ChatterBank2 mins ago
Does It Make You Happy To Mock God?
90 Answers
Gal:6v7
Answers
goodlife - I do wish you would stop these posts. I've read a lot of them and ignored them. All you are doing is stirring up feeling against the quiet believers amongst us, who would not dream of lecturing anyone else about their beliefs, but occasionally post with a valid, religious background. Please desist.
21:57 Tue 08th Sep 2015
Sorry grasscarp, but in almost every paragraph of that article lies a logical non sequitur.
//Proving the existence of God … answers whether we are alone or not as a human race and whether or not our existence has purpose//
Nope. What proves whether or not we are alone is the discovery (or not) of life elsewhere. And what sort of ‘purpose’ is sought? In simplistic terms, just survival? Well, we seem to be doing that. Or development and improvement? Well, we’re not the rubbing-sticks-together species of the stone age – as far as I can tell we do keep developing.
DNA. Anthony Flew seems to be suggesting that, from nothing at all, life suddenly became mankind with a 3-billion-letter genetic code. No – life started in an extremely basic form and adapted over countless millions of years to suit the changing environment.
//If things have an origin, they first needed an originator//
Nonsense. Cause and effect – simple.
Design, and all that stuff about Earth being ‘just right’. If it hadn’t been just right, it could still support life, but the nature of that life might be very different – potentially it could even be of human form but adapted differently. The paragraph about design bases itself entirely on the requirements for Earth to sustain life exactly as it is now.
It is, I’m afraid, a desperately poor (indeed desperate) article.
//Proving the existence of God … answers whether we are alone or not as a human race and whether or not our existence has purpose//
Nope. What proves whether or not we are alone is the discovery (or not) of life elsewhere. And what sort of ‘purpose’ is sought? In simplistic terms, just survival? Well, we seem to be doing that. Or development and improvement? Well, we’re not the rubbing-sticks-together species of the stone age – as far as I can tell we do keep developing.
DNA. Anthony Flew seems to be suggesting that, from nothing at all, life suddenly became mankind with a 3-billion-letter genetic code. No – life started in an extremely basic form and adapted over countless millions of years to suit the changing environment.
//If things have an origin, they first needed an originator//
Nonsense. Cause and effect – simple.
Design, and all that stuff about Earth being ‘just right’. If it hadn’t been just right, it could still support life, but the nature of that life might be very different – potentially it could even be of human form but adapted differently. The paragraph about design bases itself entirely on the requirements for Earth to sustain life exactly as it is now.
It is, I’m afraid, a desperately poor (indeed desperate) article.
grasscarp - "It also mentions some famous former atheists who have changed their minds about existence of God."
There are millions of people on this planet who believe that the earth is flat.
Millions more believe that an eclipse of the sun means the end of the world is happening.
Millions more, who, if they saw a person with white skin, would believe they are gods or angels.
But belief doesn't make something true - it just makes it a belief.
So 'well-known' atheists changing their views only underlines the capacity for the human mind to change its belief structures.
But just because someone 'famous' suddenly believes in God does not affirm God's existence - any more than a famous cleric suddenly becoming an atheist proves that he does not
There are millions of people on this planet who believe that the earth is flat.
Millions more believe that an eclipse of the sun means the end of the world is happening.
Millions more, who, if they saw a person with white skin, would believe they are gods or angels.
But belief doesn't make something true - it just makes it a belief.
So 'well-known' atheists changing their views only underlines the capacity for the human mind to change its belief structures.
But just because someone 'famous' suddenly believes in God does not affirm God's existence - any more than a famous cleric suddenly becoming an atheist proves that he does not
The british philosopher Antony Flew, once a leading champion of atheism, stated: “The almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), [show] that intelligence must have been involved.” Flew believes in “following the argument no matter where it leads.” In his case it led to a complete change in thinking, so that he now believes in God.
Belief in God, as the expression is generally used in the world, does not necessarily mean ability to explain his existence or purpose. It merely stands for a conviction that there is a Creator. All too frequently, especially in Christendom, there is a strong conception of God created in the image of man rather than the way the Bible puts it, ‘man created in the image of God.’ Perhaps equally distressing is that “believers” in God often have no idea whatsoever of who he is.
Nothing can be more true than that God is, as both the Bible and nature so eloquently testify. Therefore, in God’s own Word unbelievers are appropriately called fools.—Ps. 14:1.
Belief in God, as the expression is generally used in the world, does not necessarily mean ability to explain his existence or purpose. It merely stands for a conviction that there is a Creator. All too frequently, especially in Christendom, there is a strong conception of God created in the image of man rather than the way the Bible puts it, ‘man created in the image of God.’ Perhaps equally distressing is that “believers” in God often have no idea whatsoever of who he is.
Nothing can be more true than that God is, as both the Bible and nature so eloquently testify. Therefore, in God’s own Word unbelievers are appropriately called fools.—Ps. 14:1.
goodlife, did you read the comment by andy-hughes?
If not perhaps you would like to consider this most relevant paragraph.
\\ But just because someone 'famous' suddenly believes in God does not affirm God's existence - any more than a famous cleric suddenly becoming an atheist proves that he does not//.
If not perhaps you would like to consider this most relevant paragraph.
\\ But just because someone 'famous' suddenly believes in God does not affirm God's existence - any more than a famous cleric suddenly becoming an atheist proves that he does not//.
Cannedgranny, that wasn’t sarcasm, simply an observation that you have some sympathy for him – something he doesn’t experience on a regular basis around here.
