Famous Atheist renounces atheism
soulatman
Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests begin
to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
When I studied philosophy at university, Dr Flew's books were required core
reading material. Because you have never heard of him perhaps says more
about the depths of your own inquiries into the philosphical position of
Atheism than it does about Dr Anthony Flew. The man is a giant in
philosophical atheism, and anyone wishing to approach the question of the
existence of God would do well to study Dr Flew's work.
For me personally, this news is very encouraging. Dr Flew has moved from
what I have always considered to be the untenable position of atheism, into
the infinitely more sustainable position of agnosticism - with a hint of
deism for good measure lol.
It says alot about atheists in general when one of the pillars of
intellectaul atheistic thought renounces atheism. Atheists generally are an
arrogant bunch, as arrogant as those who claim unique knowledge into the
mind of god and his plan etc. With the advances of science, it is becoming
more and more impossible to be sure of the things we once held necesarily
true, for the very foundations of those truths have shifted position.
Science has been trying (with good reason) to squeeze god out of the picture
for centuries, but it seems the more we inquire and discover, the less
confident we can be that existence is simply a result of random chance
happenings, and the universe is looking more and more "conscious" in some
sense, as if directed, aware even.
I for one congratulate Dr Flew on his courageous move away from atheism, and
wait enthusiastically to see the reaction of the atheist community as a
whole, now that one of their foremost champions has left the building.
I have always said the only tenable position on this matter, is the agnostic
position, a position which science presently and for the forseeable future
will occupy, as it is in no position to positively prove or disprove some
Godlike figure behind the scenes. Many over confident and often arrogant so
called scientists and intellectuals however march under the banner of
atheism, claiming scientific knowledge reinforces this untenable position.
What is lacking here is some modesty and honesty on the individuals part
since science niether reinforces nor undermines the possibility of the
existence of a God. It does however start to knock great holes in many
religious notions of God esp judeo-christian notions and their related
theologies.
There is still room for God in our understanding of the universe, whether
each of us needs God is a fundamentally personal issue, whether our
understanding of the universe needs some notion of God is still not
resolved, and science leans neither way on this fundamental question. The
more it is uncovering about the fabric of reality is however forcing
scientists to speak of the universe in increasingly Godlike terminolgy.
Soulatman
Christopher A. Lee
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>My "God",
>Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests begin
>to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
How many times are you going to repose your stupidity, nastiness and
deliberate lies abouyt atheists, to atheists?
soulatman
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vrqtr01gl28gpb3bq...@4ax.com...
Sorry Christopher, don't follow you. What lies exactly? What I have said is
open for anyone to see, if you see a lie, show us all and show why it is a
lie.
If you feel personally attacked I appologise, but I mentioned no one in
particular, do my statements about atheism being untenable, and atheism in
general being an arrogant position offend you?
I really do appologise, sincerely, these are my views, and their wieght is
very slight, but the onus is on you to show me the error of my statements,
just as atheists claim that the onus is on theists to prove God's existence.
(I am not theist by the way, in case you didnt catch that the first time)
Christopher A. Lee
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:vrqtr01gl28gpb3bq...@4ax.com...
>> fOn Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:29:42 GMT, "soulatman"
>> <////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >My "God",
>> >Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests
>begin
>> >to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
>>
>> How many times are you going to repose your stupidity, nastiness and
>> deliberate lies abouyt atheists, to atheists?
>>
>
>Sorry Christopher, don't follow you. What lies exactly? What I have said is
>open for anyone to see, if you see a lie, show us all and show why it is a
>lie.
You're no sorry, and I already have done - the first tiome you rubbed
our faces in it.
And if you can't grasp just how nasty your pot-shots are, expecially
when they are based on lies and misrepresentations,. then I pity you.
Here's what I replied the previous time:
Read it. All of it. Especially Flew's own response at the bottom. Move
you lips if it helps.
"What is it with you morons? Why can't you live and let live? What do
you hope you achieve by your in-your-face nastiness and lies?
1. Flew has not become any kind of theist that you wopuld recognise.
2. At most it is deism: a deity that cranked up the universe and then
left it to get on with itself.
3. His "arguments" are from personal ignorance and incredulity
ignorance and his conclusion that a deity MIGHT have done it is a
non-sequitur - something one would have expected a philosophy
proffessor to realise was worthless.
4. He admits that his science is way out of date and that he doesn't
know its latest levels of understanding reality.
5. He was unaware of the furor on the internet and wrote a letter
decouncing the liars who say he has become theist:
"Richard C. Carrier, current Editor in Chief of the Secular Web,
tells me that "the internet has now become awash with rumors" that I
"have converted to Christianity, or am at least no longer an
atheist." Perhaps because I was born too soon to be involved in the
internet world I had heard nothing of this rumour....those rumours
speak false. I remain still what I have been now for over fifty
years, a negative atheist. By this I mean that I construe the
initial letter in the word 'atheist' in the way in which everyone
construes the same initial letter in such words as 'atypical' and
'amoral'." - Anthony Flew
HE IS CALLING YOU A LIAR HIMSELF. WHAT YOU SAY IS FALSE.
soulatman
At NO POINT did i say the Dr Flew had become a THEIST, the words I used were
"AGNOSTIC and DEIST". Go over all i said with a fine toothed comb if you
like, and you will not find even a subtle reference to to me saying anything
to the effect of Dr Flew's conversion to Theism.
You seem to be responding to other people who have posted i know not what,
or have me confused with someone else. But I do not deal in either
nastiness, nor lies, look again.
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:f3str0p897v5e5tmm...@4ax.com...
