Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

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?

Mark Hamill

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.

You say you will try not answer my question, but then try to answer one.....
Ceremonial and judicial laws come from the bible, attributed from god (either the laws, or just the bible itself), so I don't see how they can called "laws of land", whatever that means.
Maybe just try the first question:
1) Is the distinction between moral, judicial and ceremonial laws every explicitly made in the bible?

ShooterSF

martingriff wrote: »

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

But you seem to have done very little research into your interpretation of these passages when the consequences of being wrong are dire. You haven't even offered us up a reason why you interpret them as such. It's a bit risky to take a casual "so be it" attitude to your eternal situation to be honest.

martingriff

ShooterSF wrote: »

But you seem to have done very little research into your interpretation of these passages when the consequences of being wrong are dire. You haven't even offered us up a reason why you interpret them as such. It's a bit risky to take a casual "so be it" attitude to your eternal situation to be honest.

I agree I am not a student of the bible and I don't study it as much as you think I should. Does that mean I should study all forms or religion or atheism to make sure I am not condemned to utter damnation. Should you be doing it also?

Bannasidhe

martingriff wrote: »

I agree I am not a student of the bible and I don't study it as much as you think I should. Does that mean I should study all forms or religion or atheism to make sure I am not condemned to utter damnation. Should you be doing it also?

I am not sure what you mean by 'study' atheism as it simply means lack of belief in the existence of a god/gods.


But I do think if one states one is a member of a particular religion or has belief in a certain deity then one should be conversant with all the tenets of that religion and/or the 'word' of that god.

I honestly am puzzled when someone says they are a Christian but are unfamiliar with the Bible - which is after all meant to be the word of their God. Why would one not want to read what their God had to say?

martingriff

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am not sure what you mean by 'study' atheism as it simply means lack of belief in the existence of a god/gods.


But I do think if one states one is a member of a particular religion or has belief in a certain deity then one should be conversant with all the tenets of that religion and/or the 'word' of that god.

I honestly am puzzled when someone says they are a Christian but are unfamiliar with the Bible - which is after all meant to be the word of their God. Why would one not want to read what their God had to say?

I have read a lot of it I am my interpretations of it which I have said but as in debt as you are suggesting no I do not.

Bannasidhe

martingriff wrote: »

I have read a lot of it I am my interpretations of it which I have said but as in debt as you are suggesting no I do not.

I'm sorry Martin - maybe it's me but I am having trouble understanding that sentence.

martingriff

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm sorry Martin - maybe it's me but I am having trouble understanding that sentence.

Sorry. I have read a lot of the bible. I don't go indebt as you seem I should. Thanks for been so concerned

Bannasidhe

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry. I have read a lot of the bible. I don't go indebt as you seem I should. Thanks for been so concerned

I'm not concerned I just don't understand how one can have this book which one believes is the word of one's God and not want to try and really get to grips with it. Not having a go at you either - at least you have read it which is more than many Christians can say.

martingriff

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not concerned I just don't understand how one can have this book which one believes is the word of one's God and not want to try and really get to grips with it. Not having a go at you either - at least you have read it which is more than many Christians can say.

But even if people read it cover to cover and study it. It is all about interpretations one will say one thing others will say another. I mean with homosexuality some are against it and others support it.

Zombrex

martingriff wrote: »

But even if people read it cover to cover and study it. It is all about interpretations one will say one thing others will say another. I mean with homosexuality some are against it and others support it.

Kinda sums up how useless it is as a guide doesn't it, and how unlikely it is that it is divinely inspired. I mean if a first year law student can write something that is clearer you would think the omnipotent creator of the universe wouldn't mess it up quite so bad.

Dades

He could have waited another 2000 years and just emailed a PDF.

Problem solved.

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

He could have waited another 2000 years and just emailed a PDF.

Problem solved.

Ah, but which PDF reader would be the 'approved' one?

