Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
8 views
Skip to first unread message
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
May 20, 2013, 12:27:55 AM5/20/13
to
How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
May 19, 2013
EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
(1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard
Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at
religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief. However in
2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in
God. While never embracing Christianity-Flew only believed in the
deistic, Aristotelian conception of God-he became one of the most high-
profile and surprising atheist converts. In 2007, he recounted his
conversion in a book titled There is a God: How the World's Most
Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Some critics suggested Flew's
mental capacity had declined and therefore we should question the
credibility of his conversion. Others hailed Flew's book as a
legitimate and landmark publication. A couple months before the book's
release, Flew sat down with Strange Notions contributor Dr. Benjamin
Wiker for an interview about his book, his conversion, and the reasons
that led him to God. Read below and enjoy.
[Professor Antony FLew] Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God,
that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my
exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from
denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as
well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden.
But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual
process-a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the
conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point
in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the
realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense,
you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can
you hear me now?'"
Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive.
One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other
noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the
integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own
insight that the integrated complexity of life itself-which is far
more complex than the physical Universe-can only be explained in terms
of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and
reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint
despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more
that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of
life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically
generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life,
it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best
confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort
to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed
to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the
game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself
that led me to this conclusion.
Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of atheism, i.e.,
as far as arguments for and against the existence of God, the burden
of proof lies with the theist. Given that you believe that you only
followed the evidence where it led, and it led to theism, it would
seem that things have now gone the other way, so that the burden of
proof lies with the atheist. He must prove that God doesn't exist.
What are your thoughts on that?
Flew: I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in
the past that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I think the
origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point
clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who
argue to the contrary.
Wiker: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent science, yet
you remark that your discovery of the Divine did not come through
"experiments and equations," but rather, "through an understanding of
the structures they unveil and map." Could you explain? Does that mean
that the evidence that led you to God is not really, at heart,
scientific?
Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the
sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the
evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of
philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they
study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence.
Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such
atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that
those who believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be
politely asserting that they are ones who are behind the times,
insofar as the latest scientific evidence tends strongly toward-or
perhaps even demonstrates-a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair
assessment of your position?
Flew: Yes, indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point
of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the
philosophical implications of the scientific data.
Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other
an atheist (Thomas Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has
failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for
God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me
to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its
teleological organization, and the existence of the Universe.
Wiker: You point out that the existence of God and the existence of
evil are actually two different issues, which would therefore require
two distinct investigations. But in the popular literature-even in
much of the philosophical literature-the two issues are regularly
conflated. Especially among atheists, the presumption is that the non-
existence of God simply follows upon the existence of evil. What is
the danger of such conflation? How as a theist do you now respond?
Flew: I should clarify that I am a deist. I do not accept any claim of
divine revelation though I would be happy to study any such claim (and
continue to do so in the case of Christianity). For the deist, the
existence of evil does not pose a problem because the deist God does
not intervene in the affairs of the world. The religious theist, of
course, can turn to the free-will defense (in fact I am the one who
first coined the phrase free-will defense). Another relatively recent
change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of
the will.
Wiker: According to There is a God, you are not what might be called a
"thin theist," that is, the evidence led you not merely to accept that
there is a "cause" of nature, but "to accept the existence of a self-
existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being."
How far away are you, then, from accepting this Being as a person
rather than a set of characteristics, however accurate they may be?
(I'm thinking of C. S. Lewis' remark that a big turning point for him,
in accepting Christianity, was in realizing that God was not a "place"-
a set of characteristics, like a landscape-but a person.)
Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you
cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of
person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the
Creator of the Universe.
Wiker: Do you plan to write a follow-up book to There is a God?
Flew: As I said in opening the book, this is my last will and
testament.
Originally published at To the Source.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17569#.UZml8dgmhzY
by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
May 19, 2013
EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
(1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard
Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at
religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief. However in
2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in
God. While never embracing Christianity-Flew only believed in the
deistic, Aristotelian conception of God-he became one of the most high-
profile and surprising atheist converts. In 2007, he recounted his
conversion in a book titled There is a God: How the World's Most
Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Some critics suggested Flew's
mental capacity had declined and therefore we should question the
credibility of his conversion. Others hailed Flew's book as a
legitimate and landmark publication. A couple months before the book's
release, Flew sat down with Strange Notions contributor Dr. Benjamin
Wiker for an interview about his book, his conversion, and the reasons
that led him to God. Read below and enjoy.
[Professor Antony FLew] Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God,
that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my
exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from
denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as
well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden.
But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual
process-a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the
conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point
in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the
realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense,
you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can
you hear me now?'"
Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive.
One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other
noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the
integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own
insight that the integrated complexity of life itself-which is far
more complex than the physical Universe-can only be explained in terms
of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and
reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint
despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more
that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of
life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically
generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life,
it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best
confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort
to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed
to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the
game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself
that led me to this conclusion.
Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of atheism, i.e.,
as far as arguments for and against the existence of God, the burden
of proof lies with the theist. Given that you believe that you only
followed the evidence where it led, and it led to theism, it would
seem that things have now gone the other way, so that the burden of
proof lies with the atheist. He must prove that God doesn't exist.
What are your thoughts on that?
Flew: I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in
the past that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I think the
origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point
clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who
argue to the contrary.
Wiker: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent science, yet
you remark that your discovery of the Divine did not come through
"experiments and equations," but rather, "through an understanding of
the structures they unveil and map." Could you explain? Does that mean
that the evidence that led you to God is not really, at heart,
scientific?
Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the
sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the
evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of
philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they
study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence.
Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such
atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that
those who believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be
politely asserting that they are ones who are behind the times,
insofar as the latest scientific evidence tends strongly toward-or
perhaps even demonstrates-a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair
assessment of your position?
Flew: Yes, indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point
of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the
philosophical implications of the scientific data.
Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other
an atheist (Thomas Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has
failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for
God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me
to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its
teleological organization, and the existence of the Universe.
Wiker: You point out that the existence of God and the existence of
evil are actually two different issues, which would therefore require
two distinct investigations. But in the popular literature-even in
much of the philosophical literature-the two issues are regularly
conflated. Especially among atheists, the presumption is that the non-
existence of God simply follows upon the existence of evil. What is
the danger of such conflation? How as a theist do you now respond?
Flew: I should clarify that I am a deist. I do not accept any claim of
divine revelation though I would be happy to study any such claim (and
continue to do so in the case of Christianity). For the deist, the
existence of evil does not pose a problem because the deist God does
not intervene in the affairs of the world. The religious theist, of
course, can turn to the free-will defense (in fact I am the one who
first coined the phrase free-will defense). Another relatively recent
change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of
the will.
Wiker: According to There is a God, you are not what might be called a
"thin theist," that is, the evidence led you not merely to accept that
there is a "cause" of nature, but "to accept the existence of a self-
existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being."
How far away are you, then, from accepting this Being as a person
rather than a set of characteristics, however accurate they may be?
(I'm thinking of C. S. Lewis' remark that a big turning point for him,
in accepting Christianity, was in realizing that God was not a "place"-
a set of characteristics, like a landscape-but a person.)
Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you
cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of
person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the
Creator of the Universe.
Wiker: Do you plan to write a follow-up book to There is a God?
Flew: As I said in opening the book, this is my last will and
testament.
Originally published at To the Source.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17569#.UZml8dgmhzY
Olrik
May 20, 2013, 12:39:06 AM5/20/13
to
Le 2013-05-20 00:27, jwshe...@satx.rr.com a �crit :
2- Even if he were, we wouldn't give a fucking shit about him.
3- I hope you don't follow/accept/believe everything your fellow theists
do or think.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
1- Flew was never the �the World's Most Notorious Atheist�.
2- Even if he were, we wouldn't give a fucking shit about him.
3- I hope you don't follow/accept/believe everything your fellow theists
do or think.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
SkyEyes
May 20, 2013, 3:05:20 AM5/20/13
to
On May 19, 9:27 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
> by Dr. Benjamin Wikerhttp://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
before he went senile and let a christer fundy influence his thinking.
And are you aware that Flew *never* accepted the notion of a personal
god, but at most was a lukewarm deist? And that he even repudiated
that before he died?
-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-
> by Dr. Benjamin Wikerhttp://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
> May 19, 2013
>
> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
You can stop right there. Few of us even knew who Antony Flew was
>
> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
before he went senile and let a christer fundy influence his thinking.
And are you aware that Flew *never* accepted the notion of a personal
god, but at most was a lukewarm deist? And that he even repudiated
that before he died?
-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-
Les
May 20, 2013, 5:32:47 AM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 00:05:20 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:
>On May 19, 9:27�pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
><jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>
>> by Dr. Benjamin Wikerhttp://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>> May 19, 2013
>>
>> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>
>You can stop right there. Few of us even knew who Antony Flew was
>before he went senile and let a christer fundy influence his thinking.
>
>And are you aware that Flew *never* accepted the notion of a personal
>god, but at most was a lukewarm deist? And that he even repudiated
>that before he died?
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian
and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as
omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".
- Flew December 2004 (he died in 2010)
Should there be a real god it will be what it is, not what we want it
to be.
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
"When you are in a crowd and you stand out from the
crowd it's ususually because you are being carried on
the shoulders of others."
- Desmond Tutu
wrote:
>On May 19, 9:27�pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
><jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>
>> by Dr. Benjamin Wikerhttp://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>> May 19, 2013
>>
>> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>
>You can stop right there. Few of us even knew who Antony Flew was
>before he went senile and let a christer fundy influence his thinking.
>
>And are you aware that Flew *never* accepted the notion of a personal
>god, but at most was a lukewarm deist? And that he even repudiated
>that before he died?
and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as
omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".
- Flew December 2004 (he died in 2010)
Should there be a real god it will be what it is, not what we want it
to be.
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
"When you are in a crowd and you stand out from the
crowd it's ususually because you are being carried on
the shoulders of others."
- Desmond Tutu
Steve O
May 20, 2013, 6:46:18 AM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 10:32, Les wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 00:05:20 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 9:27 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>>
>>> by Dr. Benjamin Wikerhttp://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>> May 19, 2013
>>>
>>> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>>
>> You can stop right there. Few of us even knew who Antony Flew was
>> before he went senile and let a christer fundy influence his thinking.
>>
>> And are you aware that Flew *never* accepted the notion of a personal
>> god, but at most was a lukewarm deist? And that he even repudiated
>> that before he died?
Ah, don't spoil it for them Brenda- while people are leaving the church
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 00:05:20 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On May 19, 9:27 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>>
>>> by Dr. Benjamin Wikerhttp://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>> May 19, 2013
>>>
>>> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>>
>> You can stop right there. Few of us even knew who Antony Flew was
>> before he went senile and let a christer fundy influence his thinking.
>>
>> And are you aware that Flew *never* accepted the notion of a personal
>> god, but at most was a lukewarm deist? And that he even repudiated
>> that before he died?
in droves, Flew is all they have got.
Syd M.
May 20, 2013, 7:44:22 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 12:27 am, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
Oh, good. Another liar for Christ.
Flew didn't change his mind. He had it publicly changed for him by
dishonest Theists.
PDW
Oh, good. Another liar for Christ.
Flew didn't change his mind. He had it publicly changed for him by
dishonest Theists.
PDW
Ben Kaufman
May 20, 2013, 7:49:12 AM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
Wrong. Hitchens didn't change his mind.
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
raven1
May 20, 2013, 7:52:49 AM5/20/13
to
>EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>(1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist.
More famous than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? I don't think so. And
>(1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist.
Flew's conversion to a vague deism was precipitated by his being fed
nonsense about biology, a topic outside his field of expertise, when
he was in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. Quite sad, really.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
May 20, 2013, 9:36:51 AM5/20/13
to
"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he say
it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
corroded with sin. "
Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
Jeff...
MarkA
May 20, 2013, 9:45:57 AM5/20/13
to
so that the world would be losing another theist, instead of an athesit.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
MarkA
May 20, 2013, 9:49:05 AM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:27:55 -0700, jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
> by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
> http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
> May 19, 2013
>
It's sad that so many brilliant people out-live their mental faculties.
> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
> by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
> http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
> May 19, 2013
>
Flew is a perfect example. I just hope that most of them don't recognize
what is happening, unlike the character Charley in "Flowers for Algernon".
David Canzi
May 20, 2013, 2:30:36 PM5/20/13
to
jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>May 19, 2013
>
>EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>(1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard
>Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at
>religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief. However in
>2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in
>God. While never embracing Christianity-Flew only believed in the
>deistic, Aristotelian conception of God-he became one of the most high-
>profile and surprising atheist converts.
A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>May 19, 2013
>
>EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>(1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard
>Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at
>religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief. However in
>2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in
>God. While never embracing Christianity-Flew only believed in the
>deistic, Aristotelian conception of God-he became one of the most high-
>profile and surprising atheist converts.
Flew. That is the main reason I knew he existed. I probably
heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
form of medical quackery. They often cite one or another "famous"
or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. They talk about the
greatness of his or her reputation.
Take this clue, it's free: If you have to tell us he's famous,
he isn't. If you have to tell us about his reputation, he doesn't
have one.
Trying to support your position by artificially inflating the fame
or reputation of somebody who agrees with it is a desperate act.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
kni...@baawa.com
May 20, 2013, 5:00:41 PM5/20/13
to
>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
Never heard of him until you godbots brought him up.
I did a little Google of him and what is really pathetic is that he
was going senile and that you consider his 'conversion' validation for
your belief. Thanks for proving you have to be going crazy to believe
your shit.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Irreverend Dave
May 20, 2013, 9:45:27 PM5/20/13
to
deist.
--
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe,
but in proportion to their readiness to doubt - Ambrose Bierce
Ben Kaufman
May 20, 2013, 10:39:51 PM5/20/13
to
you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little
ones and dashes them against the rock! Psalm 137:8-9 ESV
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
May 21, 2013, 2:19:48 AM5/21/13
to
"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:51 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
>On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
><jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
>
>>Wrong. Hitchens didn't change his mind.
