Can you tell us a little more about what made him change his mind. The article is very unclear

This is an old news story from 2004 and is based on Flew's interview with Philosophia Christi http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm regarding his change to deism

I think you forgot to mention one small detail:

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,"

@exu

And your point being?

Read it properly, he says nothing to support your ideals. He essentially says that religion has got it wrong.

No suprise there.

I don't see anyone having mentioned anything about religion on this thread. The point is that an atheist changes his mind from a position of 'no-god' to the direct opposite. It matters little at this point what 'god' he might have had in mind - he subscribes to neither the Islamic nor the Christian deities, but it is clear that he leans towards a belief in a 'God.' So, what then is deism? I found this interesting in the first paragraph of ijebuman'[/b]s link:

"Historical and modern Deism is defined by the view that [b]reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God.

If we follow that trite definition of the term, at least it clearly says that Deism points to a belief in God based on reason, _{unless Wikipedia was incompetent there}. That speaks volumes for someone who is said to have been an atheist for more than a half-century. That he neither subscribed to the Christian God nor to the Allah of Islam does not weaken the fact that he was pro-'god', which is not an atheistic view at all.

All that article shows is someone who has changed his stance from staunch atheist to an agnostic.

You can't prove a negative, so the openess to the possibility of a higher power is logical.

I did a little research on Flew's conversion and apparently he - [b]not [/b]a lifelong atheist - 'converted' to deism. Quite different than the belief in a divine creator. Anyway, here are some articles on Flew and his conversion:

Wikipedia on Flew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew
A critique on the arguments Flew used to motivate his conversion: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333347/posts

These atheist all seem so confused, First theres no God" a big bang created this Marvellous earth" then theres a God but not the christian God, this God is based on reason. What do they really believe.

This whole Atheism thing is just another form of hatred for God and his Christ. An escapist method because no one really wants to believe he is sinful and his sin condemns him to eternal damnation and that he needs a loving sacrifice by an eternal God who created him to save him.

which God? I have never seen him, how do i know he exists? How do you know your great great great Grandfather existed did you ever see him.

thats a daft analogy afterall am here. Is that right and how did your great grandfather exist?
Oh! sorry i forgot,Oxygen and carbondioxide mixed with nitrogen and created one big fart and he appeared.

And how did these gases exist? In a vacuum, where did they come from?

All religions in the world fight Christianity, because they all hate the fact that there is a Christ and that Christ loved us and died for us. They never fight each other, they are perfectly at peace with each other. But they hate Christ. I think we should all look deeper.

Thank you choice for the clarification.

@exu

Is that (use of logic to understand things) what i'm addressing in:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-7053.0.html

<sarcasm type="bitter">
nightrider,
I must confess, you see through me like through glass. I truly hate God, I am following the dark lord and have the number 666 tatoed on my body. Not once, not twice, but 666 times. Oh, and I eat Christian babies for breakfast, but they keep sticking between your teeth. Should I try Muslim or Jewish babies, perhaps?
</sarcasm>

And the fact that you cannot understand how the universe came into being, does not impose the need for a creator. Who created that creator? Or are you going to explain that problem away by definition?

There is a God, who carefully thought out and planned this universe. He is not God because he created the universe, He was God before he created the universe./

Everything is so carefully ordered night and day, seasons, birth, water to drink, food to eat, air to breathe. Anyone who sees these things and denies them is deceiving himself and living in his own reality.

Hes not looking for people who will believe when they see him, he's looking for those who believe when they don't. Once a heart and not a mind believes then he will prove to that heart that he exists. But the heart has to believe first.

He doesn't need to prove anything to the world, he doesn't need to show you a sign, he's God and we are not. Man can beat his chest all he wants in the shallowness of logic, philosophy and human theory. One thing is sure
Death
and in that we will know that he who created life is real, but then it would be to late.

nightrider:

There is a God, who carefully thought out and planned this universe. He is not God because he created the universe, He was God before he created the universe./

Everything is so carefully ordered night and day, seasons, birth, water to drink, food to eat, air to breathe. Anyone who sees these things and denies them is deceiving himself and living in his own reality.

Hes not looking for people who will believe when they see him, he's looking for those who believe when they don't. Once a heart and not a mind believes then he will prove to that heart that he exists. But the heart has to believe first.

He doesn't need to prove anything to the world, he doesn't need to show you a sign, he's God and we are not. Man can beat his chest all he wants in the shallowness of logic, philosophy and human theory. One thing is sure
Death
and in that we will know that he who created life is real, but then it would be to late.

