Does being an Atheist make you closed minded? [Answered: NO]

[Prometheus]

Do you lose some of that spark of "human imagination/freedom of thought" once you state yourself an Atheist, only believing in what you can prove?

 

It is my observation that many people who become atheists do so after much soul searching and thought, having to go against mainstream opinions on the subject: they are therefore typically more creative than perhaps the 'normal' person. However, in an increasingly secular society we are seeing more people born atheists. Having had discussions with such people I have found some to be quite dogmatic on the subject, believing in evolution, say, simply because that is what they have been told is the truth.

 

I certainly have no problem with teaching evolution as truth, i just use it as an example that some people will believe whatever you tell them without much question (we came from mud, or from sky daddy, or from animals), while others will always question. I don't know what makes people behave one way or the other, but the latter seem more able to adapt their beliefs to the evidence, and are more creative because of it.

[Strange]

I guess we need to ask 'they' if what they proffer is proof or no.

 

Well, it is to them, obviously. But it is not proof in any scientific (or even legal) sense.

 

 

Might? Really? Good grief man this very board is littered with examples of religious attacks on science.

 

I don't think that the small number of individuals who get excited enough to embarrass themselves on a science forum have much to do with the policies of mainstream religions.

 

As to ascertaining whether 'those advancing our understanding through science' (why not say scientists here?), I doubt either you or I can accurately quantify the percentage, much less adjudge each and every instance wherein a religious belief might be in conflict with the science at hand.

 

I have no idea what the percentage is, but there are scientists who are religious. <shrug>

[sunshaker]

Oops!

Sorry, I should have explained that the universe does not give a flying one about your beliefs (or lack of them). If I had pointed that out, we could have avoided a pointless thread.

 

Since when do you "speak" for the universe?

Your statement has answered my question, ANSWER YES.

You remind me of a calculator you get no surprises with the answer.

[Strange]

Since when do you "speak" for the universe?

 

So you think the universe does care what you think?

 

That is not being open minded, it is being uncritical and irrational.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

Since when do you "speak" for the universe?

Your statement has answered my question, ANSWER YES.

You remind me of a calculator you get no surprises with the answer.

I don't "speak for" the Universe- I just notice how it behaves.

You on the other hand,seem to claim that you influence it; ironically, people often accuse me of being conceited.

 

Also there's a reason why a calculator always gives the same response; the response it gives is the right answer.

If you can show me why one of my answers is wrong, I will change it- that's what both science, and being open minded, mean.

[Strange]

You remind me of a calculator you get no surprises with the answer.

 

Perhaps you would like a calculator that spits out random answers based on information in your favourite holy book. The answers might be wrong, but they would be "true" on some deeper level.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Strange

[puppypower]

By believing in God, which is a concept that is defined as be higher than man, one becomes more concerned with natural or higher truth instead of artificial or relative truth. Natural is created by God and artificial is created by man. This is not much different from working in a large company. The guy at the top has more say than the middle manager. On the other hand, if there is no guy at the top, the word the middle manager becomes the new standard.

 

If look at Manmade Global warming, one argument being used is this is based on scientific consensus. The problem is that science is not based on consensus, since one good data set, by one person, can supersede even a 99.99% consensus. Consensus is much more important in politics; artificial. This appeals much more to atheists and middlemen. The religious tend to hold out, looking for hard irrefutable evidence, and not a political consensus in science clothing.

[Strange]

By believing in God, which is a concept that is defined as be higher than man, one becomes more concerned with natural or higher truth instead of artificial or relative truth.

 

Assuming that such a "higher truth" exists.

 

Natural is created by God and artificial is created by man.

 

As man is part of nature, then anything man produces is natural. Unless you are saying that anthills and beaver dams are not natural as well?

 

If look at Manmade Global warming, one argument being used is this is based on scientific consensus. The problem is that science is not based on consensus, since one good data set, by one person, can supersede even a 99.99% consensus.

 

The consensus is the result of science, not the basis. So I don't understand your point here.

 

The religious tend to hold out, looking for hard irrefutable evidence, and not a political consensus in science clothing.

 

So where is your "hard irrefutable evidence" that God exists?

