Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

NY Newsday ^ | 12/9/04 | RICHARD N. OSTLING

[Matchett-PI]

M-PI: "Are you for real? LOL"

WOSG: "Yes. are you evading the question?

No. Your question was an illogical non sequitur. Here's why:

This what I wrote: "I'm making the claim that others besides myself have a mind and that they aren't really pre-programmed robots. Do you think I can "PROVE" that? Do you think a rational person would "TRY" to prove that?" ~ Matchett-PI

And here you come along with this inexplicable, some would say, "smart-ass" question for me:

".. okay, so everybody has a mind. How does that help PROVE anything? " Or are you asking it like the smart-ass in my freshman philosophy class, asking the professor "How can you PROVE to me that I'm real?" ~ WOSG

Now do you understand why I asked you if you were for real? Hahahahaha

[nmh]

LOL!

Read the article. He rejects it.

Why not try being intellectually honest for a change and admit that evolution is a charade? I've never seen such silliness as evolution.

Maybe we should make bestiality legal since YOU believe we are descendants of apes!

LOL!

You evolutionists make me laugh. The best part is all you have to do is just be yourself!

[William Terrell]

I liked the "Pihg" better.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Is there any particular part of Jesus Christ and His teachings which you find troublesome?

[Dimensio]

Read the article. He rejects it.

From the article:

"He accepts Darwinian evolution"

Just how stupid do you think that I am?

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I am a Christian and I sin every day, but to say that someone can be a follower of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and continue on in the same manner as before they knew Him is contrary to Jesus' teachings.

[nmh]

"Just how stupid do you think that I am?"

I'll be kind and NOT answer that one ... .

Take a deep breath and read the article again ... .

[Dimensio]

One point that I forgot to make regarding your claim that the 'witnesses' mentioned in the testimony could step forward and refute what was said about them.

"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible's studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrust big government. Any of these may qualify but certainly more than one would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk situation that qualified for government interference."

Do you know who said that? Many people attribute that quote to Janet Reno. Now, I'm no fan of Mrs. Reno, but I know that the above quote is a bogus urban legend without any evidence to link it to her. Nonetheless, there are still people who believe that she said it. She's still alive to refute the claim, yet it still surfaces now and then despite the available references on the Internet that expose it as a hoax.

Now, 2000 years ago the Internet didn't exist, so urban legends would have been much harder to refute. Why should I believe that a story is true simply because someone mentioned in the story never came forth to deny it? How do we know that none of them did deny it and there was simply no recording of the denial? I see the same thing happening to day, with far more efficient means of broadcasting such a denial, so why should I believe that it never hapepned then?

Now, with regards to Michael Skakel, are you saying that he was convicted based on nothing more than the testimony of less than four eyewitnesses whose testimonies contradicted one another in various key places? I find that hard to believe.

[Dimensio]

Take a deep breath and read the article again ... .

I did read the article again. It hasn't changed, it still contains the text "He accepts Darwinian evolution".

Perhaps you're referring to the text that follows immedately after? "but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life. "? Well whoop-de-do. Darwinian evolution does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life. That's like accepting an account of World War II's description of what happened to Eastern Europe at the time, but finding it lacking in explaining the mating habits of Japanese Beetles.

Again, I see "He accepts Darwinian evolution". Where, exactly, do you see in the article that he "rejects" evolution?

[Dimensio]

So, if a reporter reports what many witnesses said and saw, that would be one witnesses account ?

That depends. Is the story published in The New York Times?

[pnome]

"Is there any particular part of Jesus Christ and His teachings which you find troublesome?"

Of what I know and can recall about his life and his teachings, no. I have no issues other than his claim to divinity.

[Dimensio]

So you've gone from asserting that 'there must be a God' is a logical conclusion from looking at the world to asserting that 'there must be a God' is an axiom that is assumed true in spite of the fact that there's really no evidence for it.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Would Jesus Christ's claim of divinity, if untrue, make absurd all His other statements?

[pnome]

"Would Jesus Christ's claim of divinity, if untrue, make absurd all His other statements?"

Of course not. I already think that his claim is untrue. However, I find his teachings are, by and large, insightful and wise.

[winker]

I AM (JEHOVAH)is the GOD who hung the stars in the heavens and named every one of them. To marvel at his handiwork and not be a believer is impossible! Unless you happen to be an air head liberal!

[Jacob Kell]

"Sometimes the concept of hell gets people worked up. The argument on "How can a good God cast people into hell when they have lived a pretty good life" is false logic. Hell is a place where God is absent. This is exactly what the people who rejected God all their lives wanted. The "pit" of hell maybe a very comfortable place where everyone who rejected God their entire lives must now reside knowing they had lived their lives in a lie. That they had wasted it all. That actually may be worse than a guy with pitchfork."

Or as Viggo Mortensen's character of Lucifer said in "The Prophecy": "You know what Hell really is Thomas? It's not lakes of burning oil or chains of ice. It's being removed from God's sight. It's hard to believe... so hard." PErhaps, that might indeed be worse than lakes of fire and brimstone.

[Raycpa]

Now, with regards to Michael Skakel, are you saying that he was convicted based on nothing more than the testimony of less than four eyewitnesses whose testimonies contradicted one another in various key places? I find that hard to believe.

there were exactly 0 eyewitnesses. And yes, there were contradictions.

[Dimensio]

there were exactly 0 eyewitnesses

So how was he convicted? If he was convicted on less than what's in the Bible, and there were no eyewitnesses, that means that there was no evidence whatsoever.

[Protagoras]

I am a Christian and I sin every day, but to say that someone can be a follower of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and continue on in the same manner as before they knew Him is contrary to Jesus' teachings.

I never said that, so go bear false witness somewhere else. Or,,alternately, continue on in the same manner as before,,,,and be contrary to his teachings.

[Protagoras]

but he still will be in hell.

As soon as you get judgment powers, I'll take you seriously.

And if he is, maybe you will get to spend a bit of time with him.