You want me to answer your question which is // How many Christians open threads and "self-aggrandise" themselves on here?//
Since, regardless of flavour of doctrine, they all appear to think they’re right, I’d say all of them.
You want me to answer your question which is // How many Christians open threads and "self-aggrandise" themselves on here?//
Since, regardless of flavour of doctrine, they all appear to think they’re right, I’d say all of them.
\ But just because someone 'famous' suddenly believes in God does not affirm God's existence - any more than a famous cleric suddenly becoming an atheist proves that he does not//.
The evidence of long history and the experience of millions of people alive right now prove that we cannot turn our backs on moral standards or principles of Gods word and yet be lastingly happy.. (Eph. 4:17-19; Rom. 13:13) Such a course, either immediately or later, brings additional sorrows, throwing up barriers on the road to happiness. Can you think of actual cases corroborating that? On the other hand, doing things God’s way—reduces life’s problems and so clears away roadblocks to our reaching happiness.
Some atheist proves that, the intelligent ones.
The evidence of long history and the experience of millions of people alive right now prove that we cannot turn our backs on moral standards or principles of Gods word and yet be lastingly happy.. (Eph. 4:17-19; Rom. 13:13) Such a course, either immediately or later, brings additional sorrows, throwing up barriers on the road to happiness. Can you think of actual cases corroborating that? On the other hand, doing things God’s way—reduces life’s problems and so clears away roadblocks to our reaching happiness.
Some atheist proves that, the intelligent ones.
" Antony Flew is a loop ", except, when he was a committed atheist, "…Towards the end of his life it led him to what he called ‘Jeffersonian deism', the belief in a divine being that created the universe in all its glorious complexity, though not the personal God of monotheism, which he disdained till the end of his life.
This would not have caused eyebrows to rise were it not for his stature as one of the leading atheists of the twentieth century. Accused (by previously adoring non-believers) of having been hijacked by American Christian fundamentalists, of having descended into the woolly-mindedness of the old man who has lost his mental acuity, he defended his ‘conversion', as it were, in print and orally to the end of his days.
I know for a fact that, though old age had inevitably weakened him physically and mentally he did, both clearly and distinctly, change his position and commit himself to a kind of religious belief with eyes and mind wide open. The charges are baseless. If anyone was their own man, it was Professor Flew.
I regarded Anthony Flew, throughout the time I knew him, with the utmost respect and admiration. It is a great sadness to learn of his death (2010). Would that more philosophers were like him, and would that I had been taught by him.
David S. Oderberg
Professor of Philosophy
There are many more such accolades…
Additionally, 'anaxcrosswords' is just wrong on many of hie/her statements, such as "...No – life started in an extremely basic form and adapted over countless millions of years…" The earliest preserved examples of life on Earth come from Australia and clearly indicate bacterial fossils extending to within a few hundred thousand of years following the estimated creation of Earth (3.8 billions of years ago) and are extremely complex (Seen here: http://
"//If things have an origin, they first needed an originator//
Nonsense. Cause and effect – simple." How can a statement be both true and false at the same time… this is a great example. Cause and effect are certainly true… but if something has a 'origin' the cause must be an 'originator'… At best a classical non-sequitur at worst a confabulation.
"…but the nature of that life might be very different…" We're informed, repeatedly, that life in our universe most likely can only be carbon based… attempts to demonstrate other basis, so far have failed, leading several eminent scientists to develop papers such as this http://
The terminating statement "...It is, I’m afraid, a desperately poor (indeed desperate) article…" applies more succinctly to the authors offering than to the article previously quoted.
BTW, there aren't 3 "billion" letters in the genetic code… only 4… A,T,C and G… out of which 64 "words" can be composed (Source: http://
This would not have caused eyebrows to rise were it not for his stature as one of the leading atheists of the twentieth century. Accused (by previously adoring non-believers) of having been hijacked by American Christian fundamentalists, of having descended into the woolly-mindedness of the old man who has lost his mental acuity, he defended his ‘conversion', as it were, in print and orally to the end of his days.
I know for a fact that, though old age had inevitably weakened him physically and mentally he did, both clearly and distinctly, change his position and commit himself to a kind of religious belief with eyes and mind wide open. The charges are baseless. If anyone was their own man, it was Professor Flew.
I regarded Anthony Flew, throughout the time I knew him, with the utmost respect and admiration. It is a great sadness to learn of his death (2010). Would that more philosophers were like him, and would that I had been taught by him.
David S. Oderberg
Professor of Philosophy
There are many more such accolades…
Additionally, 'anaxcrosswords' is just wrong on many of hie/her statements, such as "...No – life started in an extremely basic form and adapted over countless millions of years…" The earliest preserved examples of life on Earth come from Australia and clearly indicate bacterial fossils extending to within a few hundred thousand of years following the estimated creation of Earth (3.8 billions of years ago) and are extremely complex (Seen here: http://
"//If things have an origin, they first needed an originator//
Nonsense. Cause and effect – simple." How can a statement be both true and false at the same time… this is a great example. Cause and effect are certainly true… but if something has a 'origin' the cause must be an 'originator'… At best a classical non-sequitur at worst a confabulation.
"…but the nature of that life might be very different…" We're informed, repeatedly, that life in our universe most likely can only be carbon based… attempts to demonstrate other basis, so far have failed, leading several eminent scientists to develop papers such as this http://
The terminating statement "...It is, I’m afraid, a desperately poor (indeed desperate) article…" applies more succinctly to the authors offering than to the article previously quoted.
BTW, there aren't 3 "billion" letters in the genetic code… only 4… A,T,C and G… out of which 64 "words" can be composed (Source: http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.