I'm saying that you seem to think you see my view. And then you proceeded to state a view that is not mine. Also a view that is prove inaccurate if you carefully read my posts. Regardless of your perspective or intent, it was inaccurate.
I mean that i stated your view the way atheists see it. Things look different from that perspective. There's a sense that the religious world will only accept things their way (which is true to certain extents).
I understand your view and i think you're arguing better than him actually..
but neither of you will ever win an inch with the other side.
By: Cliff Kinkaid
Insight On The News
December 21, 2004
It didn't make news, on the front or back pages of leading American newspapers, but Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in science as proof of the existence of God. This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a celibate.
At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, Flew said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA research. Flew, author of the book, Darwinian Evolution, declared, "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."
Associated Press distributed a December 9 story by religion writer Richard N. Ostling about Flew's conversion. Flew told AP that his current ideas had some similarity with those of U.S. "intelligent design" theorists, who believe the complexity of life points to an intelligent source of life, rather than the random and natural processes posited by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Flew's statements have been covered in Britain, where he is a professor, but we found nothing about his transformation in major American newspapers such as USA Today, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Ostling's status as a religion writer may help explain why. The secular press considers this a religion story.
To its credit, however, the Seattle Times permitted Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute to write a column noting Flew's conversion in the context of discussing the usually taboo subject of the holes in Darwinian theory.
Witt noted that Darwin and his contemporaries thought a single cell was a simple blob of protoplasm and that it wouldn't have been difficult for nature to randomly produce something so simple. "In those days the cell was a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able to open that black box and peek inside," he notes. "There they found not a simple blob, but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors and digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their corresponding proteins."
"Darwin's Black Box" is the title of Michael J. Behe's 1996 book. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, emphasizes the complexity of molecular systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Identified by electron microscopes, it is what Behe calls an "irreducibly complex system" that is necessarily composed of at least three parts¯a paddle, a rotor, and a motor. He argues that Darwinian theory cannot account for it.
But those who believe in intelligent design or find gaping holes in the theory of evolution frequently encounter a hostile press. The Discovery Institute recently provided to Accuracy in Media a thick file of complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the media, especially National Public Radio. The Discovery Institute focuses on the issue of whether there is any evidence of design in nature, rather than whether there is a designer. Still, its representatives tend to be portrayed in religious terms by the media.
Such a tactic is common operating procedure by the ACLU, which is determined to portray any alternative to evolution as religious and therefore not allowed to be taught or even discussed in the public schools.
Back in 2001, when the Public Broadcasting Service aired the seven-part series, Evolution, financed by Microsoft co-founder and billionaire Paul G. Allen, it asked Discovery Institute scientists to appear on the last segment dealing with God and religion. It was a trick. The institute rejected this ploy, saying that its representatives had scientific objections to evolution and that they should be included in the scientific episodes.
PBS went ahead with its one-sided program anyway. In response, the Discovery Institute produced a 152-page viewers guide, noting that the series distorts the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements over Darwin's theory, and misrepresents the theory's critics. Because the PBS series is still being marketed to high schools around the country, the Discovery Institute critique continues to be helpful and relevant. You can find it at: http://www.reviewevolution.com
PBS and the rest of the media would be well-advised to follow the lead of Antony Flew, who said that his life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Journalists can begin their investigation of the Socratic principle by simply reporting the facts surrounding Flew's amazing evolution and the implications that his statements have for a questionable theory that continues to be taught as the Gospel in the public schools.
Cliff Kincaid is Editor of the AIM Report.
Interesting article. It will be ignored. Most people do not want to hear about just how often scientists discover God through their research. Happens all the time!
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Interesting article. It will be ignored. Most people do not want to hear about just how often scientists discover God through their research. Happens all the time!
Yep, it happened to my wife, during her work in the field of chemistry, I believe. She posted here about it before, I think. It's why I found the article interesting.
Perhaps someday I'll crawl home, beaten, defeated. But not as long as I can make stories out of my heartbreak, beauty out of sorrow.
Ahh... yes. The Omnipotence paradox. If God CAN create the stone, then his power is limited because there is something he cannot do. Carry the stone. If God CANNOT create such a stone, then his power is, again, limited because there is something he cannot do. Create the stone.
