Atheist, what do you think of Anthony Flew's change of mind?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Christians - what do you think about kallend's change of mind at the age of 18, from being a Christian to concluding that Christianity was bunk?

Prof, write a dozen books on Christianity as a believer and be on the first page of googling "renowned Christian" then convert and I'll tell ya.

steveOrino

[livendive 8]

Quote

Dave, did you watch Man in Black II last night?


Dave, Dave, All hail Dave, Keeper of the key ...

Actually no, I watched Beetlejuice, and am thus currently considering the possibility of an afterlife.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm more agnostic than atheistic, but I can imagine a higher power without thinking of it as a deity.

I thought of that also. But the context of his post, it seemed he was speaking of deities in terms of "higher power", not just dolphins or white mice.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

I thought of that also. But the context of his post, it seemed he was speaking of deities in terms of "higher power", not just dolphins or white mice.

Well in that case, let's just break out the Babel fish and be done with it.

Edit to add: How's the neck doing?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[crwtom 0]

Quote

... that he found evidence to become a deist?

so what "evidence" did he find that he couldn't find in the
previous 81 years?

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[sweetmoose 0]

Quote

Quote

I am athiest, but think it is possible there is some kind of higher power,

???

Steve had the same kind of question about that, thought I should be agnostic, this was my reply to him.

Yeah, it tends to be a fine line between athiest and agnostic. At this point in my life I don't believe there is a god, so I consider myself athiest, but I don't believe anything is ever really certain and I am open to all possibilities, no matter how slim I believe them to be, so I think it is possible there is a god. I also believe it is possible that intelligent life from another planet has visited this earth, just not likely.

I read a book once called Athiesm, The Case Against God, well, I didn't read all of it, but most of it, and in part of the book, the guy talks about how there is really no such thing as agnostic because an agnostic technically doesn't believe in god (hasn't made up his/her mind) so, is in fact, an athiest, and I happen to agree with that statement. Even though there is a dictionary meaning to agnostic, I think there is only belief or disbelief, so theist or athiest.

We die only once, but for such a very long time.

I'll believe in ghosts when I catch one in my teeth.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

... that he found evidence to become a deist?

so what "evidence" did he find that he couldn't find in the
previous 81 years?

Cheers, T

The article: clicky

steveOrino

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

there is really no such thing as agnostic because an agnostic technically doesn't believe in god (hasn't made up his/her mind) so, is in fact, an athiest, and I happen to agree with that statement.

Ok, I understand your point.

I differ in that I consider the agnostic hasn't made up his/her mind, therefore saying he "technically doesn't believe in god" is no better than saying he "technically does believe in god".

Your author has assigned a default position to align with his beliefs.

IMO, it takes an act of strong belief to be either religious or atheist.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

Quote

... that he found evidence to become a deist?

so what "evidence" did he find that he couldn't find in the
previous 81 years?

Cheers, T

The article: clicky

And he has now stated that he was mistaken about the reasons he put forward then. "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."

Still waiting on the context to the Genesis 1 remark. You've got me quite interested in this - don't let me down now

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Stumpy 284]

1. Antony Flew's conversion was not to theism, but to a weak deism, a belief that a creator set the universe in motion but has not participated in any way since (Carrier 2004).

2. Flew's one and only piece of relevant evidence for accepting a deistic god was the apparent improbability of a naturalistic origin for life (Carrier 2004). Flew, by his own admission, had not kept up with the relevant science and was mistaught by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and Jewish theologian (e.g., Schroeder 2001). He later conceded, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction" (Carrier 2005). Thus Flew's conversion is, by Flew's own admission, baseless.

Flew remains a deist but calls his belief a "very modest defection from my previous unbelief" (Carrier 2005).

3. The argument from authority is weak to begin with, and Flew has never been a spokesperson for atheism, much less for the unrelated subject of evolution. Nobody's unsupported beliefs, including Flew's, constitute an argument for or against evolution (nor for or against atheism). Only evidence and logical argument are legitimate reasons to accept or reject any objective position

Taken from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html

From my own understanding of him, he is not an evolutionary scientist and does not actually debate that evolution happens. His only issue is with the initial creation of life, and as such i can accept that if you are religious then this is a good way of reconciling faith and evolution.

Having said that, a super-intelligence being the only good explanation? I don't think so. The fact that we don't have a perfect description yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

2. Flew's one and only piece of relevant evidence for accepting a deistic god was the apparent improbability of a naturalistic origin for life (Carrier 2004). Flew, by his own admission, had not kept up with the relevant science and was mistaught by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and Jewish theologian (e.g., Schroeder 2001). He later conceded, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction" (Carrier 2005). Thus Flew's conversion is, by Flew's own admission, baseless.

Is there an echo in here?

In a great piece of irony it seems he also said that it was Dawkins who had led him to believe there was no viable theory of how abiogenesis worked and therefore to his deism!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[crwtom 0]

Quote

The article: clicky

can't find any evidence in there ... only that he has difficulty
thinking about something ... at 81

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Stumpy 284]

Oooops sorry

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Shotgun 1]

I think that he is a guy who changed his beliefs - happens all the time, doesn't really affect my beliefs.

But technically I shouldn't be answering the question, since I am no longer an atheist (now a "none-of-the-above").

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I think that he is a guy who changed his beliefs - happens all the time, doesn't really affect my beliefs.

But technically I shouldn't be answering the question, since I am no longer an atheist (now a "none-of-the-above").

Is "none of the above" an agnostic? Or are you like me and don't like labels?

steveOrino

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Is "none of the above" an agnostic? Or are you like me and don't like labels?

