Answers About God From A Famous Ex-Atheist With Over 50yrs Experience Of Arguments Against God's Existence

When you’ve devoted a lifetime to arguing against the existence of a divine Creator, it can be hard to admit you were wrong. So what compelled one of the world’s leading atheists to do just that?

As the growing body of evidence in science pointed increasingly to a theistic explanation of the universe, Dr. Flew found that the standard atheistic explanations were untenable.
Imagine for a moment being one of the world’s foremost atheists. You’ve basked in the fame of academic circles for 50 years and have written more than 30 books, many of which are hailed as hallmarks of atheistic thought. You’re highly respected, honored as one of the world’s brightest minds.

Then, suddenly, you announce you have reversed course and now believe in God.

You can imagine the reaction from most of your colleagues and the secular press—mostly anger, scorn and a withering hail of criticism.

What made you sacrifice your reputation and good standing among many of your peers, knowing full well how unpopular your belief in God was going to be, especially in an increasingly secular and atheistic society?

“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God.”

It’s a fascinating story, and one that holds many valuable answers for young and old alike who have asked the most basic and most important question: Does God exist?

It’s not often that you can view this topic from the other side of the aisle—from one who had been a champion of atheistic thought and had based his life and teachings on the premise that God did not exist.

Who is this person? His name is Dr. Antony Flew, an Oxford professor who spent 50 years teaching philosophy and constructing clever arguments to support an atheistic point of view.

Why did he change his mind? And more importantly, why did he go public about his acceptance of God’s existence, knowing the damage to his reputation among his colleagues that would follow?

Prior to his death in 2010, Dr. Flew wrote a book in 2007 titled There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, explaining why he had reversed his long-held position and what had compelled him to admit he had been wrong. It’s not often that we see a premier philosopher who was an atheist explain why he changed his mind and came to believe in a divine Creator. His reasons are great answers to those who question God’s existence.

A principle to guide your life
In his book Dr. Flew mentioned that early in life, he came on a principle that would guide his career: Follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how unpopular that may be.

In his youth, he thought the evidence at that time backed an atheistic perspective, namely, that the scientific data and philosophical reasonings pointed more toward a belief that God did not exist.

Yet, he mentioned, from the 1980s on, the evidence started turning against atheism and toward a Creator God. He then had to reluctantly reassess his beliefs.

“I now believe,” he came to admit, “that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science” (There Is a God, p. 88, emphasis added throughout).

In particular, he offered three lines of evidence that convincingly led him to his belief in God.

How did the laws of nature come to be?
The first of these has to do with the origin of the laws of nature.

Dr. Flew was quite candid about his former atheistic views on the laws of nature, which are the standard explanation against God’s existence. Yet he would later call this type of reasoning “the peculiar danger, the endemic evil, of dogmatic atheism” (p. 86).

This is the assumption that things in the universe exist as they are and should be accepted as such without much further thought. It had been his defense against any questions about the ultimate origins of what exists.

He noted: “Take such utterances as, ‘We should not ask for an explanation of how it is that the world exists; it is here and that’s all’ or ‘Since we cannot accept a transcendent source of life, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance from matter’ or ‘The laws of physics are “lawless laws” that arise from the void—end of discussion.’ They look at first sight like rational arguments that have a special authority because they have a no-nonsense air about them. Of course, this is no more sign that they are either rational or arguments” (p. 87).

As the growing body of evidence in science and technology pointed increasingly to a more theistic explanation of the universe, he asserted that these standard atheistic explanations were becoming antiquated and untenable.

“My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument,” he said. “Over the last two decades, my whole framework of thought has been in a state of migration. This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature. When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist: ‘We must follow the argument wherever it leads’” (p. 89).

He admitted that the accumulation of the evidence in the last two decades now supported the existence of a Creator God, and he had the courage, personal integrity and humility to accept this conclusion—no matter how personally disagreeable it had been for him.

He mentioned that the evidence dealing with the laws of nature increasingly indicated a Superior Mind was operating at a cosmic level.

