NationStates Jolt Archive

It's amazing how a little age can change a lifelong position. I don't really know how influential this guy is, but the storyline (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/)is nice.


Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.

Don't care. Never heard of the bloke.

Atheism isn't a cause and requires no champion. Especially in Britain.

I wish we could get to hear some of those arguments.

And *POOF* went all the Buddhists. Or something.

Never heard of the guy either, but since when was lack of faith a philosophy in itself?

Don't care. Never heard of the bloke.

Atheism isn't a cause and requires no champion. Especially in Britain.

I thought the British tradition was to be born, baptized by the C of E, attend sparsely in your youth, become an atheist, get bad teeth, then die and be buried in a C of E ceremony.

Who? Meh. It's easy to falter when so close to natural death and resort to the feel-good blanky that is religion/theism.

Don't care. Never heard of the bloke.

Do a search on the forum - we hashed this all out a few months back when he first published his new book. Basic conclusions: Flew's arguments are shaky at best, basically the notion that complexity requires a creator, and his change of personal position has little impact on the ongoing debate as a whole.

I wish we could get to hear some of those arguments.
There's a pdf file on the page I linked to. Got the whole interview. I'm not posting this to be pro or anti deist, but I just think that it's interesting what one's approaching mortality can do to their beliefs.

His basic argument is that there is enough scientific evidence to support a superior intelligence that created the universe. Is that leaning toward ID?

Who? Meh. It's easy to falter when so close to natural death and resort to the feel-good blanky that is religion/theism.
I don't think this fellow has any intention of dying anytime soon. ;)

I thought the British tradition was to be born, baptized by the C of E, attend sparsely in your youth, become an atheist, get bad teeth, then die and be buried in a C of E ceremony.

Hatch, match and dispatch. :)

Wasn't this in the news months ago?

From what I remeber he's not a 'champion of atheism' - he's just a not particuarly prominent philosopher who was never really bothered about theological questions, but eventually changed from being an agonistic to being a deist.

I really thought it amusing that Christians jumped on it as proof of how they are 'bringing people back to the flock' when he specifically says he rejects the idea of a Christian God. Especially since he is of such minor importance to the supposed 'atheist cause'. Just proof of how desperate they really are. Think of all the thousands of prominent thinkers who eventually rejected God, and how they go unreported.

Secularisation is here to stay. Oh yeah baby, your man flying around in the sky casting spells and torturing people for eternity out of spite if they don't believe in him don't befront me.

...who cares? People change their minds about religion all the time. I can't even pin down exactly what I believe in. Is this just supposed to make atheism look bad? 'Cause the opposite happens too...

Am I the only one who feels that a newletter for an evangelical Christian university might be slightly biased? ;)

I don't think this fellow has any intention of dying anytime soon. ;)

81 years old, his intentions are really inconsequential.

81 years old, his intentions are really inconsequential.
Tell that to George Burns. ;)

Wasn't this in the news months ago?

From what I remeber he's not a 'champion of atheism' - he's just a not particuarly prominent philosopher who was never really bothered about theological questions, but eventually changed from being an agonistic to being a deist.

I really thought it amusing that Christians jumped on it as proof of how they are 'bringing people back to the flock' when he specifically says he rejects the idea of a Christian God. Especially since he is of such minor importance to the supposed 'atheist cause'. Just proof of how desperate they really are. Think of all the thousands of prominent thinkers who eventually rejected God, and how they go unreported.

Secularisation is here to stay. Oh yeah baby, your man flying around in the sky casting spells and torturing people for eternity out of spite if they don't believe in him don't befront me.

Testify!

Tell that to George Burns. ;)

Who? Mr. Burns' name is not George.

Who? Meh. It's easy to falter when so close to natural death and resort to the feel-good blanky that is religion/theism.Amen to that...
well...
Ok maybe that isn't the best choice of words on my part...

There's a pdf file on the page I linked to. Got the whole interview. I'm not posting this to be pro or anti deist, but I just think that it's interesting what one's approaching mortality can do to their beliefs.

His basic argument is that there is enough scientific evidence to support a superior intelligence that created the universe. Is that leaning toward ID?
From what I have read so far, the interview mostly just explores conclusions, makes no attempt to portray the pursuasive arguments.

Who? Mr. Burns' name is not George.

:::bonk on the head:::

http://www.poeticflair.com/image1/images/georgeburns.jpeg

"Happiness is a good martini, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman... or a bad woman, depending on how much happiness you can stand."

Otherwise, carry on.

