Hey Stupid, It's Deism, Not Atheism

bwinwright

Banned
B
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
172
:D Hey Stupid, It’s Deism, not Atheism

People who label themselves atheists are simply stupid, insecure, and lost little sheep following the teachings of greedy con artists and disinformation agents like Richard Dawkins, currently the world’s most notorious atheist. Dawkins, a professor at Oxford, reportedly an expert in the sexual practices of farm animals and a devout follower of the racist Charles Darwin, has made a fortune selling his flawed and destructive atheistic philosophy to millions of pseudo intellectuals who falsely believe denying any god is somehow cool.

Richard Dawkins has replaced Anthony Flew as the world’s leading atheist, because Flew learned the scientific truth and now believes in deism. While both men have taught at Oxford, Anthony Flew is a real philosopher in pursuit of the truth while Dawkins is not. Anthony Flew has always practiced the philosophy of Plato’s Socrates who taught, “We must follow the argument wherever it goes.”

Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of God surfaced. The world of microbiology, especially the super sophisticated complexity of DNA, convinced Flew that a deity or super-intelligence is the ONLY good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.

Flew wrote a book about his conversion from atheism to deism based entirely on the latest developments in science. Read his book There is a God: How the world’s most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

In a letter to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web on 12/29/2004, Flew wrote, “I now realize I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.”

He explains how he was misled by Richard Dawkins claiming, “Dawkins has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter.” Why? I believe Dawkins is more interested in establishing atheism as the world’s true religion with himself as the self-appointed Pope.

In 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government to teach Intelligent Design in the state schools. In 2007, in an interview with Benjamin Wiker, Flew said, “My deism was a result of a growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical universe.”

Flew went on to say, “And my own insight that the integrated complexity of Life itself-which is far more complex than the physical universe-can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.”

In addition, Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has been proven to be false. Of course, the greedy and deceitful folks leading the atheist movement certainly don’t want their sheep to learn the truth about Darwin. Simply check out David Wilcock and Tim Harwood. They will lead you to the truth about the many flaws in Darwin’s “theory”.

I am just embarrassed for the many stupid people, living in the 21st century, who continue to label themselves atheists in light of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hey stupid, it’s Deism, not Atheism!!
 
What with the return of Yrreg, and now another great bwinwright thread, January is shaping up to be a great comedy month in the R&P forum.

I do admit to feeling sorry for the rational theists on these boards, who often end up being tarred with the same brush. But still, we all have our crosses to bear. So to speak.
 
I don't understand how as evolution is becoming more and more solid as a theory as science develops, it is wrong.

Lol@this thread.
 
The existeince of people like Dawkins is a direct result of the existence of the creationist movement in the US. So he's rubbish at philosophy. At least he knows his science. The idiots who are his main target aren't even any good at theology, let alone science.

Dawkins is needed as an antidote to creationist lunacy. The fact that his views are extreme in certain respects just reflects the extreme nature of the nonsense which provoked him to start writing about religion in the first place. Since the US doesn't appear to be capable of producing it's own Dawkins, you can have ours instead. :)
 
Last edited:
LOL. Flew calls himself "the world's most notorious atheist", but he has delusions of grandeur. I don't think anybody ever heard of him before his "conversion" and at that point, the only people who were convinced he had been a "notorious atheist" were the theists.

Frankly, I think Flew is a plutocrist. He saw all the people writing and getting rich off of books aimed at making theists smug about their beliefs and decided he wanted a piece of that pie. The science of Economics supported his conversion.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
The idiots who are his main target aren't even any good at theology...
Click to expand...


What's that supposed to mean? How can one be bad at theology? Theology is the study of the unknowable; it has no basis upon which to establish quality.
 
Tricky said:
LOL. Flew calls himself "the world's most notorious atheist", but he has delusions of grandeur. I don't think anybody ever heard of him before his "conversion" and at that point, the only people who were convinced he had been a "notorious atheist" were the theists.
Click to expand...

I certainly never heard of Flew until Yrreg mentioned him here, and I've been an atheist for 15 years or so.

How can a deist advocate the teaching of ID? And since when is life not a part of the physical universe?

Tricky said:
Frankly, I think Flew is a plutocrist. He saw all the people writing and getting rich off of books aimed at making theists smug about their beliefs and decided he wanted a piece of that pie. The science of Economics supported his conversion.
Click to expand...

What is a plutocrist? :confused:
 
My BS detector goes into overdrive when I hear evolution referred to as "Darwinian Evolution" or "Darwinism" or "Darwin's theory of evolution". Even Dawkins would cheerfully admit that Darwin's original theory wasn't without its flaws. If by "the racist Charles Darwin" you are referring to "Social Darwinism", Darwin had nothing to do with that and was by any objective standard far less "racist" than many other people of his age. Even your hero Antony Flew defends Darwin in this regard. I quote: "...there seem to be absolutely no grounds for pillorying Darwin as a racist. On the contrary...he shared...principled hatred...for Negro slavery".

I'm similarly suspicious when the word theory is enclosed in quotes when discussing evolution. What else ya' got? If man evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Bananas are clearly designed by an intelligent designer to be eaten by people? The eye is too complex to have been created by "accident"? If any of these sound like compelling refutations of evolution you aren't nearly as educated on the subject as you think you are.

I also never heard of Flew until relatively recently. I thought that it was generally agreed the most famous/notorious atheist (of the last 100 years anyway) was Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Flew's "I can't figure out how life began therefore goddidit" is a textbook example of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

You may be successfully preaching to your equally ignorant and stubborn choir but I suspect no one else is swayed by your tired rhetoric. Try again.
 
Last edited:
I had never heard of Flew before Christians started throwing him around, proclaiming him the world's most famous atheist.

And even if he was, what does that mean anyway? Just because he's most famous, he also has to be right about everything, and we should all follow in his footsteps?

Well, who's the most famous Christian? I'd say the pope. What does that mean? He's right about everything, and every Christian has to believe what he does? Right?
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
It's a made-up word. A plutocrat is one who believes in government by the wealthy, so I coined "plutocrist" to mean, someone who worships wealth. It sounded more lofty than "greedy bastard".
Click to expand...

Unlike the OP, that makes a lot of sense.
 
Tricky said:
Frankly, I think Flew is a plutocrist. He saw all the people writing and getting rich off of books aimed at making theists smug about their beliefs and decided he wanted a piece of that pie. The science of Economics supported his conversion.
Click to expand...


I don't know. I think he's probably just a frightened old man who doesn't want to die and go to hell. I think his conversion has more to do with a "Pascal's Wager"-style hedging of bets combined with an intellectually lazy approach to the question of how life originated.
 
hgc said:
How can one be bad at theology? Theology is the study of the unknowable; it has no basis upon which to establish quality.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It amuses me when atheists are criticised by theists for being poorly informed about theological arguments from decades or centuries past (and I'm thinking particularly about William Lane Craig now - such comments were made on the Michael Coren show, and can be watched on YouTube). In my opinion, theology is an especially useless and relatively uninteresting kind of philosophy, characterised by word games built on groundless and unexamined assertions. Fans of Star Wars can be as widely read in their field of interest as the best theologians*, and can present arguments that are just as internally consistent. Both fields are based on fictions, but experts in one are called geeks, while experts in the other are called professors.

*Comparatively, anyway; I suppose that more literature has been produced on the subject of theology than on Star Wars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom