Famous Atheist now believes in God

[TruthSeeker]

I'm not arguing against your point of view at all, TOR. In fact, I agree with it. But it makes me wonder how good of an argument can other atheists make. If their best atheist is now a theist, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I'm not arguing against your point of view at all, TOR. In fact, I agree with it. But it makes me wonder how good of an argument can other atheists make. If their best atheist is now a theist, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?

It depends why they are atheist

If their reasons for being atheist are that there is in their opinion an absence of evidence for god and that 'not understanding the origin of life' in itself does not imply a 'creator' then they remain credible at least from the point of view they do not deny the existing ambiguity regarding God. It is just that their view is one of 'this ambiguity points to no god' whereas to theists this same ambiguity points to existance of god. Both use the same evidence/lack thereof to give weight to their view.

The lack of credibility arises when

They decide in the absence of any change to the above 'ambiguity' that they will now support the opposing view. What can they argue to support this change of view when the ambiguity has not altered in any shape or form. learning that you know less as you grow older should not point to god, anymore than knowing more should point away.

Once you become familiar with certain 'circumstances' being manipulated and can see the reasonning you cannot ignore the truth, absence of seeing it though can lead you naturally to deny it.

Did therfore this 'famous' atheist have a revelation, has he had a God moment? This is the only thing to rationally (without denying his credibility) explain his change of view.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I'm not arguing against your point of view at all, TOR. In fact, I agree with it. But it makes me wonder how good of an argument can other atheists make. If their best atheist is now a theist, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?

Absolute rubbish, simply because in the reverse event you can say this: "If their best theist is now an athiest, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?"

I'm very sure that theists as a collective will dismiss any of their own becoming atheistic as a 'lost lamb of the flock' and pity him (up to and including the Pope if hypothetically such a thing were to occur) and will also not accept any argument that this person's loss of belief diminishes the theistic collective somehow.

Any perceived victory of Mr. Flew's change of opinion by any theist is just that, an illusion.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Absolute rubbish, simply because in the reverse event you can say this: "If their best theist is now an athiest, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?"

Theists seldomly think logically, however. If an atheist that had the same argument as all others suddenly turns around and believe in God, then maybe that argument wasn't that great after all. What makes the difference is that the atheist actually has a sound argument, rather is valid or not. In the end, it really comes down to personal opinion. The agnostic position is far superior.

I'm very sure that theists as a collective will dismiss any of their own becoming atheistic as a 'lost lamb of the flock' and pity him (up to and including the Pope if hypothetically such a thing were to occur) and will also not accept any argument that this person's loss of belief diminishes the theistic collective somehow.

And so will atheists, as we have observed in this thread. For instance, some atheists claimed Mr. Flew is now suffering from Alzeihmers...

Any perceived victory of Mr. Flew's change of opinion by any theist is just that, an illusion.

I agree.

 

[Satyr]

I'm not arguing against your point of view at all, TOR. In fact, I agree with it. But it makes me wonder how good of an argument can other atheists make. If their best atheist is now a theist, doesn't that undermine all their reputations to a certain degree?

Well, we did get together in our Church of Atheism and we did vote him to be the “best” of us.
So I agree, this proves that God exists.

I guess that when you add 127 I.Q points with 155 I.Q. points you get …let’s see:
127+155 = 282

Which means 282 I.Q. points combined to say the previous.
Amazing!!!!!

I once knew someone who didn’t believe in God and yet he asked for communion when he, in his last days, drifted towards death.
I only hope that my own human frailty will not make me succumb to fear in my last moments.
But should we judge his opinions as they were affected by an approaching end or should we judge them when they remained unaffected by the specter of death?

It only proves that some people die afraid while others live their entire lives in fear and hope.

We call them believers.

One of the most popular methods of justifying belief is the attempt to equate not-believing with believing.
It’s the argument that states first that one must prove a negative and second that, since nobody knows anything for sure that the unbeliever is just as guilty of blind-faith as the believer, so why not take Pascal’s wager and believe.

I say this argument relies on a fallacy.
The unbeliever need not prove anything but the illogic or error in the other’s, proposing a ‘truth’, position.