The Terminologist
> My "God",
> Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests begin
> to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he?
So what? Theist lies."
> When I studied philosophy at university, Dr Flew's books were required core
> reading material. Because you have never heard of him perhaps says more
> about the depths of your own inquiries into the philosphical position of
> Atheism than it does about Dr Anthony Flew. The man is a giant in
> philosophical atheism,
and anyone wishing to approach the question of the
> existence of God would do well to study Dr Flew's work.
> For me personally, this news is very encouraging. Dr Flew has moved from
> what I have always considered to be the untenable position of atheism, into
> the infinitely more sustainable position of agnosticism - with a hint of
> deism for good measure lol.
> It says alot about atheists in general when one of the pillars of
> intellectaul atheistic thought renounces atheism.
Atheists generally are an
> arrogant bunch,
as arrogant as those who claim unique knowledge into the
> mind of god and his plan etc. With the advances of science, it is becoming
> more and more impossible to be sure of the things we once held necesarily
> true,
for the very foundations of those truths have shifted position.
> Science has been trying (with good reason) to squeeze god out of the picture
> for centuries
, but it seems the more we inquire and discover, the less
> confident we can be that existence is simply a result of random chance
> happenings,
and the universe is looking more and more "conscious" in some
> sense, as if directed, aware even.
> I for one congratulate Dr Flew on his courageous move away from atheism, and
> wait enthusiastically to see the reaction of the atheist community
as a
> whole, now that one of their foremost champions
has left the building.
> I have always said the only tenable position on this matter, is the agnostic
> position, a position which science presently and for the forseeable future
> will occupy, as it is in no position to positively prove or disprove some
> Godlike figure behind the scenes.
boundaries of ignorance by explaining how the natural universe works.
Many over confident and often arrogant so
> called scientists and intellectuals however march under the banner of
> atheism, claiming scientific knowledge reinforces this untenable position.
> What is lacking here is some modesty and honesty on the individuals part
> since science niether reinforces nor undermines the possibility of the
> existence of a God. It does however start to knock great holes in many
> religious notions of God esp judeo-christian notions and their related
> theologies.
musings either, it was measurement.
> There is still room for God in our understanding of the universe, whether
> each of us needs God is a fundamentally personal issue, whether our
> understanding of the universe needs some notion of God is still not
> resolved, and science leans neither way on this fundamental question. The
> more it is uncovering about the fabric of reality is however forcing
> scientists to speak of the universe in increasingly Godlike terminolgy.
> Soulatman
>
>
Christopher A. Lee
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Christopher, calm down, count to ten, and re read my post.
More nastiness.
I did, moron. And you started it off with this bit of gratuitous
nastiness:
"Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the
athiests begin to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
>At NO POINT did i say the Dr Flew had become a THEIST, the words I used were
>"AGNOSTIC and DEIST". Go over all i said with a fine toothed comb if you
>like, and you will not find even a subtle reference to to me saying anything
>to the effect of Dr Flew's conversion to Theism.
>You seem to be responding to other people who have posted i know not what,
>or have me confused with someone else. But I do not deal in either
>nastiness, nor lies, look again.
Then why did you start off with what I quoted above?
Why did you begin two different topics with the exact same material,
starting with theexactly the same falsehood?
Now address what I wrote below, that you have ignored.
soulatman
diehard atheists on another newsgroup. My post began as a response to these
statements, that is why they appear in quotation marks.
Does that answer your question?
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5mutr0huo49691lgo...@4ax.com...
soulatman
my post quite amusing, albeit rather fruitless and unenlightening. You have
pointed out that much of what I say is "my humble opinion", and I meant it
no other way. Some enlightened being once said "opinions are like assholes -
everybody has one", and thankfully I am no exception.
Firstly, I do have a fair grasp on the fundaments of science, and grasp the
implications of its mission and findings quite well thank you.
With regards to the increasing use of Godlike terminology in regard to the
discoveries of scientific understanding, I may have been a little hasty as
such terminology is unessecary. Look at our understanding of how light
operates (or distinct lack of understanding), how can a light particle
occupy two points in space at one time? The infinite energy of light, its
seemingly omnipresent quality, that time ceases to exist at the speed at
which it travels. Our observations directly influence the behaviour of
particles, scientists now say this ultimately means we cannot ever see
reality as it is, only what it wishes to show us. This has even led some to
posit that the universe may in some sense be conscious, that consciousness
plays a much bigger role than the one we have ascribed to it, that it may be
a nessecary property of the universe itself.
As I alluded to earlier, science neither reinforces nor undermines Gods
reality, but it is increasingly opening once closed avenues for the
possibility of a God to occupy, where once it may have said we find no hint
of God.
"The Terminologist" <bu...@chinanet.cn> wrote in message
news:5YGdncDKOqF...@brightview.com...
JPG
wrote:
Before you jerk off in your orgasmic delight, maybe you should check a few
facts:
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369
Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of
by Richard Carrier
Antony Flew is considering the possibility that there might be a God. Sort of.
Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century, even making the
shortlist of "Contemporary Atheists" at About.com. So if he has changed his mind
to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is
certainly newsworthy. After hearing of this, I contacted Antony directly to
discuss it, and I thought it fitting to cut short any excessive speculation or
exaggeration by writing a brief report on, well, what's going on.
Once upon a time, a rumor hit the internet that Flew had converted to
Christianity. The myth appeared in 2001 and popped up again in 2003. On each
occasion, Flew refuted the claim personally, standing by his response to its
first occasion with his own reply for publication at the Secular Web (Antony
Flew, "Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!" 2001). So I was quite
skeptical the third time around. But this time, things have indeed changed
somewhat from where Flew stood in his 2001 article. Antony and I exchanged
letters on the issue recently, and what I report here about his current views
comes from him directly.