I can see that one ending in crying (and burning, hanging, crusading, inquisitioning, crushing, auto-de-feing and schisming.)

sephir0th

martingriff wrote: »

I agree I am not a student of the bible and I don't study it as much as you think I should.

It's just weird that you would call yourself a christian, and yet not study it incessantly. It's as if you don't truly believe that the bible is yahweh's inspired word. Makes no sense.

Does that mean I should study all forms or religion or atheism to make sure I am not condemned to utter damnation. Should you be doing it also?

No because you believe all the other religions are wrong right? Also, there are an infinity of possible religions and thus an infinity of ways for you to be wrong.

PS. there's nothing to study with atheism.

ShooterSF

martingriff wrote: »

But even if people read it cover to cover and study it. It is all about interpretations one will say one thing others will say another. I mean with homosexuality some are against it and others support it.

That's my point. The Bible is painfully unclear and I'm sure some christians would say that's the point, to make you examine it. You say it comes down to interpretations, but these interpretations could mean salvation or eternal, please take in the length of time that is as best you can, punishment. If I believed in heaven and hell I would be researching every interpretation and their arguments for and against based in scripture because I'd want to be as certain as I could be that I picked the right interpretation.

For example you don't seem to think men should be killed for "committing" homosexual acts because you interpret that passage as only relevant to the jews a couple of thousand years ago (which in itself is another morality discussion). Yet you don't seem to have done much research into why that interpretation can be applied and that's what shocks me. I just can't help but imagine a conversation between yourself and Yahweh at judgement time if he asked about not killing men who had sex with each other and him being rather underwhelmed at your reasoning for discarding that passage.

HHobo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I honestly am puzzled when someone says they are a Christian but are unfamiliar with the Bible - which is after all meant to be the word of their God. Why would one not want to read what their God had to say?

I have always found this baffling too. I can't help but think the person is not serious in their faith. If I thought there was a book out there that described the thoughts of the creator of the universe, I'd never stop reading it. If you added to that, my belief that my knowledge of it to some extent determined my eternal fate, paradise or hell, I'd probably be able to recite the book by heart.

Penn

Was watching Jon Richardson's dvd last night, and he had a good point about being open minded. Can't find the quote but basically he said that being completely open minded is like leaving your front door open, where anything can come in. Instead, he's just open minded enough that it's like his front door is on the latch. It prevents most of the sh*te from coming in, but can be blown open by a gust of knowledge.

swampgas

HHobo wrote: »

I have always found this baffling too. I can't help but think the person is not serious in their faith. If I thought there was a book out there that described the thoughts of the creator of the universe, I'd never stop reading it. If you added to that, my belief that my knowledge of it to some extent determined my eternal fate, paradise or hell, I'd probably be able to recite the book by heart.

Surely part of the reason is that (if I understand it correctly) the Catholic church has tended to discourage the reading of the Bible by the laity? Isn't the Bible interpreted on their behalf by the clergy? One of the major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, as I understand it anyway, is that traditionally Protestants expect everyone to read and study the Bible, Catholics don't.

Certainly when I was growing up there was never any emphasis on Bible study, and my parents, both pretty devout, never read the Bible either, although they had plenty of prayer books and missals, and what seemed like half the stock of Veritas in the house.

HHobo

swampgas wrote: »

Surely part of the reason is that (if I understand it correctly) the Catholic church has tended to discourage the reading of the Bible by the laity? Isn't the Bible interpreted on their behalf by the clergy?

There is, no doubt, some truth in that but I just think on an individual basis, how would you be able to resist?

swampgas

HHobo wrote: »

There is, no doubt, some truth in that but I just think on an individual basis, how would you be able to resist?

I take your point.

I remember having a quick trawl through the Bible as a teenager, found it pretty much unreadable, and went straight back to whatever other books I was reading. You really have to want to read it to persevere with it.

Bannasidhe

HHobo wrote: »

There is, no doubt, some truth in that but I just think on an individual basis, how would you be able to resist?

