Antony Flew's Bogus Book

RichardCarrier
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Antony Flew's Bogus Book

Antony Flew's Bogus Book by: Richard Carrier DIGG THIS - Reddit this!

Richard Carrier is a Rational Response Squad member who will be in studio again soon!

I'm mentioned considerably in a recent article in the New York Times Magazine about Antony Flew's new book. Fans will want to know about this, and hear some of the backstory from me, filling in some of the blanks left by the article, which was good but inevitably brief for so complicated a story. So here you go.

The Times Article


The article in question, by Mark Oppenheimer, is "The Turning of an Atheist" (New York Times Magazine, 4 November 2007, pp. 36-41). I had known of this article for over a month, as I communicated extensively with Oppenheimer (and the NYT fact-checking office), but I was politely asked not to discuss it until it appeared. Oppenheimer also procured for me an early galley proof of Flew's new "book," There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind ("co-authored" by Roy Abraham Varghese), which I was able to read a month ago and comment on for Oppenheimer (many of my fans have asked me if I knew of this book, and in fact I had already read it, I just could not discuss it until now).

 

As also reported by the Associated Press years ago, I'm well known for my correspondence with Flew on the matter of his conversion from weak atheism to strong Deism, and anyone who wants the full story about that can read my article on the subject (which has numerous subsequent updates appended to it): Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of (2004). Now, after reading "Flew's" new book, I was appalled at how badly argued it was, and how obviously it was not written in his style or idiom, but in that of contemporary Christian apologetics (like someone attempting a poor imitation of the style and approach of a Lee Strobel or Gary Habermas). Moreover, from crucial omissions (and distortions of history) it was clear the author could not have been Flew. Unless Flew had gone completely insane.

But I was certain another author was to blame, and not lunacy. And now my suspicions have been confirmed. This book is being promoted as "former atheist" Antony Flew's "long awaited" explanation of why he converted, but it is now known that Flew did not write any of it, and in fact recalls almost none of its contents. Indeed, Flew openly confessed to Oppenheimer that he didn't write a word of it. Oppenheimer also confirmed that Flew apparently knows (or remembers) little of its contents and almost none of the authors or works cited in it, despite the publisher's assurance that he signed off on it (though as Oppenheimer reports, even his publisher confesses doubts about Flew's ability to remember essential details, and it seems evident now that Flew's failing memory is clinically serious).

 


In my opinion the book's arguments are so fallacious and cheaply composed I doubt Flew would have signed off on it in sound mind, and Oppenheimer comes to much the same conclusion. It seems Flew simply trusted Varghese and didn't even read the book being published in his name. And even if he had, he is clearly incapable now of even remembering what it said. The book's actual author turns out to be an evangelical preacher named Bob Hostetler (who has also written several books with Josh McDowell), with considerable assistance from this book's co-author, evangelical promoter and businessman Roy Abraham Varghese.

However, I don't completely believe the story they told Oppenheimer. The style of the chapters attributed to Flew differs so much from the portions explicitly written by Varghese (such as a lengthy preface), that I suspect Hostetler was responsible for much more than the publisher claims. Whether that's so or not, this is a hack Christian tract, not formal or competent philosophy, nor anything from the mind of Antony Flew. Consequently I won't provide anything like an extensive review of this terrible (and quite bogus) book. I'll only say a few things about it below.

Back to the article. Oppenheimer tells only some of Flew's story, and portrays me in a somewhat snarky way, but everything he says is more or less true, so I can't complain. Although, I must say, I have never been to a chess tournament, or a sci-fi convention (though as a teenager I attended several gaming conve
ntions), and I rarely attend "skeptics' conferences," because I usually find all these things equally boring. So whether I am a "type" you would recognize from such events I can't really say. But I usually find sci-fi fans themselves to be very interesting, so I'll pick "sci-fi convention" and claim I'm like those guys (yeah, that's the ticket). Otherwise, Oppenheimer isn't far of the mark calling me obsessive in a way "both admirable and a little debilitating." My wife would certainly recognize me in that description! But for those who are curious, I have submitted the first draft of my completed dissertation. Though it still awaits the revision and defense stage, I am reasonably nearer to getting my degree.