“The leaders of science over the last hundred years,” he wrote, “along with some of today’s most influential scientists, have built a philosophically compelling vision of a rational universe that sprang from a divine Mind. As it happens, this is the particular view of the world that I now find the soundest philosophical explanation of a multitude of phenomena encountered by scientists and laypeople alike.

“Three domains of scientific inquiry have been especially important for me . . . The first is the question that puzzled and continues to puzzle most reflective scientists: How did the laws of nature come to be?” (p. 91).

One of the most enigmatic aspects of the laws of nature is that these invisible forces act on matter and energy, but are not matter or energy themselves. For them to work, they had to be in place before matter and energy existed, and they are not tangible objects. To believe all these intricate laws that act in unison somehow appeared together at just the right time, with just the right force, without some organizing Intellect behind them, defies logic.

“The important point,” Flew brought out, “is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God” (p. 96).

So, although it may not be well known, a number of cosmologists and physicists have admitted that the orderly laws of the universe point to something bigger and grander than the universe itself!

Flew quoted numerous of these scientists, like the famous cosmologist Paul Davies, who affirms: “Science is based on the assumption that the universe is thoroughly rational and logical at all levels. Atheists claim that the laws [of nature] exist reasonlessly and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, I find this hard to accept. There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted” (p. 111).

Flew concluded: “Those scientists who point to the Mind of God do not merely advance a series of arguments or a process of syllogistic reasoning. Rather, they propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable” (p. 112).

How did life originate from non-life?
Flew’s second line of evidence for a belief in God has to do with the great difference that exists between life and non-life.

“When the mass media first reported the change in my view of the world,” he related, “I was quoted as saying that biologists’ investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.

“I had previously written that there was room for a new argument to design in explaining the first emergence of living from nonliving matter—especially where this first living matter already possessed the capacity to reproduce itself genetically. I maintained that there was no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for such a phenomenon” (p. 123).

Pondering over this question, Flew came to the conclusion that a self-replicating living thing being produced by chance from non-life utterly defies all odds. Self-replication means that something has within itself the ability to copy components of its being and pass traits and the mechanism itself to future generations.

Indeed, that copy has to be so perfectly reproduced that it can perpetuate itself in turn, and yet it also has to carry an additional system that permits it to adapt to a changing environment to improve its chances of survival.

As a philosopher, Flew pointed out: “Most studies on the origin of life are carried out by scientists who rarely attend to the philosophical dimension of their findings. Philosophers, on the other hand, have said little on the nature and origin of life. The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and ‘coded chemistry’? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem” (p. 124).

He came to see that scientists don’t have a satisfying answer to this question.

“Carl Woese, a leader in origin-of-life studies,” he explained, “draws attention to the philosophically puzzling nature of this phenomenon. Writing in the journal RNA, he says, ‘The coding, mechanistic, and evolutionary facets of the problem now became separate issues. The idea that gene expression, like gene replication, was underlain by some fundamental physical principle was gone.’

“Not only is there no underlying physical principle, but the very existence of a code is a mystery. ‘The coding rules (the dictionary of codon assignments) are known. Yet they provide no clue as to why the code exists and why the mechanism of translation is what it is.’

“He frankly admits that we do not know anything about the origin of such a system. ‘The origins of translation, that is before it became a true decoding mechanism, are for now lost in the dimness of the past, and I don’t wish to . . . speculate on the origins of tRNA, tRNA charging systems or the genetic code’” (pp. 127-128).

Although there is an increasing body of knowledge about how DNA and RNA work, scientists still don’t have a clue about how all these coding systems originated, which Flew concluded do point to a Superior Intelligence at work.

He asked: “So how do we account for the origin of life? The Nobel Prize-winning physiologist George Wald once famously argued that ‘we choose to believe the impossible; that life arose spontaneously by chance.’ In later years, he concluded that a preexisting mind, which he posits as the matrix of physical reality, composed a physical universe that breeds life . . . This, too, is my conclusion. The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind” (pp. 131-132).

Did something come from nothing?
Flew’s third line of evidence is the very existence of the universe.

In his early years, Flew believed that the universe had always existed, a popular belief at that time. If something had always been around, he reasoned, there was no need to bring up a Creator to explain it. But new scientific discoveries made him question this premise and whether something could come out of nothing.

“In fact,” he related, “my two main antitheological books were both written long before either the development of the big-bang cosmology or the introduction of the fine-tuning argument from physical constants. But since the early 1980s, I had begun to reconsider. I confessed at that point that atheists have to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus, for it seemed that the cosmologists were providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas Aquinas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning.

“When I first met the big-bang theory as an atheist, it seemed to me the theory made a big difference because it suggested that the universe had a beginning and that the first sentence in Genesis (‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’) was related to an event in the universe . . .

“If there had been no reason to think the universe had a beginning, there would be no need to postulate something else that produced the whole thing. But the big-bang theory changed all that. If the universe had a beginning, it became entirely sensible, almost inevitable, to ask what produced this beginning. This radically altered the situation” (pp. 135-137).

Of course, atheists and secular scientists came up with counterarguments for the growing evidence for a universe with a beginning. Over the years all kinds of unlikely explanations have appeared.

“Modern cosmologists,” he pointed out, “seemed just as disturbed as atheists about the potential theological implications of their work. Consequently, they devised influential escape routes that sought to preserve the nontheist status quo. These routes included the idea of the multiverse, numerous universes generated by endless vacuum fluctuation events, and Stephen Hawking’s notion of a self-contained universe” (p. 137).

Flew found all these arguments to be desperate attempts and quite unconvincing.

He concluded: “The three items of evidence we have considered in this volume—the laws of nature, life with its teleological [or purpose-exhibiting] organization, and the existence of the universe—can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of the Divine does not come through experiments and equations, but through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map” (p. 155).

Thus the existence of a divine Creator is a certain fact of logic. As Scripture attests: “From the beginning, creation in its magnificence enlightens us to His nature. Creation itself makes His undying power and divine identity clear, even though they are invisible; and it voids the excuses and ignorant claims of these people [who would deny Him]” (Romans 1:20, The Voice).

Professor Flew died in 2010, but his intellectual and philosophical pursuit led him to accept the existence of an intelligent Creator—a surprising outcome for him, but one that was based on his lifelong premise that one should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

We hope his example, as well as the irrefutable evidence he was compelled to examine, will help others resolve the question of whether God exists. And by answering in the affirmative, it is the natural starting point for one’s journey of faith in developing a relationship with this awesome God who made us!

Source: https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/answers-from-a-famous-ex-atheist-about-god

Summary please

Buharidgeneral:
Summary please

Hmmm...

You suddenly reminded me of michellekabod2.

Hope you know atheism hasn't disappeared.


^{Budaatum, LordReed, CAPSLOCKED}

Martinez39s:
You suddenly reminded me of michellekabod2.

Hope you know atheism hasn't disappeared.


^{Budaatum, LordReed, CAPSLOCKED}

I don't know what he wants us to do with this. Some pastors have left the faith does that persuade him?

Been a long while here.
Anyway, I've always said I have more respect for agnostics than anyone who says there's no creator cause I haven't seen one.
The more you think and get logical, the closer you are to admitting that this ordered universe could NEVER have been without a superior intelligence. The universe screams ID.
Atheism is either as a result of inability to venture into deep critical reasoning because one has other preferences or if the atheist has ventured thus, then they are just staunch, bull-headed denialists.
Tamaratonye5, Dantedasz, kingxsamz and co is there anything to learn from Dr. Flew?

LordReed:


I don't know what he wants us to do with this. Some pastors have left the faith does that persuade him?

The difference is the apostates leave because they find that the religious practices are either not working or just difficult to keep. Doesn't mean belief in creator is irrational.
It's different when a man on the track of critical reasoning, which atheism makes claim to, advances in reasoning to a point of concession. It shows you that if you really are on the path of reasoning, you should be expecting to arrive at this same point.

DrLiveLogic:
Anyway, I've always said I have more respect for agnostics than anyone who says there's no creator cause I haven't seen one.
The more you think and get logical, the closer you are to admitting that this ordered universe could NEVER have been without a superior intelligence. The universe screams ID.
Atheism is either as a result of inability to venture into deep critical reasoning because one has other preferences or if the atheist has ventured thus, then they are just staunch, bull-headed denialists.
Tamaratonye5, Dantedatz, is there anything to learn from Dr. Flew?


