Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
However, you are the one who argues that science is the know all end all answer to everything.


You have never seen me argue for that. Science (or more specifically the scientific method) simply provides a means to discern the physical properties of the universe. Everything it posits is provisional and subject to change given sufficient data.

If you provide scientific data for god, I will be forced to accept his existence. The evidence that you will present is the same evidence for the existence of every other deity man has ever invented.

quote:
From you're own post you've given illustrations of how science can be flawed by personal bias. Global warming scientists want it to be real, so they only read the data that supports their theory,


An excellent example of your own bias. Look, the consensus is that the globe is getting warmer. Yes, there is some contradictory evidence but the scientific consensus is that it is real, is probably man-made and the repercussions may be profound. I don't like it but it APPEARS to be true.

Unlike you, I am willing to bend with the scientific consensus on this matter because I am not qualified to evaluate the data on my own. I am forced to PROVISIONALLY accept the opinions of every single international scientific organization that exists. I am forced to accept that there are exactly ZERO international scientific organizations that have dissenting opinion. ZERO, Nash. That is meaningful.

Yes despite all the evidence (contrary and otherwise) you have chosen to ignore the overwhelming consensus and listen to the few loudmouths that agree with your OPINION.

That is typical of the fundamentalist mind.

I don't' like the fact that the earth is getting warmer. It won't affect me but it probably will affect my children and their children.

I don't like the fact that a god probably does not exist. It would be really, really cool if one did. But until some compelling evidence is presented (other than your silly "eye witness" accounts) I am forced to provisionally accept the apparent fact that your particular deity does not exist.

quote:
It's not that there is no argument for the existence for God, it's that you have already made up your mind that God does not exist.


Provisionally, yes.
quote:
An excellent example of your own bias. Look, the consensus is that the globe is getting warmer. Yes, there is some contradictory evidence but the scientific consensus is that it is real, is probably man-made and the repercussions may be profound. I don't like it but it APPEARS to be true.


No, it's not. The record for the hottest year is in the 20's. The 2nd hottest year is in 1998. Since then, we've been getting cooler, not warmer.

There is no consensus on global warming, there are plenty of scientists who disagree with it. It's more of a political issue rather than scientific. When the founder of the Weather Channel comes out publicly and says global warming is bunk and a politician who stands to make a fortune on it says it's real, why believe the politician?

I've looked at both sides of the issue, I've watched Al Gore's movie, I've read stories about it and made up my mind. I was outside Friday night and needed a jacket, in late May. If the planet was warming, that wouldn't happen.

There is plenty of arguments for God. Plenty of educated, rational people believe in a higher authority. Many of them started out as a non believer. Example: Anthony Flew, once referred to as "one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th Century" has changed his mind. For one to change their minds about something they held on to so deeply for so long, something had to be pretty convincing. The only way to find that is to look at things with an open mind. If you make up your mind first and reject anything that may challenge your preconceived ideas, you'll never really find the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

There is plenty of arguments for God. Plenty of educated, rational people believe in a higher authority. Many of them started out as a non believer. Example: Anthony Flew, once referred to as "one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th Century" has changed his mind. For one to change their minds about something they held on to so deeply for so long, something had to be pretty convincing.


Nash, what was Anthony's evidence for believing in a God?

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

There is plenty of arguments for God. Plenty of educated, rational people believe in a higher authority. Many of them started out as a non believer. Example: Anthony Flew, once referred to as "one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th Century" has changed his mind. For one to change their minds about something they held on to so deeply for so long, something had to be pretty convincing.


Nash, what was Anthony's evidence for believing in a God?

Regards


An interview with Flew.

Link
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

There is plenty of arguments for God. Plenty of educated, rational people believe in a higher authority. Many of them started out as a non believer. Example: Anthony Flew, once referred to as "one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th Century" has changed his mind. For one to change their minds about something they held on to so deeply for so long, something had to be pretty convincing.


Nash, what was Anthony's evidence for believing in a God?

Regards


An interview with Flew.

Link


So he bought into ID? Some of his interview would lead me to think he subscribes to pantheism.

He invokes Einstein, however most don't know that Einstein was an agnostic.

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

There is plenty of arguments for God. Plenty of educated, rational people believe in a higher authority. Many of them started out as a non believer. Example: Anthony Flew, once referred to as "one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th Century" has changed his mind. For one to change their minds about something they held on to so deeply for so long, something had to be pretty convincing.


Nash, what was Anthony's evidence for believing in a God?

Regards


An interview with Flew.

Link


So he bought into ID? Some of his interview would lead me to think he subscribes to pantheism.

He invokes Einstein, however most don't know that Einstein was an agnostic.

