yea I saw that on Matt Dillahunty's facebook page a few hgours ago, pretty interesting.

btw I wouldn't label it "theist projection" since atheists can (and do) the same thing on occassion. You don't have to have a god belief to believe in supernatural things.

 Yes, Ciarin, you're correct that atheists do it, too.  I should have been more specific in saying that I wanted to apply this specifically to the theist's position.  Personally, I don't waste a lot of my time arguing with UFOlogists, psychics, animists, pagans, or other such people.  It's not that they aren't doing the same things theists are.  It's that on balance, theists are doing a lot more damage by thinking that way.

Lol since when are pagans not theists? I'm pagan btw.

According to neo-pagans, yes.

Though most tend to be neo-Theurgists anyway.

LOL @ neo-theurgists

I think this video does the one thing it intended to accomplish very well, but the idea of changing a close-minded individual's definition of close-mindedness is kinda difficult no?  Would providing evidence to a close-minded individual about their incorrect yet assumed definition of close-mindedness change their personal use of the term?

Is language use not one of the largest issues with discussing religion?  I find that simple definitions are most often skewed to fit the speakers intended message (with or without intention).  Seems like most arguments would benefit from simply having their intended definitions of key words stated prior to explaining any message to avoid confusion, but this would result in a lot more debunked "theories". So, let's just add more rhetoric to hide everything! 

BTW Hi!

To play the devil's advocate here, we accept scientists claims all the time without evaluating the evidence.

For example, my education is in math physics and psychology. I know practically nothing about geology, or evolutionary biology etc....

So if a bio-chemist posses a paper that X compound say encourages health then cites some complex bio-chemical mechanism to prove it, I will be un-able to evaluate that evidence and just take it for his word.

Even if he was a respectable biochemist, and the resources was published, just means it's an argument from authority as I would be unable to evaluate the evidence myself.

Good so far...

This is where the argument fails. It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to evidence. If the biochemist publishes a paper that is not consistent with reality it will be proven wrong in a reasonable amount of time, provided the scientific method is properly executed. Just because you haven't personally contested it, doesn't mean it hasn't been, won't be, or can't be challenged. Also, if the scientific method is executed properly, the theory will not be considered infallible. Some new thinker will probably come along and elaborate on, or even overturn the previous "fact."

Remember Newtonian Physics vs Relativity? When science is done right, no theory is ever considered absolutely true.

You're absolutely right, Alison.

May as well shut down every airport terminal and encourage everyone to get an old broomstick for international travel, since I guess being able to demonstrate that a given principle (like, say, Bernoulli's Principle) through application somehow doesn't count.

...What school did you go to, again?

Y'know what? I don't even care anymore.

Sit at home doing Sudokus and believe whatever woo woo crap you like. In the meantime, real scientists and engineers will be getting shit done.

This is exactly why the argument fails. There is nothing that prevents you from understanding it, provided that you want to. Everything in science is falsifiable. If you wanted to, you could learn the biochemistry and falsify the findings yourself. That is the essence of open-mindedness. The ability to question and challenge established belief.

Really, she's baiting us anyway. Tricked again! Damn you, Jessica Alba!

I could be wrong, but I think Alison's point was more that as individuals we all take some things as true based on the fact that the people who say they are true have been given authority to say so. So if any of you can say that you don't hold anything to be true that you haven't verified yourself then you can talk other wise drop it.

Now for my own personal opinion I agree with the entire video, but atheist, in reference to this site, have been just as guilty of closed mindedness as theist. Several times I've had responses that made me think did they read what I wrote or am I just that hard to understand. So many times I've been reading through treads to see a theist ask what would be excepted as evidence only to see theist respond sarcastically. I mean what is the big deal about laying out some ground rules about what would be acceptable evidence. Please don't give me some you should already know crap because certain types of evidence acceptable in other situations or obviously not accepted in this. For example literary evidence for Jesus is completely thrown out. You have relegated any writings of Josephus dealing with Jesus to, I don't even know, forgery perhaps.

I'm not saying that if one disproves evolution one proves God, but you never consider evidence against evolution from what I've seen. Of course, to be fair I have yet to see any of the hard hitting evidence against it presented in these forums. So my point is you at least have to be willing to set out your criteria for evidence to be open mind.

Not to mention the whole "Believe in God? We can fix that." slogan. I know that out in the world theist, especially those claiming Christianity, are more closed minded then atheist but let's admit it closed mindedness runs high here so both side could use this reminder.