Athiest turns religious

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 32 total items

beethoven

beethoven

darkness

Cancel

sorry about this being a bit late but last year the leading atiest antony flew scientificaly proven that a diety did inded create exsitance even if evilution did help some one created everything first in fact heres and artical about it read this if you want to learn more


Mr. Flew's best-known plaint for atheism, "Theology and Falsification," was delivered in 1950 to the Socratic Club, chaired by none other than C.S. Lewis. This paper went on to become the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last five decades and set the agenda for modern atheism.

Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe was brought into being by an infinite intelligence.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together," he said. "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

Given the conventional wisdom of some psychologists that people rarely, if ever, change their worldview after the age of 30, this radical new position adopted by an 81-year-old thinker may seem startling.

But Mr. Flew's change was consistent with his career-long principle of following the evidence where it led him. And his newfound theism is the product neither of a Damascus road experience nor of fresh philosophical arguments, but by his sustained analysis of scientific data.

Mr. Flew's conclusion is consistent with the actual beliefs of most modern scientific pioneers, from Albert Einstein to quantum physicists like Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg. In their view, the intelligence of the universe - its laws - points to an intelligence that has no limitation - "a superior mind," as Einstein put it.

Not a few of our men and women of letters, it would seem, have been looking for God in all the wrong places. Those who dismiss God as a product of psychological conditioning or pre-scientific myth-making have not come to terms with the essential assumptions underlying the scientific enterprise.

Science assumes that the universe follows laws, which leads to the question of how the laws of nature came into being. How does the electron know what to do? In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking asks what breathes fire into the equations of science and gives a universe for them to describe. The answer to the question of why the universe exists, he concluded, would reveal to us "the mind of God."

Last May, I helped organize a New York University symposium on religion and science, with the participation of Mr. Flew and others. Our starting point was science's new knowledge that the universe's history is a story of quantum leaps of intelligence, the sudden yet systematic appearance of intrinsically intelligent systems arranged in an ascending order.

Many people assume that the intelligence in the universe somehow evolved out of nonintelligence, given chance and enough time, and in the case of living beings, through natural selection and random mutation. But even in the most hardheadedly materialistic scenario, intelligence and intelligent systems come fully formed from day one.

Matter came with all its ingenious, mathematically precise laws from the time it first appeared. Life came fully formed with the incredibly intelligent symbol processing of DNA, the astonishing phenomenon of protein-folding and the marvel of replication from its very first appearance. Language, the incarnation of conceptual thought with its inexplicable structure of syntax, symbols and semantics, appeared out of the blue, again with its essential infrastructure as is from day one.

The evidence we have shows unmistakably that there was no progressive, gradual evolution of nonintelligence into intelligence in any of the fundamental categories of energy, life or mind. Each one of the three had intrinsically intelligent structures from the time each first appeared. Each, it would seem, proceeds from an infinitely intelligent mind in a precise sequence.

We can, if we want, declare that there is no reason why there are reasonable laws, no explanation for the fact there are explanations, no logic underlying logical processes. But this is manifestly not the conclusion adopted by Einstein, Heisenberg and, most recently, Antony Flew.

Only in the dark of your soul can you reveal the light of your heart" Stephen Penton
Signature
	Image

Cancel

Quote by beethoven
Last May, I helped organize a New York University symposium on religion and science, with the participation of Mr. Flew and others. Our starting point was science's new knowledge that the universe's history is a story of quantum leaps of intelligence, the sudden yet systematic appearance of intrinsically intelligent systems arranged in an ascending order.

Many people assume that the intelligence in the universe somehow evolved out of nonintelligence, given chance and enough time, and in the case of living beings, through natural selection and random mutation. But even in the most hardheadedly materialistic scenario, intelligence and intelligent systems come fully formed from day one.

No, this is completely untrue. Claiming something is a "intelligent system" doesn't prove anything.