You might especially carry on well knowing that this is proof that "God" is dead:

http://www.findagrave.com/photos/2004/174/22_108799825611.jpg

From what I have read so far, the interview mostly just explores conclusions, makes no attempt to portray the pursuasive arguments.

They won't prove the existance of the persuasive arguments to you, you have to take it on faith that they have some.:p

They won't prove the existance of the persuasive arguments to you, you have to take it on faith that they have some.:p
*chuckles*

--snip--

Once again, who?

Apparently religious beliefs aren't forever either as I was raised to be Baptist by my mother and Catholic by my grandmother and quickly turned away from them as soon as I decided to think for myself and not just believe what I was told to believe, but rather what made sense to me personally.

Who? Meh. It's easy to falter when so close to natural death and resort to the feel-good blanky that is religion/theism.

And that's easy to say when you're young and healthy.

Not that I think you'll suddenly turn to religion when you're old or if you become terminally ill; I think if anyone is stubborn enough to stay atheist to the bitter end, it's you, Fass.

Apparently his brain already died off ahead of the rest of his body, otherwise he wouldn't have done such crap :rolleyes:
I really pity this guy.

It's easy to falter when so close to natural death and resort to the feel-good blanky that is religion/theism.
But Flew's position doesn't include the feel-good factor which drives some to religion in later life. His position was Deistic - belief that there may have been a creator, but that the creator has played no part in our lives since the creation, and that there is no afterlife.

He based his change of heart on the belief that there was no credible scientific hypothesis for the creation of life other than by design, but he has since retracted that view and said that he was misled. He's not a scientist, and admits that he doesn't keep up to date with the scientific literature. He's also emphatically not a believer in any God in the Christian or Islamic sense.

This is off-topic, but I recall seeing a study that said, in some populations, instances of degenerative dementia occurring by the age of 80 approach 50%. This guy is obviously in the lucky half if he can write books.

Did somebody mention that the guy in question specifically rejects the Christian god concept? That's funny, considering how his story is probably being presented but some groups...I could be wrong though.

The trend of one individual, accurately rendered or not, doesn't seem to me like it warrants "Atheism isn't forever" as a truism.

But Flew's position doesn't include the feel-good factor which drives some to religion in later life. His position was Deistic - belief that there may have been a creator, but that the creator has played no part in our lives since the creation, and that there is no afterlife.

He based his change of heart on the belief that there was no credible scientific hypothesis for the creation of life other than by design, but he has since retracted that view and said that he was misled. He's not a scientist, and admits that he doesn't keep up to date with the scientific literature. He's also emphatically not a believer in any God in the Christian or Islamic sense.

It's still a blanky in the sense that what he cannot explain, he attributes to a deity.

Hmm, no religion lasts forever, as people's beliefs change slightly as the world they are living in changes, and they need new ways to explain it all.

As for there being a god, what exactly did Aristotle prove/say about God's existence, and if God doesn't interact with people or anything, how could he tell that?

Also, I'm not really a Bible expert, but who is Gerald Schroeder and what did he prove about the book of Genesis?

As for there being a god, what exactly did Aristotle prove/say about God's existance, and if God doesn't interact with people or anything, how could he tell that?


I've only studied the Nicomancean Ethics, but from what I remeber Aristotle believed in a kind of supremely rational deity who was in a state of constant contemplation , since rational contemplation in accordance with virtue is the perfect activity of the soul. Humans should attempt to emulate this as best they could, but they could never reach the state of pure contemplation as this deity could.

I believe, though am not entirely sure of this, that this partly inspired people to become monks - they were attempting to devote as much as their time to worship of God as possible - contemplation of the invariable.

Secularisation is here to stay.

Its questionable if secularisation is here at all. The only real evidence people have is falling chuch numbers but that only examines established churches (not new ones) and doesnt look at people who meet in church meetings that are not on sunday mornings (Bible study groups, cell groups, prayer meetings etc)

I thought the British tradition was to be born, baptized by the C of E, attend sparsely in your youth, become an atheist, get bad teeth, then die and be buried in a C of E ceremony.

I'm just working on the bad teeth now. But I'm going to have an orthodox jewish funeral. no one will expect that.

Its questionable if secularisation is here at all. The only real evidence people have is falling chuch numbers but that only examines established churches (not new ones) and doesnt look at people who meet in church meetings that are not on sunday mornings (Bible study groups, cell groups, prayer meetings etc)

I just had to write an essay on why secularisation occurred in Europe, and it's true that religious belief is still quite high, even in places like Britain and Scandinavia, but it clearly isn't as socially significant as it was in the past, and this is becoming more and more the case. Religion is increasingly a private matter and has far less influence in how people live their lives. For example, only fundamentalists put religious explainations for things above scientific explainations, and you could hardly compare the influence of churches today with the influence of the medieval church.

