some general points (most of which seem so obvoius it appears most people have missed them): a) open/closed mindedness is not an absolute; you can be completly closed minded when it comes to theories of God, yet, after losing your house keys, be very receptive (open) to your mates suggestions as to what-the-fuck happened to them.
b) the sceintific method is open minded. However, the sceintists that try to follow this doctrine are also people, and therefore, they are also prone to 'mistakes'
c) its probably false to assume that athiests are open-minded.
take me as an example, I might well make the very open-minded statement: "I'll believe in God when I am presented with satisfactory evidence".... but what does "satisfactory evidence" here mean?
I think, in honesty, this very point demonstrates my own closed-mindedness.
If a giant hand came down from the sky and professed to be god I would not accept such a claim. Instead, I would try to work out whether it is a magic trick, or ask myself whether I am sane (have i taken hallogenic drugs?, for example), or wonder whether it is aliens (since the idea of tech-advanced aliens seems far more logically plausible than the existance of god.)
Bascially, I would consider any plausible account in a desperate search to avoid the obvoius conclusion; god exists.
Its like Sagens dragon*, just reversed:
them "in my garage, there is dragon"
me "prove it"
them "here, it breathe fire!"
me "thats not proof, fire happens all the time"
them "but you can fucking see it!"
me "yeah, but I am actually insane, so i'm going to see a whole load of shit that doesn't actually exist"
them "but millions of people have seen my dragon"
me "well then, millions of people are insane"
...and so on,,,
*http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.
359 users online 
225628 members 
You have 1 new message.
Sustainer
You fail to earn the benefit of the doubt in this situation from the opinions on this site. 
