Atheist's are you offended if I say atheism is too narrow minded...as narrow minded as religion?

Question

As an agnostic would you understand why I would feel this way?
I do not mean it in an ugly way it just seems both following one religion and atheism does seem to have some likeness in the thought process behind it.
Your thoughts?

atheists..not atheist's sorry

Answer 1

Not offended at all.

I don't see it as narrow minded. If someone could provide actual proof of a god, I'd have to believe it. Since I don't see that as possible, I disbelieve.

Answer 2

I'm not offended. I feel sorry for those who
have been brainwashed into closing their minds.
It is indeed a sad thing to watch a child learning
all those little rhymes which only further warp their
little minds. Even adults fall prey to it, only it is
called politics.

People who succumb to religion cannot or will not
see past the fact that they are being manipulated.
Obligated to continue the farce for jobs, for status in
the community, for trivial, materialistic reasons.

Ever wonder why the preacher drives such a nice car?
Lives in such a nice home? All that money should be
put to better use. Help the homeless or use the money
to further promote that money-sucking business called
religion?

It takes a strong mind to weed through all the
nonsensical crap so many are forced to believe.
Why do you think religion is so promoted? Zillions
of dollars are spent to convince people that their
life is as 'god' intended.

Ask yourself why it must be forced, taught, trained,
studied and enforced?

Answer 3

I think I see where the atheists come from, though. Ordinarily, in science, if you have an hypothesis that a certain phenomenon exists, and you test it and don't find evidence of the phenomenon you were looking for, you'd (logically) come to the conclusion that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

I think something that ought to be realized is that, if there is a god/higher power/supreme being/whatever, since there's a good chance that it would be omnipotent, there's no reason to assume that it would leave evidence lying around of its existence. Just because there's no evidence of a god doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one.

So yes, fundamentally I agree that atheism is a bit narrow-minded, but I find their position far more logical and defensible than theism.

Answer 4

I'm not offended. I disagree, of course, but I'm not offended. I do understand why you'd feel that way, having been an agnostic for years. However, the more I thought about it, the more atheism made sense. I realize not everyone will come to the same conclusion.

However, from my perspective, agnostics are either being indecisive, or not applying enough thought to the question. Does that offend you?

Answer 5

Atheism means lack of belief in gods, nothing more. There is no church or sect or cult or rulebook. You make a similar mistake to the one the Pope made. He confuses atheism with communism; you confuse atheism with progressivism.
That is, the religious right is trying to set this country back 200 years. They feel that, among other things, they have the right to force their religion down everyone else's throat, whether it's trying to corrupt science education, deny women reproductive control, dumb down sex education or discriminate against gays, etc. Naturally, progressives have a whole shopping list of why these items are bad ideas. The progessive atheist just adds one more item to the list.

Answer 6

Wow, you have unquestionably no expertise of atheism. at first, you're asserting wide, baseless stereotypes. there is no good "atheist place" on something such as you will possibly locate with religions, with the aid of fact atheism isn't a faith. That pronounced, atheists generally do no longer argue that there is no possibility that a god exists. Atheists merely argue that the assumption of a "God" is unquestionably unfounded and unsupported by making use of info, as you your self have already conceded. Even uber-atheist Richard Dawkins would not pretend to have a hundred% certainty: on his very own scale of perception (which quotes perception from one million-7, one million being absolute perception that God exists, 7 being absolute perception that God would not exist), he quotes himself a 6. All atheists are asserting is that there is no compelling reason to think of that God exists. in case you have one, please proportion. Atheists tend to have great admire for empiricism, issues which would be pronounced in some vogue -- for this reason, atheists tend to have great admire for technology. You stumble on an thrilling reality once you're saying that the existence of God is "unfalsifiable" -- between the checks of scientific validity is falsifiability. For any theory (theory or in any different case) to be scientific, there must be some possibility -- even if inconceivable -- that it must be shown fake. So, for occasion, take the assumption of gravitation: if human beings started floating upward the following day, the assumption of gravitation might on the least be reported as into extreme question. considering the fact that God is supposedly "invisible" to all the senses, God is impervious to empiricism. His existence is unfalsifiable, and to that end no longer a scientific theory. increasing on that, if God won't be able to be pronounced in any way, what reason is there to assume that he exists, from now on than we assume the existence of the different unobservable entity? evaluate the Invisibile pink Unicorn, for occasion. it is invisible. impossible to visual reveal unit. Are we "slender-minded" for assuming that there is no such element as an Invisible pink Unicorn?

Answer 7

Aren't we all narrow-minded to some degree, I mean, there is no one on this earth who thinks exactly like every other person. For example, doesn't it make you narrow minded that you criticize my way of thinking, just as me criticizing your way of thinking makes me narrow-minded?

I'm an atheist and I'm very open to everything except fantasies that, the source of which can be explained away by simple psychology.

There is a difference between being open minded and being gullible.

Answer 8

Doesn't offend me at all; I understand the thought process behind Agnosticism, just as I understand why religion works for some people. The only clarification that one might make is to say that a particular belief may be too narrow-minded for oneself, as this description may not fit everyone else.

Everyone defines the limits of what works for them, and that is perfectly acceptable and good.

(((((((QoY)))))))

Answer 9

God is imaginary. Apart from that anything and everything is fair game to debate, prove or disprove. It is not narrow minded to choose not to follow a group of people who seriously think that an ancient Hebrew deity is actually real and floating over their heads. Because that is the other option.

Answer 10

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I just happen to disagree.
As an atheist I only give up belief in supernatural things. The world offers so much more that I can live well without the spiritual stuff interfering.