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.

[taxed2death]

I agree with your post #71. Why people are trampling this man is beyond my understanding.

Christians should be happy for him.

[melbell]

Amen!

All the posts bashing this man for not becoming a Christian right now make me want to cry.

As long as he does it before he dies, then he will be in Heaven just the same as someone who has been a Christian for 60 years. Same Heaven, same Father...some brothers and sisters are just younger in the faith...nothing wrong with that.

[Raycpa]

No one deserves heaven. Not me, not even Mother Teresa. God chooses some and passes others by.

The Psalmist wrote, "the Lord looked down from heaven at mankind to see if there are any who are wise, any who worship him. But they have all gone wrong; they are all equally bad. No one of them does what is right, not a single one." (Psalm 14:2,3)

As far as separating familes,

I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against one another, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law" (Luke 12:49-53)

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

According to God's Word, anyone who accepts Jesus Christ of Nazareth as Savior and Lord and repents of their sins will go to Heaven.

As to the 2 million victims of the Khmer Rouge, only God knows their eternal destination.

[frog_jerk_2004]

Given the positing of the claim of continuation of consciousness beyond the cessation of brain activity, I would think that the onus is upon the claimaint to demonstrate the validity of such a scenario.

Were talking about a soul here, which is very different from consciousness...

[ClancyJ]

Looks like we won't be able to discuss this - I am far too inferior for discussions with you.

But, why do I have to delve into arguments of evolution vs creation to prove my own beliefs? You see - I do not believe in the ultimate validity of evolution without a creator to start the process. I do not think science is a higher authority than God. I believe that God created the science as the science evolves from understanding the workings of God's creations.

I understand that there are many who hold on to any excuse to prevent or mock belief. Why should I care what they think about my willingness to believe? Are they superior to those that have faith in their creator?

God does not become God based on your understanding of his creations. You become a believer based on your understandings of the methods of God's creations.

Belief in God is for all people whether scientists, natives, or bums. Belief in God is a matter of faith. Scientists, and highly educated people believe they have to have proof - which circumvents faith and, in fact, puts them in the position of judging whether God is worthy of their belief. They search and delve in arguments to prove He is not.

What should God think of their efforts? Who would be the more valued believer - the street bum who merely accepts Him on faith or the scientist who spends his career espousing exposure of the fallacies of belief to come to a final decision to believe (after years of persuading others against belief)?

[Ken H]

So your answer is that these Khmer will go to Heaven, their victims, who were overwhelmingly nonchristian, will go to Hell, and the children will never see their parents again.

Is that correct or do the nonchristian children go to Hell forever too?

[Ken H]

According to God's Word, anyone who accepts Jesus Christ of Nazareth as Savior and Lord and repents of their sins will go to Heaven.

Agreed.

As to the 2 million victims of the Khmer Rouge, only God knows their eternal destination.

Doesn't God's Word also address this? It says the unsaved are going to Hell, right?

[little jeremiah]

Consciousness is the symptom of the presence of the soul. Once the soul leaves the vehicle of the body, no more consciousness. A rock, table, or piece of paper never had consciousness. A corpse had consciousness when the soul lived in it, and once the soul departed, the consciousness is gone.

Consciousness is energy of the soul kind of like light coming from the sun (not the best analogy, but it'll do.)

[Glenmerle]

When a person steps in the right direction, you don't beat him over the head for not stepping far enough.

I agree. Give him time. It's actually a huge step from atheism to theism, and at age 81 he's got to fight against the very well worn ruts in his way of thinking. Even C.S. Lewis didn't move directly from atheism to Christianity. He first became a theist, with a vague belief in some sort of God, then a Christian.

[tuesday afternoon]

bflr

[Matchett-PI]

I responded to your question. Cat got your tongue? LOL

[Dimensio]

Were talking about a soul here, which is very different from consciousness...

Oh, well, that's a different matter. If we're discussing souls, you will need to present a means of detection for such a thing, as well as a description of its properties (or, if not that, at least a means for someone to discern its properties).

[VOA]

bump

[WOSG]

"Rreflerjiwr FRWOIPERFJW:LKJ"
Schroedinger's Cat has indeed gotten a hold of my tongue.

