Atheists turn back to God?

[Enmos]

Pretty much everyone that posted here though.. lol

 

[S.A.M.]

Pretty much everyone that posted here though.. lol

But isn't a REturn less surprising? I would think that those who had no spiritual leanings to begin with would not be likely to suddenly develop them?

 

[Enmos]

But isn't a REturn less surprising? I would think that those who had no spiritual leanings to begin with would not be likely to suddenly develop them?

Exactly..

 

[S.A.M.]

Exactly..

Which means...? *drumroll*

 

[(Q)]

Really.

Hmmm... over 20K posts and you only found the one?

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmmm... over 20K posts and you only found the one?

Its a VERY rare occurence.

 

[Enmos]

Which means...? *drumroll*

Meaning pretty much what you said already, REturning to a religion isnt quite as surprising as an atheist turning to a religion.
So i dont think the OP question is all that interesting. Maybe he meant turning in stead of REturning.. :shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

Meaning pretty much what you said already, REturning to a religion isnt quite as surprising as an atheist turning to a religion.
So i dont think the OP question is all that interesting. Maybe he meant turning in stead of REturning.. :shrug:

Ah thanks.

 

[lightgigantic]

While I will not quibble over influence, it's not clear how you have come to the conclusion that one guy you don't really know is "greater" than another guy you don't really know. What criteria are you using to come to that conclusion?

I guess if you look at modes of expression, expressing oneself academically to the intelligent community with philosophy and reason occupies one rung on the ladder, and expressing yourself such as

First of all, Antony Flew was a philosophy professor, a bullshit artist.

occupies another

 

[lightgigantic]

Q
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
as a greater and more influential atheist than yourself, what does that make you?
”
I think Snakelord asked the appropriate question here. A greater atheist is a greater disbeliever??

greatness, in this sense, bears a relation to quality of expression and conviction (Flew went out of his way to but his nous on the line - you recreationally and anonymously lurk on a chat forum - big difference)

“
so what
”
So, Deists come to conclusions gods exist, without any reason or rationale whatsoever. They then look for reasons to support their conclusions, allegedly based on science. It's a crock, of course. They are as convincing as you, which is not at all.


Big difference.

hardly

your opinions aside, the bit in bold tends to indicate the paradigm shift from atheist

So, since Antony does not believe in an afterlife, he hasn't really converted to a religion making false promises, like the religion you belong, for example.

Big difference.

so a person who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?
:crazy:

So, his position is more in line with Intelligent Design proponents, which are basically creationists masking their nonsense as science, which isn't really any kind of conversion at all, or is scientific. Yet, he is supposed to be a professor.

Big difference.

once again, your opinions aside, is a person who ascribes the creation of the cosmic manifestation to a type of singular advanced consciousness an atheist?
:crazy:

“
do all people who turn 81 lose their marbles, or only those that have different opinions than yourself?
”
Not necessarily all who turn 81, but Antony Flew did.

why?
because he voiced an opinion different from yours, and you are without a doubt the yardstick of normal behaviour in this world?

“
so in other words you concede that your opening 5 points were all red herrings?
”
What gives you that idea (other than your tenuous grasp for synthesis)? I'm simply pointing out that the ONE SINGLE person you have found to have claimed to having been converted to religion is specious, at best.

Again, big difference.

with your beginning 5 points you state that he didn't convert to a religion and in your conclusion you state he did - perhaps you should pay more attention to those BS professors next time you want to construct a coherent argument ....

 

[(Q)]

greatness, in this sense, bears a relation to quality of expression and conviction (Flew went out of his way to but his nous on the line - you recreationally and anonymously lurk on a chat forum - big difference)

An appeal ad populum? Any first year physics student could put Tom Bearden to shame.

so a person who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?
:crazy:

No, a Deist, pay attention.

once again, your opinions aside, is a person who ascribes the creation of the cosmic manifestation to a type of singular advanced consciousness an atheist?
:crazy:

Where do you keep coming up with these notions? That's a Deist, again.

why?
because he voiced an opinion different from yours, and you are without a doubt the yardstick of normal behaviour in this world?

Nope, old age.

with your beginning 5 points you state that he didn't convert to a religion and in your conclusion you state he did - perhaps you should pay more attention to those BS professors next time you want to construct a coherent argument ....

Please point out exactly where I made that claim.

Of course, you can't, because you choose to obfuscate, instead.

 

[lightgigantic]

Q

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
greatness, in this sense, bears a relation to quality of expression and conviction (Flew went out of his way to but his nous on the line - you recreationally and anonymously lurk on a chat forum - big difference)
”
An appeal ad populum?

no
an appeal to being able to express oneself publicly in academic circles as opposed to anonymously in ad hom saturated chat rooms

“
so a person who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?

”
No, a Deist, pay attention.

so a deist who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?
:crazy:

“
once again, your opinions aside, is a person who ascribes the creation of the cosmic manifestation to a type of singular advanced consciousness an atheist?

