Posted on 12/13/2004 2:08:55 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
We may well see something like that if the story continues to circulate.
The internet is awash in rumors that it's Emotional Rescue.
There are two varieties of Athiest:
Variety One, or the True Athiest, is rational, polite, and maintains a "live and let live" philosophy. True Athiests are not perturbed by the outward displays of other peoples faiths, such as nativities, menorahs, or whatever. They simply don't care. They are more than capable of joining faith aligned organizations such as the Boy Scouts, usually doing so as ostensible Taoists or under the ever so useful umbrella of Unitarianism. They usually make excellent neighbors (and very good Scouts).
Variety Two, is a much noiser breed, and therefore easier to spot and more often mistaken as the genuine article. This is often called an Athiest, though it is really a False Athiest or, more technically, another term that starts with 'A' (and rhymes with 'Bass Hole'). This type has turned non-belief into a false religion in itself. It also never misses an opportunity to proselytize its belief in lack of belief, and always work hard to enforce its own non-belief on others. This variety finds it very difficult to become Boy Scouts etc., because the Boy Scouts themselves are smart enough to know trouble when they see it. These almost never make good neighbors.
Which sort do you suspect Mr. Flew is?
Good explanation.
Yes, they do, but if God did create the world then where did God come from? Using the scientific method, unless there is evidence to the contrary you always go with the simplest explanation. In this case it is simpler to postulate that the universe was always there than that God created the universe and that God was always there.
Only in the same sense that he's "agnostic" about Elvis currently zipping around the galaxy in a flying saucer eating Krispy Kremes. Some claims, even if recognized as physical possibilities, are too unbelievable to be labelled with just "agnostic".
"Atheist" can refer both to someone who *lacks belief* in a god (soft atheist, negative atheist), AND to someone who *believes* there is no god (hard atheist, positive atheist).
Negative atheists probably usually have as much passion for atheism as they do for religion, and would prefer using the word "agnostic" as it seems less offensive to their religious friends.
He chooses to try to explain things in terms of what can be observed.
Only if he's wrong.
Good point. If it has always existed, then it was never created, and there is no creator.
This is not Flew's current response! This post is from 2001. Flew now repudiates this.
Definition problems here. I suspect Flew knows the definitions better than we do. I always thought the agnostic couldn't take a position at all, because he was unable to decide the matter. The atheist comes in two flavors. Flew's kind of "negative atheist" decides that he doesn't believe. That's not the same as saying that there definitely are no gods to believe in. There's the "positive atheist" (using Flew's term, I suppose) who declares that gods do not exist. That's the most extreme position, and quite different from Flew's non-belief. Presumably, Flew is open to the presentation of argument and evidence.
The difference between "not (X believes Y)" and "X believes not Y" is real, if subtle. Not recognizing the difference leaves one vulnerable to sophistry of all sorts.
Except you may run into the obstacle of infinite physical quantities (time, in particular). Infinity is only understood as a result of abstracting AWAY physical quantities. Actual infinite physical quantities cannot be observed, or even imagined.
Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board
Biblical Christianity BLOG
To Tell the Truth, Virginia...
I don't think there is a nice neat explanation for the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life either. Whatever the explanation it's sure to be mind bending.
When you consider that space and time are linked one another and to mass, and that reverse-projecting the expanding universe eventually brings you down to quantum scales, I think you are right.
I've lost all respect for the man.
We'll pray for you, professor. If we're wrong, what have we lost? If you're wrong what have you lost?
Best regards...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.