I might be realizing I'm a deist

@secondson said
Now you're saying you might be a theist.

I'm not having a problem understanding anything, but apparently you are.

Now you're saying you might be a theist.

No, I am not saying this. Not at all. Read the content of my posts.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
When I said FMF started as a theist I didn't mean from birth. (Have argued previously that everyone is born an atheist). My point was merely to highlight that he wasn't on a one-way journey from atheism to theism (moving from darkness to light) as had already been a theist in the past and moved away from it).

Quite so.

@fmf said
Yes, and when moonbus said exactly the same thing a few posts ago, I agreed with him.

However, to that end, I think it's more important to try to understand the human condition [and "where we are going" collectively, as a species] rather than to worry about the notion of "going" on to an afterlife, as religious people do.

‘Ask not what your species can do for you; ask what you can do for your species.’

@fmf said
Now you're saying you might be a theist.

No, I am not saying this. Not at all. Read the content of my posts.

Jeez! Can't you see I meant to say deist?

@secondson said
Jeez! Can't you see I meant to say deist?

So you say now. But, frankly, the content of your posts on this has been all over the place. Just read what I am posting.

@FMF

Being a deist would allow me to say 'God did it' when asked about creation by theists, rather than the old 'Neither of us know' chestnut which is more or less the answer I use now.

Have you followed the change in attitude of Atheist author / philosophy Anthony Flew? After writing many strong books on atheism changed to a Diest position.

For years, Antony Flew has been a figurehead for atheists. Now, though, he has abandoned his atheism and accepted the existence of God. In a recent interview for Philosophia Christi with Gary Habermas, Flew explained his new beliefs. Though Flew has not embraced Christianity, he now accepts the existence of God, saying that he “had to go where the evidence leads”.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

@sonship said
@FMF

Being a deist would allow me to say 'God did it' when asked about creation by theists, rather than the old 'Neither of us know' chestnut which is more or less the answer I use now.

Have you followed the change in attitude of Atheist author / philosophy Anthony Flew? After writing many strong books on atheism changed to a Diest position.

F ...[text shortened]... go where the evidence leads”.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

By the time Flew supposedly changed his mind, his mind was going. He hardly knew what day of the week it was by then.

@moonbus

That is rather mean. You don't like when a man full of life experience changes his mind about something. So you blame it on dementia.

Atheist Response
For atheists, this shift in Flew’s beliefs is highly embarrassing. To have such a prominent atheist accept the case for God’s existence is a major blow. To see how major a blow, consider the words of About.com’s resident atheist Austin Cline on October 16th, 2004:

“Have you read the news about Antony Flew abandoning atheism? This would be big news because Flew is one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century. It would be big news, that is, if it were true.”

http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

Real mean moonbase. So when you get to the twilight years of your life and RE-THINK some long held beliefs, exchanged for a change in attitude, may those around you say you're losing your mind to dementia.

FMF, I suppose you better check if moonbase also thinks you are getting old and senile and dementia is responsible for considering Deism.

I've heard both suspicions that his mind is failing and that he fears approaching death. How about after years one just decides the evidence has mounted to the point that it leads elsewhere to what he originally thought?

Some atheists have tried to explain Flew’s shift in thinking by his age; Flew is now 81, and so, it has been suggested, is professing belief in God just in case he soon has to give account of his life to his Maker. That is clearly not the case; Flew remains adamant that there is no afterlife—disembodied existence, he maintains (as he has always maintained) is impossible. In any case, Flew is not professing the kind of belief that any religion says will get you into heaven; he still rejects all purported divine revelation, including the Bible, the Koran, and any other example you’d care to mention. There’s no way that Flew, suddenly facing his own mortality, is trying to cover his bases just in case God exists. What has happened, is seems, is what he says has happened: he has gone where the evidence leads.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

@sonship said
@moonbus

That is rather mean. You don't like when a man full of life experience changes his mind about something. So you blame it on dementia.

[quote] Atheist Response
For atheists, this shift in Flew’s beliefs is highly embarrassing. To have such a prominent atheist accept the case for God’s existence is a major blow. To see how major a blow, consider the words of ...[text shortened]... efs, exchanged for a change in attitude, may those around you say your losing your mind to dementia.

