Skip to comments.Atheist's turn toward God was a 4-year process, friend says
Posted on 12/26/2004 2:12:39 PM PST by protest1
click here to read article
I knew he was an atheist from his kids. He was in ICU long enough for me to get to know his family.
Can't substantiate, but remember hearing that Stalin did that. Sat up, cursed looking upward, then laid back and died.
I would seriously consider the intelligent design concept if it also had a hypothesis for the origin of the designer himself.
it takes faith to believe in miracles that you don't personally witness
Precisely. I am enormously sympathetic toward Christians and Christianity. Particularly in their opposition to the modern homogenizing State. However, from a personal point of view, I just can not accept the concept of the supernatural in any form whatever.
Nobody said that but you. You built the strawdog, you knock it down.
Gotcha. What exactly was this science Flew found indicated the existence of God?
Why don't you read the article? Or better yet Google Flew and Theism and find out why he thinks the science leads him to "believe" in a Creator?
Can you handle all that without overdosing on condescension and hubris?
> Anthony Flew has been led to theism by science.
Actually, the article said that he has been led to theism by Creationism, which is to science what astrology is to astronomy.
> Ergo, those who agree with God are more sane.
Stalin would be proud.
At least you're consistent, consistently wrong.
You're knocking a quote from the article?
You continue to behave oddly.
Here's what YOU said:
Anthony Flew has been led to theism by science. That is the the significance of one mans life long advocacy for atheism morphing into theism. He "followed the science" where it led him.
Here was my response:
Ah, so this is about science proving theism. Gotcha. What exactly was this science Flew found indicated the existence of God?
Did I misconstrue the point of your post above, where you said Flew was led to theism by science and followed the science? What was your intended message, exactly, if it was not that? I said "Gotcha," because I didn't know why you were so stuck on this Flew person being a theist, then I THOUGHT you'd explained it. However, now I'm not sure I understand the whoop-de-do, since your point evidently ISN'T that science proves theism.
I WILL read the article. Hopefully the author of THAT writing will be less insulting than you in explaining Flew's reasoning and what HE gets out of it.
Save for later.
Jesus said, "I tell you that in the same way there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent."
Christians apparently are enjoined to share this attitude.
"'If you said that to him, he would say, "I'm just going where the evidence leads."'"
Christ passes all understanding. I don't think you become a Christian by examining evidence.
Hope springs eternal.
BTW, repeating what we wrote simply clarifies that you jumped the gun. "Anthony Flew has been led to theism by science" is not analagous to "science proving theism".
Your lack of a spell checker puzzles me.
If you are going to use scientific methodology, do so.
Formulate explicit predictions and do what you can to test them under controlled conditions.
You continue to simply disregard the facts. I gave you a quote from the article. Flews position is that his take on the science leads him to "believe" in a deistic God.
I don't really know why you're arguing that point, it is Flew's opinion. That you have a different one has no bearing on the matter.
This direct quote from Antony Flew should clear things up.
Well, he's not seen the light quite yet, but he is headed in the right direction.
Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Feel free to answer my questions in your next post.
By the way, the interview is here:
It was good reading, better at explaining Flew's thought process than this prefatory article.
> Flews position is that his take on the science leads him to "believe" in a deistic God.
This is what the article says: "By January 2003 Flew began considering arguments from the "intelligent design" movement and was on the verge of belief in God."
Since Creationism is manifestly NOT science (feel free to produce the requisite testable aspects of it), then by definition Flew is not being led to God via science. He may in fact be led to God by what he has been bamboozled into *thinking* is science, of course. Many people falsely belive that Creationism is scientific, just as many people belive that healing crystals, pyramid power and Ascended Masters from Atlantis are science-based. But believing does not make something so.