Quote by beethovenMatter came with all its ingenious, mathematically precise laws from the time it first appeared. Life came fully formed with the incredibly intelligent symbol processing of DNA, the astonishing phenomenon of protein-folding and the marvel of replication from its very first appearance. Language, the incarnation of conceptual thought with its inexplicable structure of syntax, symbols and semantics, appeared out of the blue, again with its essential infrastructure as is from day one.

You have no evidence here execpt "This is too complicated to be chance." That is not a rational arguement in this case. We don't know what the first life was like, but it could have been quite simple. All it needed was some form of replication and the rest could be developed from there by natural selection. As for language, there is no way to tell exactly when it developed, but it didn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Chimpanzees have been shown to be capable of learning some sign language.

Quote by beethovenThe evidence we have shows unmistakably that there was no progressive, gradual evolution of nonintelligence into intelligence in any of the fundamental categories of energy, life or mind. Each one of the three had intrinsically intelligent structures from the time each first appeared. Each, it would seem, proceeds from an infinitely intelligent mind in a precise sequence.

This is complete crap. Your saying intelligence is defined by "energy, life, and mind", then claiming they must be created by an "infinitely intelligent mind". This is completly irrational and you have given no evidence to support anything you have said.

Quote by beethovenScience assumes that the universe follows laws, which leads to the question of how the laws of nature came into being. How does the electron know what to do? In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking asks what breathes fire into the equations of science and gives a universe for them to describe. The answer to the question of why the universe exists, he concluded, would reveal to us "the mind of God."


Quote by beethovenWe can, if we want, declare that there is no reason why there are reasonable laws, no explanation for the fact there are explanations, no logic underlying logical processes. But this is manifestly not the conclusion adopted by Einstein, Heisenberg and, most recently, Antony Flew.

So, 2+2=4 therefore, God exists? This is not evidence, it is a belief. Just because we don't know everything about the nature of the universe doesn't mean there is any scientific justification for an all-powerful God. Saying some intelligent people believe in God doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of intelligent people who are atheists.

  • Feb 16, 2006
Cancel

This is the same argument as "there are no atheists in foxholes". I've read of Christians turning to Islam too. What was your point?

  • Feb 16, 2006

Shinku-sama

*Toxic Waist*

Cancel

i'm a foxhole atheist...

In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death.

  • Feb 16, 2006
Cancel

It's an argument against foxholes more than it is against atheism.

  • Feb 16, 2006

Shinku-sama

*Toxic Waist*

Cancel

i know^.^ i just thought it was funny and would inject a little humor into such a serious thread.

In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death.

  • Feb 17, 2006

Ephix

Ephix

Chibi Dark Elf

Cancel

I love religion's use of logical fallacies to get their message across. This whole post is one fallacy after another and another.

Quote: "What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together," he said. "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."

The biggest and most used fallacy of them all, "It's really improbable so Ill just substitute all other possibilities with the one I like best." It's a good thing he managed to completely avoid explaing WHY it is improbable by just suggesting a way out of the arguement.

Quote: Many people assume that the intelligence in the universe somehow evolved out of nonintelligence, given chance and enough time, and in the case of living beings, through natural selection and random mutation. But even in the most hardheadedly materialistic scenario, intelligence and intelligent systems come fully formed from day one.

What seems more probable? Small shifts in genetic definitions over millions of years to create huge diversity in the world? or the hand of god waving its wand and all the sudden little billy down the street is able to run, jump and play to his hearts content? Gimme a god damn break.

Quote: The evidence we have shows unmistakably that there was no progressive, gradual evolution of nonintelligence into intelligence in any of the fundamental categories of energy, life or mind. Each one of the three had intrinsically intelligent structures from the time each first appeared. Each, it would seem, proceeds from an infinitely intelligent mind in a precise sequence.

Let's all make an assumption here that life and humans in particular (especially humans, because we all know humans are super special with their carbon compound make up and fancy limbs and whatnot) are actually intelligent. This constitutes that someone has claimed we are intelligent, but since we are the only ones we are therefore self-proclaimed intellegence. If someone on the street came up to me and told me they were a genius, I'd tell em to get back on the bottle. Get over it people, we are nothing special, just a random jumble of amino-acids that by chance formed something that can move in an eco system caused by the photons and radiation from the sun hitting water on our planet.

ranting is fun, get a god damn job you crazy creationist!

Signature
	Image

"Sleep is for the weak. *yawn* DAMNIT!"

  • Feb 21, 2006
Cancel

Good job, you just copy and pasted an article that proves how ignorant some theists can be.

This article presents a complete lack of evidence. Just because we don't know how we came into existence doesn't mean we should worship some fictional being from some contradictory books. I doubt any intelligent being would like its creations acting like complete fools. We cannot say, "I don't know how I came into existence or anything around me did. It seems complex, therefore God must exist." A logical person would say, "I don't know how I came into existence or anything around me did. It seems complex, therefore I must figure out how it came into existence. Possibly an intelligent being, but unless there is some actual evidence to back that idea up I'd best admit to lacking knowledge and try to find the answers to my questions."

Good article: http://graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html

Thanks Ephix for mentioning his use of fallacies. This entire article appeals to the ignorance of some famous scientists. So they can't back up their ideas or they use bad evidence to do so. That doesn't prove that God exists.

  • Feb 21, 2006
Cancel

The way I've proved Atheism wrong is to keep asking questions. For every scientic fact ask What/Who/Why/How. When it gets back to the first atom of Hydrogen... what created that one atom? What created what was needed to create that atom? Keep going back, and eventually, there is no answer. The answer is God.

  • Feb 26, 2006
Cancel

Well umm vincent214, that doesn't prove God exists. That just proves we don't know how matter came into existance. sarcasm("Good evidence");

  • Feb 27, 2006

beethoven

beethoven

darkness

Cancel

vincent don't you read the answer isn't god the answer is jesuse

but who created god god created god he is so powerful he created himself

Only in the dark of your soul can you reveal the light of your heart" Stephen Penton
Signature
	Image

RubyDrg0n

Wanna-be-Drg0n

Cancel

i agree... if we need a creator... then god will need one as well.... i rather stick to the no answer bit.....
sry...didnt read all the post.. will post again when i have more time(my work is killing me and my sleep...)

  • Feb 27, 2006
Cancel

Quote by vincent214The way I've proved Atheism wrong is to keep asking questions. For every scientic fact ask What/Who/Why/How. When it gets back to the first atom of Hydrogen... what created that one atom? What created what was needed to create that atom? Keep going back, and eventually, there is no answer. The answer is God.

Ah, the old "god of the gaps" argument. Find something that, currently, cannot be explained, then shout from the rooftops; the scientific atheists have failed!

Or, maybe not.

  • Feb 28, 2006
Cancel

Logic says that if we don't know something we admit to not knowing it, but that a lack of knowledge does not prove anything. It only proves that we don't know something...

In this case even if God is powerful enough to create itself before it exists (which would be a required ability of an omnipotent being) that does not prove God's existence as Valdemar had said. It proves we lack knowledge. The same goes for specifics on how the humans brain works, just because we don't know how it works currently does not mean we have some mystical being that lives inside of us (holy ghost).

  • Feb 28, 2006
Cancel

Why would you jump to the conclusion that it was created? Behold the face of God....


http://www.alzheimers.org/unraveling/images/large/DNA-HIGH.jpg

  • Mar 02, 2006

beethoven

beethoven

darkness

Cancel

Quote by PlunkiesWhy would you jump to the conclusion that it was created? Behold the face of God....


http://www.alzheimers.org/unraveling/images/large/DNA-HIGH.jpg

exzactly how can a bacteria that is incable of rproduction or even movement have the cappability to evolve expecialy saying that in order to evolve you have to breed and then you children will evolve i mean thats 7th grade science you don't evolve your children do so if it couldn't have children how could it evolve with out a helping hand from an allpowerful being even if we did evolve from a monkey that came from a reptile hat came from a frog that came from a fish we still need that first push out the door

Only in the dark of your soul can you reveal the light of your heart" Stephen Penton
Signature
	Image

tobiast88

tobiast88

No patience for fools.

