Icons of Evolution

[Shemjaza]

Surely you don't expect a global atheistic conspirator to be pro-atheistic, do you?

In your opinion are the prominent atheist philosophers and activists co-conspirators, or dupes like the rest of us?

 

[DennisF]

If he was as famous as claimed, I wouldn't need to research him.

Your intellectual humility is exceptional. I am amazed that you know everyone who is famous.

 

[DennisF]

Perhaps dead, obscure philosopher (pardon the redundancy) would have been better. I've watched, listened to, or read a lot of content from "atheist media types" in the last decade and I don't recall any of them bringing up Flew or mentioning him other than, perhaps quickly in passing. None of them are building their arguments on mentions of him. To the extent his ideas are important today (and I have no idea if they are) no one prefaces discussion of them with an invocation to his name. (They do mention Bertrand Russell, another, earlier, also dead, English atheist and philosopher.)

Where I have heard is the occasional Christian trying to use Flew and his sunset-years "conversion" as some sort of argument that we'll all be back in the fold, or atheism is hollow or whatever. It's a lousy argument.

Come on, man. You said Flew vacated the "papal chair of atheism". I know plenty of *Christians* here that will get all hot and bothered if you even imply that their *denomination* has a ruling personal authority, let alone all of Christianity. "Atheism" is far far less organized. (Mostly completely unorganized)

Yes (more than the deceased Flew, but that doesn't take much). As noted in other replies, the "atheist movement" and media environment has largely moved on from the "New Atheists", so, no, he isn't that significant any more

I don't care what you think. I do care what I think and I have thought about it, but none of your comments are going to convince me that your supernatural god is even remotely possible.

I doubt Flew or atheists are "icons of evolution", so let's be done with this.

I do not know you or your intellectual background, but anyone who has cursive knowledge of 20th century atheism would know who Antony Flew (or Richard Dawkins) is. Maybe you have some missing knowledge about atheism to fill in.

I am not trying to draw a correspondence between social structure among atheists and Christians by the metaphor about a pope. Some atheists are more eminent than other atheists in the wider culture. The fact is that atheists are not all hermits, they interact with each other and with society at large, and they do have clubs, etc. based on atheism. If you are not aware of this, then look around a little and you'll find them.

The so-called New Atheists have nothing new to add to the plowed ground of the older atheists. Indeed, the older ones seemed to be of greater intellectual stature. And a label like "New Atheists" suggests some organization under that label.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I do not know you or your intellectual background, but anyone who has cursive knowledge of 20th century atheism would know who Antony Flew (or Richard Dawkins) is.

That's quite an assumption you make here. Perhaps you should read a bit more before posting. I knew of and read Dawkins long before he published any books on religion. Dawkins was and is a famous evolutionary biologist and campaigner against the pseudoscience of creationism. As I implied to someone else, I don't pay attention to philosophers. The only reason I have ever heard of Flew is because a few, scattered Christians have used his "conversion" late in life as some sort of "defeator" of "Atheism". (And why would be familiar with 20th century "atheism"? I was a Christian in the 20th century and an atheist in the 21st.)

Maybe you have some missing knowledge about atheism to fill in.

There is nothing to actually know. Nothing special to learn about not believing in any gods.

I am not trying to draw a correspondence between social structure among atheists and Christians by the metaphor about a pope. Some atheists are more eminent than other atheists in the wider culture. The fact is that atheists are not all hermits, they interact with each other and with society at large, and they do have clubs, etc. based on atheism. If you are not aware of this, then look around a little and you'll find them.

I'm not interested in joining in a club for atheists. What would be the point. Sitting around and talking about how we don't believe?

The so-called New Atheists have nothing new to add to the plowed ground of the older atheists. Indeed, the older ones seemed to be of greater intellectual stature. And a label like "New Atheists" suggests some organization under that label.

As far as I can tell, "New Atheists" was label the mavens of culture and society gave to a handful of public atheists who published popular books in a narrow window of time (mid-2000s) and the brief period of gatherings and club growth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not interested in joining in a club for atheists. What would be the point. Sitting around and talking about how we don't believe?

You get in a foxhole and that'll change.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You get in a foxhole and that'll change.

You're just as likely to find an atheist after a battle too you know.

 

[Shemjaza]

You get in a foxhole and that'll change.

There's also a long history of the horrors of war destroying faith.

Regardless, I don't think the reactions of some in states of extreme fear and trauma is a good way to discover what is true.

 

[AdB]

May God save his soul during that tour!

At least he has come to acknowledge that the good things of western society all came from Christianity, let's pray that God will show him that this not for no reason and that Dawkins will finaly surrender to our loving Savior

 

[AdB]

Why should we care?