Its a classic line allright. Problem is,... its a classic line of bullshit.
I'm confused as to how you conclude this is a "classic line of bullshit." Seems quite valid to me.
I'm confused as to how you conclude this is a "classic line of bullshit." Seems quite valid to me.
It's really not valid because it applies the concept of a physical restraint in a situation where such fixed restraints may simply not exist. If God is an omnipotent force he could create a stone and as such create a limitation upon him/herself such that he could not carry it. The limitation would be a product of his/her creation rather than a fundamental aspect of his/her being.
If we think of it in human terms within the restraints of our physical world with its laws, then yes it is a paradox. However, in the context of an omnipotent being where the basic rules of logic and physics do not necessarily have to apply, it is not a paradox.
Someone wrote about the myans, incans, american indians. They may not have had the "christian" god, but they are spiritual. thier traditions are covered in spiritual exercises. Most civilations are. to me this means...there is a great power. Regardless if you call it mother earth or jesus, or just god...there is "something." I think it is very irrogant of me to assume that my religion is the correct one. Maybe there is no correct one.
yeah, ol' noah was pretty lucky that all the pairs of species he collected were fertile, eh?
man, that must have been one big fucking boat. and stinky.
I've read that it's physiologically impossible for a boat to be the size the bible claims to have been made of wood. If ever there were a fairy tale, it's Noah's Ark.....oh wait, or is it Jonah and the Whale....or Moses and the Burning Bush...or...you get my point.
I've read that it's physiologically impossible for a boat to be the size the bible claims to have been made of wood. If ever there were a fairy tale, it's Noah's Ark.....oh wait, or is it Jonah and the Whale....or Moses and the Burning Bush...or...you get my point.
these are the problems I have with chrisitianity. I know these things just did not happen. I truly believe that college ruined my faith in christianity...however.....I say that very hesitantly. I do feel that I am a very spiritual person. I do believe in Jesus. I do believe in God. but I believe that the stories that we read in the Bible are written by human beings, interpreted by human beings, and passed down through languages that do not have exact interpretations. I find my God in a valley, at the ocean, in the sky, etc. Those are my proofs that there is god, not a story about a man who made a wooden boat.
Someone wrote about the myans, incans, american indians. They may not have had the "christian" god, but they are spiritual. thier traditions are covered in spiritual exercises. Most civilations are. to me this means...there is a great power. Regardless if you call it mother earth or jesus, or just god...there is "something." I think it is very irrogant of me to assume that my religion is the correct one. Maybe there is no correct one.
No, that means that there is a great need in humanity to have spirituality and to explain things around them that they don't understand.
But you're right, there can't be a correct religion, and it's extremely arrogant to say so.
these are the problems I have with chrisitianity. I know these things just did not happen. I truly believe that college ruined my faith in christianity...however.....I say that very hesitantly. I do feel that I am a very spiritual person. I do believe in Jesus. I do believe in God. but I believe that the stories that we read in the Bible are written by human beings, interpreted by human beings, and passed down through languages that do not have exact interpretations. I find my God in a valley, at the ocean, in the sky, etc. Those are my proofs that there is god, not a story about a man who made a wooden boat.
In defense of Christianity (which, for me, is rare) those stories were not meant as fact. You'd have to be a small child or the stupidest person on the planet to believe that.
It's a story with a lesson taught.. a fable.. it's meant to teach you a lesson not to teach you that god flooded the earth and moses parted the red sea.
But you're right, there can't be a correct religion.
I'd say this is pretty fair. The way I see it, it is able trying to know and acknowledge God. Just like many people know and call you by different names (son, brother, uncle, dude, Joe, etc...), there is no one right way to know you. You are, hopefully, just happy that they do know you and vice-versa.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'd say this is pretty fair. The way I see it, it is able trying to know and acknowledge God. Just like many people know and call you by different names (son, brother, uncle, dude, Joe, etc...), there is no one right way to know you. You are, hopefully, just happy that they do know you and vice-versa.
