|
|
#11
05-20-2013, 06:05 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 | |||
|
|
||||
|
#12
05-20-2013, 06:05 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#13
05-20-2013, 06:10 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#14
05-20-2013, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
the big bang is actually proof of SUPERNATURAL FORCES since it violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics (retard atheist scientists say it couldn't technically violate it because nothing existed yet you kno)
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#15
05-20-2013, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
Speaking of Atheist, here is what I thought was a good read.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/arti...lieves-in-god/ Famous Atheist Now Believes in God One of World’s Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence Dec. 9, 2004 - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives. “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.” Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article “Theology and Falsification,” based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis. Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,” Flew says in the new video, “Has Science Discovered God?” The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese’s Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. The first hint of Flew’s turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine. “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,” he wrote. The letter commended arguments in Schroeder’s “The Hidden Face of God” and “The Wonder of the World” by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman. This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his “God and Philosophy,” scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press. Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well “that’s too bad,” Flew said. “My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a “minimal God” and believes in no afterlife. Flew’s “name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up,” Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew’s reversal, “apart from curiosity, I don’t think it’s like a big deal.” Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American “intelligent design” theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life. A Methodist minister’s son, Flew became an atheist at 15. Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all. Another landmark was his 1984 “The Presumption of Atheism,” playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#16
05-20-2013, 06:43 PM
|
||||
|
It's everyone's favorite pastime-- arguing about religion on the internet! en garde
[QUOTE=Eliseus;964134] People really assume that this was random? That somehow all the stars aligned in the universe at precisely the perfect moment to somehow allow man and woman to be made, not only that but this random act also created an even more random act of allowing man/woman to reproduce with each other? Now of course this doesn't necessarily say that the "God" that is believed in exists, and like he mentions may be "dead", but, either God does exist or a higher power definitely exists in some for somewhere that created what we know./QUOTE] How is the notion of biological complexity needing to be 'created' any less absurd than billions of years of stellar and biochemical evolution? If you believe we had to have been created, then who created the creator? If you say he always existed, or created himself, then why not save a step and apply the same freewheeling principles to primordial humanity? Quote:
The principles of biological evolution and their role in the formation of humanity, however, are objective fact. We are similar to birds because we share a common ancestor. We didn't evolve from monkeys, but we do share a common ancestor with monkeys. These things are not debatable. If you refuse to accept them at this point, you're just opting for ignorance. There's one important consideration: It's not just that you believe in God and Christ, you also believe in God and Christ's 'teachings'. You live your life a certain way based on faith, and you expect others to do the same. If you want me to walk into church on sundays and worship a God, then the burden of evidence is on you to prove to me that God exists. Creationism is a joke. I don't find faith compelling. You have no compelling evidence. And scientists aren't asking you to live your life a certain way, so they don't need to prove anything. Their claims are by necessity grounded in fact. If something has poor support, it isn't accepted. If you can find substantial evidence for your claims, my mind is open! Until then, you can keep your backwards fucking superstition out of my schools and politics kkthx. "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan | |||
|
|
||||
|
#17
05-20-2013, 06:48 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 | |||
|
|
||||
|
#19
05-20-2013, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
It does require more FAITH to be an atheist.
| ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