Otherwise, the rest of what Oppenheimer says, though correct, leaves out some of the backstory. For example, he omits to mention that I was specifically asked by several members of the secular community to initiate a correspondence with Flew. I did not undertake this task on my own initiative. I actually had no interest in him myself. I have never been a Flew fan and, in fact, had never even heard of him until 2001 (when the rumors began), and since then have found little of his philosophy appealing, or even correct. It was only at the urging of colleagues that I undertook to get to the bottom of things in 2004, and it was only Flew's confusing and often bizarre replies that led me to push harder in trying to get him to explain things.



Thus, what Oppenheimer calls a piece de chutzpah, the "four-page" questionnaire I sent to Flew, was actually born of necessity, as Flew was evading direct answers, instead providing vague and confusing details of his belief and evidence. I had to resort to something more organized and direct. In actual fact, most of those "four pages" consisted of empty space for Flew to write answers in (Oppenheimer's description makes it sound like four pages of questions, when in reality there were only fifteen questions). Likewise, Oppenheimer calls my question about Flew's attendance at Quaker meetings "invasive and rather trivial," but in fact I told Oppenheimer that this was among the rumors circulating that I wanted Flew to have the opportunity to confirm or refute, hence it was no more invasive than any of the other questions I was asking. At any rate, Flew showed no reluctance or annoyance in answering this question.

Question Number 12: Do you believe God could be any kind of conscious entity with thoughts, plans, and/or desires?

Question Number 13: If not, then how do you suspect an entity with no thoughts, plans, or desires could (or even would) intelligently organize a universe in a specific way to bring about life? And why did it do such a thing?
Flew wrote nothing in response to these (and to this date still has not answered them)--yet he completely filled all available space answering the thirteen other questions, including six lines answering the Quaker question, and in some cases up to ten lines plus half the back of the page in answer to a single question. I find it very curious that Flew was so forthcoming on so many questions, except these, not even bothering to explain why he refused to answer them. Yet Flew said publicly and in his letters to me that he believes his god is uninvolved and unconcerned, a mere Aristotelian prime mover, yet at the same time says his god got involved enough to create life and even man, which is not the behavior of the unconcerned. Flew has deliberately avoided even facing, much less attempting to explain, this bizarre inconsistency in his avowed beliefs. I can only conclude that his beliefs are irrational and incoherent.

 

That's a part of the story Oppenheimer's account doesn't make clear. Though I understand he didn't have room to go into these things. Nor did he have room to tell his readers what Flew's answer was to the other question Oppenheimer quotes, the one he calls "relevant, if barbed":

Question Number 14: Should we believe claims open to scientific evaluation that are not accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community?

I had added that "I have in mind 'scientific' claims like those of Schroeder and Behe." Flew's answer is as telling as it is appalling: "I do not think we should believe Behe's claims, while Schroeder's claims are not a matter of natural science. What he says about scientific matters is common ground with all his fellow physicists." That Flew believed that is more than a bit shocking. Worse, that Flew thinks any of Schroeder's claims are not "open to scientific evaluation" is disturbing, as is the notion, apparently embraced by Flew, that such claims could be worthy of any stalwart belief.


The Bogus Book

 


This book never once mentions my name. Or any of the articles I sent to Flew. Nor does it address any of the questions or issues that I raised in my correspondence with Flew. Moreover, the author writing under Flew's name makes a crucial mistake at one point that confirms that he had read none of our correspondence and knew nothing of my letters and attachments to Flew, or Flew's to me. This is more important than it might sound. Because it confirms that this book tells us absolutely nothing about what Flew really believes, or why. It is entirely the creation of a pair of hack Christian evangelicals, and represents only the beliefs, arguments, and concerns of American Christian propagandists. I'll provide only a few examples of what I mean. I could list many more.

First: Not a single argument in this book is anything Flew ever said in his letters to me were his reasons for becoming a theist, except one: the DNA argument, which he phrased very differently, and then rescinded in his letters to me. In his new preface to God & Philosophy he even cited my article in Biology & Philosophy as already refuting many of the claims which are now made in this book about the origin of life (see Richard Carrier, "The Argument from Biogenesis: Probabilities against a Natural Origin of Life," Biology & Philosophy 19.5, November 2004, pp. 739-64). So the author either never read my article, or literally forgot everything it said. I suspect the former, since Flew physically has the article and thus could consult it at will, so a bad memory would be no excuse.

Hence if Flew wrote this, or anyone competent enough to actually read the only article Flew cites against the argument from biogenesis in his new preface to God & Philosophy, I would at least expect a response to the facts and arguments in my article. Instead, the book is written in complete ignorance of its contents, as well as of the fact that I had sent it to Flew, and Flew had confessed to reading it, and had been persuaded by it to rescind his argument from DNA in his final preface to God & Philosophy (as even Oppenheimer documents, and as I show even more clearly in my article on Flew). As a result, on this one argument "Flew's" book stands already refuted on almost everything it says. Only a hack would attempt that. Someone who actually knew what he was doing (or who was actually Antony Flew) would not have left my article without response, as it was clearly the crucial piece that turned Flew around on the only actual argument he has ever made.


The real author not only has no knowledge of my crucially relevant interactions with Flew (even beyond this one example), he also thinks Flew's "biological-scientist friend" who corrected him on the science of biogenesis was Richard Dawkins, when in fact it was me. In his preface to God & Philosophy Flew erred in thinking (and claiming) that I was a scientist (yet another example of his mental decline--Flew had written to me that Dawkins said nothing to him on this subject, and that I was the one who had persuaded him, and cites my article alone in the relevant footnote in God & Philosophy). As a result of this mistake, Flew evidently misled the ghostwriter into believing Flew had been persuaded by a "scientist friend." The author thus picked the most obvious candidate: Dawkins. This is a mistake that Flew would not have made, and would surely have corrected had he ever actually read this book before it went to press.


For example, the author pretending to be Flew claims there hasn't been enough time for abiogenesis. The real Antony Flew knows this is false. In fact he conceded it was false to me in writing, and I quoted him on this fact in my online article. You would think that even a forger who wants the world to think this is Flew's response to his own critics and that Flew remains a theist for sound reasons, would at least have his fictional Flew explain his retraction and re-retract it somehow. Instead, the author appears not even to know that Flew publicly retracted the claim that there hasn't been enough time for abiogenesis. The author is also clearly unaware of the fact that Flew had radically changed earlier drafts of his preface to God & Philosophy to reflect exactly this change of position, even though this was also a matter of public record. Thus no explanation is given for his sudden (though apparently fictional) re-reversal.


There are many more examples of this kind of thing. For instance, I also sent Flew (as an enclosure to one of my letters) an unpublished manuscript by me, "Are Uncanny 'Ordering' Forces Necessary to Explain Life?" which directly rebutted most of the arguments Flew is now being made to advance (in the areas of ontology, cosmology, and biogenesis), yet the arguments in these chapters show no awareness, even indirectly, of the arguments in my unpublished paper that I know Flew has. So either Flew refused to read what I sent him, or read it and forgot everything it said, or Flew didn't even read "his" new book, for surely if he had, he would have told his ghostwriter to anticipate my rebuttals. I similarly sent Flew excerpts from my (at the time unpublished) book Sense and Goodness without God, which again the ghostwriter shows no sign of having read. Surely even if he wasn't going to name me for some reason, he would at least compose his arguments in a way that would address or preempt rebuttals he already knew I would make. Thus it seems clear the actual author didn't read anything I wrote, not even what I had physically sent to Flew.

Second: The book has everywhere the hallmarks of Christian apologetic interests and idioms, but none of Flew's. Curiously absent from the entire book is any discussion of Deism or the God of Thomas Jefferson, which Flew repeatedly emphasized in his letters to me. And also curiously absent are his fulminations against revealed religions and the doctrines of hell. We find in this book not even apologies or retractions or qualifications. The real author clearly had interests and aims completely different from Flew's, and didn't understand Flew's particular passions and ideas, and had no interest in explaining what Flew's real beliefs were, much less why he held them.


Instead, this book is filled with the typical concerns and methods of contemporary Christian apologetics, and as a result sounds nothing like Flew. That the book is written in the recently favored style of Christian apologists is indicated by such Flewless characteristics as:

(1) The launching of chapters and sections with bizarre, quasi-colloquial examples (like baseball stories, lost tribes fiddling with satellite phones, dogs eating a kids homework), leading awkwardly into a very informal argument filled with patent fallacies and practiced rhetoric;

(2) The excessive use of "argument from authority" through the un-academic, reportorial method of over-frequent direct quotation of a series of seemingly random authors, without ever quoting any opponent or critic of their views;

(3) Lengthy direct quotation of what are purported to be conversations without explaining how exact quotation was possible (Were the conversations recorded? Did Flew personally check his exact quotes with everyone he quoted? Is he a skilled stenographer? Even Oppenheimer got no clear answer about this); and

(4) The nature and structure of the arguments, which are more characteristic of the interests and habits of current Christian apologists than of Flew's (like the free will defense, creation ex nihilo, wholesale opposition to evolution theory).