The news of his "conversion" this time came from a number of avenues, but the
three I have good information on are an interview with Gary Habermas soon to be
published by Philosophia Christi in which Flew appears to depart from his past
views about God, a letter Flew wrote to a popular philosophy journal expressing
doubts about the ability of science to explain the origin of life ("On Darwinism
and Theology," Philosophy Now 47, August/September 2004, p. 22; cf. also Flew's
Review of Roy Varghese's The Wonder of the World), and, just recently on
national TV (the October 9 episode of "Faith Under Fire"), J. P. Moreland used
Flew's "conversion" as an argument for supernaturalism.
The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He
affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of
Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and
definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his
2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is
increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe,
though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any
postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of
Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious,
but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God
as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a
universe exists that can produce complex life. But he is still unsure. In fact,
he asked that I not directly quote him yet, until he finally composes his new
introduction to a final edition of his book God and Philosophy, due out next
year. He hasn't completed it yet, precisely because he is still examining the
evidence and thinking things over. Anything he says now, could change tomorrow.
I also heard a rumor that Flew claimed in a private letter that the kalam
cosmological argument proved the existence of God (see relevant entries in
Cosmological Arguments). But he assures me that is not what he believes. He said
that, at best, the kalam is an argument for a first cause in the Aristotelian
sense, and nothing more--and he maintains that, kalam or not, it is still not
logically necessary that the universe had a cause at all, much less a "personal"
cause. Flew's tentative, mechanistic Deism is not based on any logical proofs,
but solely on physical, scientific evidence, or the lack thereof, and is
therefore subject to change with more information--and he confesses he has not
been able to keep up with the relevant literature in science and theology, which
means we should no longer treat him as an expert on this subject (as Moreland
apparently did).
Once Flew gives me permission to quote him I will expand this article with more
information about his views and the reasons for them. That will have to wait for
when Flew himself has finally mulled things over and come to something like a
stable decision about what he thinks is most probable, and that may not happen
until the release of his 2005 edition of God and Philosophy. For now, I think
his view can best be described as questioning, rather than committed. And there
is much to criticize in his rationale even for considering Aristotelian Deism.
He is most impressed, he says, by Gerald Schroeder's book The Hidden Face of
God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (2001), but Schroeder (a Jewish
theologian and physicist) has been heavily criticized for "fudging" the facts to
fit his argument--see Mark Perakh, "Not a Very Big Bang about Genesis" (1999);
and my own discussion in "Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to
Accept?" (2000), as well as my peer-reviewed article "The Argument from
Biogenesis," soon to appear in Biology & Philosophy. Flew points out that he has
not yet had time to examine any of the critiques of Schroeder. Nor has he
examined any of the literature of the past five or ten years on the science of
life's origin, which has more than answered his call for "constructing a
naturalistic theory" of the origin of life. This is not to say any particular
theory has been proven--rather, there are many viable theories fitting all the
available evidence that have yet to be refuted, so Flew cannot maintain (as in
his letter to Philosophy Now) that it is "inordinately difficult even to begin
to think about" such theories. I have pointed all this out to him, and he is
thinking it over.
For now, the story of Antony Flew's change of mind should not be exaggerated. We
should wait for him to complete his investigation of the matter and declare a
more definite conclusion, before claiming he has "converted," much less to any
particular religious view.
Update (December 2004)
Flew has now given me permission to quote him directly. I asked him point blank
what he would mean if he ever asserted that "probably God exists," to which he
responded (in a letter in his own hand, dated 19 October 2004):
I do not think I will ever make that assertion, precisely because any
assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that
sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of
Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.
Rather, he would only have in mind "the non-interfering God of the people called
Deists--such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin." Indeed, he remains
adamant that "theological propositions can neither be verified nor falsified by
experience," exactly as he argued in "Theology and Falsification." Regarding J.
P. Moreland using Flew in support of Moreland's own belief in the supernatural,
Flew says "my God is not his. His is Swinburne's. Mine is emphatically not good
(or evil) or interested in human conduct" and does not perform miracles of any
kind. Furthermore, Flew took great care to emphasize repeatedly to me that:
My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the
apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA
of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for
beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of
providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing
organisms.
He cites, in fact, the improbability arguments of Schroeder, which I have
refuted online, and the entire argument to the impossibility of natural
biogenesis I have refuted in a forthcoming article in Biology & Philosophy.
So what of the claim that Flew was persuaded by the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
Flew "cannot recall" writing any letter to Geivett claiming "the kalam
cosmological argument is a sound argument" for God but he confesses his memory
fails him often now so he can't be sure. Nevertheless, I specifically asked what
Antony thought of the Kalam, to which he answered:
If and insofar as it is supposed to prove the existence of a First Cause of
the Big Bang, I have no objection, but this is not at all the same as a proof of
the existence of a spirit and all the rest of Richard Swinburne's definition of
'God' which is presently accepted as standard throughout the English speaking
and philosophical world.
Also, regarding another rumor that Flew has been attending Quaker meetings,
Antony says "I have, I think, attended Quaker meetings on at least 3 or 4
occasions, and one was at the wedding of a cousin," and thus hardly a religious
statement on his part but a family affair. Nevertheless, for him and his family
generally, he says "I think the main attraction" of Quakerism has been "the lack
of doctrines." On the whole God thing, though, Flew is still examining the
articles I sent him, so he may have more to say in the future.
