Religion

Flew was an old man when he "converted" on the basis of biological complexity implying "an intelligence".
1. Age and "belief" are known to be directly related (for obvious insurance purposes !)
2. Flew's later claim is that biological results underscore "Einstein's God" whom Einstein often mentioned with respect to physics. But Einstein's "intelligent determinism" was sidelined by probabilistic Quantum Theory, which Einstein would never accept.

I feel reasonably confident that there are not 50 million atheists in the U.S.

Getting there.

15 million Set more or less depending on def

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&gs_rn=0&gs_ri=hp&pq=ow%20many%20athiests%20in%20u.s.&cp=1&gs_id=2x&xhr=t&q=how+many+athiests+in+u.s.&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=how+many+athiests+in+u.s.&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c5672f593531bfe2&bpcl=39650382&biw=1373&bih=708


…agreeing pretty much with JPB above

Being "unchurched" and being atheist are not necessarily the same thing. Religious Tolerance-dot-org says that about 2.5% of the world's population are atheists (look at the pie chart about midway down the page), while noting how difficult it is to determine who is an atheist. That would mean that there are fewer than eight million atheists in the United States.

By the way, i'd say you can't go wrong if Religious Tolerance-dot-org is your "go-to" source about general religious topics.

Definitely agree

Only if the number of atheists were equally distributed around the world. They aren't. The wiki page I linked to above has some interesting maps on regional differences. I agree with you on religioustolerance.org. Great site!

By the way, i don't for a moment credit your claims for tens of millions of atheists in the United States, and nowhere near 50 million. Not only is being unchurched not equivalent to being an atheist, neither is being undecided. Fifty million would be more than 15% of the population.

Merry Chr -- er, let me start over. Merry X -- that won't do, either. Ah, I think I've got it now.

Happy Holidays, Setanta!

So, here's an early present from me to you.

Do you think that God’s purpose for atheists to live in an earthly paradise will ever be realized? “I have even spoken it,” God declares, “I shall also do it.” (Isaiah 46:9-11; 55:11) Yes, what God purposes he will surely do! He says that he “did not create [the earth] simply for nothing” but “formed it even to be inhabited.” (Isaiah 45:18) What kind of people did God want to live on the earth? And for how long did he want them to live here? The Bible answers: The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.”—Psalm 37:29


Obviously, this has not happened yet. God did not purpose that the earth should be as we see it today! What happened? And Why has God’s purpose not been fulfilled? Yet With each passing year, the world is becoming more and more dangerous. It is overrun with warring armies, dishonest politicians, hypocritical religious leaders, and hardened criminals. The world as a whole is beyond reform. The Bible reveals that the time is near when God will eliminate the wicked world during his war of Armageddon. This will make way for a righteous new world.—Revelation 16:14-16.then the atheists will know.

Promises....promises !

They (we) are there (here) now just as She (He) is

Very interesting Spr that you should so quote. Indeed the apodictical existential pantheist agrees most wholeheartedly. Clearly She recognized the need for evolution and "adjusted" the constants accordingly, some within a fraction of one percent, to permit evolution

Without us indeed the entire Megillah would be a pointless, meaningless bouncing of objects off one another, ending in sepoctillions of objects accelerating away from one another forever anon while approaching but never achieving absolute zero

Obviously people like us, what else

Forgive Spr but that's absurd. If we don't annihilate ourselves chemically or through nuclear effects, we will be destroyed upon the next Big Crunch

However we'll happen again after the next Big Bang, obviously what 37:29 means tho in purely symbolic terms

Yes pretty obvious

Sorry Spr but that also is manifestly absurd. Earth today is the only way it could have happened

Oh it was, in spades, absolutely and without the slightest doubt. Free will guarantees it

Quite evident

….and scientists devising new ways to juggle the atom

There's hope but not much

Merely a symbolic means of describing Her method, either our self destruction or the next Big Crunch

Again forgive me Rep but the next one, it's inevitable, will be much like this one. It will have to be, on account of of free will and because the rules will all be the same

You'll have to elaborate

Or was it a typo

A Snippet-

“I quote from Professor Bart D. Ehrman, “Not only do we not have the originals; we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later – much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another at many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”


Scholars have collected every possible copy of the New Testament that they can get their hands on. Currently there are more than 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts, over 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, plus hundreds (if not thousands) of Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Georgian, and Church Slavonic manuscripts of the New Testament. In addition, there are numerous writings from the early church leaders, all of whom quote the texts of the New Testament extensively. All of this data has been digitally scanned and is now compiled in computers for easy comparison and computer analysis.


So with all this evidence, what can be said about the number of variations found between the ancient texts of the New Testament? Scholars differ in their estimates, but the number ranges from 200,000 to well over 400,000 differences! These are not simply minor differences such as changes in word order; these are substantial differences, and some of them demonstrate serious theological differences that are nothing less than 180-degrees from each other. As Professor Ehrman put it, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”

Additionally, it should be plenty apparent by anyone visiting a Barnes & Noble at just how many different version of the Bible there are even today. The Religion section has a bewildering array of Bibles available for purchase. I have an App on my iPhone called the “Holy Bible” which has no less than 25 English Language Versions of the Bible at ready access. And a quick Google search shows that there are several more groups actively working on new versions as we speak. If you still doubt me, just read Bart Ehrman’s phenomenal book “Misquoting Jesus” and you will quickly come to understand that the New Testament is the most altered document in human history”

I don't know that it's fair to call it the most altered document in human history--for example, this sort of analysis has never been done for the Quran, which also represents copies of copies, none of which are even remotely "original." Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the text of the so-called new testament which is now available is highly unreliable. The earliest copies date to almost three centuries after the putative Jesus was alleged to have been executed. As well, although often in trouble with church authorities, Origen, writing in the third century, arbitrarily decided which books were reliable and which weren't, and his judgment has been followed since that time.

I will not engage this member any longer. It is obvious to me that he is confused, poorly educated and so devoted to his religious views that it would be a waste of my time and his. I feel sorry for him, but see no prospect of getting through to him.

God has allowed a set period of time to settle this question
Because a wise person who loves life, however, will never be turned away from God. He will regularly study the Bible, and will grow to love God for the marvelous provisions that He has made for life . Indeed, it is the fool that hath said in his heart, there is no God.—Ps. 14:1

As an apodictical existential pantheist, Spread, I get around this by allowing Her very existence to depend on what you mean by the term

However and forgive me Spread, I'll have to agree that to many others your view might seem narrow

Tho I suppose you forgive 'em

Forgiveness, it seems, is much like money. It can be spent freely and mercifully on others or can be hoarded stingily for oneself. The former is the godly way. We should cultivate generous spending habits when it comes to forgiveness. Why? Because God encourages this and because an unforgiving, vengeful spirit may only make matters worse.

That's well put, Spr, but doesn't recognize that She is merely working within Her limitations

What one considers forgiveness another calls weakness

Many atheists who say that they do not believe in God would appreciate knowing if there is a solution to the problems of poor health, family discord, injustice, and so forth. They are sincerely interested in finding answers to such questions as: ‘Why does evil exist?’ ‘Why do bad things happen to good people?’ and ‘What is the meaning of life?

How the hell would you know what atheists would "appreciate." You're just making this bullshit up as you go along.