Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
The Associated Press

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

[MORE (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/atheist_believes_in_god.htm)]

Very funny lightgigantic - LOL ... :)

The link from Richard Carrier :

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

Let me quote from his 2006 may update , where Antony Flew receives his christian award for now being a deist :
Flew appeared to sleep through most of it , said little, and what he said was difficult to understand ......

As a MD I might suspect, that the 81 years old newly converted deist might have Alzheimer .

Anyway, all Antony Flew said in december 2004, was this : he thinks that there might have been a god who started the creation of the big bang ....
and he also wondered about if god had made DNA - that is all !!!
The man is simply thinking about how everything started - and since science is not - yet - able to supply ALL answers , he resorts to ..... god ....
He never claimed to believe in anything else of the theist stories
- bible,koran etc ....

81 years old and he only just realized that the universe is vastly complexed beyond human comrpehension. Gawd dun' it!

Is being famous an indication of authority nowadays?

Let's hear what Paris Hilton has to say on the topic before we decide if there is a god.

Things that are now beyond comprehension may not always be so, history has proven that.

Complexity does not need to come from complexity. As chaos theory has already shown, very simple rules can create complex and unpredictible outcomes in the purely deterministic world of a computer calculation.

An 81-year-old suddenly thinks there might now be a God???

Hmmm - hedging bets, methinks!

At age 81, Pascal's Wager certainly looks more appealing - and if you can also justify it, even to yourself - I say go for it!!

:cool:

I'm convinced.

If Anthony Flew changed his mind then that proves it….God exists!!!!
Did Anthony Flew say anything about Sueprstrings?
We have to know.


There we all were awaiting Flew to give us a hint about reality.
We all held our breaths tentatively awaiting his final decree, his every fart and cough was a hint at finality when he opened his mouth we all held ours shut but, alas, he usually yawned.

Let us study the evidence.
The all too human psychological evidence.

A man spends his youth, when he was young and strong and healthy and more unprejudiced and full of life contemplating existence, finding no evidence of God, and then poof, at the ripe old age of 81, when he nears his own death and fear grips his waning heart, his inevitable fate filling him with anxiety and need and horror, he suddenly awakens to the ‘truth’!!!!
How convenient that he discovered such a comforting ‘truth’ right when he most needed it.
How human....how...how....stupid.

Fantastic.

Sort of proves that God is meant for the weak and feeble and needy and old and fearful - like our resident retard dimlightgigantic.

This is the type of ‘evidence’ which suffices for minds like his.
He sifts through the information highways for any bit that reinforces what he already wants to believe.

Then, when and if he finds it he exclaims:
“Eureka!!!!!!! More proof!!! I knew that what I already believed to be absolutely true is actually absolutely so!!! Here, even Flew says so!”

This is referred to as testimony.
We others, unenlightened ones, call it second hand information or hearsay
Just consider the fact that this constitutes, for him, evidence or proof of an unequivocal fact.
Yes, there were also weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq.
Someone once told someone else that there were.
I believed.
:bugeye:
Thank you Sciforums for keeping me in touch with such bright minds.
I can’t wait until he tells us his opinions on another subject. His mind is reliable source of wisdom and ‘truth’.

Let us sit quietly and wait for him to post something interesting like this again…..

Doesn't prove or show anything really

Doesn't prove or show anything reallyBut…but…he’s a famous atheist!!!!

Why, oh why, do you resist such convincing evidence!!!!
Wake up to our Lord, unbeliever, or face the consequences of your doubt!!!

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said.

At least he retained a portion of his marbles.

I send a text message to Paris Hilton. The Bitch didn't reply, but luckily Britney Spears called me to talk about chocolate. I asked her if she believes.

She said; duh...silly muffy puffy, of course I believe. It like...you know..he is out there. You know!

She is great! I thanked her for showing me again how it is to have faith.

Britney spears wouldn't lie to me. She is famous.

How many times must our sage lightgigantic prove a truth before you people overcome your prejudices against God and admit it to yourselves?

