Leading atheist now believes in god

[The_Oracle_Porn]

"British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

[gangbangjoe]

i dont care

[groark]

Then he'll change his mind again

[The_Oracle_Porn]

Originally posted by gangbangjoe
i dont care

Thats why you clicked the thread and replied to it.

Sure..

[polish_aristocrat]

Interesting.

[who]

He's a really really old guy... I guess he just wants to make sure he doesn't go to hell when he dies ;)

[Theo]

pornographers go to hell, better be prepared.

[XxXotic]

questioning gods existance is only good when yer young and not on yer deathbed

[XxXotic]

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
pornographers go to hell, better be prepared.

need me to save you a seat? I've got my own pew

[Theo]

yes please

[Major (Tom)]

So basically his idea of God is something that I came up with in philosophy 101. pfff.. Well at least i won an award for that paper

Duke

[grumpy]

quote :

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Better read the whole thing.

[The_Oracle_Porn]

Originally posted by grumpy
quote :

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Better read the whole thing.

The guy believes in what he spent a lifetime denying. An intelligent cause, and one with "a purpose."

[Libertine]

Originally posted by The_Oracle_Porn
The guy believes in what he spent a lifetime denying. An intelligent cause, and one with "a purpose."

Some senile git changes his mind. Big fucking deal, doesn't change the fact that there are still no strong arguments for religion.

[alexg]

Originally posted by punkworld
Some senile git changes his mind. Big fucking deal, doesn't change the fact that there are still no strong arguments for religion.

oh? and what strong arguments are there for atheism?

[Jakke PNG]

He's closer to death now, he wants to make sure he'll get into heaven.. if there is one.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by alexg
oh? and what strong arguments are there for atheism?

The argument that there are no strong arguments for religion. Duh. Atheism is the lack of a belief, not a belief itself.

"What strong arguments are there for not believing in leprechauns?" Idiot.

[alexg]

Originally posted by punkworld
The argument that there are no strong arguments for religion. Duh. Atheism is the lack of a belief, not a belief itself.

"What strong arguments are there for not believing in leprechauns?" Idiot.

but there are strong arguments for religion...

what do you think happened before the big bang? things should have started somehow... atheism doesn't have an explanation for this. religion does.

[Drake]

Originally posted by .?.
He's a really really old guy... I guess he just wants to make sure he doesn't go to hell when he dies ;)

[Spudstr]

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
pornographers go to hell, better be prepared.

i'll be driving the short bus there

[MattO]

He still doesn't believe in an afterlife or an "all-knowing" type god figure, but thinks that there was some sort of intelligence behind the startup of the Universe.

Although Xians and creationists are going to exploit the hell out of this forever.

[ustc9507]

I'd rather live in hell where you have porn and all the booze you need. Heaven filled with church hym is BORING....as hell.

[Libertine]

Originally posted by alexg
but there are strong arguments for religion...

what do you think happened before the big bang? things should have started somehow... atheism doesn't have an explanation for this. religion does.

Religion has a dogmatic, non-scientific statement, not an explanation.

I could come up with one of those too... "Reality is but a dream in the mind of the metaphysical leprechauns, who live happily and freely on an eternal plain of cheese."
There. Is that a strong argument for me being right? Didn't think so.

Atheism does not *need* to explain what "started things" (your presumption that time is completely linear is somewhat simplistic, btw), it is the lack of a belief in a God based on the lack of convincing arguments/evidence for one existing.

The idea that a theory that says "we don't know (yet)" is somehow inferior to one that says "we know everything" is ridiculous. Many things that science couldn't explain 500 years ago can now be explained quite easily, and even used for everyday purposes.
Would you have lived 500 years ago, you would have used your "big man in the sky"-theory and the argument that it explains things fully and therefore is superior to rationality, which then couldn't be used (yet) to explain the things which only recently have been explained by science. And you would have been wrong, as wrong as you are now.

[FredIsMe]

Originally posted by punkworld
Religion has a dogmatic, non-scientific statement, not an explanation.

I could come up with one of those too... "Reality is but a dream in the mind of the metaphysical leprechauns, who live happily and freely on an eternal plain of cheese."
There. Is that a strong argument for me being right? Didn't think so.

Atheism does not *need* to explain what "started things" (your presumption that time is completely linear is somewhat simplistic, btw), it is the lack of a belief in a God based on the lack of convincing arguments/evidence for one existing.

The idea that a theory that says "we don't know (yet)" is somehow inferior to one that says "we know everything" is ridiculous. Many things that science couldn't explain 500 years ago can now be explained quite easily, and even used for everyday purposes.
Would you have lived 500 years ago, you would have used your "big man in the sky"-theory and the argument that it explains things fully and therefore is superior to rationality, which then couldn't be used (yet) to explain the things which only recently have been explained by science. And you would have been wrong, as wrong as you are now.

punkworld - I wish you were there when these 3 christians confronted me at school to "learn more about christianity" and join their club. Fuckin pricks made me late for class.