Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

NY Newsday ^ | 12/9/04 | RICHARD N. OSTLING

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

NEW YORK -- A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

[weshess]

I never said he did accept Christ, you are merely assuming which tends to make an ass out of you, if you will read the note that I am responding to then maybe you would understand. It makes no difference who they pray to, they will meet the One True God and guess what you can't repent when you are dead your fate is already sealed. You can act as smug as you want but you will ultimately meet the Judge of mankind and unless you accept Christ it will be a miserable meeting for you.

[weshess]

Some people i.e Dimenso, think that no rational person can believe in God. I know it would not be right and I really should pray for him/her, however, I would like to see these resolved people standing before the Throne of God saying "But my Genius I.Q. said that you didn't exist". They can deny him all they want but God has the final say.

[Raycpa]

Circumstantial evidence. Motive and opportunity. Yet evidence that would not be enough to convince someone like yourself.

[Raycpa]

Edited by me to shorten the read.

Michael Skakel convicted of murder
Email to a Friend Printer Friendly Version


(Norwalk-AP, June 8, 2002 Updated 12:43 PM) _ Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel's best hope to appeal his murder conviction would be to challenge the rulings that allowed the case to proceed to trial.

That's according to outside legal experts weighing in on the high-profile verdict.

Skakel was convicted Friday of beating Greenwich neighbor Martha Moxley to death in 1975 when they were 15 _ a crime that went unsolved for nearly a generation and raised suspicions his family connections had protected him.

Prosecutors offered no eyewitnesses and no direct physical evidence connecting Skakel to the slaying. Instead, the case was based almost entirely on testimony from people who said they had heard him confess over the years.

The 41-year-old Skakel, a nephew of Robert F. Kennedy's widow, Ethel, was handcuffed and led off immediately to jail. He faces from 10 years to life in prison at sentencing July 19.

.....

Martha's battered body was discovered under a tree on her family's estate in the wealthy community of Greenwich. She had been bludgeoned and stabbed with a golf club, later traced to a set owned by Skakel's mother.

Prosecutors contended Skakel had a crush on Martha and was upset because she seemed more interested in his older brother, Thomas.

The prosecution's case rested almost entirely on about a dozen people who said they had heard Skakel confess or make incriminating statements over the years. Several were former classmates from the Elan School, a drug and alcohol rehab center for rich kids in Maine.

The defense argued that the Elan School witnesses were of dubious credibility. And family members all backed up Skakel's alibi: that he was at a cousin's home around the time of the slaying. His lawyers also sought to cast suspicion on a former family tutor, and pointed out that the tutor and Thomas Skakel were both early suspects in the investigation.

Skakel did not take the stand. In a tape-recorded 1997 interview with an author that was played for the jury, Skakel said he went to the Moxley home, threw rocks at Martha's window to try to get her attention, then masturbated in a tree and ran home.

....

"For all our fascination with forensics, for all the absolutes of science, confessions count, witnesses count," said University of California law professor Susan Estrich. "In many respects, the time lag made it an old-fashioned trial, a question of who _ not what _ do you believe."

[Raycpa]

There is less evidence that Skakel commited murder than there is that Jesus was raised from the dead. Skakel was found guilty by a jury while atheists reject more convincing testimony about Jesus.

[weshess]

It takes more faith to believe in Atheism than it does to believe in Christ. If you can't tell there is a God just by looking out your window you don't have the ability to sense the obvious.

[beckett]

Elaphe is the genus of a snake, jenny. I'm a bit surprised at you, expert in all things biological as you are.

I was clumsily trying to make an association between the Keynes quote and my observation.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I must have misunderstood. I thought you said you know devout Christians who smoke dope. My apologies.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Would you consider an individual who claims to be God someone in control of their mental faculties?

[ClancyJ]

...Ah, classic argument from incredulity mixed in with unsupported assumptions as a premise...

Believe what you want - I know what I believe.

Why do I have to prove God exists to you? You have been exposed to His word - if you chose to discard it and latch onto science, evolution that is your choice.

I've always been amused at the evolution vs creation arguments. Seems man cannot believe that God would use evolution as a means of creation.

A computer creates also, but it requires the "program" created by the computer programmer to do anything. I would think God could be given credit for creations that come through evolution. The Master Plan was created by Him.

[Dimensio]

Why do I have to prove God exists to you?

Well, actually, you don't. Now, if you want me to accept your assertion, you'll have to give me evidence, but otherwise I could care less.