The difference is the apostates leave because they find that the religious practices are either not working or just difficult to keep. Doesn't mean belief in creator is irrational.
It's different when a man on the track of critical reasoning, which atheism makes claim to, advances in reasoning to a point of concession. It shows you that of you really are on the path of reasoning, you should be expecting to arrive at this same point.

LoL. I am sure the irony is lost on you that you call those leave your faith apostates. Bwahahahaha!

LordReed:


I don't know what he wants us to do with this. Some pastors have left the faith does that persuade him?

That it doesn't persuade me, doesn't mean that it hasn't persuaded others.

So it's not realistic to use me to generalize, because if everyone of the faith were like me, there might not be even one person who leaves the faith because a pastor does so. And this ex-atheist doesn't equate to just any pastor leaving the faith but a giant of the faith, because he was arguably the most respected in the atheistic field. I don't think you have any instance of such a person leaving the faith otherwise you wouldn't hesitate to showcase it, because you know the sort of effect it could have.

So even if it doesn't move you, it doesn't mean it wouldn't move others.

CAPSLOCKED:
50 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN ARGUMENT?
NEW IDEA FOR MY RESUME.

Yeah.. Arguments against God existence... No space.

How many years have you got?

LordReed:
I don't know what he wants us to do with this. Some pastors have left the faith does that persuade him?

Don't mind him. He is a shameless fellow. There is no length he wouldn't go to make himself a laughing stock.

jesusjnr2020:
That it doesn't persuade me, doesn't mean that it hasn't persuaded others.

So it's not realistic to use me to generalize, because if everyone of the faith were like me, there might not be even one person who leaves the faith because a pastor does so. And this ex-atheist doesn't equate to just any pastor leaving the faith but a giant of the faith, because he was arguably the most respected in the atheistic field. I don't think you have any instance of such a person leaving the faith otherwise you wouldn't hesitate to showcase it, because you know the sort of effect it could have.

So even if it doesn't move you, it doesn't mean it wouldn't move others.

Correction, there is nothing like "giant of atheism" nor was Flew the most respected in atheistic circles plus Flew became a theist not a Christian. We don't have popes or bishops or pastors on whose every word we hang, waiting for them to dispense atheistic revelations. Even if Dawkins or any other big name atheists become theists today, they'll still need to "show working".

BTW I don't need to showcase anybody becoming atheist, it's beside the point. People change their minds all the time.

One thing I find funny is Flew concludes that there is only one god, lol. Why and how does he reach such a conclusion simply by observing the universe? What about the universe precludes it from being made by a group of gods?

For me that shows a monotheistic bias most probably driven by an interaction with the most dominant religions which happen to be monotheistic.

Buharidgeneral:
Summary please

He had three questions which from a purely materialistic science view could not be answered.

How did the laws of the universe come to be?

What is the origin of life DNA and RNA, and how could a mindless universe make self replicating organisms with consciousness?

Why is there something instead of nothing?

This made him come to the conclusion that there maybe an intelligent designer behind it all.

jesusjnr2020:
Answers About God From A Famous Ex-Atheist With Over 50yrs Experience Of Arguments Against God's Existence



Source: https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/answers-from-a-famous-ex-atheist-about-god

I don't fault the man.

He raised the age old questions about the nature of existence and through a philosophic point of view personally came to the subjective conclusion that their is a God, or at least an intelligent design. To which I say fair enough.

But this still doesn't answer the question about the validity of religion and divinity.
Does this intelligent designer care if you believe in it and worship it?
Did this intelligent designer reveal himself and give revelations to humans? And if he did why is there so many different and non similar accounts about who he/she/it/they are.
Did this intelligent designers die on a cross for the sins of a race of organisms living on a small planet one of billions in a random stars system in a random galaxy out of the countless others?

LordReed:



BTW I don't need to showcase anybody becoming atheist, it's beside the point. People change their minds all the time.