If I am told to believe in UFO’s I need not prove aliens do not exist or that they are not visiting us but only point out the inconsistencies in the other’s arguments and to alternative explanations for phenomena that are taken as unequivocal proof of an absolute certainty and possible causes for the error.
If one is proposing an absolute – such as God – then absolute proof is required.
Someone proposing a hypothesis, a possibility, need only prove the possibility and admit to an opposite or alternate possibility.

Furthermore not believing in UFO’s does not constitute a dogma of unbelief or a faith against UFO’s.
There is no authority in disproving U.F.O’s but only more popular or les popular debunkers with whom all skeptics can relate.

A sign of intellectual integrity is when the mind itself doubts it’s self by allowing for the opposite contingency equal to the opposite possibility’s arguments and supporting evidence.

Human knowledge is never and can never be complete and so all possibilities are forever held to be possible.
We differentiate between theories by according them more or less plausibility determined by their reliability, evidence and honesty in remaining skeptical themselves and open to other interpretations.

How does man determine between more or less plausible opinions?

Man palaces the realm of proof giving on the external, empirical world where multiple minds can study and witness it.
This is called empiricism.

To not do so is to allow for any testimony or shared hysteria or psychosis to be considered just as plausible as any other.

 

[SnakeLord]

Well I was hoping for some astounding revelation, but through all of that Flew still failed to tell us all what exactly created this god thingy. Guess we'll have to wait a bit longer..

 

[Satyr]

Well I was hoping for some astounding revelation, but through all of that Flew still failed to tell us all what exactly created this god thingy. Guess we'll have to wait a bit longer..

It's enough that he changed his mind and was an ex-atheist.

Now why or how, dosn't matter.
The testimony suffices for those that want it to be true.

 

[Genji]

Some people think they are too important to just be a physical being and they MUST be special enough to continue on to some fluffy cloud to join that dude that knows everybody's birthdays. Old and dying people especially. I hope I'm not that pathetic when I'm old and or close to dying.

 

[John99]

I read the first post and too busy now to go through this whole thread so I may be OT, but as I have said long ago- Evolution as it relates to humans before cave man (wtf) is just not biologically possible...it is laughable. Look at the bigger picture and it cannot work.

This is a real good partial explanation, but is only half of it:

Yet 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," Flew says in the new video,

 

[Prince_James]

TheoryOfRelativity:

Are you claiming that every instance of turning around to another view implies one was "living in ignorance before" and one was not simply convinced otherwise? You are seeming to imply a moral and intellectual fault in the man before he was rationally convinced of a position prior to his own. Do you view correction in so negative a light?

To everyone in general:

I am actually surprised that this man went to Atheism on the premise of teleological arguments in the vein of Aristotle, as they are notoriously the most weak. I'd personally ask him upon what justification does he assert that an intelligence could do anything which he claims as well as from whence that intelligence got the knowledge to do so.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Satyr... you entertain me...

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence

Wow, I didn't know there were world-leading atheists. That's a new one. I can't really tell what scientific evidence this fella is basing his 'belief' on. It seems like he took the path of 'it's just too damn complex and therefore must have been created' argument (aka: It's beyond me therefore 'God' did it).

 

[SnakeLord]

It's enough that he changed his mind and was an ex-atheist.

Enough for what? What has he solved, what has he answered from giving up and saying the world's complex so therefore something must have made it?

The testimony suffices for those that want it to be true.

Absolutely anything suffices for those that "want it to be true". As you should be well aware by now, wanting something to be true does not make it so, and then some halfwit making a thread because some "leading atheist", whatever the hell that might be, says he now thinks something made the universe has crossed the borders of absolute stupidity.

And through all of this there isn't one single solitary piece of evidence in sight.

It's a joke.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

TheoryOfRelativity:

Are you claiming that every instance of turning around to another view implies one was "living in ignorance before" and one was not simply convinced otherwise? You are seeming to imply a moral and intellectual fault in the man before he was rationally convinced of a position prior to his own. Do you view correction in so negative a light?

No I'm not, I said this

It depends why they are atheist

If their reasons for being atheist are that there is in their opinion an absence of evidence for god and that 'not understanding the origin of life' in itself does not imply a 'creator' then they remain credible at least from the point of view they do not deny the existing ambiguity regarding God. It is just that their view is one of 'this ambiguity points to no god' whereas to theists this same ambiguity points to existance of god. Both use the same evidence/lack thereof to give weight to their view.

