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 :)
one of the reasons Flew changed his mind was what he saw as evidence for a soul in near death experiences.
I believe in life after death and a soul, and I don't believe in God. I see them as ordinary parts of nature.
Yes, as an atheist I think it is foolish and limiting to say that reality has to fit inside the framework consistent with current scientific knowledge. That means, stay inside your little box. I believe that whatever exists has a reality (rather a tautology) and it is the job of science to uncover, describe and try to explain reality. I believe that there MUST be aspects of reality which science doesn't yet have a clue about. If we dismiss, say, ghosts (my hobby-horse) on the grounds that current science can't explain them - that argument is junk, and blatantly unscientific. It is also ironic that scientists nearly always reject whatever decent evidence is offered, out of pure prejudice. Again, blatantly unscientific. Frankly, I agree with Trevor - strict materialists are scientific free-thinkers only when it suits them.
Trevor is right that there are certain basic questions that science will probably never be able to answer. I also agree that most science types are completely adrift in any other arena, to the point of dismissing it out of hand and refusing to engage with it on its own terms. D.u.m.b.
I refuse to limit my ideas to what science currently knows. Am I a human being, or a pocket calculator? A superman, or a specky nerd? (no comment.) I've never had a reason to doubt my atheism, but I suppose I would if I had to.
You might be interested in this BBC documentary about near death experiences, very interesing and also makes the point about pushing the bounds of science.
A mulitverse explanation sounds reasonable. If there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 different universes, or whatever, then one of them is likely to be like ours. A supernatural creator, on this evidence alone, also seems reasonable. However, looking at our universe now, I don't see any need for God. It's all explainable without Him. And the things He is supposed to do, He doesn't seem to do consistently. Instead, He wipes out innocent people in earthquakes, etc.
At the same time, there's more going on in the universe than science wants to admit. I have found that it's possible to earn yourself a lucky break, in some circumstances. Once where I worked there was a disabled woman who was being bullied. So I told her I would get her a new Virago book which had just come out, about work-place bullying. So after work I set out to go up town to buy it. But I had no money for the book - I thought I would try anyway and see what turned up. Sure enough - in the doorway of Clarkes shoe shop was a £10 note. The exact cost of the book. By the time I did this, I was well-acquainted with the principle, and confident that it would work.
Certainly that looks like the hand of God. If it turns out I'm wrong about atheism, I'll eat my head. Really I think scientists should relax and stop being so up themselves. It's true what Trevor says - in certain areas, either explanation will fit the picture. I don't see the need for a big battle between science and religion. Does Richard Dawkins seriously want to exterminate all Christianity? What's the point of even trying? Does he have a viable alternative? No he doesn't, because he is rubbish at philosophy and spirituality. He is under the wilful delusion that everything religious is evil. Funny how his dispassionate scientific observation breaks down at this point. Pretty tragic from a world leader in atheism. Not to say childish. It would be far more profitable to admit that Christianity (at least) does a large amount of good in the world. If religious people are encouraged to do evil by their religion, then tackle that. Don't try and bring down the entire religion, because to stop good people doing good things is, in itself, evil.
Out of Body Experiences: I once heard a BBC Radio 4 documentary, about 5 years ago, where OBE's were tested in the laboratory in the same way - putting cards with random numbers / letters on a high shelf above the bed - and the subjects DID give the correct answer in the morning. Time after time. It was a normal, perfectly acceptable scientific experiment. How can this happen without actual physical eyeballs? I don't know, and don't need to. Evidence speaks for itself.
Near Death Experiences: I believe in life after death anyway, and see no need for God in the picture. But thanks for the link Trevor, I'll give it a listen.