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 :)
If your following this post please re-read the opening question I have added some new information ...
Thanks for a thoughtful discussion on the limits of science and the presuppositions of athiests. It seems to me though that your position as an agnostic would be better for you than being an athiest.
We all have scientific data to work from which describe process'. Theism looks at those processes and says the probability seems to be in favour of a creator. Many agnostic seems to say, I lean towards there not being a creator or supernatural realm but scienctific evidence of processes either a. by definition deal with materialism and as God is immaterial science does not currently have the equipment to measure anything outside of the material realm, so until it does I am on the fence. Or b. The processes discovered by science leads me to think that there probability is against there being a creator / supernatural realm but cannot disprove it. So because its a probability issue and not a certainty issue there the door remains skeptically open.
Athiests on the other hand, take the leap of faith from probability to assertion: There are no Gods. Your position seems more open and reasonable to me.
Thanks for your reply!
No I'm defiantly an atheist ;) I don't believe in any deity or god especially with all the information i have bouncing around in my head. I am more likely to believe in the all mighty flying spaghetti monster....aaaahhhaaaa! hahaha.... as for why not .. man has clearly made deities to control others over the centuries it is really a power game, ultimate con game, a collection of stories stolen from the Babylonian and Sumerian empires.... really i can go on but you probably know this already.
Ok, so it seems you are a troll who doesn't know the difference between mainstream media and scientific journals. Perhaps you should be more 'open-minded' to a little more education.
and maybe you might want to learn to read before you make assumptions and jump to transient conclusions.
Well, you did say you were here to 'poke the bear' - your words, not mine, and they do equate very much with the goals of a troll. Secondly, believing in magic fairies when there is no evidence for them is not 'open minded', it's just plain gullible.
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.