Christopher A. Lee
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Christopher, the quotes "Who is he? So what? Theist lies" come from a few
>diehard atheists on another newsgroup. My post began as a response to these
>statements, that is why they appear in quotation marks.
>Does that answer your question?
It was an uinkustified generalisation that you addressed to all atthe
net.atheists.
Under two different headings where you repeated the same slander.
Don Kresch
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> let us all know that:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:vrqtr01gl28gpb3bq...@4ax.com...
>> fOn Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:29:42 GMT, "soulatman"
>> <////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >My "God",
>> >Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests
>begin
>> >to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
>>
>> How many times are you going to repose your stupidity, nastiness and
>> deliberate lies abouyt atheists, to atheists?
>>
>
>Sorry Christopher, don't follow you. What lies exactly?
That Flew is a theist.
He isn't.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
stoney
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>My "God",
>Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests begin
>to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
>When I studied philosophy at university, Dr Flew's books were required core
>reading material. Because you have never heard of him perhaps says more
>about the depths of your own inquiries into the philosphical position of
>Atheism than it does about Dr Anthony Flew. The man is a giant in
>philosophical atheism, and anyone wishing to approach the question of the
>existence of God would do well to study Dr Flew's work.
LMAO @ you. Damn, you're terminally ignorant.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Christopher A. Lee
<ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
>In alt.atheism on Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:47:06 GMT, "soulatman"
><////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> let us all know that:
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:vrqtr01gl28gpb3bq...@4ax.com...
>>> fOn Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:29:42 GMT, "soulatman"
>>> <////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >My "God",
>>> >Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests
>>begin
>>> >to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
>>>
>>> How many times are you going to repose your stupidity, nastiness and
>>> deliberate lies abouyt atheists, to atheists?
>>>
>>
>>Sorry Christopher, don't follow you. What lies exactly?
>
> That Flew is a theist.
>
> He isn't.
He posted the same contentious tripe a clouple of times in new
threads, and hasn't addressed responses.
He's another theist taking pot shots that, like all the others, are
based on misrepresentation, button-pushing falsehoods etc.
MarkA
>
>> It says alot about atheists in general when one of the pillars of
>> intellectaul atheistic thought renounces atheism. Atheists generally
> are an
>> arrogant bunch, as arrogant as those who claim unique knowledge into
> the
>> mind of god and his plan etc.
<nomination>
>
> I think it fairer to say that atheists are more self reliant than
> arrogant. Of course self reliance would seem like arrogance to someone
> with an emotional dependency.
>
</nomination>
Concise. Seconds?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Christopher A. Lee
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:29:42 GMT, "soulatman"
><////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>My "God",
>>Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests begin
>>to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
>>When I studied philosophy at university, Dr Flew's books were required core
>>reading material. Because you have never heard of him perhaps says more
>>about the depths of your own inquiries into the philosphical position of
>>Atheism than it does about Dr Anthony Flew. The man is a giant in
>>philosophical atheism, and anyone wishing to approach the question of the
>>existence of God would do well to study Dr Flew's work.
>
>LMAO @ you. Damn, you're terminally ignorant.
What I don't understand is why these loonies expect atheists to "get
their atheism" from "atheist leaders".
Or why they imagine that the "reason" some atheist philosopher that
most of us hadn't heard of, became a just-about-deist through (if he
is to believed) the argumets from ignmorance and personal incredulity
should convince anybody with more than two neurons to rub together.
But most of all, why he imagines there is even "the question of the
existence of God". The only people who could have that question,
daren't - and they're theists.
Anything beyond that is an exercise in abstract logic.
MarkA
> My "God",
> Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests
> begin to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies." When I
<snip>
Dr Flew can believe whatever he wants. That doesn't change the fact that
the reasons for believing in God reek of human insecurities, and hard
evidence supporting such belief is completely lacking.
I'm not much of a student of philosophy, but you don't have to be a
philosopher to spot the weaknesses in the arguments for the existence of
God.
Tock
marry his collection of Royal Daulton figurenes off to prepubescent Hummels.
Mekkala
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
[snip sheepish bullshit]
So the fuck what? Dr. Flew may have "renounced" his atheism, but *I*
haven't. Are you suggesting that I should change my views according to
those of a prominent authority figure? If, say, Jerry Falwell became an
atheist, would you do so as well?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
J Forbes
> Firstly, I do have a fair grasp on the fundaments of science, and grasp the
> implications of its mission and findings quite well thank you.
> With regards to the increasing use of Godlike terminology in regard to the
> discoveries of scientific understanding, I may have been a little hasty as
> such terminology is unessecary. Look at our understanding of how light
> operates (or distinct lack of understanding), how can a light particle
> occupy two points in space at one time?
It's light....why do you insist it's a particle, and can't occupy two
points in space at one time?
We have a wave/particle model of light, but that's just our model.
Light itself is what it is.
The infinite energy of light, its
> seemingly omnipresent quality, that time ceases to exist at the speed at
> which it travels. Our observations directly influence the behaviour of
> particles, scientists now say this ultimately means we cannot ever see
> reality as it is, only what it wishes to show us.
Rather anthropocentric to think that reality "wishes" things, eh?
This has even led some to
> posit that the universe may in some sense be conscious, that consciousness
> plays a much bigger role than the one we have ascribed to it, that it may be
> a nessecary property of the universe itself.
Sounds like you might be confusing three different flavors of
"consciousness"...the human type, the god type, and the universe type.
At least we can sort of get a grasp on the human type, sort of. The
others are pure conjecture.