Indeed, one of its chapters even betrays such complete ignorance of basic evolutionary principles that any competent evolution scientist would have an easy field day with the juvenile understanding on display there. The real Flew has written books on evolution theory that exhibit much more competence than that.

All this makes this book a grand and shameless lie, a clear violation of God's commandment against bearing false witness. I know for a fact that apart from the argument from DNA, which Flew later rejected, none of the arguments this book attributes to Flew were among his reasons for converting. Even if they are reasons he embraces now (though I doubt even that), the fact that this book portrays them as what led Flew to believe is a clear act of deceit. So we should not be surprised to find yet more dishonesty. Hence I doubt there is much truth to the fact when Flew is made to appear as though he is seriously considering converting to Christianity, and is made to say he is very impressed by the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, especially following (so the fictional Flew tells us) the arguments of Anglican bishop N.T. Wright. Wright even participates in the charade by adding a chapter on this, supposedly responding to Flew's last remaining "doubts." For those who are interested in this issue, I had already composed extensive (albeit indirect) responses to Wright's arguments, in both The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (2005, supplemented by online FAQs on the relevant chapters there) and my online book, Was Christianity Too Improbable to Be False? (2006).



Finally, chapters provided by Varghese (actually written in Varghese's name) vent a fireball of rage and calumny against the renowned, popular, and bestselling atheists Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris. Chief among his complaints against them is that they ignore Christian responses to their arguments and offer no fully-developed worldview to replace the ones they attack. It is thus a little ironic that my book does exactly that. So if you share Varghese's outrage at the supposed failings of these popular authors, then please read my book, Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism (2005), which does anticipate and address Christian responses (based on extensive field experience debating and dialoguing with Christians and reading their books), and does present a complete and coherent worldview to replace the ones I reject. Besides, I actually wrote my book.

 


Richard Carrier joins us in studio to record a batch of shows! About 13 hours of recording, some of our best shows ever!!

TOPICS INCLUDE: Metaphysics and History of Religion, Biographical questions and atheism, More audience submitted questions, Jesus Mythicism show, Problems with Philosophy show with ChaosLord2004, Carriers Dissertation and Rooks findings show, The Drunk show!, A show for myspace, Carrier meets Ray Comfort, IRRATIONALITY OF THEISM SHOW: LEGACY SHOW!


Spyridon
Theist
Spyridon's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-11-08
User is offlineOffline
  What we see above is

 

What we see above is just another example of the constant ad hominems against anyone who doesn't buy into atheistic bull.

 

Antony Flew is considered the greatest philosophical atheist of modern times. His credentials on atheism, far exceed Carrier's or anyone working with this website.

 

He is also a gentleman. You won't find him engaging in such ad hominem's. The ad hominem's which characterize the attitude of internet atheists, is very distasteful.

 

While Flew is technically a deist in belief (he Believes God created the universe then basically walked away from it leaving it to function on established laws), he said he is open to Christian theism. He admitted in the debate below that the arguments for the resurrection of Christ are convincing. Also, there are very powerful arguments against deism in favor of classical Christian theism. See The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Geisler, for example.

 

Flew vs Habermas (resurrection debate)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47Zd2AyeCg

 

His move to deism from atheism was just the first step. In time, I am confident he will see the light of Christianity and come into the fold.

 

But his leaving atheism was a devistating blow to atheism. Flew launched the modern atheist movement. He is called the grandfather of modern atheism. And he left atheism for a reason. He was simply too smart to remain atheist. Atheism is morally bankrupt, socially destructive and philosophically absurd.

God always is, nor has He been and is not, nor is but has not been, but as He never will not be; so He never was not -- Augustine


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

 

What we see above is just another example of the constant ad hominems against anyone who doesn't buy into atheistic bull.

You obviously did not read the piece, which specifically stated that the book was not written by Flew, and that Flew was too intelligent to have written such an absurd book and in the book there is clear evidence that it was not written by Flew. I have reviewed most of Flew's work including his piece on the Ontological Argument and his A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and generally concur.