I don't mind labels if they fit. And, by the dictionary definition, "atheist" would be the most fitting label for me. But a lot of people read way too much into that word, so I've mostly stopped referring to myself as an atheist.

And no, "none of the above" is not agnostic; if it were then I would just say "agnostic."

[philh 0]

"The run of the mill religous person? Not much. However, if a noted religous person such as Billy Graham changed his mind, I'd certainly be curious as to why. "

Farrell Till ws a former Church of Christ Pastor who is now the atheist editor of the skeptical reivew if you relly are interested I reccomend reading
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/AuthorFarrellTill1.html

Dan Barker was an evangelical preacher, has a degree in religion, was an associate pastor in friends Church and Assembly of God and author of many evangelical musicals.He s now co President of the freedom from Religion association. You can read his book "Losing Faith in Faith "
or check out his story here:
http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/

Here is a longer list of deconversion stories
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/tsr/list.html

The fact that ex minsiters have embraced atheism does not prove atheism is true. but what it does do is to demolish one Christian argument i have heard that runs on the theme "if you would just try and let Christ into your heart you will know the truth " these ex preachers can testify that is not true.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"The run of the mill religous person? Not much. However, if a noted religous person such as Billy Graham changed his mind, I'd certainly be curious as to why. "

Farrell Till ws a former Church of Christ Pastor who is now the atheist editor of the skeptical reivew if you relly are interested I reccomend reading
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/AuthorFarrellTill1.html

Dan Barker was an evangelical preacher, has a degree in religion, was an associate pastor in friends Church and Assembly of God and author of many evangelical musicals.He s now co President of the freedom from Religion association. You can read his book "Losing Faith in Faith "
or check out his story here:
http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/

Here is a longer list of deconversion stories
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/tsr/list.html

The fact that ex minsiters have embraced atheism does not prove atheism is true. but what it does do is to demolish one Christian argument i have heard that runs on the theme "if you would just try and let Christ into your heart you will know the truth " these ex preachers can testify that is not true.

Sorry, but none of those are noteworthy in Christian circles of academia. Heck, many Christians believe the Church of Christ is a cult, with all their baptism necessary for salvation, and their belief they are the only right Christian denomination. Have you never heard those jokes?

Peter: Over there are the Baptist, and behind them are the Nazarenes. Over there are the Church of Christ. Keep your voice down they think they are the only ones here.

Maybe Flew wasn't a noteworthy atheist. I never heard of him. My son just metioned it to me one day in passing. He is a philosophy major.

steveOrino

[philh 0]

they are certainly more qualified to talk about the bible than Flew is to talk about abio genesis.

[philh 0]

Also question for you Steve, what do you think about flews retraction?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Also question for you Steve, what do you think about flews retraction?

Let me wade through all this first.

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"Sorry, but none of those are noteworthy in Christian circles of academia. Heck, many Christians believe the Church of Christ is a cult, with all their baptism necessary for salvation, and their belief they are the only right Christian denomination. Have you never heard those jokes? "

Sorry one last reponse b4 bed time.
I looked up Billy graham Christian academic qualification he has an undergraduate degree in theology , how is that high up in Chrsitian academia whereas Dan Barker is not, seems like they have similar qualifications to me. Im sure many people believe Churhc of christ is a cult and laugh at it, many Protestants think the same of Catholics, Catholics thik the same of Protestans, Mormons think the same of both of them etc etc, So what?

[steveorino 7]

First, let's back up and see what I posted. I asked what do atheists think of his "change of mind"?

I never implied it meant atheism was proven wrong. I was only asking for their thoughts.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"Sorry, but none of those are noteworthy in Christian circles of academia. Heck, many Christians believe the Church of Christ is a cult, with all their baptism necessary for salvation, and their belief they are the only right Christian denomination. Have you never heard those jokes? "

Sorry one last reponse b4 bed time.
I looked up Billy graham Christian academic qualification he has an undergraduate degree in theology , how is that high up in Chrsitian academia whereas Dan Barker is not, seems like they have similar qualifications to me. Im sure many people believe Churhc of christ is a cult and laugh at it, many Protestants think the same of Catholics, Catholics thik the same of Protestans, Mormons think the same of both of them etc etc, So what?

My bad. A more appropiate example would have been Dr. Ravi Zacharias.

steveOrino

[jakee 1,489]

Hey Steve - just had a quick google on Flew and Genesis and found the article you'd quoted.

It seems as if the question really should be "What do you think of Schroeders thoughts on Genesis 1" since that is really the only thing Flew mentions. Unfortunately Schroeders thoughts on the big bang are contained in a book which I'm not going to buy so it'll be difficult for me to offer any commentary on them. Suffice to say, I probably wouldn't be too impressed.

From what I dug up in a very brief search two things stand out about Schroeder. 1) He has a crap web designer, 2) he has a very strong agenda to prove the veracity of the old testament (one review of his books mentioned the counting of 'begats' ). That leads me to expect a slightly more articulate version of the lists of bible 'science' discoveries that crop up here from time to time. (You know the type 'The bible knew the world was round!' etc.) Thats only speculation which might be a bit unfair to Schroeder, but for now, thats where I stand.


Another thing that maybe I should clarify more - what anyone else has said or written has never, ever had any bearing on me being an atheist. While Flew's conversion and subsequent partial unconversion may be of some intellectual interest, at the end of the day I really couldn't give a toss what he believes. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and anyone else out there I haven't heard of could all convert tomorrow and the effect on me would be zero.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?