Which side is more narrow minded? (myth, atheist, agnostics, bible)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is no more than a few thousand years old. They feel that carbon dating is flawed and inaccurate, and the fossils are, well, just not very old. (I suspect that some fundamentalists of other religions hold similar views, as well.) I personally find these beliefs to be rather narrow minded.
Some atheists and agnostics believe that the universe simply happened in a big bang without any guiding force or creator, and that mankind evolved to its present state through a series of random mutations. They dismiss thousands of years of faith and beliefs without ever personally studying, experiencing or experimenting in religion. I personally find these beliefs to be rather narrow minded.
My own beliefs are somewhere in between these two extremes. As I observe both sides I can't help but wonder: Which side is more narrow minded?
Some fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is no more than a few thousand years old. They feel that carbon dating is flawed and inaccurate........
Not quite right monkey! They feel that carbon dating is flawed and inaccurate when it disproves their Bible or their beliefs. On the other hand, when those very same dating methods lend weight to things found in their Bible, the dating methods suddenly become acceptable to them in proving their Bible to be true and their beliefs to be correct.
Quote:
They dismiss thousands of years of faith and beliefs without ever personally studying, experiencing or experimenting in religion.
As has been pointed out many times, many atheist were avid theists at one time so again, it not quite true to say that they have never experienced or experimented with theism. I'd say that the reason they dismiss faith and belief is because they have discovered that those two things are not to be trusted.
Some fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is no more than a few thousand years old. They feel that carbon dating is flawed and inaccurate, and the fossils are, well, just not very old. (I suspect that some fundamentalists of other religions hold similar views, as well.) I personally find these beliefs to be rather narrow minded.
Some atheists and agnostics believe that the universe simply happened in a big bang without any guiding force or creator, and that mankind evolved to its present state through a series of random mutations. They dismiss thousands of years of faith and beliefs without ever personally studying, experiencing or experimenting in religion. I personally find these beliefs to be rather narrow minded.
My own beliefs are somewhere in between these two extremes. As I observe both sides I can't help but wonder: Which side is more narrow minded?
I think atheists are just waiting for some evidence. Remember, for thousands of years people thought the Earth was flat, we were at the center of the Universe, and that the world was consumed by a great flood.
With evidence, ideas changed, things became more clear. If someone could prove by scientific means that there is a God, and that he created the Universe, then I'm sure many of them would change their position again.
However, the YEC's have had evidence presented to them. They simply deny that evidence, like some playground kid who refuses to admit when they are wrong.
Not quite right monkey! They feel that carbon dating is flawed and inaccurate when it disproves their Bible or their beliefs. On the other hand, when those very same dating methods lend weight to things found in their Bible, the dating methods suddenly become acceptable to them in proving their Bible to be true and their beliefs to be correct.
As has been pointed out many times, many atheist were avid theists at one time so again, it not quite true to say that they have never experienced or experimented with theism. I'd say that the reason they dismiss faith and belief is because they have discovered that those two things are not to be trusted.
Okay. So which side do you think is more narrow minded? Those who ignore a great body of scientific evidence, or those who latch on to theories without ever personally seeking out the truth? (Are YOU in one of those camps?)
I think atheists are just waiting for some evidence. Remember, for thousands of years people thought the Earth was flat, we were at the center of the Universe, and that the world was consumed by a great flood.
With evidence, ideas changed, things became more clear. If someone could prove by scientific means that there is a God, and that he created the Universe, then I'm sure many of them would change their position again.
However, the YEC's have had evidence presented to them. They simply deny that evidence, like some playground kid who refuses to admit when they are wrong.
Okay, so which side is more narrow minded? Those atheists who are waiting for evidence to drop in their lap without ever making an effort to discover the truth, or the extreme fundamentalists who refuse to believe a great body of scientific evidence? (Are YOU in one of those camps?)
Okay, so which side is more narrow minded? Those atheists who are waiting for evidence to drop in their lap without ever making an effort to discover the truth, or the extreme fundamentalists who refuse to believe a great body of scientific evidence? (Are YOU in one of those camps?)
If requiring evidence to believe a claim is "narrow-minded", well, that's not a bad thing. It's not really narrow-minded the way you are using it either.
You are using "narrow minded" to suggest that people are dismissing ideas or concepts without exploring them, and thus denying the opportunity to learn or realize some bit of truth. But skeptics asking for evidence aren't doing that. They are not dismissing the idea *because of the idea*, but because the claim is lacking supporting evidence.
If requiring evidence to believe a claim is "narrow-minded", well, that's not a bad thing. It's not really narrow-minded the way you are using it either.
You are using "narrow minded" to suggest that people are dismissing ideas or concepts without exploring them, and thus denying the opportunity to learn or realize some bit of truth. But skeptics asking for evidence aren't doing that. They are not dismissing the idea *because of the idea*, but because the claim is lacking supporting evidence.
That's a significant difference.
I am not talking about the mythical skeptic who, with an open mind, sought out the truth and found none. I am speaking of the narrow minded majority. Those who are narrow minded in the sense that they have not personally studied, experienced or experimented in religion seeking the truth. And the thing is, it does not take a particle collider to investigate. Just a bible and an open mind.
So, between the two groups I have defined, who is more narrow minded?
I am not talking about the mythical skeptic who, with an open mind, sought out the truth and found none. I am speaking of the narrow minded majority. Those who are narrow minded in the sense that they have not personally studied, experienced or experimented in religion seeking the truth. And the thing is, it does not take a particle collider to investigate. Just a bible and an open mind.
So, between the two groups I have defined, who is more narrow minded?
You are, because you have a predefined conclusion you are attempting to force this discussion towards.
My own beliefs are somewhere in between these two extremes. As I observe both sides I can't help but wonder: Which side is more narrow minded?
My beliefs are very much in between. I see both extremes as being narrow-minded, intolerant and rude. I can handle a wide variety of religious beliefs as well as a total lack of belief in God. What I can't deal with are the extremists who give both Christianity and atheism a bad name.
I am not talking about the mythical skeptic who, with an open mind, sought out the truth and found none. I am speaking of the narrow minded majority. Those who are narrow minded in the sense that they have not personally studied, experienced or experimented in religion seeking the truth.
It has been already explained to you that most atheists are in fact former theists and have personally studied and experienced religion, but I guess you don't want to hear that.
Quote:
And the thing is, it does not take a particle collider to investigate. Just a bible and an open mind.
Are you telling me that you have actually read that book and still think it has merit and truth? It was reading the bible with an open mind that lead me to atheism, as it has for many others
Quote:
So, between the two groups I have defined, who is more narrow minded?
You say in your opening post that you consider it narrow minded of atheists to dismiss thousands of years of faith and beliefs. How about the believers who must dismiss billions of years of solid evidence in order to have that faith and belief?
In my opinion anyone who ignores evidence and accepts the impossible in order to believe in some kind of god and nirvana is not living in the real world, but has enclosed his mind into a very narrow box.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