Maybe you should learn to read and then post. On the forum, we generally respect the following chain of events:

1. Read

2. Think

3. Post

Not

1. Pound keyboard

2. Post

And lastly, Tu Quoque

Quote:

His move to deism from atheism was just the first step. In time, I am confident he will see the light of Christianity and come into the fold.

Do you know this or are you guessing? Take a moment with the cognitive dissonance that may arise from this question, theists usually don't know the difference...

 Now, if you actually knew anything about Flew...which you don't, you would know he specifically stated that he explicitly rejects Anthropomorphic deities because they are absurd, as per classical theism. The only way a man of his intellect could "see the light of Christianity" is if he had a Transient Ischemic Attack or a full stroke and suffered brain damage as a result.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Spyridon
Theist
Spyridon's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-11-08
User is offlineOffline
 From Flews own mouth, he

 From Flews own mouth, he believes the Creator is living, personal, intelligent, omnipotent and omniscient. This sounds  lot like the God of biblical revelation to me. Don't believe what people say he says. Hear it from his own mouth.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw&feature=related

God always is, nor has He been and is not, nor is but has not been, but as He never will not be; so He never was not -- Augustine


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't see what this

I don't see what this shows. Even if he suddenly broke out into Gospel chorus I don't see the relevance to the God debate.

 

I didn't even know who Flew was until I saw the topics posted here. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Spyridon wrote: What we

Spyridon wrote:
What we see above is just another example of the constant ad hominems against anyone who doesn't buy into atheistic bull.

If Carrier and Oppenheimer are asking questions about the man's mental state, it's because he's become forgetful and self-contradictory. That's the gist of the post.

Spyridon wrote:
Antony Flew is considered the greatest philosophical atheist of modern times. His credentials on atheism, far exceed Carrier's or anyone working with this website.

By whom? I don't doubt that Flew was well-regarded for his work by some, but the qualifier that he's the “most” something to atheism (which seems absurd on principle, for implying atheism is centralized enough to respect such hierarchy) is something I've only heard from apologists who go on to sensationalize his conversion. The fable is that atheism has lost a figurehead; that the foundation of its politic and dogma is shaking loose -- which, if you understood atheism, would be a self-evidently inappropriate assessment.

Spyridon wrote:
He is also a gentleman. You won't find him engaging in such ad hominem's. The ad hominem's which characterize the attitude of internet atheists, is very distasteful.

I don't doubt that he has a monogrammed hanky. Any other important observations to share?

Spyridon wrote:
While Flew is technically a deist in belief (he Believes God created the universe then basically walked away from it leaving it to function on established laws), he said he is open to Christian theism. He admitted in the debate below that the arguments for the resurrection of Christ are convincing. Also, there are very powerful arguments against deism in favor of classical Christian theism. See The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Geisler, for example.

His move to deism from atheism was just the first step. In time, I am confident he will see the light of Christianity and come into the fold.

A man who's losing his grasp on his own memories, who can't even account for references made in his own recent book, makes vague allusions to one of the most scant and ineffectual religions, with fumbling, self-contradicting statements, and it just looks like a victory to you. You are a vulture.

For fun, I'm going to recap some random conversion stories:

- Flew -- Misunderstanding of evolution, senility, peer pressure from apologist handlers.

- Collins -- Saw a frozen waterfall.

- Abiola (Optimistic17 on YouTube) -- Sleep paralysis and aural hallucination, followed by mysterious rain drops.

- McGrath -- Convinced because the bible described people being very convinced.

Spyridon wrote:
But his leaving atheism was a devistating blow to atheism. Flew launched the modern atheist movement. He is called the grandfather of modern atheism. And he left atheism for a reason. He was simply too smart to remain atheist.

That's what I keep hearing from apologists. I'd never heard of him before he converted.

Spyridon wrote:
Atheism is morally bankrupt, socially destructive and philosophically absurd.

If you want to argue that, take it to another thread. You don't get to sneak it into this one.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Spyridon wrote:  From

Spyridon wrote:

 From Flews own mouth, he believes the Creator is living, personal, intelligent, omnipotent and omniscient. This sounds  lot like the God of biblical revelation to me. Don't believe what people say he says. Hear it from his own mouth.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw&feature=related

Do you not understand that we're questioning Flew's ability to think and remember?