Are you that afraid of God?
He has provided page after page of evidence and logical arguments and none of you have the decency to admit that he might be right.

He, distinctly said, that you must first be trained in the correct epistemology to reach the ontology of God, in the same way that you must first be trained in the epistemology of Gargoyles to believe in Gargoyles.

What more do you people want?…Sheeesh!!!!

It’s there in plain Indian English:
The epistemology of the ontology determines the ontology of the epistemological truth.

I send a text message to Paris Hilton. The Bitch didn't reply, but luckily Britney Spears called me to talk about chocolate. I asked her if she believes.

She said; duh...silly muffy puffy, of course I believe. It like...you know..he is out there. You know!

She is great! I thanked her for showing me again how it is to have faith.

Britney spears wouldn't lie to me. She is famous.And she is nowhere near physical death. She’s only partly brain-dead.
That doesn’t count. She’s famous

He, distinctly said, that you must first be trained in the correct epistemology to reach the ontology of God, in the same way that you must first be trained in the epistemology of Gargoyles to believe in Gargoyles.

What do you mean with 'believe in Gargoyles'? Gargoyles are real.

What do you mean believe in Gargoyles? Gargoyles are real.Yeah right. :rolleyes:

Show me one famous person that said so.
Where are your epistemological sources for the ontological existential proofs?

I saw gargoyles in a movie once. This means they are famous.

Actually I can't find any famous atheist stating that gargoyles exist except me.

That will have to suffice. Some things should not be questioned.

Actually I can't find any famous atheist stating that gargoyles exist except me.

That will have to suffice. Some things should not be questioned.If you are famous and you’ve published a book then it definitely suffices.

I’m a believer.

I also have a website with existentialist essays. Certainly someone with your username should appreciate the goodness of that.
















(he he)

I also have a website with existentialist essays. Certainly someone with your username should appreciate the goodness of that.





(he he)
I can appreciate many things, including stupidity.
It's a gift.

How is it that some people find it so retarded to believe in anything spiritual? The big bang is just a theory. Why do so many people use theories as facts in an argument? It makes sense to argue against a lot of religious things. But some people (many in this very forum) argue blindly and it just makes them look stupid. Science has made plenty of room for spirituality. Especially the fact that, at an atomic level, matter seems to have a certain "awareness". So why treat people stupid for not denying a possibility?

Exactly!

And, of course, finding theories to explain perceivable phenomena is the same as finding excuses to explain unperceivable phenomena.

For example, it is the same if I come up with a theory to explain a vase on my table by using other vases and other tables and my knowledge of vase making and vase makers, as it is to explain a vase by invoking a mysterious, unseen, magical power.

Thanks Sciforums

The big bang is just a theory. Why do so many people use theories as facts in an argument?

Silly girl. All science has are theories. Science doesn't prove anything, all it does is disprove things.

Thank you for proving my point, Satyr. Roman, did I say that science proved anything? No. I'm saying that people often try to use it to prove closed-minded points, like Satyr. He makes his own lame assumptions and tries to pass them off as scientific proof.

An 81-year-old suddenly thinks there might now be a God???

Hmmm - hedging bets, methinks!


if you had read the article, it states that he does not believe in an afterlife.

so, exactly what bets were being hedged?

Thank you for proving my point, Satyr. Roman, did I say that science proved anything? No. I'm saying that people often try to use it to prove closed-minded points, like Satyr. He makes his own lame assumptions and tries to pass them off as scientific proof.
satyr is a rockin' scientist.

he has a PhD in Funkatronics.

Thank you for proving my point, Satyr. Roman, did I say that science proved anything? No. I'm saying that people often try to use it to prove closed-minded points, like Satyr. He makes his own lame assumptions and tries to pass them off as scientific proof.

How is it that some people find it so retarded to believe in anything spiritual? The big bang is just a theory. Why do so many people use theories as facts in an argument?A theory is a....."fact"?
You got me.