>
>Indeed, foolish to the last......{;o;}
>
>"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he say
>it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
>corroded with sin. "
>Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
>
>Jeff...
repays
~you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your
little
~ones and dashes them against the rock! Psalm 137:8-9 ESV
"22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell,
severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
Romans 11:22 (ASV)
Jeff...
walksalone
May 21, 2013, 4:06:34 AM5/21/13
to
Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote in
news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com:
You really needed to have stayed in the baptist group? What's wrong, lost
you audience?
walksalone who rerally does understand Thanatos's copmlaont. He does all
thne work dragging bleaters & outright idiots to the abyss, & has no one to
hold any discussion beyond 4 grunts & other foolishness. I wonder, does
anyone know how better working conditions can be obtained. Having people
that need three names to hide behind seem to not do the job. Sorry
ThAnatos, this one may be as contagious as a rabid bat. Make sure to wear
your biohazard suit & go through detox. What, you alrady do. Fancy that,
Gods, get yer gods here. While they are on sale. 100 for a penny, no
warranty.
A very incomplete list from various sources
Aztec, Canaan, Dravidian, Egypt, Gnostic-christian, maya, Mespotamia, Misc
[all others]
ai' tojon
adamas
agu'gux
akongo
alatangana
allah
amma
amma
amun
antu
anu
aondo
apap
aramazd
archonssaboth
arebati
ataa naa nygongmo
aten
atl
atua fafine
atua i raropuka
atum
avalokitesvara
awonawilona
ayi' uru'n toyo,n
baiame
brahma
bulai
bulgang
bumba
cacoch
cagu
cakra
ce acatl
cghene
chiconahuiehecatl
chnum
chul tatic chites vaneg
cihuacoatl quilaztli
cipacctonal
citalatonac
citalicue
dharma
dyaus pitar
e alom
e quaholom
ehecatl
el
elohim
elkunirsa
ellel
emli hin
enki
epimetheus
e'ros
es
fidi mukullu
hachacyum
hao
Hindu
hiranyagarbha
hun hunapa
hunab ku
hurracan
ihoioi
iksvaku
il
imana
imra
ipalnemoani
isten
isten
itzam zacal nok
iusaas
izanangi no kami
iznami no kami
jehova
jok
julunggul
ka tyelo
kaia
kalunga
kami musubi no kami
kasisia
kitanitowit
kucumatz
kukulkan
kumarbi
kumokums
kun tu ban pok
kun tu bzan po
kyumbe
kwoth
laima
lesa
leza
libanza
lisa
lodur
lowalangi
mahatala
makemake
maheo
maito
mal
malamanganga'e
malamangangaifo
manitu
manohel toehel
manu
marduk
mayon
mbomba
mbotumbo
mehet weret
mkulumncandi
moma
mula djadi
mungo
na'ininwn
nahui ollin
nainuema
nammu
nanahuatl
naeau
narayana
nareu
ne'nenkicex
nediyon
nefertuim
neith
ngai
niamye
nu gua
nu kua
nudimmud
nut
nyame
nzapa
o kuni nushi no mikoto
ocelotl
oduduwa
ohoroxtotil
olodumare
orisa nla
orisania
pachacmac
panao
pemba
pore
prajapati
promethus
prthu
ptah
purusa
qamai'ts
quat
quetzelcatl
quetzacoatl
quiahuti
raluvimbha
re
rigenmucha
rubanga
ruhganga
sa
samael
seyon
shomde
sirao
siva
somtus
suku
taka mi mitsubi no kami
tangara
tate
tawa
te aka la roe
te manva roa
te tanga engae
teharonhiawagon
telavelik
tenanto'mni
tenanto'mwan
thareon
tiamat
tiki
tino taata
tirawa
tlaltchuti
tloque nahauque
tomor
tomwo'get
tontiuh
toro
tororut
totilma'il
trumual
tsunigoab
tvastar
umanssi ashi kabi hiko ji no kami
umvelinkwangi
ungud
unkulunkulu
unumbote
unumbotte
uru'n ajy toyo'n
vahguru
vairacocha
venda
vile & ve
visnu
visvakarman
waka
wakan tonka
wakonda
weir kumbamba
ya'qhicin
yaldaboth
yaro
yehl
yemekonji
yhwh
yng
yoalechutli
yoalli echecatl
news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com:
you audience?
walksalone who rerally does understand Thanatos's copmlaont. He does all
thne work dragging bleaters & outright idiots to the abyss, & has no one to
hold any discussion beyond 4 grunts & other foolishness. I wonder, does
anyone know how better working conditions can be obtained. Having people
that need three names to hide behind seem to not do the job. Sorry
ThAnatos, this one may be as contagious as a rabid bat. Make sure to wear
your biohazard suit & go through detox. What, you alrady do. Fancy that,
Gods, get yer gods here. While they are on sale. 100 for a penny, no
warranty.
A very incomplete list from various sources
Aztec, Canaan, Dravidian, Egypt, Gnostic-christian, maya, Mespotamia, Misc
[all others]
ai' tojon
adamas
agu'gux
akongo
alatangana
allah
amma
amma
amun
antu
anu
aondo
apap
aramazd
archonssaboth
arebati
ataa naa nygongmo
aten
atl
atua fafine
atua i raropuka
atum
avalokitesvara
awonawilona
ayi' uru'n toyo,n
baiame
brahma
bulai
bulgang
bumba
cacoch
cagu
cakra
ce acatl
cghene
chiconahuiehecatl
chnum
chul tatic chites vaneg
cihuacoatl quilaztli
cipacctonal
citalatonac
citalicue
dharma
dyaus pitar
e alom
e quaholom
ehecatl
el
elohim
elkunirsa
ellel
emli hin
enki
epimetheus
e'ros
es
fidi mukullu
hachacyum
hao
Hindu
hiranyagarbha
hun hunapa
hunab ku
hurracan
ihoioi
iksvaku
il
imana
imra
ipalnemoani
isten
isten
itzam zacal nok
iusaas
izanangi no kami
iznami no kami
jehova
jok
julunggul
ka tyelo
kaia
kalunga
kami musubi no kami
kasisia
kitanitowit
kucumatz
kukulkan
kumarbi
kumokums
kun tu ban pok
kun tu bzan po
kyumbe
kwoth
laima
lesa
leza
libanza
lisa
lodur
lowalangi
mahatala
makemake
maheo
maito
mal
malamanganga'e
malamangangaifo
manitu
manohel toehel
manu
marduk
mayon
mbomba
mbotumbo
mehet weret
mkulumncandi
moma
mula djadi
mungo
na'ininwn
nahui ollin
nainuema
nammu
nanahuatl
naeau
narayana
nareu
ne'nenkicex
nediyon
nefertuim
neith
ngai
niamye
nu gua
nu kua
nudimmud
nut
nyame
nzapa
o kuni nushi no mikoto
ocelotl
oduduwa
ohoroxtotil
olodumare
orisa nla
orisania
pachacmac
panao
pemba
pore
prajapati
promethus
prthu
ptah
purusa
qamai'ts
quat
quetzelcatl
quetzacoatl
quiahuti
raluvimbha
re
rigenmucha
rubanga
ruhganga
sa
samael
seyon
shomde
sirao
siva
somtus
suku
taka mi mitsubi no kami
tangara
tate
tawa
te aka la roe
te manva roa
te tanga engae
teharonhiawagon
telavelik
tenanto'mni
tenanto'mwan
thareon
tiamat
tiki
tino taata
tirawa
tlaltchuti
tloque nahauque
tomor
tomwo'get
tontiuh
toro
tororut
totilma'il
trumual
tsunigoab
tvastar
umanssi ashi kabi hiko ji no kami
umvelinkwangi
ungud
unkulunkulu
unumbote
unumbotte
uru'n ajy toyo'n
vahguru
vairacocha
venda
vile & ve
visnu
visvakarman
waka
wakan tonka
wakonda
weir kumbamba
ya'qhicin
yaldaboth
yaro
yehl
yemekonji
yhwh
yng
yoalechutli
yoalli echecatl
Ben Kaufman
May 21, 2013, 9:10:51 AM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:19:48 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to
knowledge. Romans 10:2
knowledge. Romans 10:2
Dave Heil
May 22, 2013, 12:40:41 AM5/22/13
to
things you've not read or not experienced. Go haunt someone else.
Dave Heil
May 22, 2013, 12:45:13 AM5/22/13
to
in the playland of non-belief.
I never heard of you and don't believe in you.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
May 22, 2013, 1:01:33 AM5/22/13
to
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks
SkyEyes
May 22, 2013, 6:09:32 AM5/22/13
to
we're having this nice cozy chat, maybe *you* can provide logical,
objective, verifiable evidence that this "God" of yours *actually*
*exists*????
Thanks awfully.
SkyEyes
May 22, 2013, 6:12:33 AM5/22/13
to
On May 21, 10:01 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
> http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-m...
If you rapacious cretins would stay the fuck out of alt.atheism, you'd
never hear us protest, would you? Keep you little supernatural
suppositions in your own group; leave us out altogether. If you
please.
If you rapacious cretins would stay the fuck out of alt.atheism, you'd
never hear us protest, would you? Keep you little supernatural
suppositions in your own group; leave us out altogether. If you
please.
Ben Kaufman
May 22, 2013, 9:15:42 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 22:01:33 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 11:45锟絧m, Dave Heil <k...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 18 30, David Canzi wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>
>> >> by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>> >>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>> >> May 19, 2013
>>
>> >> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>> >> (1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard
>> >> Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at
>> >> religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief. However in
>> >> 2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in
>> >> God. While never embracing Christianity-Flew only believed in the
>> >> deistic, Aristotelian conception of God-he became one of the most high-
>> >> profile and surprising atheist converts.
>>
>> > A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
>> > Flew. 锟絋hat is the main reason I knew he existed. 锟絀 probably
>> > or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. 锟絋hey talk about the
>> > he isn't. 锟絀f you have to tell us about his reputation, he doesn't
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>On May 21, 11:45锟絧m, Dave Heil <k...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 18 30, David Canzi wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>
>> >> by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>> >>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>> >> May 19, 2013
>>
>> >> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>> >> (1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard
>> >> Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at
>> >> religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief. However in
>> >> 2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in
>> >> God. While never embracing Christianity-Flew only believed in the
>> >> deistic, Aristotelian conception of God-he became one of the most high-
>> >> profile and surprising atheist converts.
>>
>> > A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
>> > heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
>> > Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
>> > the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
>>
>> > I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
>> > form of medical quackery. 锟絋hey often cite one or another "famous"
>> > Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
>> > the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
>>
>> > I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
>> > or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. 锟絋hey talk about the
>> > greatness of his or her reputation.
>>
>> > Take this clue, it's free: 锟絀f you have to tell us he's famous,
>>
>> > he isn't. 锟絀f you have to tell us about his reputation, he doesn't
>> > have one.
>>
>> > Trying to support your position by artificially inflating the fame
>> > or reputation of somebody who agrees with it is a desperate act.
>>
>> You seem to be supporting your position by elevating your own position
>> in the playland of non-belief.
>>
>> I never heard of you and don't believe in you.
>
> All these replies,to say they don't believe.
> "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
>
> http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks
... says the troll, who got people to respond. LOL.
>>
>> > Trying to support your position by artificially inflating the fame
>> > or reputation of somebody who agrees with it is a desperate act.
>>
>> You seem to be supporting your position by elevating your own position
>> in the playland of non-belief.
>>
>> I never heard of you and don't believe in you.
>
> All these replies,to say they don't believe.
> "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
>
> http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks
kni...@baawa.com
May 22, 2013, 9:49:55 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 04:40:41 +0000, Dave Heil <k8...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>On 5/20/2013 07 05, SkyEyes wrote:
>> On May 19, 9:27 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>>
>>> by Dr. Benjamin Wikerhttp://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>> May 19, 2013
>>>
>>> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>>
>> You can stop right there. Few of us even knew who Antony Flew was
>> before he went senile and let a christer fundy influence his thinking.
>>
>> And are you aware that Flew *never* accepted the notion of a personal
>> god, but at most was a lukewarm deist? And that he even repudiated
>> that before he died?
>>
-
>
those really fucked up religious mind antics?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
wrote:
>On 5/20/2013 07 05, SkyEyes wrote:
>> On May 19, 9:27 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
>> <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>> How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>>
>>> by Dr. Benjamin Wikerhttp://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>> May 19, 2013
>>>
>>> EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew
>>
>> You can stop right there. Few of us even knew who Antony Flew was
>> before he went senile and let a christer fundy influence his thinking.
>>
>> And are you aware that Flew *never* accepted the notion of a personal
>> god, but at most was a lukewarm deist? And that he even repudiated
>> that before he died?
>>
-
>
>Few of you know God and few of you have met His Son. There are numerous
>things you've not read or not experienced. Go haunt someone else.
>
Aren't god and Stickboy the same thing? Or is this another one of
>things you've not read or not experienced. Go haunt someone else.
>
those really fucked up religious mind antics?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Olrik
May 22, 2013, 11:43:43 PM5/22/13
to
Le 2013-05-22 00:40, Dave Heil a �crit :
So, got a photo?
> There are numerous things you've not read or not experienced.
And? Surely you're not suggesting that you've read and experienced
everything, do you?
> Go haunt someone else.
> There are numerous things you've not read or not experienced.
everything, do you?
> Go haunt someone else.
Dave Heil
May 24, 2013, 11:01:52 AM5/24/13
to
Les
May 28, 2013, 5:41:12 AM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:19:48 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic
:-)
It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
either.
"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>>Jeff...
>
>~O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who
>repays
>~you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your
>little
>~ones and dashes them against the rock! Psalm 137:8-9 ESV
>
>"22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell,
>severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
>otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
>Romans 11:22 (ASV)
Yep it is the thugs with the biggest clubs who do the convincing.
Well, these same thugs who, in their heart says 'God is great' have
managed to kill another 57 in Baghdad, another person in England,
several in Boston recently and goodness knows how many previously.
I am pleased to let them know they have not convinced me
Nor has the muslim community leader who claimed on TV yesterday
that those who attacked muslims in retaliation did not understand
Islam is a peaceful religion
He did not say what his terms for this peace is, probably because they
are unconditional.
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:51 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
><jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>>news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
>><jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>
>>
>>>Wrong. Hitchens didn't change his mind.
>>
>>Indeed, foolish to the last......{;o;}
>>
>>"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he say
>>it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
>>corroded with sin. "
>>Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
Good job most atheists, of which Hitchen is one, do not say that then
>
>
>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:51 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
><jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>>news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
>><jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>>
>>
>>>Wrong. Hitchens didn't change his mind.
