J
juhothenero
Guest
This is probably old news, but i wanna ask did Antony Flew convert because of intelligent design to deist? And why have atheists ignored it?
- Status
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Since Flew, after his conversion, said that the Christian God was “a cosmic Saddam Hussien”, I expect the atheists took a bit of amusement in that.
J
juhothenero
Guest
I know, that shows his lack of understanding on Christianity, but the problem was that this guy is probably more studied and smarter on this subject then 99% of all atheist in the world, and he changed his mind… so why these 99% ignored it totally… that means according to all science and so and so there is a well founded conclusion that deist God exists…
Christianity is then another matter and off topic actually on this thread…
Sorry edit a bit by this subject i mean subject of God exists or not, not on religions aspects, on this one question, which should concern atheists a lot…
po18guy
Well-known member
It would appear that the human ego requires a period of adjustment after grudgingly admitting that it is not the pinnacle of intelligence.
J
juhothenero
Guest
I heard they went on saying he become senile… Terrible insulting on a person who for his whole life has been the star of atheist agenda… But i suppose that is the way it works, is very hard to see smart profound argument on the core atheists these days… Most of it is just shocking emotional arguments, such as “how can God make most people torture in hell” or " why God does not heal amputees" or something like that which shows total lack of understanding on basic tenets of religion…
On Antony Flews case the remarkable thing is he was very studied on the question of Gods existence and he was also objective in such a way that he was willing to change his mind if good evidence occurs, and he did when it occurred.
po18guy
Well-known member
By atheists’ own thinking, they should be the world’s largest philanthropists. They are not.
J
juhothenero
Guest
That is on the Dawkins agenda at least. But he is just a monkey who can write to be a bit cruel
… He has so many self contradictions in his thinking that the person who believe him must have a lot more faith then the Holy Father… But putting down atheist was not the point, but why atheist gave no thought to Flew and why they did not investigate his argument and try to find ways to brake it. Most amazing thing is this kind of lack of good argumentation that there is going on on atheist side… Every time i watch atheist speak or read their forum posts they seem more angry then rational…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
juhothenero
Every time i watch atheist speak or read their forum posts they seem more angry then rational…
This is a reasonable observation. Most people have noticed the same thing. Psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has written a book, Faith of the Fatherless, in which he makes the case that most atheists are essentially angry with or disappointed in their fathers, and so they take that anger out on God, who is also a father-figure.
Every time i watch atheist speak or read their forum posts they seem more angry then rational…
This is a reasonable observation. Most people have noticed the same thing. Psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has written a book, Faith of the Fatherless, in which he makes the case that most atheists are essentially angry with or disappointed in their fathers, and so they take that anger out on God, who is also a father-figure.
T
theistgal
Guest
On the one hand, it’s nice to hear that Mr. Flew (and/or anyone else) has been able to accept that there is a God.
On the other hand, I don’t get this insistence that Mr. Flew was this huge atheist “star”. I was involved with Internet Infidels for several years and frankly never heard of him till after his conversion.
Then I went back and read a couple of his books , and didn’t see any indication that he was really super-hostile to the idea of God or even to Christianity. He didn’t accept either as true, but seemed open to the possibilities.
So his “conversion” didn’t really surprise or bother me, even when I was an atheist.
Now if someone like Dawkins or Harris converted - that would be big news.
But Flew? Meh.
On the other hand, I don’t get this insistence that Mr. Flew was this huge atheist “star”. I was involved with Internet Infidels for several years and frankly never heard of him till after his conversion.
Then I went back and read a couple of his books , and didn’t see any indication that he was really super-hostile to the idea of God or even to Christianity. He didn’t accept either as true, but seemed open to the possibilities.
So his “conversion” didn’t really surprise or bother me, even when I was an atheist.
Now if someone like Dawkins or Harris converted - that would be big news.
But Flew? Meh.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
A Methodist minister’s son, Flew became an atheist at 15.
This makes me wonder if, as Dr. Paul Vitz speculates, his atheism was part of a revolt against his father’s authority. Perhaps at this point, age 81, he has come to forgive his father? Whether he is on the Road to Rome is quite another matter.
This makes me wonder if, as Dr. Paul Vitz speculates, his atheism was part of a revolt against his father’s authority. Perhaps at this point, age 81, he has come to forgive his father? Whether he is on the Road to Rome is quite another matter.