Its questionable if secularisation is here at all. The only real evidence people have is falling chuch numbers but that only examines established churches (not new ones) and doesnt look at people who meet in church meetings that are not on sunday mornings (Bible study groups, cell groups, prayer meetings etc)
In the UK, various surveys which ask people's views, rather than rely on attendence or membership data, confirm the growth of secularisation, particularly amongst the young. The overwhelming majority of British people do not attend any sort of religious events, except for weddings and funerals (and the majority of those are secular now too).

In my experience (and I think surveys confirm this), the majority of those who claim to be Christian have only the vaguest (sometimes erroneous) notion of basic Christian beliefs, and live their lives no differently at all from most atheists and agnostics.

It's amazing how a little age can change a lifelong position. I don't really know how influential this guy is, but the storyline (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/)is nice.
Do you have religion? I don't, for no reason more complicated than a lack of any sort of feeling of God. Can anyone reasonably expect me to be a theist?

His basic argument is that there is enough scientific evidence to support a superior intelligence that created the universe. Is that leaning toward ID?
Not this shit again! Seriously, NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN!!!

Yeah, people convert... I'm gonna agree, it's pretty unusual. However, the guy turns 81. After 81 years, it's about time you convert in a life of christianity to have all your sins excused :D. Pretty funny, ain't it?

Man, I don't think that kinda argument would make an atheist think twice... I'm agnostic, and it doesn't modify my belief. The arguments of God cannot be proved, will never be proved either, because God, if he exists, is immaterial. What we must focus on is human dignity and life, not an old rusty 2000 year-old book (which 3/4 of it has been burned, so that it may look more plausible, without all the contradictions).

Poor ole' geriatric :D

Poor ole' geriatric :D

Given that he could likely wipe the floor with all of us in debate, let's afford the man a little respect, shall we? Even if we disagree with his conclusions (I won't say 'writings' as I doubt many here have read them).

Elgesh']Given that he could likely wipe the floor with all of us in debate, let's afford the man a little respect, shall we? Even if we disagree with his conclusions (I won't say 'writings' as I doubt many here have read them).


In the popular imagination, I wager his reputation is tarnished forever.

This could be fetishized along the lines of "Darwin recanted on his death-bed, therefore evolution isnt true."

In the popular imagination, I wager his reputation is tarnished forever.

This could be fetishized along the lines of "Darwin recanted on his death-bed, therefore evolution isnt true."

I doubt that. I doubt Darwin's recanting would have affected the force of his work any more than Chaucer's recanting of all his secular work did.

I just don't like the ugliness of the lack of respect, contempt, and taking the piss out of someone you don't know, whose work you haven't read, for the mere fact word has reached you that something he said might not chime in with what you believe.

I find it dogmatic, inflexible, and unworthy of reasonable, intelligent people.

Elgesh']I doubt that. I doubt Darwin's recanting would have affected the force of his work any more than Chaucer's recanting of all his secular work did.

I just don't like the ugliness of the lack of respect, contempt, and taking the piss out of someone you don't know, whose work you haven't read, for the mere fact word has reached you that something he said might not chime in with what you believe.

I find it dogmatic, inflexible, and unworthy of reasonable, intelligent people.


Like I typed, "In the popular imagination..."

It's really hard for religious people to understand that atheists don't follow people in the same sense as religious leaders. So if some dude is a philosopher and an atheist and he recants, it doesn't really matter. That's up to him and him alone.

However, to play along...

Has anyone seen ah, crap I can't remember the name. It was that half documentary, half re-enactment movie about the mountain climber who breaks his leg and gets left on the mountain? There is a moment in there where he talks about coming to terms with dieing and he says that he had never really tested his atheism, never knew if it came down to it would he start calling out to a god-and in this moment where he believed he was going to die it didn't cross his mind and he knew he was solid in what he (didn't) believe in.

I thought it was interesting because, due largely to it's nature, you don't see very many tests of lack of faith in atheism. Kinda cool.

Like I typed, "In the popular imagination..."
Excuse my butting in, but what does the "popular imagination" have to do with it? People in general have no idea what they're talking about.

Once again, who?

Apologies. :)
He was a quite famous US comedian. He played the role of God in the 1977 filem Oh God! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076489/), thus the "propf that God is dead" comment.