>>
>>Indeed, foolish to the last......{;o;}
>>
>>"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he say
>>it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
>>corroded with sin. "
>>Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
:-)
It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
either.
"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>>Jeff...
>
>~O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who
>repays
>~you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your
>little
>~ones and dashes them against the rock! Psalm 137:8-9 ESV
>
>"22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell,
>severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
>otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
>Romans 11:22 (ASV)
Well, these same thugs who, in their heart says 'God is great' have
managed to kill another 57 in Baghdad, another person in England,
several in Boston recently and goodness knows how many previously.
I am pleased to let them know they have not convinced me
Nor has the muslim community leader who claimed on TV yesterday
that those who attacked muslims in retaliation did not understand
Islam is a peaceful religion
He did not say what his terms for this peace is, probably because they
are unconditional.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
May 28, 2013, 10:46:39 AM5/28/13
to
On May 28, 4:41 am, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:19:48 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Traditionalist" <jnhickl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
> >news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com...
>
> >On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:51 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> ><jnhickl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
> >>news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:19:48 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Traditionalist" <jnhickl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
> >news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com...
>
> >On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:51 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> ><jnhickl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
> >>news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
by Bruce Kodish
Political scientist Samuel Huntington has made some interesting
comments on the current state of international politics in which he
trys to explain the disproportionate world-wide involvement of Muslims
in violence and terrorism, what he calls the "bloody borders of
Islam."
Huntington has noted that:
"While groups from all religions have engaged in various forms of
violence and terrorism, the figures make it clear that in the past
decade Muslims have been involved in far more of these activities than
people of other religions. One of the things that attracted a lot of
attention in The Clash of Civilizations was my use of the phrase "the
bloody borders of Islam." But if you look around the Muslim world you
see that in the 1990s Muslims were fighting non-Muslims in Bosnia,
Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir,
Indonesia, the Philippines, the Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria, and other
places. Muslims have been fighting one another also. The International
Institute for Strategic Studies surveyed the armed conflicts going on
in the world in 2000, and its figures show that twenty-three of the
thirty-two conflicts under way involved Muslims.
Why is this?"
For Huntington's complete comments, read Religion, Culture, and
International Conflict After September 11
http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v256/__show_article/_a000256-000091.htm
philip....@ntlworld.com
May 28, 2013, 4:45:58 PM5/28/13
to
"Les" wrote in message news:nnr8q8llt9q9q0oj1...@4ax.com...
>>>"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he
>>>say
>>>it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
>>>corroded with sin. "
>>>Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
> Good job most atheists, of which Hitchen is one, do not say that then
> :-)
Not with their mouths, no.
> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
> either.
Atheists often claim things that cannot be shown to be true. You are
confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with intelligence
or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, beyond that atheists have
no common ground with each other. So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
> knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
The very act of getting up in the morning requires faith in all sorts of
things. The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
that they don't believe that god doesn't exist. Actions speak louder than
words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions and
behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the position of
unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative and less
intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial of the
existence of god and for good reason. They haven't fallen for the lie that
rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
Phil
On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:19:48 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com...
>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:51 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
><jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>>news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
>><jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
snip
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com...
>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:51 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
><jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>>news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
>><jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he
>>>say
>>>it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
>>>corroded with sin. "
>>>Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
> Good job most atheists, of which Hitchen is one, do not say that then
> :-)
> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
> either.
confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with intelligence
or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, beyond that atheists have
no common ground with each other. So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
> knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
things. The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
that they don't believe that god doesn't exist. Actions speak louder than
words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions and
behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the position of
unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative and less
intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial of the
existence of god and for good reason. They haven't fallen for the lie that
rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
Phil
Les
May 28, 2013, 6:19:26 PM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:45:58 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>"Les" wrote in message news:nnr8q8llt9q9q0oj1...@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:19:48 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic
>Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>>news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com...
>>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:51 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>><jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
>>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
>>><jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>>>"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he
>>>>say
>>>>it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
>>>>corroded with sin. "
>>>>Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
>
>> Good job most atheists, of which Hitchen is one, do not say that then
>> :-)
>
>Not with their mouths, no.
Or our minds. Something we know but you cannot.
>> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
>> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
>> either.
>
>Atheists often claim things that cannot be shown to be true.
I am not responsible for what others are alleged to do. I suggest you
address these allegations directly to the ones concerned specifying
what you consider to be unfounded claims. That would be the honest
thing to do, yes, instead of vague insinuations like this one.
>You are
>confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with intelligence
>or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in
...the existence of..
>gods,
>beyond that atheists have
>no common ground with each other.
Of course
We are atheist for one thing and one thing only. We are not theists.
glad you got something right.
I was beginning to wonder.
> So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
>illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
Again I am not responsible for what other atheists are
alleged to do. I suggest you address these allegations directly
to the ones concerned specifying what you consider to
be untrue. That would be the honest thing to do, yes
instead of vague insinuations like this one.
Yet we are all correct not to accept your wannahave gods actually
exist just on the say-so of those that wannahave them.
>> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
>> knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
>> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
>> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>
>The very act of getting up in the morning requires faith in all sorts of
>things.
If you say so
> The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
>that they don't believe that god doesn't exist.
Unsupported opinion dismissed
> Actions speak louder than
>words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions and
>behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
Fortunately I do not answer for your straw atheists
>Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the position of
>unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
Tough Cheddar
>Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative and less
>intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial of the
>existence of god and for good reason. They haven't fallen for the lie that
>rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
Well whatever, we all have the same lack of belief there are gods
which make us not theist and:
We are not theist if they please
We are not theist if they don't please.
Call us idiots
Mock us
sneer at us
revile us
lie about us
misrepresents us
plead with us
hate us and show that hate
'pray for' us
'pray' at us
Prey on us
spit at us
Piss on us
Relish at thought of us burning in hell
but we will still not be theist if they please
and we will still not be theist if they don't please
wrote:
>"Les" wrote in message news:nnr8q8llt9q9q0oj1...@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:19:48 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic
>Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>>news:6inlp8hje8nsl6qd9...@4ax.com...
>>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:51 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>><jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>news:ia3kp89o0fbv4j0k8...@4ax.com...
>>>On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "jwshe...@satx.rr.com"
>>><jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>>>"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he
>>>>say
>>>>it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
>>>>corroded with sin. "
>>>>Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
>
>> Good job most atheists, of which Hitchen is one, do not say that then
>> :-)
>
>Not with their mouths, no.
>> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
>> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
>> either.
>
>Atheists often claim things that cannot be shown to be true.
address these allegations directly to the ones concerned specifying
what you consider to be unfounded claims. That would be the honest
thing to do, yes, instead of vague insinuations like this one.
>You are
>confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with intelligence
>or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in
>gods,
>beyond that atheists have
>no common ground with each other.
We are atheist for one thing and one thing only. We are not theists.
glad you got something right.
I was beginning to wonder.
> So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
>illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
alleged to do. I suggest you address these allegations directly
to the ones concerned specifying what you consider to
be untrue. That would be the honest thing to do, yes
instead of vague insinuations like this one.
Yet we are all correct not to accept your wannahave gods actually
exist just on the say-so of those that wannahave them.
>> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
>> knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
>> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
>> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>
>The very act of getting up in the morning requires faith in all sorts of
>things.
> The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
>that they don't believe that god doesn't exist.
> Actions speak louder than
>words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions and
>behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
>Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the position of
>unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
>Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative and less
>intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial of the
>existence of god and for good reason. They haven't fallen for the lie that
>rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
which make us not theist and:
We are not theist if they please
We are not theist if they don't please.
Call us idiots
Mock us
sneer at us
revile us
lie about us
misrepresents us
plead with us
hate us and show that hate
'pray for' us
'pray' at us
Prey on us
spit at us
Piss on us
Relish at thought of us burning in hell
but we will still not be theist if they please
and we will still not be theist if they don't please
philip....@ntlworld.com
May 29, 2013, 3:37:45 AM5/29/13
to
"Les" wrote in message news:ri6aq8p5r47dsdenv...@4ax.com...
>>> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
>>> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
>>> either.
>>Atheists often claim things that cannot be shown to be true.
> I am not responsible for what others are alleged to do. I suggest you
> address these allegations directly to the ones concerned specifying
> what you consider to be unfounded claims. That would be the honest
> thing to do, yes, instead of vague insinuations like this one.
Nothing vague about it, you are assuming what you cannot show. That is that
all atheists are consistent logical rationalists. Since there are some who
are not then your case is already tricky.
Of course if you are only speaking for yourself then you would say so, which
would be honest, but you speak for "atheists" dontcha?
>>You are
>>confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with intelligence
>>or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in
> ...the existence of..
It has nothing to do with existence.
>>gods,
>>beyond that atheists have
>>no common ground with each other.
> Of course
And yet you spoke for atheists earlier lol
> We are atheist for one thing and one thing only. We are not theists.
Actually no, an atheist is "without gods" which is not the opposite of
theist.
> glad you got something right.
I haven't been wrong in this thread :-)
> I was beginning to wonder.
Of course, you have to....
>> So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
>>illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
> Again I am not responsible for what other atheists are
> alleged to do. I suggest you address these allegations directly
> to the ones concerned specifying what you consider to
> be untrue. That would be the honest thing to do, yes
> instead of vague insinuations like this one.
I don't have to address them silly. The world is full of people who do all
sorts of things and among them are atheists. If you can show that atheists
don't then please do. Otherwise you have passed the burden of proof for no
logical reason.
> Yet we are all correct not to accept your wannahave gods actually
> exist just on the say-so of those that wannahave them.
I have no idea who wants to have a god or why wanting one would make one
real to them in any way whatsoever. In fact your supposition merely
reflects your illogical thinking.
I am not a group and therefore you can know nothing about whether I want
something or not, a point you made earlier (although about a group of people
which means you cannot know it) but made badly and illogically. Silly you
:-)
>>> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
>>> knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
>>> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
>>> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>>The very act of getting up in the morning requires faith in all sorts of
>>things.
>If you say so
Try philosophy 101 about what we can know and what we must take on faith
(that is what we cannot show but treat as true anyway - which would be
acting on faith).
>> The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
>>that they don't believe that god doesn't exist.
> Unsupported opinion dismissed
I did support it - oh look the support follows.
>> Actions speak louder than
>>words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions and
>>behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
> Fortunately I do not answer for your straw atheists
You cannot even answer for yourself.
>>Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the position
>>of
>>unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
>Tough Cheddar
It doesn,t bother me but it indicates that your actual position is not what
you assert.
>>Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative and
>>less
>>intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial of
>>the
>>existence of god and for good reason. They haven't fallen for the lie that
>>rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
> Well whatever, we all have the same lack of belief there are gods
> which make us not theist and:
> We are not theist if they please
> We are not theist if they don't please.
snip
I am not bothered either way, I just resist the attempt to play the atheism
= informed card.
Phil
>>Not with their mouths, no.
> Or our minds. Something we know but you cannot.
Oh look a spokesman for all atheists lol
> Or our minds. Something we know but you cannot.
>>> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
>>> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
>>> either.
>>Atheists often claim things that cannot be shown to be true.
> I am not responsible for what others are alleged to do. I suggest you
> address these allegations directly to the ones concerned specifying
> what you consider to be unfounded claims. That would be the honest
> thing to do, yes, instead of vague insinuations like this one.
all atheists are consistent logical rationalists. Since there are some who
are not then your case is already tricky.
Of course if you are only speaking for yourself then you would say so, which
would be honest, but you speak for "atheists" dontcha?
>>You are
>>confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with intelligence
>>or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in
> ...the existence of..
>>gods,
>>beyond that atheists have
>>no common ground with each other.
> Of course
> We are atheist for one thing and one thing only. We are not theists.
theist.
> glad you got something right.
> I was beginning to wonder.
>> So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
>>illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
> Again I am not responsible for what other atheists are
> alleged to do. I suggest you address these allegations directly
> to the ones concerned specifying what you consider to
> be untrue. That would be the honest thing to do, yes
> instead of vague insinuations like this one.
sorts of things and among them are atheists. If you can show that atheists
don't then please do. Otherwise you have passed the burden of proof for no
logical reason.
> Yet we are all correct not to accept your wannahave gods actually
> exist just on the say-so of those that wannahave them.
real to them in any way whatsoever. In fact your supposition merely
reflects your illogical thinking.
I am not a group and therefore you can know nothing about whether I want
something or not, a point you made earlier (although about a group of people
which means you cannot know it) but made badly and illogically. Silly you
:-)
>>> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
>>> knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
>>> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
>>> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>>The very act of getting up in the morning requires faith in all sorts of
>>things.
>If you say so
(that is what we cannot show but treat as true anyway - which would be
acting on faith).
>> The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
>>that they don't believe that god doesn't exist.
> Unsupported opinion dismissed
>> Actions speak louder than
>>words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions and
>>behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
> Fortunately I do not answer for your straw atheists
>>Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the position
>>of
>>unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
>Tough Cheddar
you assert.
>>Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative and
>>less
>>intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial of
>>the
>>existence of god and for good reason. They haven't fallen for the lie that
>>rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
> Well whatever, we all have the same lack of belief there are gods
> which make us not theist and:
> We are not theist if they please
> We are not theist if they don't please.
I am not bothered either way, I just resist the attempt to play the atheism
= informed card.
Phil
walksalone
May 29, 2013, 5:23:31 AM5/29/13
to
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:kfipt.79175$v32....@fx11.am4:
> "Les" wrote in message
> news:ri6aq8p5r47dsdenv...@4ax.com... On Tue, 28 May 2013
> 21:45:58 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
Followups set, seems this one is in bad need of an audience of the
pretenders.
>>>Not with their mouths, no.
>
>> Or our minds. Something we know but you cannot.
>
> Oh look a spokesman for all atheists lol
You are, fancy that. You forgot to get the atheist populations consent,
so no, you are not. When speaking of a group, it is common to use
plurals. The royal ones most bleaters use are capitlized.
Hence, under the common useage of the English language, he has made no
indication of speaking for others. But he has indicated he is a membedr
of a group.
Is the audience you are failing to impress to assume you are a Professor
of dead languages at Cambridge? I like to think Cambridge's standards
are higher.
>>>> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
>>>> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
>>>> either.
>
>>>Atheists often claim things that cannot be shown to be true.