, word.

And who created this God? Are you saying that such a God just sprung into existence? If God can just spring into existence why can't the universe do so too?

Very well said, nightrider.

It's always bemusing, when christians or muslims (and they are always the culprits) bring up cases of former atheists converting from atheism (and it's usually Flew's conversion), while ignoring the large amount of converts from their respective religion. Also, they seem think that bringing up stories of converts somehow makes a case for their particular dogmas.

nightrider:

These atheist all seem so confused, First theres no God" a big bang created this Marvellous earth"

The Big Bang did not create this "marvelous" Earth, and you'ld be haerd pressed to find an atheist that actually believes that.

then theres a God but not the christian God, this God is based on reason. What do they really believe.

If they believe in a God then they are no longer atheists, sounds like you are the one that's confused.

This whole Atheism thing is just another form of hatred for God and his Christ.

Oh please.

An escapist method because no one really wants to believe he is sinful and his sin condemns him to eternal damnation and that he needs a loving sacrifice by an eternal God who created him to save him.

Or, it could be, the entire thing makes little or no sense. Also, atheists are not the only ones that don't believe in "sin".

which God? I have never seen him, how do i know he exists? How do you know your great great great Grandfather existed did you ever see him.

Well, for one thing my great etc. grandfather's existence isn't supernatural and isn't out of the ordinary. Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

thats a daft analogy afterall am here. Is that right and how did your great grandfather exist?
Oh! sorry i forgot,Oxygen and carbondioxide mixed with nitrogen and created one big fart and he appeared.

Okay, ?

And how did these gases exist? In a vacuum, where did they come from?

What gases?

All religions in the world fight Christianity,

No they don't, and it could also be argued that christianity fights a lot of other religions.

because they all hate the fact that there is a Christ and that Christ loved us and died for us.

I don't hate the fact that there was a christ, infact I wish more christians would be like the christ portrayed in the gospels.

They never fight each other, they are perfectly at peace with each other. But they hate Christ. I think we should all look deeper.

Yes, because we all know that the Jewish and Islamic battles were simply tete-a-tetes, and the hindu-sikh wars were simply discussions on how to furher destabilise christianity *there's never a good roll-eyes smilie when you need one*.

nightrider:

There is a God, who carefully thought out and planned this universe. He is not God because he created the universe, He was God before he created the universe./

Well he's starngely non-existent, and the evidence for his (why his he male) existence is as anedoctal as the evidence of Annunakis.

Everything is so carefully ordered night and day, seasons, birth, water to drink, food to eat, air to breathe. Anyone who sees these things and denies them is deceiving himself and living in his own reality.

How is that evidence of order, would breathing carbon-dioxide, not eating food, or not drinking water be evidence of disorder?
No, I posit that it's more likely that things can be described as orderly from a lone human perspective.

Hes not looking for people who will believe when they see him, he's looking for those who believe when they don't. Once a heart and not a mind believes then he will prove to that heart that he exists. But the heart has to believe first.

So you have to believe to believe?

He doesn't need to prove anything to the world, he doesn't need to show you a sign, he's God and we are not. Man can beat his chest all he wants in the shallowness of logic, philosophy and human theory.

Yes he does, surely if he had no problem doing them in biblical times, then he should have no problem doing them now.

One thing is sure
Death
and in that we will know that he who created life is real, but then it would be to late.

That makes sense to you? Reads like a badly written script to me.

There is a God, who carefully thought out and planned this universe. He is not God because he created the universe, He was God before he created the universe./

Everything is so carefully ordered night and day, seasons, birth, water to drink, food to eat, air to breathe. Anyone who sees these things and denies them is deceiving himself and living in his own reality.

Hes not looking for people who will believe when they see him, he's looking for those who believe when they don't. Once a heart and not a mind believes then he will prove to that heart that he exists. But the heart has to believe first.

He doesn't need to prove anything to the world, he doesn't need to show you a sign, he's God and we are not. Man can beat his chest all he wants in the shallowness of logic, philosophy and human theory. One thing is sure
Death
and in that we will know that he who created life is real, but then it would be to late.

All these are just your opinion I guess. Or did god revealed them to you? He gave you a private tour of his ways and means?

