Closed mindedness

[surftheiop]

In general ive heard many people say that they dont like religon/religous (especially christians) people because they are "closeminded" . I always sort of went along with their thoughts but then i wondered about atheists. Aren't they just as closeminded or even more closeminded than a Christian? An atheist only one way to be atheist- to believe there is no god, while there are many Christian denominations and most Christians agree that people from (m)any of these denominations will be saved.
Im not saying atheists or religous are more or less closeminded but why is it that the religous are often portrayed as being closedminded ?

[HLMencken]

Which is more "open-minded" by your definition above:

(1) Those that believe in all-powerful white unicorns who created and control the universe

(2) Those who don't subscribe to this theory

If you are using "counting" to judge open-mindedness. Then group 1 believes 1 possible way for universe to have come about, while group 2 is still open to an infinite number of possibilities.

[surftheiop]

(1) In your example is the less open minded

But in reality in comparison to atheism
(1) White Unicorns Rule universe
(2) White Unicorns dont rule universe
Both are equally close minded arent they ?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) In your example is the less open minded

But in reality in comparison to atheism
(1) White Unicorns Rule universe
(2) White Unicorns dont rule universe
Both are equally close minded arent they ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rephrase your scenario:

(1) White unicorns rule the universe
(2) We have no direct evidence that white unicorns rule the universe, so I cannot say such a thing for sure

[surftheiop]

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(1) Belief in unicorns ruling universe
(2) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of Universe ruling uncicorns.
The doctrine that there is no Universe ruling unicorn(s).

Both seem pretty close minded to me

[flatline]

I think most atheists would be open to the idea of a God if there was any reasonable evidence. I have yet to see any.

[DougShrapnel]

Hey surf, you are having 2 distinct semenatic arguement and zero substantive arguments. The misuse of term athiest actually stems from the dictionary. The definition that is given is usually one describing HARD or STRONG atheism. Usually you can see the bias in a dictionary with the sentence they use to help define the word. For instance, There are no atheists in foxholes.

The 2nd arguement you are having is about close minded, Do you mean skeptical? If so, clearly the atheist is more skeptical. If you mean open to new ideas, you can't tell anything.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(1) Belief in unicorns ruling universe
(2) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of Universe ruling uncicorns.
The doctrine that there is no Universe ruling unicorn(s).

Both seem pretty close minded to me

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you ask most non-theists if they would change their mind if presented with even indirect evidence that there is a god/creator/intelligent designer, whether they would consider that evidence the answer would be yes.

If you ask a theist to consider the existing evidence that the things they attribute to god are in fact explainable by natural processes they engage in faulty probability theory, logical fallacies etc, and if pinned down with hard evidence retreat to "Of course, God created it so it would seem that way, and you cant prove he didnt".

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(1) Belief in unicorns ruling universe
(2) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of Universe ruling uncicorns.
The doctrine that there is no Universe ruling unicorn(s).

Both seem pretty close minded to me

[/ QUOTE ]

Where you are going wrong is by assuming both propositions should be given equal weight. Hence, your analogy fails miserably.

1. Belief an elephant could fit inside my house.

2. Disbelief or denial that I will wake up tomorrow to find an elephant inside my house.

According to you, belief in #2 is being closed minded, which of course ridiculous.

[cliff]

I think a key point here is that the two worldviews can not engage in a meaningful logical argument because they come to the dialogue with a different set of unerlying assumptions. The "rational" believer may believe in science, etc. and additionally that there is a supreme diety while the athiest believes the first parts but not the last. I have argued with some very intellegent christians in my life and personally think this is the core. I.e. the two different axiom sets may be self consistent but no argument can be resolved in a common language. Similar to someone who takes all of Euclid's axioms arguing with someone who adheres to non-Euclidean geometry (i.e. drops or modifies the parallel lines non-intersecting axiom). Neither set is "true" in any provabl sense but are the minimum assumptions they believe to be corrrct, which is a statement of faith of some sort. So even in math and logic, there is always a basis of some sort of faith.

It seems to me that the central issue is that such an argument lies in the ralm of metaphysics and is not resolvable the language of everyday math, logic, or physics. As such, neither view is provably true or false by means of logic, rather relies on faith of some sort (in or against a god). Not sure if I am making the point I want, but a lot of effort is spent in my opinion in attempting to do the impossible. I can not say for sure that others have not received some kind of revelation that I have not and they can not convince me of the existence of such.