There have been plenty of Christians who have happily co-existed with the scientific method, and even given a lot of amazing scientific advances (for example Gregor Mendel was a monk, the Big Bang was initially proposed by Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, etc).
However, this is all in secondary discussion to the question of whether a Christian can be ‘open-minded’ or does this relegate said Christian to actually being an agnostic. Does being open to the scientific method = open minded? And if so, wouldn’t Mendel, Lemaitre, etc. be considered Christians who were open minded to science (and not being relegated to agnostic status)?
Would you consider a Christian who was open to or even believed the above to be ‘open minded’? Because there are many a Christian which believe that Scripture, though inspired by God, was written by fallible humans and therefore there is much that is subject to human bias. If they believe that, are they agnostics? And if so, does it worry you that you’ve declared a lot of Christianity to be mere agnosticism?
And once again, it all boils down to how you define “open-minded”. I am open-minded to any solid evidence concerning any gods that may be out there. Do you consider that “open-minded”?
Sure. I have no problems with indicating that folks who consider themselves atheist are open minded. In fact, to the question in the thread title, I’d probably say that non-believers are probably more open minded. I merely object to the notion that Christians who are ‘open minded’ are really just agnostic.
Without reading the 120+ posts of this thread, my experiences is that very few people are open minded, even those (especially those?) that claim to be so.
I don’t know, but (and I could be making a mountain out of a molehill here), but you didn’t really make yourself more open minded, you just changed your mind. If you are as firmly convinced of your atheism as you were of your earlier religiosity, then how does one belief translate into being more open minded? Wouldn’t the opposite tack (“I went from atheism to being a true believer”) be as equal an endorsement of “open mindedness” as the other direction? After all, both parties merely changed their minds about something that is both unknowable and unprovable… right?
The very act of judging and deciding closes the mind, regardless of the direction of the judgment.
I am open minded to the fact that I may be wrong. I believe myself to be right, but feel that I know of my (Christian-Lutheran) God’s existence through my own experiences, but I could be mistaken. I guess I will weigh the other deities when I come across them (though I guess one could say I have already weighed the Islamic faith when I was a youth) ;). Though I have found some definitions of the Christian God from the Eastern Orthodox church to be quite fascinating. I know they have been influenced by Eastern faith traditions.
The same ‘party line’ that Czarcasm and others are espousing; that atheism implies a lack of belief rather than a belief system in itself.
And, again, I have no idea why they espouse it. Ancient Greece is a particular area of focus of mine, and if you asked an Athenian what an atheist is they’d give you the same answer I have.
Weird. I go to the ‘quote reply’ page and get a quote from Shodan and then Voyager’s.
Anyway, lack of belief in a particular god among a universe of gods says nothing about the belief in the entire group. Disbelief in any and all gods is atheism.
Want some corollaries? (By no means an exhaustive list, and including the basis of the belief system.)
There is no such thing as a god.
There is no such thing as an afterlife.
There is no supernatural force that will punish you for wrongdoing.
There is no supernatural force that will reward you for doing good.
Things happen to you as a result of natural laws, randomness (which technically is a natural law), or your or others’ actions.
There is no overarching ‘plan’ for the universe.
True knowledge can only be gained through the sciences and the scientific method.
You are solely responsible for your own life, choices, and actions.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to demonstrate here.
I see no reason to challenge the idea that theists and atheists both have something that could be called a “belief system”. So what? Is that intended to bolster the false equivalence between blind faith in religion and the rejection of such blind faith in favor of evidence?
Some here are being reductive of the belief that there are no gods, claiming that it is not part of a belief system. I posted some tenets of an atheistic belief system (including that particular belief) which contradicts their contention.
You are the one tying all those separate things together, but I will say this: show me the evidence to support any of those and I will look at the one(or more) you show evidence for.
Did the nature of the atom change because of the date? Where did the terms we are discussing come from (etymology)? Hint: they didn’t come from the English language.
A little, yes. I have a friend who was visited by an angel. She saw an angel, right there in her bedroom.
To most atheists – and, actually, to a very great many Christians – this can better be described as a waking hallucination. We know that waking hallucinations do exist (I experience them frequently, and so do several other SDMB members; there have been several threads.) Occam’s Razor isn’t a natural law, but a decent “rule of evidence.”
We’re pickier about the rules of gathering evidence. We like the scientific method, because it insists on duplication of observation – a visitation that only you saw, and no one else, is of very little scientific value – and repeatibility of observation – “Do that again!” Miraculous visitations very consistently fail both tests.
(Are these rules, these tests, “circular?” Can the theist say, “You just made up rules that exclude miracles?” I would say not, because of all the other stuff that these rules exclude, such as withcraft, magic, esp, telekinesis, prognostication, bilocation, death-curses, and the like. Miracles are in the middle of a very dubious kind of company, and are not distinguishable from that company in kind and type.)