Skip to comments.Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
Posted on 12/10/2004 7:08:12 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
click here to read article
"If you are taking the contrary position, yes it is. The "There is no afterlife" argument is not self-evident."
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Your claim is: There is life after death. This is an extraordinary claim. The emperical evidence suggests that death is final. It is up to you to prove that there is an afterlife.
No he doesn't
Many, I'm one and I know lots of others.
Certainly a devout Christian won't smoke marijuana themselves
Which, of course, has nothing to do with government laws.
We will just have to respectfully disagree.
Don't be too cynical. C. S. Lewis too first had a conversion to theism (from atheism), and only a couple years later did he finally believe in Christ.
Sometimes conversion is a long process.
"Then why did you repost it?"
If I'm not mistaken, valuesvaluesvalues did not repost this article.
I'm a Christian, and I'm glad they stopped praying in public schools.
You bet, that's why I posted it. I love that song.
These folks are whistling past the graveyard even if they don't admit it.
I always tell 'em, "if I'm wrong, nothing will change for me, But if I'm right,,,,well,,,,you have a problem".
"by his words and his resurrection."
You are taking the words of one man, who claims to be the son of this omnipotent power that created all, as fact. Also, thier is no proof that Jesus was indeed resurrected. Those are your beliefs. Like I said, I have respect for the Christian faith, but I do not believe what you do.
Want to meet some?
Now, if Peter Singer admitted a belief in God, then you'd have a story on your hands...
There is no proof that Socrates ever lived.
"It is not Jesus who is attacked, but Christians. Mostly by people who feel that Christians are trying to dictate how they should live their lives. It's backlash from Christians obtaining political power and forcing their morals on the rest of society."
Ah. Secularists want a monopoly on imposing their morality on others.
Anyone who supports the minimum wage or environmental rules forbidding land use to protect some animal is imposing a form of morality.
I should have made a distinction between legalization and use.
They believe that this life is all there is. When they look deep inside they know that there is nothing else.
Therefore they must have the courage to face up to the terrifyingly cold wind of their own mortality and an eternity of oblivion and so a degree of contempt for those who, in their world view, lack the moral courage to face up to this harsh reality is perhaps understandable.
This world view is also reconcilable with atheists losing their nerve at the death. After all, what's to lose?
I emphasise that this is not what I think but I believe I have a little insight into the mindset.
I do think that some of those here who profess to be followers of Christ are too quick to judge.
I do like debating with you Protagoras.
I think you have me wrong. Those laws are there because Christians lobbied to put them thier.
I stand corrected.
That is correct. There are Christians on this thread who would have mocked C.S.Lewis when he said "I have become a theist."
It would be better to have a millstone tied around the neck.
"Ah. Secularists want a monopoly on imposing their morality on others."
Well, you are lumping me in with a lot of other things. How is mairjuana legalization forcing morality on you? It is not, that is like says i would put you in jail for NOT smoking marijuana. We are kind of getting OT here, so hit me up in a different more Marijuana type thread.
People pray in school all the time, usually right before exams. :^}
But I'm with you if you are talking about government schools. I'm really not interested in some government employee, who might be a nut, teaching my kids how and what to pray. These are the same people who deliver the mail, how on earth would we expect them to do this right?
The Christian schools where I sent my children are a different story.
I'm making the claim that others besides myself have a mind that that they aren't really pre-programmed robots.
Do you think I can "prove" that?
Do you think a rational person would "try" to prove that?
Rational minds have logical reasons for holding certain presuppositions.
And I hate to tell you this, but the burden of proof IS on you to prove why we're not entitled to certain presuppositions.
Is it irrational to believe that thirst presupposes water?
"How about, say, prayer in school. Christians don't want prayer in public school because they are worried about their children praying. No doubt those kids get plenty of prayer in, they want OTHER peoples children to pray. "
I want Christian ethics taught in school because that is the only ethics that guarantees the concept of personal responsibility.
Secular public schools are inadequate at teaching character. They destroy character development by preaching the religion of moral relativism, feeeelings, and 'diversity' as ethics instead of discipline/character/moral action.
And YES, I would like the OTHER brats to learn this, along with my wonderful angelic perfect children. (If you met them you'd certainly agree with my assessments.)
As it is we are training a generation of barbarians.
A lot of bad things happened in schools when prayer and God was taken out.
Sorry i should have been more specific, Christians who lobby for prayer in schools.
Hail from Vancouver but live under duress in the Novosobirsk of North America
proud anti-Canadian only watched one hockey game in my life
and vowed never to undergo such torture ever again.
"There is no proof that Socrates ever lived."
There is not proof Jesus ever did either, what was your point here? Living is not extraordinary, being resurrected is.
Usually, except for Saints and Prophets, this is the better way. Remember the parable of the sower...
BTW, EVERY single Christian I know is a sinner, so I'll introduce you to some pot smokers, drinkers, and all manner of other sinners. Devout Christians, who fail daily.
Thank God for the grace of Christ.