>
>> I am not responsible for what others are alleged to do. I suggest
>> you address these allegations directly to the ones concerned
>> specifying what you consider to be unfounded claims. That would be
>> the honest thing to do, yes, instead of vague insinuations like this
>> one.
>
> Nothing vague about it, you are assuming what you cannot show. That is
> that all atheists are consistent logical rationalists. Since there are
> some who are not then your case is already tricky.
That is your pretension, & likely what you want to believe.
> Of course if you are only speaking for yourself then you would say so,
> which would be honest, but you speak for "atheists" dontcha?
No, he doesn't. He has commented on things common to all atheists, such
as a lack of a belief in someone elses big daddy, or momma. But as to
what all atheists think, not seen him do that.
Have seen people like you make the claim, but they are just blowing in
the wind.
>>>You are
>>>confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with
>>>intelligence or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in
>
>> ...the existence of..
> It has nothing to do with existence.
It has nothing else, but then there are those that pretend that they know
what others think.
>>>gods,
>>>beyond that atheists have
>>>no common ground with each other.
>> Of course
> And yet you spoke for atheists earlier lol
No, but yolu tried to pretend he did.
>> We are atheist for one thing and one thing only. We are not theists.
> Actually no, an atheist is "without gods" which is not the opposite of
> theist.
Due to a lack of belief, it has to do with the evidence in some cases,
others, may not be so gullible. Or afraid of dying, etc. The lisr can
be long, but in the end, tghe fact is any & all atheists will lack a
belief in gods. Whereas xians are atheists as well, but lack the
integrity to include their gods in the consideration.
Need a god, pick one. They are all of the same catergory, creators. Not
all are from the deserts & were so weak they had to find a follower.
na'ininwn na' pe nahui ollin nainuema
yemekonji yng yoalechutli yoalli
echecatl
>> glad you got something right.
>
> I haven't been wrong in this thread :-)
This beionhg the first missive of yours I've seen, you've n ot been right
in your claim about Les.
>> I was beginning to wonder.
>
> Of course, you have to....
>
>>> So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
>>>illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
>
>> Again I am not responsible for what other atheists are
>> alleged to do. I suggest you address these allegations directly
>> to the ones concerned specifying what you consider to
>> be untrue. That would be the honest thing to do, yes
>> instead of vague insinuations like this one.
>
> I don't have to address them silly. The world is full of people who do
> all sorts of things and among them are atheists. If you can show that
> atheists don't then please do. Otherwise you have passed the burden of
> proof for no logical reason.
Who started the Merry Go Round. I hear the music.
>> Yet we are all correct not to accept your wannahave gods actually
>> exist just on the say-so of those that wannahave them.
> I have no idea who wants to have a god or why wanting one would make
> one real to them in any way whatsoever. In fact your supposition
> merely reflects your illogical thinking.
Your interpalation of Les's thinking seems somewaht muddled. Would you
care to exterpolate & present a coherent position instead of a dance
around the rosie?
> I am not a group and therefore you can know nothing about whether I
> want something or not, a point you made earlier (although about a
> group of people which means you cannot know it) but made badly and
> illogically. Silly you
>:-)
You pretend, just like other blowhards. You wouldn't be related to
Humpty Dumpty, would you. Or Mr. Hatter?
>>>> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a
>>>> claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.”
>>>> Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the
>>>> latter does. " - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>
>>>The very act of getting up in the morning requires faith in all sorts
>>>of things.
>>If you say so
> Try philosophy 101 about what we can know and what we must take on
> faith (that is what we cannot show but treat as true anyway - which
> would be acting on faith).
Well that explains a lot right there. philosophy, sounds great. Less
filling, & leaves a flat taste behind.
But for thos that like to pretend, well it's the cat's meow.
One doeds not need abstract thinkig to pay atgtention to what surrounds
them. Unless one fears or is concerned about their variant of Jenny
Green teeth, Or Black Agnes, etc.
>>> The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
>>>that they don't believe that god doesn't exist.
>> Unsupported opinion dismissed
> I did support it - oh look the support follows.
Does it, or is it your special re-packed version?
>>> Actions speak louder than
>>>words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions
>>>and behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
Such as? C onsidcerfation over something there is no evidence for? Not
mythological evidence, not emotiona needs, evidence. Pick it up &
examine it evidence.
>> Fortunately I do not answer for your straw atheists
> You cannot even answer for yourself.
With you doing it for him, or pretending to, does he need to?
>>>Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the
>>>position of
>>>unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
>
>>Tough Cheddar
> It doesn,t bother me but it indicates that your actual position is not
> what you assert.
According to you, but from what I've noted, your ;position is that of
Humpty Dumpty. So, when are you going to fall?
>>>Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative
>>>and less
>>>intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial
>>>of the
>>>existence of god and for good reason. They haven't fallen for the lie
>>>that rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
>> Well whatever, we all have the same lack of belief there are gods
>> which make us not theist and:
>> We are not theist if they please
>> We are not theist if they don't please.
Oh Shit Oh dear, Les you don't expect him to follow that. Do you?
> snip
> I am not bothered either way, I just resist the attempt to play the
> atheism = informed card.
But you can't resist trying to play the athiest = uniformed card.
For the same reasons you are atheist to the majority of the worlds gods,
the self identified atheist can accept there is no need to worry over
someone elses imagination.
[1]
walksalone who suspects this is simply a variant of the i ril u 2
variety. Different drum, just as much useless noise. Or it could be a
woger in disguise, or a woger clone. Not worth the effort to find out
really, but idle curiousity & all that.
A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to --
Granville Hicks
news:kfipt.79175$v32....@fx11.am4:
> "Les" wrote in message
> news:ri6aq8p5r47dsdenv...@4ax.com... On Tue, 28 May 2013
> 21:45:58 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
pretenders.
>>>Not with their mouths, no.
>
>> Or our minds. Something we know but you cannot.
>
> Oh look a spokesman for all atheists lol
so no, you are not. When speaking of a group, it is common to use
plurals. The royal ones most bleaters use are capitlized.
Hence, under the common useage of the English language, he has made no
indication of speaking for others. But he has indicated he is a membedr
of a group.
Is the audience you are failing to impress to assume you are a Professor
of dead languages at Cambridge? I like to think Cambridge's standards
are higher.
>>>> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
>>>> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
>>>> either.
>
>>>Atheists often claim things that cannot be shown to be true.
>
>> I am not responsible for what others are alleged to do. I suggest
>> you address these allegations directly to the ones concerned
>> specifying what you consider to be unfounded claims. That would be
>> the honest thing to do, yes, instead of vague insinuations like this
>> one.
>
> Nothing vague about it, you are assuming what you cannot show. That is
> that all atheists are consistent logical rationalists. Since there are
> some who are not then your case is already tricky.
> Of course if you are only speaking for yourself then you would say so,
> which would be honest, but you speak for "atheists" dontcha?
as a lack of a belief in someone elses big daddy, or momma. But as to
what all atheists think, not seen him do that.
Have seen people like you make the claim, but they are just blowing in
the wind.
>>>You are
>>>confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with
>>>intelligence or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in
>
>> ...the existence of..
> It has nothing to do with existence.
what others think.
>>>gods,
>>>beyond that atheists have
>>>no common ground with each other.
>> Of course
> And yet you spoke for atheists earlier lol
>> We are atheist for one thing and one thing only. We are not theists.
> Actually no, an atheist is "without gods" which is not the opposite of
> theist.
others, may not be so gullible. Or afraid of dying, etc. The lisr can
be long, but in the end, tghe fact is any & all atheists will lack a
belief in gods. Whereas xians are atheists as well, but lack the
integrity to include their gods in the consideration.
Need a god, pick one. They are all of the same catergory, creators. Not
all are from the deserts & were so weak they had to find a follower.
echecatl
>> glad you got something right.
>
> I haven't been wrong in this thread :-)
in your claim about Les.
>> I was beginning to wonder.
>
> Of course, you have to....
>
>>> So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
>>>illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
>
>> Again I am not responsible for what other atheists are
>> alleged to do. I suggest you address these allegations directly
>> to the ones concerned specifying what you consider to
>> be untrue. That would be the honest thing to do, yes
>> instead of vague insinuations like this one.
>
> I don't have to address them silly. The world is full of people who do
> all sorts of things and among them are atheists. If you can show that
> atheists don't then please do. Otherwise you have passed the burden of
> proof for no logical reason.
>> Yet we are all correct not to accept your wannahave gods actually
>> exist just on the say-so of those that wannahave them.
> I have no idea who wants to have a god or why wanting one would make
> one real to them in any way whatsoever. In fact your supposition
> merely reflects your illogical thinking.
care to exterpolate & present a coherent position instead of a dance
around the rosie?
> I am not a group and therefore you can know nothing about whether I
> want something or not, a point you made earlier (although about a
> group of people which means you cannot know it) but made badly and
> illogically. Silly you
>:-)
Humpty Dumpty, would you. Or Mr. Hatter?
>>>> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a
>>>> claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.”
>>>> Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the
>>>> latter does. " - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>
>>>The very act of getting up in the morning requires faith in all sorts
>>>of things.
>>If you say so
> Try philosophy 101 about what we can know and what we must take on
> faith (that is what we cannot show but treat as true anyway - which
> would be acting on faith).
filling, & leaves a flat taste behind.
But for thos that like to pretend, well it's the cat's meow.
One doeds not need abstract thinkig to pay atgtention to what surrounds
them. Unless one fears or is concerned about their variant of Jenny
Green teeth, Or Black Agnes, etc.
>>> The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
>>>that they don't believe that god doesn't exist.
>> Unsupported opinion dismissed
> I did support it - oh look the support follows.
>>> Actions speak louder than
>>>words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions
>>>and behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
mythological evidence, not emotiona needs, evidence. Pick it up &
examine it evidence.
>> Fortunately I do not answer for your straw atheists
> You cannot even answer for yourself.
>>>Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the
>>>position of
>>>unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
>
>>Tough Cheddar
> It doesn,t bother me but it indicates that your actual position is not
> what you assert.
Humpty Dumpty. So, when are you going to fall?
>>>Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative
>>>and less
>>>intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial
>>>of the
>>>existence of god and for good reason. They haven't fallen for the lie
>>>that rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
>> Well whatever, we all have the same lack of belief there are gods
>> which make us not theist and:
>> We are not theist if they please
>> We are not theist if they don't please.
> snip
> I am not bothered either way, I just resist the attempt to play the
> atheism = informed card.
For the same reasons you are atheist to the majority of the worlds gods,
the self identified atheist can accept there is no need to worry over
someone elses imagination.
[1]
walksalone who suspects this is simply a variant of the i ril u 2
variety. Different drum, just as much useless noise. Or it could be a
woger in disguise, or a woger clone. Not worth the effort to find out
really, but idle curiousity & all that.
A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to --
Granville Hicks
Les
May 29, 2013, 8:46:34 AM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 08:37:45 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>"Les" wrote in message news:ri6aq8p5r47dsdenv...@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:45:58 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
>
<snipped portion restored>
>
>>>>"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he
>>>>say
>>>>it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
>>>>corroded with sin. "
>>>>Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
>
>> Good job most atheists, of which Hitchen is one, do not say that then
>> :-)
<end restored portion>
>>>Not with their mouths, no.
>
>> Or our minds. Something we know but you cannot.
>
>Oh look a spokesman for all atheists lol
No most atheist as I made clear in the snipped portion.
As for the rest, since I have no good reason to believe
they are lying when they say they do not believe gods do not
exists I will not be crass and make unwarranted assumtions to the
contrary when I am not justified in doing so
If you think you know different then prove it
>>>> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
>>>> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
>>>> either.
>
>>>Atheists often claim things that cannot be shown to be true.
>
>> I am not responsible for what others are alleged to do. I suggest you
>> address these allegations directly to the ones concerned specifying
>> what you consider to be unfounded claims. That would be the honest
>> thing to do, yes, instead of vague insinuations like this one.
>
>Nothing vague about it, you are assuming what you cannot show. That is that
>all atheists are consistent logical rationalists.
No. I assumed that those atheist who say they do not believe gods do
not exists are being honest when I have no good reason to think
othewise. To do so would be crass and dishonest.
> Since there are some who
>are not then your case is already tricky.
>Of course if you are only speaking for yourself then you would say so, which
>would be honest, but you speak for "atheists" dontcha?
I am not the one who is being 'tricky here'. Nor am I accusing
anybody of lying without good reason so to do.
Heck I have not even claimed I am always consistent logical and
rational. I can only claim that I try to be.
I do however know I am right not to believe in either the existence or
the non existence of the claimed gods when neither belief is
justified. If I know that is right then I know other atheists are
equally correct when they say the same.
I cannot speak for those who profess otherwise and made no
atempt so to do
>>>You are
>>>confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with intelligence
>>>or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in
>
>> ...the existence of..
>
>It has nothing to do with existence.
>
Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying here that you would
believe (some unstated aspect) 'in god' regardless of whether it
actually existed or not?
Fascinating
>>>gods,
>
>>>beyond that atheists have
>>>no common ground with each other.
>
>> Of course
>
>And yet you spoke for atheists earlier lol
I spoke for those who say they do not believe gods
do no exist. I speak for all of us now
>> We are atheist for one thing and one thing only. We are not theists.
>
>Actually no, an atheist is "without gods" which is not the opposite of
>theist.
Hmm I think I am better qualifed to be a spokeman for
atheist than one who is biassed against us and appears to wish to
impose his own strawman atheist on us.
>
>> glad you got something right.
>
>I haven't been wrong in this thread :-)
Saying something is so does not make it so
>>> So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
>>>illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
>
>> Again I am not responsible for what other atheists are
>> alleged to do. I suggest you address these allegations directly
>> to the ones concerned specifying what you consider to
>> be untrue. That would be the honest thing to do, yes
>> instead of vague insinuations like this one.
>
>I don't have to address them silly. The world is full of people who do all
>sorts of things and among them are atheists.
and theists
> If
If indeed.
>you can show that atheists don't then please do. Otherwise you have passed the
>burden of proof for no logical reason.
I make no such claims so there is no burden of proof yet I know that I
am right not to believe gods either exist or do not exist without
justification. And since i know I am right all those other atheists
who think the same are right too. William Craig alse agree we
are right.
>> Yet we are all correct not to accept your wannahave gods actually
>> exist just on the say-so of those that wannahave them.
