• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Well-known Atheist Now Believes in God Based on Scientific Evidence

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.christianpost.com/news/w...ves-in-god-based-on-scientific-evidence-7338/

Well-known Atheist Now Believes in God Based on Scientific Evidence

By Katherine T. Phan | Christian Post Reporter

British philosophy professor Antony Flew, 81, who was a leading champion of atheism, said in a video released Thursday that he now believes in God after being an atheist since age 15, reported The Associated Press.

A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, said Flew who arrived at the conclusion that God exists based on scientific evidence. He told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists.

In his new video, "Has Science Discovered God?" Flew said 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.”

However, Flew said he doesn’t believe in a God who is active in people’s lives and that there was no afterlife.

"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."

Flew became known through a 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.christianpost.com/news/renowned-atheist-turned-deist-antony-flew-dies-at-87-44761/

Renowned Atheist-Turned-Deist Antony Flew Dies at 87

By Eric Young | Christian Post Reporter

Professor Antony Flew, who became a deist just six years ago after championing atheism for most of his life, died last Thursday after “long illness,” according to an obituary placed by his family Tuesday in the Times of London.

Flew, who was 87 at the time of his death, was one of the best-known atheists of his generation, arguing that people should presuppose atheism until evidence of God surfaces.

And that’s precisely what he did until 2004, when he said “the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Like proponents of Intelligent Design, Flew concluded that a super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.

In "Has Science Discovered God?" - a video released in the year of his conversion - Flew said 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.”

In an interview with The Sunday Times months later, Flew referred to the arguments of physicist and Jewish theologian Gerald Schroeder, who “pointed out the improbable statistics involved and the pure chances that have to occur."

“It's simply not on to think this could occur simply by chance,” Flew reportedly said, referring to elegance and complexity of DNA.

Despite his exodus from atheism, Flew is believed to have remained simply a deist, believing in a god who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

Since he was 15, Flew was not able to believe in the God of the Bible as he was unable to reconcile the existence of both evil and an omnipotent deity.

He did, however, view religion in a positive light – unlike most of today’s leading atheist figures.

Flew even advocated religious instruction in schools, saying that it was better than no moral education at all.

He would later attribute the "explosions both of unwanted motherhood and of crime" in Britain to the decline of Methodism.

Before fading back out of the spotlight, Flew co-authored a book with science-religion writer Roy Abraham Varghese that has been the subject of controversy.

The 2007 book, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, describes Flew's conversion from atheism to deism and is thought by some to be the work of Varghese that Flew merely signed off on.

New York Times Magazine writer Mark Oppenheimer expressed his doubts over Flew's mental capacities after meeting up with him in England, suggesting that the once great philosopher had become a "blissfully unaware" old man "just following the evidence as it has been explained to him."

"Depending on whom you ask, Antony Flew is either a true convert whose lifelong intellectual searchings finally brought him to God or a senescent scholar possibly being exploited by his associates," he wrote.

Flew, however, released a statement rebutting the circulating allegations, saying that he would not have a book issued in his name that he does not 100 percent agree with.

“I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role,” Flew stated. “The idea that someone manipulated me because I’m old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking.”

The book, notably, went on to win the 2008 Christianity Today Book Award in Apologetics and Evangelism, with the judges hailing it for making the philosophical search for God both “accessible and exciting.”

“After a meal of Flew's rich stew of argument and opinion, one lifts a spoonful of most professional apologetics and mutters, 'Thin soup indeed,'" they wrote.

Still, the matter remains contentious to this day, with atheists PZ Myers and Richard Carrier supporting the allegations.

"With his powers in decline, Antony Flew, a man who devoted his life to rational argument, has become a mere symbol, a trophy in a battle fought by people whose agendas he does not fully understand," Oppenheimer claimed.

According to Tuesday's obituary, a private funeral for Flew is being arranged.

He is survived by his wife and two daughters.
 
