I don't see what that has to do with atheism. Never mind, of course, that the Times was one of the loudest cheerleaders in the rush to war with Iraq, and they've continued in that vein in their relentless warmongering against Iran.
Since delving in to this topic beyond an illustration would be getting off topic, I won't continue in this way, other than to say that you must be reading the Omaha Times, not the NY Times.
If you think that the NYT simply made up the interview with Flew, then it's really you who needs to show some evidence for that.
Oh, no... In journalism, you can't just make things up. You will be caught. Instead, you have the editing monster, which chops up meaning lickety-split. You have tacit assertions. You have manipulative wordings. You have an assortment of half-truths.
Read that article again, Crash. Its dripping with all of those qualities.
Why mention, several times, that he's 84 years old? Why only sparsely quote a man? You honestly think that he and Oppenheimer sat there in silence? You really don't think that Oppenheimer defecated himself when Flew mentioned something about mild dementia?
I wrote to Oppenheimer about an hour ago. I will post his reply, should I receive one.
Which he later repudiated. You don't remember? We talked about it here at this very forum.
I remember talking about Flew before on the forum, but not about any dates. If you can backtrack where we've discussed this before, it would probably help tremendously, 'cause I sure don't remember which forum it was in. Then again, I might be suffering from senility.
Back and forth between theism and atheism. For the "world's greatest atheist" he sure flip-flops on the issue.
I don't see anything that would allude to this. I see a man who, much like myself, was very much doubtful about the existence of God. His conversion was slow. Mine was fast.
Almost like it depends on who he's talking to. Almost like he can't remember what he's supposed to be, so he just says what he senses will make the person in front of him happy. You know, like people with Alzheimer's or senility usually do.
Perhaps you can post some papers on this so we all can get a sense of what you're talking about. The only thing I've ever read was one article where there were rumors that he was turning theistic in 2001. He said that he was not to clarify for everyone. Then in 2004 he said that he has been persuaded by things such as specified complexity to make the switch. He no longer believes that chance accounts for all life.
quote:
Years of debate didn't seem to persuade him, while natural arguments seem to have.
Except that he demolished those very arguments in his previous books. It beggars belief that he would suddenly be convinced by them now, unless he's not of sound mind.
Why not? Lewis was an atheist until his late thirties, I believe. Stalin and Marx were both seminary students who lost their faith. I've seen old men, I'm talking, older than Flew who have converted to Christ during an alter call-- tears streaming down their face.
People gain and lose their faith all the time. I wouldn't say that its only because he's old, especially since he clearly illustrates how lucid he is. Even if you say that Varghese was a ghost writer for the book, there still are many examples, recent examples, that are not. I've already provided some. You can clearly see that.
quote:
What exactly was substantiated by the Times beyond speculation?
That, despite being the supposed "author" of this book, he doesn't seem to have any memory of ever having wrote it. That's pretty significant, isn't it?
Varghese is the co-author and is listed as such on the
book.
This is a pathetic attempt to malign him just because he no longer parades the same godlessness as you any longer.
It's abundantly obvious that he is the sole author, and that Flew contributed nothing but his name. And that, probably, unwillingly.
LOL! Yes, Roy put a gun to his head.
And what, pray tell, makes it
abundantly clear that Roy was the sole author?
It simply beggars belief that a person of sound mind would be convinced by the very same arguments they've consistently and accurately refuted.
The fact that it happened to me is all the evidence I need to know it is possible. The fact that it happened to you in reverse order should also clarify that it is possible.
I couldn't care less about what Flew believes. But the way that theists have been gunning for the guy like he's some kind of trophy is reprehensible and shameful.
Yes, this much I will agree with. Biola University recently awarded Flew with distinguishing honor as a luminary. This was after his semi-conversion. Obviously, one has to ask, so he's only good enough to be praised as long as he's thinking along the same lines with our beliefs?
However, try not to get sanctimonious on me. Flew has been all but excommunicated by his apparent fairweather, atheist friends. Would you give up your friends just because he converted to Christianity?
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
™ Version 4.2