Edited September 29, 2015 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

By believing in God, which is a concept that is defined as be higher than man, one becomes more concerned with natural or higher truth instead of artificial or relative truth. Natural is created by God and artificial is created by man. This is not much different from working in a large company. The guy at the top has more say than the middle manager. On the other hand, if there is no guy at the top, the word the middle manager becomes the new standard.

 

If look at Manmade Global warming, one argument being used is this is based on scientific consensus. The problem is that science is not based on consensus, since one good data set, by one person, can supersede even a 99.99% consensus. Consensus is much more important in politics; artificial. This appeals much more to atheists and middlemen. The religious tend to hold out, looking for hard irrefutable evidence, and not a political consensus in science clothing.

"one becomes more concerned with natural or higher truth"

Well I'm concerned with truths that are actually true.

If your "higher truths" are different then they aren't "higher truths" they are falsehoods masquerading as truth and you have been misled.

"On the other hand, if there is no guy at the top, the word the middle manager becomes the new standard. "

Well, there's no evidence of the "man at the top" so we should accept humanity as the standard, shouldn't we; otherwise we are just making stuff up, but pretending it's "divine".

 

it's not clear what you mean by "The problem is that science is not based on consensus, since one good data set, by one person, can supersede even a 99.99% consensus. "

But if you are saying that a good,well designed experimental set of measurements could (hypothetically) show that global warming does not exist or is not anthropogenic then it would overturn the established consensus, you are right.It would.

But there would then be a new consensus in science (with the view that AGW isn't real).

The point is that, even if the current view was overturned, there would still be science based on consensus.

 

"The religious tend to hold out, looking for hard irrefutable evidence, "

You might want to discus that with Galileo.

Religion has a history of steadfastly ignoring evidence.

Edited September 29, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

Consensus is much more important in politics; artificial. This appeals much more to atheists and middlemen.

 

This sounds implausible. Presumably you have some "hard irrefutable evidence" that consensus appeals more to atheists?

(And what do you mean by "middlemen"?)

 

But maybe you are right: after all the religious don't like consensus (or evidence) they prefer being told what to do and think by someone in authority.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Strange

[sunshaker]

 

So you think the universe does care what you think?

That is not being open minded, it is being uncritical and irrational.

The "universe" does not "care" what I think, but it will "react" to how I think.

I had a long answer to this but the "universe" decided you would not comprehend with your "rational mind" so it was deleted.

 

To me it shows you do not yet understand the universe, you may understand every measurement/process but you do not understand the "Universe".

 

we all view the universe different, yes i follow the science, but for many years I have viewed the universe through optics, which enabled me a view, few see or comprehend.

 

Today i went to my friends funeral, he was only 48 years old, I sat through the hymns /prays they meant little to me, but brought great comfort to his family.

Rip, Wayne j freeland.

 

how does an atheist comfort family/friends?

Edited September 29, 2015 by sunshaker

[dimreepr]

The "universe" does not "care" what I think, but it will "react" to how I think.

 

 

The universe doesn’t care how you think but it will react to your actions.

 

You might like to reflect on the difference.

[sunshaker]

The "universe" does not "care" what I think, but it will "react" to how I think.

I had a long answer to this but the "universe" decided you would not comprehend with your "rational mind" so it was deleted.

 

To me it shows you do not yet understand the universe, you may understand every measurement/process but you do not understand the "Universe".

 

we all view the universe different, yes i follow the science, but for many years I have viewed the universe through optics, which enabled me a view, few see or comprehend.

 

Today i went to my friends funeral, he was only 48 years old, I sat through the hymns /prays they meant little to me, but brought great comfort to his family.

Rip, Wayne j freeland.

 

how does an atheist comfort family/friends?

 

 

 

The universe doesn’t care how you think but it will react to your actions.

 

You might like to reflect on the difference

 

The "universe" is aware of my thoughts long before my actions,.

[dimreepr]

 

The "universe" is aware of my thoughts long before my actions,.

 

 

If you say so.

[sunshaker]

.

 

 

 

If you say so.

I see it all in quantum fields, but I am not going to get into that, this is my very last post on SF,

 

perhaps someone did not like my post above, but for some one to neg1 my post, where my friend has passed on has finished me in this forum, bye.

