Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

1235

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    mickrock wrote: »
    Do you believe in abiogenesis?

    There isn't a shred of evidence for it.

    As I haven't researched it I neither believe it or disbelieve it - all I can say is I know nothing about it. I suppose I am, for want of a better word, agnostic on the matter.

    Try again.

    Tell me this, do those who believe in abiogenesis claim only they know the truth and are saved with a few extremists advocating all non-believers should be slain?


    I have read the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, and the four Vedas plus a few assorted texts which claim to be proof of the existence of God(s) and found them all lacking in substance, actual proof and contradictory.

    Do you believe in Kali?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    mickrock wrote: »
    Do you believe in abiogenesis?

    There isn't a shred of evidence for it.

    What's the alternative?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I have read the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, and the four Vedas plus a few assorted texts which claim to be proof of the existence of God(s) and found them all lacking in substance, actual proof and contradictory.

    Do you believe in Kali?


    I'm not into organised religion.

    When I look at the world the idea that a creative intelligence might be the cause is a more reasonable one than not.


  • Moderators Posts: 51,893 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    mickrock wrote: »
    Do you believe in abiogenesis?

    There isn't a shred of evidence for it.

    That's a strange turn of phrase considering it's a question of evidence. Life began as a simple organism but that must have came from somewhere unless it always existed. To dismiss abiogenesis would mean you pin your flag to the creationism/ID post, which is somewhat ironic considering your statement about a lack of evidence.

    But what has that to do with atheism being a close-minded stance as you claimed?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Registered Users Posts: 745 ✭✭✭josealdo


    There are no athiest in foxholes .

    Think about it , and to me an athiest is an closed mind stance (usually lifing a shelter and too comfortable life) .


  • Moderators Posts: 51,893 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    figs666 wrote: »
    There are no athiest in foxholes .

    Think about it , and to me an athiest is an closed mind stance (usually lifing a shelter and too comfortable life) .

    To quote James Morrow:
    There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Registered Users Posts: 745 ✭✭✭josealdo


    koth wrote: »
    To quote James Morrow:

    James Marrow can suck my c**k

    there are no athiests in foxholes :D

    If his agruement was true , when not say " there are no motor mechanic's in foxholes"

    He is talking hen


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    figs666 wrote: »
    There are no athiest in foxholes .

    Think about it , and to me an athiest is an closed mind stance (usually lifing a shelter and too comfortable life) .

    Really? Are you sure?

    My 93 year old Great-Grand uncle is an Atheist, just like he was all during WWII when he was a medic in the RAF - he may not have been in many foxholes, but he parachuted behind enemy lines, fought against Rommel in north Africa in '42, and in the Battles for Italy and Greece.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    koth wrote: »
    But what has that to do with atheism being a close-minded stance as you claimed?


    Atheists reject the idea of God yet accept abiogenesis without evidence.

    If there's no evidence for either, why accept one and not the other?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators Posts: 51,893 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    figs666 wrote: »
    James Marrow can suck my c**k

    there are no athiests in foxholes :D

    If his agruement was true , when not say " there are no motor mechanic's in foxholes"

    He is talking hen

    I've no idea if you're being serious or not, but this site shows the saying for the bunk it is

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    mickrock wrote: »
    Atheists reject the idea of God yet accept abiogenesis without evidence.

    If there's no evidence for either, why accept one and not the other?

    I believe I said I am agnostic on the issue of abiogenesis as I know feck all about it.


  • Moderators Posts: 51,893 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    mickrock wrote: »
    Atheists reject the idea of God yet accept abiogenesis without evidence.

    If there's no evidence for either, why accept one and not the other?

    you're making a generalisation without anything to back it up.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Registered Users Posts: 745 ✭✭✭josealdo


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Really? Are you sure?

    My 93 year old Great-Grand uncle is an Atheist,- he may not have been in many foxholes


    Proves my point

    no atheists in foxholes


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    figs666 wrote: »
    Proves my point

    no atheists in foxholes

    How? - I said he wasn't in many foxholes - not that he wasn't in any. :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    figs666 wrote: »
    Proves my point

    no atheists in foxholes

    foxholeatheists.jpg

    There's no theists in hospital waiting rooms...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭McG


    figs666 wrote: »
    there are no athiests in foxholes :D

    He is talking hen

    :confused: Are we just going to spout stupid (and clearly false) sayings now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    figs666 wrote: »
    there are no athiests in foxholes :D
    Really?

    234732.jpg

    MrP


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Its down to interpetations of the bible and what people take out of it Take the Old Testament some may say that was mostly metaphoric and all rules were rules of land for people who were unlearned and the New Testament was what God really wanted people to live. While there are other who say unless Jesus specifically says about laws in the Old Testament then they still stand eg. why people have different views to homosexuality etc.

    Well I'm stumped for what the quote below could be a metaphor for and strangely I can't find anything in the new testament where Jesus who was around for over 3 decades bothered to point out that people had mis-wrote or misunderstood part of the old testament. Could you give me any reason to suggest that the christian god didn't mean the passage below?
    McG wrote: »
    Yes, it does as many interpret it:

    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)


    Ignorant nonsense of course but that's what many "Christians" believe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    mickrock wrote: »
    Atheists reject the idea of God yet accept abiogenesis without evidence.

    If there's no evidence for either, why accept one and not the other?

    Since when is there no evidence for abiogenesis?
    The theory isn't complete, but abiogenesis is based on chemistry which we have a good understanding of (in general, and specifically in terms of the likely chemistry involved).
    God is based on a magical being (which many claim we can't possibly understand). Occams razor says abiogenesis is far more likely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Since when is there no evidence for abiogenesis?

    There is no evidence for it.