Wonderful. This must be a miracle. Thank You Lord Jesus. So reed can finally know that people change their minds all the time. May he remember this and remind his cohorts before they again say people are only Christians because they are born by Christians.

DrLiveLogic:
Been a long while here.
Anyway, I've always said I have more respect for agnostics than anyone who says there's no creator cause I haven't seen one.
The more you think and get logical, the closer you are to admitting that this ordered universe could NEVER have been without a superior intelligence. The universe screams ID.
Atheism is either as a result of inability to venture into deep critical reasoning because one has other preferences or if the atheist has ventured thus, then they are just staunch, bull-headed denialists.
Tamaratonye5, Dantedasz, kingxsamz and co is there anything to learn from Dr. Flew?
.

@emboldened,

NO!!!

DrLiveLogic:
Been a long while here.
Anyway, I've always said I have more respect for agnostics than anyone who says there's no creator cause I haven't seen one.
The more you think and get logical, the closer you are to admitting that this ordered universe could NEVER have been without a superior intelligence. The universe screams ID.
Atheism is either as a result of inability to venture into deep critical reasoning because one has other preferences or if the atheist has ventured thus, then they are just staunch, bull-headed denialists.
Tamaratonye5, Dantedasz, kingxsamz and co is there anything to learn from Dr. Flew?


The difference is the apostates leave because they find that the religious practices are either not working or just difficult to keep. Doesn't mean belief in creator is irrational.
It's different when a man on the track of critical reasoning, which atheism makes claim to, advances in reasoning to a point of concession. It shows you that if you really are on the path of reasoning, you should be expecting to arrive at this same point.

So which of the gods did the supposed ex-atheist come to realize its existence?

DeusXmachina:

I don't fault the man.

He raised the age old questions about the nature of existence and through a philosophic point of view personally came to the subjective conclusion that their is a God, or at least an intelligent design. To which I say fair enough.

But this still doesn't answer the question about the validity of religion and divinity.
Does this intelligent designer care if you believe in it and worship it?
Did this intelligent designer reveal himself and give revelations to humans? And if he did why is there so many different and non similar accounts about who he/she/it/they are.
Did this intelligent designers die on a cross for the sins of a race of organisms living on a small planet one of billions in a random stars system in a random galaxy out of the countless others?

The emboldened are the facts of the case,not that Anthony Flew flip flopped and renounced atheism!

You people never talk about the increasing atheist population instead you choose to talk about the ones who run back to religion that they never left. The truth is that most people become atheists for the wrong reasons, your mother died therefore there is no god pfft, stupid excuse. You must logically probe god to know if he exists or not, some people might say he is beyond our logic and reason, but foolishly go back to use the same "designer argument" which is fully based on human logic and reason. The universe is more mysterious than anyone thinks, I don't believe in the Big Bang I believe something stranger and extraordinary might have happened.

kingxsamz:


So which of the gods did the supposed ex-atheist come to realize its existence?

It matters not what labels men give to him, does it? The authentic creator is the one who's got his signature on all creation. When you meet him, then you will know his name. So I believe we should all just follow the trail left in all of creation, especially and beginning from those things that cannot be tampered with by creation viz. laws of nature and then our very own selves as well, and we would realise the true creator. If he didn't leave a trail of himself in creation, only then we'd all be justified in not acknowledging him.
Like the laws of the universe for instance, teach us that action and reaction are equal and opposite, can never be changed by creation. It means the intelligence behind the universe definitely believes you must eventually get a retribution for all your actions, good and evil. So then do what you know is right and keep on until you find the true creator.
If you will want guidance on this path. I have a set of questions that might interest you and that you'll need to answer to set you up for the quest. Holla if interested.

Dantedasz:



@emboldened,

NO!!!

That's what your lips say. But there's still hope if that's not what the bottom of your heart says when you're all by yourself. Good luck.

LordReed:


Correction, there is nothing like "giant of atheism" nor was Flew the most respected in atheistic circles plus Flew became a theist not a Christian. We don't have popes or bishops or pastors on whose every word we hang, waiting for them to dispense atheistic revelations. Even if Dawkins or any other big name atheists become theists today, they'll still need to "show working".

