Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A review of "There is a God" by Antony Flew
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 50 (436183)
11-24-2007 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
11-24-2007 2:41 PM


Re: Putting things in perspective
quote:
First of all, the NY Times is notoriously slanted towards Leftist ideals.
Oh, for God's sake. Who told you that? Fox News?
If you had read the link I provided you would know where that information comes from. Heck, even some columnists working for the Times say that an obvious slant exists.
This conversation is from more than two years ago - and after the interview with the BBC, he repudiated his supposed "conversion" and announced that it had all been his misunderstanding of the actual science behind his claims.
In 2001 it was rumored that Flew had become a theist. He claimed that he had not, although its probably evident that a paradigm shift was under way. It wasn't until 2004 that he publicly came out to the world to declare his deist beliefs.
Theist? Atheist? Flew's position seems to depend on whose doing the asking. That's not consistent with someone operating from a sound frame of mind.
Why do you say that it seems to depend on who he talks to? What was inconsistent? He was an atheist for many years. Years of debate didn't seem to persuade him, while natural arguments seem to have.
Indeed - to the extent that Roy Varghese authored a book of shoddy arguments for God and then manipulated Flew into agreeing to be named as author.
What exactly was substantiated by the Times beyond speculation? And yet you present it as some sort of unassailable fact. The manipulation just might be on the Times end. Wouldn't be the first time. Varghese did co-author the book. Why anyone thinks that he lied about Flew's conversion, all of which he himself concedes to, is a solid demonstration of how petty his mild defection has become.
"In “The Turning of an Atheist,” Mark Oppenheimer raises questions galore without actually proving any of his points. He questions the degree of Flew’s involvement in writing the book, the credibility of scientists whose perspective Flew adopted, and even Flew’s mental competence at the advanced age of 84. (Oppenheimer suggests that Flew may be “a senescent scholar possibly being exploited by his associates” and raises the possibility that his “memory [is] failing” and that “his powers [are] in decline.”)" -David Neff
Yeah... That pretty much summarizes what I read too.
Please read Varghese's entire response in the same link I provided.
You're just proving our point, NJ.
I think you're proving mine. Are you so convinced of the supposed virtuosity of certain prominent atheists? You, of all people, should know about gross, disproportionate bias in that arena. You are without question one of the principle offenders, as you epitomize and embody everything I discussed in my previous post.
"Does Tony Flew actually believe in a Creator/Intelligence/God? The article’s lead-in states, “But his change of heart may not be what it seems.” Let me be blunt about this (as I was with Oppenheimer). For three years, assorted skeptics and freethinkers have hounded the poor man trying to get him to recant. Believe me, if there was the slightest indication, the remotest suspicion, that he had retracted his new-found belief in God, it would be plastered all across the worldwide web (and beyond). Instead, Tony has taken it on himself to respond to every attack on his intellectual integrity in contributions to publications ranging from a rationalist journal in New Zealand to the latest issue of Skeptic magazine in the UK. The attacks on him are always highlighted on the Internet - his responses are never to be found unless you happen to get hold of the print editions. Not without reason, he now refers to several of the apostles of reason as “bigots”."

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2007 2:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2007 6:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 50 (436217)
11-24-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2007 4:16 PM


