Are atheists narrow minded?

[Balerion]

Sam will never understand that the god freaks are the ones who need to be producing evidence, not the rational person.

But still, how much evidence that your stories are rip-offs of older stories do you need? I mean, you've seen plenty of evidence about how your religions are total frauds. But nothing's good enough. And we're narrow minded? The difference between us is that we actually show evidence.

 

[spidergoat]

No, I meant what I said, atheists demand evidence for everything except their own claims.

There is plenty of evidence for atheism.

 

[Tnerb]

We all know, that atheists are not narrow minded, and for the most part it is the theists who are narrow minded,, so why are we talking about it :/

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam will never understand that the god freaks are the ones who need to be producing evidence, not the rational person.

But still, how much evidence that your stories are rip-offs of older stories do you need? I mean, you've seen plenty of evidence about how your religions are total frauds. But nothing's good enough. And we're narrow minded? The difference between us is that we actually show evidence.

You're only being asked to be held true to YOUR standards. Theists have faith, so you should have evidence. Thats only fair, is it not?

 

[(Q)]

No, I meant what I said, atheists demand evidence for everything except their own claims.

What claims? What evidence do you want?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

In the end, atheists are the ones that I notice heavy intolerance, ignorance, arrogance, and stereotyping from.

Pathetic attempts to goad atheists into defending their logic, reason and rationality usually resort to these types of stylized insults. If you find that you are eventually forced to use such a tactic then it generally means you have no intelligent response to offer. Thus it becomes incumbent upon the issuer of such contemptuous remarks to examine the validity of their own argument.

 

[S.A.M.]

Pathetic attempts to goad atheists into defending their logic, reason and rationality usually resort to these types of stylized insults. If you find that you are eventually forced to use such a tactic then it generally means you have no intelligent response to offer. Thus it becomes incumbent upon the issuer of such contemptuous remarks to examine the validity of their own argument.

That goes both ways.

 

[shaman_]

Shaman's refutation was perhaps the worst.

Well congratulations on coming up with a response six weeks later.

Actually that example was a mirror of your argument that I came up with after several pages of trying to make you see reason.

He is, of course, an intelligent member but he made errors in his reasoning, with his "cheese/non cheese" argument.

His argument went like this, "if we can classify everything into two categories, cheese and non cheese, is it plausible to conclude that there is a 50/50 chance that the core of pluto is made of cheese?" This borders my argument because of my suggesting that, since we can classify everything into intent/non intent, there is a roughly even chance of either having been the reason for the beginning of the universe.

However, it's a flawed argument; firstly, specifications. "Non cheese" could be anything. He's being both broad and specific at the same time,

Your own argument was vague as well. What is intent? Is a shark catching a fish 'intent'? What about a venus flytrap catching a fly? An animal dying of starvation or from pollution? Is that nature or intent?

when there are certainly far more things than just cheese. There is not, however, anything except intent or lack of intent.

What? My example had two categories, not one. ?

Had he said, "if we can classify everything intwo two categories, cheese and hot sauce, is it plausible to conclude that there is a 50/50 chance that the core of pluto is made of cheese?"

I'd say, yes it's quite plausible. Why? Everything is either cheese or hot sauce.

Nope. Intent and non intent is every bit as vague as cheese and non cheese.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

PsychoticEpisode “ Originally Posted by Norsefire
In the end, atheists are the ones that I notice heavy intolerance, ignorance, arrogance, and stereotyping from. ”


Pathetic attempts to goad atheists into defending their logic, reason and rationality usually resort to these types of stylized insults. If you find that you are eventually forced to use such a tactic then it generally means you have no intelligent response to offer. Thus it becomes incumbent upon the issuer of such contemptuous remarks to examine the validity of their own argument.

That goes both ways.

Been guilty of it myself. I vow that from here on in I will never again resort to such tactics. Being facetious and sarcastic as well as pointing out ironies are still fair game.

 

[Balerion]

You're only being asked to be held true to YOUR standards. Theists have faith, so you should have evidence. Thats only fair, is it not?

But you've been shown evidence numerous times. What more do you want?

 

[ggazoo]

I think they tend to lack critical thinking skills, an understanding of what science is and how it works.

Better tell that to Francis Collins. Not only is he an eminent research scientist and the head of the Human Genome Project, but he's also a Christian. Here then is what you say can't exist; someone with a firm belief in evolution as a biological mechanism, but who completely rejects philosophical naturalism. And he's not alone.

As far as being narrow-minded goes, skeptics believe that any exclusive claims to a superior knowledge of a spiritual reality cannot be true. But this objection is itself a religious belief. It assumes God is unknowable, or that God is loving but not wrathful, or that God is an impersonal force rather than a person who speaks in Scripture. All of these are unprovable faith assumptions. In addition, their proponents believe they have a superior way to view things. They believe the world would be a better place if everyone dropped the traditional religions' views of God and truth and adopted theirs. Therefore, their view is also an "exclusive" claim about the nature of spiritual reality. If all such views are to be discouraged, this one should be as well. If it is not narrow to hold this view, then there is nothing inherently narrow about holding to traditional religious beliefs.

 

[Pete]

Pete, good post and I agree but for atheists supposedly being "free minded" thinkers, they certainly aren't displaying it, from the ones I've seen on here. Not all of them, but the ones on sciforums certainly. And even then, not all of those. But still.

As Sciforums (and most/all public discussion arenas) regularly demonstrates:

"Atheist" does not necessarily imply free-minded thinking;
"Theist" does not necessarily imply moral or spiritual enlightenment.