Posted on 12/10/2004 7:08:12 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
NEW YORK -- 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nynewsday.com ...
What would you concider to be proof of the ressurection of Christ?
"What would you concider to be proof of the ressurection of Christ?"
Call me "Doubting Thomas". I require the same amount of proof. Not simply the word of an apostle. Which is all the proof you have.
You believe Satan can be saved? I'm so grateful sometimes for the things I don't know.
Didn't Satan decide not to worship Man at the command of God, and as such was thrown from Heaven?
I know that the story of Satan is from Apocryphal, more correctly non-canonical, books.
Is the most correct answer, we just don't know, and Satan is who he is and it will never be different?
Even when an atheist gets closer to the pearly gates....he finds God.......
Without Faith, he does not exist.
"I AM against minimum wage laws. Even some discrimination laws."
Then your argument is not against Christians at all. you are just stereotyping and nitpicking. Your against non-anarchists of any stripe defining boundaries of civility.
"When you drive drunk, you put others right to life at great risk. Not so when I smoke pot in my home."
Plenty of drunk drivers would disagree... they claim that they are safer. And besides, you are destroying plenty when you use dangerous drugs.
btw, you DO recognize that you are also imposing morality when you imply your 'right to life' allows you to interfere with the actions of others. that is imposing morality.
what makes the rule 'don't hurt others' more valid than any other rule? I'll put you down for "imposing morality in some cases but not in others".
Huh? As what?
Not simply the word of an apostle.
Lots of witnesses, but that is neither here nor there. I didn't ask you what was inadequate for you, I asked what would be.
Which is all the proof you have.
I never claimed proof.
Now, what precisely, would be the proof you would require for the resurrection?
oh wow.
So because some people have a bigotted, false, and stereotyped views of Christians, picking on them for doing what every other part of the political spectrum does (ie advocate for their beliefs in various contexts), the blame lies on Christian heads, not on the anti-Christian zealots?!?
Yeah ... DEFINITELY lay off the pot, man. It's getting to your brain.
Witnessing it myself through the window in a time machine.
You get extra points for honesty if you say that.
Ok let me clarify here. because i think you guys got the wrong impression about me.
I am not picking on Christians, I am not saying it's all thier fault or whatever. I was answering a question by another poster about why some people attack Christians. I gave my opinion on why I thought that.
I do NOT think all Christians are trying to make me be a Christian (though I think it is part of your religion to win converts). I DO think thier are some Christian groups out there that give you guys a bad name by pushing for laws that will make people follow Christian morals.
That's all I'm saying.
"If at some point you need 'faith' to glue your conclusions to your axioms, isn't it fair for a use-reason-only skeptic to call 'foul'?"
Is it a "leap of faith" to believe that others beside yourself have a mind, and aren't just preprogrammed robots?
---
No, but that form of argument is a 'argument by authority'... okay, so everybody has a mind.
How does that help prove anything?
------
"What would you call a "skeptic" who questions your sanity for "believing" such a thing? Sane? Logical? Rational?"
This is a process question, not about 'sanity' or conclusions. A skeptic would not call 'proven' any argument that has 'leaps' in it.
So, my question really was asking this:
You've made a point, but do you really think your point would convince a skeptic?
that was all.
I think the answer is no, unless you fill in the steps of the argument. what I inferred from you was:
1. lots of people believe in the afterlife.
2. these people are sane and reasonable.
3. therefore the belief is sane and reasonable,
4. since its sane and reasonable, it is true.
... is that your argument?
I was thinking the same thing.
It doesn't matter if you have faith.
The same proof that Thomas got. That's what I was trying to say.
Fair enough ... and sorry for the abusive comment...
(although if you *are* a user, i'd still suggest clear-mind-natural-high living :-) )
At age 81 it sounds like he is cramming for finals.
Are you for real? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.