Atheism: the antithesis of cynicism

[_Hoops]

Interesting that our friend Buffalo chose the one - the only single one - translation that could be construed that owning slaves was a commandment from God. I searched the top 10, or so, translations and there is only one other that might come close to a command, all the others do not. So his Biblical support is suspect from the outset.

[_Buffalo]

Interesting that our friend Buffalo chose the one - the only single one - translation that could be construed that owning slaves was a commandment from God. I searched the top 10, or so, translations and there is only one other that might come close to a command, all the others do not. So his Biblical support is suspect from the outset.

It's completely irrelevant whether it was commanded or not. The mere fact that it was allowed/encouraged, and slaves were told to not try to change their station is enough. Your religion is pro-slavery, all the way.

Maybe if Greek paganism had won out we'd have been rid of slavery sooner. :)

[_Hoops]

It's completely irrelevant whether it was commanded or not. The mere fact that it was allowed/encouraged, and slaves were told to not try to change their station is enough. Your religion is pro-slavery, all the way.

Maybe if Greek paganism had won out we'd have been rid of slavery sooner. :)

Irrelevant to what? The fact that I asked you to show me where the Bible prescribes slavery? It would seem completely relevant to me.

Of course, I think I misspelled the word so we might have to chalk this one up to the vagaries of internet chats. My apologies for my carelessness.

Nonetheless... it should be obvious, even to you, that God seems to allow a lot of things that are not the ideal. And I doubt you would have it any other way, given the alternative.

[_mentalgymnast]

I simply come away with the not so unreasonable inference that it takes a certain degree of faith to believe in abiogenesis.

I don't think so.

I wouldn't word it that way, however (i.e. "I believe in abiogenesis"). I would say something like, "The first living cell had to form somehow. Given that I don't know how that happened, some process of abiogenesis, at this point, is the best (only?) explanation we have. But I reserve judgment because ultimately, I don't know."

Where is the element of faith in that? You'd have a point, I think, if I said something like, "We don't know how abiogenesis happened, but I'm certain it did... somehow."

I think you're playing semantical chess. If you have a fair degree of trust in the concept of abiogenesis, you are exercising faith. But that's OK, I'm not wanting to start word games here. I'm just saying that when it comes to the origins of life, one must rely upon abiogenesis as being the keystone concept that must be true in order to push a god/creator of human beings on the earth out of the picture. This reliance is just another way of saying that you have to exercise faith. You seem to want to move the chess pieces around anyway that you can to avoid the reality that atheists must rely on faith as they rely on abiogenesis as being the "answer" to how life began.

Regards,
MG

[_Quasimodo]

Maybe if Greek paganism had won out we'd have been rid of slavery sooner. :)

I think the city-state of Sparta's entire economy was based on slavery. Maybe Greek paganism isn't the best example :).

[_Quasimodo]

I think you're playing semantical chess. If you have a fair degree of trust in the concept of abiogenesis, you are exercising faith. But that's OK, I'm not wanting to start word games here. I'm just saying that when it comes to the origins of life, one must rely upon abiogenesis as being the keystone concept that must be true in order to push a god/creator of human beings on the earth out of the picture. This reliance is just another way of saying that you have to exercise faith. You seem to want to move the chess pieces around anyway that you can to avoid the reality that atheists must rely on faith as they rely on abiogenesis as being the "answer" to how life began.

Regards,
MG

I'm butting my nose in here, but I just feel the need to comment.

Faith is not required to find abiogenesis a plausible theory. One doesn't NEED to believe that it's true. It's just the best explanation so far.

The magic of science is that no ideology holds sway. Science is not interested in defending any theorem. It only cares what is true and what is not, no matter where the chips may fall.

If good evidence comes forth that disputes abiogenesis, that will become the leading theory (until a better one comes along).

Faith is only required when someone needs to believe the unprovable.

[_Mad Viking]

I'm just saying that when it comes to the origins of life, one must rely upon abiogenesis as being the keystone concept that must be true in order to push a god/creator of human beings on the earth out of the picture.

You've created a false dichotomy here.

[_Ren]

I'm just saying that when it comes to the origins of life, one must rely upon abiogenesis as being the keystone concept that must be true in order to push a god/creator of human beings on the earth out of the picture.

Proposing the hypothesis of 'abiogenesis' - and actively looking for data to confirm it - doesn't have anything to do with 'pushing a god / creator out of the picture'.
Nothing.

Do you think that if abiogenesis was conclusively, scientifically proven tomorrow, most theists would suddenly 'drop' the belief that God was involved 'somehow'...?!
I'm sure many (if not most) theists would either disbelief the 'proof' itself, or simply claim that all science has done is work out "how God did it". (Just like they do with evolutionary theory...)

Heh - so most theists wouldn't change their mind anyway...
...and atheists would simply be more confirmed in what they already 'knew'.


No - the only reason abiogenesis is proposed as a hypothesis is because it is a natural extrapolation of known data. We have data that clearly maps out the natural development of more complex life forms from less complex ones - going back approx. 4-billion years (give or take a few million...!). Solid evolutionary theory takes us back not just to the first living cell, or even 'relatively' simple RNA-like molecules, but all the way to the simplest self-replicating molecules.

That's it! That's all we need to fit the complete picture...
Or, in other words, the 'possibility' of abiogenesis is one that practically begs to be investigated (by anybody with a vaguely scientific mind, and who isn't a slave to magical thinking...)

Now, while I can understand the desire of theists to point to 'whatever' happened there and say:
"Well, OK - we'll give you 'scientists' the last 4-billion years. But HERE is where you need some real, straight-up God-magic"...

...but well - to speak plainly - some of us have higher standards than that... Sorry...

It's very difficult to know what really happened so far back in time, and so early in the Earth's history. But rather than giving up and resorting to hocus pocus, some of us are going to continue to investigate and see if we can get some solid data on it. We're very close to a naturalistic explanation as it is - not considering the hypothetical 'abiogenesis' event (whatever it might be) on it's own, but when considering it in the context of the 4-billion year development of life on this planet.

If you want to give up through, all power to you.
Oh, and if you want to keep calling that kind of desire to know the 'real truth' faith then, again, go for it.
I find it kind of amusing... :)

[_Buffalo]

It's completely irrelevant whether it was commanded or not. The mere fact that it was allowed/encouraged, and slaves were told to not try to change their station is enough. Your religion is pro-slavery, all the way.

Maybe if Greek paganism had won out we'd have been rid of slavery sooner. :)

Irrelevant to what? The fact that I asked you to show me where the Bible prescribes slavery? It would seem completely relevant to me.

Of course, I think I misspelled the word so we might have to chalk this one up to the vagaries of internet chats. My apologies for my carelessness.

Nonetheless... it should be obvious, even to you, that God seems to allow a lot of things that are not the ideal. And I doubt you would have it any other way, given the alternative.

The fact remains that God DID command the Israelites to take young girls as sex slaves. Hanging on to the fact that in most cases taking slaves was optional doesn't really do much to put your god on good moral footing.

[_Buffalo]

Maybe if Greek paganism had won out we'd have been rid of slavery sooner. :)

I think the city-state of Sparta's entire economy was based on slavery. Maybe Greek paganism isn't the best example :).

Yes, but their slavery wasn't so enshrined in scripture, as it was for the Christians. That's why I said maybe they'd have done away with it sooner.