Famous Athesist has found God, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 11-5-2008 @ 01:35 PM by Sleuth

reply to post by Vanitas

I agree. There's a God or no God. Everyone's included either way. I don't think God would be a nitpicker - "You're Pentecostal, you can't come in. You're Methodist and you're Buddhist, so you two are okay. Welcome aboard." That's just plain silly.

With all due respect, I think the Muslims who blow themselves into a gazillion molecules for 72 virgins are in for a great, big surprise.

As far as this man's conversion, he is staring into the void. Of course he's going to have a change of heart. He's afraid. If he wants to cover all his bases, who am I to judge him for doing so.

reply posted on 1-6-2008 @ 07:41 PM by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Vanitas

There is no "Christian God"

yes ther is, Jesus of Nazareth is what they call the "Christian God"

2 Timothy 2:8

- Con

reply posted on 1-6-2008 @ 09:29 PM by Bigwhammy

reply to post by Conspiriology

No kidding, where do they get this stuff? The Jewish God is the Christian God as well. The Christian view is that the New Testament as simply the new covenant with the exact same Father God.

I am working on a post to my thread Science Meet Your Maker which will serve as introduction to the Anthropic Principle, which is what has been converting famous atheists like Dr Flew.

[edit on 6/1/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply posted on 2-6-2008 @ 12:13 AM by Quazga

Originally posted by DeusEx
Ah, but the rabble...they know not what is best for them. Look at the stranglehold of religion across the world. Clearly, people have absolutely no intent of thinking for themselves.

DE

Especially when there is rhetoric like yours out there. How does your sweeping denial of any realization of a supreme being after/during death encourage thinking for themselves?

Perfectly rational people, such as this man, are more than able to come to this conclusion after thinking for themselves. This man definitely thought for himself, which is why he came to this conclusion.

Now, when *you* think for yourself, you might come to a different conclusion, but it doesn't make it the *only* conclusion one can come to when thinking for themselves.

If you think otherwise, then, well that's fine, because you are thinking for yourself, and I am thinking for myself.

reply posted on 8-6-2008 @ 07:43 AM by Bigwhammy

Atheists on ATS pretend to be such champions of evidence. I love this part "in keeping with his lifelong commitment 'to go where the evidence leads,' he now believes in God. "

It's hard to disagree with the conclusion drawn by philosopher Antony Flew. Long a champion of atheism—he is one of the most frequently cited figures in atheist literature—Flew finally concluded that the fine-tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew says that in keeping with his lifelong commitment "to go where the evidence leads," he now believes in God.''

Flew recognizes that the anthropic principle requires a better explanation than Lucky Us. So does astronomer Lee Smolin, who writes that "luck will certainly not do here. We need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case." The odds of us being here in the universe are so fantastic that some kind of a serious explanation is required.

Flew

[edit on 6/8/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply posted on 7-11-2010 @ 03:47 PM by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Atheists on ATS pretend to be such champions of evidence. I love this part "in keeping with his lifelong commitment 'to go where the evidence leads,' he now believes in God. "

It's hard to disagree with the conclusion drawn by philosopher Antony Flew. Long a champion of atheism—he is one of the most frequently cited figures in atheist literature—Flew finally concluded that the fine-tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew says that in keeping with his lifelong commitment "to go where the evidence leads," he now believes in God.''

Flew recognizes that the anthropic principle requires a better explanation than Lucky Us. So does astronomer Lee Smolin, who writes that "luck will certainly not do here. We need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case." The odds of us being here in the universe are so fantastic that some kind of a serious explanation is required.

Flew

[edit on 6/8/2008 by Bigwhammy]

I'm new here and have been reading a lot of threads, do you know of any other atheists that changed thier minds?

I know that when a man or woman is faced with their own mortality, they start praying to God. But I would appreciate specific cases.

Thank you.

reply posted on 7-11-2010 @ 04:11 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Some people change their minds, others don't.

Here's the crazy thing, Christopher Hitchens is currently fighting quite serious cancer and has appeared at his most recent speaking events sporting a bald head due to his chemo treatments. It hasn't changed his lack of religion.

And ignore the stories about death bed confessions. They're 100% bunk unless someone had something to record it with. Darwin didn't recant on his death bed.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Whammy, since I'm responding to this ages old thread that I didn't participate much or at all in (I'm not sure, I need to check the post history), I have to say...there still isn't evidence.

I'll take the deity if the evidence is correct. But saying that the anthropic principle requires a god...because it does...well, that's not very good philosophy. "Lucky us" and "Goddidit" aren't equivalent statements. "Goddidit" requires a lot of explanations that just don't make sense nor do they fit in with any observable evidence.

"Lucky us" may be a bit of an underwhelming statement, but it's at not demonstrably false and seemingly true.

reply posted on 7-11-2010 @ 04:49 PM by mrvdreamknight

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Agreed about Darwin.

But Antony Flew doesn't count as a death bed change of heart.

Yes, I know people said other people wrote his book but he himself rebuked the notion and reaffirmed he did believe in deism.

reply posted on 7-11-2010 @ 05:12 PM by madnessinmysoul

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Well obviously Flew doesn't count. I just tried to give you a handy piece of advice regarding other people.

Dawkins actually joked that he's going to have a tape recorder at his deathbed to record his last words, just to make sure such stories don't pop up if they're false.

reply posted on 7-11-2010 @ 05:24 PM by mrvdreamknight

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The Flew case was shocking.

He was the most well known atheist at the time and had been for some time.

So it makes you wonder that someone of his stature can change his mind, his entire belief system, that any atheist can.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^