> As I alluded to earlier, science neither reinforces nor undermines Gods
> reality, but it is increasingly opening once closed avenues for the
> possibility of a God to occupy, where once it may have said we find no hint
> of God.
Oh, there are new gaps...wonderful! The god that humans talk about
still all seem to be imaginary.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
Vic Sagerquist
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:01:26 -0800, Ian Braidwood wrote:
>
>>
>>> It says alot about atheists in general when one of the pillars of
>>> intellectaul atheistic thought renounces atheism. Atheists generally
>> are an
>>> arrogant bunch, as arrogant as those who claim unique knowledge into
>> the
>>> mind of god and his plan etc.
>
> <nomination>
>>
>> I think it fairer to say that atheists are more self reliant than
>> arrogant. Of course self reliance would seem like arrogance to someone
>> with an emotional dependency.
>>
> </nomination>
>
> Concise. Seconds?
>
In a nutshell, aye.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
raven1
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>When I studied philosophy at university, Dr Flew's books were required core
>reading material. Because you have never heard of him perhaps says more
>about the depths of your own inquiries into the philosphical position of
>Atheism than it does about Dr Anthony Flew. The man is a giant in
>philosophical atheism, and anyone wishing to approach the question of the
>existence of God would do well to study Dr Flew's work.
The problem is that Flew's "conversion" was not over a philosophical
point, but over his own personal incredulity at life arising without
some kind of creator behind it. It's logically fallacious, and
philosophically bankrupt
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
And he has clarified to say that he's still atheist. At most it's a
"there might just be a deist god that started off the universe and
then left it to its own devices".
But his "conclusion" that there might just be one is, as you say, both
logically fallacious and philosophically bankrupt.
But most monotheists can't imagine any other kind of deity than their
own, and cognitive dissonance filters out the clarification.
Tak
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>My "God",
>Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests begin
>to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
Well, we never heard of him, christianity is the "Personality cult"
Also its beend ebunkd by the man himself, he is still an athesit.
Case closed.
Tak
a#344
soulatman
the arrogant one. I guess my initial joy at hearing this news rashly
prompted me to post my views on the atheism and the few atheists I have
known.
My elation had more to do with the fact that it reinforced my own position
of agnosticism with a view to finding a God which is not altogether apparent
in the universe (personal desire for God to exist) than that it does any
damage to the views of atheism as a whole.
I did not mean offence, but I obviously touched a few nerves.
We are all in the same boat ultimately, whether or not it is being subtley
giuded by some greater will or not. I like to believe the former, but that
is just a tool for my own personal satisfaction. Time will surely reveal how
foolish or fortunate this belief of mine is, and I am open to the distinct
possibility of its foolishness (I expect endless focus on this point from ng
users).
Thank you for your patience people, and I have learned a thing or two from
our exchange.
Soulatman
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Clayton?
"soulatman" <////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aVBvd.11097$tg2....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<snip bullshit>
Standard Christian activity....repeat a lie enough times and they think it
magically becomes the truth!
<plonk>
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Clayton?
>
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:vrqtr01gl28gpb3bq...@4ax.com...
> > fOn Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:29:42 GMT, "soulatman"
> > <////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >My "God",
> > >Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests
> begin
> > >to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
> >
> > How many times are you going to repose your stupidity, nastiness and
> > deliberate lies abouyt atheists, to atheists?
> >
>
> Sorry Christopher, don't follow you. What lies exactly? What I have said
is
> open for anyone to see, if you see a lie, show us all and show why it is a
> lie.
>
"Richard C. Carrier, current Editor in Chief of the Secular Web,
tells me that "the internet has now become awash with rumors" that I
"have converted to Christianity, or am at least no longer an atheist."
Perhaps because I was born too soon to be involved in the internet
world I had heard nothing of this rumour. So Mr. Carrier asks me to
explain myself in cyberspace. This, with the help of the Internet
Infidels, I now attempt.
"Those rumours speak false. ***I remain still what I have been now
for over fifty years, a negative atheist.*** By this I mean that I
construe the initial letter in the word 'atheist' in the way in which
everyone construes the same initial letter in such words as 'atypical'
and 'amoral'. For I still believe that it is impossible either to
verify or to falsify - to show to be false - what David Hume in his
Dialogues concerning Natural Religion happily described as "the
religious hypothesis." The more I contemplate the eschatological
teachings of Christianity and Islam the more I wish I could demonstrate
their falsity."
Sorry to ruin your whole day.
Antony Flew
Rationalist International Bulletin #137
raven1
>His incredulousness arose because he was faced by overwhelming evidence
>of the impossibility of the 'spontaneous, causeless' origin of the
>Universe.
Such as...?
> Your inability to see that evidence is no indication that it
>is invalid.
Your inability to cite any such evidence is duly noted.
Ike
> My "God",
<snipped>
> There is still room for God in our understanding of the universe, whether
> each of us needs God is a fundamentally personal issue, whether our
> understanding of the universe needs some notion of God is still not
> resolved, and science leans neither way on this fundamental question. The
> more it is uncovering about the fabric of reality is however forcing
> scientists to speak of the universe in increasingly Godlike terminolgy.
> Soulatman
>
You understand the universe? How about explaining it in plain English?
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
>
Ike
Ike
uncertain times. They try to find security by believing in the supernatural.
I am an atheist because I don't trust in any security. It happenend in my
particualr circumstance that I felt betrayed by trusting in security from
others. I then discovered that I could trust no one, but most particularly
those irrational fellow-humans who fantasized a God, and used that belief to
try to control others, because of their own insecurity. That is why I don't
trust you or anything you say.
