The Turning of an Atheist (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&ex=1351828800&en=c249db082e6a548e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin)
This is a long but interesting article on philosopher Antony Flew. Back in the day, Flew was the equivalent of what Richard Dawkins is now, the public face of atheism. Now, in his old age, he's being taken advantage of and manipulated by theists. Interesting the lengths they will go to 'get an atheist on their side'. It's pretty bad news.
I can't believe how desperate the believers are to make their case that they have to take advantage of an old man like that. It's disgusting! My grandfather, at that age, was telling me how he saved many people's marriages with sex counseling... when he was a lawyer. He did have a law degree, but he never practiced much less counseled people on sex.
Older people are even more easily manipulated than children... and it's nice to buy into "you'll go somewhere nice after you die" when you're close to that point in your life.
I truly have tremendous disdain for believers. (That's "REALLY HATE" in nice language my mother would approve of.)
Here is a interview with the man on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw)
The only thing I can say about this is that I don't agree with his reasons for accepting theism. The "biological complexity" argument is bunk to me.
If Flew has been misled on these things - that's his own lookout. I can't understand why he would change his mind like this. Makes no sense to me :?
Good find, PJ. This is so like the desperate theists to pull this.
The first time I heard of Antony Flew changing his tune about atheism I thought, "Who the fuck is Antony Flew?'
When I heard about the duplicity of his actual conversion I thought, "Why do I care? I still don't know who Antony Flew is."
It's just another in the long line of bullshit appeal to authority arguments made be theists. We're not atheists simply because someone said there is no god. It's the lack of evidence, stupid. I don't give a shit about what Antony Flew thinks, nor would I care much if Dick Dawkins said he found god(in the being saved sense, not in the actually finding him hiding under a rock or something - that would really put a bee in the Pope's bonnet).
He helped along the presumption of naturalism[atheism for him] and ignosticism.
Some theists are exploiting him.They claim he wrote a book showing why theism,he is only a deist and still cares not for miralcles and Christinsainty.Shame on them!
Hmm. I've heard a lot of rubbish from both sides over this Antony Flew fella.
Yes, the guy is now a deist. Not a Christian. Yet Christians all over the world jump to conclusions, blowing it out of all proportions so they can use it to say "well he believes it, it must be true", essentially. This is meaningless propaganda & it's entirely at the expense of the man himself.
Atheists, on the other hand, often argue their side by saying that he must have lost it a little in his old age (or they further and say he suffers from dementia, despite having no evidence to back that up), he's been targeted by evil evangelicals and that's why he's changed his mind. This is equally meaningless, presumptuous & disrespectful. We shouldn't take the bate and get dragged down into such pointless squabbling. I'd say if people want to argue at all, they should read what the man himself actually has to say and then share their opinions on that.
Nobody seems to care much about what he thinks, though, so long as their side, whichever it might be, can somehow use him - as a person, not his arguments - to discredit the other. It's tremendously petty.
I looked him up on Wikipedia awhile back. I concur with Mister Joy, but wanted to add:
QuoteJournalist Mark Oppenheimer suggests that Flew, now 84 years of age, has been suffering from a mild form of senile dementia for at least three or four years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magaz ... ref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
I'm not suggesting it's why - his reasons for becoming a deist are based on his view of DNA generation, etc, so it's not like it was purely emotional.
I did think the above referenced article was good and very respectful.