Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

Dades

mickrock wrote: »

Yes, I feel the same way about Dawkins and other hardcore evolutionists.

mickrock, this type of selective, scattershot posting is going to earn you a ban really soon.

Contribute something more, or begone.

HHobo

Dades wrote: »

mickrock, this type of selective, scattershot posting is going to earn you a ban really soon.

Contribute something more, or begone.

Wow, you'd ban someone for that?
Just an FYI but it looks really dodgy that you threathen to ban someone you are clearly disagreeing with for making a comment you find selective?, scattershot?

I find his position ridiculous "hardcore evolutionist" but his comment just erodes any credibility he might have. It does no harm to anyone but mickrock.

mickrock

koth wrote: »

Am I reading it right in that you're saying the evidence for evolution is fabricated?

I'd better not comment on the evidence (or rather lack of it) for evolution or I might get banned.

It's a bit ironic considering the title of this thread.

krudler

mickrock wrote: »

He linked to a wikipedia page which has no evidence for it, just lots of hypotheses.

Christianity?

HHobo

mickrock wrote: »

I'd better not comment on the evidence (or rather lack of it) for evolution or I might get banned.

It's a bit ironic considering the title of this thread.

Evolution has exactly nothing to do with atheism.

mickrock

HHobo wrote: »

Evolution has exactly nothing to do with atheism.

Maybe not directly but if evolution was shown to be a pack of lies many atheists might reconsider their positions.

Dades

HHobo wrote: »

Wow, you'd ban someone for that?
Just an FYI but it looks really dodgy that you threathen to ban someone you are clearly disagreeing with for making a comment you find selective?, scattershot?

Actually his comment wasn't disagreeing with me - or anyone in fact. It was simply irrelevant to the debate (others might call it "flaming").

A couple of things, HHobo. Firstly, we very rarely ban anyone in A&A, and secondly, you do not comment on moderation on thread (doubly if you are unfamiliar with the poster, the forum and how it operates).

mickrock - evolution talk goes here. You have been warned.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

mickrock - evolution talk goes here. You have been warned.

A mild correction -- creationism talk goes into the forum bin here.

Evolution talk goes into the Interesting Stuff thread.

PopePalpatine

Did someone mention abiogenesis?

ucl.ac.co.uk wrote:

A coherent pathway which starts from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide and leads to the emergence of the strange bioenergetic properties of living cells has been traced for the first time in a major hypothesis paper in Cell this week.

At the origin of life the first protocells must have needed a vast amount of energy to drive their metabolism and replication, as enzymes that catalyse very specific reactions were yet to evolve. Most energy flux must have simply dissipated without use.

So where did all that energy come from on the early Earth, and how did it get focused into driving the organic chemistry required for life?

The answer lies in the chemistry of deep-sea hydrothermal vents. In their paper Nick Lane (UCL, Genetics, Evolution and Environment) and Bill Martin (University of Dusseldorf) address the question of where all this energy came from - and why all life as we know it conserves energy in the peculiar form of ion gradients across membranes.

“Life is, in effect, a side-reaction of an energy-harnessing reaction. Living organisms require vast amounts of energy to go on living,” said Nick Lane.
Humans consume more than a kilogram (more than 700 litres) of oxygen every day, exhaling it as carbon dioxide. The simplest cells, growing from the reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide, produce about 40 times as much waste product from their respiration as organic carbon (by mass).

In all these cases, the energy derived from respiration is stored in the form of ion gradients over membranes.

This strange trait is as universal to life as the genetic code itself. Lane and Martin show that bacteria capable of growing on no more than hydrogen and carbon dioxide are remarkably similar in the details of their carbon and energy metabolism to the far-from-equilibrium chemistry occurring in a particular type of deep-sea hydrothermal vent, known as alkaline hydrothermal vents. Based on measured values, they calculate that natural proton gradients, acting across thin semi-conducting iron-sulphur mineral walls, could have driven the assimilation of organic carbon, giving rise to protocells within the microporous labyrinth of these vents.

They go on to demonstrate that such protocells are limited by their own permeability, which ultimately forced them to transduce natural proton gradients into biochemical sodium gradients, at no net energetic cost, using a simple Na+/H+ transporter. Their hypothesis predicts a core set of proteins required for early energy conservation, and explains the puzzling promiscuity of respiratory proteins for both protons and sodium ions.

These considerations could also explain the deep divergence between bacteria and archaea (single celled microorganisms) .

For the first time, says Lane, "It is possible to trace a coherent pathway leading from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide to the strange bioenergetic properties of all cells living today."

And here's the paper itself: link

mickrock

^^^^
Careful there. We're not allowed discuss it. (Or maybe only in a noncritical manner.)

Dades wrote: »

mickrock, drop the abiogenesis line. It's irrelevant to the thread and is not a 'tenet' of atheism.