George Burns
From Wikipedia
George Burns was the stage name of Nathan Birnbaum (January 20, 1896 – March 9, 1996). He was a legendary Jewish American vaudeville comedian who went on to work in movies, radio, and early television. He became well-known for his longevity despite an affinity for alcohol and cigars, and for his miraculous career comeback at 79 years of age, arguably becoming more popular and well-known in his 80s and 90s than at any other point in his career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Burns

Am I the only one who feels that a newletter for an evangelical Christian university might be slightly biased? ;)

No but than again you may have been the only one put any effort into evaluting the source.

Heck I've still yet to look but I don't think I'll bother.

Think of all the thousands of prominent thinkers who eventually rejected God, and how they go unreported.

Einstein, Hawking, Edison, Newton, Darwin, etc, etc, etc, did... NOT reject god. Sorry all the big ones didn't. It's all of the little ones, who really have no purpose, who didn't. Those who think they know it all, really upset those of us who do...

It's really hard for religious people to understand that atheists don't follow people in the same sense as religious leaders. So if some dude is a philosopher and an atheist and he recants, it doesn't really matter. That's up to him and him alone.

However, to play along...

Has anyone seen ah, crap I can't remember the name. It was that half documentary, half re-enactment movie about the mountain climber who breaks his leg and gets left on the mountain? There is a moment in there where he talks about coming to terms with dieing and he says that he had never really tested his atheism, never knew if it came down to it would he start calling out to a god-and in this moment where he believed he was going to die it didn't cross his mind and he knew he was solid in what he (didn't) believe in.

I thought it was interesting because, due largely to it's nature, you don't see very many tests of lack of faith in atheism. Kinda cool.
Touching the Void (http://imdb.com/title/tt0379557/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9dG91Y2hpbmcgdGhlIHZvaWR8ZnQ9MXxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8Y289MXxo dG1sPTF8bm09MQ__;fc=1;ft=16;fm=1), ah sweet crap that was bugging me....

It's amazing how a little age can change a lifelong position. I don't really know how influential this guy is, but the storyline (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/)is nice.

Athiest Champion? - athiests have no group believe and there for have no leaders and icons. I just hope the pope of athiesism doesn't cross over - what a blow that would be to our lack of beleifs.

Athiest Champion? - athiests have no group believe and there for have no leaders and icons. I just hope the pope of athiesism doesn't cross over - what a blow that would be to our lack of beleifs.

Unfortunately, the Pope of Atheism is kept busy with his duties as a member of the League of Confused Superheroes. Combining his powers of "excommunicate people from nothing in particular", he flies into battle along side the Anarchic Adjudicator (who imprisons you for being in contempt of no law he can think of at the moment) and the mighty Frigid Nympho, who's fire and ice powers shatter all consistency of terms...

Einstein, Hawking, Edison, Newton, Darwin, etc, etc, etc, did... NOT reject god. Sorry all the big ones didn't. It's all of the little ones, who really have no purpose, who didn't. Those who think they know it all, really upset those of us who do...

Wow! You know it ALL!?

How many fingers am I holding up to you right now?

Ok Im an agnostic and personally, I wouldnt want to worship a god that had (or let) his followers butcher and murder millions if not billions
some other thoughts about christianity

I. It is not the darkness that hurts ones eyes, but the light
II. Christianity has at least two maybe three gods because Judah ben joseph (Jesus) and the devil are both treated and credited with power equal of at least a demigod
III. The purpose of a father (at least a human one) is to care for, teach, and then get out of the way of the child in the hopes that the child will one day equal or surpass him
IV. Since knowledge (mainly in the form of science) is the only way we’ve learned to progress and only wisdom (in the form of philosophy mostly) (in my opinion) truly has helped people become nicer, isn’t religion something that we should get rid of since it hampers these two things and therefore our growth as individuals as a people and as a species.

Einstein, Hawking, Edison, Newton, Darwin, etc, etc, etc, did... NOT reject god. Sorry all the big ones didn't. It's all of the little ones, who really have no purpose, who didn't. Those who think they know it all, really upset those of us who do...

If Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views) is to be believed on this, Darwin did turn from Christianity. Apparently, after the death of his daughter, Darwin decided that a benevolent God just wasn't possible. It seems he kept many of the morals and beliefs he had gleaned from Christianity, but on the issue of God itself, he seems to have gone agnostic, atheist, or deist.

I notice that all of the people you mentioned are scientists, and most of them were deists rather than Christians (not sure about Newton and Hawking). I think that Laenis was referring to philosophers, like the guy mentioned by the OP. In that regard, you can hardly claim that only insignificant figures became atheists- Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche have had a rather large impact (and yes, I do consider Freud more of a philosopher than a scientist- none of his conclusions are testable, and must therefore be treated warily).