It makes sense to argue against a lot of religious things. But some people (many in this very forum) argue blindly and it just makes them look stupid. Science has made plenty of room for spirituality. Especially the fact that, at an atomic level, matter seems to have a certain "awareness".It does?
News to me.
I just talked about a vase….

It must have been written in a spiritual scientific journal.

So why treat people stupid for not denying a possibility?If you understood the why, then you wouldn’t be so retarded….now would you?


The Devil Inside
satyr is a rockin' scientist.

he has a PhD in FunkatronicsI’m going for a doctorate in Bullshit now.
I have the nose for it.

The Devil Inside
I’m going for a doctorate in Bullshit now.
I have the nose for it.

i did my master's thesis in Bullshittery on republican foreign policy.

I don't doubt that when I am on deaths bed, i will therefor suspend critical thought. I can't really say, it's stupid to say that there are no atheists in foxholes, but my point is, even if I embrace the popular notion of God, it proves fuck all. I would only then become guilty of embracing a comforting and popular delusion in a time of uncertanty. I may be a hypocrite, but I find comfort in there being no god/afterlife, but I do consider those two things to be infinitely more likely than those two things existing in the first place.

I'll wager the horrors of war made many people turn away from their religion.

To Hell With You

...

I cant type in all caps... I feel this unfairly rules out a legitimiate use of caps...

TO HELL WITH YOU.

just make sure to include lowercase letters.

To Hell With You

...

See? Is this proof of Gods wrath:?

Are you all stupid, he's 81 and so old his mind has left him. Of course he'd believe in god now, he'll believe anything so long as it comforts him in some way before he dies!

... Of course he'd believe in god now, he'll believe anything so long as it comforts him in some way before he dies!

Isn't that why people believe in god now ...for comfort? And most of 'em aren't old and ready to die, either.

If I were to find comfort in believing that there were little green men on Mercury, why would you want to denigrate me for it? I mean, I can understand you not believing in it yourself, but why call me stupid, ignorant, etc for my beliefs in the little green men. Especially if I find comfort in it.

Baron Max

I'll wager the horrors of war made many people turn away from their religion.

Hmm, maybe. But I'd also think that the horrors of war made many people turn to their religion and beliefs for comfort and understanding.

So .....what's "...many people..." mean?

Baron Max

he.
doesnt.
believe.
in.
an.
afterlife.

his age or health is apparently not a motivating factor.

Well to address the general gunfire that has been directed in my direction

- Yes I am aware that Flew doesn't adopt any particular faith

- It doesn't appear that he is getting sentimental at the approach of death since he firmly thinks there is no after life


Why I thought the article is notable is because here we have a firmly convinced atheist who has reconsidered his notion that the universe is bereft of intelligent design - and that frankly is the limit of this theistic inclinations.

To quote him

"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Its just a challenge to the idea commonly held by atheists that ID is following in the wake of a type of faithful fervour

Hmm... so an atheist converted to believing in God...

I'm sure that never happens the other way around.

I'm wondering, LG, if we should all make much ado about nothing?

Hmm... so an atheist converted to believing in God...

I'm sure that never happens the other way around.

Well I just posted that he didn't really convert to anything - the point is that he changed his notions of universal existence to include ID - and he did this according to his rational analysis of the situation -

So yes that could happen the other way around - but my point was that the common held claim by atheists hat ID is a response to self manifesting religious fervour is not the case here

I believe that my spiritual guide, personal hero, intellectual guru and life mentor lightgigantic, just played us all for fools with a very artistic verbal acrobatics trick.

What a wonderful mind he has.

Testing the waters of his retardation by saying things he doesn’t really mean or introducing arguments to see if they are effective before he commits to them, is astoundingly astute of him.

I’m impressed.

It only goes to prove how well he’s thought out his positions.
He originally thought that this atheist hinting that he now thought God might be possible was some kind of revelation or a good argument against atheism – which is nothing more than the denial of theism.

He really wanted to show how science was just as dependant on faith as religion was, and that religion won because it added the advantage of feeling good and spiritual depth.

His thesis resided on the assumption that to be scientifically minded automatically means you are a superficial materialist and that to be religious is to be a deep thinking philosopher.

In both cases he showed himself to be another run-o-da-mill retard with nothing but gibberish and stupidity to offer.

Maybe he can display his mental abilities further by actually commenting on a subject other than faith and religious mythology.
I want to see that brain in action in another arena.

Now if it were not for that other retard TimeTraveler I would be inclined to call him brain-dead, but since I am now spiritually awakened to the fact that what quacks like a duck and walks like a duck is not a duck but an energy field no different than my own (perhaps Gandhi reincarnated as a duck) I will say that his soul is lacking in energy.

Thanks Sciforums.

Satyr

Once I realised that even atheists complain about the lack of content in your posts I realised that there was no harm putting you on my ignore list

:D

Satyr

Once I realised that even atheists complain about the lack of content in your posts I realised that there was no harm putting you on my ignore list

:DPlease forgive me if I do not care and continue exposing your mental prowess to all who do read what I write.

But running away from truth is what retarded minions of memetic need do best.

Once again satyr

Haven't got a clue what you are posting, but I am sure it hardly warrants a response

That's because you are spiritually superior to me and above all this dirty play.
You just do not care.

Nevertheless you are my favorite RETARD on Sciforums.

This makes you a certain winner of the much coveted award of RETARD of the month [September]

You see, my friend, leader, teacher and new spiritual guide, I, unlike other agnostics and atheists, choose not to waste my time with imbeciles like you, anymore.
I choose to have fun with them, instead.
I enjoy you just the way you are.

Your level of stupidity can only frustrate and lead nowhere.

Once again Satyr

- don't see a thing

Once again Satyr

- don't see a thingBut you are blind to everything.

"This message is hidden because Satyr is on your ignore list. "

This is all I see

"This message is hidden because Satyr is on your ignore list. "

This is all I see
I believe you.

Is this why you know that my posts have no content?
Do you rely here as well on second hand testimony, my retarded imbecile guru friend?

Did God tell you or did the epistemology reveal the ontology of my posts?

Satyr:

Please keep your Retard awards in their own thread.

BTW, I may have to close that thread at some point, if somebody complains. It is, after all, technically a breach of the site rules. But I must admit that I'm finding it moderately entertaining...

Anyway, the point is: I don't think it needs to spread any further.

the point is that he changed his notions of universal existence to include ID
Not unless ID includes evolution.
He changed his notions of the feasibility of natural abiogenesis. He is welcome to do so of course.

Every religious person is a converted atheist. Religious devotees are made, not born.

I did not say that a theory was a fact. I don't think this guy can comprehend a word of what he reads. He just attacks people. Forget it.

Very funny lightgigantic - LOL ... :)



As a MD I might suspect, that the 81 years old newly converted deist might have Alzheimer .

....

If that's the way you normally do your diagnoses (remotely by unsubstantiated supposition) I am gald you are not my doctor!

So much for rational logical debate of observed scientific facts or rather not much for it!

regards,


Gordon.

Every religious person is a converted atheist. Religious devotees are made, not born.


Exactly.

Correct Megan ... and Pete of course.

It amuses me; when people ask me what religion am I, and I answer "none"...they ask "but what religion are your parents then?" as if it's a hereditary trait or something. One guy was even bowled over that I don't attend church (he was shocked for about 20 mins).

I believe that my spiritual guide, personal hero, intellectual guru and life mentor lightgigantic, just played us all for fools with a very artistic verbal acrobatics trick.

What a wonderful mind he has.

Testing the waters of his retardation by saying things he doesn’t really mean or introducing arguments to see if they are effective before he commits to them, is astoundingly astute of him.

I’m impressed.

It only goes to prove how well he’s thought out his positions.
He originally thought that this atheist hinting that he now thought God might be possible was some kind of revelation or a good argument against atheism – which is nothing more than the denial of theism.

