what if God could be proven?

[Dywyddyr]

And what exists is nature?

Have you any better description?

So why do we have to obey, as we have no choice?

How else would you word it? "Conform"? We cannot do anything other follow the laws of nature, it's not a matter of "obeying" in the usual sense, i.e. "agreeing to conform".

OB appears to know what nature is in its entirety

Really? Where did he imply that? Or maybe I should say "from where did you infer that?"

How can he possibly know nature cannot change her ways

I think you're reading things he didn't write. Again.

"Obey", somewhere along the line implies choice, and as we have no choice in this matter (according to OB), what is there to obey?

What other word would you use? Language is ill-equipped to deal all of the ramifications of reality.

It would appear that you and OB are relating to two why you state we have to OBEY nature.

See above.

That would depend on the character of the person whose opinion it is.
In the case of OB, and most explicits I come across, there's no hope of debate, or reasonable discussion.

I see.

So what's that got to do with anything?

It means you're reading things that he didn't actually write. As you yourself wrote "and if you look hard enough", and you have a tendency to keep looking until you see what you want to see, as opposed to what is there.

Maybe he doesn't actually believe God doesn't exists, whcih could possibly explain his frustration when faced with reasonable discourse.

Jan, as I have learned to my painful disadvantage, YOU are probably the last person on this forum capable of reasonable discourse.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Have you any better description?

Why try and describe nature in its entirety at all?

How else would you word it? "Conform"? We cannot do anything other follow the laws of nature, it's not a matter of "obeying" in the usual sense, i.e. "agreeing to conform".

How can we "follow", or , "obey" the laws of nature when, your definition of nature is "everything that exists"?

Really? Where did he imply that? Or maybe I should say "from where did you infer that?"

I invite you to read my reply to Lucy Snow.
But what will be of interest is when you find that i'm correct, how
you will try and justify the arrogant point, especially as you seem to think
OB couldn't possibly make such assumptions.

I think you're reading things he didn't write. Again.

I know I'm not.
Plus, I have no confidence your reading or interpretation of what's written.

What other word would you use? Language is ill-equipped to deal all of the ramifications of reality.

It means you're reading things that he didn't actually write. As you yourself wrote "and if you look hard enough", and you have a tendency to keep looking until you see what you want to see, as opposed to what is there.

It means nothing of the sort, his atittude is very blatent.
You choose not to see it that way because he is of the same mindset, and
your only intention is to score points.

Jan, as I have learned to my painful disadvantage, YOU are probably the last person on this forum capable of reasonable discourse.

Why?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why try and describe nature in its entirety at all?

More of your obfuscation. Read your post where YOU asked for it described in its entirety.

How can we "follow", or , "obey" the laws of nature when, your definition of nature is "everything that exists"?

And more obtuseness: we have no choice but to conform because we are part of nature.

I invite you to read my reply to Lucy Snow.

And more idiocy: it was that post that I read and replied to.

But what will be of interest is when you find that i'm correct[

No, in that post you made the claim. You didn't show any evidence that the claim was correct, let alone prove it to be so.

how you will try and justify the arrogant point, especially as you seem to think OB couldn't possibly make such assumptions.

Also wrong; you're assuming his intentions by reading into his post things that aren't there.

I know I'm not.
Plus, I have no confidence your reading or interpretation of what's written.

Funny how someone with such a poor grasp of syntax, grammar and punctuation expresses a lack of confidence in my language skills...

It means nothing of the sort, his atittude is very blatent.

To you.

You choose not to see it that way because he is of the same mindset, and your only intention is to score points.

Oops, two false assumptions. You're very very good at those.

Why?

Because you try diversions, fail to read what is written, make false, libellous accusations, fail to support them and then fail to apologise when your accusations have been shown publicly to be false. In short you're too blinkered, dishonest and, frankly, wilfully uneducated to hold a reasonable discourse. As was demonstrated more than adequately the last time we crossed paths.

 

[lightgigantic]

More of your obfuscation. Read your post where YOU asked for it described in its entirety.

read your own post where you say nature is everything that exists ...
:shrug:

And more obtuseness: we have no choice but to conform because we are part of nature.

then perhaps you should take it up with OB, since he was the one who originally advocated that we could change nature

No, in that post you made the claim. You didn't show any evidence that the claim was correct, let alone prove it to be so.

go back to OB's post
he makes it clear that nature is something we have in our pocket (although admittedly he is probably relying on two different uses of the word "nature" in his argument)

Also wrong; you're assuming his intentions by reading into his post things that aren't there.

then perhaps you could try and contextualize his claims rather than saying "you are wrong" "you are an idiot" etc

Funny how someone with such a poor grasp of syntax, grammar and punctuation expresses a lack of confidence in my language skills...

irregular line breaks usually indicates the reply was composed on notebook or word pad (just a bit of an IT primer)

To you.


Oops, two false assumptions. You're very very good at those.


Because you try diversions, fail to read what is written, make false, libellous accusations, fail to support them and then fail to apologise when your accusations have been shown publicly to be false. In short you're too blinkered, dishonest and, frankly, wilfully uneducated to hold a reasonable discourse. As was demonstrated more than adequately the last time we crossed paths.

If colourful incendiary claims against the opposition were sufficient to make a point clear, strong and valid, I agree, you would have an upper-hand. As things stand however, you are not addressing any points of the diuscussion.
:shrug:

 

[Dywyddyr]

read your own post where you say nature is everything that exists ...

Er, that would have been in reply to "what is nature". The original question about wanting a description of the entirety was Jan's.

then perhaps you could try and contextualize his claims rather than saying "you are wrong" "you are an idiot" etc

Yes, I probably could. If Jan had actually bothered telling me (and I did ask) what and where these remarks are.

irregular line breaks usually indicates the reply was composed on notebook or word pad (just a bit of an IT primer)

Really?
Thanks for that, but I actually inserted an ellipsis.

If colourful incendiary claims against the opposition were sufficient to make a point clear, strong and valid, I agree, you would have an upper-hand. As things stand however, you are not addressing any points of the diuscussion.

That's quite correct. Because (as I said previously), despite being asked Jan has failed to provide examples of his contentions and preferred to make generalised comments. As tends to be usual for him.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Natural Laws tell me to go Pee..Human Laws says i can't always just pull over and Pee between door...

 

[Thoreau]

this isn't a 'prove to me' god exists thread..
this is a 'what if' thread..

what if god could be proven beyond any doubt? Great!
what if god were to show himself so that everyone would not doubt his existence?Great...?

how would that change reality as we know it? Well, for starters it wouldn't change much, many people still wouldn't believe.
wouldn't that create a society where we no longer have any choices? Nope, we still have free will.
i think personal responsibility would be non-existant..
would we have any more technological advances? or would we revert back to a technologyless society? We would keep on advancing and evolving.

My answers in bold above.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

More of your obfuscation.

yawn!!

Read your post where YOU asked for it described in its entirety.

No shit Sherlock.
I recall only asking one question (.."And what exists is nature"?)
Be my guest in proving yourself right.

And more obtuseness: we have no choice but to conform because we are part of nature.

And what happens if we don't conform?

And more idiocy: it was that post that I read and replied to.

If that's the case you'll have noticed that OB remarks that nature cannot
change her ways. Please stop acting like a dumbass, it doesn't suit you.

Funny how someone with such a poor grasp of syntax, grammar and punctuation expresses a lack of confidence in my language skills...

Put that pigeon chest away, along with the chest wig and fake gold medalion,
I don't give a shit about your language skills.

To you.

Of course, to me!!
Who else did you expect?

Oops, two false assumptions. You're very very good at those.

Prove that those assumptions are false.

Because you try diversions, fail to read what is written, make false, libellous accusations, fail to support them and then fail to apologise when your accusations have been shown publicly to be false.

You're describing explicits to a tee.

In short you're too blinkered, dishonest and, frankly, wilfully uneducated to hold a reasonable discourse.

Please back these accusations up, or retract them.

As was demonstrated more than adequately the last time we crossed paths.

The last time we crossed paths, you got caned, much in the same manner as
you're being caned now.
You will always get owned in these types of discussion, because there is no substance to your arguments.

jan.

 

[soullust]

God can be proving his name is soullust

 

[Dywyddyr]

No shit Sherlock.
I recall only asking one question (.."And what exists is nature"?)
Be my guest in proving yourself right.

Check your memory, it's faulty.

