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

Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

Options
1…456810

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #213
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,720 ✭✭✭✭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!



  • Options
    #214
    josealdo
    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


  • Options
    #215
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #216
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    figs666 wrote: »
    Proves my point

    no atheists in foxholes

    foxholeatheists.jpg

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    McG
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #218
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


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

    234732.jpg

    MrP


  • Options
    #219
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    martingriff wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #220
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #221
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Since when is there no evidence for abiogenesis?

    There is no evidence for it.

    It's something people have faith in.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 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.


  • Options
    #223
    pauldla
    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'?


  • Options
    #224
    Sarky
    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.


  • Options
    #225
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Doctor DooM wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #226
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #227
    mickrock
    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.


  • Options
    #228
    Sarky
    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...


  • Options
    #229
    TwoShedsJackson
    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?


  • Options
    #230
    Dades
    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?


  • Options
    #231
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,717 ✭✭✭✭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
  • Options
    #232
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,717 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    TwoShedsJackson wrote: »
    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


  • Options
    #233
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    martingriff wrote: »
    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?


  • Options
    #234
    mark renton
    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


  • Options
    #235
    mickrock
    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?


  • Options
    #236
    Dades
    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?


  • Options
    #237
    pauldla
    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.


  • Options
    #238
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    martingriff wrote: »
    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?


  • Options
    #239
    mickrock
    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.


  • Options
    #240
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,720 ✭✭✭✭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
  • Options
    #241
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users 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?


Advertisement