J Forbes
> His incredulousness arose because he was faced by overwhelming evidence
> of the impossibility of the 'spontaneous, causeless' origin of the
> Universe. Your inability to see that evidence is no indication that it
> is invalid.
Apparently his incredulousness didn't extend to the impossibility of
the spontaneous, causeless origin of a god thingy.
Vic Sagerquist
>> The problem is that Flew's "conversion" was not over a philosophical
>> point, but over his own personal incredulity at life arising without
>> some kind of creator behind it. It's logically fallacious, and
>> philosophically bankrupt
>
> His incredulousness arose because he was faced by overwhelming evidence
> of the impossibility of the 'spontaneous, causeless' origin of the
> Universe. Your inability to see that evidence is no indication that it
> is invalid.
>
What evidence?
John Baker
> My "God",
> Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests
> begin
> to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
I never heard of Flew until recently, when you theists began invading our
groups with your claims regarding his alleged conversion, and he certainly
isn't someone whose opinion carries any weight with the majority of
atheists. As for us dismissing said claims as theist lies, well, you *are*
lying. Whether knowingly or whether simply by accepting and repeating the
lies of others, you *are* lying. You see, a few of us did a bit of research
after you folks started flooding our groups with this nonsense. It would
seem Flew has become a *deist*, not a Christian. He apparently still rejects
Christianity and the Christian god. Seems you guys have....er....stretched
the truth a bit. What a surprise. <G> Not that it really matters. Even if
Flew had become a raving, spittle-spewing born-again fundy, why on Earth do
you think we should care? Especially considering that many more (former)
theists become atheists than the other way around.
--
Religion is a little like wearing lifts in your shoes.
If it makes you feel better about yourself, fine. I don't
have a problem with that. Just don't ask me to
wear your shoes.
~ George Carlin ~
aa #1898
BAAWA Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade
Harry F. Leopold
(in article <Xns95BF7E86...@199.45.49.11>):
> On Tue 14 Dec 2004 07:29:42a, "soulatman"
> <////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
> length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
> after thoughtfully blurting out:
>
> [snip sheepish bullshit]
>
> So the fuck what? Dr. Flew may have "renounced" his atheism, but *I*
> haven't. Are you suggesting that I should change my views according to
> those of a prominent authority figure? If, say, Jerry Falwell became an
> atheist, would you do so as well?
Or Dan Barker? ;-)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
łNo gods were physically harmed during the making of this post. However
nothing was in the contract about emotional or psychological harm.˛
Ian Braidwood
> My "God",
> Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the
athiests begin
> to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
required core
> reading material. Because you have never heard of him perhaps says
more
> about the depths of your own inquiries into the philosphical position
of
> Atheism than it does about Dr Anthony Flew.
Not only have I heard of Dr Flew, but we share an aquaintance; though
I've never met the man himself.
I regret that Dr Flew said what he did for two reasons; firstly, lots
of people have disparaged him (bearing in mind that most atheists
follow scientists' general disregard of philosophers), but more
importantly, Dr Flew has to some degree justified it by displaying
ignorance of evoloution and using faulty logic. No biologist believes
that DNA is the original genetic material, which is quite obviously a
product of evolution itself. Also, absence of evidence for one
proposition, does not justify subscribing to the opposing one.
> The man is a giant in
> philosophical atheism, and anyone wishing to approach the question of
the
> existence of God would do well to study Dr Flew's work.
Certainly, his books are worth reading, but giant really is exagerating
things
> For me personally, this news is very encouraging. Dr Flew has moved
from
> what I have always considered to be the untenable position of
atheism, into
> the infinitely more sustainable position of agnosticism - with a hint
of
> deism for good measure lol.
Technically, Flew has always been a agnostic.
> It says alot about atheists in general when one of the pillars of
> intellectaul atheistic thought renounces atheism. Atheists generally
are an
> arrogant bunch, as arrogant as those who claim unique knowledge into
the
> mind of god and his plan etc.
I think it fairer to say that atheists are more self reliant than
arrogant. Of course self reliance would seem like arrogance to someone
with an emotional dependency.
> SNIP <
> I for one congratulate Dr Flew on his courageous move away from
atheism, and
> wait enthusiastically to see the reaction of the atheist community as
a
> whole, now that one of their foremost champions has left the
building.
Flew has made a very public error and it's a shame that the climate is
such that he's more likely to be remembered for this mistake than
anything else.
> I have always said the only tenable position on this matter, is the
agnostic
> position, a position which science presently and for the forseeable
future
> will occupy, as it is in no position to positively prove or disprove
some
> Godlike figure behind the scenes. Many over confident and often
arrogant so
> called scientists and intellectuals however march under the banner of
> atheism, claiming scientific knowledge reinforces this untenable
position.
If you were to break that habit of a lifetime and actually listen to
some else, you'd find out that most atheists prefer the word, not
because it best fits their position, but because agnostic has come to
be used by meely-mouthed cowards who want to avoid the issue of God
altogether.
Like most atheists, I consider myself an agnostic atheist, because
although I don't know God doesn't exist, I don't _believe_ He does. The
term atheist isn't intended as a statement of proven fact and so your
criticism is based on your misinterpretation/misrepresentation.
> SNIP <
> There is still room for God in our understanding of the universe,
whether
> each of us needs God is a fundamentally personal issue, whether our
> understanding of the universe needs some notion of God is still not
> resolved, and science leans neither way on this fundamental question.
I don't think supernatural ideas like God or Bergson's elan vitale will
ever have any place in understanding anything beyond superstition
itself. The simple reason is that they don't actually contribute
anything in terms of explanation, because they don't really mean
anything concrete in themselves.
