The atheist who changed his mind
posted at 12:48 pm on November 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
I’m technically on vacation but wanted to flag this profile of British philosopher Antony Flew in today’s NYT. A Christian friend mentioned him to me last year as evidence of the turning tide in the debate between believers and nonbelievers: a leading intellectual light among atheists for decades, he declared himself a deist in his old age. The occasion for the profile is his new book, “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.” Times contributor Mark Oppenheimer wanted to find out how someone so entrenched on one side of the divide came to migrate intellectually to the other (a phenomenon that goes both ways, incidentally). He settles on two contributing factors, the first being that Flew, by temperament, was never the sort of bomb-throwing polemicist in the Hitchens mold that so many atheists seem to be. Without that element of intellectual bloodsport compelling him towards loyalty to his own side, he was able to follow the evidence wherever it took him. Which is to say, he wasn’t much “entrenched.”
I’ll leave you to read the piece to find out what the other contributing factor was. Suffice it to say, it calls into question whether, and to what extent, Flew was able to follow the evidence at all, culminating in a gripping scene in his living room between Oppenheimer and the man himself plus a few choice quotes from Flew’s editor which suggest he may be being used — with his publisher’s knowledge — as a sort of ventriloquist’s dummy. The piece begins with Flew’s famous paper on the impossibility of proving God’s existence and ends, ironically, with the impossibility of even proving what Antony Flew thinks about God now. Read it all.
Update: I’m not having any trouble loading the page but others are. Try this if the links above don’t work.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Good point.
So it appears that you are a deist or an agnostic. So you
reject the disenchanted version of atheism. Or so it appears.
Maybe in the future we can have a fuller, more complete dialogue on the alleged “errors of the Bible”, or imprecatory Psalms, etc
Our current discussion may come to an end because I assume that we have differences on what the Psalmist here is saying. Which means that our differences stem from hermeneutical differences over what the Biblical text is saying, and not essentially philosophically, since you reject the full-blown version of atheism.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I will take your advice.
Due to time committments, maybe Tuesday or Wednesday.
I just see the difficulty of doing careful examination of the Psalms when I personally lack the hermeneutical, syntactical, linguistic tools to do so. I just try to cite authorities in their own fields who can shed light on the topic more clearly and accurately.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 11:27 AM
By prostitute story I mean the “let he who has sinned cast the first stone. It wasn’t in the originals. Who wrote it? Why? When? What else was changed? deleted? added?
Why would that God allow men to change his inspired word and then require his followers to rely on those very words for their ticket to heaven?
frreal on November 5, 2007 at 11:28 AM
No, evolution’s supporters CLAIM that it’s supported by the evidence, etc. but that doesn’t make it so. Global warmists say the same thing about their “science”. Peak Oil “science” has been making the same type of claims for the past 2 centuries. etc. etc. Because a scientist says it, doesn’t make it science. Often, it just makes it profitable.
It goes even further than that Jaibones. Even if (And that’s a HUGE if, despite all this “we’re on the verge” talk) scientists create life in the lab, it’s still not evidence for evolution. It’s years of MEN struggling with all of their billions in equipment and training and their intelligence to create the simplist of life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design. It’s not evidence that “once upon a time” (which is how most evolution fairytales should begin, especially since they’re regularly proven to be fiction when actual data rolls in) nothing exploded in to everything, then it rained on some rocks and an impossible amount of things (again, that came from nothing) came together in the exact right way, at the exact time necessary, under the exact conditions… again, without ANY help, strictly by coincidence.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Since the question of, “are there errors in the Bible” is a different topic,
allow me to recommend this helpful book for our future discussion.
This one was also helpful.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Coltsfan I would love to hear your apologetic for Psalm 137:8-9.
frreal on November 5, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Those are good questions.
I would like to provide some rational responses. But I am getting ready for work here shortly.
But frreal, thank you very much for our current discussion.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 11:38 AM
In the future I would like to address that very good question. I am trying to set up my own website that will allow discussion of questions that originate at HotAir.com.
ColtsFan on November 5, 2007 at 11:40 AM
If we agree that evolution provides valuable assumptions,that have been supported by evidence, about the development of complex life from simple life forms over the course of millions of years, then I think that is not trivial.
If you are talking about chemical reactions of inorganic materials in some type of primordial soup or whether from a conceptual standpoint conscious human beings can result from randomness, that is different than what I was thinking about and things like the fossil record or platetectonics are not so useful.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Pathetic.
