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 :)
no that's a good answer not difficult at all to understand and i see why but would it not be more accurate to say undecided ?
technically yes....undecided is the right response. However, it does not convey my position on a given topic to be good enough as an answer. For example, I am an agnostic atheist. The agnostic part says that I don't know if there is a god or not but the atheist part says I don't believe there is a god. Similarly for just about all possible phenomena (ghosts, leprachauns, solar orbiting teapots) I cannot say for certain that they don't exist but I do not believe they exist and until some evidence is presented which points to them, I effectively live my life as it they don't exist.
Cool, point made thanks for your response. Solar orbiting teapots?..ha ha I'll have to look that one up. :)
just read up on "Russell's Teapot" very interesting and a point well made thanks Matt and Dave for pointing me that way....
Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between someone having an "open mind" and having a hole in the head.
true point made. granted yes there are quite a few wack-a-doodles in those fields.... (quickly finds his cork)
1.) Ghosts- No, not at all
2.) Reincarnation- Even less than ghosts
3.) Conspiracies- Of course I believe there are conspiracies, but it doesn't make them true.
4.) Esp and related- Nope and nope.
5.) Ufo’s , Aliens, extraterrestrial life. I have no doubt at all that there is life on other planets, just not in our solar system. For sake of argument, there's a near infinite number of stars, most with their own planets, and scientists have already mapped hundreds of planets in our own galaxy that can support life. It would be very selfish and naive to think there isn't life elsewhere in space. Now, have they contacted or visited us? I highly doubt that.
but how can you say no to something ? have you proven to the positive or negative that they don't exist or do exist? my point is here that you really don't know so you go with the popular point of view in the main stream . why not keep an open mind, and stay undecided until proven otherwise ?
I think you mean there are conspiracy theories. If there ARE conspiracies, then they are ipso facto correctly identified as such and that identification of them is a truth.
It's not close-minded to reject ideas that have no supporting evidence. In fact, that would be the open-minded thing to do. Open-mindedness is about evaluating ideas based on their merit, not being credulous to all sorts of speculation, regardless of whether or not such speculations have supporting evidence. An open-minded person can reject ideas if there is nothing to support said ideas.
but what if they do have evidence and you haven't seen it? does that give any one a NRA license to shoot down ideas? But an open minded person would search to find evidence for ether for or against supporting his/her claim . The problem is no one knows everything that's why i say "undecided" instead of "no"... it's just so to the negative and to easy to say.