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

[Phi for All]

And I firmly believe that everyone should be free to speak their mind whenever they feel like it. If you think otherwise, well then, that is un-American of you sir.

 

I'd really prefer that more people listen. It's a dying art.

 

In case you didn't get the hint, you ignored my fire/theater example. Do you honestly support my right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded space as part of freedom of speech?

 

I don't think you've thought this through. Should I be able to tell lies about you in the newspapers? Free speech!

 

Even America has laws that prohibit my creating potentials for harm like that.

[ThinkingMind]

Why do so many theists posting here have such inferiority complexes?

What makes you say that?

 

I think you misunderstand what's going on here.

 

If the atheist is being rational (we already know the creationist isn't), he should be telling you why his arguments are superior in every way, having the great good fortune to match up with what we observe in reality. Typically, the creationist can't argue successfully with reasoned thought, so they pretend the atheist is calling himself superior instead of his arguments.

 

It's a form of Poisoning the Well, trying to discredit through misunderstanding and misinformation.

Going out of your way to bother someone for praying over his lunch who was not bothering anyone does not sound rational. Why exactly do you believe bullying is a rational decision? You see when people have healthy self esteem they do not feel a need to gloat. If someone feels a need to push that stuff on everyone it just makes them seem like a bigger idiot and really weak minded. Why do we need stupid infecting society? Its kind of like hating gays for being Gay but I guess an Atheist would agree with that if they are straight right? Since anything they are not personally into is just plain evil. Wow, this sounds a lot like something someone else would do but I guess the irony is hard to see.

 

Science is not a religion and Atheism should not be an Anti religious(Religion). When you turn Atheism into a religion you just created a hypocrisy.

Edited November 16, 2015 by ThinkingMind

[evobulgarevo]

 

I'd really prefer that more people listen. It's a dying art.

 

In case you didn't get the hint, you ignored my fire/theater example. Do you honestly support my right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded space as part of freedom of speech?

 

I don't think you've thought this through. Should I be able to tell lies about you in the newspapers? Free speech!

 

Even America has laws that prohibit my creating potentials for harm like that.

 

I see your point. But then who determines who can say what and when?

[Strange]

I've found that the vast majority have little to no knowledge of science.

 

As this is a science forum, you might want to reconsider that for your current audience.

 

And I firmly believe that everyone should be free to speak their mind whenever they feel like it. If you think otherwise, well then, that is un-American of you sir.

I do think freedom of speech should be (and is always) limited. But that's OK because I am not American.

"Science-minded" or not, everyone should have the right to speak freely whenever they want.

And on a science forum, you should expect to get challenged on unsupported and, apparently, incorrect assertions.

What makes you say that?

 

I assume because you and evobulgarevo are acting irrationally in response people questioning your assertions. If you aren't both strongly religious, you do a very good impression.

 

Going out of your way to bother someone for praying over his lunch who was not bothering anyone does not sound rational.

 

So one person (who you may have made up) makes you judge all atheists to be irrational. Is that a rational position?

 

Why exactly do you believe bullying is a rational decision?

 

Who said it was? Why are you indulging in a strawman argument? Is that rational?

 

Since anything they are not personally into is just plain evil.

 

What evidence do you have for that claim?

 

Why are you making up lies about the way atheists think and behave? Does your religion condone this sort of behaviour?

 

Atheism should not be an Anti religious

 

It isn't.

 

When you turn Atheism into a religion you just created a hypocrisy.

 

The only people who claim that atheism is a religion are religious people. (Perhaps because of your "low self esteem"? Or just because you can't imagine anyone can live without some sort of irrational belief?)

 

I see your point. But then who determines who can say what and when?

 

On this forum, the moderators decide.

[dimreepr]

Going out of your way to bother someone for praying over his lunch who was not bothering anyone does not sound rational. Why exactly do you believe bullying is a rational decision? You see when people have healthy self esteem they do not feel a need to gloat. If someone feels a need to push that stuff on everyone it just makes them seem like a bigger idiot and really weak minded. Why do we need stupid infecting society? Its kind of like hating gays for being Gay but I guess an Atheist would agree with that if they are straight right? Since anything they are not personally into is just plain evil. Wow, this sounds a lot like something someone else would do but I guess the irony is hard to see.

 

Science is not a religion and Atheism should not be an Anti religious(Religion). When you turn Atheism into a religion you just created a hypocrisy.

 

 

A bully is a bully because they were made that way, usually through being a victim of bullying/abuse, not because of a philosophy. Whatever your anecdotal evidence and however often you’ve witnessed such behaviour is by no means evidence that that behaviour is ubiquitous.

[Strange]

Science is not a religion and Atheism should not be an Anti religious(Religion). When you turn Atheism into a religion you just created a hypocrisy.

 

Sitting down is not a sport and those who Don't Play Golf should not be an Anti golf(Sport). When you turn Not Playing Golf into a sport you just created a hypocrisy.

[zapatos]

Atheism is the default stance. You must choose actively a God to believe in to be a theist. To be an atheist you don't need to decide on anything, it is just as you were born, it is not a choice it is the lack of a choice.

 

Given the above to be true...

