Skip to comments.Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
Posted on 12/10/2004 7:08:12 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
NEW YORK -- A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
(Excerpt) Read more at nynewsday.com ...
It does. What is more key is that said witnesses were alive while the message was being delivered and could have easily been disproved by simply going to the named witness and cross examining them.
I might find it more credible than if it's simply the telling of a story that claims a plethora of witnesses, even if said story is repeated four times.
There are multiple witnesses telling the same story multiple ways.
Of course, witness accounts across multiple sources would be even better than a single compliation that was edited after the fact.
The bible is hardly a single compilation that was edited after the fact. There are just enough slight differences between reports of events to raise questions ---just like real life. There are also events which are down right embarrassing to those telling the story that make editing improbable. Why for example would Peter want to let the story stand about his denial of Christ if he was probably the only one to know what happened after ? Why would the men let it be reported that Jesus first appeared to women rather than to his disciples. There are way too many similar questions along the same lines to make one very skeptical it was edited for a single purpose.
"Ah but th equestion is what proof do we have the pnome
Very little. But how much would it take to convince you of it? That seems to be the question.
You may not make it into the top 50th percentile, but I would not go to my grave in the bottom 3% if I were you either!
I don't really care what he thinks or why. The story didn't hold my interest enough to do more than skim.
I remember from geometry that there are things called axioms that are to be accepted as fact even though they cannot be proved.
In geometry axioms are accepted and mathematical theories are built upon those axioms.
In philosophy , I suppose, no axioms are accepte. However, as a matter of fact, the axiom "There is a God" has been accepted in all of the workings of Western Society (Western society has built upon that axiom in many ways in western law). Our whole society was built upon that premise. Our legal system is built upon that premise. We are so far removed from the makings of our society that "intellectuals" can tell us all how stupid we are as they enjoy all the fruits of everything they are too smart to believe.
Of course, Islamic society has also built a society based upon "There is a God" too. But they did not project very well beyond that. They used the wrong book to interpret what to do with that axiom.
Read the bible
Right, but there are only four 'witness accounts' (set to paper well after the fact).
So, if a reporter reports what many witnesses said and saw, that would be one witnesses account ? There are people named within. They lived while Paul and Peter were taking the news on the road. There were many who wanted this story to stop, it would be child's play to go and call up anyone of those named to falsify what was being said.
. By 'editing' I mean the selective omission of variants on stories that didn't quite correspond with what the Council of Nicea wanted.
We have two reported traditions. In acts we have a movement based on verbal reporting of events in advance of the bible. We have several churches planted in a short time. You believe that some later council was able to retroactively change everything without someone noticing ? Interesting theory.
Yes. And such questions throw the credibility of the claims into doubt -- just like in real life.
But if the editors were as good as you say, then they should have cleaned these problems out. no ?
What, exactly, is 'embarrassing' about this?
You don't think it was embarrassing to admit you denied Christ while at the same time encouraging others to die for him? You don't think its embarrassing that Jesus appeared to women first because the men were to scared to go to his grave and that women were culturally second class citizens ? That isn't embarrassing ? If they men had full control over what was being reported, surely they could have cleaned this stuff up and put themselves in a better light.
It basically says that ELS has been sensationalized and abused and is a topic for another day, IIRC. Which pretty much dovetails with my belief on ELS thus far.
The other issues it covers are not issues that are really open to interpretation. The book just points out black-and-white, demonstrable facts, most of which are utterly fascinating.
I believe my mother was born somewhere between Fox Valley and Richmound
which is about 30 miles south of Leader.
(I was there once many years ago).
My grandmother lived in Minnesota but moved with my grandfather to North Dakota
before moving on to Canada.
There still are quite a few Enderuds in North Dakota.
Just like Gil Grissom says on CSI: follow the evidence.
One more point. Even though there are far more named witnesses than 4, even 4 witnesses interviewed after the fact are more than enough to condemn someone to death for murder in a court of law.
Michael Skakel was convicted for a murder in 2003 he committed in 1975, almost 30 years prior, based on evidence much scantier than evidence produced by the bible with far fewer witnesses. The writings of the bible by most commentators are believed to have occurred before 70AD, or about 30 years after Christ died. 30 Years is well within a time frame to still corroborate witnesses.
Up until now, we'd all thought Antony Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest!!!!!!!
The real heretic is not the atheist or agnostic (who are often decent people) but those who murmur "it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as it makes you feel good." This turns religion into a subjective matter, like taste in furnishings, and robs theology of its claim to ultimate truth. - Sydney J. Harris
An atheist's most embarrassing moment is when he feels profoundly thankful for something, but can't think of anybody to thank for it. - Mary Ann Vincent.
Some people treat God like they do a lawyer; they go to Him only when they are in trouble. - Anonymous
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Hey, CYA is better than nothing! The Bible says that fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. So "CYA" is the first step.
"believe in God"?
I don't say I 'believe' in my next door neighbour when I see him walking down the street.