He really wanted to show how science was just as dependant on faith as religion was, and that religion won because it added the advantage of feeling good and spiritual depth.

His thesis resided on the assumption that to be scientifically minded automatically means you are a superficial materialist and that to be religious is to be a deep thinking philosopher.

In both cases he showed himself to be another run-o-da-mill retard with nothing but gibberish and stupidity to offer.

Maybe he can display his mental abilities further by actually commenting on a subject other than faith and religious mythology.
I want to see that brain in action in another arena.

Now if it were not for that other retard TimeTraveler I would be inclined to call him brain-dead, but since I am now spiritually awakened to the fact that what quacks like a duck and walks like a duck is not a duck but an energy field no different than my own (perhaps Gandhi reincarnated as a duck) I will say that his soul is lacking in energy.

Thanks Sciforums.


Is retard your favorite word?

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
The Associated Press

.

So presumably you are posting this because you think this man is credible?

did you also think he was credible when he was an athiest?

If not why not?

Credibility can not arise merely from a 'change of point of view' surely? The man if an ass as an atheist, is surely an ass as a theist? He is afterall the same man. If he was credible at all, surely he would have lived his life as an agnostic and then perhaps a change of view could be understood and tolerated but to advocate and publically promote atheism then publically promote and advocate theism, demonstrates what with regards to his credibility?

Not credible

I believe you.
Finally Satyr converted!!!! :D :p

;)

Credibility can not arise merely from a 'change of point of view' surely? The man if an ass as an atheist, is surely an ass as a theist? He is afterall the same man. If he was credible at all, surely he would have lived his life as an agnostic and then perhaps a change of view could be understood and tolerated but to advocate and publically promote atheism then publically promote and advocate theism, demonstrates what with regards to his credibility?
He was a famous atheist, however. And it appears he was good at it, at least according to the atheists themselves.

Regardless, this thread commits an argument of authority and that's the end of that.

He was a famous atheist, however. And it appears he was good at it, at least according to the atheists themselves.

Regardless, this thread commits an argument of authority and that's the end of that.

The fact he was a good atheist is crushed now he is theist

Anyone that spends their life, 100% convinced of a certain 'truth' to be swayed eventually by the arguments that existed when they first happened upon their truth is ............stupid.

It is like eating what you beleive is strawberry ice cream and being told it is chocolate. None the less you promote it as strawberry. The ingredient list is ignored by you as is the colour, smell and taste......and then for whatever reason, you suddenly decide, oh yeh, they were right, it is chocolate afterall.

Should we give such a person credit? A person who spent their life ignoring detail that they now choose not to ignore. If some NEW detail had come to light, fair enough, but nothing new has come to light in his lifetime re the existance of god. He JUST ignored what he now chooses to acknolwedge.

He lived his life in ignorance

I'm not arguing against your point of view at all, TOR. In fact, I agree with it. But it makes me wonder how good of an argument can other atheists make. If their best atheist is now a theist, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?

I'm not arguing against your point of view at all, TOR. In fact, I agree with it. But it makes me wonder how good of an argument can other atheists make. If their best atheist is now a theist, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?

It depends why they are atheist

If their reasons for being atheist are that there is in their opinion an absence of evidence for god and that 'not understanding the origin of life' in itself does not imply a 'creator' then they remain credible at least from the point of view they do not deny the existing ambiguity regarding God. It is just that their view is one of 'this ambiguity points to no god' whereas to theists this same ambiguity points to existance of god. Both use the same evidence/lack thereof to give weight to their view.

The lack of credibility arises when

They decide in the absence of any change to the above 'ambiguity' that they will now support the opposing view. What can they argue to support this change of view when the ambiguity has not altered in any shape or form. learning that you know less as you grow older should not point to god, anymore than knowing more should point away.

Once you become familiar with certain 'circumstances' being manipulated and can see the reasonning you cannot ignore the truth, absence of seeing it though can lead you naturally to deny it.