But it is not a given that the above is true. I would go so far as to say you have that exactly backwards.

 

I didn't actively choose a God to believe in; my parents did that for me. I don't think it is a stretch to say that the vast majority of people believe in a God because their parents chose that God for them.

 

Atheists on the other hand were often once believers. For them it takes thought, logic and debate before they choose to disbelieve what was spoon fed to them for the first portion of their lives.

[Phi for All]

 

I see your point. But then who determines who can say what and when?

 

I'm satisfied to leave it to those who determine laws and represent my wishes while doing so. I realize that all freedom has limitations, and it does me no good to demand the experience be somehow pure.

 

In fact, if I just demand that I should be completely free to say anything I want, and don't allow for nuance and context, isn't that being quite closed-minded? Coincidentally(?), most of the things not covered by freedom of speech in the US ("I hate ALL purple people, and I want them killed!") are the epitome of closed-mindedness.

[Arete]

 

your average atheist is that he's quite sensitive...your average atheist is very presumptuous...your average atheist becomes blatantly arrogant...atheists derive conclusions primarily based on ego...

 

I don't see how these sweeping generalizations are any less erroneous, offensive and useless than sweeping characterizations about any other group, e.g. "Jews are generally stingy", "Muslims tend to be violent", "your average Christian is a bigot" etc.

[evobulgarevo]

I don't see how these sweeping generalizations are any less erroneous, offensive and useless than sweeping characterizations about any other group, e.g. "Jews are generally stingy", "Muslims tend to be violent", "your average Christian is a bigot" etc.

 

Stereotypes are often accurate.

[Arete]

 

Stereotypes are often accurate.

 

It's also a lot easier to combat a strawman than reality.

[Phi for All]

 

Stereotypes are often accurate.

 

Be careful, that kind of closed-mindedness might get you mistaken for an atheist.

[evobulgarevo]

It's also a lot easier to combat a strawman than reality.

 

What is reality and why must we engage in combat with it?

 

Be careful, that kind of closed-mindedness might get you mistaken for an atheist.

 

I think the statement "stereotypes are often accurate" is not an inaccurate statement.

[dimreepr]

I think the statement "stereotypes are often accurate" is not an inaccurate statement.

 

 

When the stereotype is based on a culture, then you may have a point, when they are based on your prejudice, then you don’t.

Edited November 17, 2015 by dimreepr

[Ophiolite]

I think the statement "stereotypes are often accurate" is not an inaccurate statement.

Stereotypes often contain elements of truth, but when they are form the basis of expectation they can be thoroughly misleading.

 

A case in point: Scotsmen are said to mean. This is a blatant lie. It is simply a rumour we have spread in order to avoid having to buy a round.

[Arete]

What is reality and why must we engage in combat with it?

 

To elaborate - it's easier to generate a stereotypical caricature of a group and shoot holes in your fabrication than actually address the attributes the group has in reality. It is also a lazy discussion style, logically fallacious, disingenuous and thoroughly unconvincing, however.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Arete

[Strange]

What is reality and why must we engage in combat with it?

 

To give another perspective, "reality" is the question you were actually asked. You should engage with that, rather than answering another (simpler and often caricatured) question because it is polite and constructive to do so on a discussion forum. To avoid doing so and engage in tactics such as strawman arguments is lazy, rude and intellectually dishonest. But you just carry on if it makes you happy...

[evobulgarevo]

When the stereotype is based on a culture, then you may have a point, when they are based on your prejudice, then you don’t.

 

Agreed.

 

Stereotypes often contain elements of truth, but when they are form the basis of expectation they can be thoroughly misleading.

 

A case in point: Scotsmen are said to mean. This is a blatant lie. It is simply a rumour we have spread in order to avoid having to buy a round.

 

Agreed.

 

To elaborate - it's easier to generate a stereotypical caricature of a group and shoot holes in your fabrication than actually address the attributes the group has in reality. It is also a lazy discussion style, logically fallacious, disingenuous and thoroughly unconvincing, however.

 

I've already addressed this in several replies and here's one more. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

 

The thread posed a question and I expressed an opinion based on personal experience.

 

To give another perspective, "reality" is the question you were actually asked. You should engage with that, rather than answering another (simpler and often caricatured) question because it is polite and constructive to do so on a discussion forum. To avoid doing so and engage in tactics such as strawman arguments is lazy, rude and intellectually dishonest. But you just carry on if it makes you happy...

 

It seems you think that being "polite and constructive" is of some importance. Regardless of how you choose to define my comments; how exactly is calling someone an idiot "constructive" simply for expressing an opinion in a forum section that is clearly labeled as 'General Philosophy'?

 

Isn't it closed minded to insult someone on a personal level simply for expressing an opinion?

 

Isn't the presumption that a discussion must strictly adhere to all that entails a scientific-discussion, even if that discussion is clearly labeled as general philosophy, closed minded in itself?

 

This is a discussion forum. So let's allow for the discussion to unfold.

[Strange]

It seems you think that being "polite and constructive" is of some importance. Regardless of how you choose to define my comments; how exactly is calling someone an idiot "constructive" simply for expressing an opinion in a forum section that is clearly labeled as 'General Philosophy'?