This point goes nowhere unless he can explain what nature is and isn't, what aspect of our human existence "must obey" the laws, and what those laws actually are in their entirety.

Here.

And what happens if we don't conform?

Which part of "we have no choice but to conform" do you not understand?
Because we are part of nature then we cannot "not conform": whatever we do will be "natural" and subject to nature's laws.

If that's the case you'll have noticed that OB remarks that nature cannot change her ways. Please stop acting like a dumbass, it doesn't suit you.

Dumbass certainly doesn't suit me, but it appears to be your forte. What does YOUR REPLY TO LUCY have to do with a statement OB made? I asked where OB had made a claim, and you refer me to a post by you replying to Lucy.

Put that pigeon chest away, along with the chest wig and fake gold medalion,
I don't give a shit about your language skills.

But apparently you do, since you have expressed a lack of confidence in them.

Of course, to me!!
Who else did you expect?

Yet you claim that what YOU see is HIS intent.

Prove that those assumptions are false.

Wrong again: you're the one making the claim.

You're describing explicits to a tee.

I'm describing your behaviour.

Please back these accusations up, or retract them.

Oho! The way you did when you accused me of lying in this thread? The way you refused to read a link and made assumptions based merely on the link's name in the same thread? The way you persistently asked the same questions and ignored answers from myself and Cris and then continued to ask the same questions in that thread?
Oh wait, I forgot. You neither backed up your accusation nor retracted it.

The last time we crossed paths, you got caned, much in the same manner as you're being caned now.
You will always get owned in these types of discussion, because there is no substance to your arguments.

I agree. But your definition of "caned" and "owned" is "Jan will ignore completely any and every argument that he can't sidestep, divert or refute and stick to his blinkered viewpoint regardless."
Unfortunately that isn't the accepted definition of either word.

 

[NMSquirrel]

My answers in bold above.

how would that change reality as we know it?
"Well, for starters it wouldn't change much, many people still wouldn't believe."

this i wouldnt doubt..even all those people who say they would believe if they had proof..thats is just a excuse not to believe..

wouldn't that create a society where we no longer have any choices?
"Nope, we still have free will."

yes we would still have free will but would it show?if god told you to do something, wouldn't you be more inclined to do as he says?

would we have any more technological advances? or would we revert back to a technologyless society?

"We would keep on advancing and evolving."

would we? or would we come to do nothing unless god said to do it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Check your memory, it's faulty.
Here.

Just point out the Questions, and prove yourself right for once.

Which part of "we have no choice but to conform" do you not understand?

conform;
1. intransitive verb behave acceptably: to behave or think in a socially acceptable or expected way
the constant pressure to conform

"Conform" implies some kind of alternative.

Because we are part of nature then we cannot "not conform": whatever we do will be "natural" and subject to nature's laws.

Then why use words like "conform" and "obey" to describe our position?

Personally I think you believe we are more that material nature, and that
there is a supernatural element, but you never heard it from me.

Dumbass certainly doesn't suit me, but it appears to be your forte.

Why, thank you.

What does YOUR REPLY TO LUCY have to do with a statement OB made? I asked where OB had made a claim, and you refer me to a post by you replying to Lucy.

:wallbang:


me...How can he possibly know nature cannot change her ways

you...I think you're reading things he didn't write. Again.

Now see my reply to Lucy, the one you quoted to me, and weep.

But apparently you do, since you have expressed a lack of confidence in them.

My problem is not with your grammar and what not, it lies with your ability
to desregard things because they don't fit with your worldview.
It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.

Yet you claim that what YOU see is HIS intent.

Yes, because he has made it very clear, you just refuse to see it
because he is a fellow god-hater.

Wrong again: you're the one making the claim.

You regarded the statements as false "assumptions", and everybody knows
that assumptions are things taken for granted as truth without proof.
For example I assume you are Welsh by your character name, but I do not have to give proof.
So please stop avoiding my question;
Prove that the assumptions are false.

I'm describing your behaviour.

I don't think you're qualified to make that claim, until you start discussing
the subject matter of God, and related things properly. At the moment you
are a resovoir of cliches, not really knowing what you're actually talking about, and doing so with the utmost confidence.

Oho! The way you did when you accused me of lying in this thread? The way you refused to read a link and made assumptions based merely on the link's name in the same thread? The way you persistently asked the same questions and ignored answers from myself and Cris and then continued to ask the same questions in that thread?
Oh wait, I forgot. You neither backed up your accusation nor retracted it.