    It's something people have faith in.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    mickrock wrote: »
    There is no evidence for it.

    It's something people have faith in.

    I love the way you selectively ommited the bit where he mentions the evidence for it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    mickrock wrote: »
    Atheists reject the idea of God yet accept abiogenesis without evidence.

    If there's no evidence for either, why accept one and not the other?

    Really? Do we? I must have missed that memo. BTW, can anybody tell me when I get my Atheist Badge and Decoder Ring? Please Wait 28 Days For Delivery how are ye.

    I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but from what I've read, I gather that abiogensis may be plausible, but that further research on the matter is needed (and is ongoing). How is this a question of 'belief'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Mickrock could you just pick up a book or two on evolutionary biology and save everyone from having to repeatedly debunk everything you say on the matter? I think we all, yourself included, will end up much happier for it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    I love the way you selectively ommited the bit where he mentions the evidence for it.

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,721 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    mickrock wrote: »
    He linked to a wikipedia page which has no evidence for it, just lots of hypotheses.
    Did you read any of the links to scientific papers that were summed up in and provided on that page?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Sarky wrote: »
    Mickrock could you just pick up a book or two on evolutionary biology and save everyone from having to repeatedly debunk everything you say on the matter? I think we all, yourself included, will end up much happier for it.

    The party line from evolutionists is that the origin of life and evolution of life are separate matters. I thought you would have known this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I do. Your misunderstanding seems to arise from not having the first clue about either of them. Understanding one will help you understand the other. Please try that, instead of repeating the same stuff that others have shown to be wrong again and again and again and again...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    McG wrote: »
    Yes, it does as many interpret it:

    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

    Martin, it's been pointed out to you where your book tells you homosexuals should be put to death, and it's their own fault for being perverts. Are we going to get any rebuttal, even a 'context' or 'metaphor' one?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    figs666 wrote: »
    James Marrow can suck my c**k

    there are no athiests in foxholes :D

    If his agruement was true , when not say " there are no motor mechanic's in foxholes"

    He is talking hen
    figs666, please up your contribution quality if you want to continue posting here.
    mickrock wrote: »
    The party line from evolutionists is that the origin of life and evolution of life are separate matters. I thought you would have known this.
    mickrock, drop the abiogenesis line. It's irrelevant to the thread and is not a 'tenet' of atheism.
    __________________


    / removes mod hat
    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).

    Rejecting an idea because it's unpalatable and conflicts with the wordview you feel comfortable with would indicate close mindedness.
    When it comes to rejecting reality to embrace a more comfortable belief, you can't possibly think that the religious aren't by a country mile the biggest offenders here?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Well I'm stumped for what the quote below could be a metaphor for and strangely I can't find anything in the new testament where Jesus who was around for over 3 decades bothered to point out that people had mis-wrote or misunderstood part of the old testament. Could you give me any reason to suggest that the christian god didn't mean the passage below?


    It is in 1 of the gospels where laws were said to be put in stricter terms as ye were young and innocent. If I can find it I will post it


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Martin, it's been pointed out to you where your book tells you homosexuals should be put to death, and it's their own fault for being perverts. Are we going to get any rebuttal, even a 'context' or 'metaphor' one?

    I have done a rebuttal I may not have quoted that specific post but there was a long conversation about it. Try reading through the thread

    Between me and Bannasidhe


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    It is in 1 of the gospels where laws were said to be put in stricter terms as ye were young and innocent. If I can find it I will post it

    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    I think this thread has summed up th op question...

    Atheism isnt actually a standpoint, more an open minded sit on the fence and point philosphy


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Dades wrote: »
    When it comes to rejecting reality to embrace a more comfortable belief, you can't possibly think that the religious aren't by a country mile the biggest offenders here?

    Religion is man made.

    Pretend, for a minute, that there's no such thing as organised religion and all that goes with it. Would you still reject the idea of a creative intelligence as a likely or possible explanation for the world?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    mickrock wrote: »
    Pretend, for a minute, that there's no such thing as organised religion and all that goes with it. Would you still reject the idea of a creative intelligence as a likely or possible explanation for the world?
    Who said I reject any idea?

    I reject the notions of "intelligent design" as put forward by religious groups such as Christian creationists, as they are nothing but a vehicle for their own agendas and their evidence is horribly fabricated and dishonest.

    The concept that there is something intelligent behind some or all aspects of the universe sits fine with me. I'm as open to it as I am to any conceptual argument that has no evidence for it either way.

    Also, what has this got to do with my post you quoted?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    mickrock wrote: »
    Religion is man made.

    Pretend, for a minute, that there's no such thing as organised religion and all that goes with it. Would you still reject the idea of a creative intelligence as a likely or possible explanation for the world?

    Yes, I think I would. I don't see any evidence for such a creative intelligence, and I don't see a need for one. Show some evidence to the contrary, and I'll reconsider.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    I have done a rebuttal I may not have quoted that specific post but there was a long conversation about it. Try reading through the thread

    Between me and Bannasidhe

    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Dades wrote: »
    I reject the notions of "intelligent design" as put forward by religious groups such as Christian creationists, as they are nothing but a vehicle for their own agendas and their evidence is horribly fabricated and dishonest.

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


  • Moderators Posts: 51,893 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    mickrock wrote: »
    Yes, I feel the same way about Dawkins and other hardcore evolutionists.

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

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    mickrock wrote: »
    Yes, I feel the same way about Dawkins and other hardcore evolutionists.

    Whats a hardcore evolutionist?

    People who legitimately study the area for a living?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    koth wrote: »
    Am I reading it right in that you're saying the evidence for evolution is fabricated?:confused:

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


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

    Christianity?


  • Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,011 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Did someone mention abiogenesis?
    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement