Christian THINK: That's All You Have to Do
Check out this video of "Noah's Ark and the Great Flood":
HT: The Atheist Jew who wrote:
HT: The Atheist Jew who wrote:
How can anyone in their right mind believe Noah's Ark and The Great Flood really happened, even in a remote way? It's a friggen fairy tale, nothing more, nothing less.
32 comments:
Ah John,
You make me laugh a lot sometimes. Should we think like Anthony Flew who left atheism after 50 years due to THINKING? And not to mention your beloved scientific thinking at that? Keep up the comedy though it is funny.
Regards, Rev. Phil.
Remember Phillip, brainwashed people do not know that they are brainwashed. Given the global human propensity for believing in so many weird things you must seriously consider that you might be one of them.
Thanks for the link.
And Rev. Brown, did Anthony Flew accept a young earth or the flood, or even Jesus or Allah, when he decided to believe in a deity?
It is also pretty amazing that there are over 25 million atheists in America today, and you hear very few stories of them changing their mind, and you never hear about them accepting the Flood Story as fact.
Reverend Phillip Brown.
...appeal to someone who doesn't even agree with you about a topic that isn't even the focus of this article?
Your entire comment is a red herring wrapped in mockery.
Christian apologist Roy Varghese took advantage of Anthony Flew when the man was in his dotage, getting him to sign his name to a book called There Is a God.
Vargese admitted that all the original content of the book was his. Flew confirmed it.
The rest of the book is full of intelligent design arguments.
Mark Oppenheimer of the Times went to Reading to interview Flew and found him suffering from memory gaps, unfamiliar with the arguments in the book and unable to even define 'abiogenesis'.
Like the myth of Darwin converting on his deathbed, this seems to be another example of unscrupulous evangelicals 'lying for Jesus'.
John, are we not here to discuss genre concerns? (I'm serious about this)
It's pretty obvious that something happened, with the common memory of the flood in the ANE, but it seems like the Flood story is more polemical (against the dominant Baalism and Marduk worship) and didactic.
But if this is just against AIG, I'll be quiet.
John wrote this, "Remember Phillip, brainwashed people do not know that they are brainwashed"
Exactly!! That's why Jesus said that He came to give sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf.
HI John,
Umm, do you realize that this is not a response to what I said, In fact it is an argument that can be used against your position. Puzzling, I am not sure what you are saying?
Phil.
Hi Baconeater,
No perhaps not, but again, can you answer my question?
Phil.
Hey Joshua Jung,
Interesting comment. Tell me, what do I believe? Secondly, you also cannot answer my point can you?
Phil.
Hi, Rev Phil,
Flew had long done his best thinking before he turned to deism.
Malcom Muggeridge spent a life-time of humour, sex and alcohol until he turned 80 at which point with all passion spent he decided to become all prim and proper, catholic, celibate, and holier-than-thou.
Will you be treading in Muggeridge's footsteps any time soon?
Exactly!! That's why Jesus said that He came to give sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf.
If we can believe St Paul's various versions Jesus did the exact opposite on the road to Damascus.
From Panda's Thumb website today:
Well, for those who haven’t, it is the fictionalized account of the famous 1925 Scopes antievolution “Monkey Trial” in Tennessee, over their law forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools. The 1950s play was very much a parable of intolerance in the waning days of the McCarthy era. The Bible-spouting William Jennings Bryan became “Matthew Harrison Brady” (played by March in the movie) and his secularist opponent Clarence Darrow was “Henry Drummond” (Tracy’s part).
After legal maneuvering prevented Darrow from introducing any scientific witnesses he pulled one of the great ploys in legal history by calling Bryan to the stand as an expert on the Bible. Unwilling to be pinned down on how long the days of creation were,
Brady harrumphed: “The Bible says it was a day.”
Drummond persisted: “Well, was it a normal day, a literal day, a 24-hour day?”
Brady hemmed again: “I don’t know.”
Drummond leaned in close: “What do you think?”
A long pause followed. “I do not think about things I do not think about.”
