[gobucks]

They have got him backtracking a little bit with regards to Dawkins, but in short, he's done w/ adovcating out right atheism.

The rank and file are not pleased. No indeedy. The sexual rule book has not been subject to change since the 60's. I won't be surprised if Flew has an 'accident' in the next few weeks, a stumble, a fall. Yes, it sounds kooky to say that, but when it comes to faith, belief, and the god fathers of that faith and belief, well, some disciples have been known to get flaky.

Just ask S. Rushdie.

[Dataman]

Using the same standards of my opponents, I would say anything from a secular site is not credible since they are admittedly biased and cannot therefore be objective.

Another objection would be that personal correspondence is always suspect. Case in point: Their elevated blood pressure at Patterson's letter to Sunderland admitting there are no transitional forms, real or imaginary.

[Dimensio]

The rank and file are not pleased. No indeedy.

Actually, the general attitude from genuine, hardcore, in your face atheists (amongst whom I do not count myself) has been "who cares?" or "Antony who?"

The sexual rule book has not been subject to change since the 60's.

Huh?

I won't be surprised if Flew has an 'accident' in the next few weeks, a stumble, a fall. Yes, it sounds kooky to say that, but when it comes to faith, belief, and the god fathers of that faith and belief, well, some disciples have been known to get flaky.

I agree. You're a kook.