I thought you were trying to validate the afterlife not the existence of minds. mind games indeed!

No disagreement on "Cogito ergo sum" but I am currently out of my mind, and so cannot discuss the matter until I get back to myself. :-)

[Dimensio]

If the article is accurate about what was presented at the trial, then I don't like it -- looks far too weak for me, and had I been on a jury and all that I had to consider was the testimony of a few witnesses who didn't even witness anything, but instead claimed that the accused bragged about it after the fact, with no physical evidence whatsoever, I wouldn't turn a guilty verdict.

But,then,I wasn't a juror, so perhaps there was something more presented than the article would seem to indicate. All I know is that the OJ trial had better evidence and he was acquitted, so I'm not sure that the Biblical analogy works completely. Clearly different situations lead to different verdicts, based solely upon the jury in question.

In any case, I think that I owe you an apology for any incivility that I might have shown toward you. You have presented yourself as knowledgable, rational and willing to clearly explain your beliefs and your justifications without resorting to thoughtless fallacies and blanket insulting statements about those who do not happen to believe as you do. I should remember that in spite of the aggrivation that I get at reading people who blithely assert that all atheists are fools or "liberal air heads", I should avoid launching salvos of vitrol toward those who are clearly willing to engage in meaningful discussion.

[VOA]

bump

[Dimensio]

Looks like we won't be able to discuss this - I am far too inferior for discussions with you.

No, you're probably just not used to dealing with someone as perpetually crabby as me. I do apologize for that, but when I see arrogant theists repeating the tired old canard that "there are no atheists in foxholes" and someone referring to all atheists as "liberal air heads" (and I know that you weren't the one doing that), I get a little pissy.

But, why do I have to delve into arguments of evolution vs creation to prove my own beliefs?

You don't.

You see - I do not believe in the ultimate validity of evolution without a creator to start the process.

Well, I won't argue with you. As science can only study the natural world, observing a supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is outside of the realm of science. As such, science cannot address the possibility of a Creator starting something like evolution; which means that it can neither confirm nor deny such a thing.

When someone wants to argue that evolution is true, but that a divine creator was behind it somehow, I'm not going to get involved. That's not a discussion based purely on science, but at the same time they're not denying anything presented by science, so I usually have no quarrel with them. My problem in this discussion has been with a number of people who assert that the existence of 'God' (and not just any divine agent, but a specific God, typically as described in the Bible) is somehow "obvious", despite the fact that less than half of the planet believes in such a deity. To me, that comes off as an arrogant insult against non-believers where it is said that it's not so much that they've just not seen the right evidence, but that they are idiotically ignoring very obvious evidence right in front of them. As though someone with no knowledge of Western culture could one day go outside and discern just from the sunrise that there is a single God and that this God gave His Son to die for the sins of humanity. It's also a blanket dismissal of every argument for any other religion and against Christianity and while those arguments may well be flawed, it still looks like a cop-out to sweep them all away by saying "if you don't get it, there's just something wrong with you".

Perhaps I misinterpreted something that you said to mean that. I was seeing red after a few of the more arrogant comments yesterday, and I apologize if I attacked you unfairly.

[Matchett-PI]

"No disagreement on "Cogito ergo sum" but I am currently out of my mind, and so cannot discuss the matter until I get back to myself. :-)"

Take your time. LOL

[Raycpa]

So your answer is that these Khmer will go to Heaven, their victims, who were overwhelmingly nonchristian, will go to Hell, and the children will never see their parents again. Is that correct or do the nonchristian children go to Hell forever too?

My answer is that if it were not for Christ, we would all be condemned to death. Why God chooses some and not others is a mystery to me. It certainly isn't based on our own worthiness. For example, he choose a murderer to lead his people out of Egypt.

I can understand your point though. He doesn't do what I would do. I imagine he doesn't do what you want him to do either. However, even if God doesn't conform to what I think or what you think it doesn't make him less God.

If its any consolation. Jesus said that he came to be the shepherd and that he didn't lose a single one of his sheep. So, if you are one of his sheep, you will not remain lost. If you are not one of his sheep you will remain lost but because you don't hear his voice it won't matter much to you.