BTW I don't need to showcase anybody becoming atheist, it's beside the point. People change their minds all the time.

What do you think I meant by "giant"? Maybe you think it's one chieftaincy title that is given to someone in a traditional ceremony.

I meant a "giant" in the respect of influence. Even in Nairaland here there are "giants" so to speak, even the most influential atheists who made several former Christians become atheists, and you very well know some of them.

Even when an atheist who was not that influential became a Christian you are well aware of the effect it had here, how much more if it was one of those "giants" here? So there's nothing to correct, except you just want to deny the obvious.

And I didn't say Mr Flew was the most respected, but "arguably" since he was one of the most respected and influential atheist.

By the way, what was your intention of showcasing this story of a christian turned gay?

https://www.nairaland.com/5412143/conversion-therapy-organization-founder-comes

You must have had a reason...

DeusXmachina:

I don't fault the man.

He raised the age old questions about the nature of existence and through a philosophic point of view personally came to the subjective conclusion that their is a God, or at least an intelligent design. To which I say fair enough.

But this still doesn't answer the question about the validity of religion and divinity.
Does this intelligent designer care if you believe in it and worship it?
Did this intelligent designer reveal himself and give revelations to humans? And if he did why is there so many different and non similar accounts about who he/she/it/they are.
Did this intelligent designers die on a cross for the sins of a race of organisms living on a small planet one of billions in a random stars system in a random galaxy out of the countless others?

You seem to think there's any question you have here that he hadn't asked in over fifty years of his questioning the same things.

You are still a baby in this regard. So keep asking, let's see how long you last. If you'd outlast his record.

jesusjnr2020:
What do you think I meant by "giant"? Maybe you think it's one chieftaincy title that is given to someone in a traditional ceremony.

I meant a "giant" in the respect of influence. Even in Nairaland here there are "giants" so to speak, even the most influential atheists who made several former Christians become atheists, and you very well know some of them.

Even when an atheist who was not that influential became a Christian you are well aware of the effect it had here, how much more if it was one of those "giants" here? So there's nothing to correct, except you just want to deny the obvious.

And I didn't say Mr Flew was the most respected, but "arguably" since he was one of the most respected and influential atheist.

By the way, what was your intention of showcasing this story of a christian turned gay?

https://www.nairaland.com/5412143/conversion-therapy-organization-founder-comes

You must have had a reason...

What you don't understand is influence works quite differently in atheistic circles than in religious ones. Atheist "influencers" encourage individualistic calls to reason, there is no call to group think the way you find in religious circles. It is why an atheist becoming religious hardly makes a splash. I've known about Flew's conversion even before I became an atheist. It didn't influence me and even other atheists I heard from about Flew take his "conversion" very skeptically. That's how it is in atheist circles, nobody takes your word and makes a dogma out of it. Everything is subject to critical review, even pronouncements in support of atheism. I have heard quite a bit of atheists online says they don't like Richard Dawkins so imagine if he converts, do you think such people will be moved?

I showcased the gay conversation therapy story because I thought it would be educative for those whose conception of what it is to be homosexual is rooted in ignorance. It wasn't about atheism which you would have known if you had read the article.

LordReed:


What you don't understand is influence works quite differently in atheistic circles than in religious ones. Atheist "influencers" encourage individualistic calls to reason, there is no call to group think the way you find in religious circles. It is why an atheist becoming religious hardly makes a splash. I've known about Flew's conversion even before I became an atheist. It didn't influence me and even other atheists I heard from about Flew take his "conversion" very skeptically. That's how it is in atheist circles, nobody takes your word and makes a dogma out of it. Everything is subject to critical review, even pronouncements in support of atheism. I have heard quite a bit of atheists online says they don't like Richard Dawkins so imagine if he converts, do you think such people will be moved?

I showcased the gay conversation therapy story because I thought it would be educative for those whose conception of what it is to be homosexual is rooted in ignorance. It wasn't about atheism which you would have known if you had read the article.

There's no real difference in my opinion, because all I can see from your view point is just the imaginary idea that everything is subject to critical review in atheism, whereas in reality atheists are equally as dogmatic in their reasoning if not more, disregarding even the most glaring of evidence which supports the existence of a Creator so as to sustain the course of their antireligious sentiments.