The lack of credibility arises when (as is case with famous atheist)

They decide in the absence of any change to the above 'ambiguity' that they will now support the opposing view. What can they argue to support this change of view when the ambiguity has not altered in any shape or form. learning that you know less as you grow older should not point to god, anymore than knowing more should point away.

Once you become familiar with certain 'circumstances' being manipulated and can see the reasonning you cannot ignore the truth, absence of seeing it though can lead you naturally to deny it.

Did therfore this 'famous' atheist have a revelation, has he had a God moment? This is the only thing to rationally (without denying his credibility) explain his change of view.

it's quite simple, when we change our minds it is usually because we are convinced by new arguments that our previous understanding was incorrect. In this case, there were NO new arguments, only the ones he always knew about and used to reinforce his atheist perspective. If he was a child and had behaved like this, or a young adult, fair enough, we spout bollocks when we are kids. But he was not a kid, he was an educated man who spouted what he HIMSELF now says is 'bollocks' for the greater part of his adult and proffessional life. His word is thus no more valuable now than it was then.

Lots of people here stick to their 'talking bollocks' point of view, at some point one hopes they will correct themselves, but it doesn't mean I have respect for them then anymore than I do now. They have the chance NOW to be corrected, but ego prevents it. I am not interested in blind sheep with big heads.

If that atheist believes now that he was WRONG, he has a great deal of undoing to do does he not ? As no doubt lots of little sheep followed his lead.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Theists seldomly think logically, however. If an atheist that had the same argument as all others suddenly turns around and believe in God, then maybe that argument wasn't that great after all. What makes the difference is that the atheist actually has a sound argument, rather is valid or not. In the end, it really comes down to personal opinion. The agnostic position is far superior.

Not really, logic is unshakeable even if a logician loses his facilities. A theist adopting athiesm is actually the more 'sound' conversion. If I get what you are saying correctly. To expound, since theism is an opinion or an unprovable philosophy, a theist that had the same argument as all the others who suddenly converts from this to logic (athiesm) points out that maybe the argument wasn't that great after all (see how that works ).

I'm inclined to agree with u on agnosticism tho.

And so will atheists, as we have observed in this thread. For instance, some atheists claimed Mr. Flew is now suffering from Alzeihmers...

Correct, because logic or religion remains the same no matter who or how many subscribe to it. Which was my point.

 

[Prince_James]

TheoryOfRelativity:

"But he was not a kid, he was an educated man who spouted what he HIMSELF now says is 'bollocks' for the greater part of his adult and proffessional life. His word is thus no more valuable now than it was then.

[...]

If that atheist believes now that he was WRONG, he has a great deal of undoing to do does he not ? As no doubt lots of little sheep followed his lead. "

Isn't he doing this now? By making public appearances about philosophical issues? Declaring his stance in magazines and in books and such? Doing numerous interviews?

Few people interested in philosophy and the matter of God, probably do not know that Antony Flew has repudiated his former position.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy Cat

Wow, I didn't know there were world-leading atheists.

What? You thought it was a coincidence that all atheists rely on the same type of logic and academic sources?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat


What? You thought it was a coincidence that all atheists rely on the same type of logic and academic sources?

I don't know that atheists all rely on the same sources for whatever, but that's sort of irrelevant. What tickled my funny bone was the mere notion of a "world-leading atheist"... a leader whom heavily influences the positions of the general atheistic public. Beautiful.

 

[(Q)]

No I'm not, I said this

it's quite simple, when we change our minds it is usually because we are convinced by new arguments that our previous understanding was incorrect. In this case, there were NO new arguments, only the ones he always knew about and used to reinforce his atheist perspective.

If that atheist believes now that he was WRONG, he has a great deal of undoing to do does he not ? As no doubt lots of little sheep followed his lead.

Or, they go insane, from old age, like the guy in the article. Simpler, really.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know that atheists all rely on the same sources for whatever, but that's sort of irrelevant. What tickled my funny bone was the mere notion of a "world-leading atheist"... a leader whom heavily influences the positions of the general atheistic public. Beautiful.

Your tring to tell me that you have never read a book or watched a film that is authored by an atheist - on the contrary I think you have already posted a link to an atheistic short film