Even if his mind weren't ravaged by senility, he would still be obliged to justify his statements for them to have any validity. You don't get to just wheel out some guy you're declaring a figurehead for atheism, have him say "I think god is super," and expect that his name (which, again, ain't as well known as you think) will whisk it past all criticism. We look for arguments here, not figureheads.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13821
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Spyridon wrote:   What we

Spyridon wrote:

 

What we see above is just another example of the constant ad hominems against anyone who doesn't buy into atheistic bull.

 

Antony Flew is considered the greatest philosophical atheist of modern times. His credentials on atheism, far exceed Carrier's or anyone working with this website.

 

He is also a gentleman. You won't find him engaging in such ad hominem's. The ad hominem's which characterize the attitude of internet atheists, is very distasteful.

 

While Flew is technically a deist in belief (he Believes God created the universe then basically walked away from it leaving it to function on established laws), he said he is open to Christian theism. He admitted in the debate below that the arguments for the resurrection of Christ are convincing. Also, there are very powerful arguments against deism in favor of classical Christian theism. See The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Geisler, for example.

 

Flew vs Habermas (resurrection debate)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47Zd2AyeCg

 

His move to deism from atheism was just the first step. In time, I am confident he will see the light of Christianity and come into the fold.

 

But his leaving atheism was a devistating blow to atheism. Flew launched the modern atheist movement. He is called the grandfather of modern atheism. And he left atheism for a reason. He was simply too smart to remain atheist. Atheism is morally bankrupt, socially destructive and philosophically absurd.

"DONT CALL ME NAMES!"

What does it matter if we ad homin theism? Is daddy that impotant he cant handle a pesky atheist? Or could it be that magic doesnt exist and you have no evidence for ghosts knocking up girls and zombie gods surviving rigor mortis after 3 days?

You assume that Christians never lie. That is a laughable absurdity by itself. Benny Hinn makes his living conning people into believing that by hocus pocus he can put his hand to their forehead and magically heal them. Unfortunatly, some of his followers have died believing that crap insted of seeing a doctor.

Now, if you read the artical the best you could conclude is that Flew became a deist IF the author isnt lying(CAUGH CAUGH). That is the same bullshit argument when people claim that Einstien was a Christian when the quotes he uses about "god" are speculative "if" statements. 

Dumbsoso lies because he wants to protect his fiction and sell books.

And you also fail to consider normal human phycology. If it is possible for a Muslim to become a Christian and equally possible for a pastor to become an atheist, then it stands to reason that conversions and switching position HAPPEN ALL THE TIME, which is nothing but evidence that a position was switched. It happens all the time and is as ordinary as taking a dump.

How the fuck you default to the Christian god existing from this is laughable. "SEE SEE SEE SEE!"

Saying that people shit and pee is DUH, so why would Flew be any different? All it would mean to me is that he is now in the position of defending magic "if" I believed you.

So, no matter what "Flew's position" currently is, you still have no evidence of Gabral putting on a Barry White Album for the allmighty telling Marry(a 9-14year old) he was in the mood and as a ghost knocked her up. And your best explination? "God did it". HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

So go work on providing evidence of HOW a ghost knocks up a girl and then and get back to me, dont worry, I wont hold my breath. I dont hold my breath waiting for a Muslim to prove that their are litterally rivers of milk and wine in heaven either.

 

"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


Spyridon
Theist
Spyridon's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-11-08
User is offlineOffline
TWO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS

{MOD EDIT: This user has been banned for creating multiple 'sock puppet' accounts.}


scottmax
scottmax's picture
Posts: 164
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
He said nothing of the sort!

Spyridon wrote:

From Flews own mouth, he believes the Creator is living, personal, intelligent, omnipotent and omniscient. This sounds lot like the God of biblical revelation to me. Don't believe what people say he says. Hear it from his own mouth.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw&feature=related

Did you actually watch this video you referred to? All he said was that the complexity of living systems convinced him that there must be an intelligence.  He never said anything about living, personal, omnipotent or omniscient.  Based on what Flew said, there could have been some cosmic engineer who tinkered with the universe to the best of his ability but died out 100 million years ago. Or there could have been a whole team of tinkerers.

Of course, all this proves is that Flew has fallen into the very human trap of not being able to comprehend vast cosmic swaths of time and how evolution over such a time can create wondorous things.