God - Yes, Bible - Sometimes, Church - Never

[cutter7]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/ns/world_news/t/there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/

after fifty years of being an atheist flew realizes the earth was created by intelligent design.

Flew is an 81 year old Philosopher. Philosopher.. Flew does not have a current understanding of genetics and hasn't educated himself nor become a prominent figure in the appropriate fields. It was also written in 2004.

Cutter7, next time you google "Atheist believe in god." Check the posted date of the article, the source, and the credentials of the person preaching. Nice try though.

Feel free to address the posts I gave you. They are very informative and current.

flew was an outspoken atheist if you google him you will find many articles and talks on the subject including ones that show his switch.
Seems every time there is evidence against your position you attempt to discredit the person giving it .

I have watched your links and to be honest the information you gave is too weak to bother commenting on considering the scope of the subject I am sure if there were concrete evidence on this subject either way it would be on the news so much it would be common knowledge.

I am still waiting for any scientist to explain to us how inert matter came to life.

[fluffy]

I am still waiting for any scientist to explain to us how inert matter came to life.

A wise strategy, but don't hold your breath. I'd like to see a youtube clip of God creating Adam from dust, but I'll probably be waiting as long as you cutter7.

[coffeeFreak]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/ns/world_news/t/there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/

after fifty years of being an atheist flew realizes the earth was created by intelligent design.

Flew is an 81 year old Philosopher. Philosopher.. Flew does not have a current understanding of genetics and hasn't educated himself nor become a prominent figure in the appropriate fields. It was also written in 2004.

Cutter7, next time you google "Atheist believe in god." Check the posted date of the article, the source, and the credentials of the person preaching. Nice try though.

Feel free to address the posts I gave you. They are very informative and current.

And your point forum? Your comment about Cutter7's post really does suggest you are very young and...well, haven't lived much.

[Driscoll]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/ns/world_news/t/there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/

after fifty years of being an atheist flew realizes the earth was created by intelligent design.

Flew is an 81 year old Philosopher. Philosopher.. Flew does not have a current understanding of genetics and hasn't educated himself nor become a prominent figure in the appropriate fields. It was also written in 2004.

Cutter7, next time you google "Atheist believe in god." Check the posted date of the article, the source, and the credentials of the person preaching. Nice try though.

Feel free to address the posts I gave you. They are very informative and current.

And your point forum? Your comment about Cutter7's post really does suggest you are very young and...well, haven't lived much.

Using Flew's return to theism and his comments regarding his view that it is scientifically necessary that intelligent design is true is an excellent example of of the logical fallacy 'appeal to authority'. While he may be a well known and respected philosopher, and may appear to be an authority on the science mentioned in the article, he is not an expert on them. His field of expertise is in philosophy.

Likewise, if a respected evolutionary biologist with no background in philosophy were to publish his startling philosophical revelations, I wouldn't give his philosophical views much credence compared to those who are experts in that field.

[coffeeFreak]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/ns/world_news/t/there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/

after fifty years of being an atheist flew realizes the earth was created by intelligent design.

Flew is an 81 year old Philosopher. Philosopher.. Flew does not have a current understanding of genetics and hasn't educated himself nor become a prominent figure in the appropriate fields. It was also written in 2004.

Cutter7, next time you google "Atheist believe in god." Check the posted date of the article, the source, and the credentials of the person preaching. Nice try though.

Feel free to address the posts I gave you. They are very informative and current.

And your point forum? Your comment about Cutter7's post really does suggest you are very young and...well, haven't lived much.

Using Flew's return to theism and his comments regarding his view that it is scientifically necessary that intelligent design is true is an excellent example of of the logical fallacy 'appeal to authority'. While he may be a well known and respected philosopher, and may appear to be an authority on the science mentioned in the article, he is not an expert on them. His field of expertise is in philosophy.

Likewise, if a respected evolutionary biologist with no background in philosophy were to publish his startling philosophical revelations, I wouldn't give his philosophical views much credence compared to those who are experts in that field.

