English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

They only believe what they can see... is that narrow minded? They dont believe in ghosts, spirits, or anything supernatural. Then they go and call other religions narrow minded when its they who exhibit just as much intolerance as anyone else! This is clearly hypocritcal, is it not?

2007-06-05 11:07:06 · 37 answers · asked by Lauren. 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

37 answers

yes they are. hyppies....

2007-06-05 11:14:28 · answer #1 · answered by Hey, Ray 6 · 1 5

Not believing in things which don't exist doesn't constitute narrow-mindedness. We call religion narrow because it expects adherence to a specific set of beliefs without room for compromise, discussion, or inquiry. Religion, for the most part, does not allow for much in the way of new discovery or critical thought. Most religious beliefs are also grossly illogical. If that sounds narrow-minded, so be it. Science has better, more reasonable answers, and never stops looking for new answers, and new questions. Religion stops at "God did it." That seems pretty narrow-minded to me.

2007-06-05 11:19:21 · answer #2 · answered by link955 7 · 0 0

Well you could argue just as well that Christians have narrow minds. They accept whatever's written in the Holy Bible, and yet is even any of it from personal experience? Probably not. So if someone doesn't believe in Santa Claus, are they narrow minded, then? Because the person has never seen Santa Claus and only believes what they see? The point is, atheists are not narrow-minded. They just don't believe in the same things Christians do.

2007-06-05 11:13:51 · answer #3 · answered by Claire 4 · 0 1

It is not intolerant to not believe in ghosts or spirits! There is no credible evidence for the existence of ghosts! Who called your religion narrow-minded? What exactly did they say? I'd like to make up my own mind about whether they were actually calling you narrow-minded or not.

2007-06-05 11:36:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Things might change this century but for most current people homosexuality is still very much an unknown quantity. People's ideas are fed by what they see in the media. And the media being what they are tend to focus on the more dramatic side of things. So, the main ideas that are communicated to the general public is are that: 1 - Homosexuality means making a spectacle of yourself 2 - Homosexuality means being camp 3 - Homosexuality can get you assaulted or murdered. It is a fact that people who are homophobic but know a gay person (but don't know that they are actually gay) tend to like them. When they are told that the person is gay the reaction is often "I don't like gays but this one is different". So the negative image of gays is linked to the concept rather than the person. You then have a second category of people who are those who feel threatened by gay-ness. Some may have had bad experiences (e.g. I knew someone whose brother had been gang-raped and there is nothing you could do to make him less homophobic) but I would like to think this is a minute minority. Some of these homophobic people also feel that the only way they can survive is by showing some aggressivity (a very primal thing) and gays are an easy target. It is interesting to see that homophobia is most rampant in people with a lower social status and that more educated people tend to be more tolerant. This concurs with the survival theme in that people with lower social status need to find some way to stand out. Being aggressive is usually a good way to get noticed. Others are homophobic because they are in fact repressed gays. They feel threatened to see other gays because subconsciously it reminds them of what they are fighting hard not to be. Based on this, it is difficult to see how things can change. Generally though, as more people come out and the public is more exposed to gays, people will know that we are just normal people and society will play a role in softening the perceptions. It is quite telling that in the 18th century,being gay or bi was quite common in the aristocracy and it was accepted. It is only victorian values which have clamped down on all this. It all goes in cycles.

2016-05-17 14:03:40 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

First, as an atheist I do not necessarily believe only what I see. But to be convinced of something, I need either seeing it myself or other good reasons, arguments, or conclusions.
If you call this narrow mindedness, I call this a critical and analytical mind. I am open for any sort of new opinions and insights but I will not accept them just because anyone says so, be it a person or a book.

2007-06-05 11:15:38 · answer #6 · answered by NaturalBornKieler 7 · 0 1

Nah. I don't think other religions are narrow-minded either. On both ends, it is certain PEOPLE being narrow-minded, but not necessarily the entire group.

Personally, I stopped believing because being religious didn't affect my life, at all. I wasn't happier, didn't feel enlightened or 'touched by God' or anything like that. It was a little disheartening. It's not really narrow-mindedness, it's just how I feel.

2007-06-05 11:16:55 · answer #7 · answered by Stardust 6 · 0 1

Atheists share one value and ONE value only. That there is no evidence for any of the billion gods people have made up over the years.

THAT IS THE ONLY VALUE ANY ATHEIST SHARES WITH ANY OTHER ATHEIST.

Some atheists may share the same view as others but atheists cannot be lumped in together for anything except people who do not think any god exists.

Requiring proof before believing in craziness is not narrow minded.

2007-06-05 11:16:26 · answer #8 · answered by Scott B 4 · 2 1

Atheism, by defintion, is the lack of a belief in deity. That's the only thing you can say for sure about somebody who identifies as atheist: that they do not believe in deity. Strictly speaking, one can be an atheist who believes in ghosts. Such people are quite rare though.

But even if we leave metaphysics out of the argument, it's an over-simplification to say that atheists "only believe what they can see". I believe in Antarctica, atoms, and radio waves even though I haven't seen them. This is because they make sense based on evidence I HAVE seen and learned about. I just can't say the same about a big invisible man who allegedly made everything by hand and really cares what responsible people are up to.

2007-06-05 11:13:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I don't believe in anything that doesn't have any evidence for it. I don't see how not believing in everything I'm told makes me 'narrow-minded'. Give me some reason to believe, and I'll look into it. But I'm not giving your money for the 'save the pink unicorn' fund just because you think you have one in the bathroom.

Asking for evidence before believing is prefectly acceptable, and what your doctor does every day. Or would you rather he perscribed stuff at random, to be more 'open-mined'?

2007-06-05 11:14:14 · answer #10 · answered by eri 7 · 0 1

Basing everything you allow yourself to think and do on one book the Bible or Koran or Torah etc is what I call narrow minded.
Most atheists do not share a belief in God or the supernatural because it seems to be fantasy only.
I enjoy ghost stories etc but I don't believe in ghosts.

2007-06-05 11:14:12 · answer #11 · answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers