As a disbeliever or a skeptic, I'm sure you've at one point or another been called closed-minded. I know I have, by plenty of people, both those close to me and complete strangers. Each time it happens, I cringe; it's just so frustrating that an adult human being cannot see the logic behind skepticism.
Yesterday, a theist posted a comment irrelevant to a post on my Facebook page (before we get started, I call sic on all her quotes). She said, "I believe in individual basis but Christians at least believe in God which gives them a better shot at understanding the absolute truth then a closed minded athiest." Basically, she said that she's right and that Christians aren't really right, but at least they blindly believe in one of many deities, so that makes them more right and smarter than atheists.
Silly, closed-minded atheists, who won't blindly accept one's religion as well as countless other religions, unless they are logically sound and backed by actual evidence rather than bind faith that can survive only because of the conditioning of children, widespread propaganda, and the cultural integration of whatever religion happens to be dominant wherever one lives. Silly, silly atheists.
Let's take a look at the conversation that followed, with this theist, to see how closed-minded atheists are. She started, "I'm always individual basis. And as far as proof of God maybe that needs to change. There is plenty of proof."
She claims there is plenty of proof that God exists, which simply is a falsehood. I refrain from calling it a lie, because she might actually believe it. From her point of view, ignoring the evidence means one is closed-minded. But we know better, don't we? There is no proof of God; no one has been able to show any proof. All theists have is a horrific and flawed book that somehow verifies itself and illogical philosophy.
Take, for example, the argument that everything needs a cause and the universe is so complex there must be a creator, an unmoved mover. Much can be said about it, but I'll just make two brief points. First, the argument contradicts itself by setting different rules for the unmoved mover, which must logically have an even more complex designer than its own design. Second, the argument assumes that whoever makes it believes in the right god. However, the same argument can be and often is applied to many religions, like both Christianity and Islam. Christians and Muslims believe in their respective fables with equal conviction, so arguing that one's own religion is the true one because one is sure of it is also an illogical argument; the other side, so to speak, makes the same argument.
The conclusion we can draw is that it's not closed-minded to ignore the evidence there is for God's existence. It is closed-minded to believe this evidence actually exists, and pretend like the philosophical arguments actually make sense. It's not the theists' fault, though; they've been conditioned to close their minds, after all.
The theist continued, "Anything leading people away from God is destruction of human race." This is the definition of closed-minded: "If you don't believe in my god, we're doomed." Why are we doomed? "Because my god says so. Duh!"
Even IF God did exist, the Biblical version of the supposed creator is not a good being. He is a dictator who punishes people for breaking arbitrary rules and not blindly worshipping him. Anything leading us away from totalitarianism and toward democracy and freedom has been good in the real world, so the same would logically apply to the metaphysical.
But it just so happens that God doesn't exist, so anything leading people away from him is definitely beneficial for humankind. In fact, the more superstition we leave behind, the more we progress—scientifically, technologically, and morally. It would be closed-minded to deny this fact. We don't burn witches anymore, right?
Even in the modern world, however, there are plenty of people who are superstitious. These people could be said to be very open-minded, while skeptics are closed-minded for not easily believing in the metaphysical and paranormal. That's not how I see it, though: It requires a closed mind to ignore all the logic and evidence that contradicts the superstitious beliefs. Skeptics don't ignore the logic and evidence, and so are more open-minded. An open mind is not about accepting farfetched fables and myths as the truth without any real evidence; it's about accepting reality for what it is.
The theist then said, "The atheists can't get around logic ...I wonder what would happen if you took a really cold one and showed that little monster God lol what would happen lolololol interesting."
I wonder if she means atheists are "cold little monsters" or if God is the monster. If it's the latter, I must disagree, considering he doesn't exist. If God does exist, though, he'd be the most evil being that's ever existed. If she meant the former, that atheists are "cold little monsters", then on which basis does she form this conclusion? Atheists are normal people with a variety of views and ideals. Some are good, some are bad, but this is mostly unrelated to the atheism. I say mostly because being free from the conservative and dogmatic teachings of religions does help one become more progressive and tolerant, even though religious belief does not guarantee a conservative person and disbelief does not guarantee a liberal one.
Furthermore, it's good that "atheists can't get around logic." That God fails the test of logic pretty much proves what a bunch of lies Christianity and other religions are. There is too much to write about how illogical religion is, but check out my blog post "Verifiably false and illogical" for some thoughts and examples of bad logic and plot holes.
This bright theist finally concluded, "They all of a sudden have an entire new view on everything ...That would intefere with their entire internal system. Take a real firm logic non believing machine of a person ..tie them down and force God into them ..I would love to see what happens .."
This actually confirms my first response to her: that indoctrination is what lets blind faith live on. This basically admits that only conditioning—indoctrination—can lead to god beliefs. This is essentially how most people do acquire their belief, except it's not as graphic; in reality, parents and other authority figures preach the one "absolute truth" (an expression she used earlier). That's not to mention the propaganda and cultural integration that surrounds us.
The bottom line is that believers may like to call disbelievers closed-minded for being skeptical and not believing in the exact same things as them. But there's nothing to back this assertion. Furthermore, the notion that one is open-minded for believing in the metaphysical and superstitious is laughable. To be open-minded, one must be open to any possibility, but only accept it when given evidence.