Why to people group together atheists and agnostics?

Question

From an agnostic's point of view, hardcore atheists are not much different than hard-core spiritualists -- they both believe something whole-heartedly without any proof. Agnostics believe that you should have an open mind and cannot dismiss any belief that is inherently unknowable. It's not indecisiveness. It's simply admitting that one cannot know the truth about God or the afterlife or how God functions, if there is one, until after we die.

Atheists believe (have faith) that there is no God. Religious people believe (have faith) that there is a God.

Discuss amoungst yourselves!

P.S. No thanks to all the people who wish to post scripture as proof or otherwise condemn me to hell. You have beliefs. Good for you. So do I. If you wish to respond to this question, answer the question that I have posed. Thank you.

Thanks, phantom, for a thoughtful response. I would like to clarify one thing, however. I realize that it's easy to find scientific proof that certain religious beliefs are incorrect. But that's now what I mean. The point I am trying to make is that atheists believe that there is no God... no creator... no afterlife... nothing special. And there is and will probably never be any proof of that "fact" in the forseeable future. Sure, you can find evidence that certain things about religion are erroneous. But when you boil it down the the central theme of atheism, you are still left with a belief in something unknowable -- that God does not exist. That's the key difference, in my opinion.

Answer 1

Very simple:
Both do not believe in the God of the Bible.

It's like grouping all "religious people" together. There is a significant difference between Hindus and Christians, for example. But, in your question, you grouped them all together.

Oh, and by the way, not all "religious people" believe there is a single god. Some, like pantheists, believe everything is god.

Answer 2

Atheism is not having faith in the fact that there is no god. Atheism is merely the denial of the proposition "there is a god." An atheist acknowledges that the evidence for the existence of a god is not persuasive, but not necessarily that no gods exist. There is simply no good reason to believe in a god. They remain open to the evidence.

Agnosticism has to do with *knowledge* while atheism has to do with *belief.*

Ons can believe in gods, and claim to know they exist. This person is a Gnostic Theist.

One can believe in gods, but admit that they do not know for sure. This person is an Agnostic Theist.

One can lack belief in gods, and admit that they may be wrong. This person is an Agnostic Atheist.

One can lack belief in a god, and be convinced that they are right. This person is a Gnostic Atheist.

People can have different "labels" for different gods. For example, if we define a god as being always, obviously, physically present to me, I can claim strong, gnostic atheism. That is, I believe that such a god does not exist, and I know for sure that I'm right. If we define a god simply as being very powerful and loving, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe such a god exists, but I don't know for sure. I remain open to the evidence. My belief is tentative (as all beliefs should be).

The labels "atheist" and "agnostic" are often combined because both admit doubt or denial of the existence of gods.

Answer 3

Ah yes. It is b/c Wiccans are...lets see...what have I learned from the religious right....oh yes, devil worshippers. Satanist are just doomed to hell. But those "A" people (atheists and agnostics) have to be lumped together b/c....what is it...oh yes we are "lost" and merely have to be "shown the light" in order to convert. Other believers with religious conviction have to be convinced they are wrong, cleansed of their wrong beliefs, then shown the light. That makes us easier to lump together since we have the same solution.

However, I agree that they should not be lumped together. If I were religious I'd stick with hounding the agnostics b/c they just say they don't know. You could easily convince them that you DO know and then they would be religious converts or "born again" or whatever. Atheists are almost like trying to convert someone of a different religion. You must prove you are right and that they are wrong.

However your point about agnostic not being undecided, but admit that they cannot know the truth. Well--the reason that comes across as undecided is b/c there must be some hope there. Some way that Pascal's Wager actually worked on them. Something like after we die, if it ends up being the Christian god we covered our butt b/c we never "denied" him. If it ends up being Thor you can say--"Hey I always wondered if it was you." You say its not undecided but if thats the case, why not have an opinion on it? why does it have to be beyond human understanding? B/c just by saying that, you are automatically believing there is such a thing as "beyond human". If you thought there was a chance that humans made it up, it wouldn't be beyond understanding but merely the limits of human imagination.

Atheists just feel they have no reason to "find out after they die" b/c they really don't believe that after they die they will see the Easter Bunny or the Spaghetti Monster. It's ludacris to even come up with "but how do you know" b/c its obvious. I know b/c if there was an Easter Bunny, don't you think we'd have some way of actually knowing that? Some proof. I mean there is more proof of Bigfoot out there.

I disagree that we believe something "wholeheartedly without any proof." We disagree strongly BECAUSE of proof. The fundies who believe the world is only a couple thousand years old and that fossils were planted by Satan. The proof that the Apostles books were completely disregarded (as we don't have 12 books of the new testament written by them). The proof that those who translate Greek and Hebrew texts have found amazing amounts of mistranslations by the Catholic church. Thats not something we just believe in. We know its true b/c it's been proven. We know that mankind has been inventing religions since we were first able to. And that we look back on Greek or Norse myths as merely myths. Odd stories come up with to explain what they weren't smart enough to know back then. And therefore, it leads to reason that future years will look back on us the same way. Our Christianity will be seen as cute stories to explain what we weren't smart enough to know.

Our false sense of superiority is what lead us to believe Earth had to be the center of the universe. What lead us to believe in blood-letting to let out the ill-humors. And its just silly to believe that everything that we "know" for a fact today won't be seen a couple hundred years from now as silly things from when humans didn't have the knowledge that they have today.

The atheist belief has nothing to do with a strong wholehearted belief but in fact, a knowledge that humans are egotistical and narcissistic.