To again use Wikipedia: List of Prominent Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists). See how many names you recognize. Mine include Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Ayn Rand, and (if you want a scientist) James Watson, one of the guys who claimed to discover the structure of DNA.

Einstein, Hawking, Edison, Newton, Darwin, etc, etc, etc, did... NOT reject god. Sorry all the big ones didn't. It's all of the little ones, who really have no purpose, who didn't. Those who think they know it all, really upset those of us who do...

Darwin did turn atheist near the end of his life and Newton also believed in alchemy and a bunch of other superstitious stuff, and as a man of his times it would be pretty amazing if he was an atheist. Besides, as Penntera points out, I wasn't thinking about scientists specifically - though a few examples of believing scientists does not mean most scientists believe in God.

My point is that this guy is insignificant, and many, many equally insignificant thinkers turn atheist every year, but you never hear about them because there is no atheist cause which wants to convert everyone.

Ok Im an agnostic and personally, I wouldnt want to worship a god that had (or let) his followers butcher and murder millions if not billions
some other thoughts about christianity

I. It is not the darkness that hurts ones eyes, but the light
That's right and that is what the bible says. Those in the darkness prefer to stay there because it's comfortable. The light reveals what they truly are and most don't like to see that.
II. Christianity has at least two maybe three gods because Judah ben joseph (Jesus) and the devil are both treated and credited with power equal of at least a demigod
Jesus is God Incarnate and part of the Trinity which is the Three in One. Satan is a fallen angel and has no powers beyond those of persuasion, which the bible says he is good at. He also leads a bunch of other fallen angels. Satan has no godlike powers.
III. The purpose of a father (at least a human one) is to care for, teach, and then get out of the way of the child in the hopes that the child will one day equal or surpass him
Yes, that is true. God is a heavenly father. Which has slightly more influence than a Human Father. He gives us Moral Guidelines to be as good as we can while on Earth and since there is no way to equal or surpass God that makes no sense.
IV. Since knowledge (mainly in the form of science) is the only way we’ve learned to progress and only wisdom (in the form of philosophy mostly) (in my opinion) truly has helped people become nicer, isn’t religion something that we should get rid of since it hampers these two things and therefore our growth as individuals as a people and as a species.
Christianity in no way hampers progress and wisdom. Progress does not have to mean the Decay of Morality which is what most Christians are against. There were many wise men who were religious and that is not going to change. There were and are many philosophers who were and are religious and I didn't see them complaining about their religion impeding their philosophical writings.

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'm gonna blast the balloon of those integrist catholics, as dangerous for the society as integrist muslims:

1. Constantinople:
200 years after Jesus' death, Rome was still torn in two, between the catholics and the ones who believed in the Roman religion (which mentionned that the emperor was a god). The emperor Constantine, in Roma, made a big reunion with every catholic leader, and decided that there should be only one official religion in the empire, that no catholic would convert to the Roman religion and therefore, that catholicism would become this religion.

To make the conversion easier to catholicism, Constantine burned some of the official books of catholicism (some rumors say he even burned Jesus' own book, but he also burned Marie Madeleine's book, and Saint Thomas' book, where Jesus kills a small child). Out of 72 books, 4 were kept. The 4 that pictured Jesus the most like a God. That way, people would see a strong God in catholicism and convert to that religion. Constantine converted, and most of the empire followed. We can see that since the very beginning of catholicism as we know it (since they re-wrote the Bible), this religion has unified many people, BUT that it has done it in the purpose of manipulation and propaganda. It didn't matter to Constantine if his Bible was truth or lies (since he burned 68 books of it), he only wanted to unite the people by making Jesus apear like a God.

2. Integrism
Now, some people follow the Bible "by the book". I've read some of the Bible myself (not all of it, I'm not crazy), and many stories ('cause I think they are stories, not facts) could help people in their life. The Bible learns values like treasuring life, respect for everybody. However, these values are not good because they're in the Bible. I would've agreed with anybody that would tell me so and explain why clearly we should respect each other. The Bible is not a "true" story, if you want my opinion.

(Imagine how nuts we'd call the guy who says he can turn water in wine, resurrect the dead, return from the dead even, multiply breads and stop eating for 40 years. And especially how we'd call the mother who got pregnant while she had a fiancé, and that he didn't have sexual intercourse wih her)

The Bible, if followed by the book, tells you that you shouldn't kill someone. However, in Texas, where religion is very strong, the death penalty still applies, and people travel with their shotgun in their car...

