Atheists are the closed-minded and arrogant ones? (believe, fanatics, exist)
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.
You ask for proof, but that is not the way science works. Scientific Method (http://kentsimmons.uwinnipeg.ca/cm1504/introscience.htm - broken link)
I know how it works. Atheists want proof of religious and spiritual claims, they compare spirituality to science except they feel all things spiritual require absolute proof, while science does not.
Quote:
How ridiculous is it for theists to continue to call we skeptics closed minded and arrogant for asking for evidence?
I wouldn't say close-minded. You just don't understand how spirituality works.
Quote:
No we are not close minded. We evaluate evidence and come to a conclusion, but are always willing to change the conclusion if evidence indicates we are wrong...Unlike the devoutly religious who in spite of having no evidence at all, but will never admit that their beliefs could be mistaken.
If you will agree that it is possible that religious and spiritual things could be possible, then no you are not closed minded. But, most Atheists will not claim they could be wrong. This is being closed minded. Just like a religious or spiritual person who cannot admit that they could be wrong. I think we could all be wrong.
Quote:
This make no sense at all.
It's a type of fallacy, I will look it up and post it when I am off work. It's backed by science...
I know how it works. Atheists want proof of religious and spiritual claims, they compare spirituality to science except they feel all things spiritual require absolute proof, while science does not.
This atheist, and I believe most others ask for evidence, not proof, but I have never seen even a scrap of evidence for any spiritual claim in the 72 years of my life.
Quote:
I wouldn't say close-minded. You just don't understand how spirituality works.
I will continue to believe spirituality works through the imagination until I see evidence to the contrary..Do you have such evidence?....Note...Testimonials are not evidence, so don't bother flooding me with such.
Quote:
If you will agree that it is possible that religious and spiritual things could be possible, then no you are not closed minded. But, most Atheists will not claim they could be wrong. This is being closed minded. Just like a religious or spiritual person who cannot admit that they could be wrong. I think we could all be wrong.
Most atheists WILL say that they could be wrong, although the chances are slim that anything supernatural or spiritual exists...Your view of what and how atheists think is sadly uninformed.
Generally we are open minded, whereas believers, because they rely on faith rather than evidence are not. For instance, a 2008 systematic review of randomised clinical trials concluded that the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition, yet you insist that it has value...That is relying on faith.
Quote:
It's a type of fallacy, I will look it up and post it when I am off work. It's backed by science...
I know how it works. Atheists want proof of religious and spiritual claims, they compare spirituality to science except they feel all things spiritual require absolute proof, while science does not.
You really do not understand science at all. It is a completely different and unrelated way of approaching the unknown than spirituality. Science does not look for proof, it looks to explain the natural world no more no less. Spirituality hopes to explains the supernatural. They are inherently unrelated.
Quote:
I wouldn't say close-minded. You just don't understand how spirituality works.
Says the person who does not seem to understand the basic elementary version of scientific methodology.
If you want to call having no interest in the "spiritual" close minded go ahead. I have no interest in the spiritual world until it can be shown to exist. Science, since it is just a philosophy, absolutely does exist. Finding and weighing evidence, developing new theories and solving problems is of far more interest then me since it does exist.
Quote:
If you will agree that it is possible that religious and spiritual things could be possible, then no you are not closed minded. But, most Atheists will not claim they could be wrong. This is being closed minded. Just like a religious or spiritual person who cannot admit that they could be wrong. I think we could all be wrong.
Sure they can exist, literally anything is possible. And "most atheists" are in fact agnostic atheists despite your claims. Again disinterest is not close mindedness but given your issues with definitions I will not be surprised when you ignore that point.
Quote:
It's a type of fallacy, I will look it up and post it when I am off work. It's backed by science...
Ok, just for your own information, fallacies are part of logic, a type of philosophy related to but not equivalent to science. Sorry, but fallacies are not "science".
This atheist, and I believe most others ask for evidence, not proof, but I have never seen even a scrap of evidence for any spiritual claim in the 72 years of my life.
The only thing I can say is that you are looking for something physical, something that can be sliced, diced, and weighed. Spirituality does not work that way as we understand it today.
Quote:
I will continue to believe spirituality works through the imagination until I see evidence to the contrary..Do you have such evidence?....Note...Testimonials are not evidence, so don't bother flooding me with such.
Evidence, like people suddenly getting healthy, better, or leading a more fulfilling life? Like a criminal suddenly working to do good? There are many things you can claim as evidence, what you except as evidence is quite different.
Quote:
Most atheists WILL say that they could be wrong, although the chances are slim that anything supernatural or spiritual exists...Your view of what and how atheists think is sadly uninformed.
And I would say that chances are great that things spiritual in nature exist.
Quote:
Generally we are open minded, whereas believers, because they rely on faith rather than evidence are not. For instance, a 2008 systematic review of randomized clinical trials concluded that the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition, yet you insist that it has value...That is relying on faith.
Not on faith, it really has helped me, my fiance, my brothers, my friends and others that didn't think it would work. Science really cannot explain everything. Some day it might be able to, but in its current state, it cannot.