First of all, you've linked me right at the begining of the thread, so finding our discourse is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Please be more specific.
The trouble with Cris, and other explicit atheists, is that there is no discussion. They describe God and religion, how they like, and regard that as
"the description" thereby disregarding any other notions.

I agree. But your definition of "caned" and "owned" is "Jan will ignore completely any and every argument that he can't sidestep, divert or refute and stick to his blinkered viewpoint regardless."
Unfortunately that isn't the accepted definition of either word.

Firstly, lighten up dude.
Or are going to explain the origin and/or meaning of the word "dude", informing me that you aren't actually a "dude".

I have not ignored anything you have put foreward, if I am wrong
please show me.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Just point out the Questions, and prove yourself right for once.

Considering that I quoted the question AND linked to the relevant post am I to take it that you've reverted to your usual duplicity?

conform;
1. intransitive verb behave acceptably: to behave or think in a socially acceptable or expected way the constant pressure to conform
"Conform" implies some kind of alternative.

How about

1. To correspond in form or character; be similar.

So you have resorted to duplicity.

Then why use words like "conform" and "obey" to describe our position?

Like I said: language is limited. What word would YOU use?

Personally I think you believe we are more that material nature, and that there is a supernatural element, but you never heard it from me.

There you go again: making assumptions about me.

Now see my reply to Lucy, the one you quoted to me, and weep.

Why should I weep? I asked which posts of OB's supported your contentions about him and you point me to a post by YOU replying to LUCY. How does that substantiate your claim that OB claims to know that nature cannot change?

My problem is not with your grammar and what not, it lies with your ability to desregard things because they don't fit with your worldview.

No, once again that would be your forte. You have made claims you STILL haven't backed up and ignored completely anything you can't refute and don't like.

Yes, because he has made it very clear, you just refuse to see it because he is a fellow god-hater.

One more time: how can I hate something I don't believe in?

You regarded the statements as false "assumptions", and everybody knows that assumptions are things taken for granted as truth without proof.
For example I assume you are Welsh by your character name, but I do not have to give proof.

But assumptions are not necessarily correct: hence "false assumptions" (like the one about me being Welsh). If you bothered reading the definition you have quoted (without reference) you'd have also seen the words "assumption of a false theory."
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumption
An assumption is a conclusion made on little evidence (not one that does not require proof). Hence it may be correct or incorrect.

So please stop avoiding my question;
Prove that the assumptions are false.

How about this: you made the assumption (that I'm here merely to score points) you back it up. Alternatively, how about I make the same assumptions about you? Now YOU prove I'm wrong.

I don't think you're qualified to make that claim, until you start discussing the subject matter of God, and related things properly. At the moment you are a resovoir of cliches, not really knowing what you're actually talking about, and doing so with the utmost confidence.

You see, another failure of unsderstanding on your part. I was talking about YOUR behaviour and you claim I should discuss god to make my point about YOU.

First of all, you've linked me right at the begining of the thread, so finding our discourse is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Please be more specific.
The trouble with Cris, and other explicit atheists, is that there is no discussion. They describe God and religion, how they like, and regard that as "the description" thereby disregarding any other notions.

I provided specifics: you accused me of lying, you failed to read a link and made (false) assumptions about its content based on the link address, you repeatedly asked the same questions even after being given the answers more than once.

I have not ignored anything you have put foreward, if I am wrong please show me.

Oh let's see: how about the number of times you have asked the question that's at the top of the post you just made? Despite being provided with the answer? How about the fact that I have asked you to provide a link to OB's claim that he knows the entirety of nature? Which you have still to provide..

Once more you show you aren't prepared to engage in discussion, and that you'd rather obfuscate, divert, avoid and maintain your duplicity.
I've finally learned my lesson: you're a complete waste of time and effort.
I hope you remain happy in your blinkered ignorance.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Considering that I quoted the question AND linked to the relevant post am I to take it that you've reverted to your usual duplicity?

They were'nt questions.
Do you know what a question is?

How about
1. To correspond in form or character; be similar.

Still implies choice, or some kind of alternative.
You're not having much luck, are you.

So you have resorted to duplicity.