The Bible also tells, as their main message: "Love each other"
When I see all this hate about muslims... Yeah right! Love each other, as long as they have the same religion as you do

To have sexual intercourse with someone the same sex as you is a sin.
Okay... This time I'll talk about girls to explain you how religion is retarded in the sexual way... The ONLY purpose of sex, in religion, is to have a baby (NOTHING ELSE). The pleasure is not needed, and if you use a condom, you're a goddamned siner, repent yourself and never do it again :P. A woman is only an uterus and a mother. The father, well, he's everything else :rolleyes: . This is how the religious philosophers interpret it (not me), and what's written in the Bible (the only purpose of sex is to have a baby).

I heard a religious cleric say, on TV, that the page after which it is told not to have sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex as you mentions that if a son dishonors his father, his father should beat him to death...

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'm gonna blast the balloon of those integrist catholics, as dangerous for the society as integrist muslims:

1. Constantinople:
200 years after Jesus' death, Rome was still torn in two, between the catholics and the ones who believed in the Roman religion (which mentionned that the emperor was a god). The emperor Constantine, in Roma, made a big reunion with every catholic leader, and decided that there should be only one official religion in the empire, that no catholic would convert to the Roman religion and therefore, that catholicism would become this religion.

To make the conversion easier to catholicism, Constantine burned some of the official books of catholicism (some rumors say he even burned Jesus' own book, but he also burned Marie Madeleine's book, and Saint Thomas' book, where Jesus kills a small child). Out of 72 books, 4 were kept. The 4 that pictured Jesus the most like a God. That way, people would see a strong God in catholicism and convert to that religion. Constantine converted, and most of the empire followed. We can see that since the very beginning of catholicism as we know it (since they re-wrote the Bible), this religion has unified many people, BUT that it has done it in the purpose of manipulation and propaganda. It didn't matter to Constantine if his Bible was truth or lies (since he burned 68 books of it), he only wanted to unite the people by making Jesus apear like a God...


You'll excuse me, but I'm knackered so won''t reply in detail to _all_ your post.

Constantine the Great ruled over the Roman Empire in the 4th centrury ad, not '200 years after Jesus' death'. 'Catholicism' is a very unhelpful word to describe the brand of Christianity that had emerged by this time. Not 'every' catholic (sic) leader attended the church Council you speak about, and your summary of its work is appallingly crude and woefully inaccurate at best.

You go on to describe conjecture and Dan Brown inspired consiparcy theories as fact, continue your crude analysis and end up... well, by this stage your post had degenerated to the point that your conclusions seemed baseless, given the quality of work you'd put in to your analysis.

But do carry on.

It's amazing how a little age can change a lifelong position. I don't really know how influential this guy is, but the storyline (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/)is nice.

Not all that surprising, really. Not all "theists" were always "theists".... I've undergone such changes in position myself. Having been an atheist for more than a decade before my comming to Christ.

That's right and that is what the bible says. Those in the darkness prefer to stay there because it's comfortable. The light reveals what they truly are and most don't like to see that.
Which is more comfortable? A world which is being watched over by a benevolent god, in which human beings are a special species endowed with souls and the chance of an eternal afterlife; or a world with no god, in which human beings are no more than intelligent animals, with no protector, no guarantee of survival and nothing to look forward to after death?

It is religion which provides comfort, and allows people to delude themselves into thinking that they hold a special and favoured place in the cosmos.

Christianity in no way hampers progress and wisdom.
Christianity helped push Europe into the Dark Ages. Today, it is one of the great sectarian groups which place an insurmountable wall of belief between themselves and those of different beliefs, hampering progress and social harmony. Fundamentalist Christianity hampers the progress of human knowledge and science with its promotion of creationist myth over science and objections to certain forms of research. It's not simply the specific issues on which they fight which cause a problem, but the promotion of a thought process which undermines rationality and scientific method.

Progress does not have to mean the Decay of Morality which is what most Christians are against.
Many Christians are against the supposed decline of their particular rules of morality, which is not the same thing as a decline of morality. In the view of many, some so-called Christian morality is highly immoral.
There were and are many philosophers who were and are religious and I didn't see them complaining about their religion impeding their philosophical writings.
Well, they wouldn't would they! The real question is what others think of the quality of their philosophical writings.

It's amazing how a little age can change a lifelong position. I don't really know how influential this guy is, but the storyline (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/)is nice.
( shrug ) The closer you get to the Grim Reaper, the more you think that the theists may have a point. It's just human nature.

