Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
  1. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #1  
    One of the World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence




    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.
    At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
    Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.
    "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. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  2. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #2  
    here's the link


    abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976
    I gotta have more cowbell
  3. #3  
    Good to know at least some people in this debate are keeping an openmind
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  4. #4  
    Lot of ambiguity. I'd say that's closer to an agnostic.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Lot of ambiguity. I'd say that's closer to an agnostic.
    not an agnostic b/c he believes in the existence of God. The professor states God is completely different than a christian or a muslim, etc would think. I took it to mean the God he refers to is 'macro' God, where He doesn't get involved with individuals.
  6. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    ...He doesn't get involved with individuals.
    You left out the word "actively" in your statement.
  7. #7  
    Does it get any more ambiguous than this: "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose" ?

    I think he's having a lark.
  8. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #8  
    I think he is a step closer to repentence.
  9. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Does it get any more ambiguous than this: "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose" ?

    I think he's having a lark.

    ambiguous? ill admit its an unusual way of expressing himself, but you can clearly interpret from the statement that he believes there may be a being of intelligence and purpose at work.
  10. #10  
    he's also very old now, the 'ol noggin' can't be operating at peak efficiency anymore
  11. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #11  
    i can see the attempt to dismiss it as senility. to be expected.
  12. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #12  
    Or he's afraid that he will not go to heaven after he dies.
  13. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    Or he's afraid that he will not go to heaven after he dies.
    yeah, i was thinking about that, too. could be. ya never know.
  14. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #14  
    Those who said they will repent at the 11th hour dies at 10:30.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    One of the World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence

    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.
    At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
    Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.
    "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. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.
    It's the third time now that this article pops up on Treocentral, but that doesn't change the fact that it is outdated and misleading. The "famous atheist" found out that he was misled (his mind isn't as sharp as it used to be, probably), but nevertheless, he realised that he was fooled and set the story straight...

    However, I will gladly debunk the article for the third time:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
    One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
    Being the great treasure of wisdom Treocentral actually is, this article has already been discussed here. However, as it turned out, the article proved to be outdated, the "famous atheist" found out he was mistaught...

    "Update (January 2005)

    Antony Flew has retracted one of his recent assertions. In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes:

    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.


    He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins because Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter," even though this is false (e.g., Richard Dawkins and L. D. Hurst, "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," Nature 357: pp. 198-199, 21 May 1992) and hardly relevant: it was Flew's responsibility to check the state of the field (there are several books by actual protobiologists published in just the last five years), rather than wait for the chance possibility that one particular evolutionist would write on the subject. Now that he has done what he was supposed to do in the first place, he has retracted his false statement about the current state of protobiological science.

    Flew also makes another admission: "I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder." He says "it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics." Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics--yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew's method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims)." (from http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369)
    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...7&postcount=27
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #16  
    Thanks Clulup! I couldn't find the previous threads during a quick search yesterday, but knew this was recycled bunk.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  17. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #17  
    fantastic then.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  18. #18  
    Quite.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  19. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #19  
    a little snappy there, eh, pdxtreo?
    I gotta have more cowbell
  20. #20  
    Atheists crack me up.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions