Evidence for God from Science

What scares the New Atheists
Article by John Gray, for those not familiar with him he is an English political philosopher with interests in analytic philosophy and the history of ideas. He retired as School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Gray contributes regularly to The Guardian, The Times Literary Supplement and the New Statesman, where he is the lead book reviewer.

He is not a believer but he has some good points and questions on new atheism. A must read article in my opinion.

I like this part:

The answer that will be given is that religion is implicated in many human evils. Of course this is true. Among other things, Christianity brought with it a type of sexual repression unknown in pagan times. Other religions have their own distinctive flaws. But the fault is not with religion, any more than science is to blame for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or medicine and psychology for the refinement of techniques of torture. The fault is in the intractable human animal. Like religion at its worst, contemporary atheism feeds the fantasy that human life can be remade by a conversion experience – in this case, conversion to unbelief.

Rarely do you read such and honest and open atheist.
Of course He fails to understand that for a Christian, conversion is not something that He/She does, but something that is done to them by Christ.
The conversion experience of a Christian is not "self centered" but OTHER centered AND other CAUSED.

PaulSacramento wrote:I like this part:

The answer that will be given is that religion is implicated in many human evils. Of course this is true. Among other things, Christianity brought with it a type of sexual repression unknown in pagan times. Other religions have their own distinctive flaws. But the fault is not with religion, any more than science is to blame for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or medicine and psychology for the refinement of techniques of torture. The fault is in the intractable human animal. Like religion at its worst, contemporary atheism feeds the fantasy that human life can be remade by a conversion experience – in this case, conversion to unbelief.

Rarely do you read such and honest and open atheist.
Of course He fails to understand that for a Christian, conversion is not something that He/She does, but something that is done to them by Christ.
The conversion experience of a Christian is not "self centered" but OTHER centered AND other CAUSED.

There is supposed to be something in the way of new insight here?

Nothing new in the gratuitous dig at the honest of atheists, either.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I like this part:

The answer that will be given is that religion is implicated in many human evils. Of course this is true. Among other things, Christianity brought with it a type of sexual repression unknown in pagan times. Other religions have their own distinctive flaws. But the fault is not with religion, any more than science is to blame for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or medicine and psychology for the refinement of techniques of torture. The fault is in the intractable human animal. Like religion at its worst, contemporary atheism feeds the fantasy that human life can be remade by a conversion experience – in this case, conversion to unbelief.

Rarely do you read such and honest and open atheist.
Of course He fails to understand that for a Christian, conversion is not something that He/She does, but something that is done to them by Christ.
The conversion experience of a Christian is not "self centered" but OTHER centered AND other CAUSED.

There is supposed to be something in the way of new insight here?

Nothing new in the gratuitous dig at the honest of atheists, either.

It isn't a dig Audie, though that you read it that way speaks volumes.
It is a clear statement that the writers misunderstands what the conversion process is suppose to be for a Christian.
Which he clearly shows ion his statement.
Albeit, he does state it in a very interesting way:

Like religion at its worst, contemporary atheism feeds the fantasy that human life can be remade by a conversion experience

The "religion at its worst" is actually a very informed statement from an atheist so, perhaps, my "dig" as you call it might have been a bit much.
That said, I stand by it in the sense that it is crucial for any skeptic to understand what the conversion process is for a Christian before they criticize it.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I like this part:

The answer that will be given is that religion is implicated in many human evils. Of course this is true. Among other things, Christianity brought with it a type of sexual repression unknown in pagan times. Other religions have their own distinctive flaws. But the fault is not with religion, any more than science is to blame for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or medicine and psychology for the refinement of techniques of torture. The fault is in the intractable human animal. Like religion at its worst, contemporary atheism feeds the fantasy that human life can be remade by a conversion experience – in this case, conversion to unbelief.

Rarely do you read such and honest and open atheist.
Of course He fails to understand that for a Christian, conversion is not something that He/She does, but something that is done to them by Christ.
The conversion experience of a Christian is not "self centered" but OTHER centered AND other CAUSED.

There is supposed to be something in the way of new insight here?

Nothing new in the gratuitous dig at the honest of atheists, either.

It isn't a dig Audie, though that you read it that way speaks volumes.
It is a clear statement that the writers misunderstands what the conversion process is suppose to be for a Christian.
Which he clearly shows ion his statement.
Albeit, he does state it in a very interesting way:

Like religion at its worst, contemporary atheism feeds the fantasy that human life can be remade by a conversion experience

The "religion at its worst" is actually a very informed statement from an atheist so, perhaps, my "dig" as you call it might have been a bit much.
That said, I stand by it in the sense that it is crucial for any skeptic to understand what the conversion process is for a Christian before they criticize it.

I know how to read. Im not hypersensitive. How about turn about is fair play? "Rarely do you meet an open and honest Christian." No dig there? Just stating the facts?

I agree that (if anyone thinks) getting rid of all religion would somehow make the world a better place is a fantasy.

As for the conversion process, I'd say it far more important for the convertees to understand it.

I've relatives, one in particular who still goes on about it if you give him a chance, who were converted to Maoism. True Believers. People get converted to cults, and every sort of religion.

Im sure they all will say the same thing, that theirs is the real thing.