PopePalpatine

mickrock wrote: »

^^^^
Careful there. We're not allowed discuss it. (Or maybe only in a noncritical manner.)

Well, it's certainly struck a killing blow to whatever arguments you had against evolution.

(If they weren't dead already.)

Dades

Well then let's ALL move on (or take it to another thread).

mark renton

Wheres the love people??

martingriff

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Sorry Martin, not finding it - do you agree with that passage in the Bible, or is that one of the ones that's ok to ignore because it makes modern Christians uncomfortable?

Start at page 12 Post 177. The main trust is that there is a lot of branches under Christianity some who do in fact have no problem with homosexuality. Try google also.

It goes no for a couple of pages. If you have a point then I will try to answer it.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

Most atheists seem to reject the idea of a creative intelligence because they find the notion unpalatable (often because of the influence of organised religion).

Most atheists don't reject the idea of a creative intelligence, so straight of the bat you are just making stuff up.

Most atheists would say we don't know what created the universe, if anything, and thus we cannot say if it was or wasn't an intelligent process.

Most atheists would then say that the same holds for theists (they don't know). So that coupled with what we know about humans and hyper-active agency detection, leads atheists to reject the claims of theists.

Or to put it another way we know both how and why theists make up religious claims. Theists say "My god exists and has these properties" and atheists simply say "Nope, don't believe you for the above reasons"

How is that a close minded position? Its like claiming it is close minded to not believe your grandfather when he says that he knows that this week he is going to win the lotto, for sure this time!

martingriff

ShooterSF wrote: »

Assuming you do find it, what then? You argue for a god that only felt it necessary for humanity to kill men who had sex with other men (sorry ladies, the passage don't mention you) up until about 2000 years ago ? It's not a lot better really is it?

And whose fault was it by the way that we were "young and innocent"? Hardly a god punishing us for our ancestors eating a fruit from the tree of knowledge?

What do you mean who's fault it is. No i don't think god was punishing anyone. He did punish people in the bible if the strayed to far from the path as you put it but that he was he sent down Jesus

ShooterSF

martingriff wrote: »

What do you mean who's fault it is. No i don't think god was punishing anyone. He did punish people in the bible if the strayed to far from the path as you put it but that he was he sent down Jesus

Eh he punished Adam and Eve in like the first book for eating from the tree of knowledge. Have you read much of the bible? And as above he punished anyone that had gay sex up until recently even by your interpretation.

TwoShedsJackson

martingriff wrote: »

Start at page 12 Post 177. The main trust is that there is a lot of branches under Christianity some who do in fact have no problem with homosexuality. Try google also.

It goes no for a couple of pages. If you have a point then I will try to answer it.

Not a point so much as a question. You asked where in the Bible did it say homosexuals should be punished/killed. The verse in question was quoted. You were asked if you agree with that or not, and have avoided answering.

If you don't agree, why not? And if you feel free to disregard this particular verse in the Bible, do you disregard others and why?

The main question is: is the Bible a book to be followed and live your life by or not, and if so, why do you think you can just disregard some bits of it because you may find them unpalatable or archaic?

martingriff

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Not a point so much as a question. You asked where in the Bible did it say homosexuals should be punished/killed. The verse in question was quoted. You were asked if you agree with that or not, and have avoided answering.

If you don't agree, why not? And if you feel free to disregard this particular verse in the Bible, do you disregard others and why?

The main question is: is the Bible a book to be followed and live your life by or not, and if so, why do you think you can just disregard some bits of it because you may find them unpalatable or archaic?

No I do not agree with it. It might have been a law then but is not now. The reason why I disagree with it is in the Old Testament there were rules set out for people to follow strictly as they were said to be "young and naive" Old pagans who needed strick rules as you were. In the New Testement Jesus set out 2 simple rules 1 is to pay homage to god and the second was to love thy neighbour as yourself. Which I take as everyone is equal ans special just they way they are and you should respect them.

Genghiz Cohen

martingriff wrote: »

No I do not agree with it. It might have been a law then but is not now. The reason why I disagree with it is in the Old Testament there were rules set out for people to follow strictly as they were said to be "young and naive" Old pagans who needed strick rules as you were. In the New Testement Jesus set out 2 simple rules 1 is to pay homage to god and the second was to love thy neighbour as yourself. Which I take as everyone is equal ans special just they way they are and you should respect them.

Jesus did not change the old laws.

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

And since he is said to return again everything has not been accomplished.

HHobo

Dades wrote: »

do not comment on moderation

where exactly should one comment on it?

martingriff

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Jesus did not change the old laws.


And since he is said to return again everything has not been accomplished.

Some laws can be changes judicial. Moral cant be or ceremonial


The laws of the Jews are commonly divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral laws are such as grow out of the nature of things, and which cannot, therefore, be changed - such as the duty of loving God and his creatures. These cannot be abolished, as it can never be made right to hate God, or to hate our fellow-men.