Regards


He didn't say he bought into ID, he said that he feels the argument for ID is stronger now than when he first heard about it. He isn't a Christian, a creationist, or a subscriber to the ID theory. He changed his mind from atheism to theism. He was the Christopher Hitchens of the 60's and 70's. For him to change his mind is a pretty big deal.

The reason his change of mind is important is because he is completely unemotional about the subject of God. You can tell by the video you posted and the interview I posted that he is still trying to find the truth, but doing so in a completely unbiased, logical, rational, and emotion free manner. He kept his mind open and free from being tainted by his personal feelings, which is the only way to find what is real and what is not. The result was that he changed his mind, which is easy when dealing with logic, impossible when dealing with emotion.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

There is plenty of arguments for God. Plenty of educated, rational people believe in a higher authority. Many of them started out as a non believer. Example: Anthony Flew, once referred to as "one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th Century" has changed his mind. For one to change their minds about something they held on to so deeply for so long, something had to be pretty convincing.


Nash, what was Anthony's evidence for believing in a God?

Regards


An interview with Flew.

Link


So he bought into ID? Some of his interview would lead me to think he subscribes to pantheism.

He invokes Einstein, however most don't know that Einstein was an agnostic.

Regards


He didn't say he bought into ID, he said that he feels the argument for ID is stronger now than when he first heard about it. He isn't a Christian, a creationist, or a subscriber to the ID theory. He changed his mind from atheism to theism. He was the Christopher Hitchens of the 60's and 70's. For him to change his mind is a pretty big deal.

The reason his change of mind is important is because he is completely unemotional about the subject of God. You can tell by the video you posted and the interview I posted that he is still trying to find the truth, but doing so in a completely unbiased, logical, rational, and emotion free manner. He kept his mind open and free from being tainted by his personal feelings, which is the only way to find what is real and what is not. The result was that he changed his mind, which is easy when dealing with logic, impossible when dealing with emotion.


Say what? He clearly is referring to ID. Look at that ID link and please watch the video again. I also think he could be classified as a theist and/or deist, depending. In other media he specifically refers to Michael Behe's work as well.

Here is a longer clip of the same video where he actually admits to creation and deism.

Lately, and for the foreseeable future, my plate over-floweth, but I'll look into Flew's views when time allows.

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

There is plenty of arguments for God. Plenty of educated, rational people believe in a higher authority. Many of them started out as a non believer. Example: Anthony Flew, once referred to as "one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th Century" has changed his mind. For one to change their minds about something they held on to so deeply for so long, something had to be pretty convincing.


Nash, what was Anthony's evidence for believing in a God?

Regards


An interview with Flew.

Link


So he bought into ID? Some of his interview would lead me to think he subscribes to pantheism.

He invokes Einstein, however most don't know that Einstein was an agnostic.

Regards


He didn't say he bought into ID, he said that he feels the argument for ID is stronger now than when he first heard about it. He isn't a Christian, a creationist, or a subscriber to the ID theory. He changed his mind from atheism to theism. He was the Christopher Hitchens of the 60's and 70's. For him to change his mind is a pretty big deal.

The reason his change of mind is important is because he is completely unemotional about the subject of God. You can tell by the video you posted and the interview I posted that he is still trying to find the truth, but doing so in a completely unbiased, logical, rational, and emotion free manner. He kept his mind open and free from being tainted by his personal feelings, which is the only way to find what is real and what is not. The result was that he changed his mind, which is easy when dealing with logic, impossible when dealing with emotion.


Say what? He clearly is referring to ID. Look at that ID link and please watch the video again. I also think he could be classified as a theist and/or deist, depending. In other media he specifically refers to Michael Behe's work as well.

Here is a longer clip of the same video where he actually admits to creation and deism.

Lately, and for the foreseeable future, my plate over-floweth, but I'll look into Flew's views when time allows.

Regards


Yes, he refers to ID, but doesn't say that he subscribes to it. He said that he believes they have a stronger argument than he once thought. He is saying that as science reveals the complexity of nature, the idea that life came from non life by accident is less likley.

As for your video, Flew was not confused or uncomfortable as the text claimed. He is 80 years old, but he is not senile. He most certainly was not pounced upon by "religious parasites". That type of text is emotionally based, which is exactly what I was referring to in my last post. For believers and non-believers alike, when emotions take precedence, reason and logic is clouded. Proof of that is comparing the text of the video you provided to the actual video itself, the descriptions in the beginning are not accurate of the content.

Flew is simply examining the evidence and trying to find the truth for himself. He is not a Christian, but no longer an atheist. It sounds as if he is somewhere in the middle, trying to figure things out. What I admire about him is that he is doing it objectively, logically, and unemotionally.

"A fair result can be obtained only by stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" - Darwin.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×