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 :)
ok for one "poke the bear" is a simple idiom for "provoking a response" and where did I say I believe in magic faeries? I think you missed the entire boat on what was being said here.....
I see; it seems you've spent a great deal of your life as a theist. You speak in figurative language to provide yourself with plausible deniability, ask questions rather than state your beliefs plainly, and then take offense when someone calls you what you are.
You came here to stir the pot, so you are a troll.
You suggest Atheists rely on science too much, and then ask questions about media related phenomenon as though some greater scientific truth might be found there.
I'll just evaluate your beliefs to the lowest common denominator (magic fairies) until you state your message plainly without sewing a path of exits behind you.
Yes I did/was a theist now I'm an atheist.
If you could have understood the EDIT you would have and seen easily the following .... Pretending to be a troll at best....
1.) This post was done to purposely provoke a controlled response to determine the nature of atheist in general be cause I know on others.
2.) That we have been programed to be dismissive to "unusual" or "uncommon" thinking that we "NO" instead of ruling "undetermined"
Whether or not scientifically or media based people in general only believe what they see based on those effects "religious or not"....
3.) being a skeptic does not have to mean being a cynic as well.
If that's not plain enough for you I can take it down a notch or three...
p.s. you never read all the articles and replies this is very evident..
I see, so...
1.) You only posted here to play with people a bit in a controlled environment for your own interest and somehow see a difference between that an trolling.
2.) Many of us have seen baseless assertions of fictions enough to disregard them until someone offers evidence - 'NO' is the shortcut to saying 'show me the money'.
3.) Being a skeptic in an environment that is repeatedly plagued with people trying to assert some validity to their magical thinking does require being a cynic (or a victim to time thieves).
How about take it UP a notch and just state plainly the idea that you feel is not getting enough serious attention, providing some indication of what sort of serious attention you feel that issue deserves and why.
here maybe this will make you think.....
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
make a note for yourself here... "within a normal on-topic discussion".
the only "troll" here is you according to the definition. Proof enough? If I where you I would stop now not knowing if the cookie jar has a rat trap in it....
and I believe I have explained myself well enough that a Cro-Magnon could understand...
Richard: I know you're not a troll. It looks to me like you're new to the site and you wanted to find out the lie of the land by asking some provocative questions. Seems like a reasonable idea to me. Perhaps you might like to think more carefully about your logic, as this would give people more to grab hold of, apart from your throat.
Heather, I know you've got strong views, and I really do applaud and welcome that, but please would you mind not kicking the crap out of Richard. Have a heart. Let's welcome a poor lost ex-sheep to the rational fold. He doesn't have to be a "good boy" for us to accept him. It's OK for him to disagree or ask questions. Surely that's what we're all about. I say we should let people rampage around and create havoc, intellectually, and not get upset about it. We all need shaking up. He's doing us a favour. We are big, we are strong. We can take it. No need to get heated.
Did I tell him to piss off or something? When I get heated I'll come back with a lot more than a request for specifics.
LOL He's not a troll
Thanks Simon. I actually expected that some one would pop up.. there is one in every crowd. Much appreciated ;)
Ghosts don't make sense to me because everyone says they have no mass, if this is true then they are not affected by gravity, and thus cannot maintain a position on earth's surface. If they are extradimensional like others say (like a crossover), then they have been known to emit light, and therefore detectable by scientific instrument. You could measure what they're made of, nobody knows any facts about ghosts, they're all just ideas, not even theories and based solely on word of mouth and therefore not a good thing to go by.
2. Reincarnation (non spiritual):
I'm not completely closed to this idea, we have gained consciousness on this earth, who's to say that we don't gain some kind of other consciousness after we die. perhaps in another galaxy. It happened once, why couldn't it happen again? This is my idea, but it's as useless as saying that theres a pink unicorn that lives on jupiter until theres any sort of scientific knowledge of such a thing. It's open to speculation, but my opinion is as useless as anyone elses on this forum on this topic.
Conspiracies are just what they are, conspiracies. Some may be true, some may be false, it mostly depends on the ammount of verifiable and concrete evidence to support conspiracies. However, most conspiracies floating around like the structures on the moon, or that NASA is suppressing knowledge of alien visitors are all just word of mouth and are baseless.
4. Telekinesis, spontaneous combustion, etc...
Fire is a chemical reaction requiring 3 properties, a combustible source of fuel, an oxidizing gas, and sufficient energy to increase the fuel's temperature to combustion, without these three things, fire cannot exist. Spontaneous combustion can be duplicated in labs, but if your thinking of someone walking down the street and randomly catching fire, then no. If that is the case then what your describing is supernatural and makes no sense in the natural world.
The ability to affect objects by thinking. Absolutely absurd. I cant remember who made this quote, but it goes "no amount of belief will make anything true, because reality does not conform to us". If you believe you can move that soda can across the room, go ahead and try, it won't happen. Telekinesis has been an idea for millenia, and every claim of it is word of mouth or textual.
UFO's: who knows, if your talking about beings far more advanced than us, then theyve probably made spaceships that can be invisible, there's no real way of proving that they exist until one touches down in manhattan, NY. There are millions of sightings, but the evidence needs to be more conclusive to sway me further.
Do you know how un-fucking believably small we are? there are over 70 sextillion stars in the observable universe, the unobservable is thought to be many times more than that. I like to use the rain analogy. What is the chance that one single drop of rain will land on the exact center of a penny i lay on the ground at 10:58.562421 PM eastern time on next tuesday during a slightly cloudy day? Not very likely. Yet, if i were to ask you the same thing during a rainstorm, the probability becomes inevitable. Some drop will likely hit the center of the penny during this storm. I like to think of the possibility of extraterrestrial life in the rational universe in this way.
Those are some farfetched questions your asking, so your going to get some farfetched answers; others, not as much. Instead of thinking about the supernatural and the unknown, shift your attention to the known and the rational. There you'll find the answers your looking for.
Just like the professional magician is the least likely person to believe in magic, the least likely person to believe in the supernatural, are the ones with a firm understanding OF the natural.
Great response Matthew! Thanks for the reply. Yes its all open to allot of interpretation and may be one day we will know , one way or the other.......
Dude, I don't mean to insult you, but your explanation of your original post is full of shit. Are you seriously equating science with Elmo marketing and conservative TV news programs? WTF? The reason that atheists don't generally believe in woo is that woo generally has crap for evidence to back it up. There has been plenty of research done on the topics you mentioned; ghosts, esp, reincarnation, etc. No rigorous study has found any evidence to support them. If you think they are credible issues, I suggest you re-examine your standards for evidence.