Last edited:

fishbuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
ah, anthony flew.. you need to read from impartial articles, not those christian websites. heck, they can come up with 6 day creation, 6000 years old earth, and man live alongside with dinosaurs?!! how credible is that?? even my young kid know evolution, big bang theory, how science is conducted, logic and reasoning, and never give into superstitions.

we even read from CMI that charles darwin even renounced his theories and findings, then convert to Christianity. please! enough of putting words into people's mouths and stop twisting the facts to justify the cause of religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew#Atheism_and_deism

toward the end of his life, what he has recant was deism, not theism, and not Christianity.

please check the facts.

when the priest asked Voltaire to rennounced satan and accept jesus, what voltaire said was this; "this is not the time to make enemy with satan."
 

commoner

Alfrescian
Loyal
even then christians still cherry picked what was written,,, he believed in a creator god, but not that fucking christian god, he thought that god is indifferent,,,, n the fucking saddam hussein god n the bible,,,

christians loves to use the buttock skin and paste on their faces,,,,

stupid fuck
 

GOD IS MY DOG

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Sikhism has the most reasonable delusion of a God....................i thought of the same thing donkey years ago...............


no form................no gender..................no name....................
 

fishbuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
i have no idea why god is so interested in men's penis foreskin. don't we have bigger issues to deal with? i want to know how many babies had died due to infections when the priests perform this. imagine, no local anesthetic, gosh, at least teach them how to make them in the first place before asking to slice off their skin.

where's god when diseases struck on a global scale; yellow fever, spanish flu, bubonic plague, small pox?

where's god when hunger and famine struck?

where's god when war break out?

where's god when tsunami, earthquake, volcano, typhoon, hurriance etc hit?

if people's faith are so strong in god, why when it comes to diease like cancer, first thing they run off to is to see the oncologists, get x-rayed (modern day equipment), get chemo (modern day medicine), blood test (modern day medical test), hospitalization (modern day care facilities)...... and then pray to god?

how many people had died from such diseases for the past 10,000 years? does god care?
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
ah, anthony flew.. you need to read from impartial articles, not those christian websites. heck, they can come up with 6 day creation, 6000 years old earth, and man live alongside with dinosaurs?!! how credible is that?? even my young kid know evolution, big bang theory, how science is conducted, logic and reasoning, and never give into superstitions.

we even read from CMI that charles darwin even renounced his theories and findings, then convert to Christianity. please! enough of putting words into people's mouths and stop twisting the facts to justify the cause of religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew#Atheism_and_deism

toward the end of his life, what he has recant was deism, not theism, and not Christianity.

please check the facts.

when the priest asked Voltaire to rennounced satan and accept jesus, what voltaire said was this; "this is not the time to make enemy with satan."

I didn't say he became a Christian, did I? You should be the one checking your facts and not put words into me.

Yes, he became a deist, but deism believes in a creator and creationism, whereas atheism doesn't.

And to you if anything that is impartial material must be those against God, then you already lost your credentials of objectivity.
 
Last edited:

Ash007

Alfrescian
Loyal
Al lot of sand, deserts,traveling in that part of the world. If a grain of sand gets between the foreskin it can cause a bad infection. Circumcision ensures that, that doesn't happen.

i have no idea why god is so interested in men's penis foreskin. don't we have bigger issues to deal with? i want to know how many babies had died due to infections when the priests perform this. imagine, no local anesthetic, gosh, at least teach them how to make them in the first place before asking to slice off their skin.
 

fishbuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
I didn't say he became a Christian, did I? You should be the one checking your facts and not put words into me.

Yes, he became a deist, but deism believes in a creator and creationism, whereas atheism doesn't.

And to you if anything that is impartial material must be those against God, then you already lost your credentials of objectivity.

oh, now we are talking about objectivity. and who was the one try to demolish the credibility of modern science which are taught in all secular universities from yale/sanford/MIT to an ulu university in calcutta in order to support a superstition?

admit it, you have no stance to prove god's existence. your knowledge on science and bible are laughable.

if you are game enough, answer the other thread on bible's recommendation on how to treat leprosy.
 

fishbuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
Al lot of sand, deserts,traveling in that part of the world. If a grain of sand gets between the foreskin it can cause a bad infection. Circumcision ensures that, that doesn't happen.

eh, when you have sand in your eye, will you not feel the itch, discomfort, slight tenderness or pain that you have to do something about it? that is called feedback and response.

and how does sand get lodged in the penis inside between the head and the foreskin in the first place?? did they pull back their foreskin, drag their naked butt in the desert.

oh yes, god is very focused on foreskin.

it is not like there are amazonian's candiru swimming around and try to lodge into people's uinary tract if they try to pee in the river.
 