Of this kind are the ten commandments, and these our Saviour has neither abolished nor superseded. The ceremonial laws are such as are appointed to meet certain states of society, or to regulate the religious rites and ceremonies of a people. These can be changed when circumstances are changed, and yet the moral law be untouched. A general in an army may command his soldiers to appear sometimes in a red coat and sometimes in blue or in yellow. This would be a ceremonial law, and might be changed as he pleased. The duty of obeying him, and of being faithful to his country, could not be changed.
A third species of law was the judicial, or those laws regulating courts of justice which are contained in the Old Testament. These were of the nature of the ceremonial law, and might also be changed at pleasure.

Dades

HHobo wrote: »

where exactly should one comment on it?

Helpdesk if you feel the general moderating of a particular moderator is out of line.
Dispute Resolution if you have received an infraction or ban and want to appeal it.
Feedback for general Boards.ie moderation discussion.

You can always drop one of us a PM, too. Clarification is always better than escalation.

HHobo

Dades wrote: »

You can always drop one of us a PM, too. Clarification is always better than escalation.

Very true.

Thanks.

Mark Hamill

martingriff wrote: »

Some laws can be changes judicial. Moral cant be or ceremonial

The laws of the Jews are commonly divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. ...

This topic has come up in discussion in another thread but I'll ask the same questions here as I did there:

1) Is the distinction between moral, judicial and ceremonial laws every explicitly made in the bible?
2) Was the supposed temporal nature of the judicial and ceremonial laws ever pointed out before the NT?
3) If ceremonial and judicial laws were just going to be abandoned, then why have them at all? Why not start with the new ones from the beginning?
4) In the OT, when the ceremonial and judicial laws applied, would it not have been immoral to not follow them (as they were gods laws) thus making them moral laws also?

martingriff

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This topic has come up in discussion in another thread but I'll ask the same questions here as I did there:

1) Is the distinction between moral, judicial and ceremonial laws every explicitly made in the bible?
2) Was the supposed temporal nature of the judicial and ceremonial laws ever pointed out before the NT?
3) If ceremonial and judicial laws were just going to be abandoned, then why have them at all? Why not start with the new ones from the beginning?
4) In the OT, when the ceremonial and judicial laws applied, would it not have been immoral to not follow them (as they were gods laws) thus making them moral laws also?

I don't really have the answers you are looking for so would not try to answer it however I will say that ceremonial and judicial are laws of land I would say and are not just abandoned but can be changed. Well that is my say it it.

gbee

dd972 wrote: »

Agnostic in peace here.

I'm just superior. Simple as. If you ever know, you just will.

BTW, the road to Atheism is not liner, one does not have to be anything prior.

ShooterSF

martingriff wrote: »

I don't really have the answers you are looking for so would not try to answer it however I will say that ceremonial and judicial are laws of land I would say and are not just abandoned but can be changed. Well that is my say it it.

I'm curious. I get that you pretty much have to take it on faith if you believe in a god but if you believe in one that punishes and rewards people based on his rules (often for eternity!) would it not be wise to investigate why if any some rules are to be ignored and how to tell the difference? It's a rather large risk if you are mistaken. I know personally I'd spend my entire minuscule, by comparison, time on Earth making as certain as I could about the rules been imposed. I'd wager I'd be able to cite the bible from memory if I believed it meant the difference between eternal punishment and not; And I'd probably be cautious of not following any rules unless absolutely convinced they no longer apply, after all Jesus never said don't kill people for "committing" homosexual acts so he doesn't seem too concerned and he did go to the effort of telling people not to eat from fig trees so he had time to lay out arbitrary rules. How do you align your beliefs with him saying,

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

or

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” ?

martingriff

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'm curious. I get that you pretty much have to take it on faith if you believe in a god but if you believe in one that punishes and rewards people based on his rules (often for eternity!) would it not be wise to investigate why if any some rules are to be ignored and how to tell the difference? It's a rather large risk if you are mistaken. I know personally I'd spend my entire minuscule, by comparison, time on Earth making as certain as I could about the rules been imposed. I'd wager I'd be able to cite the bible from memory if I believed it meant the difference between eternal punishment and not; And I'd probably be cautious of not following any rules unless absolutely convinced they no longer apply, after all Jesus never said don't kill people for "committing" homosexual acts so he doesn't seem too concerned and he did go to the effort of telling people not to eat from fig trees so he had time to lay out arbitrary rules. How do you align your beliefs with him saying,

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

or

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” ?

You are right what I take from my faith and beliefs are based on faith and interpretation. If I am wrong then so be it. I can't just change just incase that would be wrong of me and my beliefs that I have

Mardy Bum

martingriff wrote: »

If I am wrong then so be it. I can't just change just incase that would be wrong of me and my beliefs that I have

These sentences makes little sense to me. Correct me if I am wrong but you are hostage to your beliefs?