Christianity helped push Europe into the Dark Ages.

Please check your facts. I'm not trying to be picky, but that's... well, bullshit...

It's amazing how a little age can change a lifelong position. I don't really know how influential this guy is, but the storyline (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/)is nice.

We had a champion?

There's a pdf file on the page I linked to. Got the whole interview. I'm not posting this to be pro or anti deist, but I just think that it's interesting what one's approaching mortality can do to their beliefs.

His basic argument is that there is enough scientific evidence to support a superior intelligence that created the universe. Is that leaning toward ID?

Sounds like it, with all the fallacies that involves :rolleyes:

I have a MA in Philosophy and taught as a professor for 5 years. Anthony Flew is a very famous Philosopher. He is no longer an atheist but is not a theist either. He is a deist. He now believes there is a creative force in the universe but that force is not interested in our daily lives and does not demand worship. It entails no normative (ethical) rules. His basis is an interpretation of molecualr and genetic biology. He made a "press annoucement" a year ago but has not yet published a paper explaining or arguing his points.

The reaction from the Philosophical community was rather dismissive given his lack of argumentative support, the demands and methods of the discipline.

Wow! You know it ALL!?

How many fingers am I holding up to you right now?

One on the right hand, it's the middle finger

....


HEY!

That's right and that is what the bible says. Those in the darkness prefer to stay there because it's comfortable. The light reveals what they truly are and most don't like to see that.

Take off your sunglasses and stare into the sun.
Does it, or does it not hurt your eyes and cause blindness?

Jesus is God Incarnate and part of the Trinity which is the Three in One. Satan is a fallen angel and has no powers beyond those of persuasion, which the bible says he is good at. He also leads a bunch of other fallen angels. Satan has no godlike powers.

This trinity thing puzzles me, explain please

Yes, that is true. God is a heavenly father. Which has slightly more influence than a Human Father. He gives us Moral Guidelines to be as good as we can while on Earth and since there is no way to equal or surpass God that makes no sense.

He gives guidelines..... how?

Christianity in no way hampers progress and wisdom. Progress does not have to mean the Decay of Morality which is what most Christians are against.

The decay of religion in no way implies the decay of morality, you are confounding these things

There were many wise men who were religious and that is not going to change. There were and are many philosophers who were and are religious and I didn't see them complaining about their religion impeding their philosophical writings.

Hmmm.... Didn't they procecute Galileo?

Hmmm.... Didn't they procecute Galileo?
To be fair, Galileo didn't pick the best way to go about letting people know that the earth went around the sun and that Jupiter had moons and that the sun wasn't perfect. (Well, he didn't pick the best method to learn that the sun wasn't perfect either) He kinda wrote a little parody book that was basically a guy representing him talking to a guy representing the pope and the pope's arguments were really really retarded... So he got a bit offended by that.

To be fair, Galileo didn't pick the best way to go about letting people know that the earth went around the sun and that Jupiter had moons and that the sun wasn't perfect. (Well, he didn't pick the best method to learn that the sun wasn't perfect either) He kinda wrote a little parody book that was basically a guy representing him talking to a guy representing the pope and the pope's arguments were really really retarded... So he got a bit offended by that.

So they procecuted the guy because he had a sense of humor? :p

Einstein, Hawking, Edison, Newton, Darwin, etc, etc, etc, did... NOT reject god. Sorry all the big ones didn't. It's all of the little ones, who really have no purpose, who didn't. Those who think they know it all, really upset those of us who do...
Einstein's god was like Spinoza's god, i.e. the universe as god.
I've read Hawking is an atheist. He's at least agnostic.

Newton and Darwin lived in a time when it would have been suicidal to be an atheist, although Darwin described himself as agnostic...

I also wouldn't call scientists who are atheists "little ones who really have no purpose" I certainly wouldn't call Feynman insignificant for instance.

So they procecuted the guy because he had a sense of humor? :p
I don't think it was a sense of humour so much as an attempt to get attention so he could get some funding for his work.

It's amazing the little tidbits they teach you about astronomers in class. :P

Like did you know that Newton was the guy who started putting ridges on coins and got a kick out of having people hung for counterfit?

Newton and Darwin lived in a time when it would have been suicidal to be an atheist, although Darwin described himself as agnostic...


... no, it wasn't. I'm not objecting on any religious grounds, only historical.

Elgesh']... no, it wasn't. I'm not objecting on any religious grounds, only historical.
It wouldn't have been suicidal to describe oneself as an atheist back then?

Maybe not physical self suicidal, but socially, intellectually, politically... you'd be black balled.