Speakup on November 5, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I’m not really following the global warming thing, so I can’t comment beyond the fact that here in the NYC area you can pretty much rely on having warm outdoor weather until Christmas. Now it seems like the ski season starts later every year and there is more man-made snow then before. But, I’m not advancing an argument regarding man-made global warming.
Since natural selection was proposed about 150 years ago there have been additions to the fossil record and developments in genetics that Darwin couldn’t have known about yet still support his theory.
If ID were to advance a scientific theory that had the predictive power for biologists that evolution has had, then they would be adding to the accumulation of scientific knowledge.
Claims are fine, but only ones that can be tested by empirical evidence are useful to scientists.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Again, this just isn’t true.. it’s just what we’re told. Look at all the hype every time some “scientist” wants his name in the paper and “sees signs of liquid water on Mars” which quickly becomes “signs of extraterrestrial life”… We usually get a few days to a week of front page drudge stories and headlines on all news shows… only these are all debunked shortly after without any media coverage of the debunking.
At any rate, the evidence almost never supports evolution.. until “scientists” have taken it apart and adjusted the theory to MAKE IT FIT.
And they constantly do things like finding fossil evidence that an ability of physical feature was present in a particular animal “hundreds of millions of years” earlier than though. Or that an exact species existed “hundreds of millions of years earlier, than previously thought.” The initial assumptions about when these things could have happened or lived are part of an overall assumption of the theory of evolution. When actual study pushes back and throws these aspects of the theory out the window, instead of just reporting the facts and possibly saying “our assumptions were wrong”… They always throw these obnoxious “Praise Darwin” lines in there to the effect of “must have evolved earlier” or “evolved much quicker”, etc. etc. My point being that nothing in the data suggested evolution at all, it only disproved previous evolution based assumptions. But because of evolution dogma, it doesn’t even cross the mind of a “scientist” just how stupid it sounds to assert that lack of evidence for evolution is still somehow evidence for evolution.
By the way, you totally sidestepped my point about global warming. The “man made global warmists” tell us that “the science is in”, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. So your whole “because scientists say so” line doesn’t wash. Until a couple months ago the “settled science” said that most of the hottest years on record in the US were over the past decade… now we know that most were in the 1930s.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Nope. We don’t see any flames or smoke, so we assume, that, minus any real evidence, the house is not on fire.
You, on the other hand, insist on shouting “fire”, and then trying to sell tickets to a non-existent door. And then use this imaginary door as evidence of the imaginary door owner’s benevolence.
Kristopher on November 5, 2007 at 12:35 PM
btw dedalus, if you need an example of what I’m talking about the age of the first known jellyfish showing up in the “fossil record” was just pushed back by 205 MILLION YEARS.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200711.htm#20071102a
Here’s the best part:
Um, no, it doesn’t suggest anything about evolution, unless you hold your evolution views religiously and can’t let them go to simply allow the evidence to speak for itself.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM
What’s so pathetic about it? Childhood cancer is god’s plan for some children! Clearly he loves those children. God is in control.
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 12:39 PM
My point is that claiming such evidence being falsifiable makes it sacrosanct is a bogus claim. Against the “logic” that biogenesis and macroevolution are impossibly improbable which “proves” supernatural agency falsification is a non issue.
Can life happen by chance? We will know soon because if a single cell lifeform can be assempbed in a lab then it can happen by chance. Argument against based on probability might be stubborn but the simple fact is that if it can happen the odds are that it does happen.
Any particualr powerball ticket has a very small chance of winning. The odds are pretty good that some powerball ticket will win. You can’t use the improbability of the former to discredit the probability of the latter.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Even better, god destroys life both inside and outside of the lab. Terminal leukemia in a three year old little girl is one of many ways he does it. And that, to me, is evidence that god loves us and has a plan for us.
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 12:41 PM
That’s not accurate at all. It’s the old tornado through a junkyard. You just ain’t gonna get a 747.
As for Powerball, you do realize that quite often, no one wins… which is why the jackpot gets built up. And your original ticket is no good after each drawing.
But back to what intelligent beings creating life in the lab would prove, as I said earlier:
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 12:45 PM
STFU, douche. You and your type are the reason folks don’t waste their time in these threads anymore.
BTW, if you have an honest bone remaining in your body… look at what you excerpted from my comment, and then look at your reply. Your reply has NOTHING to do with anything I said. You’re just a God hating SOB. I don’t know why, maybe you were molested by a priest, but YOU are the one with a serious issue here. You’re obsessed with being a troll and trying to start a flame war with your obnoxious little comments. You’re, as someone else stated earlier, pathetic.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 12:49 PM
That adaptation exists via natural selection or selective breeding is not in question.