@Seun

Whether God existed or didnt is something that can only be addressed by your sincere understanding and reasoning of what's surrounding you. Look at a sperm (whatever means necessary ) and imagine that sometime back, you were exactly of something similar. Not breathing, eating, talking, reasoning. Helpless. Lifeless. You are questioning the existance and trying to understand whoever gave you the chance to be who you are now. And Guess what, you'll die, thrown six feet under and be brought back to life to answer why you failed to use your logic to appreciate your creator.

Just picture how pissed you get when your kids/young ones dont listen to you. You didnt create them or give them life. Just taking care of them. Helping, wanting to make their life as easy and beautiful as you can and they go about not listening to you, drinking, stealing, commiting all sorts of vulgar acts.

Thats exactly how we human beings are behaving towards our creator. Trying to question, challenge, argue, understand and reason as if HE is a human being like us (knowingly how limited our intelligence is).

kismat:

@Seun

Whether God existed or didnt is something that can only be addressed by your sincere understanding and reasoning of what's surrounding you. Look at a sperm (whatever means necessary ) and imagine that sometime back, you were exactly of something similar. Not breathing, eating, talking, reasoning. Helpless. Lifeless. You are questioning the existance and trying to understand whoever gave you the chance to be who you are now. And Guess what, you'll die, thrown six feet under and be brought back to life to answer why you failed to use your logic to appreciate your creator.

Just picture how pissed you get when your kids/young ones don't listen to you. You didnt create them or give them life. Just taking care of them. Helping, wanting to make their life as easy and beautiful as you can and they go about not listening to you, drinking, stealing, commiting all sorts of vulgar acts.

Thats exactly how we human beings are behaving towards our creator. Trying to question, challenge, argue, understand and reason as if HE is a human being like us (knowingly how limited our intelligence is).

, and the only logical thing to do, is condemn your children to an infinite punishment, for their finite acts. Hail divine justice!

Understanding Prof. Antony Flew

It is really amusing that when questions of a belief in God arise, all that the atheist does is to seek ever so sarcastically to pick holes in what he cannot sufficiently disprove. The question is not about Flew's conversion to religion or even to any of the three monotheistic religious views of 'God.' When someone who was a confessed atheist abandons his views of the 'non-existence of God or a divine being,' we want to know what his new views are, especially when his statements are antithetical to what he formerly held. Whatever ideas of a 'God' that Prof. Antony Flew is now courting, it is clear that they are fundamentally non-atheistic. "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam," he says, and then adds: "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Now that is not atheistic dialect, considering that he had been anti-God for several decades.

It is well to realise that as a deist, Flew applied some scientific reasoning (aided by biologists' investigation of DNA) to arrive at his position. This may not be satisfactory to the general scientific community, especially those who seek to explain the existence of the natural world and almost everything else by some laws of natural or physical science. However, it is particularly up to Flew himself (rather than the religious community) to provide the skeptic and atheistic minds with "proof" of his deistic assertions. It should be well remembered that Prof. Flew is a philosopher, and not many philosophical questions can be sufficiently answered by recourse to natural science.

The atheistic community is understandably concerned by this twist of events championed by one who was a big name in their circle. However, in the field of rational thinking, Richard Carrier's material on the atheistic website assuring atheists that all seemed well is critically weak. Carrier's antidote was that Flew accepted only a 'minimal God'; but does that not sound really disappointing to the definition of atheism - the belief in 'no God' at all? There is no meeting point between a zero (no-god) and a minimum (possible existence of a God). More than that, if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance, it was the denial of the possible existence of an 'intelligent designer' as explaining the origin of life. That had been Prof. Flew's 'evangelistic campaign' for several decades as an atheist; and though he accepts Darwinian evolution, he doubts that the theory can explain the origins of life. Instead, he leans more towards the very idea that atheism attacks by admitting: "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

Prof. Flew has not arrived at a sound belief in a well-defined 'God' - at least, he might be faulted by atheists and skeptics alike on his lack of 'scientific proof' for his conversion. What he does relate to is that the evidence he has gathered gives the idea that belief in a God (or, at least, a super-intelligence) is possible as the "only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." What this could mean is that, those who have a problem with 'proof' and 'evidence' will need to tell us if the existence or non-existence of the Lock Ness Monster has been sufficiently proven.

Just as the conversion of the 81 y.o. British philosopher does not say anything to the effect of 'disproving' Christianity or Islam, it does not 'prove' anything to the correctness of atheistic claims. Anyone reading the story clearly sees that Flew was rejecting atheism as insufficient and banckrupt in providing a rational explanation for the origin of life.

choice.A:

Understanding Prof. Antony Flew

It is really amusing that when questions of a belief in God arise, all that the atheist does is to seek ever so sarcastically to pick holes in what he cannot sufficiently disprove.

