I for one don’t get this people, why is it that atheist are so close minded that they lack imagination to see some topics as possibilitys examples….
2.) Reincarnation (non spiritual)
4.) Esp and related (telekinesis, spontaneous combustion, etc…)
5.) Ufo’s , Aliens, extraterrestrial life
And all of the above are no relation to gods or then in liken to….
Ok just in case you have forgotten the definition of atheism here…..
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Nowhere does it say anything about being close minded with lack of inspiration in the scientific field.
Yes I know atheist are skeptics in nature as I am but I always say prove it either way for or against that it does or does not exist… I know that leaves the god question in there but no I CAN prove that wrong. :)
These topics need to be proven though scientific theory, but how? As far as I can see we are still babies in the flow of technology. People forget we did not have iPods and cell phones 30 years ago. We barely had computers and there already 100% faster that then and TV was only invented less than 100 years ago.
Humans have been around for 100,000 years and only in the last 200 have we just created this mega society that has communication (worth mentioning). So why is everybody so narrow minded?
Go ahead tell me how some atheist started being unimaginative and almost hateful to human curiosity?
Let the great debate begin ……
EDIT:10/28/2011 Please read
Ok after a few days of running this discussion I have gotten some great replies and now I'm going to tell you why and what I did here....
It was a personal experiment to "poke the bear" and "test the waters" to see what other Atheist were like. I don't actually know any other Atheist personally. I am new to atheism, only being one for a little more than a year or so i was an agnostic before that. I really don't think atheist are closed minded (this post proved that to a degree) though i do think we rely on the main stream in science a little to much because alot of it is controlled, programed, objectified by people who want to control us. OK I know i just sounded like a nutter there, but really look again why does your little one want that new Elmo doll? And why was it a week before any news broke on the OWS ? Though they are rather quick to point out that a terrorist was killed today....
And on the subjects above I do believe we should keep and open mind and not use the easy fall back " no they don't exist" to the proper "undermanned" or "undecided" it gives us just a little more room to grow as humans by implying "we see your point but prove it and we know that's going to be hard to do". yes we are skeptics let us just not be the negative cynical ones (yea that's harder than it sounds).....
Oh and Thank you for putting up your responses it really did help me "see a little more"
yea i'm still answering what i can :)
Thanks for your response :)
Ok No I haven't followed the easy road. I to still ask where the proof is and don't run around saying "the sky is falling".
As for the rest .... DON'T hold back let it out this is a free speech site heck I might even back you up :) And it is never childish to have imagination never let anyone tell you otherwise .... Oh yea I read alot of sci-fi myself ....
I'm just trying to convey say "undecided" vs " no " that's all :)
We don’t dismiss them without thought. I for one am very open to the possibility...if evidence is provided that is not circumstantial or an account of an encounter. We just tend to look at them closer and we don’t buy into the idea so easily because we are skeptic. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, nor with entertaining them. It’s just with these topics there is so much BS out there that it’s hard to agree with the accounts. People can be stupid, manipulative and easily convinced. Hence why religion is so rampant, we just put things under more strenuous scrutiny so if it seems we have lack of inspiration that’s not it, we just have a higher bar of accepting ideas as fact or possibilities with no evidence. Look at Quantum Science, its full of people who are asking a lot of these questions and are searching for data to support them (Parallel Universes, Multi-verse, ect. Ect.), which are all fascinating, but until we find evidence, it stays in the realm of possible, but highly unlikely. I’m more of a 6.9 on most these issues based on Dawkin’s scale. Almost certain its all BS, but there is that shred of possibility. Except for the ET notion, I am almost certain that there is life out there in the cosmos; anyone who believes in evolution should also believe this. If the process was started here, it’s possible to have been started elsewhere on the countless other solar systems and galaxies. It may not be what the Sci-Fi authors have entertained us with, but life none the less.
thanks for your reply!
yup see your point there. mainly what i have been trying to convey here is that we don't know and that we should be using the term "undecided" instead of "no" because we don't "know" ether way.
Okay, I know I'm late to the discussion, but nonetheless:
1) "Atheism" isn't an established religion with an "unholy book" that we all follow. Atheists can be completely different from each other. The only thing that you can guarantee of someone that claims to be an atheist is that they reject the notion of traditional gods.
2) No one who claims to be a skeptic claims to know everything about the universe. In fact, atheists and skeptics are the only group that has an "and after that, we don't know" at the end of their description of the origins of the universe.
3) "Scientific" and "Paranormal" are not synonyms. You cannot call ghost hunting "scientific investigation", for the simple reason that it circumvents scientific process. For example:
A person feels a cold gust of wind at the Olde Theatre
They mention said gust to their group.
One member of the group says "Y'know, I heard the theater's star died backstage during a performance of the same play Lincoln was killed at!
Everyone "OMG! That cold air must have been his ghost passing through you!"
Call in paranormal investigators for "scientific research", completely ignoring the fact that it's in the investigator's best interest to find paranormal activity.
Film said investigation for basic cable TV show aimed at people who already believe in the paranormal.
Conclusion: Is the cold air felt at the Olde Theatre the ghost of the Tragically Dead Star? YOU DECIDE!
Thanks for your reply!
1.) It was just the definition to illustrate a point
2.) Actually there are allot who just refuse to listen too... :) It's more or less to the point that alot of skeptics just become too cynical.
3.) Yes there are "scientific investigations" with equipment and they are out there trying the best they can to follow scientific method ( you can only do so much stumbling around in the dark) its really a hit or miss situation.
