I won't be able to post again until Monday (so you are free to slander me in the mean time ).
Great! Time to pile on Awakened! w00t!
Burn
"There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind"
by Open mind 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
BurnTheShips
-
Spook
There is a useful point in what's known as The Argument of Evidence Against Interest here. It is a notion that can best be described with the following illustrations:
1. If a member of the governing body claims he is directed by God and the Governing Body has the truth, he is only doing his "job." When someone like Franz concludes he's not in a position of spirit directed authority, this is more compelling than if it went in the other direction. Similarly, if the Pope ever said "I'm not the Pope" that would really mean something.
2. It is less compelling when an elderly person of failing mind makes a charasmatic choice in his own self interest.
3. One who believs he will never die (JW) who concludes that this life is all there is can be viewed as being in acceptance of evidence against interest.
This sort of argument is used against the common brain function of wishful thinking.
I find the IDers abuse of Flew to be similar to undignified forced baptisms of illiterate indigenous peoples. It's not exactly immoral in that it does no harm. It is simply undignified. This will go down like the lies against Darwin, Thomas Paine and others.
-
Open mind
Thanks to inkling & beksbks for covering my backside in my absense. (Better than I probably would have too.)
To Burn:
My comments about Dawkins' and bias weren't very well articulated. I'll try again.
First off, EVERYONE has bias, so if I gave the impression that Dawkins' doesn't have bias, I apologize.
The main point I would like to make is that Dawkins', in spite of having his career, reputation and (presumably large) ego hitched to the atheist wagon, was still amazingly open to the POSSIBILITY of there being a God in the Youtube video clip that was linked earlier in this thread.
I was so impressed with this, I took the time to transcribe a few sentences of his remarks.
That's it.
I rarely hear similar types of statements coming from the Theist/Deist camp. eg. "Yeah, the atheists could possibly end up being right after all." Usually these kind of statements come from people who are at least wrestling with some internal doubts and have left the comfort of being a "true 100% believer".
I won't have time today to get into any more back-and-forth on this until possibly this evening. So if anyone wants to joust in my stead, feel free.
OM
-
caliber
Burns comments are dead on the button !
-
caliber
This is kind of like Ray Franz getting the heck out of Bethel.
In that case this would be his own version of Crisis of Conscience
By the way this is the comment I was refering to in the last post. Sorry for any confusion.
Caliber
-
BurnTheShips
Lore:
The worlds most notorious atheist?
Well, Hitchens (who I actually really like) wrote a book called "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything"
Does religion ruin everything?
My cereal was soggy this morning. Hmmmmm. Maybe Hitch is right.
Atheists complain on how open minded they are but as soon as something comes from the other camp they start mewing and nitpicking on silly things like book titles.
Burn
-
Spook
Does religion ruin everything?
My cereal was soggy this morning. Hmmmmm. Maybe Hitch is right.
There is of course leeway to be given for the marketing desires of the publishing industry that prefers outrageous titles over academic titles. Academic papers will usually have more neutral language. A close friend of mine just published a book and was angry that the publishers insisted on having the term ...secret science... in the title.
In defense of Hitch, I think he does make an excellent case that religion (the underlying assumption) does poison everything. If it doesn't "belong to man who is walking even to direct his step" then soggy cereal can be viewed as a divine test of suffering. The secularist can just remember to not pour the milk until he is ready to begin eating. Part of Hitchens anti-theist case is that religious assumptions replace human dignity in addressing even relatively simple issues. One common element of the "new" atheist case is that it is fundamentally impossible for people who believe in an afterlife to use rational causes and consequences in real world decisions. That's where the common quote comes up that atheism is a necessary component of a rational world view, but is not in and of itself sufficient to constitute a world-view. (Hitchens).
To be intellectually honest in the Flew book, the authors would have to substantiate their claims that (1) Anthony Flew was the world's most notorious atheist. They don't do this, and he isn't. (2) Anthony Flew believes in a traditional "God." Which he doesn't. (3) Anthony Flew came to this conclusion in sound mind and body from an indepth consideration of new evidence. This last one is the most glaring flaw in the book.