Christians: Were you disappointed to learn of these famous atheists?

Question

How do you feel differently about the people mentioned here:

http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

disciple: not at all. they lived in an age where it was professional, if not personal suicide to say you were an atheist. remember Galileo was placed under house arrest by the Catholic Church - the church that denied the Earth revolves around the sun!

nadia: feel free to click on the links and see the evidence for yourself. it's in their own words.

stacey: u won't find a single citation about crick questioning evolution outside of a handful of christian web sites. it's simply not true. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

EnviroDude: obviously your frame of reference is warped. atheists don't "follow" - if they did they would be a christian. that's why you're referred to as sheep and "followers"

stacey: yes, crick went in for panspermia, as it is called, but that doesn't have much to do with evolution.

Answer 1

Nope. Few are Chosen!

Nope.

Answer 2

Although famous scientists like Crick etc have stated they are for evolutionary theory. He and other well established scientist all have one thing that they just don't want to say is a conclusive statement. Most don't believe that the random chance described in the evolutionary theory is hard evidence. A lot of scientists have a problem with the approach of order coming together randomly. They believe some type of order has to be involved. You can look up any of their lectures, documents, theories. Most have the same thing to say.

Edit: I never said Crick went against evolution.In '81, Crick wrote a book called Life Itself: Its Origins and Nature in which he hypothesizes about the origins of life on Earth. He discusses at some length the improbability of life arising by chance and also explains why the conditions on a primitive Earth could not have been suitable for the development of life. He then gives us his conclusion. The best alternative, he says, is to suppose that aliens did it. He emphatically declares that the most sensible conclusion one can reach is that aliens are responsible for the existence of life on Earth.

No, he was not joking.

Life, he argues, could not have arisen spontaneously on Earth. It happened too quickly. It is too complex. Thus, he says we must suppose that it arose first somewhere else in the universe. Then we must further suppose that life in this distant location evolved into a very advanced civilization. For reasons which we can only speculate about, and speculate he does, this advanced civilization decided one day to seed the universe with life. So they sent out primitive organisms in a spaceship to the far reaches of the galaxy in the hope that these spaceships would encounter other planets that might be suitable for the evolution of life. One of these spaceships landed on planet Earth. That's how we got here, folks.

He even goes so far as to propose that we earthlings do the same.

Apparently, the notion of an all powerful Creator is too "farfetched" for illustrious scientists such as he. So they are willing to accept any alternative theory, no matter how farfetched, rather than succumb to belief in the existence of Hashem.

Crick is not the only one having trouble believing that life could have formed by chance on Earth.

Some other very prominent scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe, have come up with another strange idea because they too think that life could not have developed randomly on Earth. So they as well look to outer space to find the cause. They do not blame aliens. But they do hypothesize that space is full of life-forming carbon chemicals that drifted onto Earth and gave this planet the jump start it needed for the development of life.

Answer 3

They missed Steve Allen, the first host of the Tonight Show, who was a freethinker and Humanist. He wrote more than a dozen books about living a life of reason, including _Dumbth: The Lost Art of Thinking with 101 Ways to Reason Better and Improve Your Mind_ and _Steve Allen on the Bible_.

gjstoryteller: "Why no women?"

There are a few women on the list, including Katherine Hepburn and Diane Keaton (atheists) and Carrie Fisher and Uma Thurman (agnostics).

Answer 4

If these "leaders" were to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge to their doom, would you blindly follow them?

Disappointed? No.

Sad? Yes, because I know what fate their lives hold. Nothing could be worse than dying, and opening your eyes to Hell.

I would listen to the testimony of Bill Weise as posted on http://www.SpiritLessons.com before I followed these "famous" types off the edge.

--

You wrote: I have studied enough science in school and on my own to know that evolution is a fact and creationism/intelligen... design is just regurgitated religious nonsense.

If you were a true scientist, then you would know and acknowledge that the theory of evolution is just that - an unsubstantiated theory.

Your statement and your question show that you are less interested in the pursuit of truth, than the propagation of an agenda.

Answer 5

i'm very sorry to hearken to approximately your lose, you're a very courageous and robust individual for occurring and sharing this with us! i'm additionally satisfied you found your god, dropping your faith is uncomplicated whilst something so close is removing. and for that, I even have the utmost admire and sincerity for you. As for that word Atheism, anybody could be compassionate, and a few of those human beings don't have faith in god. yet there is alot of prejudging occurring in religions, i've got faith (Please do no longer hate me for this) Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Muslim, etc.. is faith in step with one god, and one son (or prophet). So why choose, all of it's devoted to GOD. that's like judging names, "bob is evil" yet ":Robert is actual". on the grounds that somebody believes that earth began 40 4 billion years in the past, and guy grew to become into created by using a mix of carbon and gasses slowly evolving, would not cause them to much less a individual, only skill that's a diverse opinion. all of us love, that's in the bible, that's programmed in our brains, we could no longer prejudge. you do no longer could have faith something you do no longer genuinely have faith. yet settle for and admire that there is a distinction available. anyhow, i'm ranting on. God bless you susanm

Answer 6

We the Genius Athiests are dissapointed and disgusted to learn of your silly religious crutch. Like an alcoholic, you enable others with your sad problem of need to beleive in the fanciful.

Pray to the Easter Bunny .. it makes about as much sense.

Grow up, smarten up.

Answer 7

Someone's religious viewpoint doesn't change my view of them as a person, probably because I hover around the ambiguous myself. I am ever questioning and questing.
Vicky

Answer 8

I'm Pagan and feel no differently about the people presented on this list, but I do have one question.

Why no women? This is perplexing to me.

Answer 9

I dont really feel differently about them. Some I was not suprised to see on there. Lie Howard Stern, and all the homosexualy ones. I was shockes to see Bill Gates and Billy Joel.

I dont feel any anger to them at all, I simply pray for thoes who dont beleive.

Answer 10

Lool Most of the celebrities on your websites believe in God loool

But apart from them, i don't care about the other ones being atheists.

They're the ones who will be disappointed ....