J
juhothenero
Guest
The point of why I said Flew is a huge start is because of his intellectual comments, Dawkins is just an idiot who wrote a book (what comes to this issue, on other issues he can be brilliant), sorry to say so but it is quite true. But Flew is actually smart and that makes him much worse enemy for believers then Dawkins, Flew studied the argument and was open to possibilities, that means he was rational and objective. Dawkins or Harris is neither. They is mostly hateful towards religion with exceptional belief on atheism, rather like evangelical Christians sometimes (not all the time but sometimes) are. That is why i consider Flew a start like let’s say Albert Camus is. But Dawkins is just a clown, I would not even call him atheist because most atheist feel that is insulting.On the one hand, it’s nice to hear that Mr. Flew (and/or anyone else) has been able to accept that there is a God.
On the other hand, I don’t get this insistence that Mr. Flew was this huge atheist “star”. I was involved with Internet Infidels for several years and frankly never heard of him till after his conversion.
Then I went back and read a couple of his books , and didn’t see any indication that he was really super-hostile to the idea of God or even to Christianity. He didn’t accept either as true, but seemed open to the possibilities.
So his “conversion” didn’t really surprise or bother me, even when I was an atheist.
Now if someone like Dawkins or Harris converted - that would be big news.
po18guy
Well-known member
When the demon leads, anger follows.
J
juhothenero
Guest
He is doesn’t like the idea of Christian God has a very bad idea of him, he has said if I remember correctly that his fathers preaching gave him an hateful idea of God who enjoys killing and murdering innocent.
H
Hubriss
Guest
Well, the first book that came out under his name wasn’t actually written by him, but rather by some creationist friends who took advantage of his older age, and his lack of keeping up with the current arguments of the day. It’s undoubtable that most of his first book was actually not his words.
Later he sort of accepted some deism, but his arguments for it were weak in the first place, and he continued to acknowledge that he hadn’t payed much interest to and hadn’t kept up with the counterarguments.
This “conversion” is more damaging to the theistic side than the atheistic.
One of the first articles to reveal the duplicity:
richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html
Later he sort of accepted some deism, but his arguments for it were weak in the first place, and he continued to acknowledge that he hadn’t payed much interest to and hadn’t kept up with the counterarguments.
This “conversion” is more damaging to the theistic side than the atheistic.
One of the first articles to reveal the duplicity:
richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html
T
theistgal
Guest
Since Richard Carrier is heavily involved with the Internet Infidels and therefore has an axe to grind, I’m not sure I’d accept him as an unbiased authority.
Plus I find his insistence that creationists “took advantage” of Flew’s “older age” rather inflammatory. Not to mention ageist.
S
Starwynd
Guest
The universe is a violent place.
Violence can only be created by somebody’s hand.
Therefore the universe was created.
Violence can only be created by somebody’s hand.
Therefore the universe was created.
H
Hubriss
Guest
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 Richard Carrier is heavily involved with the Internet Infidels and therefore has an axe to grind, I’m not sure I’d accept him as an unbiased authority.
Plus I find his insistence that creationists “took advantage” of Flew’s “older age” rather inflammatory. Not to mention ageist.
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.
J
juhothenero
Guest
I’d have to read Flews book first, but this article is somewhat bias against the possibility of him converting. There should be more information from othersources to back this kind of thing up… Anyway, I will search through it and find wether it makes sense, hence Flew really is a good atheistic thinker and there are not many these days, although i am a catholic his arguments are interesting,
Question for atheist, are there any other real good atheist thinkers? I mean omit those Dawkins and such rubbish but really like well thoughed good argumentations?
H
Hubriss
Guest
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/
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
So smart, that he thinks of God as a vengeful dictator. And what about the guys smarter than Flew who are atheists, who are smarter than 99% of theists in the world? No, that’s a bad way to go.
I doubt if God is more accessible to the more intelligent; it seems entirely at odds with His other purposes. Even the humble in intellect stand on level ground with Flew when it comes to God. And many of them have come to the correct conclusion about His nature while Flew has missed it entirely.
He may someday come to know and love God. I pray that he does. But somewhere, there’s a simple-minded janitor who does know and love God. He has it right, while Flew is wrong.
- Status