False assertation.

The question is not about Flew's conversion to religion or even to any of the three monotheistic religious views of 'God.'

, but it usually is, and that's why it's often cited by christians and muslims. Also, there are more than three monotheistic religions.

When someone who was a confessed atheist abandons his views of the 'non-existence of God or a divine being,' we want to know what his new views are, especially when his statements are antithetical to what he formerly held. Whatever ideas of a 'God' that Prof. Antony Flew is now courting, it is clear that they are fundamentally non-atheistic. "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam," he says, and then adds: "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Now that is not atheistic dialect, considering that he had been anti-God for several decades.

Yes, and it is always piques my curiousty when views become diametrically changed.

It is well to realise that as a deist, Flew applied some scientific reasoning (aided by biologists' investigation of DNA) to arrive at his position. This may not be satisfactory to the general scientific community, especially those who seek to explain the existence of the natural world and almost everything else by some laws of natural or physical science. However, it is particularly up to Flew himself (rather than the religious community) to provide the skeptic and atheistic minds with "proof" of his deistic assertions. It should be well remembered that Prof. Flew is a philosopher, and not many philosophical questions can be sufficiently answered by recourse to natural science.

The atheistic community is understandably concerned by this twist of events championed by one who was a big name in their circle. However, in the field of rational thinking, Richard Carrier's material on the atheistic website assuring atheists that all seemed well is critically weak. Carrier's antidote was that Flew accepted only a 'minimal God'; but does that not sound really disappointing to the definition of atheism - the belief in 'no God' at all? There is no meeting point between a zero (no-god) and a minimum (possible existence of a God).

Actually that is not necessarily true, look up atheistic buddhists, atheists with pantheistic leanings, agnostic atheists etc.

More than that, if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance, it was the denial of the possible existence of an 'intelligent designer' as explaining the origin of life.

I'll have to disagree with your premise, because there is no atheistic doctrine. In fact, the only thing that binds atheists, is their lack of belief in the existence of any deities. It might come as surprise to yo that there are atheists that credit intelligent beings with the origin of life.

quote]That had been Prof. Flew's 'evangelistic campaign' for several decades as an atheist; and though he accepts Darwinian evolution, he doubts that the theory can explain the origins of life. Instead, he leans more towards the very idea that atheism attacks by admitting: "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

[/quote]

Good for him.

[quote]Prof. Flew has not arrived at a sound belief in a well-defined 'God' - at least, he might be faulted by atheists and skeptics alike on his lack of 'scientific proof' for his conversion. What he does relate to is that the evidence he has gathered gives the idea that belief in a God (or, at least, a super-intelligence) is possible as the "only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." What this could mean is that, those who have a problem with 'proof' and 'evidence' will need to tell us if the existence or non-existence of the Lock Ness Monster has been sufficiently proven.

"Proof is for math and alcohol", speaking of which, I wish I had one with a high proof % *sigh*, c'est la vie.

Just as the conversion of the 81 y.o. British philosopher does not say anything to the effect of 'disproving' Christianity or Islam, it does not 'prove' anything to the correctness of atheistic claims. Anyone reading the story clearly sees that Flew was rejecting atheism as insufficient and banckrupt in providing a rational explanation for the origin of life.

Are you kidding? I guess by the same token, the converts from christianity and islam to atheism, are clearly showing the insufficiency and bankruptcy of those religions in providing a rational explanation for the origin of life.

If converts were a good argument against religion or the lack of religion, I doubt there would be many christians left.

KAG,
I understand your concern and pique at religion, but if you'd only looked a bit closer at my post you'd have seen it's not about that at all, even though you feel it's always about that, as in the case of Prof. Flew. Second, I'm well aware that there are more than 3 monotheistic views of God, but my context should be taken to point to the general groups that atheists often concern themselves about. Again, I did not assert that atheism ever had a doctrine to preach, and that should be clear from the play of words in the line "if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance" - if ever. I know passions run high when you read stuff like this, but at least you should try and read threads in context instead of taking them out of their contexts.