Whether life could happen by chance and evolve from there is legitimate scientific inquiry. It happens to show up in SETI probability calculations. There is nothing about the ID premise that precludes actual scientific inquiry.
BS claims to the contrary and the falsification argument are ironic because they are “faith based science”.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Even if you could disprove Evolution, that would not prove Creationism.
ronsfi on November 5, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Which is why I wrote: “The odds are pretty good that some powerball ticket will win.”
The molecular enzymes they use to copy DNA for testing are not comparable to a 747. It is only necessary for a simple system to happen by chance. IOW the biological equivalent of a Turing machine, not the equivalent of a Cray supercomputer.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 12:58 PM
I did sidestep global warming since I haven’t read enough about it. I suspect that a lot of science is based on grabbing headlines and getting grants, so I don’t immediately believe everything I hear from someone in a white lab coat.
That is really a point in favor of evolution. Since it is constantly tested and adjusted based on findings it is a more reliable model than ID which remains unchanged regardless of new scientific findings. When you can always revert to a Deus ex Machina then almost anything can be explained.
If evidence disproves evolution as evidence disproved the Ptolemaic view, then evolution will be disgarded.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Don’t be obtuse. Either life happened by chance and evolved from there or it had help from “above”.
You want to claim some detail of current evolution theory could be faslified or that the Christian version of creation is less probable than some other does not address the question.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Clearly you should work at a children’s hospital so you can convince the parents of terminally ill children that God is killing their children because he loves them.
If God is omnipotent and just, why do the innocent suffer?
Speakup on November 5, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Sorry I just don’t see the point of even having a “Creation” if God is just going to manage every aspect of life. Just have everybody appear in heaven directly and be done with it.
That kind of argument always sounds like crybaby logic. God went and made me now He is supposed to take care of me me me! Wah Wah Wah life sucks and it’s all His fault!
boris on November 5, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Then god is not omnipotent?
Speakup on November 5, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Just so you know I’m not afraid of dying and my life is my own so don’t call my a pussy ever again.
Speakup on November 5, 2007 at 1:14 PM
I’m partial to the Giant Turtle Theory.
ronsfi on November 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM
It’s turtles all the way down.
I like turtles.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 1:20 PM
For your edification..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
ronsfi on November 5, 2007 at 1:25 PM
“Christian love” strikes again! Obviously you love and forgive me, and I appreciate that. Glory!
What’s wrong with preventing people from wasting time?
That’s because what I was talking about (the slow and painful death of children which is in a loving god’s plan) is much more important than evolution. Why would you disagree with that?
And you’re a Christian who is just filled to the brim with “Christian love” and “Christian forgiveness”.
If I was, then that would have been god’s plan for me, and you and I would have thanked god for having a plan for me.
I think children with cancer have a “serious issue”. I wonder why you would disagree with that, too. (Maybe because it’s part of god’s plan?)
And yet you have nothing, absolutely nothing to say about all the children dying slowly and painfully as your god has planned. Praise Jesus!
But I am getting your wonderful attention despite my patheticness. Welcome to the loser’s club! I suppose it’s better being a pathetic loser than dying of cancer, but perhaps god doesn’t love me enough to have that kind of plan for me.
Isn’t it awesome being a Christian and not having to answer why your god who is “in control” and who “loves us” would allow young, innocent children to die slowly and painfully?
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 1:37 PM
That’s exactly the point, you can’t disprove something, when it’s constantly changed so that it’s proponents can say “false alarms, we managed to figure out a way to make it work still”, even though the data didn’t lead them to the adjustments to the theory… the data required that they do so to hold on to the theory or abandon it. You people always talk about disproving evolution, but the fact is, aspects of it are disproven on a daily basis, but “scientists” hold on to it so religiously that they’ll just shift a few things around to keep evolution alive.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Not having to answer has nothing to do with it, which is why we’ve called you pathetic. You’re clearly a deranged hateful SOB, so why waste time getting in to a serious discussion with you on it? You start out with insults and hyperbole, and expressing your clear hatred for Christianity. Seriously, you need to grow up, you’ve got a serious problem.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Because god can’t be both omnipotent and loving. Christian children who die of cancer proves that.
You’ll hear lots of retarded excuses from Christians when they’re faced with that face. One Christian on this very message board once wrote that Christian children who die of cancer must have done something to deserve it!
You and I are on the same side. I apologize that you couldn’t detect my sarcasm.
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Boris:
“but science is approaching the point where a functioning living cell can be constructed from non-living chemicals.”