My definition came from encarta dictionary.
Check it out if you like.

Like I said: language is limited. What word would YOU use?

Hence my question; "Why try and describe nature in its entirety at all?"
Maybe there are no words to describe that situation, because that situation does not exist. It appears that no matter which way you look at it, we have some kind of choice or alternative.

There you go again: making assumptions about me.

So what?
Everybody makes assumptions about other people.
We obviously don't convey everything about ourselves, so we make assumptions based on what we observe. It's called "getting to know people"

Why should I weep? I asked which posts of OB's supported your contentions about him and you point me to a post by YOU replying to LUCY. How does that substantiate your claim that OB claims to know that nature cannot change?

Because Lucy had quoted him.
Look at post 460, 3 or 4 lines from the bottom.

You have made claims you STILL haven't backed up and ignored completely anything you can't refute and don't like.

See above.

One more time: how can I hate something I don't believe in?

"god-hater" is an expression like "shirt-lifter" or "crossword junkie".

An assumption is a conclusion made on little evidence (not one that does not require proof). Hence it may be correct or incorrect.

I didn't say it does not require proof.
I implied that we make the conclusion without necessarily resorting to truth, but as you pointed out, use little evidence as my example demonstrated.
What I want from you is the evidential reason for your claim.

How about this: you made the assumption (that I'm here merely to score points) you back it up. Alternatively, how about I make the same assumptions about you? Now YOU prove I'm wrong.

You have demonstrated that you blatently don't listen, or pay attention to what is being said, you still maintain the cliches (as in the other thread) despite alternative notions being put to you.
You support OB's responses, which in some cases are absolute nonsense and have been shown to be so. You don't take place in discussions, you merely release standard cliches, which have no substance to them, refering only to a small section of theists. Then you use those negatives to tar the whole of theism with.
There are other reasons, but those will suffice.

You see, another failure of unsderstanding on your part. I was talking about YOUR behaviour and you claim I should discuss god to make my point about YOU.

My point is, explicits aren't interested in discussions with theists, they only want to express their points, sticking to them despite being shown the stupidity (in some cases) of them. So they fall into that category by default.

I provided specifics: you accused me of lying, you failed to read a link and made (false) assumptions about its content based on the link address, you repeatedly asked the same questions even after being given the answers more than once.

Evidence please.

Oh let's see: how about the number of times you have asked the question that's at the top of the post you just made? Despite being provided with the answer?

I ask the question because you haven't provided an answer.

How about the fact that I have asked you to provide a link to OB's claim that he knows the entirety of nature? Which you have still to provide..

I didn't say he claims to know the entirety of nature. I said he would need this knowledge this to justify the claims he made.

I've finally learned my lesson: you're a complete waste of time and effort.
I hope you remain happy in your blinkered ignorance.

Oh whatever!

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

They were'nt questions.
Do you know what a question is?

Do you know what an implicit question is?
You asked for an explanation...

Still implies choice, or some kind of alternative.
You're not having much luck, are you.

And you're still avoiding the point.

My definition came from encarta dictionary.
Check it out if you like.

And does that definition preclude the assumption being false?

Hence my question; "Why try and describe nature in its entirety at all?"

YOU are the one that asked for a description of the entirety.

It appears that no matter which way you look at it, we have some kind of choice or alternative.

Really? Please explain how you can avoid being part of nature.

So what?
Everybody makes assumptions about other people.
We obviously don't convey everything about ourselves, so we make assumptions based on what we observe. It's called "getting to know people"

It points out that assumptions can be false.

Because Lucy had quoted him.

Look at post 460, 3 or 4 lines from the bottom.

Post 460 isn't Lucy's.
And "Nature does not change her ways, we adapt nature's ways to a new purpose or we adapt to nature's ways. " does not state that nature cannot change.

See above.

Now you make the attempt after I have asked several times.

"god-hater" is an expression like "shirt-lifter" or "crossword junkie".

So what? One more time: how can I hate something I don't believe in?

I didn't say it does not require proof.

No, you said you didn't have to provide it:

but I do not have to give proof.

What I want from you is the evidential reason for your claim.

Keep trying: the claim, and assumption, was yours.

Then you use those negatives to tar the whole of theism with.

Wrong again.

Evidence please.

