Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,"

Interesting article. There will be a day in which every soul shall come to this same conclusion. Every knee shall bow & every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God.

Hopefully it will be by choice.

Merry Christmas
preacherman

It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,"

Interesting article. There will be a day in which every soul shall come to this same conclusion. Every knee shall bow & every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God.

Hopefully it will be by choice.

Merry Christmas
preacherman

this thread is spin, do a simple google search, jesus freaks.

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

It is illogical that something comes from nothing. Everything we now know had to start somewhere, and God had to start everything moving. Evolution has taken over to create the world and the planets and the universe, but all the elements had to be created first.

It is illogical that something comes from nothing. Everything we now know had to start somewhere, and God had to start everything moving. Evolution has taken over to create the world and the planets and the universe, but all the elements had to be created first.

If everything has to come from something, who created God?

If everything has to come from something, who created God?

That is the question.

My belief is that God has always been. I doubt that the answer will satisfy you, seeing as how it does not altogether satisfy me.

However, God is still the only explanation for the creation of all that we know. As for His...

Why do people desire to take such a beautiful mystery and paint it with their own ugly colors of opinion. If God is the only good explanation at this point in time, it still doesn't make it true, or false, but still a mystery. He was also once the only good reason why the sun was in the sky, and why rain fell and all kinds of basis things that are now common knowledfe. I think people lose something very important when they shun the mystery with their belief in God so they can say that they understand the universe as far as any human can. I think it's the product of a lazy mind that seeks security. I understand God as a theory, a working hypothesis - but one that has no basis in reality. But I'm open to the possibility in the deepest part of me. I've even read the Bible waiting for some divine intervention - nothing. The idea is still nice to meditate on - but to force yourself to think you 'know' the truth seems to me to be naive and also pretentious.

Reply #3 By: Modern Marxist - 12/9/2004 10:36:52 PM this thread is spin, do a simple google search, jesus freaks. http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

First off I don't appreciate being called a "jesus freak". Secondly did you read the entire article you posted the link to? I don't think you did.

The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe

And BTW the quoted section is from the article *you* posted.

Why do people desire to take such a beautiful mystery and paint it with their own ugly colors of opinion. If God is the only good explanation at this point in time, it still doesn't make it true, or false, but still a mystery. He was also once the only good reason why the sun was in the sky, and why rain fell and all kinds of basis things that are now common knowledfe. I think people lose something very important when they shun the mystery with their belief in God so they can say that they understand the universe as far as any human can. I think it's the product of a lazy mind that seeks security. I understand God as a theory, a working hypothesis - but one that has no basis in reality. But I'm open to the possibility in the deepest part of me. I've even read the Bible waiting for some divine intervention - nothing. The idea is still nice to meditate on - but to force yourself to think you 'know' the truth seems to me to be naive and also pretentious.

People don't simply go, "For no reason whatsoever, I shall believe in God." There's many factors that exist that lead people toward Him.
Also, if it's ignorant to believe in God, since nobody can comprehend the mechanics of existence, why isn't it ignorant to disregard God as a theory that has no basis in reality? Also, people believe in God not because they force themselves to believe. They do it because they sincerely believe. Theists, deists, and atheists might be ignorant and lazy to believe what they sincerely believe, but disregarding why they believe with reasons you prefer they have is as ignorant and lazy.

this thread is spin, do a simple google search, jesus freaks. http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Remember, Christians aren't the only people who believe in God.

People don't simply go, "For no reason whatsoever, I shall believe in God." There's many factors that exist that lead people toward Him.

There are many reasons, but which one is the most common and which one is the most noble? An interest question I think.

Also, if it's ignorant to believe in God, since nobody can comprehend the mechanics of existence, why isn't it ignorant to disregard God as a theory that has no basis in reality?

I think either choice is slightly ignorant, as I never said one should believe or not believe. Just try to understand the mystery. When one 'believe's they know' then the mystery is essential gone. Like I said, I am open to their being a God - not nesasarily a HIM as you state - more likely a 'force' - maybe without any consiousness. I like how Flew described his evolving conception of God. But it is one theory out of exactly how many people on earth. No two people have the same conception of God - It is impossible as I see it.

Also, people believe in God not because they force themselves to believe. They do it because they sincerely believe.

Everything that is done by anyone is the result of the will, and therefore is a force - an action. Just because someone is sincere doesn't mean that they are right to do so.

Theists, deists, and atheists might be ignorant and lazy to believe what they sincerely believe, but disregarding why they believe with reasons you prefer they have is as ignorant and lazy.

Well said. I think most actions and ideas are based on either laziness or fear - including myself. These seem to be the most prevalent qualities of man.

Remember, Christians aren't the only people who believe in God.

This is something I think Christians themselves forget.

Everything that is done by anyone is the result of the will, and therefore is a force - an action. Just because someone is sincere doesn't mean that they are right to do so.

