Posts
6269
Joined
7/15/2007
Location
Piqua, OH
US
Edited Date/Time
1/26/2012 2:45pm
[img:3camrats]http://cdn.harpercollins.com/harperimages/isbn/large/7/9780061335297.jp…]
"British philosopher Flew has long been something of an evangelist for atheism, debating theologians and pastors in front of enormous crowds. In 2004, breathless news reports announced that the nonagenarian had changed his mind. This book tells why. Ironically, his arguments about the absurdity of God-talk launched a revival of philosophical theists, some of whom, like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, were important in Flew's recent conversion to theism. Breakthroughs in science, especially cosmology, also played a part: if the speed or mass of the electron were off just a little, no life could have evolved on this planet. Perhaps the arrogance of the New Atheists also emboldened him, as Flew taunts them for failing to live up to the greatness of atheists of yore. The book concludes with an appendix by New Testament scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright, arguing for the coherence of Christian belief in the resurrection. Flew praises Wright, though he maintains some distance still from orthodox Christianity. The book will be most avidly embraced by traditional theists seeking argumentative ammunition. It sometimes disappoints: quoting other authorities at length, citing religion-friendly scientists for pages at a time and belaboring side issues, like the claim that Einstein was really a religious believer of sorts."
[img:3camrats]http://rationalvedanta.net/files/antony-flew-1-sized.jpg[/img:3camrats]
submited by olger
"British philosopher Flew has long been something of an evangelist for atheism, debating theologians and pastors in front of enormous crowds. In 2004, breathless news reports announced that the nonagenarian had changed his mind. This book tells why. Ironically, his arguments about the absurdity of God-talk launched a revival of philosophical theists, some of whom, like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, were important in Flew's recent conversion to theism. Breakthroughs in science, especially cosmology, also played a part: if the speed or mass of the electron were off just a little, no life could have evolved on this planet. Perhaps the arrogance of the New Atheists also emboldened him, as Flew taunts them for failing to live up to the greatness of atheists of yore. The book concludes with an appendix by New Testament scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright, arguing for the coherence of Christian belief in the resurrection. Flew praises Wright, though he maintains some distance still from orthodox Christianity. The book will be most avidly embraced by traditional theists seeking argumentative ammunition. It sometimes disappoints: quoting other authorities at length, citing religion-friendly scientists for pages at a time and belaboring side issues, like the claim that Einstein was really a religious believer of sorts."
[img:3camrats]http://rationalvedanta.net/files/antony-flew-1-sized.jpg[/img:3camrats]
submited by olger
Hey Ger, you never answered my PM.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
Hey Ger, you never answered my PM.[/quote:w9codtn2]
So faith in a system completely man-made that takes 'faith' as much as a religion is sane? Still believing in things that you don't know if they're right or wrong...
Just how it's packaged and sold to you that's different.
That's your MO.......
I never understand why people have to try to prove to others that God exists. I believe he does. Whether my neighbor believes or not doesn't change whether he exists or not.
So faith in a system completely man-made that takes 'faith' as much as a religion is sane? Still believing in things that you don't know if they're right or wrong...
Just how it's packaged and sold to you that's different.[/quote:1n2pfvb4]
If you're referring to science (which you probably are), you're dead wrong. The scientific method provides a level of measurable proof that's far, far beyond any quantitative support for a god.
Let's not go around this tree again...the result is the same...denial of the truth by the religious.
So faith in a system completely man-made that takes 'faith' as much as a religion is sane? Still believing in things that you don't know if they're right or wrong...
Just how it's packaged and sold to you that's different.[/quote:10706tky]
If you're referring to science (which you probably are), you're dead wrong. The scientific method provides a level of measurable proof that's far, far beyond any quantitative support for a god.
Let's not go around this tree again...the result is the same...denial of the truth by the religious.[/quote:10706tky]
magic versus testable and repeatable results? You just don't understand philosophy.
So faith in a system completely man-made that takes 'faith' as much as a religion is sane? Still believing in things that you don't know if they're right or wrong...