Cancel

Fine then. Let's go AAAALLLLL the way back. First star, first cloud of gas, first hydrogen atoms, first elementary particules, the Big Bang... What started the big bang? Hmmmm... I can't find an answer. Oh, God! Yay! Mystery solved!
Or not. How did God come into being? And anyway, if he's really shaped us (as he most obviously has: I mean, we're so complex and special and chosen and blah blah blah, whatever you religious freaks have invented to justify "god watching over us"...) then why the hell doesn't he do anything to shape us further and, oh, make sure we don't wipe each other out?! Coz it kinda looks like that's where we're going right now, if people don't lay down their little "holy books" and start talking like sensible human beings.
There might be a reason this guy converted at 81 years old: he's probably senile now. Yeah.
Just not being able to prove stuff doesn't mean that "god did it". If we can't explain it, I'm sure that later someone else will. At one time, no one could prove the Earth wasn't flat. Is the Earth flat? NO. Stop the "If not A or B, then B" logic because it is inherently flawed.
Anyway if God did exist... Which God? Buddha, YHWH, Amaterasu, Ra, Odin, Jesus, Zeus? Why doesn't God (since He [or She, come to think of it] is supposed to be love) help us with our lives, to become better people? Either God cannot help us, making Him either nonexistant or impotent; or He won't help us, which is far worse. Why wouldn' t God help us, if He exists and is infinitely caring and infinitely loving?

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis, Litterature Nobel Prize winner.
Join the groups!
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ ---> for science vs religion discussion
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ ---> for tolerant people

RubyDrg0n

Wanna-be-Drg0n

Cancel

tobiast88: lol... agree with the comments
anyway to complicate it more...

adding more factors..... we aren't perfect as we are suppose to be... as wat GOD says... izzit because we are not loved anymore? or we are just playthings for He who created us?

beethoven: are you sure it all need guidiance?
in the formation of EARTH.... our planets have very extreme temperature and volatile atmosphere... so volatile that numerous reactions happen at once.... why not say that all is a coincidence that it all happen then and was preserved....?
Have faith in our existance...! we may exist without help from higher beings (of coz... unless you are too weak to be in the chain...)

  • Mar 03, 2006
Cancel

Quote by beethoven
exzactly how can a bacteria that is incable of rproduction or even movement have the cappability to evolve....

It's called "fission".

  • Mar 03, 2006
Cancel

Quote by Plunkies

Quote by beethoven
exzactly how can a bacteria that is incable of rproduction or even movement have the cappability to evolve....

It's called "fission".

Fission- A nuclear reaction in which a nucleus is split into fragments, usually two pieces of comparable mass, accompanied by a release of energy.

Sorry, but 'fission' doesn't explain large changes in a species - which of couse is needed for evolution. It may explain a bacteria duplicating itself but it certainly doesn't explain a bacteria changing itself. Your post is not a sufficient response.

  • Mar 04, 2006

RubyDrg0n

Wanna-be-Drg0n

Cancel

beethoven: something cross my peacful slumber yesterday as i was analyzing plunkies and your posts....

you have started to use human perception to think again....
because we live like 80 years of age before we die and also we are made of complex internal structures mostly supported by complex cells supporting each other that you forgot

1. there are simpler cells that can change so much that they are only categorized evolving when some significant changes occur.... like reproduction and stuff...

2. how sure are you that the cell wont last that long to have evolved?
i dunno myself and also this probability is high enough to let us have no creator guidance...

3. (this one is dedicated to kellyo) do you know that when we move, think, or breathing, we are actually changing ourselves? when we think... our brain changes its molecular structure and stuff (too hard for me to explain... need to learn more English) to create thoughts(in waves) so in a way we are also changing...
so if a bacteria "change", why does it require God's assistance?
Does that mean that we require God to THINK or MOVE? if so, then is God playing by himself by controlling us?