>
>I have no idea who wants to have a god or why wanting one would make one
>real to them in any way whatsoever. In fact your supposition merely
>reflects your illogical thinking.
I shall leave it to other to make up their own minds on this
>I am not a group and therefore you can know nothing about whether I want
>something or not, a point you made earlier (although about a group of people
>which means you cannot know it) but made badly and illogically. Silly you
>:-)
Again i shall leave others to make their own conclusions about this
>
>>>> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
>>>> knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
>>>> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
>>>> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>
>>>The very act of getting up in the morning requires faith in all sorts of
>>>things.
>
>>If you say so
>
>Try philosophy 101 about what we can know and what we must take on faith
>(that is what we cannot show but treat as true anyway - which would be
>acting on faith).
If you wish to digress from your seeming obsession with having us
believe there are no gods even if there is no justification for doing
so I suggest you start a new thread preferably in a newsgoup
for philospohy where such discussion belong.
>
>>> The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
>>>that they don't believe that god doesn't exist.
>
>> Unsupported opinion dismissed
>
>I did support it - oh look the support follows.
>
>>> Actions speak louder than
>>>words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions and
>>>behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
>
>> Fortunately I do not answer for your straw atheists
Which, incidentally does not support you worthless opinion
but maybe I shall leave that to others to judge
>>>Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the position
>>>of
>>>unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
>
>>Tough Cheddar
>
>It doesn,t bother me but it indicates that your actual position is not what
>you assert.
I am not responsible for your indications
but I think I know why you wish to make them
Keep on trying Ramsey you are wasting your time with this
particular obsession. Whatever you say:
I am not theist if your please
I am not theist if you don't please
i do not believe there are any gods - not justified in doing so
I do not believe there are no gods - no justified in doing so
I have no beleifs regarding what is nothing more to me than
a three letter word
>>>Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative and
>>>less
>>>intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial of
>>>the
>>>existence of god and for good reason.
Of course if that is what they believe they would be lying if they say
otherwise. I see no reason why any of us would wish to lie and
know of no reason to be crass and think they are.
>>>rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
I glad you admit that being rational and religion are two different
things.
If religion is not rational then it is irrational.
I agree
>
>> Well whatever, we all have the same lack of belief there are gods
>> which make us not theist and:
>
>> We are not theist if they please
>> We are not theist if they don't please.
>
>snip
>
>I am not bothered either way, I just resist the attempt to play the atheism
>= informed card.
Informed about what? I have no factual knowledge of any kind about
your claimed wannahave gods thus have no justification for forming any
kind of belief about them.
The only thing that I am informed about concerning 'god' is that it is
a three letter word, it has two consonants, it has one vowel, and is
an anagram of dog.
wrote:
>"Les" wrote in message news:ri6aq8p5r47dsdenv...@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 28 May 2013 21:45:58 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
>
>
>>>>"1 Only a fool would say to himself, "There is no God." And why does he
>>>>say
>>>>it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is
>>>>corroded with sin. "
>>>>Psalms 53:1 (TLB)
>
>> Good job most atheists, of which Hitchen is one, do not say that then
>> :-)
>>>Not with their mouths, no.
>
>> Or our minds. Something we know but you cannot.
>
>Oh look a spokesman for all atheists lol
As for the rest, since I have no good reason to believe
they are lying when they say they do not believe gods do not
exists I will not be crass and make unwarranted assumtions to the
contrary when I am not justified in doing so
If you think you know different then prove it
>>>> It would indeed be foolish to claim something which you cannot
>>>> show to be true but then we do not claim or believe there is a god
>>>> either.
>
>>>Atheists often claim things that cannot be shown to be true.
>
>> I am not responsible for what others are alleged to do. I suggest you
>> address these allegations directly to the ones concerned specifying
>> what you consider to be unfounded claims. That would be the honest
>> thing to do, yes, instead of vague insinuations like this one.
>
>Nothing vague about it, you are assuming what you cannot show. That is that
>all atheists are consistent logical rationalists.
not exists are being honest when I have no good reason to think
othewise. To do so would be crass and dishonest.
> Since there are some who
>are not then your case is already tricky.
>Of course if you are only speaking for yourself then you would say so, which
>would be honest, but you speak for "atheists" dontcha?
anybody of lying without good reason so to do.
Heck I have not even claimed I am always consistent logical and
rational. I can only claim that I try to be.
I do however know I am right not to believe in either the existence or
the non existence of the claimed gods when neither belief is
justified. If I know that is right then I know other atheists are
equally correct when they say the same.
I cannot speak for those who profess otherwise and made no
atempt so to do
>>>You are
>>>confusing ( as a lot of theists and atheists do) atheism with intelligence
>>>or stupidity. Atheism is a lack of belief in
>
>> ...the existence of..
>
>It has nothing to do with existence.
>
believe (some unstated aspect) 'in god' regardless of whether it
actually existed or not?
Fascinating
>>>gods,
>
>>>beyond that atheists have
>>>no common ground with each other.
>
>> Of course
>
>And yet you spoke for atheists earlier lol
do no exist. I speak for all of us now
>> We are atheist for one thing and one thing only. We are not theists.
>
>Actually no, an atheist is "without gods" which is not the opposite of
>theist.
atheist than one who is biassed against us and appears to wish to
impose his own strawman atheist on us.
>
>> glad you got something right.
>
>I haven't been wrong in this thread :-)
>
>> I was beginning to wonder.
>
>Of course, you have to....
>
Especially where Calvin Ramsey is concerned LOL
>> I was beginning to wonder.
>
>Of course, you have to....
>
>>> So atheists make all sorts of stupid,
>>>illogical, inconsistent and untrue statements every day.
>
>> Again I am not responsible for what other atheists are
>> alleged to do. I suggest you address these allegations directly
>> to the ones concerned specifying what you consider to
>> be untrue. That would be the honest thing to do, yes
>> instead of vague insinuations like this one.
>
>I don't have to address them silly. The world is full of people who do all
>sorts of things and among them are atheists.
> If
If indeed.
>you can show that atheists don't then please do. Otherwise you have passed the
>burden of proof for no logical reason.
am right not to believe gods either exist or do not exist without
justification. And since i know I am right all those other atheists
who think the same are right too. William Craig alse agree we
are right.
>> Yet we are all correct not to accept your wannahave gods actually
>> exist just on the say-so of those that wannahave them.
>
>I have no idea who wants to have a god or why wanting one would make one
>real to them in any way whatsoever. In fact your supposition merely
>reflects your illogical thinking.
>I am not a group and therefore you can know nothing about whether I want
>something or not, a point you made earlier (although about a group of people
>which means you cannot know it) but made badly and illogically. Silly you
>:-)
>
>>>> "For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
>>>> knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
>>>> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
>>>> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
>
>>>The very act of getting up in the morning requires faith in all sorts of
>>>things.
>
>>If you say so
>
>Try philosophy 101 about what we can know and what we must take on faith
>(that is what we cannot show but treat as true anyway - which would be
>acting on faith).
believe there are no gods even if there is no justification for doing
so I suggest you start a new thread preferably in a newsgoup
for philospohy where such discussion belong.
>
>>> The idea that atheists lack beliefs is just as silly as the idea
>>>that they don't believe that god doesn't exist.
>
>> Unsupported opinion dismissed
>
>I did support it - oh look the support follows.
>
>>> Actions speak louder than
>>>words, an open mind on the subject would require all sorts of actions and
>>>behaviours which most atheists don't exhibit.
>
>> Fortunately I do not answer for your straw atheists
but maybe I shall leave that to others to judge
>
>You cannot even answer for yourself.
Insult dismissed
>You cannot even answer for yourself.
>>>Now from the position of unbelief that works fine, but from the position
>>>of
>>>unbiased but interested spectator it doesn't.
>
>>Tough Cheddar
>
>It doesn,t bother me but it indicates that your actual position is not what
>you assert.
but I think I know why you wish to make them
Keep on trying Ramsey you are wasting your time with this
particular obsession. Whatever you say:
I am not theist if your please
I am not theist if you don't please
i do not believe there are any gods - not justified in doing so
I do not believe there are no gods - no justified in doing so
I have no beleifs regarding what is nothing more to me than
a three letter word
>>>Unlike a good deal of online atheists (generally the most combative and
>>>less
>>>intelligent of the bunch) some actual atheist will admit their denial of
>>>the
>>>existence of god and for good reason.
otherwise. I see no reason why any of us would wish to lie and
know of no reason to be crass and think they are.
>>>rationalism is somehow more reasonable than religion.
things.
If religion is not rational then it is irrational.
I agree
>
>> Well whatever, we all have the same lack of belief there are gods
>> which make us not theist and:
>
>> We are not theist if they please
>> We are not theist if they don't please.
>
>snip
>
>I am not bothered either way, I just resist the attempt to play the atheism
>= informed card.
your claimed wannahave gods thus have no justification for forming any
kind of belief about them.
The only thing that I am informed about concerning 'god' is that it is
a three letter word, it has two consonants, it has one vowel, and is
an anagram of dog.
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 25, 2013, 4:09:06 AM6/25/13
to
"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
> Flew. That is the main reason I knew he existed. I probably
> heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
> Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
> the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
I doubt you could name 10 eminent atheists
> I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
> form of medical quackery. They often cite one or another "famous"
> or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. They talk about the
> greatness of his or her reputation.
Famous or not wouldn't matter to an atheist.
Newton was a Christian so that means what to you?
snip
> Trying to support your position by artificially inflating the fame
> or reputation of somebody who agrees with it is a desperate act.
You mean like Dawkins? A "well known" biologist who nobody had really heard
of who cobbled together a book of old things and made a great name among
atheists by doing so?
Pot and Kettle me ole china
Phil
jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>May 19, 2013
snip
>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>May 19, 2013
> A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
> Flew. That is the main reason I knew he existed. I probably
> heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
> Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
> the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
> I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
> form of medical quackery. They often cite one or another "famous"
> or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. They talk about the
> greatness of his or her reputation.
Newton was a Christian so that means what to you?
snip
> Trying to support your position by artificially inflating the fame
> or reputation of somebody who agrees with it is a desperate act.
of who cobbled together a book of old things and made a great name among
atheists by doing so?
Pot and Kettle me ole china
Phil
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 25, 2013, 8:00:39 AM6/25/13
to
In article <Hecyt.69027$lb7....@fx31.am4>,
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
> >by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
> >http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
> >May 19, 2013
>
> snip
>
> > A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
> > Flew. That is the main reason I knew he existed. I probably
> > heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
> > Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
> > the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
>
> I doubt you could name 10 eminent atheists
>
> > I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
> > form of medical quackery. They often cite one or another "famous"
> > or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. They talk about the
> > greatness of his or her reputation.
>
> Famous or not wouldn't matter to an atheist.
>
> Newton was a Christian so that means what to you?
Newton was a heretic who was very lucky that he was never found out.
> "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
> >by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
> >http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
> >May 19, 2013
>
> snip
>
> > A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
> > Flew. That is the main reason I knew he existed. I probably
> > heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
> > Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
> > the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
>
> I doubt you could name 10 eminent atheists
>
> > I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
> > form of medical quackery. They often cite one or another "famous"
> > or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. They talk about the
> > greatness of his or her reputation.
>
> Famous or not wouldn't matter to an atheist.
>
> Newton was a Christian so that means what to you?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 25, 2013, 12:35:48 PM6/25/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-F45A25...@news.giganews.com...
In article <Hecyt.69027$lb7....@fx31.am4>,
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
> >by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
> >http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
> >May 19, 2013
snip
>> Newton was a Christian so that means what to you?
> Newton was a heretic who was very lucky that he was never found out.
I'm a heretic too
> Newton was a heretic who was very lucky that he was never found out.
So was Jesus
And Paul
Phil
David Canzi
Jun 25, 2013, 3:11:12 PM6/25/13
to
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
>>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>May 19, 2013
>
>snip
>
>> A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
>> Flew. That is the main reason I knew he existed. I probably
>> heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
>> Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
>> the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
>
>I doubt you could name 10 eminent atheists
>
>> I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
>> form of medical quackery. They often cite one or another "famous"
>> or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. They talk about the
>> greatness of his or her reputation.
>
>Famous or not wouldn't matter to an atheist.
>
>Newton was a Christian so that means what to you?
Nothing much. But I suspect it means a lot to you.
>"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
>>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>May 19, 2013
>
>snip
>
>> A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
>> Flew. That is the main reason I knew he existed. I probably
>> heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
>> Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
>> the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
>
>I doubt you could name 10 eminent atheists
>
>> I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
>> form of medical quackery. They often cite one or another "famous"
>> or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. They talk about the
>> greatness of his or her reputation.
>
>Famous or not wouldn't matter to an atheist.
>
>Newton was a Christian so that means what to you?
>> Trying to support your position by artificially inflating the fame
>> or reputation of somebody who agrees with it is a desperate act.
>
>You mean like Dawkins? A "well known" biologist who nobody had really heard
>of who cobbled together a book of old things and made a great name among
>atheists by doing so?
>
>Pot and Kettle me ole china
Isaac Newton's being a Christian means to me. Both of these show
your dependency on authority.
Authority is perhaps the only form of argument you're capable
of understanding. That would explain why you couldn't conceive
of my point being anything other than that I have some better
authority to follow than Antony Flew. And it's on the basis of
that misunderstanding that you chided me about pots and kettles.
My real point, which I will repeat now, is that it's an act
of desperation to exaggerate the fame of somebody who supports
(some of) your beliefs in order to make him seem authoritative.
If you need to do this, it shows that your beliefs rest on weak
foundations.
Ask yourself these questions: Before you started hearing that
Antony Flew, the "world's most notorious atheist", had come to
believe in God, how much did you know about him? If you knew
little or nothing about him before that, then on what grounds do
you believe he was so "notorious"? Why would Dr. Benjamin Wiker
want to exaggerate Antony Flew's fame?
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 25, 2013, 5:28:39 PM6/25/13
to
"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> You asked if I could name 10 eminent atheists. And you asked what
> Isaac Newton's being a Christian means to me. Both of these show
> your dependency on authority.
No, what they show is the fallacy of your argument. You claimed that the
person wasn't an eminent atheist yet you are unable to provide names of such
so clearly your claim to know whether he was eminent or not is false.
I then mentioned a famous person who was a Christina to show the fallacious
nature of your issue with whether famous people are associated with
Christianity.
Basically I shredded your post and you helped me do it.
