Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

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?

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

Do you believe in abiogenesis?

There isn't a shred of evidence for it.

What's the alternative?

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.

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?

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) .

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

josealdo

koth wrote: »

To quote James Morrow:

James Marrow can suck my c**k

there are no athiests in foxholes

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

He is talking hen

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.

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?

Delirium

figs666 wrote: »

James Marrow can suck my c**k

there are no athiests in foxholes

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

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.

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.

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

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.

King Mob

figs666 wrote: »

Proves my point

no atheists in foxholes

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

McG

figs666 wrote: »

there are no athiests in foxholes

He is talking hen

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

MrPudding

figs666 wrote: »

there are no athiests in foxholes

Really?



MrP

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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?

Dades

figs666 wrote: »

James Marrow can suck my c**k

there are no athiests in foxholes

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?

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

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

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?

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

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.