nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

dd972

Agnostic in peace here.

I fully understand the basis for people's Atheism being the lack of verifiable evidence of God and having no truck with man made organised religion.

But, don't any of you (particularly militant atheists) feel that you've jumped the gun in deciding there's no god or prime mover? How do you KNOW ?, no one does, which is why I regard agnosticism as the more rational standpoint.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

swampgas

martingriff wrote: »

They are true to me yes it is faith a belief whatever you want to call it. Is t wrong to have faith

Faith is believing something without evidence, mostly people do this because they have been brought up with it, so to some extent it "feels" real. At least, that was my experience anyway.

I would say that there is a problem with having faith - blind faith, anyway - in that it distorts your perception of the world you live in. It restricts the way you think. It can make you afraid or unwilling to think certain thoughts. It can make you do or say things that you really don't agree with, deep down.

IMO, obviously.

lazygal

I actually came to realise I was of the atheist persuasion when I opened my mind to the nuttiness of the claims made by the Catholic faith. I thought about it very deeply in fact. I grew up with lovely memories of the church. I was the first female alter server in our parish and did lots of plays, was in the church choir and genuinely liked going to mass. The first chink came in school, when a battleaxe of a nun pointedly told the one protestant girl in our class that she wasn't part of the real Catholic church and wasn't it a shame she had no faith. Then the sex abuse scandals broke. I was in first year in school when the Brendan Smith/AG/Government falling stuff happened and I'll never forget my mum telling me her and her sister had a lucky escape as that beast was in her school giving 'special confessions' and retreats.

That started me thinking and the more I thought about it the less I believed any of it. The final straw came a few years later at a school mass. I just had a moment sitting in an expensively decorated church with gold on the alter and a man in a dressing telling a captive audience of schoolgirls to never taint ourselves by using any form of contraception and sex was a gift for our husbands, not something we could play around with whenever we felt like it. This was a young enough priest who'd seemed reasonable enough in a religion class he stepped into. Then and there I though, nah, this is not for me.

I find I'm more open to reading and learning about other faiths than many of my peers. I've had people who describe themselves as practicing Catholics tell me the host is symbolic and that they don't believe any of that auld nonsense about contraception or non Catholics not getting into heaven. To me, that's a closed mindset, going along with rituals without asking why or not even believing in what your faith is supposed to be about because it makes you uncomfortable to believe things you know are wrong.

Mardy Bum

martingriff wrote: »

I will accept that and it is wrong to sat that there are not atheists who do not try to do the same is wrong.

But is that not the answer to the OP title to this thread is atheism close minded and the answer would be yes but is so far as anyone who has a belief in something will be close minded. Like someone who thinks a football club is the greatest will be close minded to believe anyother club is better then them

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief.

martingriff

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Who is forcing anyone to change their stance? I think its fairly reasonable to assume that you are aware that it is the religious who actively try to force religion on other with various degrees of punishment if you do not accept it.

I will accept that and it is wrong to sat that there are not atheists who do not try to do the same is wrong.

But is that not the answer to the OP title to this thread is atheism close minded and the answer would be yes but is so far as anyone who has a belief in something will be close minded. Like someone who thinks a football club is the greatest will be close minded to believe anyother club is better then them

[Deleted User]

martingriff wrote: »

Don't really follow you there. But what makes my beliefs better or more right then anyone else nothing does. IT does to me.

But that's subjective. All the other people who all believe different things to you think the same way. But does that make their beliefs more real or less fictional? No it doesn't.
Yours is no different. Just really really believing something does not change reality. It does not make things pop into existence.
And you believe this is true for everything, except for you alone...

Mardy Bum

martingriff wrote: »

Of course they are open to criticism that's my whole point. Why shouldn't they be there is no substantiated claim either way if they exist or not. I say challenge away however I say don't force people to accept your views

Who is forcing anyone to change their stance? I think its fairly reasonable to assume that you are aware that it is the religious who actively try to force religion on other with various degrees of punishment if you do not accept it.

martingriff

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Are you conceding that all unsubstantiated claims or beliefs, as you call them, are not open to criticism because they are deeply held?

Of course they are open to criticism that's my whole point. Why shouldn't they be there is no substantiated claim either way if they exist or not. I say challenge away however I say don't force people to accept your views

Mardy Bum

martingriff wrote: »

Don't really follow you there. But what makes my beliefs better or more right then anyone else nothing does. IT does to me.

Are you conceding that all unsubstantiated claims or beliefs, as you call them, are not open to criticism because they are deeply held?

martingriff

King Mob wrote: »

Well you clearly think so in the cases of gods and other fictional creatures aside from your own.

Does people's belief in stuff like Nessie actually make her appear in the loch for everyone to objectively see?
Does that belief make the creature any less fictional?