> The
> more it is uncovering about the fabric of reality is however forcing
> scientists to speak of the universe in increasingly Godlike
terminolgy.
Terms like famous 'the mind of God' are clearly metaphors and not
intended to be interpreted literally.
(-: Ian :-)
rcma...@excite.com
His incredulousness arose because he was faced by overwhelming evidence
of the impossibility of the 'spontaneous, causeless' origin of the
Universe. Your inability to see that evidence is no indication that it
is invalid.
=====
RC
Tukla Ratte
> My "God",
> Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests begin
> to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
> When I studied philosophy at university, Dr Flew's books were required core
> reading material.
BFD.
> Because you have never heard of him perhaps says more
> about the depths of your own inquiries into the philosphical position of
> Atheism than it does about Dr Anthony Flew.
What philosophical position? I don't believe in gods, I don't believe
in leprechauns, and I don't believe in giant talking rodents. I didn't
have to take a philosophy course to stop believing in Santa.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
Mark K. Bilbo
soulatman lept out of the bushes shouting:
> Atheists generally are
> an arrogant bunch,
Says the guy who came all the way here to be a snot in our faces.
(P.S., I don't give a flying fuck who Flew is)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
stoney
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:05:16 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:29:42 GMT, "soulatman"
>><////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>My "God",
>>>Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests begin
>>>to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies."
>>>When I studied philosophy at university, Dr Flew's books were required core
>>>reading material. Because you have never heard of him perhaps says more
>>>about the depths of your own inquiries into the philosphical position of
>>>Atheism than it does about Dr Anthony Flew. The man is a giant in
>>>philosophical atheism, and anyone wishing to approach the question of the
>>>existence of God would do well to study Dr Flew's work.
>>
>>LMAO @ you. Damn, you're terminally ignorant.
>
>What I don't understand is why these loonies expect atheists to "get
>their atheism" from "atheist leaders".
Because theists are told what to think by the clergy. (whether all the
'flock' listens is something else)
>Or why they imagine that the "reason" some atheist philosopher that
>most of us hadn't heard of, became a just-about-deist through (if he
>is to believed) the argumets from ignmorance and personal incredulity
>should convince anybody with more than two neurons to rub together.
'authority.'
>But most of all, why he imagines there is even "the question of the
>existence of God". The only people who could have that question,
>daren't - and they're theists.
Lack of imagination.
>Anything beyond that is an exercise in abstract logic.
Thought is beyond the poor sots capabilities.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
stoney
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:29:42 +0000, soulatman wrote:
>
>> My "God",
>> Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests
>> begin to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies." When I
>
><snip>
>
>Dr Flew can believe whatever he wants. That doesn't change the fact that
>the reasons for believing in God reek of human insecurities, and hard
>evidence supporting such belief is completely lacking.
>
>I'm not much of a student of philosophy, but you don't have to be a
>philosopher to spot the weaknesses in the arguments for the existence of
>God.
Starting with the effective lack of a definition for the g-o-d letter
string.
stoney
<////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Folks, you win, I take back all I said about Atheists, in hindsight I was
>the arrogant one. I guess my initial joy at hearing this news rashly
>prompted me to post my views on the atheism and the few atheists I have
>known.
The only time the 'a' in atheists needs capitalization is when it is
the first word in a sentence.
>My elation had more to do with the fact that it reinforced my own position
>of agnosticism with a view to finding a God which is not altogether apparent
>in the universe (personal desire for God to exist) than that it does any
>damage to the views of atheism as a whole.
Your personal desires are your own.
There are no 'views of atheism.' All there are is the lack of belief
in what theists assert.
>I did not mean offence, but I obviously touched a few nerves.
When the same stuff is seen day in and day out, ad nauseum....
>We are all in the same boat ultimately, whether or not it is being subtley
>giuded by some greater will or not. I like to believe the former, but that
>is just a tool for my own personal satisfaction.
If such a stance comforts you, why not?
>Time will surely reveal how
>foolish or fortunate this belief of mine is, and I am open to the distinct
>possibility of its foolishness (I expect endless focus on this point from ng
>users).
Endless focus? Nah. It's ancient and worthless.
>Thank you for your patience people, and I have learned a thing or two from
>our exchange.
>Soulatman
--
*nemo*
Vic Sagerquist <add...@withheld.com> wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2004, MarkA dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:01:26 -0800, Ian Braidwood wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> It says alot about atheists in general when one of the pillars of
> >>> intellectaul atheistic thought renounces atheism. Atheists generally
> >> are an
> >>> arrogant bunch, as arrogant as those who claim unique knowledge into
> >> the
> >>> mind of god and his plan etc.
> >
> > <nomination>
> >>
> >> I think it fairer to say that atheists are more self reliant than
> >> arrogant. Of course self reliance would seem like arrogance to someone
> >> with an emotional dependency.
> >>
> > </nomination>
> >
> > Concise. Seconds?
> >
>
> In a nutshell, aye.
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Mark K. Bilbo
lept out of the bushes shouting:
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:26:37 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:05:16 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:29:42 GMT, "soulatman"
>>><////soul...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>My "God",
>>>>Reading the responses to this news is so amusing. Already the athiests
>>>>begin to denoune Dr Flew - "Who is he? So what? Theist lies." When I
>>>>studied philosophy at university, Dr Flew's books were required core
>>>>reading material. Because you have never heard of him perhaps says more
>>>>about the depths of your own inquiries into the philosphical position
>>>>of Atheism than it does about Dr Anthony Flew. The man is a giant in
>>>>philosophical atheism, and anyone wishing to approach the question of
>>>>the existence of God would do well to study Dr Flew's work.