I did not see anything about Flew disproving or converting to religion or Christianity or Islam; he left his atheistic (no-god) position and that's what I wanted to point out, because all the talk about connecting this with an idea of affirming religion simply misses the mark. Even so, atheism does not sufficiently disprove the non-existence of God. If there's just such a proof, I'm waiting patiently.

choice.A:

KAG,
I understand your concern and pique at religion,

No, my curiousty isn't simply piqued by religion, like I stated, it is piqued especially when a persons view changes radically.

but if you'd only looked a bit closer at my post you'd have seen it's not about that at all, even though you feel it's always about that, as in the case of Prof. Flew.

In retrospect I see that now.

Second, I'm well aware that there are more than 3 monotheistic views of God, but my context should be taken to point to the general groups that atheists often concern themselves about.

Okay.

Again, I did not assert that atheism ever had a doctrine to preach, and that should be clear from the play of words in the line "if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance" - if ever. I know passions run high when you read stuff like this, but at least you should try and read threads in context instead of taking them out of their contexts.

I didn't say you asserted atheism had a doctrine to preach, but you'll forgive me for taking this statement, "if atheism ever had a doctrinal stance, it was the denial of the possible existence of an 'intelligent designer' as explaining the origin of life.", at face value. It is certainly clear to me that you did assert that atheism had a doctrinal stance, and that was a misconception I attempted to clear up.

I did not see anything about Flew disproving or converting to religion or Christianity or Islam; he left his atheistic (no-god) position and that's what I wanted to point out, because all the talk about connecting this with an idea of affirming religion simply misses the mark.

Aye, understood.

Even so, atheism does not sufficiently disprove the non-existence of God. If there's just such a proof, I'm waiting patiently.

I'm sure you've been told this ad nauseam, but atheism and atheists make no attempt to disprove the existence of any Gods, besides you are asking for a negative to be proven by the disbelievers, and that for intents and purposes is a logical impossibility. As always, the burden of proof lies with those that assert there is a God (or ______)

KAG:

I'm sure you've been told this ad nauseam, but atheism and atheists make no attempt to disprove the existence of any Gods, besides you are asking for a negative to be proven by the disbelievers, and that for intents and purposes is a logical impossibility. As always, the burden of proof lies with those that assert there is a God (or ______)

I've always patiently asked the atheists I know to give me a succinct statement of their ideology or worldview. In one line I hear from them that atheism is 'no-god', or the belief that God does not exist. That is what I have asked them to provide 'proof' for. It may seem a logical impossibility to require 'proof for a negative' from disbelievers; but to make a claim that something* does not exist sounds more like an affirmative, and therefore certainly requires rational proof for the statement to hold true.


*_{For the religiously minded, I'm not referrng to God here as 'something' - I was only speaking in general terms for illustrative purposes}.

You might want to rethink this little claim:

but to make a claim that something* does not exist sounds more like an affirmative

exu:

You might want to rethink this little claim:

but to make a claim that something* does not exist sounds more like an affirmative

Outside Nairaland, if I said exu does not exist, that is not an open ended statement - it is a claim, and I'd be called upon to prove that he does not exist. Whereas someone else would think me to be silly for making the claim, I don't necessarily agree. So, they advance all sorts of 'proof' that exu does in fact exist, and if I'm not seeing that, then something is wrong upstairs. For both statements to hold true, both will require proof, not just one side of the argument.

In the same way, both atheists and theists have each made their claims - atheists, that God does not exist; theists, that God does exist. You cannot satisfy logical reasoning by calling on just one side to prove their claims; atheists are called upon to provide logical proof in just the same way they ask theists to prove that 'God' does exist.

Prof. Antony Flew is a deist - although he did not subscribe to religion, the point is that he abandoned his former atheistic postulation of 'no-god' especially as regards the question and explanation of the origin of life and the complexity of nature.

1. "does not" is always a negative. You cannot prove a negative.

2. 'atheists' have not not made any claims other than to refute the claims made by deists (specifically those of a religious nature) as to the existence of God and the the evidence (or lack thereof).

exu:

1. "does not" is always a negative. You cannot prove a negative.