I have avoided using the "liar" word, because it could easily be construed as a personal attack. But with all due respect, "if the cap fits..."

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2480002&postcount=282
for one.

I ask the question because you haven't provided an answer.

Another lie: I quoted your post and linked to it.
But here it is again:

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
This point goes nowhere unless he can explain what nature is and isn't, what aspect of our human existence "must obey" the laws, and what those laws actually are in their entirety.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2546616&postcount=478

I didn't say he claims to know the entirety of nature.

No, you merely said he appeared to.

OB appears to know what nature is in its entirety, and the question

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2546792&postcount=480

You're dishonest, ignorant and totally uninterested in actually conversing. I'm done with you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Do you know what an implicit question is?
You asked for an explanation...

I didn't ask for an explanation, I merely suggested that he must
know nature, fully, to display such confidence in that post.

And you're still avoiding the point.

The point is, we can't explain it without implying some kind of
involvement of choice or alternative,.... as long as we can
discuss it, and be aware of our position, anyways.

And does that definition preclude the assumption being false?

I so wished it did, for your sake, but alas, it doesn't. Sorry.

YOU are the one that asked for a description of the entirety.

You keep saying this, and I keep telling you I didn't, then you post the link
where it clearly shows I didn't. :bawl:

Really? Please explain how you can avoid being part of nature.

I don't know how to avoid being part of nature, but I never said we could.
I'm not the one trying to act like I know, or am some authority on the subject.

Has it occured to you that your whole thinking may be faulty.

It points out that assumptions can be false.

Italso points out that assumptions can be true.
It just depends on whether it is or it isn't.

Post 460 isn't Lucy's.

No, but Lucy quoted it, and I responded to Lucy.

And "Nature does not change her ways, we adapt nature's ways to a new purpose or we adapt to nature's ways. " does not state that nature cannot change.

How could he know that nature does not change her ways, unless he knew
nature in its entirety.
If he is only refering to what he has understood nature to be, then he is in no better a position than LG.

Now you make the attempt after I have asked several times.

I told you as soon as you asked, you obviously failed to see it.

So what? One more time: how can I hate something I don't believe in?

Easy.
You just hate it.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2480002&postcount=282
for one.

Why have you linked me to this?

No, you merely said he appeared to.

Then you explain, how else would he know that nature does not change her ways, to the point where LG's understanding of nature is nothing but foolishness?

You're dishonest, ignorant and totally uninterested in actually conversing. I'm done with you.

If I wasn't (in your eyes) you'd have to start rethinking stuff.
So I do understand your rejection of me.

jan.

 

[OriginalBiggles]

How can OB hate something he doesn't believe exists?

Maybe he doesn't actually believe God doesn't exists, whcih could possibly
explain his frustration when faced with reasonable discourse.
It could be argued that Anthony Flew, the famous atheist, wasn't an actual
atheist, but just playing the part.
Just a thought.
jan.

Marvel at how Jan expatiates upon the logical...............

In her para we read; "maybe"........."could possibly"........."it could be argued".........

Where else do we encounter this vacuous "reasoning" but in a dungeon-minded theist committed to demonstrating the veracity of M.L.King Jr's
observation; "Nothing in this world is so dangerous as sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."?

Anthony Flew was an atheist in his philosophical deliberations. He became famous due to the irrational enthusiasm of theists for his inexplicable acceptance of the Intelligent Design hypothesis. He was a deist like his contemporary, Einstein [although Einstein was less impressed by the ID argument] and never converted to christianity.

From; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
When asked in December 2004 by Duncan Crary of Humanist Network News if he still stood by the argument presented in The Presumption of Atheism, Flew replied he did but he also restated his position as deist: "I'm quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god". When asked by Crary whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and theology, he responded with "Certainly not", stating that there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had converted to Christianity...................

In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said again that his deism was the result of his "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe" and "my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source." He also restated that he was not a Christian theist.
Around this time, it was noted by several of his colleagues that Flew suffered a serious mental decline. He died on 8th.April this year aged 87 years.

Jan,
The word HATE defines an irrational state of mind in my view. If there is one feature of my thought that can be positively identified, it is rationality of thought. I deeply lament and am disgusted by the wilful descent into irrationality of theists and of the obsequious subservience to which they consciously subject their intellect by adopting religious faith as an imperative of how their life should be lived.