> Authority is perhaps the only form of argument you're capable
> of understanding. That would explain why you couldn't conceive
> of my point being anything other than that I have some better
> authority to follow than Antony Flew. And it's on the basis of
> that misunderstanding that you chided me about pots and kettles.
No, I merely pointed out that all sides spin information. While also
shredding your argument which was fallacy ridden.
> My real point, which I will repeat now, is that it's an act
> of desperation to exaggerate the fame of somebody who supports
> (some of) your beliefs in order to make him seem authoritative.
> If you need to do this, it shows that your beliefs rest on weak
> foundations.
Your point is nonsensical. You haven't shown that his fame was exaggerated
you have merely asserted it. Your "evidence" is your say so. It doesn't get
much more fallacious than that.
The motivation for the action is not something you can know and it says
nothing about the strength or weakness of the foundations of the beliefs of
the person who posted it. If I need to explain why I shall but even an
average thinker should be able to see why.
> Ask yourself these questions: Before you started hearing that
> Antony Flew, the "world's most notorious atheist", had come to
> believe in God, how much did you know about him? If you knew
> little or nothing about him before that, then on what grounds do
> you believe he was so "notorious"? Why would Dr. Benjamin Wiker
> want to exaggerate Antony Flew's fame?
The issue of whether Mr Flew was or was not famous, was notorious or even
was an atheist doesn't interest me at all. Your daft argument just needing
pulling apart because it was so silly.
I know very little about what famous atheists do, unless they are shameless
publicists I doubt I will ever hear of them. Most of the high profile
atheists I have encountered have been utopians which is the most absurd form
of atheism imaginable, there is a rather excellent book (by a prominent US
atheist) on just how silly utopian atheism is. Once again I can explain why
utopian atheism is absurd if you really need me to but a simple sit and
think about it should be enough for most people.
I don't believe because someone else believes, such a position wouldn't be
faith but merely herd mentality and although herd mentality has much to
commend it I have yet to see any sort of an argument that suggest it
provides a sound basis for moral, ethical or religious decision making.
Phil Saunders
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
>>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>May 19, 2013
>
>snip
snip
>"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
>
>>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>May 19, 2013
>
>snip
> You asked if I could name 10 eminent atheists. And you asked what
> Isaac Newton's being a Christian means to me. Both of these show
> your dependency on authority.
person wasn't an eminent atheist yet you are unable to provide names of such
so clearly your claim to know whether he was eminent or not is false.
I then mentioned a famous person who was a Christina to show the fallacious
nature of your issue with whether famous people are associated with
Christianity.
Basically I shredded your post and you helped me do it.
> Authority is perhaps the only form of argument you're capable
> of understanding. That would explain why you couldn't conceive
> of my point being anything other than that I have some better
> authority to follow than Antony Flew. And it's on the basis of
> that misunderstanding that you chided me about pots and kettles.
shredding your argument which was fallacy ridden.
> My real point, which I will repeat now, is that it's an act
> of desperation to exaggerate the fame of somebody who supports
> (some of) your beliefs in order to make him seem authoritative.
> If you need to do this, it shows that your beliefs rest on weak
> foundations.
you have merely asserted it. Your "evidence" is your say so. It doesn't get
much more fallacious than that.
The motivation for the action is not something you can know and it says
nothing about the strength or weakness of the foundations of the beliefs of
the person who posted it. If I need to explain why I shall but even an
average thinker should be able to see why.
> Ask yourself these questions: Before you started hearing that
> Antony Flew, the "world's most notorious atheist", had come to
> believe in God, how much did you know about him? If you knew
> little or nothing about him before that, then on what grounds do
> you believe he was so "notorious"? Why would Dr. Benjamin Wiker
> want to exaggerate Antony Flew's fame?
was an atheist doesn't interest me at all. Your daft argument just needing
pulling apart because it was so silly.
I know very little about what famous atheists do, unless they are shameless
publicists I doubt I will ever hear of them. Most of the high profile
atheists I have encountered have been utopians which is the most absurd form
of atheism imaginable, there is a rather excellent book (by a prominent US
atheist) on just how silly utopian atheism is. Once again I can explain why
utopian atheism is absurd if you really need me to but a simple sit and
think about it should be enough for most people.
I don't believe because someone else believes, such a position wouldn't be
faith but merely herd mentality and although herd mentality has much to
commend it I have yet to see any sort of an argument that suggest it
provides a sound basis for moral, ethical or religious decision making.
Phil Saunders
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 25, 2013, 10:25:41 PM6/25/13
to
In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
Utopian atheism? What the fuck is that?
Olrik
Jun 25, 2013, 11:57:40 PM6/25/13
to
Le 2013-06-25 12:35, philip....@ntlworld.com a �crit :
What a funny religion:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies>
> Phil
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies>
> Phil
Olrik
Jun 26, 2013, 12:00:13 AM6/26/13
to
Le 2013-06-25 22:25, Jeanne Douglas a �crit :
Basic xian intellectual dishonesty. Ya know, their bread & butter for
the last 20 centuries, give or take.
the last 20 centuries, give or take.
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 26, 2013, 3:13:21 AM6/26/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-A6B9D8...@news.giganews.com...
In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
snip
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Utopian atheism? What the fuck is that?
That they do not realise the utopian nature of their thinking is what makes
it so silly.
Phil
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 26, 2013, 3:21:36 AM6/26/13
to
In article <qwwyt.107943$6w5....@fx21.am4>,
How can I know if I'm one if I've never even heard of it and, therefore,
have no clue what it is.
Definition, please?
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-A6B9D8...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > >jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Utopian atheism? What the fuck is that?
>
> It is the form of atheism most often held by atheists.
That's not an answer. It doesn't tell me what it is.
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-A6B9D8...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > >jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Utopian atheism? What the fuck is that?
>
> It is the form of atheism most often held by atheists.
How can I know if I'm one if I've never even heard of it and, therefore,
have no clue what it is.
Definition, please?
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 26, 2013, 3:28:10 AM6/26/13
to
"Olrik" wrote in message news:kqdon3$6q0$5...@dont-email.me...
>> Utopian atheism? What the fuck is that?
> Basic xian intellectual dishonesty. Ya know, their bread & butter for the
> last 20 centuries, give or take.
Or not.
Read
Ayn Rand (pro)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XjFF9H7mxl8C&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=utopian+atheism&source=bl&ots=R5z-8pbqH4&sig=hkoBKHc_HgxgH32c1NsHPEd0GH4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b5bKUfy1Meeb0AW2-YGYBQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=utopian%20atheism&f=false
John Gray (anti)
and so much other stuff about and by atheists.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment it is merely a non
belief.
Phil
Le 2013-06-25 22:25, Jeanne Douglas a �crit :
> In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
>>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
snip
> In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
>>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> Utopian atheism? What the fuck is that?
> Basic xian intellectual dishonesty. Ya know, their bread & butter for the
> last 20 centuries, give or take.
Read
Ayn Rand (pro)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XjFF9H7mxl8C&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=utopian+atheism&source=bl&ots=R5z-8pbqH4&sig=hkoBKHc_HgxgH32c1NsHPEd0GH4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b5bKUfy1Meeb0AW2-YGYBQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=utopian%20atheism&f=false
John Gray (anti)
and so much other stuff about and by atheists.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment it is merely a non
belief.
Phil
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 26, 2013, 3:36:19 AM6/26/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-F0490B...@news.giganews.com...
In article <qwwyt.107943$6w5....@fx21.am4>,
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-A6B9D8...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "David Canzi" wrote in message
> > news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >"David Canzi" wrote in message
> > >news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > >jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
snip
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-A6B9D8...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "David Canzi" wrote in message
> > news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >"David Canzi" wrote in message
> > >news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > >jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
snip
>> It is the form of atheism most often held by atheists.
> That's not an answer. It doesn't tell me what it is.
> How can I know if I'm one if I've never even heard of it and, therefore,
> have no clue what it is.
> Definition, please?
I have provided some information in another post but fundamentally it is
> That's not an answer. It doesn't tell me what it is.
> How can I know if I'm one if I've never even heard of it and, therefore,
> have no clue what it is.
> Definition, please?
rationalism as a faith, the belief that reason and logic (science etc) and
getting rid of religion etc will lead to a better world.
Dawkins is such a thinker.
It has phases of being popular and then the more enlightened atheists point
out how silly it is but they don't get the same headlines because they are
not abrasive in the same way.
Phil
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 26, 2013, 3:55:49 AM6/26/13
to
In article <ZRwyt.66366$9H6....@fx22.am4>,
How is that utopian?
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 26, 2013, 3:57:03 AM6/26/13
to
In article <jKwyt.71282$lb7....@fx31.am4>,
crap.
> Le 2013-06-25 22:25, Jeanne Douglas a écrit :
> > In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> >>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> Utopian atheism? What the fuck is that?
>
> > Basic xian intellectual dishonesty. Ya know, their bread & butter for the
> > last 20 centuries, give or take.
>
> Or not.
>
> Read
>
> Ayn Rand (pro)
I'm not a college freshman, so I'm definitely not the audience for her
> > In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> "David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> >>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> Utopian atheism? What the fuck is that?
>
> > Basic xian intellectual dishonesty. Ya know, their bread & butter for the
> > last 20 centuries, give or take.
>
> Or not.
>
> Read
>
> Ayn Rand (pro)
crap.
> and so much other stuff about and by atheists.
>
> Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment it is merely a non
> belief.
Who says it's enlightenment? Nobody I know.
>
> Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment it is merely a non
> belief.
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 26, 2013, 6:57:14 AM6/26/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-B62B7F...@news.giganews.com...
In article <jKwyt.71282$lb7....@fx31.am4>,
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kqdon3$6q0$5...@dont-email.me...
> Le 2013-06-25 22:25, Jeanne Douglas a écrit :
> > In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> >> news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> >>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
snip
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Olrik" wrote in message news:kqdon3$6q0$5...@dont-email.me...
> Le 2013-06-25 22:25, Jeanne Douglas a écrit :
> > In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> >> news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> >>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> >>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
snip
>> Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment it is merely a
>> non
>> belief.
> Who says it's enlightenment? Nobody I know.
You haven't heard of Dawkins?
>> non
>> belief.
> Who says it's enlightenment? Nobody I know.
How odd
Phil
Les
Jun 26, 2013, 9:58:24 AM6/26/13
to
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:28:10 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment
> it is merely a non belief.
.. as a result of enlightenment.
If you accept it is merely non (religious) belief then what is your
beef about?
True it came about when people started to enlighten themselves as to
the falsity of religion and realised it is based entirely on the
say-so of relgious people past and present. Well so much for
religion, we never needed it anyway.
My thinking comes not from being atheist, it was my thinking that kept
me atheist in the first place. If that is seen as utopian by the
relgious so be it, their opinions are usually hostile towards us
anyway as expected and need not concern me.
True it is useful to know what lies they tell so we
can expose them here for all to see. The religious excel
when it comes to discrediting themselves :-)
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "
- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010
wrote:
<snip>
>Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment
> it is merely a non belief.
If you accept it is merely non (religious) belief then what is your
beef about?
True it came about when people started to enlighten themselves as to
the falsity of religion and realised it is based entirely on the
say-so of relgious people past and present. Well so much for
religion, we never needed it anyway.
My thinking comes not from being atheist, it was my thinking that kept
me atheist in the first place. If that is seen as utopian by the
relgious so be it, their opinions are usually hostile towards us
anyway as expected and need not concern me.
True it is useful to know what lies they tell so we
can expose them here for all to see. The religious excel
when it comes to discrediting themselves :-)
--
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "
- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 26, 2013, 12:05:03 PM6/26/13
to
> "Les" wrote in message news:cqpls8he79mdirbov...@4ax.com...
the default state) then one is not an atheist because one is enlightened but
because one just is.
Adults who become atheists do not do so because they are enlightened but
because they form a pov based upon the same sort of data as those that
become religious, personal experience.
> If you accept it is merely non (religious) belief then what is your beef
> about?
I don't have a beef with atheism just the hypocrisy of a certain kind of
atheists who claim enlightenment is the source of atheism.
> True it came about when people started to enlighten themselves as to
> the falsity of religion and realised it is based entirely on the
> say-so of relgious people past and present. Well so much for
> religion, we never needed it anyway.
Atheism didn't come about as a result of any such events. If that were the
case then there would be no theists who are ex atheist would there?
> My thinking comes not from being atheist, it was my thinking that kept
> me atheist in the first place. If that is seen as utopian by the
> relgious so be it, their opinions are usually hostile towards us
> anyway as expected and need not concern me.
You clearly have no understanding of the basis of a lot of atheism. Nor of
atheist utopian thinking. That makes you pretty average for an atheist.
In fact any non nihilistic atheist is so confused so as to need mental
assesment.
> True it is useful to know what lies they tell so we
> can expose them here for all to see. The religious excel
> when it comes to discrediting themselves :-)
Truth is, of course, as subjective as anything else. But I expect you knew
that?
lol
Phil
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:28:10 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment
>> it is merely a non belief.
> .. as a result of enlightenment.
As if. If one starts as an atheist (most atheists believe that atheism is
> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment
>> it is merely a non belief.
> .. as a result of enlightenment.
the default state) then one is not an atheist because one is enlightened but
because one just is.
Adults who become atheists do not do so because they are enlightened but
because they form a pov based upon the same sort of data as those that
become religious, personal experience.
> If you accept it is merely non (religious) belief then what is your beef
> about?
atheists who claim enlightenment is the source of atheism.
> True it came about when people started to enlighten themselves as to
> the falsity of religion and realised it is based entirely on the
> say-so of relgious people past and present. Well so much for
> religion, we never needed it anyway.
case then there would be no theists who are ex atheist would there?
> My thinking comes not from being atheist, it was my thinking that kept
> me atheist in the first place. If that is seen as utopian by the
> relgious so be it, their opinions are usually hostile towards us
> anyway as expected and need not concern me.
atheist utopian thinking. That makes you pretty average for an atheist.
In fact any non nihilistic atheist is so confused so as to need mental
assesment.
> True it is useful to know what lies they tell so we
> can expose them here for all to see. The religious excel
> when it comes to discrediting themselves :-)
that?
lol
Phil
David Canzi
Jun 26, 2013, 2:30:03 PM6/26/13
to
capital-E Enlightenment, where a person has seen through every
illusion and is no longer fooled by any of them? Atheism certainly
isn't that. But to see through just one illusion and no longer
believe it is an enlightenment. Not the first, not the last,
not the greatest, just one enlightenment.