Did therfore this 'famous' atheist have a revelation, has he had a God moment? This is the only thing to rationally (without denying his credibility) explain his change of view.

I'm not arguing against your point of view at all, TOR. In fact, I agree with it. But it makes me wonder how good of an argument can other atheists make. If their best atheist is now a theist, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?


Absolute rubbish, simply because in the reverse event you can say this: "If their best theist is now an athiest, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?"

I'm very sure that theists as a collective will dismiss any of their own becoming atheistic as a 'lost lamb of the flock' and pity him (up to and including the Pope if hypothetically such a thing were to occur) and will also not accept any argument that this person's loss of belief diminishes the theistic collective somehow.

Any perceived victory of Mr. Flew's change of opinion by any theist is just that, an illusion.

Absolute rubbish, simply because in the reverse event you can say this: "If their best theist is now an athiest, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?"
Theists seldomly think logically, however. If an atheist that had the same argument as all others suddenly turns around and believe in God, then maybe that argument wasn't that great after all. What makes the difference is that the atheist actually has a sound argument, rather is valid or not. In the end, it really comes down to personal opinion. The agnostic position is far superior. ;)

I'm very sure that theists as a collective will dismiss any of their own becoming atheistic as a 'lost lamb of the flock' and pity him (up to and including the Pope if hypothetically such a thing were to occur) and will also not accept any argument that this person's loss of belief diminishes the theistic collective somehow.
And so will atheists, as we have observed in this thread. For instance, some atheists claimed Mr. Flew is now suffering from Alzeihmers... ;)

Any perceived victory of Mr. Flew's change of opinion by any theist is just that, an illusion.
I agree.

I'm not arguing against your point of view at all, TOR. In fact, I agree with it. But it makes me wonder how good of an argument can other atheists make. If their best atheist is now a theist, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?Well, we did get together in our Church of Atheism and we did vote him to be the “best” of us.
So I agree, this proves that God exists.

I guess that when you add 127 I.Q points with 155 I.Q. points you get …let’s see:
127+155 = 282

Which means 282 I.Q. points combined to say the previous.
Amazing!!!!!

I once knew someone who didn’t believe in God and yet he asked for communion when he, in his last days, drifted towards death.
I only hope that my own human frailty will not make me succumb to fear in my last moments.
But should we judge his opinions as they were affected by an approaching end or should we judge them when they remained unaffected by the specter of death?

It only proves that some people die afraid while others live their entire lives in fear and hope.

We call them believers.

One of the most popular methods of justifying belief is the attempt to equate not-believing with believing.
It’s the argument that states first that one must prove a negative and second that, since nobody knows anything for sure that the unbeliever is just as guilty of blind-faith as the believer, so why not take Pascal’s wager and believe.

I say this argument relies on a fallacy.
The unbeliever need not prove anything but the illogic or error in the other’s, proposing a ‘truth’, position.

If I am told to believe in UFO’s I need not prove aliens do not exist or that they are not visiting us but only point out the inconsistencies in the other’s arguments and to alternative explanations for phenomena that are taken as unequivocal proof of an absolute certainty and possible causes for the error.
If one is proposing an absolute – such as God – then absolute proof is required.
Someone proposing a hypothesis, a possibility, need only prove the possibility and admit to an opposite or alternate possibility.

Furthermore not believing in UFO’s does not constitute a dogma of unbelief or a faith against UFO’s.
There is no authority in disproving U.F.O’s but only more popular or les popular debunkers with whom all skeptics can relate.

A sign of intellectual integrity is when the mind itself doubts it’s self by allowing for the opposite contingency equal to the opposite possibility’s arguments and supporting evidence.

Human knowledge is never and can never be complete and so all possibilities are forever held to be possible.
We differentiate between theories by according them more or less plausibility determined by their reliability, evidence and honesty in remaining skeptical themselves and open to other interpretations.

How does man determine between more or less plausible opinions?

Man palaces the realm of proof giving on the external, empirical world where multiple minds can study and witness it.
This is called empiricism.