Whereupon Drummond fired back: “Do you ever think about things that you do think about?”
You could accuse the screenwriters of just setting up a good punch line here, except Bryan and Darrow had actually said those things. And it kept resonating in my head as something that was profoundly true. The Matthew Harrison Bradys of the world really didn’t think about things they didn’t want to think about–and weren’t very good either at thinking about the things they did think about.
Samphire,
Why are you so quick to ad-homs when talking about Flew and Muggeridge? Can we deal with their arguments?
(I think Dawkins' dismissal of Flew is absolutely underhanded and bush-league)
Brad
(I think Dawkins' dismissal of Flew is absolutely underhanded and bush-league)
Why are you so quick to ad-homs when talking about Dawkins? Can we deal with his arguments?
:-)
Flew argued as a young atheist that the idea of a God was too vague a concept to be meaningful. I doubt that he has actually changed his view greatly. Certainly, as far as I am aware, he is nowhere near believing in a personal God.
At about 3.30 in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TpM98RYrnU
Flew sets out his current belief based on nothing other than a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.
Here he is speaking in October 2007 aged 80:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeCt1rK9MEc
on his views of the Christian God:
"I've never thought about this at all and I am not eager to start."
Neither does he believe that any super-intelligent agent listens to prayer. It is clear from his conversation with Lee Strobel that he has not the slightest interest whatsoever in Christianity or, indeed, any religion.
By my definition anybody who theorises about a superior intellect (who does not interact with its creation) solely on the basis of the fine tuning argument and the complexity of DNA remains an atheist.
As for Malcolm Muggeridge (of whom I was always fond), he was an entertaining chappy before he got religion but at the age of 79 he turned into a pompous prig. I let him try to speak for himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx6w6cCWHHc
It's pretty obvious that something happened, with the common memory of the flood in the ANE,
Is there a folk memory of a Flood amongst the desert dwelling Bedouin?
Those Arabs whose ancestors lived near great rivers doubtless have folk tales of local floods. Why could that possibly be, I ask myself?
Are you suggesting that the Noachian flood was just a local flood or do you really believe that God slaughtered every living creature on Earth bar one small family and a few representative animals? Just like to know which direction you are coming from.
I did answer you Rev on your blog:
We all have been born susceptible to believe in the supernatural...we evolved this from our ancestors.
Flew offers no evidence for God, only that he decided there is a creator. He out and out states he does not believe in the Christian God however.
His mental capacity has declined in recent years, coinciding with his new belief.
Finding one atheist that decides there is a God isn't a big deal. There are over 25 million atheists in the USA alone, and rarely do you see them finding God.
One thing is for sure, Flew accepts evolution, an ancient earth, and the fact the Flood is a Fairy Tale.
Dementia has helped in find God though, it seems.
Reverand,
You offer Flew.
I offer Loftus.
It's a push.
What's your point? Are you appealing to the authority of Flew to prove that YOUR brand of religion is due to thinking?
Flew doesn't share your religious beliefs.
Samphire,
1. Technically, I attacked Dawkins' treatment of Flew as "bush-league", so it wasn't an attack "to the man". This is contrasted to Dawkins' contention that Flew's deism is only because of his suppossed senility.
2. It is pretty clear that Flew is not and orthodox Christian, or a Christian in any sense. But the scandal he created by his "conversion" is telling to me.
3. Did you know Muggeridge personally? Like enough to say that he was more pleasant before his conversion?
4. I don't go along with AIG's interpretation, so if that is the purpose of this thread, as I stated earlier, I'll be quiet.
Ah Chuck,
Diversion is fun. Not just that the title of the post is Christian THINK? Flew an atheists did THINK and became CHRISTIAN. Beware atheists...
;-)
Rev,
Is Flew a Christian?
Hi Brad,
You wrote:
Technically, I attacked Dawkins' treatment of Flew as "bush-league", so it wasn't an attack "to the man". This is contrasted to Dawkins' contention that Flew's deism is only because of his suppossed senility."