Dwyddyr has reflected my views very well and I thank him sincerely for the care he seems to have taken and the erudition he has displayed during my absence.

I'm particularly indebted that he identified your exegetical proclivities. To think that you saw in my treatise advice that warranted such attention is encouraging.

What can the theist raise in serious contention against the atheist conviction that only within the brief interval that humans have lived on Earth have there been gods infiltrating our Universe with their presence?

As that great American author, orator and atheist Robert Green Ingersoll observed;
Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms.

 

[Jan Ardena]

OriginalBiggles,

Marvel at how Jan expatiates upon the logical...............

In her para we read; "maybe"........."could possibly"........."it could be argued".........

Where else do we encounter this vacuous "reasoning" but in a dungeon-minded theist committed to demonstrating the veracity of M.L.King Jr's
observation; "Nothing in this world is so dangerous as sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."?

Dude, get a life.

Anthony Flew was an atheist in his philosophical deliberations. He became famous due to the irrational enthusiasm of theists for his inexplicable acceptance of the Intelligent Design hypothesis. He was a deist like his contemporary, Einstein [although Einstein was less impressed by the ID argument] and never converted to christianity.

Einsteing was a thiest, but let's not go there.

Tony Flew was a naughty lad, he talked bollocks for a good part of his life, and became famous for it.
God knows how many people, generations, and potential generations have been spoiled.
Because he has a spark of good intelligence, he has the good sense to retract his previoius folly in a bid to try and reverse some of the damage he has helped to cause.

As for "..and never converted to christianity", so what?
Christianity may be "relgion" for you, but not for billions of people past and present, from all over the globe.

But he does believe this intelligence he refers to as God, is omniscient, and omnipotent, and is a person. Much like the majority of theist.
So check yourself brother, you may just be that which you have been programmed to hate.

jan.

 

[(Q)]

Einstein was a thiest, but let's not go there.

jan.

It looks like theists are still trying to prove their gods exist and are still fabricating lies in spite of their failure to do so.

No morals at all. None.

 

[OriginalBiggles]

Jan #498 writes,
Dude, get a life.

How can we not gape in wonder at this insightful contribution?

Einsteing was a thiest, but let's not go there.

He may have been. But EINSTEIN certainly was not. And as Q observed, the immorality and dishonesty of your assertion is insulting of a great intellect.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."

But the clincher is and will stand for all occasions against all assertions by narrow and decrepit interests

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. Albert Einstein, Letter, 24 March 1954. Quoted in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

This being a side issue and not part of the main debate, I will not pursue this issue further.
Einstein declares himself to be a deist in four of his above quotes. And proclaims his contempt for religious faith in the penultimate.
For you to assert otherwise is to proclaim Einstein a liar and hypocrite. Rational readers will distinguish who is whom.

Tony Flew was a naughty lad, he talked bollocks for a good part of his life, and became famous for it. But he does believe this intelligence he refers to as God, is omniscient, and omnipotent, and is a person. Much like the majority of theist.
God knows how many people, generations, and potential generations have been spoiled.
Because he has a spark of good intelligence, he has the good sense to retract his previoius folly in a bid to try and reverse some of the damage he has helped to cause.

Your pronouncements on Flew are nothng but sectarian waffle and spin. Reasoned argument is obviously an alien concept to you.

Christianity may be "relgion" for you, but not for billions of people past and present, from all over the globe.

Then they have falsified census forms for centuries. You seem to have a unique insight into the mind of the trinity. Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to the reasoning behind your remark.

But he does believe this intelligence he refers to as God, is omniscient, and omnipotent, and is a person. Much like the majority of theist.

There is a malodorous whiff of sectarian bigotry here. Your sweeping claim is an immediate clarion call to skepticism and makes even more imperative that you account for the assertion that christianity is not a religion.

So check yourself brother, you may just be that which you have been programmed to hate.

You seem to be the one so hate-oriented and brimming with clamorous utterances for which wishful thinking and faith are the only evidence. I lament and abhor the waste of intellectual effort that you and your ilk spend on fantasy. I execrate the circular irrelevancies and contrived misrepresentations that theism enforces on you.

But you as a person............you have a cerebral palsey that arouses a deep and abiding sympathy. Your entrapment is the crime against humanity.

OriginalBiggles, Prime