Anthony Flew dead.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15699
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anthony Flew dead.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hryVL585PERWgNcGIAFZcOEo3RmAD9F2NPIO0

This still pisses me off that no matter how debunked his "conversion" was is still persistent.

His "conversion" was due to mental defect due to age and medical condition. It is easy to take advantage of someone and speak for them when they are not mentally coherent.

Which brings up Dawkins claiming he wants his last moments recorded. I am surprised at Dawkins not taking into account that he might suffer from the affects of diseases of age and or drugs used to minimize pain in our last hours that can and do cause psychological change that do not reflect the thoughts of a stable person.

I will tell everyone right hear right now, if I am ever diagnosed with a brain disorder, or am drugged out because of medication in my last hours. DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING I SAY SERIOUSLY WHEN I CANT SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I won't be in any condition to be objective or rational.

Flew is yet another false claim that Christians use to further their zombie god myth. It pisses me off that the media still perpetuates this myth.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Edwin Vargas (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Following the argument where it leads

Who among thinkers can forget the name of this former notorious atheist-turned-deist-turned-theist Anthony Flew?

By thinkers I mean those, who like Flew, listen to Socrates' advice to "follow the argument where it leads." And where did the argument lead Flew except to the realization that there must be a God out there who is responsible for the intrinsic design of the universe, whom philosophers call as the First Cause.

My only frustration is that Flew did not live longer enough to finally follow the argument beyond the Aristotelian limit, w/c, I believe, basically runs short of the full import of the argument, simply because he did not give way to the argument put forth by revelation sufficiently recorded in the pages of Holy Scripture. Nonetheless, by following the argument, at least to a certain limit, he only proved himself to be far better off than than most of his former colleagues in the godless atheist society - including the great Bertrand Russell and other atheists of lesser lights like the obscurantists Richard Dawkins and Samuel Harris.

Edwin Vargas
Christian & Postmodern Theology Examiner at Examiner.com


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I feel ya, but then again

I feel ya, but then again when your dead you wont care either way, you wont care about anything, sounds like "bliss" to me really.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


AnarchyMell
Superfan
AnarchyMell's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, they will add it to

Yeah, they will add it to their Darwin and Einstein stories.  Sad  It makes me mad too!


ContemptableWitness
ContemptableWitness's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2010-04-06
User is offlineOffline
 Whether or not Flew

 Whether or not Flew abandoned atheist for deism as a result of senility or not, becoming an atheist solely because of the problem of evil is a really bad reason to be an atheist. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15699
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ContemptableWitness

ContemptableWitness wrote:

 Whether or not Flew abandoned atheist for deism as a result of senility or not, becoming an atheist solely because of the problem of evil is a really bad reason to be an atheist. 

The problem of evil is a GOOD reason to reject the idea of a deity. BUT it is not the PRIMARY reason. There is only one reason to accept a claim, on any given issue, much less deities. EVIDENCE.

Dawkins could become a Christian tomorrow but he would still end up in the same boat as any other in human history claiming a deity. He would still have the same problem of evidence. Converting or deconverting is a matter of position, and nothing to do with established universal evidence already established beyond personal bias.

EVEN IF such a god existed, the problem of evil is valid regardless. I will not worship a dickhead security guard who has such an inconsistent track record while promising 100% quality control failing to deliver.  When you strip reality of super heros, it makes sense. Not that people like bad happening to them, but merely that shit happens, even bad, and bad things are no more dependent on Lex Luthor than good things are dependent on Superman.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
ContemptableWitness

ContemptableWitness wrote:

 Whether or not Flew abandoned atheist for deism as a result of senility or not, becoming an atheist solely because of the problem of evil is a really bad reason to be an atheist. 

I have to take issue with this.  It's one of the few philosophical arguments against God's existence that can't be dodged.  It's simple enough to explain off the cuff to someone to boot without them having to understand a range of terms and ideas requisite to more complicated arguments.  It's what drew me to atheism as well, at least spurred the doubts.

 

About the main topic, Flew, I flipped through news.google.com only to be disgusted seeing stories, paraphrased, of his near-death conversion.  That's a goddamn shallow agenda those people have to pick out that fact among the many aspects of a man's life to highlight, that cliched deathbed conversion, oft done in senility or fear of superstitions of Hell persisting after belief fades.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
The problem of evil isn't a

The problem of evil isn't a good reason to disbelieve in a god.  It isn't even a bad reason.

 

However, it is a good reason to reject the modern Abrahamic monotheistic representation of God.  The reason it gets so much air time is most of us come from places influenced most heavily by Abrahamic monotheisms.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ContemptableWitness
ContemptableWitness's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2010-04-06
User is offlineOffline
 I wasn't saying the

 I wasn't saying the problem of evil is always a bad reason, I was saying that it's a bad reason to be an atheist if its your only reason for being one.  I'm not that familiar with Flew, but the article made it sound like his thought process was "believe in god >>> problem of evil? >>> ATHEIST" and that's it. There are atheists like this, too, and I think that's sad.  

Also, as a former Christian, I have to say that the problem of evil to most Christians is a pretty weak argument and isn't much of a problem.  The whole question of why God 'permits' evil is one that is already answered for many, if not most, of them.  Their answer is that God is both able and willing to prevent evil, but is temporarily allowing it to achieve a greater good.  Another argument is that God would have to rob us of our free will in order to prevent evil, which is in of itself an evil, thus the elaborate plan for redemption, etc.  Their answer to the problem of evil is what needs to be addressed.  We shouldn't just keep repeating it and pretending they don't have an answer.  That's what creationists do.

Obviously there are other (and in my opinion, better) reasons to disbelieve in God, but if you only consider the problem of evil, decide to disbelieve in God on solely that basis, and then stop thinking about it for the rest of your life, you are on intellectually shaky ground, because then someone could come along with a clever answer and you'll think "well, maybe I was wrong about God."  Obviously, the problem of evil goes deeper than that famous quote from Epicurus, but in my opinion it should never, ever be one's sole reason for disbelief.