reply to post by Krazysh0t
The way I understood it is that atheists due to a lack of evidence for God do not believe in God and any of the things such as souls,
Atheism is the lack of belief in god. That's it. They may
derive from the lack of God belief it follows other things wouldn't be true.
Agnostics on the other hand believe that they don't know the answer and cannot say one way or the other if God exists or not.
You yourself said I quote "certainly don't believe in him (god)" That means non-existence.
So how does that reconcile with "cannot say one way or the other".
You do say one way or the other. As does the atheist. Lack of evidence leads you to believe god doesn't exist.
The issue again, is that you think atheists are not open to changing their position if sufficient evidence was shown. As if that was the domain of the
Here is a quote from Huxely. The one who termed agnosticism.
Not a creed but a method.
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle
is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the
foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is
the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. 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. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole
and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
So if you want an 'agnostic atheist' would be someone who doesn't believe in god due to a lack of evidence. Implicit to that really is "one way or
another" because it could go the 'other way'. Once there is good reason to do so.
The reason I shy away from the atheism title so much is because the way it is presented, it is almost like a religion in itself saying that God
We define religion much differently. Where is the laws, rituals, tenets, demand for worship, etc in atheism?
I don't know why you would shy away from your own belief. Again I quote "certainly don't believe in him (god)".
Perhaps you are put off not by atheism but some atheists?
Atheism, to me, is just another way of saying, "I know the answer."
That kind of atheist is not the majority. Meaning to say they reject any possibility of contrary evidence. The atheist that says I KNOW for a fact god
doesn't exist and no evidence can or will ever be presented. That person is
still an atheist, but only a type of atheist. Again atheism is
just the lack of belief in god's existence, not the methodology one used to reach the belief (non-belief).
Which is clearly untrue; no one knows the answer. This view is what I was trying to express in my post.
Makes total sense, but it's a confusion about what atheism and agnosticism means. At least this is my understanding and opinion.
Likewise, I study reincarnation and NDE cases to get an understanding of the soul and its existence. I believe these routes are some of the
best to get an understanding of whether or not souls and by extension God exist.
I study similar things. And practice meditation. Now I am not an atheist. I am a deist. I just agree with atheism most of the
time because it's usually in context to religions and religious gods. So yeah, I think that's awesome and I support your investigation
You say that atheists are open minded to new ideas and concepts, but from my experience and understanding I see that they can be just as close
minded as their religious counterparts.
Absolutely they can, and some surely are. People are people. This is expected. Atheism doesn't guarantee someone is a critical thinker andor 'open