As the 'Saturday Night Live Church Lady' would say, "Isn't that special?"
"I want Christian ethics taught in school because that is the only ethics that guarantees the concept of personal responsibility."
Then why do I understand the concept of personal responsibility?
"Those laws are there because Christians lobbied to put them thier."
So what? Is there some Constitutional Amendment that denies the right of believers to participate in the political process?
Since 80% of Americans believe in God *any* law is put there by 'Christians/believers' etc.
Aw, gee,,,(blushing) another member of the Protagoras fan club. LOL
I think you have me wrong. Those laws are there because Christians lobbied to put them thier.
All kinds of people who think they know whats good for others lobbied for it, it wasn't only Christians.
"How did they get their assigned functions ?"
We cannot know. They have, as far as we know, always had them.
Jesus is attacked because
He is God made flesh.
To acknowledge the truth of Jesus you must acknowledge also the existence of good and evil.
Modern secular dogma does not acknowledge these concepts, only behavioral problems.
I believe you meant "...they know there is something else."
No, I don't think they do. Most athiests would not regard that as a mode of knowledge.
I think they wish there was something else. And that wish, you see, is DATA.
That explanation of the universe which best explains all the DATA using the least number of entities is the one to be preferred. Most atheists simply do not believe an extra entity, called "god", is necessary to explain the DATA. What changes for some of them as they near death is not that they perceive something new they never perceived before -- no, they simply allow into the DATA SET perceptions they previously DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE DATA SET.
If mankind universally wishes for eternity, and dogs (presumably) do not, then that wish is, in itself, data which any proposed cosmology must account for. It not only is data -- it is critical data, since it is among the things that distinguish the species from other species.
How much explanatory power does an explanation hold if it systematically ignores more data the more complex the organism? This is a sign it is false.
My only point is that Flew, like David Brudnoy who is also in the news today, simply decided his wish for eternity might be more than aberrant chemistry -- and if it is, there is a God.
Edited to show the real problem.
Send your kids to private schools. Abolish government schools so you won't have to pay twice.
"All kinds of people who think they know whats good for others lobbied for it, it wasn't only Christians."
Certainly. But it is the perception, right or wrong, that it was Christians. At any rate, you can't deny that Christians are a very vocal, or rather certain Christian groups are very vocal in lobbing the govenrment to enforce thier beliefs on others. That causes people to stereotype against Christians. Which was my original point.
Being 81, and having one foot in the grave, has a tendency to change your views on God. He's covering his bases.
Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukkah!
............................and,..... The Angel's Sing!
In his autobiography, Darwin, who also called himself an agnostic, wrote that the magnificence of the universe almost forces one to conclude that God exists. However, he continued, "Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?" He goes on to say that the problem is compounded by "the probability that the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children has produced so strong and perhaps inherited effect on their brains, that it may now be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear of a snake". For this monkey at least, my great-great-grandfather was right.
This insight into Darwin adheres also to many who follow him. For them, we are imago elaphe rather than imago dei, and therein lies a wrong path taken.
Funny how if God really did not exist...athiesm would not exist either. (there would be no reason for the existance of athiesm)
"And I hate to tell you this, but the burden of proof IS on you to prove why we're not entitled to certain presuppositions."
Actually you are both right/wrong ... you are equally entitled to your epistemological ground-rules, but they are equally open to question.
pnome is expressing the 'nothing is true without material evidence' ground rules. He doesnt realize that materialist philosophic assumptions (nothing is deemed true except through material evidence) will lead to materialist conclusions. He doesnt realize he has axiomatically excluded the human soul as real and thus he is merely stating premises as conclusions.
Ultimately materialism is a dead end, for its denial of the existence of the 'ought'. (the argument is too detailed for this discussion).
OTOH, he has a point. Just because some book or an authority somewhere tells you its so, how do you come to know it?
At some point, you have either a 'leap of logic' or a 'leap of faith' to get to your conclusion.
"Rational minds have logical reasons for holding certain presuppositions. "
Sure, but what are those reasons, and what are those presuppositions? Is God a conclusion of a thought process, or an axiom that one attempts to elaborate on (eg via theology)? 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'?
Proof is the point.
Living is not extraordinary, being resurrected is.
You bet it is. He's the only guy ever to do it.
The question is proof, you cited it. You accept that Jesus lived I assume? You accept that Socrates existed I assume? You accept lots of things with a different standard of proof than you demand of the resurrection.
It's one thing to say you don't think it happened, it's another to demand some higher standard of proof which you don't require for other things.
What would you concider to be proof?
"Is there some Constitutional Amendment that denies the right of believers to participate in the political process?"
No, however, if my "pursuit of happiness" is different than yours, you shouldn't be forcing me to pursue happiness in the same way you do. That IS against the constitution.
Drinking wine vs. smoking pot.
Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof.
It presupposes something?
What are inalienable human rights, and WHY are they called inalienable?
What are self-evident moral truths, and why are they called "self-evident"?
Is the Constitution a meaningless document unless it is in place only to GUARD absolute (self-evident) moral truths?