Ash007

Alfrescian
Loyal
Its a practice that got indoctored into the religion. Given when it was written its a reasonable assumption that is how it began. What happens if you have no water or privacy to wash it?

eh, when you have sand in your eye, will you not feel the itch, discomfort, slight tenderness or pain that you have to do something about it? that is called feedback and response.

and how does sand get lodged in the penis inside between the head and the foreskin in the first place?? did they pull back their foreskin, drag their naked butt in the desert.

oh yes, god is very focused on foreskin.

it is not like there are amazonian's candiru swimming around and try to lodge into people's uinary tract if they try to pee in the river.
 

fishbuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
Its a practice that got indoctored into the religion. Given when it was written its a reasonable assumption that is how it began. What happens if you have no water or privacy to wash it?

probably that could be one reason how oral sex comes about?

"oi, i got sand in my penis. can you please help and blow it?"
 

Ash007

Alfrescian
Loyal
Won't be surprised if that really happened. They own slaves back then, seen spartacus the TV series?

probably that could be one reason how oral sex comes about?

"oi, i got sand in my penis. can you please help and blow it?"
 

The Philistine

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sikhism has the most reasonable delusion of a God....................i thought of the same thing donkey years ago...............


no form................no gender..................no name....................

This is nothing compared to the wisdom of Satanism. You are your own god.
 

Thick Face Black Heart

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset

British philosophy professor Antony Flew, 81, who was a leading champion of atheism, said in a video released Thursday that he now believes in God after being an atheist since age 15, reported The Associated Press.

A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, said Flew who arrived at the conclusion that God exists based on scientific evidence. He told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists.



I am thoroughly disappointed. Science and Religion belong to different domains. One cannot prove nor disprove the other, because each address entirely different and disjoint domains of reality.

For a scientist to make such a fundamental error in thinking is inexcusable.

If you want to believe in God, go right ahead. Just don't use science to back up your clams. You make a fool of Science, a fool of your new-found religion, and most of all, a greatest fool of yourself.
 

Thick Face Black Heart

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset


And that’s precisely what he did until 2004, when he said “the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Like proponents of Intelligent Design, Flew concluded that a super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.



(a) Has he tried to compute the probability that DNA arises strictly through natural processes? No one has, because such a problem is too difficult to even conceptualize, much less solve. However, to then claim that DNA is one evidence of intelligent design is totally illogical. Just because a question is hard, does not mean the answer has to be in the negative. It simply means you aren't smart enough to solve it.

(b) Define "complexity of nature". Define mathematically what it means for a biological system to be "complex". No one has done so, and no one in fact needs to do so. Science is about using empirical evidence to deduce the laws of nature, by a process of induction followed by deductive reasoning. Appreciating beauty and complexity in form is a human observation, not a scientific endeavour.

(c) Define "intelligent". What is a "super-intelligence"? Is it alive in the same way a biological organism is alive? Does such an entity obey the laws of physics? No answer.

The house of cards on which this pseudo-scientist had stood is flimsy indeed.
 

fishbuff

Alfrescian
Loyal
religions have 5000 years of control over humanities. they dont call it the dark age for nothing. men then were dull, superstitious, simple, illiterate, irrational, little knowledge if any.

now in the year 2011, with less than 150 years of progress, humans have acquired more knowledge than ever, we are active, logical, literate, read extensively.. so why let these old religious dogma hold the human back?
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
I am thoroughly disappointed. Science and Religion belong to different domains. One cannot prove nor disprove the other, because each address entirely different and disjoint domains of reality.

For a scientist to make such a fundamental error in thinking is inexcusable.

If you want to believe in God, go right ahead. Just don't use science to back up your clams. You make a fool of Science, a fool of your new-found religion, and most of all, a greatest fool of yourself.

It depends whether you are talking about scientific facts or theories. As an example, neither creation or evolution can be proven using experiments - for now at least. Until someone can invent an environment that can create life (Peter Miller was the closest but still failed) or an actual person can piece together life proving that only an intelligent being can create life, or a fast-speed environment is artificially made that can evolve a bird into something else. That would be very advanced.

An example of a fact is water boils at 100 degrees. A theory would be that if the moon moved closer to the sun, Venus would be hotter.

In the meantime, people who use theories to prove the trueness or falseness of religion is fine and natural.
 
Top