To not do so is to allow for any testimony or shared hysteria or psychosis to be considered just as plausible as any other.

Well I was hoping for some astounding revelation, but through all of that Flew still failed to tell us all what exactly created this god thingy. Guess we'll have to wait a bit longer..

Well I was hoping for some astounding revelation, but through all of that Flew still failed to tell us all what exactly created this god thingy. Guess we'll have to wait a bit longer..It's enough that he changed his mind and was an ex-atheist.

Now why or how, dosn't matter.
The testimony suffices for those that want it to be true.

Some people think they are too important to just be a physical being and they MUST be special enough to continue on to some fluffy cloud to join that dude that knows everybody's birthdays. Old and dying people especially. I hope I'm not that pathetic when I'm old and or close to dying. :p

I read the first post and too busy now to go through this whole thread so I may be OT, but as I have said long ago- Evolution as it relates to humans before cave man (wtf) is just not biologically possible...it is laughable. Look at the bigger picture and it cannot work.

This is a real good partial explanation, but is only half of it:

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video,

TheoryOfRelativity:

Are you claiming that every instance of turning around to another view implies one was "living in ignorance before" and one was not simply convinced otherwise? You are seeming to imply a moral and intellectual fault in the man before he was rationally convinced of a position prior to his own. Do you view correction in so negative a light?

To everyone in general:

I am actually surprised that this man went to Atheism on the premise of teleological arguments in the vein of Aristotle, as they are notoriously the most weak. I'd personally ask him upon what justification does he assert that an intelligence could do anything which he claims as well as from whence that intelligence got the knowledge to do so.

Satyr... you entertain me... :D

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence

Wow, I didn't know there were world-leading atheists. That's a new one. I can't really tell what scientific evidence this fella is basing his 'belief' on. It seems like he took the path of 'it's just too damn complex and therefore must have been created' argument (aka: It's beyond me therefore 'God' did it).

It's enough that he changed his mind and was an ex-atheist.

Enough for what? What has he solved, what has he answered from giving up and saying the world's complex so therefore something must have made it?

The testimony suffices for those that want it to be true.

Absolutely anything suffices for those that "want it to be true". As you should be well aware by now, wanting something to be true does not make it so, and then some halfwit making a thread because some "leading atheist", whatever the hell that might be, says he now thinks something made the universe has crossed the borders of absolute stupidity.

And through all of this there isn't one single solitary piece of evidence in sight.

It's a joke.

TheoryOfRelativity:

Are you claiming that every instance of turning around to another view implies one was "living in ignorance before" and one was not simply convinced otherwise? You are seeming to imply a moral and intellectual fault in the man before he was rationally convinced of a position prior to his own. Do you view correction in so negative a light?



No I'm not, I said this


It depends why they are atheist

If their reasons for being atheist are that there is in their opinion an absence of evidence for god and that 'not understanding the origin of life' in itself does not imply a 'creator' then they remain credible at least from the point of view they do not deny the existing ambiguity regarding God. It is just that their view is one of 'this ambiguity points to no god' whereas to theists this same ambiguity points to existance of god. Both use the same evidence/lack thereof to give weight to their view.

The lack of credibility arises when (as is case with famous atheist)

They decide in the absence of any change to the above 'ambiguity' that they will now support the opposing view. What can they argue to support this change of view when the ambiguity has not altered in any shape or form. learning that you know less as you grow older should not point to god, anymore than knowing more should point away.

Once you become familiar with certain 'circumstances' being manipulated and can see the reasonning you cannot ignore the truth, absence of seeing it though can lead you naturally to deny it.

Did therfore this 'famous' atheist have a revelation, has he had a God moment? This is the only thing to rationally (without denying his credibility) explain his change of view.

it's quite simple, when we change our minds it is usually because we are convinced by new arguments that our previous understanding was incorrect. In this case, there were NO new arguments, only the ones he always knew about and used to reinforce his atheist perspective. If he was a child and had behaved like this, or a young adult, fair enough, we spout bollocks when we are kids. But he was not a kid, he was an educated man who spouted what he HIMSELF now says is 'bollocks' for the greater part of his adult and proffessional life. His word is thus no more valuable now than it was then.