No, but it does mean that they're sincere about what they believe, so they're not believing it because they're lazy or fearful anymore than what you believe is what you believe because you're lazy and afraid.

Well said. I think most actions and ideas are based on either laziness or fear - including myself. These seem to be the most prevalent qualities of man.

What idea isn't based on laziness then, if believing what one sincerely believes to be true is true? Believing the complete opposite of what one believes is true?

This is something I think Christians themselves forget.

I've never met a Christian who believed that only they believe in a deity or deities.

Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and point out that the guy is 81 yrs old!  If you pay attention to people, which I do because I find them fascinating, many, many people start believing in God once they hit a point in life when they consider themselves old.  I am merely suggesting that when faced with imminent mortality, hope that death is not the end evolves into belief of a higher being/creator/deity/ what-have-you.

It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that at some point, something came from nothing.  If you strive to fill in the blanks with scientific explaination, you are an atheist.  If you believe that there is simply a creator and mankind will never posess the ability to explain that creator's power, you usually strive to find guidance through religion.  You certainly don't have to be Christian to believe in God though.

What I don't understand is why this is in the "politics" section.

It is illogical that something comes from nothing. Everything we now know had to start somewhere, and God had to start everything moving. Evolution has taken over to create the world and the planets and the universe, but all the elements had to be created first.

Why? And why is it that people never seem to answer this question or support this claim, they just assert it? Why are things illogical just because you say so?

But beyond that, why does evolution say that something comes from nothing? Last time I checked, it meant organisms evolving, meaning they are coming from other organisms. I just learned recently that the newest studies say microbacteria are one of the oldest forms of life that we all evolved from because they could stand the harsh conditions of the time: a really hot atmosphere with little or no oxygen. Just because scientists can't yet explain how life or evolution or the earth began does not disprove it. It also doesn't mean that God created everything. Mismos said this right:

He was also once the only good reason why the sun was in the sky, and why rain fell and all kinds of basis things that are now common knowledfe

If the scientifically supported theory of the Big Bang is true, than it isn't a matter of life randomly springing from nothing. In fact, based on that, creation sounds more impossible to me.

Mismos- the things you said are almost the exact reasons why I am currently agnostic. I don't find any reason to believe in God or a supreme being, but I also find no reason that one can't exist.

Reply #13 By: ~Molly - 12/10/2004 8:57:33 PM It is illogical that something comes from nothing. Everything we now know had to start somewhere, and God had to start everything moving. Evolution has taken over to create the world and the planets and the universe, but all the elements had to be created first. Why? And why is it that people never seem to answer this question or support this claim, they just assert it? Why are things illogical just because you say so? But beyond that, why does evolution say that something comes from nothing? Last time I checked, it meant organisms evolving,

Okay organisms carried it along. But answer this one. "Where" did the organisms come from in the first place?

...I love these arguments....some people won't believe God exists unless he shows up, parts the ocean, raises the dead, playsthe harmonica, and creates a new animal....or something like that. I can't see why people have to have proof for everything....so many things are assumed if you look around. Sure there are laws and theories, but they only explain how and not why things happen or how they began. In "logical" thinking there had to be some sort of intelligent being that set off everything a long time ago. As to who created God, well....that needs no answer. If you believe then you don't need to ask why, if you don't....well, don't worry because you're just not going to exist...or so you believe. Remember this, searching for the meaning of life and existence is fruitless....the only way to figure it out is to die, because then you'll have reference material....

~Zoo

I don't know.

This is what I said next:

Last time I checked, it meant organisms evolving, meaning they are coming from other organisms. I just learned recently that the newest studies say microbacteria are one of the oldest forms of life that we all evolved from because they could stand the harsh conditions of the time: a really hot atmosphere with little or no oxygen. Just because scientists can't yet explain how life or evolution or the earth began does not disprove it. It also doesn't mean that God created everything. Mismos said this right: He was also once the only good reason why the sun was in the sky, and why rain fell and all kinds of basis things that are now common knowledfe

What I meant by this is that just because science doesn't yet allow us to prove exacly where/when/how life first originated, that doesn't disprove evolution and it doesn't prove a creator. Scientists are now able to bring evolution farther back than ever to prove that we are very much genetically similar to not just plants, but to ancient forms of microbacteria. Now the question is how these things came about. Also remember to look at the big picture of how everything began. Although the Big Bang theory is by no means "proven", it is scientifically supported.

My main point in creation v. evolution, though, is always that we don't default to a higher power to explain things we don't know. That's what mythology was, and now it looks a little silly. We can't really default to either unproven theory, but in the very least, we lean towards evolution because it at least has some sort of proven, scientific basis.

Now the question is how these things came about. Also remember to look at the big picture of how everything began. Although the Big Bang theory is by no means "proven", it is scientifically supported.

Even the singularity had to come from somewhere. It's one of those questions science can never answer unless humans become omniscient.