Were you aware that your responses in this thread are cross-posted
to alt.atheism? Some tricksters like to cross-post provocative
articles between alt.atheism and religious newsgroups. Most
people who respond don't notice that their responses are being
cross-posted. What the tricksters want is to enjoy watching the
fight their article started.
Christopher A. Lee
Jun 26, 2013, 4:26:52 PM6/26/13
to
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:09:06 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
A standard lie from fundamentalists.
Antony Flew was a philosopher who in his declining years was conned by
a lying fundamentalist who misrepresented the state of scientific
understanding and used the argument from ignorance which would have
caused Flew to flunk his students a few years earlier.
Richard Carrier documented all this into his senility where his books
were ghost-written by American fundamentalists and he was completely
unaware of anything.
>>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>May 19, 2013
>
>snip
>
>> A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
>> Flew. That is the main reason I knew he existed. I probably
>> heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
>> Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
>> the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
>
>I doubt you could name 10 eminent atheists
In spite of what stupid, lying theists nastily insist about us to us,
there is nothing to atheism and there are no atheist leaders to tell
us what to or not to believe.
The same stupid theists cannot think outside their religion and their
falsehoods about us project themselves.
But people outside their religion cannot be describes as though its
doctrines, tenets and presumptions even applied outside it.
Any more than eg Christians cannot be described as if Hindu tenets
applied to them.
>> I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
>> form of medical quackery. They often cite one or another "famous"
>> or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. They talk about the
>> greatness of his or her reputation.
>
>Famous or not wouldn't matter to an atheist.
>
>Newton was a Christian so that means what to you?
Perhaps he was once, but in the light of his discoveries he became a
mechanist, an early form of deist who believed in a god that set
things up initially and then left the universe to run itself
according to the laws of physics he had discovered.
>snip
>
>> Trying to support your position by artificially inflating the fame
>> or reputation of somebody who agrees with it is a desperate act.
>
>You mean like Dawkins? A "well known" biologist who nobody had really heard
>of who cobbled together a book of old things and made a great name among
>atheists by doing so?
Falsehood noted.
He was hardly obscure, and his job was in the public understanding of
science - which brought him to the attention of creationists and
fundamentalists who publicly impugned his integrity in a field which
requires absolute honesty - and he responded.
.
Why can't theists stop lying about those who don't put up with their
appalling behaviour?
>Phil
>
wrote:
>"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
Antony Flew was a philosopher who in his declining years was conned by
a lying fundamentalist who misrepresented the state of scientific
understanding and used the argument from ignorance which would have
caused Flew to flunk his students a few years earlier.
Richard Carrier documented all this into his senility where his books
were ghost-written by American fundamentalists and he was completely
unaware of anything.
>>by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>>http://www.strangenotions.com/flew/
>>May 19, 2013
>
>snip
>
>> A very long time ago I read an introductory logic book by Antony
>> Flew. That is the main reason I knew he existed. I probably
>> heard about him on a few other occasions, but none I can remember.
>> Then suddenly one day I started seeing articles describing him as
>> the famous or eminient or notorious atheist who became a believer.
>
>I doubt you could name 10 eminent atheists
there is nothing to atheism and there are no atheist leaders to tell
us what to or not to believe.
The same stupid theists cannot think outside their religion and their
falsehoods about us project themselves.
But people outside their religion cannot be describes as though its
doctrines, tenets and presumptions even applied outside it.
Any more than eg Christians cannot be described as if Hindu tenets
applied to them.
>> I see a similar phenomenon in articles supporting one or another
>> form of medical quackery. They often cite one or another "famous"
>> or "eminent" scientist I've never heard of. They talk about the
>> greatness of his or her reputation.
>
>Famous or not wouldn't matter to an atheist.
>
>Newton was a Christian so that means what to you?
mechanist, an early form of deist who believed in a god that set
things up initially and then left the universe to run itself
according to the laws of physics he had discovered.
>snip
>
>> Trying to support your position by artificially inflating the fame
>> or reputation of somebody who agrees with it is a desperate act.
>
>You mean like Dawkins? A "well known" biologist who nobody had really heard
>of who cobbled together a book of old things and made a great name among
>atheists by doing so?
He was hardly obscure, and his job was in the public understanding of
science - which brought him to the attention of creationists and
fundamentalists who publicly impugned his integrity in a field which
requires absolute honesty - and he responded.
.
>Pot and Kettle me ole china
Chalk and cheese, imbecile.
Why can't theists stop lying about those who don't put up with their
appalling behaviour?
>Phil
>
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 26, 2013, 4:50:19 PM6/26/13
to
In article <ViEyt.1$3n...@fx19.am4>, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> > "Les" wrote in message news:cqpls8he79mdirbov...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:28:10 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment
> >> it is merely a non belief.
>
> > .. as a result of enlightenment.
>
> As if. If one starts as an atheist (most atheists believe that atheism is
> the default state) then one is not an atheist because one is enlightened but
> because one just is.
>
> Adults who become atheists do not do so because they are enlightened but
> because they form a pov based upon the same sort of data as those that
> become religious, personal experience.
>
> > If you accept it is merely non (religious) belief then what is your beef
> > about?
>
> I don't have a beef with atheism just the hypocrisy of a certain kind of
> atheists who claim enlightenment is the source of atheism.
>
> > True it came about when people started to enlighten themselves as to
> > the falsity of religion and realised it is based entirely on the
> > say-so of relgious people past and present. Well so much for
> > religion, we never needed it anyway.
>
> Atheism didn't come about as a result of any such events. If that were the
> case then there would be no theists who are ex atheist would there?
Why not?
wrote:
> > "Les" wrote in message news:cqpls8he79mdirbov...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:28:10 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment
> >> it is merely a non belief.
>
> > .. as a result of enlightenment.
>
> As if. If one starts as an atheist (most atheists believe that atheism is
> the default state) then one is not an atheist because one is enlightened but
> because one just is.
>
> Adults who become atheists do not do so because they are enlightened but
> because they form a pov based upon the same sort of data as those that
> become religious, personal experience.
>
> > If you accept it is merely non (religious) belief then what is your beef
> > about?
>
> I don't have a beef with atheism just the hypocrisy of a certain kind of
> atheists who claim enlightenment is the source of atheism.
>
> > True it came about when people started to enlighten themselves as to
> > the falsity of religion and realised it is based entirely on the
> > say-so of relgious people past and present. Well so much for
> > religion, we never needed it anyway.
>
> Atheism didn't come about as a result of any such events. If that were the
> case then there would be no theists who are ex atheist would there?
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 26, 2013, 4:53:01 PM6/26/13
to
In article <kOzyt.121784$jM6....@fx13.am4>,
Provide evidence that he said what you claim he said.
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 26, 2013, 5:32:24 PM6/26/13
to
"David Canzi" wrote in message news:kqfbvb$ncv$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Olrik" wrote in message news:kqdon3$6q0$5...@dont-email.me...
>Le 2013-06-25 22:25, Jeanne Douglas a �crit :
>> In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
>> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
>>> news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>>> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
>>>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>>>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
snip
>"Olrik" wrote in message news:kqdon3$6q0$5...@dont-email.me...
>Le 2013-06-25 22:25, Jeanne Douglas a �crit :
>> In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
>> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
>>> news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>>> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
>>>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>>>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
snip
>>Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment it is merely a
>>non
>>belief.
> What do you mean by enlightenment? Do you mean some kind of
> capital-E Enlightenment, where a person has seen through every
> illusion and is no longer fooled by any of them? Atheism certainly
> isn't that. But to see through just one illusion and no longer
> believe it is an enlightenment. Not the first, not the last,
> not the greatest, just one enlightenment.
Atheism is neither of those. Atheism is a subjective response to a
>>non
>>belief.
> What do you mean by enlightenment? Do you mean some kind of
> capital-E Enlightenment, where a person has seen through every
> illusion and is no longer fooled by any of them? Atheism certainly
> isn't that. But to see through just one illusion and no longer
> believe it is an enlightenment. Not the first, not the last,
> not the greatest, just one enlightenment.
subjective experience. Just as theism is a subjective response to a
subjective experience. Just as supporting West Ham is a subjective response
to a subjective experience.
Ideas of "enlightenment" where the field is not mathematics or science are
merely changes in opinion over egged.
> Were you aware that your responses in this thread are cross-posted
> to alt.atheism? Some tricksters like to cross-post provocative
> articles between alt.atheism and religious newsgroups. Most
> people who respond don't notice that their responses are being
> cross-posted. What the tricksters want is to enjoy watching the
> fight their article started.
I shall leave you a response and then drop it.
Phil
philip....@ntlworld.com
Jun 26, 2013, 5:39:12 PM6/26/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-E08ABA...@news.giganews.com...
In article <kOzyt.121784$jM6....@fx13.am4>,
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-B62B7F...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <jKwyt.71282$lb7....@fx31.am4>,
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Olrik" wrote in message news:kqdon3$6q0$5...@dont-email.me...
> > Le 2013-06-25 22:25, Jeanne Douglas a �crit :
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-B62B7F...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <jKwyt.71282$lb7....@fx31.am4>,
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Olrik" wrote in message news:kqdon3$6q0$5...@dont-email.me...
> > > In article <hYnyt.109831$ie7....@fx35.am4>,
> > > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> > >> news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > >> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> > >>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > >>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
snip
> > > <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> > >> news:kqcq0g$rbg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > >> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >>> "David Canzi" wrote in message
> > >>> news:kndq4c$l0f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> > >>> jwshe...@satx.rr.com <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
snip
>> > Who says it's enlightenment? Nobody I know.
>> You haven't heard of Dawkins?
>> How odd
> Provide evidence that he said what you claim he said.
The God Delusion would be a good place for you to start if you really were
>> You haven't heard of Dawkins?
>> How odd
> Provide evidence that he said what you claim he said.
not aware that Mr Dawkins believes that giving up religion is enlightenment.
I don't defend religious people just because they are religious so why do
atheists defend other atheists who are equally as absurd as some religious
people?
The idea that Dawkins was famous before his belligerent anti theist stance
is laughable. I doubt he is even well known now. Try stopping 50 people in
the street and asking "Do you know who Richard Dawkins is?" I reckon only
atheists and Christians will know and then not all of them.
There are some far better balanced and rational atheists out there, wouldn't
supporting their work be the more rational thing to do?
Phil
Les
Jun 27, 2013, 7:42:01 AM6/27/13
to
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:50:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <ViEyt.1$3n...@fx19.am4>, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>> > "Les" wrote in message news:cqpls8he79mdirbov...@4ax.com...
>> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:28:10 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> >> Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment
>> >> it is merely a non belief.
>>
>> > .. as a result of enlightenment.
>>
>> As if. If one starts as an atheist (most atheists believe that atheism is
>> the default state) then one is not an atheist because one is enlightened but
>> because one just is.
Correct but as I wrote (and which was dishonestly snipped unflagged)
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <ViEyt.1$3n...@fx19.am4>, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>> > "Les" wrote in message news:cqpls8he79mdirbov...@4ax.com...
>> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:28:10 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> >> Wake up and smell the coffee. Atheism isn't enlightenment
>> >> it is merely a non belief.
>>
>> > .. as a result of enlightenment.
>>
>> As if. If one starts as an atheist (most atheists believe that atheism is
>> the default state) then one is not an atheist because one is enlightened but
>> because one just is.
"My thinking comes not from being atheist, it was my thinking that
kept me atheist in the first place. If that is seen as utopian by the
relgious so be it, their opinions are usually hostile towards us
anyway as expected and need not concern me."
prefix a-)
>>
>> Adults who become atheists do not do so because they are enlightened but
>> because they form a pov based upon the same sort of data as those that
>> become religious, personal experience.
>>
>> > If you accept it is merely non (religious) belief then what is your beef
>> > about?
>>
>> I don't have a beef with atheism just the hypocrisy of a certain kind of
>> atheists who claim enlightenment is the source of atheism.
how people are increasingly coming to realise that the Christian (and
other ) religion depends entirely on people accepting their divers
claims entirely on their say-so since they are seemingly unable
to offer any meaningful evidence to justify accepting any their
religious claims.
So all this talk of Rennaissance, utopionism, New atheists,
gnostics and so on is nothing more than a distraction from the fact
that religion is nothing more than a sham or con trick which they
were able to impose in the past but not longer can do so to anything
like the same extent here in the west.
>> > True it came about when people started to enlighten themselves as to
>> > the falsity of religion and realised it is based entirely on the
>> > say-so of relgious people past and present. Well so much for
>> > religion, we never needed it anyway.
>>
>> Atheism didn't come about as a result of any such events. If that were the
>> case then there would be no theists who are ex atheist would there?
nothing attitude
>Why not?
There are all kinds of reasons why people still adopt and cling to
ignorance and superstition as presented by the religious. The
indocrination of adolescents by religious parent is a major factor
which many people now no longer theist found difficult and painful to
drop. That cycle is being increasingly broken. The fear factor (part
of the indoctrination) wishful thinking, a tendancy to be swayed by
emotion rather than reason, the desire to control others through
religion. Simple stupidity (which is manifested by many of the theist
who post here) and social factors such as tradition or peer pressure
to 'conform' and so.
Steve Hayes
Jun 27, 2013, 7:55:08 AM6/27/13
to
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably persistent,
I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most notorious atheist"
is probably a moot point.
I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But he's
certainly one of the most vociferous.
And I haven't seen any evidence that he's changed his mind.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://khanya.wordpress.com
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad, see:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably persistent,
I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most notorious atheist"
is probably a moot point.
I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But he's
certainly one of the most vociferous.
And I haven't seen any evidence that he's changed his mind.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://khanya.wordpress.com
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
For information about why crossposting is (usually) good, and multiposting (nearly always) bad, see:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
Barry OGrady
Jun 27, 2013, 8:31:01 AM6/27/13
to
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:55:08 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>
>> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>
>I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably persistent,
>I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most notorious atheist"
>is probably a moot point.
>
>I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But he's
>certainly one of the most vociferous.
>
>And I haven't seen any evidence that he's changed his mind.
No reason why he should.
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>
>> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr. Benjamin Wiker
>
>I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably persistent,
>I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most notorious atheist"
>is probably a moot point.