Lots of people here stick to their 'talking bollocks' point of view, at some point one hopes they will correct themselves, but it doesn't mean I have respect for them then anymore than I do now. They have the chance NOW to be corrected, but ego prevents it. I am not interested in blind sheep with big heads.

If that atheist believes now that he was WRONG, he has a great deal of undoing to do does he not ? As no doubt lots of little sheep followed his lead.

Theists seldomly think logically, however. If an atheist that had the same argument as all others suddenly turns around and believe in God, then maybe that argument wasn't that great after all. What makes the difference is that the atheist actually has a sound argument, rather is valid or not. In the end, it really comes down to personal opinion. The agnostic position is far superior.

Not really, logic is unshakeable even if a logician loses his facilities. A theist adopting athiesm is actually the more 'sound' conversion. If I get what you are saying correctly. To expound, since theism is an opinion or an unprovable philosophy, a theist that had the same argument as all the others who suddenly converts from this to logic (athiesm) points out that maybe the argument wasn't that great after all (see how that works ;) ).

I'm inclined to agree with u on agnosticism tho.



And so will atheists, as we have observed in this thread. For instance, some atheists claimed Mr. Flew is now suffering from Alzeihmers...

Correct, because logic or religion remains the same no matter who or how many subscribe to it. Which was my point. :)

TheoryOfRelativity:

"But he was not a kid, he was an educated man who spouted what he HIMSELF now says is 'bollocks' for the greater part of his adult and proffessional life. His word is thus no more valuable now than it was then.

[...]

If that atheist believes now that he was WRONG, he has a great deal of undoing to do does he not ? As no doubt lots of little sheep followed his lead. "

Isn't he doing this now? By making public appearances about philosophical issues? Declaring his stance in magazines and in books and such? Doing numerous interviews?

Few people interested in philosophy and the matter of God, probably do not know that Antony Flew has repudiated his former position.

Crunchy Cat

Wow, I didn't know there were world-leading atheists.
What? You thought it was a coincidence that all atheists rely on the same type of logic and academic sources?

Crunchy Cat


What? You thought it was a coincidence that all atheists rely on the same type of logic and academic sources?

I don't know that atheists all rely on the same sources for whatever, but that's sort of irrelevant. What tickled my funny bone was the mere notion of a "world-leading atheist"... a leader whom heavily influences the positions of the general atheistic public. Beautiful.

No I'm not, I said this

it's quite simple, when we change our minds it is usually because we are convinced by new arguments that our previous understanding was incorrect. In this case, there were NO new arguments, only the ones he always knew about and used to reinforce his atheist perspective.

If that atheist believes now that he was WRONG, he has a great deal of undoing to do does he not ? As no doubt lots of little sheep followed his lead.

Or, they go insane, from old age, like the guy in the article. Simpler, really.

I don't know that atheists all rely on the same sources for whatever, but that's sort of irrelevant. What tickled my funny bone was the mere notion of a "world-leading atheist"... a leader whom heavily influences the positions of the general atheistic public. Beautiful.
Your tring to tell me that you have never read a book or watched a film that is authored by an atheist - on the contrary I think you have already posted a link to an atheistic short film

Your tring to tell me that you have never read a book or watched a film that is authored by an atheist - on the contrary I think you have already posted a link to an atheistic short film

I generally don't know the theological (or lack therof) of the books I read or shows I watch. I can't recall reading a book knowing the author was an atheist. I have watched videos with atheists in them or presumably made by atheists. I wouldn't call any of those people "world leading" anything consequently.

Did I post some atheistic short film? Can you show me where I did this as I don't seem to remember doing so. Somebody recently posted some dancing monkeys video that I found pretty funny. Maybe you're confusing the author of that post with me.