Re: Putting things in perspective
If you had read the link I provided you would know where that information comes from. Heck, even some columnists working for the Times say that an obvious slant exists.
I don't see what that has to do with atheism. Never mind, of course, that the Times was one of the loudest cheerleaders in the rush to war with Iraq, and they've continued in that vein in their relentless warmongering against Iran.
If you think that the NYT simply made up the interview with Flew, then it's really you who needs to show some evidence for that.
It wasn't until 2004 that he publicly came out to the world to declare his deist beliefs.
Which he later repudiated. You don't remember? We talked about it here at this very forum.
Back and forth between theism and atheism. For the "world's greatest atheist" he sure flip-flops on the issue.
Almost like it depends on who he's talking to. Almost like he can't remember what he's supposed to be, so he just says what he senses will make the person in front of him happy. You know, like people with Alzheimer's or senility usually do.
Years of debate didn't seem to persuade him, while natural arguments seem to have.
Except that he demolished those very arguments in his previous books. It beggars belief that he would suddenly be convinced by them now, unless he's not of sound mind.
What exactly was substantiated by the Times beyond speculation?
That, despite being the supposed "author" of this book, he doesn't seem to have any memory of ever having wrote it. That's pretty significant, isn't it?
Do you have any evidence that he's the author of the book attributed to him?
Varghese did co-author the book.
It's abundantly obvious that he is the sole author, and that Flew contributed nothing but his name. And that, probably, unwillingly.
Are you so convinced of the supposed virtuosity of certain prominent atheists?
No. It simply beggars belief that a person of sound mind would be convinced by the very same arguments they've consistently and accurately refuted.
I couldn't care less about what Flew believes. But the way that theists have been gunning for the guy like he's some kind of trophy is reprehensible and shameful. The guy has a body of work, his whole life, and Varghese is destroying it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2007 4:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2007 6:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 50 (436229)
11-24-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
11-24-2007 6:06 PM


Re: Putting things in perspective
I don't see what that has to do with atheism. Never mind, of course, that the Times was one of the loudest cheerleaders in the rush to war with Iraq, and they've continued in that vein in their relentless warmongering against Iran.
Since delving in to this topic beyond an illustration would be getting off topic, I won't continue in this way, other than to say that you must be reading the Omaha Times, not the NY Times.
If you think that the NYT simply made up the interview with Flew, then it's really you who needs to show some evidence for that.
Oh, no... In journalism, you can't just make things up. You will be caught. Instead, you have the editing monster, which chops up meaning lickety-split. You have tacit assertions. You have manipulative wordings. You have an assortment of half-truths.
Read that article again, Crash. Its dripping with all of those qualities.
Why mention, several times, that he's 84 years old? Why only sparsely quote a man? You honestly think that he and Oppenheimer sat there in silence? You really don't think that Oppenheimer defecated himself when Flew mentioned something about mild dementia?
I wrote to Oppenheimer about an hour ago. I will post his reply, should I receive one.
Which he later repudiated. You don't remember? We talked about it here at this very forum.
I remember talking about Flew before on the forum, but not about any dates. If you can backtrack where we've discussed this before, it would probably help tremendously, 'cause I sure don't remember which forum it was in. Then again, I might be suffering from senility.
Back and forth between theism and atheism. For the "world's greatest atheist" he sure flip-flops on the issue.
I don't see anything that would allude to this. I see a man who, much like myself, was very much doubtful about the existence of God. His conversion was slow. Mine was fast.
Almost like it depends on who he's talking to. Almost like he can't remember what he's supposed to be, so he just says what he senses will make the person in front of him happy. You know, like people with Alzheimer's or senility usually do.
Perhaps you can post some papers on this so we all can get a sense of what you're talking about. The only thing I've ever read was one article where there were rumors that he was turning theistic in 2001. He said that he was not to clarify for everyone. Then in 2004 he said that he has been persuaded by things such as specified complexity to make the switch. He no longer believes that chance accounts for all life.
quote:
Years of debate didn't seem to persuade him, while natural arguments seem to have.
Except that he demolished those very arguments in his previous books. It beggars belief that he would suddenly be convinced by them now, unless he's not of sound mind.
Why not? Lewis was an atheist until his late thirties, I believe. Stalin and Marx were both seminary students who lost their faith. I've seen old men, I'm talking, older than Flew who have converted to Christ during an alter call-- tears streaming down their face.
People gain and lose their faith all the time. I wouldn't say that its only because he's old, especially since he clearly illustrates how lucid he is. Even if you say that Varghese was a ghost writer for the book, there still are many examples, recent examples, that are not. I've already provided some. You can clearly see that.
quote:
What exactly was substantiated by the Times beyond speculation?
That, despite being the supposed "author" of this book, he doesn't seem to have any memory of ever having wrote it. That's pretty significant, isn't it?
Varghese is the co-author and is listed as such on the book.
This is a pathetic attempt to malign him just because he no longer parades the same godlessness as you any longer.
It's abundantly obvious that he is the sole author, and that Flew contributed nothing but his name. And that, probably, unwillingly.
LOL! Yes, Roy put a gun to his head.
And what, pray tell, makes it abundantly clear that Roy was the sole author?
It simply beggars belief that a person of sound mind would be convinced by the very same arguments they've consistently and accurately refuted.
The fact that it happened to me is all the evidence I need to know it is possible. The fact that it happened to you in reverse order should also clarify that it is possible.
I couldn't care less about what Flew believes. But the way that theists have been gunning for the guy like he's some kind of trophy is reprehensible and shameful.
Yes, this much I will agree with. Biola University recently awarded Flew with distinguishing honor as a luminary. This was after his semi-conversion. Obviously, one has to ask, so he's only good enough to be praised as long as he's thinking along the same lines with our beliefs?
However, try not to get sanctimonious on me. Flew has been all but excommunicated by his apparent fairweather, atheist friends. Would you give up your friends just because he converted to Christianity?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2007 6:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2007 7:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 50 (436237)
11-24-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2007 6:59 PM