>>>
>>>LMAO @ you. Damn, you're terminally ignorant.
>>
>>What I don't understand is why these loonies expect atheists to "get
>>their atheism" from "atheist leaders".
>
> Because theists are told what to think by the clergy. (whether all the
> 'flock' listens is something else)
Guess being handed what they'll be thinking today is the only model they
have...
lanr...@yahoo.com
soulatman wrote:
> ...
> I for one congratulate Dr Flew on his courageous move away from
atheism, and
> wait enthusiastically to see the reaction of the atheist community as
a
> whole, now that one of their foremost champions has left the
building.
Bulletin # 138 (16 December 2004)
<http://www.rationalistinternational.net>
http://www.rationalistinternational.net
<http://www.rationalistinternational.net/home/welcome.htm>
_____
Prof. Antony Flew
<http://www.rationalistinternational.net/associates/images/a_flew.jpg>
Professor Antony Flew
"I have not changed my views",
Antony Flew informs Rationalist International
By Sanal Edamaruku
Today, 16th December 2004, Professor Antony Flew, British philosopher,
well known rationalist, atheist and an Honorary Associate of
Rationalist International, telephoned me and informed that the wild
rumours about his changed views are baseless. He expressed surprise
over the confusion some people have spread and asserted that his
position about the belief in god remains unchanged and is the same as
it was expressed in his famous speech "Theology and Falsification". "I
find no new reason to change my views", Professor Flew said.
<http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20041120_en.html>
Professor Antony Flew discusses the atheism of a rationalist, based on
the impossibility to verify or falsify the religious claims about a
god, in his short paper "Theology and Falsification", first published
in 1950. Since then this paper was reprinted more than forty times in
different places, including translations into German, Italian, Spanish,
Danish, Welsh, Finnish and Slovak. During the conversation with me,
Professor Antony Flew expressed desire to publicise this paper as it
represented his views till this moment.
"There is no change", Professor Antony Flew asserted. "Some people
argue that I changed my views. It is simply not correct."
_____
The recipients of Rationalist International Bulletin may publish, post,
forward or reproduce articles and reports from it, acknowledging the
source: Rationalist International Bulletin # 138. Copyright © 2004
Rationalist International
_____
Rationalist International Bulletin is available now in English,
Spanish, French, German and Finnish.
And there are other Bulletins and Discussion Forums as well.
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE?
Subscription is free for all news letters and Discussion Forums. Just
send a blank email to the following address with SUBSCRIBE in the
subject line. Then confirm your request by another email when asked:
Rationalist International Bulletin (English):
<mailto:Rationalis...@yahoogroups.com>
Rationalis...@yahoogroups.com
Rationalist International Bulletin (Español ):
Racionalist...@yahoogroups.com
Rationalist International Bulletin (Deutsch):
Rationalist_De...@yahoogroups.com
Rationalist International Bulletin (Français):
<mailto:Rationalist...@yahoogroups.com>
Rationalist...@yahoogroups.com
Rationalist International Bulletin (Suomi):
<mailto:Rationalist...@yahoogroups.com>
Rationalist...@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Rationaliste-subscribe@yah<DIV align=center><FONT face=>
Indian Rationalist Bulletin (English):
<mailto:Rationalis...@yahoogroups.com>
Rationalis...@yahoogroups.com
Therali News Service (Malayalam):
<mailto:Therali-...@yahoogroups.com>
Therali-...@yahoogroups.com
AREA BASED DISCUSSION FORUMS SPONSORED BY RATIONALIST INTERNATIONAL
Africa: <mailto:African_Ration...@yahoogroups.com>
African_Ration...@yahoogroups.com
Kerala (India): <mailto:Yukthivadi...@yahoogroups.com>
Yukthivadi...@yahoogroups.com
Andhra Pradesh (India):
<mailto:Telugu_Rationa...@yahoogroups.com>
Telugu_Rationa...@yahoogroups.com
Bangladesh: <mailto:Bangla_Rationa...@yahoogroups.com>
Bangla_Rationa...@yahoogroups.com
Rationalist International
President: Sanal Edamaruku
Honorary Associates
Dr. Pieter Admiraal (The Netherlands), Prof. Mike Archer (Australia),
Katsuaki Asai (Japan),
Sir Hermann Bondi (UK), Prof. Colin Blakemore (UK), Prof. Vern Bullough
(USA), Dr. Bill Cooke (USA), Dr. Helena Cronin (UK), Prof. Richard
Dawkins (UK), Joseph Edamaruku (India), Jan Loeb Eisler (USA),
Prof. Antony Flew (UK), Tom Flynn (USA), Jim Herrick (UK), Christopher
Hitchens (USA), Ellen Johnson (USA), Prof. Paul Kurtz (USA), Lavanam
(India), Dr. Richard Leakey (Kenya), Iain Middleton (New Zealand), Dr.
Henry Morgentaler (Canada), Dr. Taslima Nasreen (Bangladesh), Steinar
Nilsen (Norway), Prof. Jean-Claude Pecker (France), James Randi (USA),
Prof. Ajoy Roy (Bangladesh), Dr. G N Jyoti Shankar (deceased, USA),
Barbara Smoker (UK), Prof. Rob Tielman (The Netherlands), David Tribe
(Australia), K Veeramani (India), Barry Williams (Australia),
Prof. Richard Wiseman (UK) and Prof. Lewis Wolpert (UK)
http://www.rationalistinternational.net
_____
stoney
And if tomorrow's version(s) of things is different doesn't matter.