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 :)
Agreed. I am convinced if someone comes up with solid evidence of something like the topics mentioned it will be front page news.
yes so true to both and understood, only problem though is it will never make "front page" our current media won't allow it. Why ? Because of too many "religious" types....
Just because most Atheist reject such things doesn't make them close-minded. I'm sure most Atheists are like me, in that they don't believe in these things since there is no proof for them. That said, I am not dead-set in the belief that these things are false. It's simply that there is no evidence to support the claims, and in some cases there is evidence that actually conflicts. I can imagine these things, and should evidence come to light in support of them, I would change my opinion. This openness actually makes me open-minded, not close-minded. For many of us, saying that 'I don't believe in ghosts' is simply a shorter way of saying 'There is no evidence currently available to support the hypothesis that there is a spirit, and that it can survive ones own death to roam the Earth. Because of this, the likelihood of it's existence is highly improbable'. Obviously, the former doesn't express the true thought process as accurately, but brevity often wins out.I will say that I find most items on your list unlikely save one... Extraterrestrial life. Now, I don't think we've been visited, but given the sheer vast numbers of stars and planets in the universe, I would consider the likelihood that there is other life out there somewhere quite probable.
I agree that the term 'Atheist', has no stance on these subjects. However, since most Atheists seem to come to Atheism through skepticism and examination of evidence. With this in mind, it's not surprising that most don't believe in ghosts, or the like. If there's no evidence, it's perfectly valid to doubt. Doubting doesn't make one close-minded or unimaginative though. To me, in the total lack of evidence, the honest thing to do is to say that it is unsupported by evidence and is classed as unlikely (to varying degrees depending of the subject/info) based on what we know thus far. But we still remain open to the possibility of new info or discoveries changing those classifications. I can imagine ways that ghosts could be explained (wandering spirit, mufti-verse bubble crossover, etc), reincarnation (soul flowing from life to life, physical rebirth, recycling of matter), conspiracies (this one would be case by case), ESP (could it be the next step in evolution?), spontaneous combustion (actually I can't think of a way physics or our chemical makeup allows this one to work [assuming what we know to be correct]. The wick effect is the usual factual explanation), UFO's (alien visitors, time travelers, dimensional travelers), aliens (life from other worlds, time, dimension)... I can imagine the scenarios, but I also weigh their individual probabilities. Some may seem very unlikely, a few probable, and a couple likely. The things that seem unlikely are the things we tend not to believe in. But even thou we don't believe in something doesn't mean we are closed off to it. Simply that what we currently know tells us it's unlikely. I can imagine a unicorn. Maybe it is an extinct evolutionary cousin to the horse. There are similar creature to the horse that have two horns, so one doesn't seem like too much of an ask. But there's a problem. Even though I can imagine a scenario where unicorns were real, there is no real evidence they existed, no fossils, no signs of a vestigial horn trait in horses today. Given that this information makes the unicorn's probability slim, I will say that I don't believe unicorns existed. This doesn't mean I'm 100% sure and invested in the stance they didn't exist. Simply that given what I know, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to believe that they did. I wouldn't say that makes me unimaginative though. Heck, I rather enjoy such mythological creatures as the Griffin, Phoenix, Pegasus, Dragons and Snallygaster. I don't believe these are real, but I do think they are interesting and sometimes majestic creations.
kudos ! thank you for your reply . makes sense to me. there are just allot of folks out there that just say "nope not real" when i think we should say "undecided" to it thats all we really don't know but we do entertain the idea...
I already wrote about what I believe and got lots of blasting for it, but here's the bottom line. As some others have said, what I believe, which is the possibility of ghosts (for lack of a better word) and aliens, affects no one. I am not out "preaching" you better believe in this or else. I just have my own personal experiences to rely on and I do not expect anyone to believe me or to take me seriously if they don't even know me. I know me and that's all that matters. I am not out to convince anyone. If I meet someone with the same beliefs, or at least who is open to the possibility, then it's something I can talk about and have an intelligent conversation about. Otherwise, it is something I don't talk about or think about on a daily basis. I just feel there's something more that we have yet to discover definitively simply from my own experiences.
Thank you Trish :)
No. No bashing here. Though I have never experienced any myself I know others who have. I'm just trying to convey to those who just don't take a second thought and just say "nope don't exist" to give the more responsible reply of "undecided" because they truly don't know ether way and opening possibility instead of denial existence of ....
see Adam we all do that (though i kinda rigged this post so that i would get that kind of response)...
and thanks for taking the high road :) You will one day young padowan make a great master ...
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.