In reality WHO can be an authority on this subject; that is, is there a God? No-one; the reality is they are all theories...

[Driscoll]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/ns/world_news/t/there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/

after fifty years of being an atheist flew realizes the earth was created by intelligent design.

Flew is an 81 year old Philosopher. Philosopher.. Flew does not have a current understanding of genetics and hasn't educated himself nor become a prominent figure in the appropriate fields. It was also written in 2004.

Cutter7, next time you google "Atheist believe in god." Check the posted date of the article, the source, and the credentials of the person preaching. Nice try though.

Feel free to address the posts I gave you. They are very informative and current.

And your point forum? Your comment about Cutter7's post really does suggest you are very young and...well, haven't lived much.

Using Flew's return to theism and his comments regarding his view that it is scientifically necessary that intelligent design is true is an excellent example of of the logical fallacy 'appeal to authority'. While he may be a well known and respected philosopher, and may appear to be an authority on the science mentioned in the article, he is not an expert on them. His field of expertise is in philosophy.

Likewise, if a respected evolutionary biologist with no background in philosophy were to publish his startling philosophical revelations, I wouldn't give his philosophical views much credence compared to those who are experts in that field.

In reality WHO can be an authority on this subject; that is, is there a God? No-one; the reality is they are all theories...

Actually, there are many people who are authorities and hold great understanding and knowledge about 'God' and gods. They can range from pastors to popes, and even to well known authors. To many people, C.S. Lewis is a quite commanding authority on the existence of God.

Likewise, people who promote an atheistic view of the universe can also have quite of an authority on the concept of God and gods. While people such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins (some of the more well-known people representing atheism) do not hold a belief in God or gods, they are extremely knowledgeable regarding views on God and gods.

[cutter7]

I am still waiting for any scientist to explain to us how inert matter came to life.

A wise strategy, but don't hold your breath. I'd like to see a youtube clip of God creating Adam from dust, but I'll probably be waiting as long as you cutter7.

exactly. the only side who offers an explanation are the creationists the scientists have no idea not even a theory.

The creationists message has not changed for thousands of years and until a scientist can explain how we evolved from dust I can't see how anyone would choose evolution over creation.

[fluffy]

The creationists message has not changed for thousands of years and until a scientist can explain how we evolved from dust I can't see how anyone would choose evolution over creation.

There are no "squatters' rights" when it comes to truth cutter7. The fact that a story has been told for centuries does not mean it is fact. The Creation story as it appears in the Bible is every bit as fantastic as the big bang theory put forth by science, perhaps even more so as the whole intelligent design thing is an equally contentious issue. Personally, I think science has a long way to go to arrive at a point of definitive proof as to just where we come from, and I also think that the idea that the Bible is an accurate historical account is way too "out there" for a thinking person to be comfortable with. But that's just my own way of reconciling a spiritual belief system with what science has put forth to date. As more reliable evidence becomes available, I'm sure the face of my God will change, but open-mindedness is a big part of the equation for me.

[cutter7]

The creationists message has not changed for thousands of years and until a scientist can explain how we evolved from dust I can't see how anyone would choose evolution over creation.

There are no "squatters' rights" when it comes to truth cutter7. The fact that a story has been told for centuries does not mean it is fact. The Creation story as it appears in the Bible is every bit as fantastic as the big bang theory put forth by science, perhaps even more so as the whole intelligent design thing is an equally contentious issue. Personally, I think science has a long way to go to arrive at a point of definitive proof as to just where we come from, and I also think that the idea that the Bible is an accurate historical account is way too "out there" for a thinking person to be comfortable with. But that's just my own way of reconciling a spiritual belief system with what science has put forth to date. As more reliable evidence becomes available, I'm sure the face of my God will change, but open-mindedness is a big part of the equation for me.

The fact is creationists believe that life was created by god and they have been telling us that for thousands of years. science has no idea how inert matter came to life.

unless science can come up with a theory of their own the creationists offer the only explanation.

