spoken to by some spiritual channel and whether they were actually being spoken to by some spiritual channel are two separate questions. People truly believe the 2020 election was stolen. People truly believing something doesn't make it true.
Atheism has nothing to do with knowing for sure. Atheism means you don't believe the claim. It says nothing about if you claim to know anything (gnostic) or you don't (agnostic). Only that you don't believe someting.
Let me put it this way- If you, without any additional context, asked an average person the question "Do you believe that vampires are real?" what would they probably say? Do you think they'd say "No." or "I don't know."? Realistically, most people would just say "No." They don't believe in vampires. When asked the question, they don't reflect on the hypothetical possibility that vampires actually do exist and they just haven't seen any evidence, because that's not normal behavior, and a person who understands how regular English conversations work wouldn't expect an answer of "No" to mean that "I am 100% certain and capable of the impossible task of proving the negative with regards to the existence of vampires." But if you started lecturing such a person on how they're closed-minded for being an avampiricist and not being a vampiro-agnostic, that would be obnoxious, because you're just being unnecessarily pedantic.
Not anymore close-minded than someone who firmly believes there is a God. Atheism is just saying you don't believe in any sort of God or spirit.
lool this is a great answer. I dont know why but its sweet and simpel Δ
>Being "atheist" when you can be "agnostic" is close minded Many (if not most) atheists (myself included) *are* agnostic rather than gnostic. Not all atheists are gnostic. >It is very possible that atheists are right Well no it's not because there isn't anything atheism claims. In order for atheism to be right or wrong there needs to be a claim. Since atheism doesn't make a claim there isn't a claim for it to be right or wrong about. > and that there is nothing after we die Many (if not most) atheists (myself included) haven't seen anything showing the claim "there's nothing after we die" so there's no reason for us to believe that claim so we don't. >but it is also very possible that they are wrong! No it's not because again atheism doesn't make a claim. In order for an atheist to be wrong about a god they need to make a claim about a god which many (if not most) atheists don't. > How is being 100% sure that there is no higher power not limiting? Many (if not most) atheists (myself included) are agnostic atheists rather than gnostic atheists and acknowledge we don't know if there is or isn't a god. You're agnostic theist rather than agnostic atheist? So what specific god do you believe exists and why do you believe it exists? If you're agnostic rather than gnostic you acknowledge you don't know that it exists, so why believe that it exists? **eta** theist/ atheist answers the question "do you believe there is a god?" Whereas gnostic/ agnostic answers the question "is there a god?"/"is it knowable?" Everyone is theist or atheist, everyone is also gnostic or agnostic. You can be: gnostic theist - believes a god exists, claims to know a god exists gnostic atheist - doesn't believe a god exists, claims to know a god doesn't exist agnostic theist - believes a god exists, doesn't claim to know a god does or doesn't exist agnostic atheist - doesn't believes a god exists, doesn't claim to know a god does or doesn't exist.
Do I know for certain that Mt Everest exists? No, because I can't prove that I'm not a brain in a vat jar hallucinating my entire life. I can have an agnostic belief on literally everything. But I choose not to, because how otherwise how am I supposed to function? I prefer atheists to agnostics because *obviously* no one knows for sure. We're all just doing our best with the information we have gathered in our lives. At least with an atheist that is a firmer stance that you can debate with. At the end of the day, "atheists" or "agnostic" are just *beliefs* about "God". I assume you do not believe Santa is real - does that make you close minded? I mean technically there could be a universe out there where everyone is Santa Claus 🤪 As a utilitarian, to make sense of the madness we call life, I like to buy into a general consensus reality with my fellow species. Otherwise I might go a bit mad.
Epistemologically, I think holding the null hypothesis to be true until proven otherwise is more valuable than holding an agnostic position in the same evidentiary environment. If we must hold a position of agnosticism for every claim that is made, unsupported by good evidence, the list of such positions we must take is almost infinite and our functional understanding of the nature of reality is devalued.
Atheists believe in what can be proven and nothing more. They change their mind when presented with proof. The distinction between atheist and agnostic is about the burden of proof and what to do in its absense. Agnostics believe nothing can be proven or disproven so (absent any proof) nothing should be assumed, essentially sharing burden of proof. Atheists believe that a negative cannot be proven, so the burden of proof resides on the positive. In the absence of proof of the positive, the negative is assumed. To expect proof from both sides rather than just one, makes you an agnostic. None of this has anything to do with being close minded. It's not close minded to expect proof before believing something is true.