Re: Putting things in perspective
I won't continue in this way, other than to say that you must be reading the Omaha Times, not the NY Times.
If you've never read the NY Times, NJ, maybe you shouldn't make sweeping statements about "liberal bias."
Why mention, several times, that he's 84 years old?
Because people regularly experience cognitive difficulties as they reach advanced age? Is that something you contend is uncommon?
Perhaps you can post some papers on this so we all can get a sense of what you're talking about.
About people with cognitive problems answering questions in the way they think the interlocutor wants them to be answered? You can confirm that from any case study of these illnesses.
That Flew is doing it? It's sufficient to read the NY Times article. If you think that Flew was able to achieve incredible feats of memory that Oppenheimer simply didn't choose to report, I'll need to see some evidence for that claim.
I wrote to Oppenheimer about an hour ago.
What did you write to him, if I may ask?
I wouldn't say that its only because he's old, especially since he clearly illustrates how lucid he is.
He doesn't seem lucid at all. Boy, between you and Bill Frist (who so famously "diagnosed" Terri Shiavo from a video tape with cognitive abilities it was impossible for her to have) you'd see lucidity and cognition in a stone.
Even if you say that Varghese was a ghost writer for the book, there still are many examples, recent examples, that are not.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing that the trash arguments of theism are nonetheless able to convince; we wouldn't be so concerned about logical fallacies if the fallacies didn't weren't so misleadingly intuitive. It turns out it's not all that hard to convince someone with bad reasoning.
None of that establishes the existence of God, or that Varghese isn't a reprehensible asshole.
Yes, Roy put a gun to his head.
Is it just that you don't know any seniors? There's a reason why seniors are so universally targeted by flim-flam artists and conmen; they're not so quick, they tend to be trusting of people who seem confident and authorative, and they tend to have more assets than they can remember, so they don't always miss the loss.
Varghese is little more than a common conman. Why is it so unusual to imagine that he was able to manipulate a senile old man into doing something as trivial as signing a piece of paper?
And what, pray tell, makes it abundantly clear that Roy was the sole author?
If Flew wrote the book why doesn't he seem to remember anything about it?
Flew has been all but excommunicated by his apparent fairweather, atheist friends.
Excommunicated from what, precisely? Which friends?
Specifics, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2007 6:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
DogToDolphin
Member (Idle past 5877 days)
Posts: 40
From: Avignon, France
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 50 of 50 (456333)
02-17-2008 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by bluegenes
11-21-2007 4:03 PM


I have a book of a debate called "Does God Exist". It's a debate between William Lane Craig and Anthony Flew. The Debate took place on the 18th of February 1999 at the University of Wisconsin.
Other thinkers give their point of view of the debate at the end of the book.
I haven't finished it yet. Anthony Flew still had an atheistic view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 11-21-2007 4:03 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024