[fluffy]

The fact is creationists believe that life was created by god and they have been telling us that for thousands of years. science has no idea how inert matter came to life.

unless science can come up with a theory of their own the creationists offer the only explanation.

The trouble is that I don't find that any sort of an explanation at all. Creation and evolution are both basically something-from-nothing scenarios, the big difference being that creation puts a conscious entity in charge of the deed. That, to me, is every bit as fantastic, and a damn sight more unbelievable than a chance combination of elements forming the first primitive life forms.

[cutter7]

The fact is creationists believe that life was created by god and they have been telling us that for thousands of years. science has no idea how inert matter came to life.

unless science can come up with a theory of their own the creationists offer the only explanation.

The trouble is that I don't find that any sort of an explanation at all. Creation and evolution are both basically something-from-nothing scenarios, the big difference being that creation puts a conscious entity in charge of the deed. That, to me, is every bit as fantastic, and a damn sight more unbelievable than a chance combination of elements forming the first primitive life forms.

Thats totally up to you if you believe a chance combination of elements can turn inert matter into life. Considering there is nothing in science to this day that would support your view I will stick with my opinion of intelligent design.

[fluffy]

Thats totally up to you if you believe a chance combination of elements can turn inert matter into life. Considering there is nothing in science to this day that would support your view I will stick with my opinion of intelligent design.

That's what it's all about isn't it? We have to go with what feels right to ourselves. I respect your views, and it's good the way you can stick to them even in the face of those who really have no desire here other than to try and shake your faith. Me, I have to go with what feels right to me, and right now it's not the idea that there is a conscious super-being pushing all the buttons. Oh I think there's something out there alright, something that ties us all together at the most basic of levels. I also believe there is a heaven, and that it's right here and now, and we get there through things like love and compassion and honesty and selflessness, just as surely as we can find hell on earth by giving space in our hearts and minds to fear and anger and greed. And today my God is not so much a "who", but an idea, a concept that includes all the good parts of life and everything around us, and as long as I "listen" to him/her/it, then things will be better than they would without him/her/it.

[steven lloyd]

..., I have to go with what feels right to me, and right now it's not the idea that there is a conscious super-being pushing all the buttons. Oh I think there's something out there alright, something that ties us all together at the most basic of levels.

Something like that. Maybe not conscious, but maybe something like hyper collective consciousness (as per Carl Jung) and possibly still deliberately purposeful - but a purpose beyond our capability of understanding (ie. something other than “pushing buttons”). I’m just not quite buying into the idea of fluke random chance on an infinite scale (although that might be the only scale fluke randomness could successfully exist - hmmm).

I believe there is a connection at more than the social level or level of shared history. I have previously mentioned some research that was done with a supercomputer at MIT that demonstrated consciousness existing outside the body (that was some time ago and I don’t really want to detail it out again but I suspect you might remember fluffy) and how we might then ask the question if consciousness can exist without the body (ie. after life). A question created by science but not yet answered (either way) by science. I know there is still so much we don’t know, and I would suggest dismissing possibilities just because we might not personally be able to imagine them is incredibly arrogant, naive and short-sighted.

I’m certainly not accusing you of ever doing that fluffy as it is easy to recognize the respect you have for people to hold their own beliefs and views on this subject. I also note your ability to recognize the limitations of science along with the infinitely diverse possibilities of philosophical thought.

[fluffy]

I know there is still so much we don’t know, and I would suggest dismissing possibilities just because we might not personally be able to imagine them is incredibly arrogant, naive and short-sighted.

True, it is always a good thing to have your belief system open to revision, but doesn't intuition play a big part in what we keep and what we let go? I agree with you in the aspect that some become stuck in their ways to the exclusion of even a little respect for others and their ways without even considering that there may be a viable alternative to the way they are thinking at present, but that's part of the game too, isn't it? Being able to gain some freedom from bad motivations so that when a new idea comes along that is a "keeper" you are able to recognize it and file it in with the other "keeper" stuff, even it it means tossing out something outdated to make room for the new stuff.