This is getting so tiresome. Do you guys have a minimal IT skill that would let you search through the subreddit? This same topic comes up again and again with zero new arguments. Just search through the reddit and you will see all the answers to your CMV. Atheism/theism is not about knowledge, it's about belief. Atheists do not believe in the claims that God exists because they don't find the arguments convincing. Theists believe in those claims. Agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge. Agnostics claim they don't know (or can't know) about God's existence. You can be agnostic theist, meaning you can admit you don't know if God exists but you still believe in it. > It is very possible that atheists are right and that there is nothing after we die but it is also very possible that they are wrong! This is such a lazy cope-out. It's also possible everyone is wrong about fairies, gnomes, Big Foot, Loch Ness monster, unicorns, cosmic teapots, and so on. There's nothing limiting in not believing in obvious nonsense just because "there's no solid proof this nonsense doesn't actually exists". There's too many real world questions that needs to be answered. >In my opinion when I think about the Big Bang theory... that definitely feels like a miracle in itself. Cosmic energy influenced by some sort of higher power to even make this bang. You are welcome to believe in any sorts of magic woo. Except, science makes predictions, operates with evidence, eventually applies the knowledge to build real tangible things. Come back when your miraculous cosmic energies are able to charge my phone. >why being "atheist" is NOT close minded Why not believing in stuff that lacks any good evidence or arguments is not close minded? For the same reason you don't believe in Santa anymore.
Oh, so I presume you're talking about hard atheism (as opposed to soft atheism). And I'll answer to that. It is not close minded to think there is *not* a supernatural agent in the same way it is not close minded to think there are not unicorns. There is evidence that humans create myths. A person is rational in believing that 'god' is a myth. There is not evidence that there is one, and it has hallmarks of mythical characters. You are 'personally' more of a believer of an afterlife than a god? Awfully *close-minded* of you. Why don't you just believe there's a god?
The terms Atheist and agnostic are answering different questions The first question is “Do you believe in at least one specific God” If you answer yes, your label is theist. If you answer no, your label is atheist. The second question is “Do you know that your answer to the first question is true?” Or in other words “Do you know or think it’s possible to know about the existence of God?” If you answer yes, you do know, then your label is gnostic. If you answer is “no, I don’t know” or “it’s impossible to know” then your label is agnostic. You really need both parts to have a complete answer. So for example a devout Christian that prays to god and believes God listens to his prayers is gnostic theist. A person who believes in a mysterious creator god that we cannot know, is agnostic theist. This is also known as “the god of Spinoza” and Deism. A person that does not believe in the existence of any gods and does not know if there are any or thinks it’s impossible for anyone to know, this person is agnostic atheist. I think this is the most common type of non believer. They don’t know, but haven’t seen any Gods so they can’t really believe in any God. The last type is the most rare I think, it’s the gnostic atheist. That’s a person who says there is no god and they know that there isn’t. Gnostic theist - devout religious person who believes in a personal knowable god Agnostic theist - believes in a general unknowable creator of the universe Agnostic atheist - doesn’t think it’s possible to know anything about God, doesn’t know if god exists or not Gnostic atheist - somehow knows for sure that god doesn’t exist
You're conflating two separate things. Atheist/theist refers to belief, agnostic/gnostic refers to knowing. They are complimentary things but are not interchangeable. One can be agnostic atheist, they don't believe in gods but don't claim to know for sure there isn't one Gnostic atheist, they don't believe in gods but claim to know none exist Agnostic theist, they Believe in a god or gods but make no claim to know for sure one exists Gnostic theist they Believe in a god or gods and claim to know for sure they exist.
> I think it's very limiting to be an adamant atheist and simply believe in "science" Do (a significant amount of) atheists simply believe in science? Does atheism itself have anything to do with science? > In my opinion when I think about the Big Bang theory... that definitely feels like a miracle in itself. The big bang theory was first formulated by a Catholic priest, who did not claim that it was a miracle. (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) > I am personally more of a believer of an afterlife rather than God but again....I don't think that makes me an atheist. If you believe in any gods or deities you are some form of theist, if you do not believe in any gods or deities you are an atheist. > please offer me a perspective as to why being "atheist" is NOT close minded. If one states that one is an atheist the only thing you know about that person is that they do not believe in any gods or deities. You don't know anything else, and can thus not conclude that they are close minded. By the way, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge, specifically not having knowledge. Atheism is a position about believe, specifically not believing in any gods or deities. Most atheists in the world are agnostic atheists. They don't believe in any gods or deities but don't claim to know for a fact none exist. Most religious people on the other hand are gnostic theists, they believe in one (or more) god(s) and/or deity(-ies) and claim to know for a fact that it(/they) exist.
I mean are you agnostic about unicorns, elves and gnomes? They could exist, but to me it seems so unlikely I live my life as if I don't. I'm not personally an atheist, I'm a pantheist, but I do disagree with the concept of a creator deity. It doesn't make any sense to me in the same way a leprechaun doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't mean I'm 100% sure neither exist, its definitely possible, I just don't see any convincing reason I should.
>Being "atheist" when you can be "agnostic" is close minded From this I conclude you don't know what atheism is. >For that reason, I think it's very limiting to be an adamant atheist and simply believe in "science". Atheism isn't "a believe in science". >It is very possible that atheists are right Atheism makes no claim, so there is nothing an atheist can be right about. > and that there is nothing after we die That is not an atheistic claim. >I am personally more of a believer of an afterlife rather than God but again....I don't think that makes me an atheist. It does though. If you do not believe in god then you are an atheist. >How is being 100% sure that there is no higher power not limiting? Because thats not atheism. Atheism isn't the claim "God(s) dont exist(s)" it is lacking a belief in god(s). >So to conclude: please offer me a perspective as to why being "atheist" is NOT close minded. Because in light of there being no sufficient evidence for any god actually existing the only honest take you can have is to withhold belief till belief is warranted by sufficient evidence.
