Why are atheists so closed-minded?

Question

So, I have this religious debate with this atheist...no problem, i've had debates before. She starts saying how reciprocal altruism proves there is no God and i just said that the theory goes against Darwin's survival of the fittest. hey, i could be wrong here. it's up for interpretation. but, in true atheist form, she goes nuts. she starts saying i'm ignorant because i dont believe in a scienfically accepted theory, then asks me if i believe in the theory of gravity. when i told her that gravity is a law, unlike evolution, she insulted me more and said you can never prove science, only disprove it. i mean, i love a good debate but why does it have to get so personal? she ended up getting very upset even though in ever raised my voice or insulted her, and she left as if i was beneath her and not smart enough to even carry on a debate with. Is this behavior really necessary? Why attempt to debate christians if you aren't willing to accept different views? bad manners!!!

and to answer the first 9 questions..yes, im generalizing, and i haved called the kettle black or whatever lame phrase is used nowdays.

soulful, i get that...but why even start the debate then? i mean, it seems foolish to start a debate with a christian on evolution, then call them ignorant and stupid for not believing in it. come on! i dont agree with everything atheists do, but i dont call people ignorant or stupid for believing science has all the answers

emfederin, i wasn't arrogantly posting my opinions as fact, i was relaying the part of the debate before she left. as i said, hey, i could be wrong. im not going to say i'm 100% on everything, which was the point of the debate....to get new ideas and learn something.

Answer 1

My, my. You opened a can of worms here, didn't you. I don't think anyone should call you stupid, that was just rude. I think most people in general are closed-minded and I think that you are quite the decent person to express your thoughts and feelings and allow her to express hers. No, this behavior is reprehensible. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions about religion. Atheists just have another angle because they are of NO religion. So, a debate between a Christian and an Atheist is sort of silly, but for her to leave was rude. Believe what you want, but don't judge every Atheist by what this one girl did. OK? OK!

Answer 2

Why the debate? I don't know why she behaved the way she did, but from your question, I can guess. I know that I get annoyed when someone tries to prove something wrong when they don't know that much about it, particularly when the most common principles of science are misunderstood. It's kind of insulting when someone debates science using the language, but doesn't know what the language acutally means. But that's the way it goes. I don't think a Christian and an atheist can discuss (debate) religious centered issues without insulting one another in some fashion. You may have insulted her without realizing it. Rather than reacting "in true atheist form," she reacted in true human form.

See, it's like this. Herbert Spenser used "survival of the fittest" when he proposed social darwinism: which is a social science and not about evolution. It actually means "survival of the most integrated or adapted." Biologists use the phrase "natural selection" since the "survival of the fittest" one is not accurate enough to describe what's happening. In actual evolutionary theory, reciprocal altruism is a perfect adaptation in species that rely on mutual cooperation to survive, even if doing so means one of the animals may not survive. By claiming it's contrary to a social science principle that applies only to human societies (and has been debunked since the Great Depression anyway), you're not offering any real evidence or debate.

Additionally, theory ranks higher than law in science. Theory is an essential part of the methodology, law is just another word for theory that's proven true in most cases. The Law of Gravity is a poor example because, well, it's not actually always true. The Law of Gravity only works in specific places in space-time, but not in others, ergo it's not a viable theory and physicsits are still trying to figure it out. Trying to reconcile quantum mechanics, newtonian gravitational theory, and einsteinian relativity, it's the holy grail. It's a Law because it's applicable in certain situations where repeated use has shown it viable. It's not working theory because you leave those situations and it doesn't accurately describe gravity anymore. That's really basic physics. This is where the insulting part comes in.

So, while I can sympathize with you, I can also understand her position, too. How can you have a good debate with someone who doesn't know much about the subject? It's aggravating. It's like trying to explain that not all Kansas believe in Intelligent Design or not all Christians are just like Jerry Falwell.