Even the singularity had to come from somewhere. It's one of those questions science can never answer unless humans become omniscient.

Right, I agree that we can probably never prove a lot of scientific theories, including macroevolution, but we still don't default to creationsim to explain it. I won't deny that it's possible, but I don't believe it, which is why I"m agnostic.

Sure there are laws and theories, but they only explain how and not why things happen or how they began. In "logical" thinking there had to be some sort of intelligent being that set off everything a long time ago. As to who created God, well....that needs no answer. If you believe then you don't need to ask why, if you don't....well, don't worry because you're just not going to exist...or so you believe.

But according to this "logical" thinking, there has to be something that created God. And then something that created whatever created God, and so on and so forth. It's like asking "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" So logically, there are one of two possibilities:

1. Something doesn't need a creator. This could be anything along the chain, (the universe, God, God's creator, God's creator's creator, etc.). Personally, I feel that if anything, it would be the universe.

2. Something always has been. In other words, the universe (or perhaps something along this chain) has always existed, and therefore can be the "seed" for everything else. Or perhaps it has something to do with space-time itself. Perhaps space-time didn't exist until the Big Bang, and the Big Bang was the "creator," and everything after that was random occurances.

Reply #19 By: latour999 - 12/11/2004 2:19:01 AM Something always has been. In other words, the universe (or perhaps something along this chain) has always existed, and therefore can be the "seed" for everything else. Or perhaps it has something to do with space-time itself. Perhaps space-time didn't exist until the Big Bang, and the Big Bang was the "creator," and everything after that was random occurances.

So following your logic life itself was created by the big bang? The big bang created the micro organisms that evolved to a higher form (human)? Think about that for a minute. Think about what the big bang was supposed to be and then tell me again how the organisms were first created.

So following your logic life itself was created by the big bang? The big bang created the micro organisms that evolved to a higher form (human)? Think about that for a minute. Think about what the big bang was supposed to be and then tell me again how the organisms were first created.

The big bang created all the stars, planets, atoms, subatomic particles, etc. Then, on some planets (even though the odds are probably quite small, Earth could be the one-in-a million) where carbon was abundant, chemical reactions formed amino acids, which are the building blocks of life, then proteins, then single celled organisms, then mix in some evolution, bake for a few billion years, and presto! We have humans!

Life itself wasn't created by the big bang, it was created by what has happened since then as a result of events that could not have occured without it. For example: Alexander Graham Bell invents the telephone, and after it takes off, someone invents the cell phone. Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the cell phone, but if the telephone wasn't invented, the cell phone would not be invented, therefore, he was in a way, indirectly involved with inventing the cell phone.

I don't remember much from my old biology class, but basically, I'd say that the odds of life coming about on its own are much less than me winning the lottery, having sex with Lindsay Lohan, and becoming 75,000 times stronger (thereby having a chance to become a Super Saiyan) in one day. That's not to say it's impossible, but nothing's impossible, and I could technically say that Star Wars is real 'cause in trillions and trillions of years, there's a possibility of everything in Star Wars to become a reality.
I think there are some things we must remember. Evolution doesn't touch on the subject of the beginning of life, science only touches on what's observable, the big bang theory is not part of evolution, and for humans to comprehend what's before the beginning is pretty impossible.

Reply #21 By: latour999 - 12/11/2004 3:10:53 AM So following your logic life itself was created by the big bang? The big bang created the micro organisms that evolved to a higher form (human)? Think about that for a minute. Think about what the big bang was supposed to be and then tell me again how the organisms were first created. The big bang created all the stars, planets, atoms, subatomic particles, etc. Then, on some planets (even though the odds are probably quite small, Earth could be the one-in-a million) where carbon was abundant, chemical reactions formed amino acids, which are the building blocks of life, then proteins, then single celled organisms, then mix in some evolution, bake for a few billion years, and presto! We have humans!

I still think your wrong. If that was the case then why haven't we seen any *new* spieces? If what your saying is true then new ones should still be showing up. Once the chain your refering to starts, it doesn't stop unless the chain gets broken. Which it supposedly has not. The last I knew the laws of science still held.

I still think your wrong. If that was the case then why haven't we seen any *new* spieces? If what your saying is true then new ones should still be showing up. Once the chain your refering to starts, it doesn't stop unless the chain gets broken. Which it supposedly has not. The last I knew the laws of science still held.

Well, first off, it takes a long time for eveolution to occur (like over millions of years and many generations), so we probably won't see a whole bunch of new species in the span of a lifetime. Evolution has probably also pretty much stopped for humans in recent years, though. Evolution relies on natural selection, and since we are at a point where most humans (even the weakest among us) will survive to pass their genes on to the next generation, (due to the availability of food, and medical breakthroughs) evolution has pretty much come to a standstill in our society. However we see something similar to evolution in selective breeding of dogs.