>
>I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But he's
>certainly one of the most vociferous.
>
>And I haven't seen any evidence that he's changed his mind.
>--
>Steve Hayes
==============
Evolution can't exist because
Gladys won't allow it
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Jun 28, 2013, 4:20:00 AM6/28/13
to
"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
news:tp9os85156e5p32a7...@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr.
>> Benjamin Wiker
>I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably
>persistent,
>I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most notorious
>atheist"
>is probably a moot point.
>I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But
>he's
>certainly one of the most vociferous.
Jeff...
Steve Hayes
Jun 28, 2013, 5:31:54 AM6/28/13
to
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Wilson
Jun 28, 2013, 1:04:39 PM6/28/13
to
On 28/06/2013 10:31, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:20:00 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>> news:tp9os85156e5p32a7...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>
>>>> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr.
>>>> Benjamin Wiker
>>
>>> I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably
>>> persistent,
>>> I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most notorious
>>> atheist"
>>> is probably a moot point.
>>
>>> I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But
>>> he's
>>> certainly one of the most vociferous.
>>
>> Poor man, wasting his precious life on foolish buffoonery.....{;o;}
>
> But if the subject line is to be believed, he's repented.
>
>
He died in 2010.
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:20:00 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>> news:tp9os85156e5p32a7...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>
>>>> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr.
>>>> Benjamin Wiker
>>
>>> I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably
>>> persistent,
>>> I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most notorious
>>> atheist"
>>> is probably a moot point.
>>
>>> I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But
>>> he's
>>> certainly one of the most vociferous.
>>
>> Poor man, wasting his precious life on foolish buffoonery.....{;o;}
>
> But if the subject line is to be believed, he's repented.
>
>
Anthony Flew became a theist of a sort, I think mainly because he was
persuaded by the fine-tuning of the universe, but I don't think he
became a Christian. I would say that for those atheists who have
trouble conceiving of an atheist ever becoming a theist, he is
notorious, as evidenced by accusations of 'mental decline' to explain
away his change of mind. However, for the Christian, it is Richard
Dawkins who is notorious because of his angry misrepresentation of
Christianity. I personally view Dawkins as discredited because, to my
knowledge, he never countered the serious criticism of his book 'The God
Delusion' by Prof. William Craig. I also think the new atheism, which
fed on the Twin Towers atrocity to paint all religions in the same mould
as radical Islam is now running out of steam. People now see through
this.
Steve Wilson
Christopher A. Lee
Jun 28, 2013, 2:18:30 PM6/28/13
to
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 18:04:39 +0100, Steve Wilson
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 28/06/2013 10:31, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:20:00 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>> <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>>> news:tp9os85156e5p32a7...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr.
>>>>> Benjamin Wiker
>>>
>>>> I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably
>>>> persistent,
>>>> I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most notorious
>>>> atheist"
>>>> is probably a moot point.
>>>
>>>> I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But
>>>> he's
>>>> certainly one of the most vociferous.
>>>
>>> Poor man, wasting his precious life on foolish buffoonery.....{;o;}
More evidence that theists are seriously mentally ill.
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 28/06/2013 10:31, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:20:00 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>> <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>>> news:tp9os85156e5p32a7...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr.
>>>>> Benjamin Wiker
>>>
>>>> I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably
>>>> persistent,
>>>> I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most notorious
>>>> atheist"
>>>> is probably a moot point.
>>>
>>>> I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But
>>>> he's
>>>> certainly one of the most vociferous.
>>>
>>> Poor man, wasting his precious life on foolish buffoonery.....{;o;}
>> But if the subject line is to be believed, he's repented.
repent?
>He died in 2010.
>
>Anthony Flew became a theist of a sort, I think mainly because he was
>persuaded by the fine-tuning of the universe,
science and who tricked him by shifting the burden of proof and the
argument from ignorance - "you can't explain it therefore it must have
been a god I know you don't already believe in".
.
And it wasn't "fine tuning", which is impossible to demonstrate, but
the long discredited first cause and "something from nothing".
Even if quantum mechanics hadn't discredited the initial premise, the
unjustified "conclusion" moves the goalposts by introducing something
that violates it with no justification whatsoever.
After the "argument" has gone beyond anywhere were there is any
knowledge to stop at an arbitrary point with no reason to do so in
violation of information theory.
Followed up by the argument from ignorance.
He was already losing his faculties because he would have flunked
students a decade earlier for using it.
Not because he was atheist but because of the violation of basic
logic.
Basic logic he had obviously forgotten in the intervening years.
Why do you feel the need to lie about us by inventing motivations that
aren't there?
Richard Carrier has documented his decline to the point that he wasn't
even aware his last books had been ghost-written by American
evangelical fundamentalists. A few months before his death he flew to
the US to receive a "prize" for his contribution to religion and was
completely unaware of what was happening.
In spite of your lies about and to atheists.
Is it any surprise we have such a low opinion of so many Christians?
> but I don't think he
>became a Christian. I would say that for those atheists who have
>trouble conceiving of an atheist ever becoming a theist, he is
to understand why they reached that CONCLUSION.
Yet Christians don't seem to understand why this sort of thing
generates the negative reaction they dismiss as "new atheism".
Do you do this on purpose?
It does happen occasionally - but the vast majority of claimed
"ex-atheists" can't seem to understand that you already have to be
some kind of Christian to find arguments based on Christian
presumptions atheists don't even have.
I personally know one - an atheist who went through the motions of
conversion to marry a Catholic woman. Thirty years later he was
genuinely baptised. the result of a decades of immersion and
reinforcement.
It's NEVER for the "reasons" Christians who can't think outside the
box imagine.
Eg Lewis had to be some kind of Christian to make a connection between
morals and a god he claims he didn't believe in at the time.
An atheist ALWAYS has better explanations.
That's like blaming the fairies at the bottom of the garden when your
trowel goes missing.
But the majority of Christians can't see outside the box to understand
this.
It's usually transparent bullshit like "realising when I read the
Bible (which they didn't believe in the first place) that God (which
they didn't believe in either) loved them" when they had to be some
kind of Christian already to believe that.
>notorious, as evidenced by accusations of 'mental decline' to explain
>away his change of mind.
It's documented by Richard Carrier, so why lie about this?
Do you do it on purpose?
The link has even been given earlier in this thread...
Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article369.html
I suggest you read it for comprehension.
> However, for the Christian, it is Richard
>Dawkins who is notorious because of his angry misrepresentation of
>Christianity.
He simply doesn't see it through the Christian's rose tinted glasses.
And you yourself give an example of what the delusion does to a mind.
Just like the rest of us he wouldn't give Christianity a thought if
Christians kept it among themselves.
If they didn't lie about and to those out side their religion who
don't share their beliefs.
And if they didn't make ridiculous claims outside it.
But they are psychologically incapable of that.
Quite frankly, any theist who talks as if their beliefs were fact
outside their religion, is an idiot.
And "new atheists" is a dishonest rationalisation for that.
Do you have any better word than "delusion" for somebody who believes
in Genesis creation, the Garden of End, Noah's flood or virgin births?
>I personally view Dawkins as discredited because, to my
>knowledge, he never countered the serious criticism of his book 'The God
>Delusion' by Prof. William Craig.
theist.
They dismiss it with ad hominems like anger rather than address the
reasons he says what he does - of which you give a low level example.
Craig is just another thoroughly dishonest Liar For God.
He repeats the same fallacious "arguments" no matter how often they
are debunked, rattling off points too fast to think about them so if
you do you miss several steps.
He is also a two-faced liar saying with a public face and a different
persona in front of Christians where he resorts to vicious lies about
atheists.
Thunderf00t shows both faces in his videos about him on youtube.
Whether you, Craig or any other Christian, your god belief IS a
delusion in the real world because it is no different from all the
hundreds of other gods out there UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE OTHERWISE.
Especially when you talk as if it were real and true.
Dawkins simply sees Christianity from outside, seeing Christian claims
in the real world - whether they are for their fairy stories or their
claims that Christianity makes people more moral which is certainly
untrue.
> I also think the new atheism, which
>fed on the Twin Towers atrocity to paint all religions in the same mould
So called "new atheism" is atheists no longer putting up with the
behaviour of theists including Christians.
>as radical Islam is now running out of steam. People now see through
>this.
longer prepared to put up with being Uncle Toms.
Keep lying about atheists in public and you will continue to reap what
you sow.
Keep letting creationists get away with their bullshit and you will
continue being seen as giving them tacit support.
Likewise public discrimination against atheists, blue laws etc.
>Steve Wilson
Steve Hayes
Jun 28, 2013, 10:49:54 PM6/28/13
to
To me it means that you have at least heard of the person.
I would say that the "most notorious atheist" would be the one that most
people had heard of, and that they knew was an atheist.
A pop singer might be an atheist, and might be more widely known, but unless
they made a thing about telling everyone that they were an atheist and that
atheism is good for you, that wouldn't make them a "notorious" atheist.
Barry OGrady
Jun 28, 2013, 11:06:11 PM6/28/13
to
But both of you are already in a hole of your own making.
>--
>Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Jun 29, 2013, 2:31:03 AM6/29/13
to
"Steve Wilson" wrote in message news:kqkfn9$mam$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
On 28/06/2013 10:31, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:20:00 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:20:00 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>> "Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>> news:tp9os85156e5p32a7...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>
>>>> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr.
>>>> Benjamin Wiker
>>
>>>> I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably
>>>> persistent, I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most
>>>> notorious
>>>> atheist" is probably a moot point.
>>
>>>> I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But
>>>> he's certainly one of the most vociferous.
>>
>>> Poor man, wasting his precious life on foolish buffoonery.....{;o;}
>
>> But if the subject line is to be believed, he's repented.
>
>He died in 2010.
I am on about Richard Dawkins, Steve.
>> news:tp9os85156e5p32a7...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:42:01 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>>
>>>> Re: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Dr.
>>>> Benjamin Wiker
>>
>>>> I haven't been reading this thread, but since it seems remarkably
>>>> persistent, I thought I'd note that the identity of "the world's most
>>>> notorious
>>>> atheist" is probably a moot point.
>>
>>>> I'd say it's probably Richard Dawkins, but some might dispute that. But
>>>> he's certainly one of the most vociferous.
>>
>>> Poor man, wasting his precious life on foolish buffoonery.....{;o;}
>
>> But if the subject line is to be believed, he's repented.
>
>He died in 2010.
Jeff...
Steve Wilson
David Canzi
Jun 29, 2013, 7:13:20 PM6/29/13
to
motivated by a desire to explain away his change of mind.
The Wikipedia page for Antony Flew links to this:
"I tried to gain access to Professor Flew for this story, but
he was in an Extended Care Facility in Reading, England, tired,
confused, and in the paralyzing grasp of advanced dementia. He
had been there for well more than a year, and Annis informed me
that 'Tony is rarely aware of his surroundings anymore.' There
would be no interview."
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-21/#feature
According to the article, Flew was hospitalized for dementia
in late 2008. His book "There is a God" was published in 2007.
How fast can somebody with senile dementia decline? How quickly
can he go from being smart enough to write a book to having
dementia severe enough to need hospitalization?
Christopher A. Lee
Jun 29, 2013, 8:02:10 PM6/29/13
to
makes them feel good, because they need to persuade them selves that
atheists have all sorts of motivations that we actually don't.
They're too stupid to understand that the only people whose lives
revolve around Christianity and its god are Christians.
Even explanations that we wouldn't give a thought to it if they kept
it where it belongs, get filtered through their presumption that it is
real and we should realise this.
They can't get their tiny minds around the idea that it is merely
somebody else's religious belief, so they nastily imagine (and even
tell us) that we're in denial.
>The Wikipedia page for Antony Flew links to this:
>
>"I tried to gain access to Professor Flew for this story, but
>he was in an Extended Care Facility in Reading, England, tired,
>confused, and in the paralyzing grasp of advanced dementia. He
>had been there for well more than a year, and Annis informed me
>that 'Tony is rarely aware of his surroundings anymore.' There
>would be no interview."
>
>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-21/#feature
>
>According to the article, Flew was hospitalized for dementia
>in late 2008. His book "There is a God" was published in 2007.
>How fast can somebody with senile dementia decline? How quickly
>can he go from being smart enough to write a book to having
>dementia severe enough to need hospitalization?
Wilson has been given Richard Carrier's page on Flew at infidels.org
several times now - which documents his decline and also points out
that he was unaware of anything in "There Is A God".
[my emphasis]
... As Oppenheimer's article confirms, Flew has now confessed to the
fact that he did not write a word of this book (even though it is
sold under his name), and apparently knows (or remembers) little of
its contents, despite the publisher's assurance that he signed off
on it (though even his publisher confesses doubts about Flew's
ability to remember essential details). Oppenheimer presents
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONFIRM THAT FLEW'S FAILING MEMORY IS WHAT I
WOULD CALL CLINICALLY SERIOUS, AND I BELIEVE HIS MENTAL DECLINE IS
NOW MORE OR LESS CONFIRMED. As for the book written in his name, its
ARGUMENTS ARE SO FALLACIOUS AND CHEAPLY COMPOSED I DOUBT FLEW WOULD
HAVE SIGNED OFF ON IT IN SOUND MIND, and Oppenheimer comes to much
the same conclusion. Flew appears to have simply trusted a couple of
Christians to write on his behalf, without any need to check what
they wrote. ITS ACTUAL AUTHOR TURNS OUT TO BE AN EVANGELICAL
PREACHER NAMED BOB HOSTETLER, WITH CONSIDERABLE ASSISTANCE FROM THE
BOOK'S CO-AUTHOR, EVANGELICAL PROMOTER AND BUSINESSMAN ROY ABRAHAM
VARGHESE. I say much more about this affair on my personal blog.
[me again]
Many of his books after the "conversion" were evidently ghost written,
by people who didn't even try to make them sound as if they were
written by an Englishman, using Americanism.
But that kind of Christian is incapable of thinking outside the box,
and their intended audience is too dumb to notice this.
Christians NEED it to be a genuine conversion, just as they need him
to be an "atheist leader" who tells atheists what to or not to
believe.
So they're in denial about all this.
And they need to come up with all sorts of amateur-psychologised
falsehoods that it takes sheer nastiness to tell us about ourselves.
Especially when they come up with even more rather than try to
understand why we say what we do.
Is it any wonder we have such a low opinion of so many Christians when
they lie so routinely?
0 new messages