Franics Collins

[The Grand Nudger]

How would you know what a rational atheist can say with confidence, Del?

[Lemonvariable72]

That extends to theists who believe in the lie of god perpetuated by the lie of religion.

Rational atheists can't say that with much confidence.

I can say that with lots of confidence because no one has yet given, demonstratable and veritable evidence of a god, let alone a theistic god.

[Jehanne]

I find absolutely no joy in atheism, other than the fact that I do not have to believe in lies, religious or otherwise.  But, if there was excellent scientific evidence that the human mind survived the death of the human brain, I would rejoice, exceedingly so!  But, alas, the evidence is quite the contrary.  

The lie you're most likely to believe is the lie you're convinced is the truth.

That would explain why this self pro claimed pursuit if truth peters out on this forum.

You have no alternative, other than fables, from which you have chosen to believe one among many.  Atheism only requires an absence of belief, which is hardly an appeal to "truth".

[athrock]

He seemed like he converted to evangelical Christianity out of despair, in particular, being exposed to suffering, death and anguish in patients of his, young children, who were dying of cancer.  After that, he had an "experience" while walking in the woods (seeing three frozen streams of water) which lead him to a belief in the Trinity.

While we can all sympathize with the loss of young children, what does the board think of Dr. Francis Collins and his alleged "conversion" from atheism (assuming, of course, he was ever a true atheist to begin with, having been raised, by his own admission, by liberal Christian parents)?  It seems to me that his "justification" for his new theistic beliefs came ex post facto after his religious conversion.

A "true atheist"? What IS a "true atheist"?

'Cause "true atheists" don't convert, right?

[Lemonvariable72]

He seemed like he converted to evangelical Christianity out of despair, in particular, being exposed to suffering, death and anguish in patients of his, young children, who were dying of cancer.  After that, he had an "experience" while walking in the woods (seeing three frozen streams of water) which lead him to a belief in the Trinity.

While we can all sympathize with the loss of young children, what does the board think of Dr. Francis Collins and his alleged "conversion" from atheism (assuming, of course, he was ever a true atheist to begin with, having been raised, by his own admission, by liberal Christian parents)?  It seems to me that his "justification" for his new theistic beliefs came ex post facto after his religious conversion.

A "true atheist"? What IS a "true atheist"?

'Cause "true atheists" don't convert, right?

That's not true at all. But its pretty common for people who weren't religious and never really gave it much thought to say they were atheists after they convert to Christianity even if they never would have used that term before.

[Jehanne]

'Cause "true atheists" don't convert, right?

No, they don't; it doesn't make any sense at all to become an atheist (that is, without any belief in god) and then convert to a particular religion.  Why did Collins, for instance, become an evangelical Christian as opposed to a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or, for that matter, a Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox or a Coptic Christian, with numerous variations between and within those religious sects?

Unless, of course, he had "an experience..."

[athrock]

'Cause "true atheists" don't convert, right?

No, they don't; it doesn't make any sense at all to become an atheist (that is, without any belief in god) and then convert to a particular religion.  Why did Collins, for instance, become an evangelical Christian as opposed to a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or, for that matter, a Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox or a Coptic Christian, with numerous variations between and within those religious sects?

Unless, of course, he had "an experience..."

Just rational thought apparently.

Here's a PBS interview:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/vo...llins.html

Teaser:

"As I began to ask a few questions of those people, I realized something very fundamental: I had made a decision to reject any faith view of the world without ever really knowing what it was that I had rejected. And that worried me. As a scientist, you're not supposed to make decisions without the data. It was pretty clear I hadn't done any data collecting here about what these faiths stood for."

And this:

So this wonderful minister gave me his own copy of Mere Christianity, Lewis's slim tome that outlines the arguments leading to his conclusion that God is not only a possibility, but a plausibility. That the rational man would be more likely, upon studying the facts, to conclude that choosing to believe is the appropriate choice, as opposed to choosing not to believe.

That was a concept I was really unprepared to hear. Until then, I don't think anyone had ever suggested to me that faith was a conclusion that one could arrive at on the basis of rational thought. I, and I suspect, many other scientists who've never really looked at the evidence, had kind of assumed that faith was something that you arrived at, either because it was drummed into your head when you were a little kid or by some emotional experience, or some sort of cultural pressure. The idea that you would arrive at faith because it made sense, because it was rational, because it was the most appropriate choice when presented with the data, that was a new concept. And yet, reading through the pages of Lewis's book, I came to that conclusion over the course of several very painful weeks.

I didn't want this conclusion. I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away. I had to keep turning those pages. I had to keep trying to understand this. I had to see where it led. But I still didn't want to make that decision to believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hmn, sounds like a moron.  I -have- done some data collection.  Christianity stands for vicarious redemption, and that's why I reject it.

[athrock]

Hmn, sounds like a moron.  I -have- done some data collection.  Christianity stands for vicarious redemption, and that's why I reject it.

Yeah.

The Director of the National Human Genome Institute. 

A complete moron.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can be brilliant at "a"...and a complete dunce at "b".  Whats the problem Ath? Wanna make the case for stringing up the better man? Be my guest.