Hey Stupid, It's Deism, Not Atheism

actually, this raises an interesting question.

Deists are not theists, right? Therefore, arent they atheists by definition? Does that mean we now have to refer to ourselves as atheist/adeist?

OK, its not that interesting :)
 
: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!!

I'm an atheist. And I'm a strong atheist in that I believe that all Gods worshipped by man are inventions of mythological tendencies in the human experience.

To me the concept of God is simply our way of manifesting and dealing with elements of ourselves that we don't understand, our spiritual feelings, unknowns, existential awareness etc.

History and religious studies bear this out.

The only book I've read by Dawkins is "The God Delusion" which I shredded in a paper because I felt Dawkins discussed religion throughout the book rather than God.

Beyond that I have no interest in the man because I think he's an ass.

When I went to seminary that's what clinched it for me. I've studied religious beliefs all my life, not atheists beliefs because for an atheist the belief is simple, there's no real God. There's nothing to study about something that doesn't exist. So the only teachings that have led me to atheism are religious ones.
 
Last edited:
Is this a joke?

ETA - I didn't notice that pnerd posted the exact same thing. :) Anyway, the question still stands.
 
Last edited:
Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of God surfaced.


Can anyone provide any evidence of Flew's noteriety as an atheist from before his conversion? Did he write books? Did he give speeches? If he only became famous after his conversion, then he can only rightly be called the world's most infamous ex-atheist, which may be a well deserved title. Though I never heard of Flew except from spamming cranks on this board, I also can't think of any other ex-atheist.
 
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.


Yeah, I also enjoy being scolded for not being well enough versed in their mythological arcana. The problem with it is that the starting point for theology is already outside the bounds of observed reality. I can understand how frustrating it is for theists who want to engage atheists in debate ... really. But how can an atheist take a leap onto an imaginary playing field, and expect to play a rational game? It's fine for Dungeons & Dragons, but then (almost) everyone playing that game knows it's fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Nurse! he's out of bed again!

Thanks, Hux. :)

No, Mr. A; you're going to have to stay in the secured wing.

Mr. A: No! Wait! I need to get to Mexico!

Miss W begins reading the sign on the secured door AGAIN, and everyone at the nurses' station gives a long sigh, knowing that this will go on for at least an hour.

Seeing her opportunity, Miss L makes a break for it.

Anyway... we go through this at the nursing home twelve hours a day.

But I think that bwinwright succeeded in getting out. :rolleyes:

The only book I've read by Dawkins is "The God Delusion" which I shredded in a paper because I felt Dawkins discussed religion throughout the book rather than God.

Beyond that I have no interest in the man because I think he's an ass.

ETA: Oh yeah, and yay, truethat! I can't stand Richard Dawkins. (Sheds a wistful tear for the late, great Stephen Jay Gould, who could wipe the floor with Dawkins and frequently did.)
 
Last edited:
I'm an atheist. And I'm a strong atheist in that I believe that all Gods worshipped by man are inventions of mythological tendencies in the human experience.

To me the concept of God is simply our way of manifesting and dealing with elements of ourselves that we don't understand, our spiritual feelings, unknowns, existential awareness etc.

History and religious studies bear this out.

The only book I've read by Dawkins is "The God Delusion" which I shredded in a paper because I felt Dawkins discussed religion throughout the book rather than God.

Beyond that I have no interest in the man because I think he's an ass.

When I went to seminary that's what clinched it for me. I've studied religious beliefs all my life, not atheists beliefs because for an atheist the belief is simple, there's no real God. There's nothing to study about something that doesn't exist. So the only teachings that have led me to atheism are religious ones.
If you argue with a parrot, you only encourage it to spout out random phrases so that you will pay attention to it. If the parrot won't shut up, turn out the light, leave the room and the parrot will eventually fall asleep.
 
To me the concept of God is simply our way of manifesting and dealing with elements of ourselves that we don't understand, our spiritual feelings, unknowns, existential awareness etc.


I agree but I would make a couple of changes to suit my preferences.

"To me the concept images of God is simply our way of manifesting and dealing with elements of ourselves archetypes of the collective unconscious that we don't understand, our spiritual feelings, unknowns, existential awareness etc."
 
Deism is a belief in God. Is there some other definition of which I'm not aware?
 
Deism is a belief in God. Is there some other definition of which I'm not aware?


To say simply, "deism is a belief in God," leaves out important information, such as the distinction between deism and theism. In other words, what definition or concept of "God" are you solving for?
 
To say simply, "deism is a belief in God," leaves out important information, such as the distinction between deism and theism. In other words, what definition or concept of "God" are you solving for?

Well, it's certainly not a lack of belief in a god or gods, so it certainly isn't atheism...although I can see where one might feel the need to make the distinction and include it in some alternate title, as was suggested earlier, like adeist.

I do not happen to feel such a need. I'm an atheist, and I think anyone who discovers this about me knows what I mean. Not that I ever plan to let anyone outside this forum find this out about me. Where I live, you'd do better to go about telling people you're a baby-raper.
 
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!!
That's funny I'm embarrassed for the many stupid people who actually think intelligent design is a science.

In 2006, Flew joined 11 other academics in urging the British government to teach Intelligent Design in the state schools.
It seems I have to add Flew, and those 11 academics to that list of stupid people. Are you a member of that stupid list as well? I only ask for sake of completeness.
 
: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.

I've never read Dawkins. I do, however, label myself an atheist, so I think you just called me a lot of names, for no reason.

From what I've seen in my 30+ years as a Bible-thumping Fundie, and in the time since I utterly rejected all that cant, Theists can be some of the meanest, most hate-filled, most antagonistic and enraged people on the planet. Especially those who purport to meekly follow that sacrificed Lamb of God.

And the really baffling part is that they seem to be proud of being cruel to others.

They appear to enjoy making their Baby Jesus cry. Go figure, eh?
 
I was an atheist long before I ever heard of Dawkins or any of the rest of the ones who make such a splash. Fact is that there are a lot of reasons for people to be or become atheists, and they are no more homogenous than theists.
 

Back
Top Bottom