The Folly of Atheism, part 2

The only thing I would have to say about that is that it seems to me that an analogy might be that one belief by some prior to 1959 was that the moon was made of cheese, while the belief of others was that it was made of "soil", dust, stone, and such rocky material. One belief was fantasy with no scientific justification, and the other was scientifically based. And in that case I would not have found the fantasy to be either believable or rational and so I would have rejected it as unsupportable nonsense off-hand. And I could not have been persuaded to agree that the belief it was made of cheese was equally valid as the belief it was made of dust and sandy debris.

Similarly with religion. I cannot accept the idea that the existence of a god is equally valid as the belief that all there is along those lines is physics and chemistry. One is, to me, a fantasy, while the other is scientifically-based.

And so this does not require an assertion on my part that "it's fact that there is no god" because it isn't an established, provable fact. It's just much more fantastic than science, and so I reject it as being unlikely and steeped in ancient fantasy and myth.

 

Even if that was true, so what? Buddha and Mohammed never wrote a word themselves either, and neither did Elvis as far as I know..
It was their loyal followers who decided to put their words down on paper for posterity, right Elv?
"Uh-huh"

 

The criticisms related to complex compounds (as pointed out in my post) were in the initial study. The experiment was repeated with simpler molecules = far more likely to exist in nature.

The creation of a self replicating molecule under conditions reminiscent of the primordial earth is ... as per the title of the wired article ... "life's first spark".

No one is claiming that there is not a long way to go to get to a single celled organism but, this is a huge step.

Once self replicating molecules are created - the long term process of natural selection/evolution takes over. Mutations during replication create new molecules. Those with higher survival chances then predominate.

The next step is the development of a selective membrane (cell wall). This allows some molecules to pass and keeps others out.

The other factor is an energy source to drive the thermodynamics in the right direction. The most probable location for life to have began is now thought by some to be in the thermal vents for this reason.

Creation of self replicating molecules is evidence for abiogenesis. The whole puzzle has not yet been solved but this is a major piece of it.

Finding part of the puzzle is evidence.

'Getting darn close' does not count, in empirical science. We deal in facts & observable, repeatable, reviewable reality, not imagination & fantasy

 

What does accepting or rejecting Jesus have to do with being a decent person ? And what do you even mean by "rejecting Jesus". Many atheists and non Christians accept the teachings of Jesus - such as the Golden Rule.

If Christians are decent people, why have they rejected Asherah ?

 

Who is "Mark the disciple of Jesus?"

I don't remember a disciple named Mark.

 

Depends on what the "If" is.

Your "assumption" is that if the universe collapses in on itself that this is the end of time.

This is a far bigger assumption than my assumption use of the term "IF" to make a statement of fact - that the universe is interconnected.

Your claim that arguments starting with If - should not be take seriously - is very nonsensical.

It is standard format for many philosophical arguments. Especially in the subdomain of logic.

for example - If A is true and A = B, then B is true.

 

The point was that the author of the Gospel of Mark never met Jesus.

 

LOL you are right , there was no disciple named Mark. That would have been a much simpler to refute the claim that Mark was a disciple of Jesus !

 

I suppose the term, 'disciple' got pretty broad, as the early church expanded. But as far as one of the 12, i don't think there was a 'mark' among them.

The names of the twelve disciples of Jesus are Peter, James (the son of Zebedee), John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James (the son of Alphaeus), Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. source

So no, he wasn't one of the original 12, though i'm sure he was considered a 'disciple'.

Ignatius' contact with the 12 disciples is mostly early church tradition, though there is some fairly contemporary writings at the time that suggested Peter handed the oversight of Antioch to him, & that he hobnobbed with some of the others. Considering the times, the size of the churches, and the way the early apostles travelled about, this is not implausible. But i don't have anything that comes to mind, regarding internal proof of ignatius being pals with John.

The central point of this, even at the time, was to show continuity between the earliest eye witnesses, & the integrity of the message. Heresy was a big problem in the early church, & accuracy was difficult to ascertain, as we might imagine.

- - - Updated - - -

Good point. I hadn't seen your post before i sent mine in..

 

Well that settles the Mark was a fist hand/eyewitness account question.

The reason I asked about the relationship between Ignatius and the Apostle John is because Ignatius was a subordinationist - believed that Jesus was subordinate to God in both nature and being (non-trinitarian).

If one could show that such a relationship existed - this would be a death knell for the modern Trinity concept.

 

Usfan has correctly noted that you strive for "gotchas."

Also, it's all too convenient to spout an impressive listing of the position of science on controversial issues as part of a convincing argument in opposition or denial of contrary claims. This tactic of using such solid reasoning, authoritative backing, and apparent validity seems to achieve justified dismissal and termination of contention.

Often enough this tactic doesn't stand up to the test of time. Scientific progress is a process of ups and downs. A substantial amount of what gives the boasters and naysayers of science something to crow about for years on end suddenly gets turned upside down. Sometimes the switch has its origin in orthodoxy, but often enough it starts in the fringes.

QM is exemplary of the process. For 90 years the popular understanding of the basis of physical reality was dead wrong and largely still is. Only a fringe nut would dare insist that an entangled molecule doing a wink would result in its entangled counterpart doing a wonk despite a million or more miles physical separation between them.