Yeah really. Plus, you'd think whatever being is up there would be happy with you just being a good person...
you know what, people on this thread might call me an ass, but id ont believe in any religious bullshit. go ahead, say what you want, i just think there are a million better things to do on sundays than go to church, and hear about how everyone is going tohell. im not saying people who believe in god are stupid, i just think it is a waste of time. (i think) the reason people believe in this stuff is because they just want to be reassured about death.
they call them fingers, but i never see them fing. oh, there they go
No, that means that there is a great need in humanity to have spirituality and to explain things around them that they don't understand.
But you're right, there can't be a correct religion, and it's extremely arrogant to say so.
Yeah you're absolutely right. And it isn't at all arogant to slag people of faith and insist God is a myth because that's what YOU believe. Hypocrite of the highest order.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
You (representing atheists) have a filter over the possibility that others see of things/realms/dimensions/whatever existing beyond our world. Call it whatever you will.
Her filter (representing religious folk) is filtering out anything that doesn't agree with their sense of "religion" or "spirituality", which is why we have so many religious wars.. it's not important that someone has a belief, it's important that everyone have your beliefs.
I'm not trying to back you into one of those "pushing your beliefs on me" corners, but in a nutshell that's the way things generally are.
jesus christ.
I'm sorry, but given the topic of this thread, the last two words in this post made me lmfao.
athiests: u think ur brain power is a cause of nature? think to urselves on moment, one by one. is it possible that someone with ur complex thoughts and self awareness is just a mistake?
if you find a watch on an uninhabited island... you would say someone must have put it there. for a watch is too complex a mechanism to have just got there by chance. the watch must have had a designers, and a manufacturer, as its mechanisms are complex, and need to be exact for it to work.
think of yourself, and compare yourself with a watch. you must think you are very simple people
We pale in comparison to your eloquent diction and insights. Idiot.
PEACE
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,776
Closed for personal attacks.
Discuss the ISSUE please...without the sniping at each other. Posting privileges are at risk.
Comments
I understand your view and i think you're arguing better than him actually..
but neither of you will ever win an inch with the other side.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
I can imagine they look differently from that perspective, particularly if one is using lack of awareness to distort what I am actually saying.
If you have a few categories, say of athiest or religious, by putting me in one or the other, you will have greatly distorted what I am saying.
If I were trying to "win an inch" you might have a case. However, it seems that you can't speak to my intent as you are apparently unaware of it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yep, it happened to my wife, during her work in the field of chemistry, I believe. She posted here about it before, I think. It's why I found the article interesting.
-Sylvia Plath
wow you are right that must mean there is no god...
yea...
Over
http://bubba.smugmug.com/gallery/1709217/8/84256604
It's really not valid because it applies the concept of a physical restraint in a situation where such fixed restraints may simply not exist. If God is an omnipotent force he could create a stone and as such create a limitation upon him/herself such that he could not carry it. The limitation would be a product of his/her creation rather than a fundamental aspect of his/her being.
If we think of it in human terms within the restraints of our physical world with its laws, then yes it is a paradox. However, in the context of an omnipotent being where the basic rules of logic and physics do not necessarily have to apply, it is not a paradox.
these are the problems I have with chrisitianity. I know these things just did not happen. I truly believe that college ruined my faith in christianity...however.....I say that very hesitantly. I do feel that I am a very spiritual person. I do believe in Jesus. I do believe in God. but I believe that the stories that we read in the Bible are written by human beings, interpreted by human beings, and passed down through languages that do not have exact interpretations. I find my God in a valley, at the ocean, in the sky, etc. Those are my proofs that there is god, not a story about a man who made a wooden boat.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
But you're right, there can't be a correct religion, and it's extremely arrogant to say so.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
It's a story with a lesson taught.. a fable.. it's meant to teach you a lesson not to teach you that god flooded the earth and moses parted the red sea.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
If you are concerned with understanding my point of view, a consideration of my words would be a good place to start.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
but you two were just going at it, back and forth, saying basically the same thing each time.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
I am concerned with speaking for my own purposes, not for satisfying yours.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yeah you're absolutely right. And it isn't at all arogant to slag people of faith and insist God is a myth because that's what YOU believe. Hypocrite of the highest order.
We pale in comparison to your eloquent diction and insights. Idiot.
PEACE
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
Discuss the ISSUE please...without the sniping at each other. Posting privileges are at risk.
Admin