This limey does not understand the term "bush-league". Please may I have a definition.
2. It is pretty clear that Flew is not and orthodox Christian, or a Christian in any sense. But the scandal he created by his "conversion" is telling to me."
In what way? That he wasn't religious? That he didn't believe in a personal god? How does this assist your argument? He is just another 80 year old bloke having a guess.
3. Did you know Muggeridge personally? Like enough to say that he was more pleasant before his conversion?
No, I didn't know him personally but I would have been delighted to have had him and Kitty (who was a lovely lady) round for supper; he would have been delightful company before or after his conversion. But as Samuel Johnson is reported to have said:
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
But when it came to pontificating upon modern manners, by the age of 80 Malcolm had developed into a prig. It happens to most of us - myself excluded, of course, as my children will readily testify.
4. I don't go along with AIG's interpretation, so if that is the purpose of this thread, as I stated earlier, I'll be quiet.
Does that mean you do not believe in a young earth creation?
Should we think like Anthony Flew who left atheism after 50 years due to THINKING?
Yes, we should definitely think like Antony Flew, with a small caveat: we should use all of the best information available to us.
More importantly, we should ask why would religious believers suddenly accept what Flew had to say about an intelligent designer after they had railed against him for all of those earlier 50 years? Undoubtedly, it was that Flew who had for decades faulted religion for its poor standards of evidence, had now so degraded his own standards that he could accept some iota of intelligent design creationism.
Religious believers are continually revising what they have to say about the world to make themselves appear correct. For example, on another thread, someone copied from a website a list of scientists who were Christians, but Darwin wasn't on the list. I pointed it out, then he changed it to "Darwin wasn't a Christian when he died." But, how many times have we all heard about Darwin's death-bed conversion? Christians constantly change their stories about this world we all share just to make Pope Benedict, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and the Jehovah's Witnesses look good.
And not to mention your beloved scientific thinking at that?
Scientific thinking differs from other thought only in the level of rigor applied. The reasoning processes employed while writing a novel are exactly the same as those used in designing an aspirin molecule with a carbon-14 atom at a known site or those applied after assuming into existence dieities like the gods of the Christianities.
Of course, the scientist must live under the constraints laid down by nature, whereas novelists and theologists bend their assumptions to assure their desired outcomes. Theologists are particularly blessed: they cannot be held to account since any and all criticism can be drowned out with the ever moving assumptions of their ad hoc apologetics. We expectantly hope the novelist spins us a good yarn, but yarns are all we get from theologists, too.
Flew's book from a couple years ago, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, was a straightforward retelling of the myriad mistakes from intelligent design creationism. The book made clear that Flew had become rather lax about what he was then willing to accept as evidence. He had so relaxed his scientific rigor that his new standard for evidence would accept astrology as science, just as Michael Behe admitted it would from the witness stand at the Dover trial. This is nowhere more glaring than in the language he used in the following correspondence with Richard Carrier.(From secular web)
Flew: My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.
If you've only got one piece of evidence, it better be real good. When that evidence is an apparent impossibility, you'd better have mountains of additional indisputable evidence - along with a battalion of verifiably qualified scientists to assess it - to back up your claim of impossibility. It's sufficient to note that as of this moment the intelligent design bunch have yet to back up any of their claims with evidence - not irreducible complexity, not complex specified information, and certainly not all the impossibilities they claim to know.
Clearly, Flew did not actually have evidence of anything. There was no evidence supporting intelligent design in 2005 when Behe confessed as much under oath at the Dover trial. There was none in 2007 when Flew wrote his book. And, still, there is none today.
Christians wonder why they are the targets of criticisms of increasing stridency. This thread shows part of the reason: blatant dishonesty. The Reverend Phillip Brown insists that, despite what the man's own words were, Flew is a Christian. The Rev has it all figured out. He knows Flew better than Flew knows himself. Charles Darwin's status as a Christian is a function of when Christians here think he was or was not a Christian. Was he a Christian when he outlined natural selection? Was there a death-bed conversion? These people constantly try to revise and remake the world in their own image. They regularly exclude the best information available to us and as noted here, they often just make things up.