  • Mar 04, 2006

beethoven

beethoven

darkness

Cancel

OK what about this
if evolution happened like they claim wouldn't there only be a few speices i mean if we came from monkeys then then how are there still monkeys and if evolution started from the bvegining again wouldn't there still be something like brontoscorpio or even a single speices of protolybyatan (excluding the giant and gargantan squids) i mean if it started again every once and i while i would belive it but there are still like hundreds of things something else came from i mean if monkeys wouldn't still be here they would all be humans or there would still be dinosaurs or at least some of the least gentic similareitys to them EX. when dinos were alive there was about 20% more O3 in the air so they would be able to suport larger organisums so like minidinos or something but there should be something so untill you can scientificaly explain this think how do you get 2+2=4 & 2 i mean it makes no scense unless it is 2+2=4 and 1+1=2 if you restart there would always be the original at fromt he start in the new equation if you catch my drift

Only in the dark of your soul can you reveal the light of your heart" Stephen Penton
Signature
	Image

Cancel

Quote by kellyo

Quote by Plunkies

Quote by beetho(...) how can a bacteria that is incable of rproduction or even movement have the cappability to evolve....[/quote

It's called "fission".

Fission- A nuclear reaction in which a nucleus is split into fragments, usually two pieces of comparable mass, accompanied by a release of energy.

Sorry, but 'fission' doesn't explain large changes in a species - which of couse is needed for evolution. It may explain a bacteria duplicating itself but it certainly doesn't explain a bacteria changing itself. Your post is not a sufficient response.

The cells split. Duplicated cells have slightly different attributes. Some are stronger, some reproduce faster, etc. etc. The better cells keep reproducing stronger and stronger while the weaker cells are weeded out or overwhelmed. Fission is only the explanation for the cells evolving. Fission has nothing to do with "large changes in species" because large species don't freakin reproduce asexually do they?

merged: 03-04-2006 ~ 12:26pm

Quote by beethovenOK what about this
if evolution happened like they claim wouldn't there only be a few speices i mean if we came from monkeys then then how are there still monkeys and if evolution started from the bvegining again wouldn't there still be something like brontoscorpio or even a single speices of protolybyatan (excluding the giant and gargantan squids) i mean if it started again every once and i while i would belive it but there are still like hundreds of things something else came from i mean if monkeys wouldn't still be here they would all be humans or there would still be dinosaurs or at least some of the least gentic similareitys to them EX. when dinos were alive there was about 20% more O3 in the air so they would be able to suport larger organisums so like minidinos or something but there should be something so untill you can scientificaly explain this think how do you get 2+2=4 & 2 i mean it makes no scense unless it is 2+2=4 and 1+1=2 if you restart there would always be the original at fromt he start in the new equation if you catch my drift

Most of your post just looks like a jumble of inane ramblings and poor punctuation but I'll do my best to answer.

It still amazes me that people make this argument. Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes simply share a common ancestor. Think of the way a family tree splits off and gets wider toward the base. That's why there's so many species.

Whatever that post was supposed to be, this should probably explain it...

Evolution

Just in case....

And here's one for the guy arguing about cells

  • Mar 04, 2006
Cancel

Quote by Plunkies

Quote by kellyo

Quote by Plunki(...) how can a bacteria that is incable of rproduction or even movement have the cappability to evolve....[/quote

It's called "fission".

Fission- A nuclear reaction in which a nucleus is split into fragments, usually two pieces of comparable mass, accompanied by a release of energy.

Sorry, but 'fission' doesn't explain large changes in a species - which of couse is needed for evolution. It may explain a bacteria duplicating itself but it certainly doesn't explain a bacteria changing itself. Your post is not a sufficient response.

The cells split. Duplicated cells have slightly different attributes. Some are stronger, some reproduce faster, etc. etc. The better cells keep reproducing stronger and stronger while the weaker cells are weeded out or overwhelmed. Fission is only the explanation for the cells evolving. Fission has nothing to do with "large changes in species" because large species don't freakin reproduce asexually do they?

My point exactly - it doesn't prove Evolutionary change.

  • Mar 04, 2006

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 32 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.