 

Isn't it closed minded to insult someone on a personal level simply for expressing an opinion?

 

Another strawman. Well done.

[MonDie]

The truth is that atheists score higher on "openness to experience", a big five personality trait that encompasses openness to new ideas, making this entire thread misguided. The real deficit in atheists and agnostics appears to be a primarily autistic-like dimished ability or inclination to empathize with others. Additionally considering that we're less "agreeable" and less "conscientious", we may not make great people persons. We might also be slightly more sociopathic, but the evidence is pretty weak, and sociopaths tend to be charming, "glib", and don't come off as such at all. Men are both more sociopathic and more often atheist.

Edited November 18, 2015 by MonDie

[Arete]

I've already addressed this in several replies and here's one more. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

 

The thread posed a question and I expressed an opinion based on personal experience.

 

 

The issue is that the forum has rules.

 

1) Be Civil. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. Comments such as these:

 

"your average atheist is that he's quite sensitive...your average atheist is very presumptuous...your average atheist becomes blatantly arrogant...atheists derive conclusions primarily based on ego.."

 

Constitute a breach of that rule.

 

Furthermore:

 

4) The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

 

The same slurs are hasty generalizations and therefore logically fallacious.

 

You may not be trying to convince anyone of anything, but the way you are choosing to express your thoughts and opinions is inappropriate here.

[MonDie]

Actually, I'm not seeing in that psychopathy study that they controlled for gender at all, a HUGE issue!

 

 

 

The issue is that the forum has rules.

 

1) Be Civil. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. Comments such as these:

 

"your average atheist is that he's quite sensitive...your average atheist is very presumptuous...your average atheist becomes blatantly arrogant...atheists derive conclusions primarily based on ego.."

 

Constitute a breach of that rule.

 

Furthermore:

 

4) The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

 

The same slurs are hasty generalizations and therefore logically fallacious.

 

The only difference between his slurs and my points is the provision of evidence.

Edited November 19, 2015 by MonDie

[evobulgarevo]

The issue is that the forum has rules.

 

1) Be Civil. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. Comments such as these:

 

"your average atheist is that he's quite sensitive...your average atheist is very presumptuous...your average atheist becomes blatantly arrogant...atheists derive conclusions primarily based on ego.."

 

Constitute a breach of that rule.

 

This quote exemplifies the sensitivity I'm talking about.

 

 

Furthermore:

4) The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

The same slurs are hasty generalizations and therefore logically fallacious.

You may not be trying to convince anyone of anything, but the way you are choosing to express your thoughts and opinions is inappropriate here.

 

Continued persistence in referring to this as an "argument" when I've already clarified that my posts are opinions based on personal experience shows that you see all discussions as scientific-discussions needing to follow a pre-determined structure.

 

This in itself is closed minded because according to you non-scientific interactions between humans are logical fallacies.

 

The thread posed a question. I answered based on my personal experience.

[Arete]

This quote exemplifies the sensitivity I'm talking about.

 

1) I haven't mentioned my beliefs, so I'm not sure how this applies.

 

2) My beliefs are irrelevant. I would have taken you to task if you've made the same bigoted statements about Christians, Jews, black people, New Zealanders or people who like licorice.

 

3) You agreed to the forum rules when you made an account. If you feel they are "too sensitive", why did you agree?

 

 

Continued persistence in referring to this as an "argument" when I've already clarified that my posts are opinions based on personal experience shows that you see all discussions as scientific-discussions needing to follow a pre-determined structure.

 

This in itself is closed minded because according to you non-scientific interactions between humans are logical fallacies.

 

The thread posed a question. I answered based on my personal experience.

 

1) I actually copied and pasted directly from the forum rules. The word "argument" is in the forum rules.

 

2) You appear to misunderstand the definition of argument - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument as you're actually making one here. In a logical and philosophical context, an "argument" is a series of statements intended to present reasoning for accepting a conclusion. You seem to be only defining it as a disagreement between two parties - which is not the definition employed in the rules here.

 

3) I, and the forum as a whole expect discussions to remain civil and avoid logical fallacies. I don't believe that has anything to do with science per se in so much as for them to remain valid and constructive. If you consider it close minded that I don't accept fallacious reasoning as valid, then I guess I'd have to unapologetically agree than under that definition, I am.

 

4) You realize we can all click a few times and read exactly what you posted right? You made sweeping generalizations about "your average" atheist. When I took exception you doubled down on it, stating "Stereotypes are often accurate".

Edited November 19, 2015 by Arete

[MigL]

Not that I agree with any or all of what Evobulgarevo has said, but to throw forum rules at his opinions of atheists is a little rich, given what is usually said about religious people on this forum ( even by me sometimes ).

Secondly, everyone makes generalizations and has opinions based on stereotypes.

They are that, because often, they are correct, although not always ( as proof I offer that Ophiolite has never bought a round in my presence ).

Never 'judge a book by its cover' is conveniently violated every time you pick up a magazine based on its cover, and only then, investigate the actual contents.

There are whole marketing departments which seek to take advantage of this basic human nature