False.
The latest I have seen on this front is using an existing life form to change DNA. A FAR cry from abiogenesis.
If you have more info please share, but the creation of even a simple E.Coli bacterium from raw materials hasn’t even remotely close to happening.
DavidM on November 5, 2007 at 1:46 PM
As much of a worthless piece of garbage you are Loundry, I do have to point out, in hopes that you’ll recognize how truly pathetic you are, that you keep obsessing over “God’s plan”, as if this is something I have said here. Again, you have your own issues to work out with your parents or whoever soured you, but sarcastically repeating “God’s plan! God’s plan!” is pointless, when talking to me. Again, grow up.
As for dumb sh** like this:
Are you insane… or just some dishonest liberal? Your only other option is retarded, because NO ONE could have taken anything from my comment and said that I “disagree” that a child with cancer has a serious issue. Me pointing out that you have a serious issue doesn’t mean I don’t think a kid with cancer has a serious issue, moron. Of course you know this, but once more, your hatred for Christianity forces you to reply to things I never said, so that you have an outlet to express your hatred for Christianity, while pretending you’re actually replying.
I busted you for that once, but you’re continuing your trolling ways. Again, you need to look in the mirror pal, you’re deranged. And I honestly mean that, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that you woke up tomorrow and went on a shooting spree, you’re just that off the wall.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Sure. “Where is everybody?” Based on the size of the universe some intelligent life should be contacting us. Questions about the origins of life are worthwhile questions, and it certainly could be “turtles all the way down” or we might be some incidental lab experiment or computer simulation within another universe. Fascinating questions, but they don’t turn ID from a premise into a sceintific theory.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 1:48 PM
It has everything to do with it. How can your god be both omnipotent and loving if children die of cancer? Can’t your god live up to your claims? He seems to fall far short of the advertisement. In fact, he seems to suck at taking care of people’s problems.
No, you called me pathetic because you “love” me and “forgive” me. Calling me names and putting me down is a hallmark of “Christian love”, so I feel very “loved” by you at this moment.
Good question! Perhaps you should ask yourself that? Pondering that question would be a good time-waster while you’re not answering why your god’s plan includes poor, innocent children dying slowly and painfully.
As far as insults and hyperbole go, please remove the plank from your own eye before asking me to remove the splinter from mine.
And my hatred of Christianity? Guilty as charged! Would you like to know why I loathe it so much? I’m completely comfortable listing all of the harmful and negative aspects that are inherent to your faith. I enjoy talking about that.
It’s a good thing god didn’t plan for me to die of cancer when I was a child, because I now have the opportunity to grow up. Should I thank god for that? (Yes/No)
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 1:48 PM
You love me! You really do!
I am now convinced to accept Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior and have a personal relationship with him.
Will you pray with me?
Wait a minute … are you saying that god does NOT have a plan for us?
Considering that I didn’t die of cancer, I think I will take your advice and choose to grow up. I’m glad that I have the opportunity to do so!
Nah, I prefer Christians to liberals. You’re not *that* bad.
I can’t believe you caved! You’re supposed to *ignore* childhood cancer and continue to act like *I’m* the problem! Bad apologist! No cookie!
I agree: my hatred for Christianity truly inspires me to point out its many glaring shortcomings. I understand why that pisses you off.
Only because you make it so fun and so easy. Remember: it takes two to tango.
That said, it really is hard for me to feel like the bad guy here since your god has the opportunity and the ability to end child rape and childhood cancer …
… and yet he steadfastly refuses to do so. He’s quite obstinate about it. Pray all you want, but those prayers will be in vain and you know it.
Such a thing would make me a much more compelling target for “Christian love”, so I completely understand your fervent eagerness to cast me in that light.
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I knew that had to be that little ray sunshine RW. He likes to call people douches, That someone could state
“STFU, douche.” and then “you need to grow up, you’ve got a serious problem” must create a deafening cognitive dissonance sufficient to keep one up at night. The feminine hygene fixation is disturbing as well.
ronsfi on November 5, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Horse crap what do you think omnipotent means?
Speakup on November 5, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Allah, in case you still weren’t clear on why folks on the “believers” side of this thing don’t waste their time around these threads anymore, you needn’t look any further than ronsfi and Loundry… I suppose MB4 would be pissed if he were left out though too.