Ok, just for your own information, fallacies are part of logic, a type of philosophy related to but not equivalent to science. Sorry, but fallacies are not "science".
So, psychology isn't a science? Hmm... last time I checked it was.
The only thing I can say is that you are looking for something physical, something that can be sliced, diced, and weighed. Spirituality does not work that way as we understand it today.
Evidence, like people suddenly getting healthy, better, or leading a more fulfilling life? Like a criminal suddenly working to do good? There are many things you can claim as evidence, what you except as evidence is quite different.
And I would say that chances are great that things spiritual in nature exist.
Not on faith, it really has helped me, my fiance, my brothers, my friends and others that didn't think it would work. Science really cannot explain everything. Some day it might be able to, but in its current state, it cannot.
Spontaneous trait transference (STT) occurs when individuals describing others are perceived to possess the very qualities implied by those descriptions. Two studies demonstrated that when participants’ attention was focused on the subject of trait-implicative descriptions, associations were not reliably formed between others present at the time of encoding and the implied traits (Study 1); nor were those individuals more likely to be seen as possessing that trait.
Fallacy .... 1. A mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.
2. A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
Spontaneous trait transference (STT) occurs when individuals describing others are perceived to possess the very qualities implied by those descriptions. Two studies demonstrated that when participants’ attention was focused on the subject of trait-implicative descriptions, associations were not reliably formed between others present at the time of encoding and the implied traits (Study 1); nor were those individuals more likely to be seen as possessing that trait.
Fallacy .... 1. A mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.
2. A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
Haha, wrong article.
So, you are telling me that if I call someone stupid, that you don't at all think I am stupid? You might not, but I know that when someone goes out pointing fingers at people and calling them dumb, I usually see that person as the dumb one.
I know someone who is 100% against religion. She attacks it at all times, it pretty much takes up most of her life. She hates it with a passion and wont stop until it goes away. At the same time, she will fight for religious peoples right to practice religion. She usually gives me a headache... Anyway, she is always bickering about what this religion did or that spiritual person did. She usually ends up saying some pretty unflattering things. Sadly, most people that know her, see her as the same things she says about religious people, even her atheist friends.
So, you are telling me that if I call someone stupid, that you don't at all think I am stupid? You might not, but I know that when someone goes out pointing fingers at people and calling them dumb, I usually see that person as the dumb one.
I know someone who is 100% against religion. She attacks it at all times, it pretty much takes up most of her life. She hates it with a passion and wont stop until it goes away. At the same time, she will fight for religious peoples right to practice religion. She usually gives me a headache... Anyway, she is always bickering about what this religion did or that spiritual person did. She usually ends up saying some pretty unflattering things. Sadly, most people that know her, see her as the same things she says about religious people, even her atheist friends.
So in some cases it is valid.
The right article seemed to be talking about what we call 'projection' - accusing others of the thinking and acting the way they do themselves. For example, Theists who are brainwashed into believing a religion and who, when challenged, ferret around for all kinds on invalid 'evidence' such as 'it's made such a difference to my life!' 'Science cannot explain everything' and 'I know an atheist who is a real pain in the ass' suppose that science works the same way.
I don't think that it can be doubted that chanting and flag - waving and impressive ceremony can motivate groups and setting goals, psyching up and believing that some invisible power is flooding them can help the individual to extra achievements. But that can also be achieved with non - 'spiritual' inspirations and aspirations.
So far we don't know just how these impulses work, but they are (without any evidence one way or the other0 as likely to be evolutionary as God - given.
But there IS evidence for natural selection -good evidence and there is no good evidence for God. This leaves us with a vague 'spiritual' term whoch is left as a Big Hint for God. It isn't. Not by a long way. Trying to imply that it is is an old and hoary theist trick. and I think you can do better.
So far we don't know just how these impulses work, but they are (without any evidence one way or the other as likely to be evolutionary as God - given.
But there IS evidence for natural selection -good evidence and there is no good evidence for God.
This is the part I do not understand, Arequipa . . . the exact SAME evidence exists for God . . . you just PREFER to call it "Natural" selection instead of God selection. Since God is the Source . . . whatever methods exist are His. What would have to be different for you to see this . . . or at least credit that it is EQUALLY descriptive and explanatory?
So, you are telling me that if I call someone stupid, that you don't at all think I am stupid? You might not, but I know that when someone goes out pointing fingers at people and calling them dumb, I usually see that person as the dumb one.
I know someone who is 100% against religion. She attacks it at all times, it pretty much takes up most of her life. She hates it with a passion and wont stop until it goes away. At the same time, she will fight for religious peoples right to practice religion. She usually gives me a headache... Anyway, she is always bickering about what this religion did or that spiritual person did. She usually ends up saying some pretty unflattering things. Sadly, most people that know her, see her as the same things she says about religious people, even her atheist friends.
So in some cases it is valid.
I guess that depends if the one you are calling stupid actually IS stupid, but no matter how one person describes another it doesn't reflect back on the describer...For instance I don't hesitate to call Fred Phelps a dangerous bigot...Do you think that makes me the same?....It is a ludicrous idea that has no validity whatsoever.
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.