You have been exposed to His word - if you chose to discard it and latch onto science, evolution that is your choice.

Woah, where did science and evolution enter into this? And you're presupposing the existence of 'His' word and presupposing that you happen to know exactly what that word is. More unfounded assertions and two red herrings.

You could really benefit from an intro to logic course.

I've always been amused at the evolution vs creation arguments. Seems man cannot believe that God would use evolution as a means of creation.

From your statement, I can only conclude that you are lying when you claim that you have read evolution vs. creation arguments. Even here on FR, a number of people have claimed to believe that also.

[Dimensio]

If you can't tell there is a God just by looking out your window you don't have the ability to sense the obvious.

Should we be able to discern the nature of this God also, or is that a little too much to expect?

Why do so many arrogant theists -- not all, but more than I can count -- assume that the existence of their deity is 'obvious'? Yeah, sure, to someone who already believes it might be obvious, but to a non-believer, it's not going to be that apparent. We don't already believe that the world required your 'God' to create it (some believe that it required a different 'God' to create it), so the most you're doing is waving your hands around and reaffirming your beliefs to yourself while arrogantly insulting anyone who hasn't come to the same conclusion that you did.

[Dimensio]

Some people i.e Dimenso, think that no rational person can believe in God.

I never said this, you liar.

[weshess]

Ah name calling the last vestige of the genius mind. Then you are a liar for saying that I said that Flew accepted Christ, please grow up! If you do not have a problem with God why do you protest so much?

[weshess]

You have become boring. Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself that God doesn't exist. Regardless, you will come before him and as I stated earlier if you didn't accept Christ it will not be a happy time for you. Christians can be arrogant as we are right! I will pray for you.

[pnome]

"Would you consider an individual who claims to be God someone in control of their mental faculties?"

Either that, or just plain false. Perhaps they have some reason for wanting me to think they are, perhaps they are trying to trick me.

[Protagoras]

I thought you said you know devout Christians who smoke dope.

Oh, but I do.

You won't be the one who defines them. They are defined by what they believe, not how many times they slip.

People do things all the time they know to be wrong. They ask forgiveness. They are sinners.

They haven't yet figured out how not to sin anymore. They work on it.

I never said they think that sin is to be committed anytime they feel like it.

Then there are those who don't think there is anything wrong with inhaling cannabis. They are devout in every other way. I take it you disagree with them.

But please don't come back with some proclamation about there devoutness or Christinity. You don't get to judge.

They will get their turn before Christ. AND YOU WILL GET YOURS. You are the judgee, not the judger.

[Dimensio]

Ah name calling the last vestige of the genius mind.

You made a statement about me that was demonstratably false.

I don't see how that doesn't make you a liar.

Then you are a liar for saying that I said that Flew accepted Christ,

Except that I didn't say that you said this. You said that any who accept Christ is welcomed into the family. I, correctly, pointed out that the subject of the article had not accepted Christ. Your statment implied that you were either misinformed about Flew's conversion or you understood the nature of Flew's change of heart, but threw in a non-sequitur for no reason. My response was tailored to fit that uncertainty. As such, I never made any specific claims about your statement then.

If you do not have a problem with God why do you protest so much?

Would you protest if someone lied about things that you have said? How about if someone expressed a desire to see you suffer (ie, how you wanted to see me stand before God and watch me say that my IQ said that He didn't exist, thus assuming that my atheism is a result of me thinking that I'm smarter than you -- another arrogant, false assumption)

If becoming a Christian means becoming as malicious, spiteful and dishonest as you, then I want nothing to do with your rleigion.

[Dimensio]

Christians can be arrogant as we are right!

Yes. The Hindus tell me that too, though in general they're more polite about it

I will pray for you.

I thought that you'd rather see me trying to justify my lack of belief to God before His Throne? Wouldn't that be a big laugh for you? Bet you'll find it hilarious when the unsaved are cast into the lake of fire to suffer for eternity.

[Ken H]

Regardless, you will come before him and as I stated earlier if you didn't accept Christ it will not be a happy time for you. Christians can be arrogant as we are right! I will pray for you.

Khmer Rouge embraces Jesus

The Khmer Rouge followed a harsh brand of communism, killing nearly two million people in their bid to return Cambodia to Year Zero. Now they have a new faith: evangelical Christianity.

--Khmer Rouge embraces Jesus

Will the truly repentant Khmer will go to Heaven?

Since most of their 2 million victims were not Christian, are they destined for Hell?

Will the children go to Hell also, or will families be separated forever?