Why is your preferred one different to the others you don't believe in?

Don't really follow you there. But what makes my beliefs better or more right then anyone else nothing does. IT does to me.

martingriff

ShooterSF wrote: »

A link to extremist Atheists demanding people be killed because of their sexuality?

That line was not on killing people because or sexuality (which I disagree with 100%). But there are extremists n religion and in atheism in terms of views. I could have said Stalin or Pol Pot but there crimes were more on political terms then on there atheism.

[Deleted User]

martingriff wrote: »

They are true to me yes it is faith a belief whatever you want to call it. Is t wrong to have faith

Well you clearly think so in the cases of gods and other fictional creatures aside from your own.

Does people's belief in stuff like Nessie actually make her appear in the loch for everyone to objectively see?
Does that belief make the creature any less fictional?

Why is your preferred one different to the others you don't believe in?

martingriff

swampgas wrote: »

You have beliefs but cannot explain why they are true. In other words, faith. Which is just pretending something is true, either because you were indoctrinated with it, or because it makes you feel happier.

How much does it matter to you whether your beliefs are actually true?

They are true to me yes it is faith a belief whatever you want to call it. Is t wrong to have faith

biko

dd972 wrote: »

Agnostic in peace here.

I fully understand the basis for people's Atheism being the lack of verifiable evidence of God and having no truck with man made organised religion.

But, don't any of you (particularly militant atheists) feel that you've jumped the gun in deciding there's no god or prime mover? How do you KNOW ?, no one does, which is why I regard agnosticism as the more rational standpoint.

I really dislike the term "militant" atheist. Atheist don't blow people up or shoot abortion doctors. But that's for another discussion.
I "know" because there isn't a shred of evidence for any divine being whatsoever but overwhelming evidence for science, evolution and plain reason.
Agnostics are pussies that want to be atheists but are too afraid to commit

MrPudding

dd972 wrote: »

another atheist ''who was there'' at the omega <facepalm>

The only thing here requiring a face palm is your continued, even after it has been explained with pictures, misunderstanding of what an agnostic is. I, like most of the regulars on this board, am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if gods exists or not (the agnostic bit) but given that there is currently so satisfactory evidence that gods do exist I live my life as if they don't (the atheist bit).

Give that this is the majority view here, why should there be a separate agnostics forum simply because you can't or won't understand what agnostic actually means and give that the forum in it current guise perfectly fulfils the needs of its users?

No need for anyone to have been present at the beginning or have any secret revealed knowledge, except perhaps the proper definition of some words. They hide that information in books.

MrP

ShooterSF

martingriff wrote: »

That is clearly wrong crazy beliefs or not. If someone follows a religion and it says to cover there body I do not accept that however that is there religion and that is what they do. As long as they don't try to make me change my religion then I say fine. In relation to killing people because of there sexuality that is very wrong. you say it in but I would say that is more extremists which you get in all beliefs (religions or atheist). By the way this thread is about religon's ans atheists so I am not talking about laws of a country.

A link to extremist Atheists demanding people be killed because of their sexuality?

Tar.Aldarion

Ah this again! control...c.

There is an infinite class of objects with no proof against their existence, which most of us would say we know doesn't exist. Yet a lot of theists find beliefs like this untenable. They want proof 'their' god does not exist.
Theists are atheistic towards unicorns, dragons, sauron, teacups orbiting the milkyway breathing fire... without any proof, yet not against a 'god'?

Let's take vampires for a moment.
I don't believe vampires exist.
Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist" ?
To me it means I'm going to behave and act as if the statement is true.
So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic or holy water above my head. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest research.
If that position is classified by some as narrow-minded then so be it, I can live with that, but the position seems perfectly sensible to me.

But because I cannot absolutely disprove their existence, I'm supposed to be classified as agnostic on the existence vampires.
Well fine, but then we I need a new term for those who act is their lives as if vampires may exist. Those who might consider garlic above their bed "just in case", who read non-fiction books about vampires, and generally live their lives as I would describe 'Unsure whether vampires exist'.

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist. A god is just another, just as you would not believe in any Earthly religion without evidence for or against.
There is a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities, and the ridiculous things mentioned above. Why entertain a belief in one, and not another? If someone uses the 'can't disprove' argument (for god) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.
Why abandon common sense for scientific imperialism?
Solipsism is pointless. If you had been brought up in a world of atheists you would find the idea of a god as ridiculous as a train falling on your head right now, yet both have very little evidence against them.
However people seem to define god as something which is just powerfu. If that is so, a god could certainly exist to you, but it would just be a powerful being to other people.

Only if we choose to bow down and worship them are we setting them up as Gods - a fallacy exactly equivalent to a remote tribe worshipping a Western explorer because of the latter's technology.

