A Comment about Atheism & Open-Mindedness

The Out Atheists says:

“Exactly one thing ive learned is theists are WAY more scared to say i dont know. i find atheists are the first to answer a question with “i dont know, but some day well find out”

Apart from the horrendous grammar and punctuation–a forgivable, but also an easily remediable fault–I must say that I find this comment quite humorous. Why? Because it is the exact opposite of what I have found. Consider:

How did life originate?

Atheist: Well, it had to be naturalistically…God definitely did not do it.

How did the universe originate?

Atheist: Well, it had to be naturalistically…God definitely did not do it.

How did consciousness originate?

Atheist: Well, it had to be naturalistically…God definitely did not do it.

And so on and so forth.

See, the atheist is willing to say “I don’t know…” only while sneaking in “…but it absolutely had to be a natural event (even though we have no evidence for it being a natural event)” through the back door. So the atheist is not some open-minded person willing to admit that he does not know; rather, he is a close-minded dogmatist who is only willing to say “I don’t know” so long as he does so while simultaneously whispering “but I absolutely know it was a natural event.” Thus, the atheist is no more open-minded than the theist who says “God did it, although I don’t know how He did so.”

And so, the moral of the story is this: Don’t buy atheist bullshit about them being so vastly open-minded and intellectual humble, because they aren’t.


22 thoughts on “A Comment about Atheism & Open-Mindedness

    • Daniel,

      The only straw-manning going on is when atheists claim that theists are so closed-minded and afraid to say ‘I don’t know’ but atheists are the paragon of free-thought and skepticism. Now THAT is a straw-man.


      • Daniel,

        I think you are just confused. I was responding to the claim that theists are scared to say “I don’t know” while atheists are readily willing to say “I don’t know.” I, however, pointed out the very obvious point that atheists are only willing to say “I don’t know” so long as ‘not knowing’ is within the clearly known paradigm that “…but God definitely did not do it.” Note that this is both obvious and logically necessary given that the atheist must deny that God did it or else he would not be an atheist (perhaps an agnostic, but not an atheist). So my point follows logically given what atheism entails. Furthermore, my experience is clearly relevant given that, in my experience, the atheists that I have dealt with are definitely not willing to say “I don’t know”; so yes, my experience is relevant. It may be wrong or insufficient to make a strong inductive inference about all atheists, but I have dealt with enough atheists over the last ten years to be comfortable in making the inference that I did.


      • I’m, not confused at all. Your argument remains disingenuous, and your appeal to personal experience completely pointless. I see no evidence that you listen to atheists at all. We’re just plot points in the stories you tell. Enjoy yourself.


      • Daniel,

        Think about it: an atheist, by definition, believes that no God or gods exists. Thus, the atheist cannot attribute anything in the world to God or gods. Thus, the atheist is not saying “I don’t know” about things that he does not understand, he is saying “I don’t know….but I absolutely do know that God did not do it.” And hence, the atheist is not a person willing to say “I don’t know” as a blanket statement, but only within his accepted paradigm, and thus he is not the open-minded and free-thinking individual he portrays himself to be but rather as closed-minded as the theist he accuses.


      • I have thought about it. I have thought about it far more than you ever will. Continue playing games, by all means, but that is all they are. You aren’t capable of genuine engagement on the issue.


      • Yeah, yeah…somehow, over the internet, you know enough to assert the you “…have thought about it far more that [I] ever will.” Absurd and ridiculous. If fact, the very fact that you asserted such blatant horseshit is decent evidence that you likely have not thought about it that much and are just lashing out while emoting.

        Refute the logic I presented and stop making assertions. That would be a start.


      • Daniel….refute the logic of my earlier comment. That is all you have to do to show my error. Till you do, you are all sound and fury, signifying nothing.


  1. If there is one thing that is incredibly frustrating as an atheist, it is this complete misunderstanding of how an atheist thinks. First of all, you are comparing two concepts here: a theist who believes god is the only possible answer, and an atheist who believes any answer is possible except for god. Right or wrong, the theist has way more reason to be afraid of uncertainty. Of course you should be more afraid to say “I don’t know.” It would mean that you have doubts about your creator. And let’s face it; you’ve put all your eggs in one basket. But who cares about an argument over who is more afraid of not knowing? Just embrace it, because it’s not as if this is the argument that disproves god.

    I am more concerned over your belief that atheism is simply a close-minded approach to knowledge that refuses god as a possibility. That isn’t exactly how it works. I spent years believing in god and defending him as you do. To lose that belief in spite of my sincerest efforts to hold on required an open-mindedness I did not know I was capable of. To say that I have considered god as an answer to all of those questions you present is an understatement.

    Atheism is often born out of a different method of analyzing the evidence around us. When I found holes in Christianity I could no longer apply god as the answer and work backwards. I couldn’t trust the stories written down by men. I had to erase all of my assumptions and start from scratch to piece together what evidence I was certain about. At first I did it as a way to find god. But he wasn’t there.

    What’s true? I am a long way from putting that puzzle together. I don’t know a lot of things, which is a strange place to be for a girl who once thought she knew it all.

    I call myself an atheist because the holes I found in religion told me that we don’t know anything about god. If a god exists, I have zero reliable evidence to describe it, and until that changes I have no reason to consider it. But the known god theories? They aren’t it. Maybe you would prefer for me to say I am agnostic. Does it matter? I’m not the enemy, my brain just has a different approach to exploring the evidence around me. It is not a decision I made. In fact, I fought it all the way. So when I read words like this from theists I am not moved toward god. I am only moved away from theists. Is that important to you?

    Liked by 1 person

      • Harsh? I think you misunderstood my meaning. By important, I was asking if your goal in writing these things is simply to make atheists move further away from belief. Are you only in it for the fight? The harsher answer would be: yes. But really, neither answer is harsh. What you are looking for when you attack atheists and their views is a personal issue that in the end will only affect you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Life,

        My goal in writing is only to pursue and articulate truth. That may sound pretentious, but it is what is the case. Concerning pushing atheists away from belief…well, I could not care less so long as what I keep doing is articulating truth, for if atheists are pushed away from belief because they dislike the truth, then there is both nothing I can do for them and nothing that I would want to do for them. And note that my first goal MUST be to pursue truth, for if it is not, then I might sacrifice the truth for some other goal (such as bringing atheists closer to belief at the expense of the truth), which, of course, would be damaged to both the truth and my credibility as well. Finally, though I certain do attack atheism, I do so in large part because I find atheism to be absurd and irrational, and thus it deserves to be scorned in clear and direct and merciless language (much like atheists have done to religious believers over the last decade or so).


      • ‘I find atheism to be absurd and irrational, and thus it deserves to be scorned in clear and direct merciless language’.
        Ha! I love how you find atheism to be absurd and irrational, yet you are the one having to convince us that a God exists, not God himself. Why do you blog? Why is it so absurd and irrational to believe there is no God when the only ones arguing for God are my fellow humans, without a God in site?


      • religionerased,

        Atheism–when defined in the positive and broad sense that there are no gods, which is its traditional definition–is absurd and irrational because it is a belief that is a blind faith with no arguments in its favor as well as being a point of view that leads to scepticism of the most stringent sort.


  2. You want your points refuted? Okay.
    Your definition of atheism is wrong.
    Your characterisation of atheists’ certainty in the face of certain scientific questions is wrong.

    How did the universe come about?
    I don’t know. But, all assertions must exceed a certain level of reasoned argument and evidence, so you don’t get to claim it’s your God baselessly. I don’t know it wasn’t God; I just don’t know that it was, either.

    I’d recommend reading some more on epistemology. Particularly issues of the default position and the burden of proof.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s