Again, grow up Loundry. The problem is, you don’t come in with serious inquiry, you start out launching your hatred and sarcasm because you don’t want an answer because you’re a militant atheist, and you are attempting to paint me (as you militant atheists are known to do) as all of the things you hate about this Christian you’ve built up in your mind. You’ll notice the reason I’m not biting, is because, as always, I didn’t come here and preach or cite bible verses… it has nothing to do with anything I’ve been arguing, so I’m not going to engage you in your… ugh, f*** it, I’ve wasted too much time with you.
Other, slightly more stable atheists out there, you see why we don’t want to discuss things with you? Because it’s the nut jobs that inevitably take over. They have nothing of substance to contribute, so they stomp their feet and scream until you pay attention to them.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM
We do not want churches because they will teach us to quarrel about God…
- Chief Joseph, Nez Perce
sonnyspats1 on November 5, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Wow! what a great quote! I’d never heard that one before. Thanks!
ronsfi on November 5, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Oh BS. I wrote: “Whether life could happen by chance and evolve from there is legitimate scientific inquiry.”
Science is not restricted to determining a particular answer. Research is often directed at evaluating more than one possible hypothesis. If an advocate for ID does valid research on the “happen by chance” probabilities that is no less scientific than if a SETI researcher performs the same calculations. If you really think otherwise your understanding of science is deficient.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Perhaps you don’t understand the details.
They’re starting with the hard part. Why waste time reconstructing all the easy stuff? If they get he hard part to work expect the whole thing or a reasonable explanation why proving the hard problem makes the easy stuff irrelevant.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 3:07 PM
If I want to demonstrate the feasibility of a new emission free auto engine, I put the prototype into an existing car to show its performance. I don’t have to build an entire auto from scratch just to prove the point.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 3:11 PM
My postings in this thread have asserted that ID is not a scientific theory while evolution is.
If you believe that ID is as worthy of investigation as SETI I probably wouldn’t argue with you.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Have been mostly BS and word games.
Science does not have to be part of some theory to be valid. There is no value to the falsify criterion in the choice between “life happened by chance” or “it had help”.
You can try to claim that “it had help” is not a scientific theory therefore the only science is “life happened by chance”. You would be wrong. Even pointing out that eliminates the only falsify option did no good. You don’t get the point.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Are you admitting that I’ve humbled Christians into silence? Be still my heart! Turning fervent and flaming Christians into timid and lukewarm Christians is one of my noble goals. I feel complimented.
I already told you: I will because I have the opportunity to to do so.
Asking why an allegedly omnipotent and loving god fails to end something like childhood cancer is a very serious inquiry. I notice you make no attempt at all to answer this question. It seems to be radioactive to your faith.
If I advocate for atheism, then I’m a “militant atheist”. If you advocate for faith, then you’re “standing up for what you believe in”. I get it! I should just convert to Christianity immediately so I don’t have to live under the horrible burden of your slurs.
I think you’re doing an excellent job of painting yourself and I feel no obligation to contribute.
You’re not?? You seem to be answering me reliably and predictably. I suppose what you’re doing must be an example of “Christan not biting” to go along with your “Christian love” and “Christian forgiveness”.
It sure took you a lot of engaging me to finally come to the decision that you weren’t going to engage me. What was it? My steadfast refusal to let you off the hook? My insistence that you answer for your god’s failure to live up to your claims about him?
You kiss your mother with that mouth? You are, by far, one of the foulest-mouthed Christians I’ve ever had the honor of embarrassing. Do you think cursing at me brought you closer to Christ? I do hope so, because I can assure you that it had no such effect upon me.
I believe it’s because atheists have a penchant at schooling you so elegantly in matters such as debate, civility, and Biblical studies. What is “spiritual warfare” for you is a fun hobby for me. Shall we have a Bible study together? I do have lots of questions!
You seem to be the authority on stomping your feet and screaming, so it comes as no surprise to me as to why I have been paying you so much attention recently.
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Troll on trolla.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 4:11 PM
The Microsoft creators of the Halo universe included all kinds of death destruction and even afflict millions with incurable disease. Are they omnipotent wrt to the Halo universe? Oh yeah. Don’t they “love” the critters they created? They probably do.
Apparently the Microsoft creators of Halo disprove your conumdrum.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Actually, they haven’t. If you want to support your argument from assertion go ahead.
It isn’t essential for evolution to answer the origin of life to be valuable scientific theory. You’ve ducked that by jumping to the question of whether evolution ultimately sits atop a universe behaving by chance or design.
This is similar to something I posted this morning. I’m skeptical of SETI, ID, and strong atheism, but do think that we can say that God exists in the same way that Santa exists, and fills an important role.