Zombrex

john47832 wrote: »

Unfortunately for you seb I am in no way religous. Mobs basis for his theory is that if he doesnt have evidence then it does not exist - a little naive of him dont you think

You seem to be confusing not believing something exists with believing something doesn't exist.

Rookie mistake, so don't feel bad

goingpostal1

Yeah, dem atheists should stop believing in goats, they are so closeminded its unreal, with their fecking goat worship. Give it a rest already.

dd972

MrPudding wrote: »

Good. That would have been kind of pointless.

MrP

another atheist ''who was there'' at the omega <facepalm>

swampgas

martingriff wrote: »

Of course just because I have my beliefs make them true but does it make them false. If so why.

You have beliefs but cannot explain why they are true. In other words, faith. Which is just pretending something is true, either because you were indoctrinated with it, or because it makes you feel happier.

How much does it matter to you whether your beliefs are actually true?

swampgas

john47832 wrote: »

Unfortunately for you seb I am in no way religous. Mobs basis for his theory is that if he doesnt have evidence then it does not exist - a little naive of him dont you think

This is a common misunderstanding. If there is no evidence of X, then we have no basis for saying that X exists. It might exist, but maybe the evidence hasn't been found yet. We can't say that it definitely doesn't exist, but until evidence is found for it, we might as well assume it doesn't exist, and change our approach if and when suitable evidence is forthcoming.

This is rather different to someone saying that something might exist despite lack of evidence, and thus (making a stupendous leap of wishful thinking) therefore God and therefore whatever version of religion/spirituality/superstition they claim to "believe" is somehow not a load of nonsense.

martingriff

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Why would it? Just because you believe in something, take comfort in that belief, or wish that your belief were true, does not make it true in any way, shape, or form.

There is a much proof for the existence of dragons as there is for God, God doesn't get given a pass because we'd like it if he did exist. A belief in God whilst simultaneously disbelieving in dragons because there's no proof they exist is illogical.

Where did I say God should be given a pass. Of course just because I have my beliefs make them true but does it make them false. If so why.

[Deleted User]

john47832 wrote: »

Given your logic, there is nothing in this world that you believe which exists outside of first person experience.

I have specifically said this is not what I believe.
You are not reading my posts, probably deliberately.

mark renton

King Mob wrote: »

As opposed to believing in stuff without evidence....?

You seem to get confused rather easily mob. Im assuming such queries to your understanding either derives a knee jerk reaction or genuinely stretches your grey matter.

Given your logic, there is nothing in this world that you believe which exists outside of first person experience.

I really dont believe you are that ignorant mob, so you must see the flaw?

SebBerkovich

john47832 wrote: »

Unfortunately for you seb I am in no way religous. Mobs basis for his theory is that if he doesnt have evidence then it does not exist - a little naive of him dont you think

Well i think Mobs answered better than i did, i was being a bit to flippant. His point still stands as it was made obvious about the standard of evidence required. which i think makes sense

[Deleted User]

john47832 wrote: »

Unfortunately for you seb I am in no way religous. Mobs basis for his theory is that if he doesnt have evidence then it does not exist - a little naive of him dont you think

As opposed to believing in stuff without evidence....?

mark renton

SebBerkovich wrote: »

I know where this is going... and no, sadly the bible sadly isn't evidence enough to prove the existence of anything... bla bla.. multiple sources... bla bla... extraordinary claims -> extraordinary evidence...

whats else have you got though?

Unfortunately for you seb I am in no way religous. Mobs basis for his theory is that if he doesnt have evidence then it does not exist - a little naive of him dont you think

[Deleted User]

john47832 wrote: »

Is your great uncle or aunt still alive Mob? And if not, how do we know they existed?

First, there's a difference between the claim that a magical, fantastical creature exists and that a person has a great aunt or uncle.
One is an extraordinary claim, the under is very mundane, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Second, birth records and family trees, photos, diaries, DNA tests.

Again a weird random question that doesn't have any baring on any of the points I made.

SebBerkovich

john47832 wrote: »

Is your great uncle or aunt still alive Mob? And if not, how do we know they existed?

I know where this is going... and no, sadly the bible sadly isn't evidence enough to prove the existence of anything... bla bla.. multiple sources... bla bla... extraordinary claims -> extraordinary evidence...

whats else have you got though?

mark renton

King Mob wrote: »

But you have not answered why you don't believe in these other creatures despite not being able to disprove their existence.
Why is it that it's reasonable for you not to believe in the Loch Ness monster etc, but it is not reasonable for us to hold the same position for god?

There is no difference in evidence between God and Nessie

So what evidence or reasoning would convince you?

Is your great uncle or aunt still alive Mob? And if not, how do we know they existed?