 |
| |
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:17
|
|
What's the "point" in knowing the beginning of the universe, seeing as it's too late to have an effect on it? Again, I say, there's no point as such in any of this. It's just trivia. Scientifically, it's useless, because it can't be technologically exploited. Theologically, it's useless, because there's no moral or spiritual lesson in such abstract history, unless you find it inspiring for some reason. By all means argue about this anyway if that's what knocks your socks off, but I still think it's a fool's errand. And giving somebody an existential browbeating for believing in a different irrelevancy from the one you believe in is just stupid.
Kuci, I'm afraid I don't follow you. Can you elaborate?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Nice Guy
|
 |
"I'm gonna speak softly, but carry a BIG STICK!!!"
Mar 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19780
quote:
Atheist's turn toward God was a 4-year process, friend says
Dec 22, 2004
By David Roach
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Christian apologist Gary Habermas had just finished debating noted British atheist Antony Flew about the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The two friends rode an elevator together as they left the Californian university where the debate was held in January 2002. As Habermas exited the elevator, he extended his hand through the open door. "Tony," he said, "this is it for now. I enjoyed talking with you. When you become a Christian, I want to be the first one to know."
Flew laughed and responded, "I think you deserve that right."
The doors closed.
Most observers of the debate never thought that Flew would take steps toward Christianity. The former professor at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain had argued against the existence of God for more than 50 years, publishing such books as "Atheistic Humanism" and "Darwinian Evolution."
But in December 2004 the unexpected happened when Flew took a step toward Christianity, announcing that scientific evidence led him to a belief in God.
Habermas was among the first people he told.
Habermas, chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., had known that Flew was reconsidering his position since the fall of 2000 when Flew sent Habermas a letter in which the atheist acknowledged the strength of arguments for theism and Christianity.
"In September 2000, that's about the earliest indication that I had that he was changing," Habermas said in an interview with Baptist Press. "He wrote me a long letter, quite an incredible letter, where at several points he conceded the evidence for [theism and Christianity]."
When Habermas received the letter, he knew something was happening in Flew's life.
"I distinctly remember reading that letter when it came in the mail and thinking, 'Wow, something huge is happening with this guy,'" Habermas said.
Over a period of three years the two scholars corresponded about God. By January 2003 Flew began considering arguments from the "intelligent design" movement and was on the verge of belief in God.
Intelligent design is a theory arguing that some features of the natural world are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause rather than naturalistic evolution.
"He told me he was really rethinking theism and had corresponded with [naturalistic scientist Richard] Dawkins and was putting the ID arguments up against what Dawkins was saying and trying to compare the arguments," Habermas said. "And he was going back and forth as to whether he should be a theist or not."
By early 2004, Flew completed his transition to theism and indicated his change of mind to Habermas in a telephone conversation.
When media reports revealed Flew's belief in God in December 2004, some skeptics argued that the former atheist had changed his mind suddenly. But Habermas said such allegations are clearly incorrect in light of the four-year dialogue he had with Flew.
"The implications that he's just recently arrived at theism ... and that he hasn't had time to think through this aren't correct," Habermas said. "The first sign that I've seen of him changing goes back to the fall of 2000. So he's been thinking about these things for four years."
Flew currently holds a position known as deism -- the belief that God created the universe but is not actively involved in people's lives today, Habermas said. Because deism is traditionally a "tenuous" position, Flew could move closer to traditional Christianity in the days ahead, he said.
"Deism is a very tenuous position, and deistic belief is a short-lived movement in the history of philosophy over the last few centuries," Habermas said. "One reason deism is a troubled position is that it usually moves one way or the other."
Flew could revert back to atheism, Habermas noted. "Still, he has made a number of statements to me indicating that he is open, even to revelation," Habermas said.
"Three weeks ago I received a letter from him where he said that he was rereading my arguments for the resurrection and was very impressed with them,'" he said.
Despite his interest in the resurrection, however, Flew remains far from belief in Christianity, Habermas said.
"He's told me on many occasions that he was impressed with the arguments for the resurrection ... and he says it's the best miracle claim in the history of religions," Habermas recounted. "So he's impressed with them. Enough to believe? I don't think so, certainly not right now."
The dialogue with Flew highlights the need for Christians to engage non-believers in meaningful, caring friendships, Habermas said. Christian scholars in particular should bear in mind the need to build relationships with non-believing scholars, he said.
There are "benefits of carrying on a genuine friendship with people who do not agree with you on things," Habermas said. "I mean a genuine friendship where you're there for them in season and out of season. You're there for them when they're having bad days. You can tell them things that are on your mind. ... It's not connected to whether the people convert or not."
Christians should rejoice that Flew has adopted a belief in God but remember that mere belief in God falls short of the belief in Jesus Christ that Scripture requires for eternal life, Habermas said.
"His deism provides no relief for dying because he doesn't believe in life after death," he said. "It's not ... an 81-year-old who is embracing God so that he can come out on the good side when he dies. If you said that to him, he would say, 'I'm just going where the evidence leads.'"
An interview conducted by Habermas exploring Flew's conversion to belief in God will be published in the winter 2004 issue of Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
A pox upon thee for resurrecting your crap thread!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
Here is my take on this.
An atheist chickens out at the last minute. Why is this relevant to an argument about whether or not there is an invisible all-powerful ultra-intelligent force guiding all of our actions?
If there were a God, it would have shown its presence by now. If there is not a god, it will be conspicuous by its absence.
Belief or non-belief does not in and of itself provide proof. If a believer keeps trying to bolster their belief by recruiting more people, (debating and evangelizing), it shows an inherent doubt in their own faith. If the believer’s faith is so strong that God definitely exists, the believer should not need to have outside validation from non-believers.
When an atheist suddenly starts to believe in God, this does not prove the existence of God. It simply proves that atheism did not provide enough meaning to this individual’s life. Atheism is not a philosophy or a religion. It is simply the absence of belief in omnipresent being.
Once a person becomes an atheist, they start down a lonely new road. I say lonely because they do not have the luxury of having the illusion of a god to watch over and protect them. Atheists must provide their own meaning to life. This is extremely difficult and frightening. The fear alone explains why most people reject atheism and embrace faith. Faith takes the responsibility away from the self and puts it squarely on God. If an individual creates evil, then the faithful believe God will punish them. If an individual creates good, then God will reward them. This reward and punishment system conveniently takes place in the afterlife. Since dead men do not talk, I guess we the living will never find out.
This leads to the “culture of life” that the Christians like to espouse. If the rewards and the punishment come in the afterlife, then this is certainly a religion of death. An individual following Christianity must look forward to death to find true fulfillment and meaning.
In the end, the atheist could not face the meaninglessness and hopelessness of oblivion, so he turned to religion and the hope that he might be reborn in the afterlife. He needed an anodyne.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
Because everyone knows athiesm is a movement so if he has a leading athiest he has sway, as opposed to say, most athiests coming to the conclusion on their own....
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-12-2004 01:34
@ Ves
|