We might also be able to find God hiding in the cosmos with more powerful computers and telescopes, but I’m not relying on science to reverse engineer the universe and find Q.E.D. the existence of God.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 6:06 PM
How’s your faith doing?
Are you feeling a little … lukewarm?
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Doctrine in some of the Christian churches teaches that God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Within the scale of human experience it is incomprehensible to let a child suffer that way. You have to push God’s work off into the afterlife where he’ll settle accounts.
Microsoft may appear all-powerful but I’ve never heard them described as all-loving. The characters in Halo exist because the marketing department demanded it and the investors need to show a return. The deaths of the Halo characters are good for profits–maybe the world wars and genocides of the 20th century in our world helped our creator’s stock price.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Quick question, do you recognize that you’re a troll and nothing more? Do you admit that your initial “reply” to me, was anything but, because it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I was saying? Do you admit that you’re desperate to unleash your hatred for Christianity on someone, so you’re trying everything you can to bait me in to something, by putting words in my mouth and beliefs in my head (unrelated to ANYTHING I was talking about), simply so you can piss me off in hopes it will be enough that I’ll talk to you for a minute because you need the company. Will you admit all of that?
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 6:18 PM
I do hope you choose to say that to the grieving parents of a child who has died slowly and painfully of cancer. The funeral is an opportune moment for that truth that you seem eager to dish out, so I exhort you to push yourself in the weeping parents’ faces and tell them what crybabies they are. That would be “Christian love” in action!
Don’t worry about any reprisal. You’ll be in the clear because, as we all can see, you have chosen to incorrectly capitalize the pronoun “him” as proof of your awesome faith.
Loundry on November 5, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Interesting times are a blessing and a curse.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I don’t speak for God and you don’t speak for grieving parents so cut the crap.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 6:29 PM
But that is the question on the table.
That adaptation exists via natural selection or selective breeding is not in question. Maybe that’s why you want to discuss that issue instead.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I knew as soon as I saw the subject that the Punch and Judy show would start. Punch and Judy are like evil screaming mimes: I hate you! Take that! while Punch beats Judy with a rubber hose.
Great discourse always gets swamped with a torrent of hosing. The angry puppet always lays out High School 101 proof that God is a fake or kids wouldn’t die.
The inverse of that argument is interesting: if God is real we would all be perfect, never feel pain and God would grant our every wish. In fact God would work for us. Pretty cool. That is why I know there is no God because he doesn’t do what I think he should. If you disagree I will beat you with this mallet until your head pops off
OK.
Meanwhile for atheists who know they are right: how do you prove an axiom?
The difficulty of arguing against Christian beliefs is there are so many ‘Christian beliefs’. A belief is something built upon faith. It is an axiom.
Now agnostics I respect. They admit they cannot prove the axiom. I admit to the agnostic that I cannot prove it either. I am hard wired to believe in my God. I admit my stand is based entirely upon Faith. This is my axiom. I Believe. Of this I am very very happy and it gives me much optimism.
To Punch I suggest you ask God to give you what you deserve and wait for the results
entagor on November 5, 2007 at 6:43 PM
OK, if that is the question on the table then I’ll have to go with “I don’t know”. Further, I’m not sure what tools I’d use to get the answer. “Free will or determinism” is another one I’ve given up on. “Coke or Pepsi” I’m working on. You appear to have put some thought into the origin of life question and that’s both interesting and admirable.
I exist and I will die. My children exist and will die. Somewhere in the 80 or so years one gets, I hope to behave morally, teach my children the same, and create a few things that live beyond me.
If there is an afterlife, I’ll be ecstatic. I’ll tell the Creator I did my best with the information I had. Not sure how that is going to fly.
dedalus on November 5, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Not the same at all boris.
Me swapping parts out of your water-powered-fusion engine is not at all saying I can build one.
A protein which replicates under certain conditions is fine and dandy but it isn’t life. Or do you think crystals are alive?
I don’t think you really understand the underpinnings of what you are saying:
Since we can mutate a plant to produce different colored leaves, thats the hard part. The easy part is making a seed…
DavidM on November 5, 2007 at 7:02 PM
The part they are swapping out is the whole engine, the hard drive and processor, the essence of life. If it works it would be the only known living cell that is not descended from billions of years of reproduction.
True it is an exact copy of living DNA, but it has no living parents. Life from non-life.
The enzymes, cell wall, and other necessary components for a functioning cell are much simpler problems and are not considered the essence of life necessary for reproduction. If it works it’s game over for the supernatural necessity debate.
boris on November 5, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Lol, intelligent design (by scientists) = evidence for evolution, in the mind of evolutionists. Classic.
