I should say I find atheists to be just as close minded when discussing the idea that an intelligent being created life as religious people are about discussing the validity of their religion.
I'm plenty open minded.
Heres an open invitation to anyone who has a religious belief on this board. Tell me what it is, and why you believe it to be true, and I will evaluate it and tell you whether I agree, and the reasons why I do or don't agree.
And lets watch this invitation not get taken up, because I'm being too "hostile" or not "respectful" enough. Its never that your not reasonable enough, its just you won't feign respect for faulty beliefs
Theres not a single religion that isn't designed to play on peoples fears and desires, therefore it is not a field in which fact or reason play prominent roles, rather the engagement of delusionary and dissonant thought patterns to confirm a bias.
i.e. what reasons can i give myself that death does not equal non-existance, even though the most rational explanation of death is it is exactly what non existence is like before birth.
The "you can't prove god doesn't exist so its irrational not to believe" is a perfect example of these bias confirmations.
The same reasoning can be applied equally to all gods. In fact, to believe in one god with that logic, you must dismiss the existence of all other deities, as all gods are equally unprovable, yet this is also glossed over, by trying to accept the idea that all religions are talking about the same kind of "universal force", or ridiculing minor religions such as scientologist because they don't have the years of legitimacy and really old books to support the same dud logic.
I've sidetracked, and given ample opportunity to ignore or reject my invitation for debate, by being frank about my opinion, however, this demonstrates my point further. There is no reason for 2 parties to agree at the start of a debate, yet in discussions of religion, it is usually a prerequisite to discussion that you accept there is some validity in the position before any actual discussion takes place
This works like in no other field. Christian libertarians here will debate liberty perfectly will with rabid socialists who constantly belittle and ridicule libertarian thought, but when it comes to religion they will shy away or ignore completely any discussion that goes in a direction that is not comfortable to them.
I believe this to be because of the grounding of the two ideas. Libertarianism is almost always a belief that you were not raised to believe, and it involves rational thinking to dismiss spoonfed socialism or conservatism, so the idea of logical challenges to libertarian beliefs is not a threat, but a welcome challenge, and opportunity to prove your belief to yourself and others.
Religions are near universally accepted to be true before people have thought about whether they are true or not (i.e. at a young age people are told a religion is correct and they accept it is with very little thought). A belief based on blind acceptance has almost the opposite effects of one based on rational inquiry. People will go to great lengths to avoid discussion, and to push out concepts of logic and empirical evidence, claiming that their beliefs lie in a "spiritual realm" or merely "cannot be explained by science". This also explains the prevalent attitude that you should just accept someones religious belief, if its what they want to believe in. This doctrine of acceptance also works as a handy buffer from other religions. Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc don't have to worry about pointing out the flaws in each others belief systems if they maintain the attitude that religion doesn't need to be proved to anyone, even yourself, and that "there are infinite ways to christ/allah/vishnu" etc