That has been the one weak excuse atheists give to the challenge of proving what they cannot sufficiently disprove. It is true that you cannot prove a negative, but only in a limited sense. In Mathematics, negative theorems can be proven, for when you state that (-1) + (-1) is not = +2, it is not sufficient to refute it; it is also necessary to both state and prove the opposite, which is, (-1) + (-1) = -2. You'd recall my argument has always been along the lines that atheism cannot sufficiently disprove the existence of God; or, 'atheism cannot sufficiently prove the non-existence of God.' I've heard it countless times said that 'it is not the intended aim of atheism to prove' its refutations. Even then, for one to refute the claims of another requires logical proof: refutations or rebuttals alone will not be sufficient. I'll give you another example:

As a Mathematician,
1 + 1 = 2 is always true in heaven, on earth and beneath the earth. But someone will come up and say that is not true. It will not be sufficient to refute the statement that '1 + 1 = 2 is always true,' but we want him to tell us why this claim cannot be true. I hope you see sense in that. Now, my answer will be something along these lines (depending on what ideology I ensconce):

1 + 1 = 1 is true; if as a philosopher I add a jug of water to another jug of water, what I get is not 2 jugs of water[b]s[/b], but 1 jug. For my answer to hold true, the question must be asked, in what sense could it ever be true that my answer is not '2 jugs' but rather, '1 jug'? I go on to provide the veracity of my claim that on the grounds of adding both jugs of water in a bigger single jug, then my claim is true. In this sense, I have not only 'refuted' the positive statement that '1 + 1 = 2 is always true'; but also adduced my own reasons for my own position. QED.

Again, different ideologies might come up and make their own positive postulations:

     '1 + 1 = 1 is a biological truth' because 1 spermatozoon + 1 ovule = 1 baby.
     '1 + 1 = 1 is a matrimonial truth' as 1 man + 1 woman = 1 couple.
     
But the above basic postulations (simplistic as they are) might be refuted by those who disagree. It will not be sufficient to refute them, but we want an equal and logical proof or deduction for the refutation to hold true.

Now that sounds simplistic, but patiently apply that to your postulations and see if the mirror is opaque. What atheism says is that 'God does not exist,' and if that is a refutation, it requires a follow-up logical proof for it to hold true. It is this simple: one cannot prove the non-existence of 'God' by mere refutation: by merely 'refuting,' you have not 'proven' anything. I suppose if refutation alone carries any substance, then the statement is also true that "exu does not exist", and I don't need to prove it. _{which, of course, is not true and as meaningless}

I still believe that atheism does not sufficiently disprove the affirmations of theism; and if that statement does not hold true, I wait for equal logical inducements that can be subjected to the same tests atheism requires of theism.

A Hundred year old man on a journey needed a place to rest his head, so he knocked on the door of the nearest house to him and said please can i turn in for the night, i'll be on my way tommorrow. The owner of the house being a good christian agreed and let him in. As the night wore on, The christian started to talk about Christ, the old being an atheist refused to believe a word he said and argument naturally ensued. The argued for long, until the christian could take no more of the old atheist sarcasm and promptly asked him to leave his house that night and the old man promptly left.

As the christian shut his door, the Lord speaking to his heart asked him why he turned the old man out and  in all the righteousness he could muster said " Lord didnt you here all the sarcastic things that atheist said about you, i couldn't tolerate it anymore and i turned him out. And the Lord said to him , but i tolerated it for a hundred years. The guy asked for forgiveness and brought the old man back.

The moral of my story is that argument brings nothing, logic and reason is worse, because the human mind can comprehend so little. faith in God is revealed by God's love to a willing heart. God is absolute love to those who know him and he isn't to those who don't. This whole topic will end the way all the rest have ended acheiving absolutely nothing.

choice.A:

I've always patiently asked the atheists I know to give me a succinct statement of their ideology or worldview. In one line I hear from them that atheism is 'no-god', or the belief that God does not exist. That is what I have asked them to provide 'proof' for. It may seem a logical impossibility to require 'proof for a negative' from disbelievers; but to make a claim that something* does not exist sounds more like an affirmative, and therefore certainly requires rational proof for the statement to hold true.


*_{For the religiously minded, I'm not referrng to God here as 'something' - I was only speaking in general terms for illustrative purposes}.

Well, this atheist, and the many atheists I know don't make affirmative statements in regards to God's non-existence. The only way I know to define, and the only way I define atheism, is lack of belief in a deity. Theists say there's an invisible man in the sky, I say prove it or show me evidence. If the evidence or proof is found wanting, I reject their initial assumption.

Here's another way of looking at it: a person claims he can walk on water, would you be the one that has to disprove his assertation, or do you ask him to prove it? Let's take it a step further another person claims her invisible friend can walk on water (coupled with a host of other wonderful things) but you can't feel or touch her etc, would you believe her claim? If you don't, how would go about disproving the existence of her friend.