It's good to know about all the false claims that have been made...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't care what you think. I do care what I think and I have thought about it, but none of your comments are going to convince me that your supernatural god is even remotely possible.

... when I hear this sort of rhetoric, Hans, I begin to wonder, what else is there to talk about then? It's like you're taking a machete and cutting apart the olive branch anyone attempts to extend to you. At that point, we're left holding a useless stalk... for useless talk.

What are we supposed to do with that? For the life of me, I really don't understand what some of you emboldened atheists want.

 

[Hans Blaster]

... when I hear this sort of rhetoric, Hans, I begin to wonder, what else is there to talk about then? It's like you're taking a machete and cutting apart the olive branch anyone attempts to extend to you. At that point, we're left holding a useless stalk... for useless talk.

It wasn't an olive branch, it was a sequence of condescending pronouncements about what I needed to know to be a good atheist (or whatever). The line "I don't care what you think." was in *direct* response to "You need not care about what I think" from him. It is a sub-sub-sub (inside partial post) thread about whether I am intellectual enough to be an atheist.

There really isn't anything to know or do to be an atheist. (Easiest "religion" out there.)

Person A: What's the word for someone that doesn't believe in a god?
Person B: Atheist
Person A: I guess I'm an atheist then.

It's just a label for a belief state. It's not a practice, a religion, a philosophy, a way of life. Nothing special to learn, know, or do.

What are we supposed to do with that? For the life of me, I really don't understand what some of you emboldened atheists want.

Stop trying to tell us how to be non-believers. Seriously, that's all. Quit thinking that "atheism" is a philosophy or dogma and definitely stop trying to tell us non-believers that.

My whole initial objection was to the notion that there is some sort of "grand poobah atheist" and we should care who it is. (It is apparently now Dawkins, hence why this all started.) That Dawkins is an atheist (or even that he wrote an anti-religion book) is not related to the topic of this board or thread. What he is (or at least should be) best known for is his career-long steadfast crusade against creationism. (Now *that* is relevant.)

 

[AV1611VET]

It's just a label for a belief state. It's not a practice, a religion, a philosophy, a way of life. Nothing special to learn, know, or do.

In other words, they just think they're atheists?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It wasn't an olive branch, it was a sequence of condescending pronouncements about what I needed to know to be a good atheist (or whatever). The line "I don't care what you think." was in *direct* response to "You need not care about what I think" from him. It is a sub-sub-sub (inside partial post) thread about whether I am intellectual enough to be an atheist.

There really isn't anything to know or do to be an atheist. (Easiest "religion" out there.)

Person A: What's the word for someone that doesn't believe in a god?
Person B: Atheist
Person A: I guess I'm an atheist then.

It's just a label for a belief state. It's not a practice, a religion, a philosophy, a way of life. Nothing special to learn, know, or do.

Yeah, I kind of figured that was the case.

Stop trying to tell us how to be non-believers. Seriously, that's all. Quit thinking that "atheism" is a philosophy or dogma and definitely stop trying to tell us non-believers that.

ok.

My whole initial objection was to the notion that there is some sort of "grand poobah atheist" and we should care who it is. (It is apparently now Dawkins, hence why this all started.) That Dawkins is an atheist (or even that he wrote an anti-religion book) is not related to the topic of this board or thread. What he is (or at least should be) best known for is his career-long steadfast crusade against creationism. (Now *that* is relevant.)

Yes, I'm aware of these things.

 

[PhantomGaze]

The only reason I have ever heard of Flew is because a few, scattered Christians have used his "conversion" late in life as some sort of "defeator" of "Atheism". (And why would be familiar with 20th century "atheism"? I was a Christian in the 20th century and an atheist in the 21st.)

Antony Flew was the author of "Theology and Falsification", and "The Presumption of Atheism" which effectively framed the rhetoric that has been used by New Atheist movement even to this day. Even the view of atheism as a default position is from him.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Antony Flew was the author of "Theology and Falsification", and "The Presumption of Atheism" which effectively framed the rhetoric that has been used by New Atheist movement even to this day.

And that has to do with the specific list given in the OP...?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Antony Flew was the author of "Theology and Falsification", and "The Presumption of Atheism" which effectively framed the rhetoric that has been used by New Atheist movement even to this day. Even the view of atheism as a default position is from him.

I've never heard of these books. I haven't said Flew had no influence, just that no one is out citing him specifically. He is not connected to evolution or these "icons".

 

[PhantomGaze]

And that has to do with the specific list given in the OP...?

It doesn't as far as I am concerned, but I was just giving supplemental information since the topic came up.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It doesn't as far as I am concerned, but I was just giving supplemental information since the topic came up.

Yeah, fair enough.

 

[dale dorsett]

Darwin was scientific in approach the reason he called his THEORY a theory. He also stated that if evidence proves him wrong the theory was wrong. That is objective. He would be appaled if around by how his theory has been presented as fact and with evidence like vertical stratification and fossilizing of trees through thousands even millions of years according to current theorization of layers of the earth itself would prove him wrong. A tree 30foot tall standing vertical would rot out totally within a hundred years if dead. Fossilization means absorption of minerals to replace dying matter or seal it in from outer air and water.

On stratification of trees, I have seen pictures of the inside of steel bunkers from WWI with long stalactite and stalagmite. Supposedly took millions of years to develop? Really?? Heck, if the mineral flow is rich stone cracked open revealed that stone developed around a pick axe head encasing it - wood rotted away quickly and rock formed. Less that 150 years old.

Remember the tales of millions of years to form diamonds but with coal, heat, and pressure man made diamonds form in minutes. How about oil taking millions of years to make? Heat, pressure, and decaying matter can make oil quickly. How about dinosaurs with soft tissue in them?

Darwin if not so pumped up an ego by others, would by observation and objectivity look at DNA which is the footprints of designed, harmonious, and created with programming in it to create it ---with awe and blatently declare that man and animals and even plants and trees prove him wrong, recognizing that all that exists was by design of the Creator he knew existed.

 

[dale dorsett]

That's quite an assumption you make here. Perhaps you should read a bit more before posting. I knew of and read Dawkins long before he published any books on religion. Dawkins was and is a famous evolutionary biologist and campaigner against the pseudoscience of creationism. As I implied to someone else, I don't pay attention to philosophers. The only reason I have ever heard of Flew is because a few, scattered Christians have used his "conversion" late in life as some sort of "defeator" of "Atheism". (And why would be familiar with 20th century "atheism"? I was a Christian in the 20th century and an atheist in the 21st.)

There is nothing to actually know. Nothing special to learn about not believing in any gods.


I'm not interested in joining in a club for atheists. What would be the point. Sitting around and talking about how we don't believe?

As far as I can tell, "New Atheists" was label the mavens of culture and society gave to a handful of public atheists who published popular books in a narrow window of time (mid-2000s) and the brief period of gatherings and club growth.

... when I hear this sort of rhetoric, Hans, I begin to wonder, what else is there to talk about then? It's like you're taking a machete and cutting apart the olive branch anyone attempts to extend to you. At that point, we're left holding a useless stalk... for useless talk.

What are we supposed to do with that? For the life of me, I really don't understand what some of you emboldened atheists want.

So much for creative out of the box objectivity. The I am right and you are wrong attitude shows a closed mind. As a Christian and an engineering tech with scientific understanding evolution which means change is a fact. If people move from the equator to the north pole their bodies probably would adapt by growing a lot of hair that they do not need at the equator. Certain changes are reasonable to consider.

Darwin was scientific in approach the reason he called his THEORY a theory. He also stated that if evidence proves him wrong the theory was wrong. That is objective. He would be appaled if around by how his theory has been presented as fact and with evidence like vertical stratification and fossilizing of trees through thousands even millions of years according to current theorization of layers of the earth itself would prove him wrong. A tree 30foot tall standing vertical would rot out totally within a hundred years if dead. Fossilization means absorption of minerals to replace dying matter or seal it in from outer air and water.

On stratification of trees, I have seen pictures of the inside of steel bunkers from WWI with long stalactite and stalagmite. Supposedly took millions of years to develop? Really?? Heck, if the mineral flow is rich stone cracked open revealed that stone developed around a pick axe head encasing it - wood rotted away quickly and rock formed. Less that 150 years old.

Remember the tales of millions of years to form diamonds but with coal, heat, and pressure man made diamonds form in minutes. How about oil taking millions of years to make? Heat, pressure, and decaying matter can make oil quickly. How about dinosaurs with soft tissue in them?

Darwin if not so pumped up an ego by others, would by observation and objectivity look at DNA which is the footprints of designed, harmonious, and created with programming in it to create it ---with awe and blatently declare that man and animals and even plants and trees prove him wrong, recognizing that all that exists was by design of the Creator he knew existed.

With modern understanding of life, DNA, and the complexity of the universe the concept of it creating itself and like coming from nothing is totally crazy to me. Believing what we want to believe rather than being objective and seeking understanding may temporarily fell like we are so superior and right pumping our egos. But reality will hit and we will eventually on earth or before God the Creator wake up.