RightWinged on November 5, 2007 at 9:44 PM
It would be evidence that creating cell life does not require any supernatural assistence but that is not the intent of the procedure.
You still have the “too marvelous to happen by chance” argument. Even if science had a new lifeless earthlike planet and a few billion years to run the experiment you could still claim the creator slipped in some magical divinity to skew the odds.
If there is a creator my claim is that magical divinity to skew the odds happened when the universe was initially “designed” and has been coasting on natural physics ever since.
boris on November 6, 2007 at 9:02 AM
You speak for yourself, and you seem to think that people who complain about their lot in life are crybaby whiners. I don’t see why that doesn’t include parents whose children have died of cancer, so if you really stand by what you said then you should call those parents crybabies.
Or maybe you’re having second thoughts about your “crybaby” accusation?
Loundry on November 6, 2007 at 9:02 AM
I must be scoring points with you because you’re trying hard to diminish me. It also looks like you’re going back on your “I’m not engaging you” promise. I must be far to attractive a target for your “Christian love” and you simply can’t resist.
That’s because what I’m talking about (the fact that your “omnipotent” and “loving” god gleefully lets young children die slowly and painfully) is far more damaging to your religion than any boring conversation about evolution. I don’t even thing evolution is scientific, so we’d end up agreeing about far too many things anyway. What’s the fun in that?
No, you’ve read me totally wrong.
1. I’m not “desperate”. Instead, I rather enjoy our conversation.
2. I don’t need your attention. What I need is to make Christianity look bad. You are merely a means to this end.
3. I’m not “putting words in your mouth and beliefs in your head”. Honestly, that’s quite impossible to do. Instead, you can be forthright about your beliefs, but so far you seem rather reticent to do that.
4. I’m just doing this to “piss you off”. I have far more noble goals than that.
And, again, it looks like I’m scoring points big time. I must be writing things that are devastating to your faith and you have absolutely no way of defending yourself.
Loundry on November 6, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Complain away crybaby. Blame whoever or whatever you want. Fine with me.
When one comes to me and says “the death of my child is God’s fault” or “proves there is no God” I’ll have something to say but frankly it’s none of your business.
Frak off, don’t tell me what to do.
boris on November 6, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Again, you’re just pathetic and desperate… You know that this:
Is again, a desperate attempt to get me to talk to you. You must recognize this.
You’re said NOTHING devastating to me at all, I’m simply pointing out that you’re an obnoxious tactless troll, and explain why I won’t bother to engage you. You’ve decided, up front, to be a hateful SOB with no intention of having an intelligent conversation… You’re desperate to unload your hate somewhere, and because most abandoned the thread a long time ago, you attempted to pretend to reply to a comment I made, when in reality your “reply” was anything but… it was simply Christian bashing as bait for an argument, again because you’re desperate for someone to talk to. The point is, you’re like a Truther, in that you reveal that there’s no reasoning with you, before you even got started… so why bother? Why get in to an argument with someone who’s entire existence here is to be obnoxious. So why would I choose to engage you on “the issues”, when you don’t raise them as serious questions in a serious discussion, instead you come on here and chase people around (who aren’t talking about what you want to talk about) and keep throwing temper tantrums to get them to talk to you about children dying of cancer. It’s not a matter of opinion here, guy, you are pathetic, desperate, and childish.
Once again, you’re not saying anything that is “scoring points”. I can’t believe you don’t recognize how childish you are by saying things like that either. You’ve got to be a kid or otherwise just an extremely unstable person (which I think we’ve established already). It’s not that you’re scoring points, it’s that you’re an irrational nut, so why bother getting in to it with you? One needn’t look any further than your desperate attempts to bait various people throughout the thread.
Honestly, I’m not sure why I’m bothering, but I feel the need to show you how truly insane you are:
REally, you’re not putting words in my mouth or beliefs in my head? So you haven’t been obsessively sarcastically repeating things like “your God”, asserting that I don’t believe children with cancer have a serious issue, etc. etc. Be forthright? I was being forthright in the discussion I was having with others… But you aren’t worthy of serious debate, when it’s all about YOUR single issue rant to bait people in to an argument.
More insanity:
So you’re not desperate, but:
2. I don’t need your attention. What I need is to make Christianity look bad. You are merely a means to this end.
You NEED to make Christianity look bad. Again, not desperate, right!?
Anyway lunatic, I’ve wasted enough time on you.