There is nothing mean about accepting the fact that a man’s capacity for following long and complicated logical arguments may wane with age. It happened to Kant, it happened to Emerson, it happened to Flew.

The embarrassing thing about Flew’s case is how the theist camp rejoiced when Flew apparently changed sides. That invalidated none of his previous and still cogent arguments for atheism. Flew did not offer anything remotely approaching his previous acuity in refuting his previous case for atheism.

@moonbus

There is nothing mean about accepting the fact that a man’s capacity for following long and complicated logical arguments may wane with age. It happened to Kant, it happened to Emerson, it happened to Flew.

You jump to a conclusion you wish, I think.

When you age details of minute past events and speeches may not be recalled. But overall big picture life attitudes do not change that easily.

When you get to be that old you may not remember details of your youth. But the overall big picture of your general outlook on your life, on the world, will be the same, unless you change your mind.

How about he decides the evidence of scientists exploring the DNA molecule accumulated to the point that he had to recognize that it could not be by mindless processes he assumed in his younger years?

An eighty year old man is not allowed to consider the advanced knowledge of science? A man can still change his mind up to the very end of his life.

The embarrassing thing about Flew’s case is how the theist camp rejoiced when Flew apparently changed sides.

Minor stuff.
I didn't say he became a Bible believing Christian.

That's a minor distraction to the significance of it only good for you to duplicate the error in exalting in it.

Maybe some jumped to conclusions by hype or grasped the moment and assumed. And you here do the same thing in your way.

That invalidated none of his previous and still cogent arguments for atheism.

I didn't say YOU changed YOUR mind.
Flew changed HIS mind about the cogent arguments from an atheist position to a deist position.

It happens. Get use to it.

In highschool (a time when I had no searching for religion) I met an adult who said he went from Atheism to being a Christian. I thought that was weird! "You're only suppose to go the OTHER way."

It seemed strange to me that anybody would go from Atheism to Christian. I thought you were only likely to go the OTHER way. Not that Flew is a theist. But he went from Atheism to Deism. And I don't blame it on a decline in his rationalizing ability.

Flew did not offer anything remotely approaching his previous acuity in refuting his previous case for atheism.

That's your opinion. YOU have not re-evaluated his rationale. He has re-evaluated his previous rationale.

You can speak for YOU - "His previous reasonings were better." He changed his mind. You haven't.

Flew did not offer anything remotely approaching his previous acuity in refuting his previous case for atheism.

Moonbase, we have to get use to the fact that an argument may be orderly, logical, well organized, and a good argument, yet be wrong.

One may proceed nicely from points A, B, C .... G in a logical way, and still be wrong in the conclusion.

Flew said the DNA molecule indicates an intelligent source.
I think he came closer to what Paul wrote two thousand years ago -

Men are without excuse to not believe in a Creator.
The creation evidences of the eternal power and divine characteristics of its author.

He moved closer to that - in essence - "This DNA shows a mind of intelligence and immense knowledge and ability."

He decides on Deism - a Divine mind who authored such but doesn't care anymore to intervene of have a personal relationship with anyone. Maybe a being incapable of doing so or malicious, or apathetic, or doesn't care, or something,

That's Deism.

@fmf said
Looking back, I think I was more or less a deist for a few years right at the end of, and then after, my long stint as a Christian - in fact some here will remember only 3-4 years ago I was still recoiling from the label "atheist".

That might have been a bit of a 'stance' though which was sorted out by coming to realize more clearly the breadth and variety under the umbrella of atheism.

"Agnostic atheist" works for me.

But what if I realize I am a deist after all?

You shouldn't just jump from agnostic atheist to deist at one time. There may be a transition period where you'll think you're an agnostic deist first.

Don't burst your bubble too fast. Just my recommendation. 😀

@sonship said

Flew did not offer anything remotely approaching his previous acuity in refuting his previous case for atheism.

Moonbase, we have to get use to the fact that an argument may be orderly, logical, well organized, and a good argument, yet be wrong.

One may proceed nicely from points A, B, C .... G in a logical way, and still be wrong in the conclusion. ...[text shortened]... g incapable of doing so or malicious, or apathetic, or doesn't care, or something,

That's Deism.

For crying out loud sonship, it's Moonbus not Moonbase.