(laughing) Yes your description does describe some of the "not so expert" hunters but yes they are there mostly for entertainment. And feelings never impress me ether.
Yuki, could you tell us more? I am intrigued. How did you get yourself in harmony? What do you mean by being in harmony? I am looking forward to some beautiful Japanese simplicity. You can be complicated if you like though.
I have always felt most secure in making my decisions in life based on things that either make sense or can be scientifically proven - preferably both. If somebody tells me that an elephant can fly I don't "open my mind" to the possibility. I want to SEE it fly! Those phenomena that you list - ghosts, reincarnation, ESP, telekinesis, spontaneous combustion, UFO's, aliens, and extraterrestrials, along with dozens of others are things that make absolutely NO sense to me, since they fall outside of the parameters of what I understand to be the natural world. Additionally, not a one of those things, despite innumerable attempts to validate them, has ever produced a scintilla of evidence to support them. Anecdotal "evidence" is not even remotely scientific evidence, so don't bother to tell me about the time you "saw" a ghost or a space alien. To me, it means that either you are lying, or your brain is highly susceptible to being deceived. I am open-minded to the extent that if any of my senses were to experience one of these supernatural entities, I would seriously reevaluate my beliefs. That doesn't mean that I would automatically change my mind, though; it only means that I would take advantage of all the ways I could submit my experience to serious testing before making up my mind. So far, though, no such confirmation of anything supernatural has ever reached my sensory apparatus.
I once was riding in a car in the desert late at night with a passenger who spotted a string of lights in the sky that he was ABSOLUTELY SURE had to be flying saucers. "No other possible explanation," he said. But as he sat and marveled at his "flying saucers," traveling at hypersonic speeds high in the sky, I began testing other possibilities. When I made the "saucers" disappear and appear again, at will, he was really confused, not knowing that I had discovered the true light source, which was being emitted from far off in the desert and reflected in my windshield. Those "saucers" he "saw" in the sky were not even there; they were nothing but tiny reflections in my windshield. So whose mind was really "open"? I submit it was mine, because I didn't automatically accept my senses' poor ability to discern phenomena in all instances. His was "closed" because he chose not to question what he thought he saw.
Your idea of a "closed mind" and mine are quite different. I regard the closed mind as one that dismisses scientific evidence and instead gullibly swallows whole the most preposterous claims, especially if they defy all scientific laws of which we are aware. I know, YOU are aware of them. But that cuts no ice with me. If you expect me to take anything you have to conjure and promote with more (or less) than a grain of salt, you'd darn well better present some tangible evidence, Otherwise, I will justifiably think you're a total crackpot. It's simple. All you have to do is just SHOW ME! If you want me to believe in ghosts, stroll by my house, hand-in-hand with one. I won't hold my breath, though.
Incidentally, why are you wasting time trying to convince me and other atheists of anything when you could contact James Randi who will work with you in constructing a MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE test of any of your conjectures? If you pass the test, you get the million dollars plus that Randi has put into escrow to be given to anyone who can demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon. Many have tried. All have failed. Why did they fail? Because what they claimed was pure poppycock.
Take just one example. One of the things you apparently believe in is telekinesis, judging by your list above. I assume, then, that your hero is Uri Geller, who has gotten rich flabbergasting you and millions of others with a very simple magic trick even a child can do. Does it affect your opinion of him at all that when he went on Johnny Carson's show with James Randi, he was unable to bend a spoon? That, of course, was because Randi knew how the trick was done; so Geller refused to do it because Randi would have exposed him. Randi also taught an entire class of schoolchildren to "bend spoons," and videotaped them happily doing it for TV. He also demonstrated on another show how easy it is to do the trick. On another show, a camera, strategically placed where Geller was unaware of it, made it crystal clear exactly how he was doing the trick. It doesn't matter, though; even if you PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that people like Geller are doing magic tricks, people with "open minds," like you, choose to "close" your minds to scientific evidence and believe he has these marvelous psychic powers - that the mind IS magically capable of exerting physical effects. Fine. Just show Randi and collect a million dollars. Or maybe you think Randi should just "open" his mind and hand you the million dollars based on your beliefs?
Nearly all of the people Randi has tested, he believes, honestly thought they had these paranormal powers and were very surprised and distressed that they couldn't demonstrate them under testing criteria which they themselves had helped design. However, NONE of the famous psychics and other paranormalists such as Van Pragh, Edward, Geller, Dixon, or any of the others has ever submitted to testing by Randi, despite the possibility of winning a million dollars. Why? Because they are FRAUDS, and they know it. The trouble is, though, YOU don't know it, nor do millions of other credulous, gullible Americans who will believe ANYTHING - the more ludicrous the better.
So don't just blather about your claims and our closed minds on this blog, SHOW US!!!
ok thanks for posting?
wow you sure do know how to put me into situations I never mentioned you must be a writer, but I guess you didn't read everything I have been replying too in this post ether? i never claimed to have had "experiences" and this whole discussion was about how to answer instead of doing "no they don't exist" to "undecided" because there is no proof ether way.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...
I don't believe unicorns exist because I have no reason to. If you had evidence for it tomorrow, I would open my mind to the idea of existent unicorns. You can't say "prove unicorns don't exist" to me because that's unreasonable burden of proof shifting. You're making the claim so you have to provide evidence for it.
Thanks for replying !
Agreed, good answer noted thanks.