I couldn't.

Went and bought a Bible when I was 10 much to the consternation of Catholic family, who watched with a mixture of horror and bafflement as I proceeded to read the entire thing - got the distinct impression they thought I shouldn't be doing that...:p

They were right as it turns out - aged 11 I declared myself an atheist.

Funny thing was some 30 years later I was staying with my mother and need to find a particular Biblical quote for an article I was writing. Did she have a Bible? Did she F**k! Perpetual Jesus heart pictures, Miraculous medals, Holy Water (in BVM shaped plastic bottles and architrave mounted fonts), Scapulars, Missals, Statues, Mass Cards and all the other icons of Catholic religious foll-do-roll were there in abundance - but not a sign of the word of her God...

kylith

My parents have a beautiful bible that they inherited from a neighbour. I may be an atheist but I'm also a bibliophile and the thinness of the paper, the gilding, the indents for each Book, the watercolour paintings.... it's a beautiful piece of work. I'd have it on my bookshelf, they keep it in a box at the back of the Cupboard of Unwanted Gifts along with all the monogrammed champagne flutes they got for their 25th wedding anniversary.

I might take it off their hands next time I'm visiting. I wonder what they'd make of that.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

My parents have a beautiful bible that they inherited from a neighbour. I may be an atheist but I'm also a bibliophile and the thinness of the paper, the gilding, the indents for each Book, the watercolour paintings.... it's a beautiful piece of work. I'd have it on my bookshelf, they keep it in a box at the back of the Cupboard of Unwanted Gifts along with all the monogrammed champagne flutes they got for their 25th wedding anniversary.

I might take it off their hands next time I'm visiting. I wonder what they'd make of that.

Personally I think the language used in the KJB ranks as some of the most beautiful ever written in English.

I once had the honour of working with Dr Jennifer O Reilly, a renowned expert on illuminated manuscripts of the Middle Ages and religious iconography. I was in awe listening to her describe the intricate symbolism of the illustrations. The carpet pages of Kells, for example, are actually aids to meditation and contain a visual 'path' to occupy the eye/conscious mind to enable the unconscious to meditate. Sadly, apart from among a few academics - this aspect of the work is rarely discussed.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

[...] some 30 years later I was staying with my mother and need to find a particular Biblical quote for an article I was writing. Did she have a Bible? Did she F**k! [....] not a sign of the word of her God

A catholic with a bible? Good heavens, do you think the church can trust the little people to know what to think without its kind, gentle help?

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

A catholic with a bible? Good heavens, do you think the church can trust the little people to know what to think without its kind, gentle help?

The thing is - where did the Bible I bought aged 10 go?

Mother does not get rid of books - ever. There are books everywhere, all neatly OCDly arranged according to author/genre. She even still has elder sister's Inter Cert text books (complete with I love David Cassidy doodles) but no sign of my Bible - it's all gone. :eek:

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

no sign of my Bible - it's all gone. :eek:

It's not something I'd worry too much about if I were you.

Neutronale

mark renton wrote: »

On christmas day too - can we not have 24 hrs of peace and harmony in respect of baby jesus?

I went to mid-nite mass (which was on at 6:30 :cool: ) and it just struck me that we are celebrating the baby bejeebas - ahhhhhhhh look at the wittol baby - hey but wait a minute, there he is 30 years later dying on a horrendous cross just over his own wittol baby head!!!

WTF - maaaaan only I know god works in mysterious ways - and how - I would think, 'now that, is some fu*ked up sh1t'

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

It's not something I'd worry too much about if I were you.

More amused at the thought that the only book my mother has ever disposed of it the one containing the word of her God.

She kept 4 copies of Peig like....

Bannasidhe

Wasn't sure where to put this...

Decided to put it here on the grounds that it shows that even if us atheists are close minded in comparison to our religious counterparts - at least we are also more compassionate

In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were...

“Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,” said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. “The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.”

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/