Samphire,
I'm having a rough time communicating effectively.
1. "Bush-league" is another term for "unprofessional", and it also carries the connotation of a "cheap shot". I'm referring to Dawkins' feigned "compassion" for Flew's senility in the face of his "conversion."
2. The reaction wasn't telling in any sense that he was in any way Christian. I am more talking about the outrage and sensationalism among the new atheist crowd, especially disdainful attacks from internet atheists.
3. I haven't read much into Muggeridge, so I can't comment on his "priggishnes".
4. I try to be dogmatic about a little as possible, but I think the YEC position reflects bad hermeneutics, bad science, and bad Christian praxis. On principle, though, I have to keep the door open.
1. above should read "supposed senility" instead of "senility"
Brad
I'm having a rough time communicating effectively.
1. "Bush-league" is another term for "unprofessional", and it also carries the connotation of a "cheap shot". I'm referring to Dawkins' feigned "compassion" for Flew's senility in the face of his "conversion."
My apologies. When it comes to Yankee slang I’m a bit of a tefano.
2. The reaction wasn't telling in any sense that he was in any way Christian. I am more talking about the outrage and sensationalism among the new atheist crowd, especially disdainful attacks from internet atheists.
My view is that the outrage was expressed against those Christians who immediately and desperately captured Flew to be one of their own simply on the basis that the elderly gent could no longer compute the numbers.
3. I haven't read much into Muggeridge, so I can't comment on his "priggishnes".
I wasn’t asking you to do so.
4. I try to be dogmatic about a little as possible, but I think the YEC position reflects bad hermeneutics, bad science, and bad Christian praxis. On principle, though, I have to keep the door open.
Come on! Only someone of extreme ignorance or dogmatism could swallow Hovindism and you are obviously a clever and well educated guy. What does that leave? By the way, Kent’s appeal comes up before the Supreme Court tomorrow. We should all spend the night in prayer.
Samphire wrote, "If we can believe St Paul's various versions Jesus did the exact opposite on the road to Damascus."
Yes - he was struck physically blind in order to receive spiritual sightedness. Although the scales were later removed and he regained his physical sight, the initial impact was not peaceful (as Jesus had indicated previously - His spirit unsettles the status quo of natural mindedness). Paul was a hardened, proactive religious hypocrite bent on suppressing and imprisoning those who were espousing a free spirited God.
I believe there is a passage whereby it says that depending upon the hardness of one's heart, encountering God's spirit can have an unsettling and unpeaceful effect upon initial impact.
Samphire,
I'm still being unclear.
I don't buy into YEC. There are biblical, theological, and scientific, and pedagogical problems.
But
I still consider them brothers, and I don't want to put myself somehow above them. Plus, I am only human, as we all are.
I don't give them much time, but I also don't look at them with disdain.
Brad,
I don't give them much time, but I also don't look at them with disdain.
You believe in clubs what they believe in spades although I accept from what you write that you do not share some of their wackier beliefs. It is my view that the lesson of history is that we should hold such demonstrable errors in disdain even if we treat the believers with respect - not always an easy balance.
It was interesting listening to the Texas School Board hearings last year on proposed new science standards. To hear the views of chairman McLeroy and a couple of his more intellect-free panel members was horrifying. Fortunately, democracy won the day.
The flood stories across several traditions, may actually refer to astronomical phenomena that the ancients were more aware of than modern cultures who have less concern/attention to any aspect of creation other than our own egos and "civilizations".
Check out the book, Hamlet's Mill.
Oh...and that doesnt bunk or debunk anything. Im not pro-atheist or pro-deist or anything else. The essential argument is pretty silly if you ask me. Is is what is (and what is not) whether we have words for it or not. Of course atheism is true from its perspective, and of course deism is true from its perspective. In an infinite universe of infinite possibilities, this is infinitely possible. Duh.
Post a Comment