I’ll just say this one more time, in hopes that you’ll recognize it at some point. You are truly a VERY unstable person. You are a deranged lunatic. I am totally serious about this. This isn’t you “scoring points”, it’s me honestly telling you that you’re clearly on the edge, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see you go on a shooting spree, because you’re clearly that insane of a person.
RightWinged on November 6, 2007 at 9:37 AM
“Christian love” strikes again! Will you pray with me so that I can accept Jesus Christ into my heart? You’re such a loving person that you’ve convinced me that Christianity is true!
I don’t, because I’m not even close to being desperate. I can dust off one-one-hundredth of my brainpower and inspire you into a frothy-mouthed frenzy, as I’ve seen time and time again in this very thread.
Then why are you so upset?
And yet, you’re *still* engaging me. So forgive me if your explanation seems a bit disingenuous. It wouldn’t be the first time a Christian has lied like a rug.
So let’s have an intelligent conversation. We’ll start by you choosing to answer the question that you have desperately tried to avoid:
If your god is omnipotent and loving, then why does he let young children die slow and painful deaths?
Nah, I’m still here, ready to tear your faith a fresh new anus.
You seem quite a bit more desperate to talk to me. Maybe you’re just projecting.
Again, great question! Perhaps you should ask yourself that? Think about it hard while you’re busily avoiding the pertinent question about your imaginary god.
My purpose here is to weaken your faith. I understand why that may be obnoxious to you. Perhaps you understand why the gospel is obnoxious to me, considering that you stubbornly maintain its truth.
That sure is a very long, repetitive, and boring way to say, “I militantly refuse to answer the question!”
And yet you keep pouting and spitting like a hurt child. Is your angry diatribe just a big act?
Who is “we”? Are you talking to your alternate personality?
Keep repeating that and you might begin to believe that it’s true.
Didn’t you already ask yourself that? Twice?
And you’ve been faithfully writhing on the hook much more passionately than any of them. I can only thank you for your service.
Because you’re hurt and upset, and you need to reclaim your honor as well as punish the guy who wounded you. I don’t expect you to admit that, though. It’s not like the proud Christian is going to cede any ground to the annoying atheist with his pesky, irritating questions.
It is forthright. Why, in this very thread you told me I was throwing a “temper tantrum” about something. Clearly you would prefer that I focus on a much more serious issue, such as evolution, right?
No. It’s all about your religion being false and the fact that when you die you will rot in the ground and you won’t go to heaven. The Bible is wrong, and that is that.
Of course not. Making Christianity look bad is nothing more than a prerequisite to weakening your faith.
It sure took you a lot of wasting time to realize that. Isn’t the definition of insanity “doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results”? Your most recent installment of “Christian debate” was even more repetitive than your other ones. Maybe you should be more judicious with the “lunatic” label.
Did Jonah *really* live in the belly of a fish/whale for three days and survive the experience? (Yes/No)
That would make it very easy for you to hate– er, I mean, “love” me. In other words, you *want* me to go on a shooting spree. That’s why you’ve mentioned it twice now. It also dove-tails into that fake “Christian love” that I’m so bored with by now: you release a string of insults and then follow it up with, “I’m really concerned about you” to try and make you feel clean after releasing a torrent of Christ-sanctioned abuse. You’re not the first and you won’t be the last Christian to do that to me. Frankly, it would look insane to me if it weren’t so common.
But I’m not here to convince you that you’re crazy. I’m here to move your faith from “on fire” to “lukewarm”. Are you still chomping at the bit to be a “fisher of men”? Or are you feeling a little bit less secure about your testimony? Let me know how I’m doing.
Loundry on November 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Doing a real bang up job of looking like a fool.
boris on November 6, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Alright Loundry, I’m not even going to read any more of your troll work, and I’ll leave you with this:
If you want to get in to the fight you’re trying to get in to, perhaps you should find someone who is saying the things that you’re mocking. You should seek out someone who’s “Bible thumping”, preaching, reciting verses, etc. I’m not, nor do I ever, do any of those things. Again, this is your hatred that blinds you to that, because you’re desperate to have this fight with someone… but you’ve got the wrong guy. It’s like going in to a thread about Iraq and taking people’s comments on the situation and then replying to them with attacks on the economy. You’re simply trying to argue with some imaginary Christian you’ve built up to hate, and you want me to be him.
Now, I’m sorry no one else bit your “but why do kids get cancer!?” crap that you kept shouting over and over, hoping someone would get in to it with you… but you need to just accept that none of them would, rather than repeatedly trying to put words in my mouth and then insist I explain them.
Once more, you’re insane and in desperate need of help. I just hope you’re locked up before you hurt someone.
RightWinged on November 6, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3