Eventually much of the "known" does become "known for certain," but there is also much of the presumed "known" that isn't known for certain. The fringe pushes against orthodoxy until one side wins and the other side loses. When the fringe loses, well, it was just fringe stuff anyway. When the orthodoxy loses, the shame, disgrace, and excuses may be quickly forgotten but also quickly forgotten is that the correct fact had its origin in the fringe domain, not in orthodoxy but in the lahlah land that incurs the prior wrath of indignation.

What seems to be of high importance to you is insistence that I rely largely on fringe source, and that therefore what I have offered and/or claimed warrants dismissal and rejection or at least not serious consideration. I haven't yet gone back for comparison and made a tally of my usage of other sources or even tallied my use of credible logic tainted or untainted by said fringe type, but your emphasis seems to be towards successful discrediting of my efforts, not towards assessing plausibility of statements.

When confronted with facts or statements that you can't refute, you prefer to vacillate, stretch, grasp at straws, and manipulate in order to derail and derate your contender. Your willingness to resort to such tactics, sometimes using a blatant and/or trivial absurdity is amazing. Although in this thread and elsewhere there are examples where you tackle issues straight on, staying consistent with face values, you seldom stay in that saddle very long when the going gets too tough, resorting to flawed and devious tactics. It's as if you need regular debate wins as booster shots to keep your fragile status from sinking if left too long unattended. I could be wrong about you if you're just trying to see how far you can push people until they get very frustrated and react in an unsavory manner.

There are those among us who can no longer ignore the signs of disturbance that we are encountering when interacting with you. I apologize for having to point out your performance inconsistencies that you have made obvious, especially since all of the rest of us are also imperfect else we would rate high enough to be assigned to our next Jesus mission out of here.

Most of us have had long lasting exposure to a human environment during our formative years that was far from ideal and have been subject to imprinting of some undesirable patterns that were counterproductive, harmful, illogical, or simply disadvantageous. Many of us manage to debug or successfully sublimate troublesome aspects in our programming as we develop and mature, but it is acknowledged that such adaptability stems from a fair amount of luck and a sufficiently stable and supportive home scene. I encourage you to think about what makes you tick and how you got that way. If your questionable tendencies exhibited in this thread are not misleading me, I would suspect that you are aware of their hindering effect on readily gaining and maintaining comfortable acceptance and tolerance by others. Others are obligated to do all they can to make allowances for anybody who has a handicap, but their consideration doesn't go very far if they suspect inexcusable intransigence.

I am not walking off the job at this point if I can avoid doing so. I will have to address your typically oblique responses if diversion to this activity does not put too much of a dent in keeping my present burdens under proper control.

 

1- Good for you mate, keep it up and you'll make Archbishop..
2- Asherah? Never heard of him but the name rings a bell, was he in a 60's pop group?

 

Prove it..

 

Excuse me for letting your Elvis get me all nostalgic into a bit of reverie, but you triggered a blast from the past in which he goes "Uh-uh-huh, uh-uh-Huh, Oh yeah."

My late GF included his name along with Robert Redford's when she said "He can leave his shoes under my bed anytime." Upon hearing her say that, I was a bit surprised realizing that my shoes were so subject to displacement by those of the handsome fame league, but honor and envy run deep. God may or may not play dice, but He kept my faith in "Thou shalt not covet somebody else's divorcee."

 

Asherah is the consort of the God of Abraham

 

LOL ... Prove that the moon around Pluto is not made of Green cheese or that the Gospel of Mark was not written by Satan.

You are a funny fellow.

I already gave the best information that exists ... What Papias had to say visa vie Eusebius:

 

Thanks mate, I'd got him mixed up with Peter Asher (the one in glasses) in the 60's duo 'Peter and Gordon'..

[video=youtube;v_lJPUKTchI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_lJPUKTchI[/video]

 

Ah yes, I remember the great Eusebio..

[video=youtube;pfwBnweMBZI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfwBnweMBZI&t=28s[/video]

 

Thats funny .... Asherah is the Queen of Heaven ..

 

The fact that the entire mrchanism for abiogenesis has not yet been discovered provides no evidence for the existance of a god.

- - - Updated - - -

Some may have also rejected Santa and the Easter Bunny. How dare they!

 

The proper third choice is that "y" is either zero or one. And "x" is the number of gods that have been worshipped by man.

 

Many Athiests and non Christians accept the Golden rule because the " Golden Rule" was around long before Jesus and has existed in different forms in many if not most religions. Unfortunatly the rule has been actually interpreted by many Christians as " Treat other Christians as you would have others treat you""

 

I've always thought it interesting that it has two forms...positive and negative.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto to you.

There's plenty of space between those two.

You are correct, though, CJ...the "rule" predates Jesus by lots and lots of time.

 

Your point? I have not made that argument. I am rebutting that abiogenesis has some kind of scientific validity, & has 'proved!' a naturalistic explanation of origins.

 

I have snipped this excerpt to highlight it. Other wise men & women have said similar things over the years. This is an excellent observation about the formation & growth of the human knowledge base.



The dogmatism of today becomes the butt of jokes tomorrow. So be careful what you declare dogmatically.. you may have to eat those words, later.