[dimreepr]

I'm sure you'll be missed.

[John Cuthber]

.

 

I see it all in quantum fields, but I am not going to get into that, this is my very last post on SF,

 

perhaps someone did not like my post above, but for some one to neg1 my post, where my friend has passed on has finished me in this forum, bye.

Bye.

But just for the record, did you consider that your outstandingly conceited view that "I had a long answer to this but the "universe" decided you would not comprehend with your "rational mind" so it was deleted.

To me it shows you do not yet understand the universe, you may understand every measurement/process but you do not understand the "Universe".

we all view the universe different, yes i follow the science, but for many years I have viewed the universe through optics, which enabled me a view, few see or comprehend."

was the reason for the neg rep point, and that it was you who decided to juxtapose it with news of your friend's death?

Edited September 29, 2015 by John Cuthber

[sunshaker]

OK One more last post.

I'm sure you'll be missed.

NO, I will not be missed has your comment truly states, I know I am no swansont/mordred/john/ajab/strange and many others who bring a good sounding in science and logic, but "I" STILL ENJOYED THIS FORUM,

 

Bye.

But just for the record, did you consider that your outstandingly conceited view that "I had a long answer to this but the "universe" decided you would not comprehend with your "rational mind" so it was deleted.

I DID NOT DELETE IT, It just disappeared.

 

was the reason for the neg rep point, and that it was you who decided to juxtapose it with news of your friend's death?

I suppose this last few days I have had "Waynes" death on my mind, and a few other things that have happened around me recently, I normally keep clear of the threads I have been involved with recently.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I DID NOT DELETE IT, It just disappeared.

 

Nobody said you deleted it.You said it was deleted.

[Strange]

I see it all in quantum fields, but I am not going to get into that, this is my very last post on SF,

 

Ah, yes. The old standby: quantum woo.

how does an atheist comfort family/friends?

 

Love, friendship, hugs, kind words. Same way as anyone else, I guess.

I DID NOT DELETE IT, It just disappeared.

 

So are you claiming that The Universe deleted it because it knew I wouldn't understand it?

 

You won't be missed.

[Endy0816]

I gave the negative. I thought the post was crankishly condescending along with being insulting to atheists. Many acts of comfort have nothing to do with references to an afterlife. You can offer a shoulder to cry on, help with daily life, remembrances of how the person touched your life and the lives of others, etc.

 

...and no, I'm not atheistic myself(my faith in FSM remains strong).

 

Note: Sometimes software likes to timeout if you take too long writing your post. Possibly the Universe wants you to speed up, save your work, look at changing the software you are using, etc. What it isn't doing is trying to tell you anything in regards to the content of what you were posting.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Endy0816

[sunshaker]

 

Ah, yes. The old standby: quantum woo.

 

It might be woo, I refuse to call something "God", But I am now aware of "something" which I am trying to understand, something I never became aware of until my late 30's (which I would have laughed at).

So where do you look? myself I look to quantum fields, how they may affect my reality.

 

I have a thing for using crystal prisms to view tv/reality, to me it is a way of blending realities together, over the years you refine your methods, this seemed to leave a "space" that could be filled, a space that was always there but never noticed.

Like you have a direct contact with universe/god.

 

 

Note: Sometimes software likes to timeout if you take too long writing your post. Possibly the Universe wants you to speed up, save your work, look at changing the software you are using, etc. What it isn't doing is trying to tell you anything in regards to the content of what you were posting

The universe is a wind up merchant.

 

 

I thought the post was crankishly condescending along with being insulting to atheists

I agree, I don't mean it, I have my moments, next day I will look and think did I write that?

"That's the universe for ya".

Edited September 29, 2015 by sunshaker

[Strange]

I have a thing for using crystal prisms to view tv/reality

 

Of course you do.

[sunshaker]

 

Of course you do.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86246-3d-prism-viewing/#rep_filter_menucontent

[Phi for All]

Strong atheism may have a tendency towards close-mindedness. If you're claiming god(s) doesn't exist, you've accepted that no evidence exists and never will, so that stance seems to be as rigid as the religious ones.