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 :)
it's more to me that most are just out right denying instead of investigating to me. just shutting it down instead of entertaining the thoughts that there may be more to "the big picture". more or less why is it that everything black and white and no gray...
Investigate what? Science starts with observable facts from phenomena and try to explain then using a model (thats very simplified I know). What are the facts and observable phenomena which you would want investigated? What if the phenomena are already explained by existing models (like tricks of the light, or creaky floorboards), should they then be re-investigated with the intended result of a model which includes ghosts or aliens?
Yes mat , scientific theory , but people so quickly forget that's what brings us to create things to make the discoverys.
but what if our existing models are flawed? what if we can't register the energy yet? does that say they don't exist?
i'm just trying to say that we need to entertain the idea of discovery to keep growing as humans.
grant it i have never seen ether one but i can not say they don't exist ether....
And what if the models are flawed? If someone notices a flaw, or the model is inconsistent, it is modified or rejected.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist, but unless there is anything that says it DOES exist, there is no reason to believe that it does. There is nothing that is utterly proves that there is no army of little elves dancing about in my attic right now. Does that mean that I should believe that there are elves in my attic? No, as there is nothing that proves that there ARE elves there.
I am totally open minded to any logical, scientific theory that makes sense. I am not open to every wild, unproven "theory" that average people completely made up.
And this makes me "hateful to human curiosity?" I like asking questions and learning things. I just don't decide that I believe in myths that I have absolutely no reason to believe.
thanks for replying. yes i agree with you.
I actually found an error I made and I apologize I left out "some" in the phrase
Go ahead tell me how atheist started being unimaginative and almost hateful to human curiosity?
I did not want to mean "all" ... my bad sorry. but funny how you missed "almost"
Actually Nelson, I have an acute perception on how people preceive things. i'm just not going into that here.
no not agitated , trying to prove a point. alot of "atheist" have "shut down" become to cynical beyond that of "there is no god because you can't prove it" to affect there life and close them off to "possibility".
no hate is to strong its more "dislike"..... i did say "almost hateful"
besides there are people out there presenting evidence and no one listens. is that a surprise?
What does that mean, "not listening"? People will listen when the evidence is hard to ignore. That is the way it always works. Scientific change functions based on inertia. It takes a strong push to make it change. A weak push simply won't do. Otherwise it'd be flapping in the winds of change like a flag in a gale. So, yeah, sometimes science is wrong for a while before it accepts a new truth. We wouldn't want it any other way.
yes and thanks for responding. unfortunately big media won't follow unless it suits there needs....you outta see know that. (max headroom)<--- loved that show
I seriously doubt if this crew—typical atheists—depend overmuch on big media for their opinions.
well i believe its allot better than yours because you have not read everything else in this post to make such an assumption thus drawing a conclusion with out seeing all the information ... read on young man read on .....
In that case, most atheists are really a kind of agnostic. Maybe there really is no such thing as an atheist.