Just how it's packaged and sold to you that's different.[/quote:2dqvl7a0]
If you're referring to science (which you probably are), you're dead wrong. The scientific method provides a level of measurable proof that's far, far beyond any quantitative support for a god.
Let's not go around this tree again...the result is the same...denial of the truth by the religious.[/quote:2dqvl7a0]
evidence of a creator is everywhere....your eyes are just welded shut!
You forgot to exclude me sweetheart.
There's enough preachy agnostic/atheist types posting here already ....
My eyes are wide open.
Show me some 'evidence'. I prefer the kind of evidence that will stand up in court, and not the stupid shit that creationists usually trot out.
[/quote:wbvndz83]Your arogance shows, thinking that somehow that todays humans have the ability to prove and demonstrate everything in the natural world around us.
evidence of a creator is everywhere....your eyes are just welded shut![/quote:2tmkt8l5]
I'll agree that there is the possibility of a creator. After all, the theory of evolution still has some holes in it. So, logically, I must allow other possibilities, and a creator(s) is one.
However, I can say confidently that the Christians sure as heck don't have it right. That much is already proven.
A creator(s)? Sure. Entirely possible, even if evolution is right.
Christianity's God? Not even close.
Pit Row
how do you know that is not exactly what happened ?
how do you know that is not exactly what happened ?[/quote:jgxdbipg]
Could be. But if you can't tell me where the starting point is then you can not conclusively say that this isn't all from intelligent design.
I think that's a good statement. The problem is those that take a fundementalist view of the Bible and reject what the study finds. I don't know if God exists but I'm pretty sure most of those that claim to worship him are real confused as to how he operates.
Didn't like my answer huh Ger. Well it was late and I was feeling sarcastic. How about this one. The article is correct in one aspect, the Aethist Movement is arrogant, every bit as arrogant as the Christian one or any other religion. They claim to be able disprove the unproveable and try to impose their beliefs on others. Just like religions. O'Hare and her like tried to make a religion out of being an Aethist which was ludicrous. The fact that a rigid, dogmatic individual would switch sides completely is no real surprise. People like them crave attention and when one avenue gets thin they often have a "new revelation".
Then there's what Blckhwke said. He was getting old. His rigid view of the world left him little choice. Pascal's wager kick's in. I have no idea what I would do if I get to see my end coming with any accuracy. Will I get weak and try to cover my bases? Don't know. But the term "grasping at straws" evolks the image of a drowning man grabbing at anything, no matter how unsubstantial or the likelihood of it having any impact.
That better?
how do you know that is not exactly what happened ?[/quote:1mrwvxu8]
thats how evolution explains the creation of everything!
.......and the Bible explains it as if God waved a magic wand and created everything. Which one is more believable?[/quote:1o3eb0ik]Just think that modern science was way beyond the grasp of man over 2000 years ago. Man wrote what he knew at the time, what he understood. But the bible is just as believable as anyone who says that all of this just happened because it the stars lined up.
[quote:17bas2gi]="2-smoke"
.......and the Bible explains it as if God waved a magic wand and created everything. Which one is more believable?[/quote:17bas2gi]
no the bible says god created all things....no differant than the house you are sitting in got built!
ALL things are made out of 3 things....protons, neutrons and electrons!
evolution/science/big bang teaches all things came from nothing, exploded and became what you see today! organisation/life from an explosion......how do salmon know the whole process of fresh water to salt water back to fresh water, the female lays her eggs in the rocks and the male comes over and squirts sperm on the eggs in the water and then to die after giving birth?
evolution/science/big bang teaches all things came from nothing, exploded and became what you see today! [/quote:3c3iu2ou]
no they dont claim any such thing .
evolution/science/big bang teaches all things came from nothing, exploded and became what you see today! [/quote:3nxwo6kn]
no they dont claim any such thing .[/quote:3nxwo6kn]
ummm yes they do and it has been posted adnauseum!
[quote:3mdgjvcm]Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: [b:3mdgjvcm]humans and oak trees[/b:3mdgjvcm], [b:3mdgjvcm]hummingbirds and whales[/b:3mdgjvcm].[/quote:3mdgjvcm]
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_02
Post a reply to: This should bring the Nurd out..