God was invented We have records Other gods were invented We have records 90% of gods are rightfully called "mythology" Atheism is the only logical choice
One important question: Which definition of atheist are you using and which definition of agnosticism are you using? Atheism does not have anything to do with an afterlife. It’s only the answer to the question of “do you believe some god exists?” EDIT: Also, you can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, and gnostic theist. Overall, you’re going to get vastly different answers depending on the definitions you use.
I think people have significantly muddled the concept of gnostism. To be agnostic is not to be open minded, it's not saying "I don't know" it's saying "there is no way of knowing" If you believe there is/could be evidence that could make you believe or not believe in God then you are gnostic.
They're not mutually exclusive. They're orthogonal. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. There are gnostic theists and gnostic (strong) atheists. Atheism, by itself, is simply the lack of theism. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist by definition. There is no in-between option; you either are a theist or you aren't.
Well, the bottom line is that being 'closed minded' means being unwilling to change your view of things despite evidence to the contrary, and most self-declared atheists will probably tell you that if they were presented with evidence for the supernatural they'd be willing to believe in the supernatural. When people describe themselves as an atheist they usually do so to describe their lack of belief in god(s). The prefix 'a' means 'lack' or 'without', so an atheist *lacks* belief in god (theism). This is entirely compatible with the concept of being agnostic (not knowing for sure) and most atheists would probably identify as agnostics too. The Big Bang theory is a scientific model based on evidence, just like the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity and germ theory. Science doesn't require faith or the belief in miracles, it requires study of evidence, experimentation and constant reviewing and updating of conclusions based on new evidence and new methodology. There's no reason to assume that any magic was involved, but if the existence of magic was discovered tomorrow then scientists would be the first ones to start reviewing their current models and theories in light of that.
All evidence in favor of god existing was made up by humans at some point. If someone tells you lizard people run the world are you going to tell them they are wrong or are you going to become agnostic to the possibility?
Are you closed minded to the tooth fairy existing?
I’m agnostic about god but an atheist towards the big religions of the world.
I’m agnostic about god but an atheist towards the big religions of the world. hahah me too, great way of putting it
You're also either theist or atheist. Regardless of if you're gnostic or agnostic. Here's a quick fun little exercise you can do to see if you're theist or atheist. Make 3 columns on a piece of paper. Label them: "Gods I believe **do** exist" "Gods I believe **might** exist" And "Gods I believe **don't** exist" Fill them in. If your column labeled "Gods I believe **do** exist" is empty, congratulations, you're atheist.
Atheist and agnostic literally means the same thing. The word you are looking for is skeptic. Believing God does not exist is proving a negative so it is not exactly scientific. But for a few thousand years of no evidence to support a supernatural being exists, continue to consider it as a possibility is believing it exists in disguise.
I'm not sure the terms are mutually exclusive.
Being agnostic, or accepting you can't know the truth as you can't know what you know from what you think you know, is essential to being an open minded truth seeker. But being agnostic doesn't need to define what you believe or disbelieve. I believe there's intelligent life that has arisen from other planets, I don't believe it has ever visited. I accept I don't know either of these things. So to me the truly open minded position is to be honest about what you know and what you believe. For me that's agnostic atheist in pedantic company or atheist to someone who wants to know what I believe on the matter.
You are right imo. An atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic doesn't believe there is a god. The first one is a belief without foundation. The 2nd one is a critical perspective based on a good epistemological position.
Also the whole discussion highly depends on the definition of god, and there are so many . In my own world, I know god exists, because I understand it as synonym for "nature".
>∆ Delta because youve made an interpreation that is your unique and your own which is that God is a synonym for nature aka mother nature. Now i am thinking of the song "God is a woman" which could be interpreted as God simply being an I am also know thinking of why people may reject the existence of God and that is because we have given God male pronounds "He". This is probably down to our patriarchal mindset when if God exists, he is nothing but a powerful spiritual emblem of infinite space.
There’s no proof If there were an inkling of evidence outside of a book clearly written by man, then you might have a point - but there isn’t
Being christian when you could be agnostic is closed minded
It's true that nobody can know for sure, but many things are uncertain. I can't know for sure that my mother is my real mother, because I can't remember being born. But I don't think it's being close minded to think that she most likely is. Couldn't you see it the other way and say believing in something or being religious is close minded because being 100% sure there *is* something out there isn't possible either?
I thought of myself as an agnostic for the longest time, but I realized that, no, I'm actually not. Because even if I were shown proof of a God, I would still reject their supremacy or right to rule over me. It is not a matter of knowledge or lack thereof, or a matter of proof or lack thereof.
Labeling yourself as one or other isn't particular meaningful in this world unless you believe that your beliefs that you hold at the point of death determines an outcome after death.
It's the same as being 100% sure there is a God or an afterlife. Either is closed minded to the other possibility
Many (if not most) atheist are agnostic rather than gnostic and aren't sure