”
Where do you keep coming up with these notions? That's a Deist, again.

a deist is not a person?
:crazy:

“
why?
because he voiced an opinion different from yours, and you are without a doubt the yardstick of normal behaviour in this world?
”
Nope, old age.

so the opinions of all people over 80 can be instantly rejected?
:crazy:

with your beginning 5 points you state that he didn't convert to a religion and in your conclusion you state he did - perhaps you should pay more attention to those BS professors next time you want to construct a coherent argument ....
”
Please point out exactly where I made that claim.

Of course, you can't, because you choose to obfuscate, instead.

determining a deist to be a sub branch of atheism is not an obfuscation?

 

[(Q)]

an appeal to being able to express oneself publicly in academic circles as opposed to anonymously in ad hom saturated chat rooms

Then, why are you here?

so a deist who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?

Is that your conclusion?

a deist is not a person?

Is that your conclusion?

so the opinions of all people over 80 can be instantly rejected?

Is that your conclusion?

determining a deist to be a sub branch of atheism is not an obfuscation?

Is that your conclusion?

 

[SnakeLord]

I guess if you look at modes of expression, expressing oneself academically to the intelligent community with philosophy and reason occupies one rung on the ladder, and expressing yourself such as

I see. So you consider a person "greater" on the basis that he doesn't use the occasional swear word?

Of course what you need to understand is that in general people will talk to the level of the person they are talking with. If, for instance, we were talking about some science you're not clued up on I would talk to you in 'layman terms'. So, I ask you: does the using of the word bullshit make Q not as great as Flew, (even though I can pretty much guarantee you there was the occasional swear word used by him too), or is Q talking in a way and style that is along your level of understanding?

Let it be stated for the record that calling a bullshit claim bullshit does not indicate that one is any less "great" than anyone else. If you think it does, the bullshit fits.

 

[lightgigantic]

I see. So you consider a person "greater" on the basis that he doesn't use the occasional swear word?

thats one minor aspect
the other is that they publicly put themselves in the arena of academic circles, which is the larger picture that necessitates the former ...

Of course what you need to understand is that in general people will talk to the level of the person they are talking with. If, for instance, we were talking about some science you're not clued up on I would talk to you in 'layman terms'. So, I ask you: does the using of the word bullshit make Q not as great as Flew, (even though I can pretty much guarantee you there was the occasional swear word used by him too), or is Q talking in a way and style that is along your level of understanding?

writing off philosophy as BS is certainly not a good beginning point for a serious philosophical discussion

Let it be stated for the record that calling a bullshit claim bullshit does not indicate that one is any less "great" than anyone else. If you think it does, the bullshit fits.[/QUOTE

for the record, what do you make of this then??

“
First of all, Antony Flew was a philosophy professor, a bullshit artist.

 

[lightgigantic]

Q

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
an appeal to being able to express oneself publicly in academic circles as opposed to anonymously in ad hom saturated chat rooms
”
Then, why are you here?

because I have a delusional sense of grandeur on how great I am

“
so a deist who believes in god's existence yet doesn't believe in the after life is an atheist?
”
Is that your conclusion?

“
a deist is not a person?
”
Is that your conclusion?

“
so the opinions of all people over 80 can be instantly rejected?
”
Is that your conclusion?

“
determining a deist to be a sub branch of atheism is not an obfuscation?
”
Is that your conclusion?

no, but it appears to be yours

 

[(Q)]

because I have a delusional sense of grandeur on how great I am

Come now, you don't REALLY believe that? Your magnificence is only evident.

no, but it appears to be yours

I'm not sure where you get that, I don't ever recall claiming that deism is the same as atheism?

But, I did claim that deists first come to the conclusion a god exists, then seek to provide support for their conclusion. They also don't believe in an afterlife, as well as divine revelations, miracles or prophets, none of the supernatural events one might readily gobble up.

 

[SnakeLord]

for the record, what do you make of this then??

What do I make of it heh.. Hmm.. well, upon looking at it closely, I find it to be another man's opinion. Are you or I greater than him because our opinions differ? That is seemingly your opinion. Now that someone disagrees with your opinion, does that make them greater than you?

Ok lg, ok.

 

[lightgigantic]

“
Q

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
because I have a delusional sense of grandeur on how great I am
”
Come now, you don't REALLY believe that? Your magnificence is only evident.

that's right - keep it up or I will issue you with an infraction

“
no, but it appears to be yours
”
I'm not sure where you get that, I don't ever recall claiming that deism is the same as atheism?

But, I did claim that deists first come to the conclusion a god exists, then seek to provide support for their conclusion. They also don't believe in an afterlife, as well as divine revelations, miracles or prophets, none of the supernatural events one might readily gobble up.

hence deism represents quite a paradigm change for your average atheist

 

[lightgigantic]

What do I make of it heh.. Hmm.. well, upon looking at it closely, I find it to be another man's opinion.

brilliant

Are you or I greater than him because our opinions differ?

no, but if I had an opinion that einstein was a doofus it would probably indicate I was more into discussing football results than physics

That is seemingly your opinion.

so you have an opinion that all opinions are ultimately homogeneous in terms of value, or the differences between them are irrelevant or something?
(the plot thickens ...)