I don't think it was a sense of humour so much as an attempt to get attention so he could get some funding for his work.

It's amazing the little tidbits they teach you about astronomers in class. :P

Like did you know that Newton was the guy who started putting ridges on coins and got a kick out of having people hung for counterfit?

Heh, guess we all have our little hobbies :D

Heh, guess we all have our little hobbies :D
Actually, Newton's job was a banker. Discovering calculus was his hobby.

There was another guy who had a silver prostetic nose (he lost his real nose in a sword fight with another student) and someone else who had a moose he took to bars with him. The moose died though when it became too drunk and fell down a flight of stairs.
Astronomy profs are so full of wonderful information. :p

It wouldn't have been suicidal to describe oneself as an atheist back then?

Maybe not physical self suicidal, but socially, intellectually, politically... you'd be black balled.

That's better! Here, have a taco!

Christianity was more prevalent at the time Newton, and to a _much_ lesser extent, Darwin, was working - atheism was the minority intellectual position. That was simply the culture. They weren't all a bunch of repressed atheists groaning under the sordid weight of christian oppression! Interestingly though, you _can_ make the case that by the time of Darwin, the weightings had changed, and the outcry against his work was symtomatic of a church that was beginning to see a world that worked without it.

Interesting interview.
Show me the "proof". And I don't mean testimony. There are people being let out of prison and off of death row now because scientific DNA samples have trumped the sworn testimony of eyewitnesses.

I. It is not the darkness that hurts ones eyes, but the light
II. Christianity has at least two maybe three gods because Judah Ben Joseph (Jesus) and the devil are both treated and credited with power equal of at least a demigod
III. The purpose of a father (at least a human one) is to care for, teach, and then get out of the way of the child in the hopes that the child will one day equal or surpass him
IV. Since knowledge (mainly in the form of science) is the only way we’ve learned to progress and only wisdom (in the form of philosophy mostly) (in my opinion) truly has helped people become nicer, isn’t religion something that we should get rid of since it hampers these two things and therefore our growth as individuals as a people and as a species.[/QUOTE]

:sniper:

That's right and that is what the bible says. Those in the darkness prefer to stay there because it's comfortable. The light reveals what they truly are and most don't like to see that.

Actually I was referring to the blissful ignorance that most christians have. god (it’s under case for a reason), which hasn’t been proven or even had any evidence of, allows people to not think, not to decide who THEY are.

Jesus is God Incarnate and part of the Trinity which is the Three in One. Satan is a fallen angel and has no powers beyond those of persuasion, which the bible says he is good at. He also leads a bunch of other fallen angels. Satan has no godlike powers.

2.But jesus is a separate individual who is treated as divine therefore ur whole there is only one god is complete BS! Also you treat the devil as having immense supernatural powers and being (at least almost) all knowing therefore he is treated like a god but not called it and id hate to rain on ur parade but just b/c you say something doesn’t mean it is/isn't true

Yes, that is true. God is a heavenly father. Which has slightly more influence than a Human Father. He gives us Moral Guidelines to be as good as we can while on Earth and since there is no way to equal or surpass God that makes no sense.

3. Out of curiosity how far is ur head up ur butt? He doesn’t manage shit. I was raised a christian and I never once was given a sight that he/she/it/they/existed and for people who say that "the lord spoke to me" get off the shrooms that’s called hallucinating. Also it is possible to equal or surpass him, soon enough well be able to create AIs and well probably make at least a few to resemble us therefore we have created another species in our image, when we will be able to get amongst the stars we'll eventually be able to terraform planets etc.

Christianity in no way hampers progress and wisdom. Progress does not have to mean the Decay of Morality which is what most Christians are against. There were many wise men who were religious and that is not going to change. There were and are many philosophers who were and are religious and I didn't see them complaining about their religion impeding their philosophical writings.

(See first question for part 3) Christianity goes on FAITH which is the opponent of curiosity and thought itself. There’s a reason that at the height of the churches power is called the DARK AGES (related to part 1). Religions enemy has been science forever because you can’t faith your way to the stars or, cars, planes, ANYTHING! And as far as the death of morality goes compared to how "evil" people are today take a look what happened during the dark ages, compared to then were all fuckin saints.

I thought the British tradition was to be born, baptized by the C of E, attend sparsely in your youth, become an atheist, get bad teeth, then die and be buried in a C of E ceremony.

Yeah that's what I did. Except the only time I attended in my youth was for weddings and baptisms. And I haven't got to the bad teeth and death part yet, luckily!

hmm...did i scare him away?