ID and antony flew

[juhothenero]

The article did say that there was couple notions by Flew to accepting the possibility of a sort of deistic god, but flew retracted most of the points that he had actually made.

As for atheist thinkers, Dawkins isn’t that bad, but I know how and why most Christians don’t think of him as a very good “philosopher.” He doesn’t get into the real specific doctrines and beliefs and reasoning of past Christian theologians, but rather speaks in a broader sense. I agree that he does parrot the same arguments a lot which do get old and don’t hit religious people’s view of the world at a more complicated and specific level. It would be good of him to get to know these religions better so he can more easily refute them, but he’s a biologist primarily and doesn’t have the time to study each religion and find the flaws and inconsistencies. BUT that doesn’t mean he can’t be a good philosopher. You don’t need to have studied Aristotle and Plato and Aquinas to be able to ponder big questions about the world and come up with good answers. In fact, him being a scientist actually makes him more able.

But if you want some good modern enlightenment thinkers, here’s a whole slew of them at two conferences they had in the past three years. The videos are long and span several hours but they make VERY interesting watching. They give great presentations to their audience (each other), then they subsequently ask questions and criticize each other afterwards.

thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/

thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/

I think too many logical fallacies make one a bad philosopher, show you a few:

youtube.com/watch?v=jnhMmJPnnDo&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=eJ1pbeXN8qo&feature=related

Article: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

Really, i am not kidding, he is just bad… And for example Dawkins Delusion is a good book to read about it. At least for all who have studied and likes philosophy he is just fantastic, because you can laugh so much while reading his book.

but let me see those videos…

BTW I disagree with you, if you are gonna engage in debate on philosophical issue like God exist or not, you need to have a lot of basics first, there is no need for re-inventing the wheel or promoting the same bad arguments promoted already thousands of years ago, just study the history of philosophy, development of the idea of God and recent debates plus recent books and articles published and then engage.

And by basic knowledge of for example Christian theology, he would know that “who designed the designer” is not really a problem to begin with it.

That is why we say, God is omnipotent, all-love, eternal, and then uncaused causer (and therefore unchanged) who designs the universe and gives its existence

He should know this kind of things… Also why the designer must be more complicated then the design is not a problem for most of the world religions… huhhuh…

 

[theistgal]

So what if Richard Carrier is a secularist? Everything he wrote was true and the conclusions he drew from his correspondance with Flew are all perfectly reasonable and sound.

Since Carrier has actually had some biology training, and was on his way to getting his degree when he wrote this, he’s probably less biased than any IDer or creationist who are biased by default of their position.

And also trying to pull the discrimination card is despicable and reminds me of Ben Stein’s movie.

I haven’t seen Ben Stein’s movie, but I have read pretty much everything Richard Carrier has written. So I think I have a pretty good idea about whether what he wrote was “true”.

The conclusions he drew from his correspondence with Flew are his opinions. Opinions aren’t facts.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Straight from the old horse’s mouth:

youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw