Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is some talk about Bertrand Russell, and Sartre as being the major atheists of the 20th century (we could probably include people like Dawkins and Sagan too). But I think a case can be made for Antony Flew being more important than any of them. And recently he defected, and is now a theist, and is actually considering whether God revealed himself in history in Christ. This is pretty major news, and it looks to be a blow to modern day atheism. So I ask: what do y'all think?
I think that it doesn't matter one whit what anyone else thinks. It's the individual personal thoughts that matter.
So, until the atheists develop some sort of herd instinct that compels them to follow a leader without thinking for themselves, I don't think it will matter what Flew or anyone else comes up with.
There is some talk about Bertrand Russell, and Sartre as being the major atheists of the 20th century (we could probably include people like Dawkins and Sagan too). But I think a case can be made for Antony Flew being more important than any of them. And recently he defected, and is now a theist, and is actually considering whether God revealed himself in history in Christ. This is pretty major news, and it looks to be a blow to modern day atheism. So I ask: what do y'all think?
I really don't think it's important. I could give you a list as long as your arm of professional apologists and church ministers who have become atheists. One of my close friend is in fact an ordained Catholic priest....and now an atheist. It's a case of 'win some...loose some' as it were!
I think that it doesn't matter one whit what anyone else thinks. It's the individual personal thoughts that matter.
So, until the atheists develop some sort of herd instinct that compels them to follow a leader without thinking for themselves, I don't think it will matter what Flew or anyone else comes up with.
Padgett2 nailed it.
Non-theism is not a religion, therefore non-theists do not consider any writings to be infallible or sacred, nor do they follow or worship any prophets or spokespeople.
So, while it may be disappointing, it doesn't matter to non-theists if a high-profile atheist finds religion.
I think I agree. But it sure is interesting that one of the main philosophers to argue for atheism (or against theism) changed his mind about those arguments. What does that do to the rational, or philosophical grounds for atheism? He's not just "some guy" we know who changed his mind, but an influential figure at the center of these debates in the 20th century. And he claims he's simply following the evidence. I, at least, find this to be very interesting.
I think I agree. But it sure is interesting that one of the main philosophers to argue for atheism (or against theism) changed his mind about those arguments. What does that do to the rational, or philosophical grounds for atheism? He's not just "some guy" we know who changed his mind, but an influential figure at the center of these debates in the 20th century. And he claims he's simply following the evidence. I, at least, find this to be very interesting.
It is very interesting.
I used to have a well-qualified History professor who was a devout Christian and this baffled me for the same reasons (i.e. people who know History are automatically more aware and more critical of writings from the past and, like Flew, less likely to be religious) but I was always much more interested in his opinions more than those of a less-educated Christian.
So, Flew's change of heart does not sway my own point of view, but it does make me stop and wonder (about Flew - not about Christianity).
Maybe he's getting toward the end of his life and is thinking about covering all his bases just in case he was wrong.
Hi Padgett,
that might be true. But in his book (just came out) he goes to some length to say he really did change his mind BECAUSE of the evidence, and that he doesn't believe in the immortality of the soul or anything. It's an interesting read.
that might be true. But in his book (just came out) he goes to some length to say he really did change his mind BECAUSE of the evidence, and that he doesn't believe in the immortality of the soul or anything. It's an interesting read.
Does he indicate what this "evidence" is?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah that was cheesy.
