Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: How the World's Most Noted Atheist Changed His Mind [View all]SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)17. From the link
The only conclusion I can draw is that these apologists are taking advantage of a confused, elderly man in a state of cognitive decline. Theres little evidence that Flew even understands the controversy hes at the center of, much less that he changed his position as the result of any new arguments. These apologists insinuated themselves into his life, won his confidence, and then pushed him to agree to their claims when he no longer knew what he was agreeing to, and are now using him as a prop to promote their antiquated, irrational superstitions. (Although even by the most Christian-friendly interpretation of these events, Flew is now a deist, not a Christian which one would think, in their eyes, leaves him just as damned as if hed been an atheist.)
Just to be clear, I dont expect this to have the slightest impact on the atheist community. We are not atheists because we follow Antony Flew (or Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris). We follow these people because we are atheists and find their positions in agreement with our own. Even if Antony Flew had converted in his prime, that would have no persuasive effect on me unless he could show the facts and evidence that led to this decision. The Times article mentions what others have at stake, but in fact there is nothing at stake other than the sad story of a worthy philosophers legacy being coopted late in life by confidence tricksters.
Just to be clear, I dont expect this to have the slightest impact on the atheist community. We are not atheists because we follow Antony Flew (or Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris). We follow these people because we are atheists and find their positions in agreement with our own. Even if Antony Flew had converted in his prime, that would have no persuasive effect on me unless he could show the facts and evidence that led to this decision. The Times article mentions what others have at stake, but in fact there is nothing at stake other than the sad story of a worthy philosophers legacy being coopted late in life by confidence tricksters.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That's a very good point I hadn't considered. The headline works perfectly well without it.
rug
May 2013
#3
No. He's an idiot because the argument from design is patently stupid.
Act_of_Reparation
May 2013
#20
If you're claiming that Flew is making an analogical argument, please point to the analogy.
Jim__
May 2013
#35
There is a vast difference between stating the earth was created as literally described in the Bible
rug
May 2013
#37
the argument from complexity for the existence of an 'intelligent source'..
Phillip McCleod
May 2013
#12
... He thought he saw a argument that proved he was the Pope. He looked again and found it was
struggle4progress
May 2013
#16