Answer 3

As a Christian I don't understand the hate on either side of the debate. If you want to believe in evolution, go ahead but don't assume all Christians are ignorant for their beliefs either. I personally used to believe in evolution but after much reading and study and personal events in my life and soul searching, I changed my belief. Atheists make the mistake of thinking that all Christians just awoke one morning and without cause, decided to become a christian. The truth is most of the christians I know became such only after a long period of investigation, reading, and so on. But there is the element of faith too. Even atheists use faith occassionally. I believe they either have unwavering faith in science, or some other human endeavor. We all exercise faith when we sit in a chair. We have faith that it will hold our weight. That may be over-simplification but you get the idea. Again, believe in what or who you choose. If you want to think I'm crazy, go ahead, but leave it at that. As far as being closed-minded, we can all be that at times, but there is also a healthy aspect to closed-minded. I believe without a doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. No one could change my mind about that. If you call that closed-minded, so be it. Why not debate in a healthy way. We each state our case and if the other chooses to believe it, OK and if not thats up to them either way.

Answer 4

Dude, evolution and gravity are both facts and both theories.

The facts of evolution are there: MRSA, nylonase, the fossil record, etc. As are the facts of gravity: planetary orbits, tides, etc.

The theories try to explain how these facts came about. They make predictions that can be tested. For example the current theory of gravity says that there should be gravity waves that travel at light speed. So someone is spending a lot of money to build some equipment that can test this. Depending on the results the theory will be upheld, or need to be rewritten.

The theory of evolution is one of the most tested theories ever. It continues to make predictions and it is incredibly useful in the sciences of biology and medicine.

Also I would suggest that you actually research and understand the scientific method. She is right. scientists are constantly trying to think up things that will disprove their theories. They can never be proven beyond doubt only shown to be not false for the known facts.

There are no real laws in science, only theories. 'Laws' came about from a time of more arrogant men. For example Newton's LAWS of motion are inaccurate. Einstein's THEORY of relativity describes the motion of objects more accurately. If the GPS satellite system used Newton's laws for their calculations it would never work. They must use the theory of relativity to be more accurate.


What you are doing is redefining reality to match your preconceptions. This is very frustrating and makes any debate pointless.

Reality is what reality is. You need to accept it as fact. I can not claim that saying the sky is green with yellow polka dots is just a different viewpoint and so people should seriously consider it - it is just wrong. Once you accept the known facts, only then can you debate if it was a planned reality or one that came about through natural laws alone.

Answer 5

Wow, I'm sorry you were treated that way. I can relate because I've been treated that way many a time by Christians who have asked me about my agnosticism.

One thing I need to clarify regarding the "theory" of evolution vs. the law of gravity; the word theory in science has very different meaning than it does to lay persons. For a hypothesis to get to the theory stage it has to have multiple replicated results by numerous separate organizations, oversight committees, scientists, etc. The scientific community is fond of illustrating it as follows: a scientific theory is held to a higher standard than a fact!

Evolution is a such a theory.

Answer 6

Of path I might be given the lifestyles of a deity if demonstrated scientifically. However, it might make little change to me. I am an apatheist; I don't consider faith has a position to play in my lifestyles. Proof of the lifestyles of a deity might now not compel me to worship mentioned deity or comply with the dictates of the faith headquartered on that deity. EDIT: Another purpose why I would not care to permit that have an impact on me a fine deal is that medical theories aren't without end legitimate, and the invention of any conflicting proof might require a revision of the view that a certain deity exists. The undeniable fact that "medical evidence" isn't an absolute indication of its 'fact' is one purpose I might stay skeptical however.

Answer 7

Most can't see past there box. It is hard to disprove either view. I'm Christan and love science. I get excited at new discovery's. But the logic and science that most atheist use is theory. And if all else fails, they come up with you can' t prove a negative, or do you believe in pink unicorns. It gets old.

Answer 8

It's hard for an Atheist to debate a Christian when the Christian believes in a mythological god.

Answer 9

If you keep too open of a mind your brain is going to fall out.

Gravity was a law opposed by your religion. As was no end of things and eventually each one of them spent much time in the scientific theory phase until they eventually became laws because people realized the church was dumb.

Answer 10

you found a bad atheist to spar with. she got to into it. when debating religion you have to realize it is a DEBATE, a clash of ideas. she apparently missed the memo about that. she doesnt know as much about science as she thought she knew also. if you want an atheist to debate against, you can email me, i will promise to keep my temper in check.