I never said all atheists would convert, but if Dawkins for instance converts, it's absolutely certain that several atheists would definitely follow suit, especially those he inspired to become atheists by his arguments. That's influence!

You didn't really need to explain why you shared the story of a gay therapy story, because I just wanted to prove that you're no different. It might not be about atheism, but it's for a similar purpose. And knowledge to some is ignorance to others, so just like you, it don't see the point in your sharing it.

another blow to the atheistic ego

Image123:


Wonderful. This must be a miracle. Thank You Lord Jesus. So reed can finally know that people change their minds all the time. May he remember this and remind his cohorts[b] before they again say people are only Christians because they are born by Christians.[/b]

That's not the only reason but for the majority is the first step.

jesusjnr2020:
There's no real difference in my opinion, because all I can see from your view point is just the imaginary idea that everything is subject to critical review in atheism, whereas in reality atheists are equally as dogmatic in their reasoning if not more, disregarding even the most glaring of evidence which supports the existence of a Creator so as to sustain the course of their antireligious sentiments.

I never said all atheists would convert, but if Dawkins for instance converts, it's absolutely certain that several atheists would definitely follow suit, especially those he inspired to become atheists by his arguments. That's influence!

You didn't really need to explain why you shared the story of a gay therapy story, because I just wanted to prove that you're no different. It might not be about atheism, but it's for a similar purpose. And knowledge to some is ignorance to others, so just like you, it don't see the point in your sharing it.

[img]https://media./images/8effa7b7964c33cf80d21e73cdf44359/tenor.gif[/img]

jesusjnr2020:
You seem to think there's any question you have here that he hadn't asked in over fifty years of his questioning the same things.

You are still a baby in this regard. So keep asking, let's see how long you last. If you'd outlast his record.

What makes you think I'm an atheist, I've never referred to myself as one?

And the man's years of questioning didn't lead him to Christianity, just theism with a view of the creator similar to Einstein's view of God.

DeusXmachina:

What makes you think I'm an atheist, I've never referred to myself as one?

And the man's years of questioning didn't lead him to Christianity, just theism with a view of the creator similar to Einstein's view of God.

If you've been trying to act as an though you're not an atheist, you must be the worst actor in NL.

You're jumping on every thread I speak about atheists arguing atheistically, yet you ask me what makes me think you're one?

I already told you to keep asking such atheistic questions let's see how long you'd last if longer than the man.

And it doesn't matter if he's a Christian or not, but he's an ex-atheist who now believes in the existence of God. That's the whole point.

jesusjnr2020:
If you've been trying to act as an though you're not an atheist, you must be the worst actor in NL.

You're jumping on every thread I speak about atheists arguing atheistically, yet you ask me what makes me think you're one?

I already told you to keep asking such atheistic questions let's see how long you'd last if longer than the man.

And it doesn't matter if he's a Christian or not, but he's an ex-atheist who now believes in the existence of God. That's the whole point.

Ok then for the purpose of clarity I'm areligious although I do appreciate some religious philosophy, and I don't deny the possibility of a creator, or intelligent designer, so I'm more or less agnostic.

However what I do deny is the claims made by religion, the divine origin of religion. Which I hold to have emerged no differently than individual regional cultures and traditional superstition.

I hope this clarifies my position.

My point was that the God he believes in still runs counter to the dogmatic religious view of God.

"Arguing atheisticaly, asking atheistic questions"
Didn't know that was a thing.

DeusXmachina:

Ok then for the purpose of clarity I'm areligious although I do appreciate some religious philosophy, and I don't deny the possibility of a creator, or intelligent designer, so I'm more or less agnostic.

However what I do deny is the claims made by religion, the divine origin of religion. Which I hold to have emerged no differently than individual regional cultures and traditional superstition.

I hope this clarifies my position.

My point was that the God he believes in still runs counter to the dogmatic religious view of God.

"Arguing atheisticaly, asking atheistic questions"
Didn't know that was a thing.

Lol!

Keep deceiving yourselves.

Agnostic ko, athestic ni