Not to compare it to addiction as such, but addiction is something that is not at all well understood. Psychology is in its infancy. Its real, though, people do get addicted.

I dont doubt that conversion is real. But what it really is, I dont think anyone knows.

For me Audie, conversion is absolutely knowing that through the sacrifice that Christ made I can know God.

Most religions or cults require you to do something, Christianity doesn`t. Except believe, and we all do that, it`s just what we believe.

If the world lived as Christ did, do you think the world would be a better place? I do.

Storyteller wrote:For me Audie, conversion is absolutely knowing that through the sacrifice that Christ made I can know God.

Most religions or cults require you to do something, Christianity doesn`t. Except believe, and we all do that, it`s just what we believe.

If the world lived as Christ did, do you think the world would be a better place? I do.

There are accounts of how he lived, at least, for the last three years or so.
If people followed the "golden rule", a concept common to all cultures I believe, we'd all be better off.

A world where everyone was a day labourer who cared nothing for saving for the future, counselled that one leave his family, and or went about offering "healing", I think things would get real messed up real fast.

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:For me Audie, conversion is absolutely knowing that through the sacrifice that Christ made I can know God.

Most religions or cults require you to do something, Christianity doesn`t. Except believe, and we all do that, it`s just what we believe.

If the world lived as Christ did, do you think the world would be a better place? I do.

There are accounts of how he lived, at least, for the last three years or so.
If people followed the "golden rule", a concept common to all cultures I believe, we'd all be better off.

A world where everyone was a day labourer who cared nothing for saving for the future, counselled that one leave his family, and or went about offering "healing", I think things would get real messed up real fast.

Cared nothing for saving for the future? Someone who died, horrifically and painfully, willingly, to save mankind? That`s not caring for saving for the future? It`s not about material things Audie, it`s about our salvation.

Leave our families? well, we all leave them one way or another and I don`t think that`s quite what is meant. It`s about belief, absolute belief, choosing God over everyone else, even ourselves.

The "healing"..... He healed the sick, how is that wrong? Or do you just find it hard to believe it happened?

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:For me Audie, conversion is absolutely knowing that through the sacrifice that Christ made I can know God.

Most religions or cults require you to do something, Christianity doesn`t. Except believe, and we all do that, it`s just what we believe.

If the world lived as Christ did, do you think the world would be a better place? I do.

There are accounts of how he lived, at least, for the last three years or so.
If people followed the "golden rule", a concept common to all cultures I believe, we'd all be better off.

A world where everyone was a day labourer who cared nothing for saving for the future, counselled that one leave his family, and or went about offering "healing", I think things would get real messed up real fast.

Cared nothing for saving for the future? Someone who died, horrifically and painfully, willingly, to save mankind? That`s not caring for saving for the future? It`s not about material things Audie, it`s about our salvation.

Leave our families? well, we all leave them one way or another and I don`t think that`s quite what is meant. It`s about belief, absolute belief, choosing God over everyone else, even ourselves.

The "healing"..... He healed the sick, how is that wrong? Or do you just find it hard to believe it happened?

That is drifting off topic, and I kinda dont want to talk about it here / now.

There was nothing new or interesting, let alone scary in the thing posted.
All I saw was an excuse to take a dig at atheists.

Okay, no probs hon.

You know where I am, whenever.


A x

Yeah Audie, you need to read better.
You said:

I know how to read. Im not hypersensitive. How about turn about is fair play? "Rarely do you meet an open and honest Christian." No dig there? Just stating the facts?

BUT I didn't writer that, I wrote:

Rarely do you read such and honest and open atheist.

See the difference?
READ not meet.
I have read the vast majority of atheist writings against religion and faith ( I can't see I have read all of course, no one can).
And I stand by my statement.

PaulSacramento wrote:Yeah Audie, you need to read better.
You said:

I know how to read. Im not hypersensitive. How about turn about is fair play? "Rarely do you meet an open and honest Christian." No dig there? Just stating the facts?

BUT I didn't writer that, I wrote:

Rarely do you read such and honest and open atheist.

See the difference?
READ not meet.
I have read the vast majority of atheist writings against religion and faith ( I can't see I have read all of course, no one can).
And I stand by my statement.

Ohhh, that so makes all the difference!

Here is the properly written counter statement:

"Rarely, yes, oh so very seldom it is that you read anything honest written by a Christian."


Does seeing that clarify things, seem equally fair?

The problem is this atheist is being attacked now by other atheists.There are different denominations in atheism,don't ya know?I like to ask atheists are you atheist plus feminists or not?A lot of them are but Thunderfoot is'nt and they argue about it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:The problem is this atheist is being attacked now by other atheists.There are different denominations in atheism,don't ya know?I like to ask atheists are you atheist plus feminists or not?A lot of them are but Thunderfoot is'nt and they argue about it.

Thunderfoot is a retard. So is the Amazing Atheist. So is AronRa. They are rather poor representatives of atheism, IMO. More antitheist.

Great. First the bigoted stereotype. Is it admitted, or taken back? No! The poster stands by his words.

Next, someone else hops in to say its the atheists' problem, and adds in some more to the pig pile.

What splendid "Christians" here.