Antony Flew: A Brief Non-Philosophical Assessment

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Informative and appreciated: error, half truths and outright falsehoods suck. I'd enjoy reading quotable Flew in his prime.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This denial sounds like what cults do when their former advocates suddenly abandon their cult. This behavior provides evidence that atheism and evolutionism are also Satan inspired cult beliefs.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Informative and appreciated: error, half truths and outright falsehoods suck. I'd enjoy reading quotable Flew in his prime.

error, half truths and outright falsehoods suck.

Yes they do, but it didn't stop you from repeatedly posting deceitful Islamaphobic fear mongering articles on the "Sharia Law" thread - including one article that you kept posting after it had been pointed out to you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]error, half truths and outright falsehoods suck.

Yes they do, but it didn't stop you from repeatedly posting deceitful Islamaphobic fear mongering articles on the "Sharia Law" thread - including one article that you kept posting after it had been pointed out to you.[/b]

Thread 157141 (Page 12)

Article in question was addressed satisfactorily by black beetle, a learning experience for me. Thanks for the reminder.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"It's quite clear that GB very much has an agenda despite his claims otherwise. It's quite clear that GB has the same agenda as the website that he has repeatedly quoted."

As someone who knows GB's online persona intimately, I can assure you that he does have an intense desire on RHP's Spirituality Forum ...[text shortened]... addressed satisfactorily by black beetle, a learning experience for me. Thanks for the reminder.[/b]

> Article in question was addressed satisfactorily by black beetle, a learning experience for me. Thanks for the reminder.

C'mon GB. Even after Black Beetle addressed the article you not only didn't "retract the lies" as WG59 repeatedly asked you to - you posted it again as well as another Islamaphobic fear mongering article in a vain attempt to defend it.

Why is it that so many of the Christians who post on this forum seem to have little to no reservations when it comes to deceit and lying? even though the Bible repeatedly warns against it? For example:

Psalm 101
7 No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]> Article in question was addressed satisfactorily by black beetle, a learning experience for me. Thanks for the reminder.

C'mon GB. Even after Black Beetle addressed the article you not only didn't "retract the lies" as WG59 repeatedly asked you to - you posted it again as well as another Islamaphobic fear mongering article in a vain attempt to ...[text shortened]... ho practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence.[/b]

Thread's been bumped for you...

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thread's been bumped for you...

C'mon GB. Even after Black Beetle addressed the article you not only didn't "retract the lies" as WG59 repeatedly asked you to - you posted it again as well as another Islamaphobic fear mongering article in a vain attempt to defend it.

Why is it that so many of the Christians who post on this forum seem to have little to no reservations when it comes to deceit and lying? even though the Bible repeatedly warns against it? For example:

Psalm 101
7 No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who speaks falsely will stand in my presence.

Instead of addressing the above, GB vainly attempts to deflect.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

C'mon GB. Even after Black Beetle addressed the article you not only didn't "retract the lies" as WG59 repeatedly asked you to - you posted it again as well as another Islamaphobic fear mongering article in a vain attempt to defend it.

Why is it that so many of the Christians who post on this forum seem to have little to no reservations when it ...[text shortened]... stand in my presence.

Instead of addressing the above, GB vainly attempts to deflect.

As a courtesy to Duchess64, let's remember that the thread's topic is Antony Flew not unresolved issues with Sharia Law.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
As a courtesy to Duchess64, let's remember that the thread's topic is Antony Flew not unresolved issues with Sharia Law.

Classic. GB finds yet another way to avoid addressing my post.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

In my view, within the context of 20th century British philosophers,
Antony Flew was someone of moderate importance, far from the level of
Bertrand Russell (who became a public figure as well as an academic) or,
more modestly, A.J. Ayer.
I believe Flew was invoked as a result of his atheism, more than his work in philosophy.
Wikipedia does devote some space to the folks you mentioned, but apparently those who've done some editing felt that Flew belonged in the same group as some other pretty notables:
"Recent British philosophers particularly active in the philosophy of religion have included Antony Flew, C. S. Lewis, and John Hick."

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I don't know about others, but I will admit I am very ignorance of academic philosophy. I am more interested in spirituality and don't give a hill of beans about academic philosophy.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The general ignorance of academic philosophy in this forum can hardly
be overstated. I feel like a one-eyed person in a kingdom of the blind.
You walked into a whore house looking for love.
And we're the idiots?

You rank Russell above Ayer (without reason), and then Ayer above Flew (on the basis of the former being knighted, yet being knighted doesn't carry enough for you to place Ayer above Russell. Curious), for essentially reasons without weight or scale.
Okay, you did point out that both Russell and Ayer have been object of biographies.

So why did you leave out G.E. Moore?

The implicit claim that C.S. Lewis and John Hick were 'recent
British philosophers' of distinction strikes me as extremely misleading.
I suspect this was written by someone pushing a pro-Christian agenda.
Not sure where you imagined anything other than what was said; namely, those named are--- by most accounts--- recent British philosophers recently active in the philosophy of religion.
When you quoted 'recent British philosophers' were you questioning the 'recent,' the 'British,' or the 'philosophers' part?

C.S. Lewis certainly was a man of distinction in several ways (including
as a novelist), but *not as an academic philosopher*.
You sound like the kinda bureaucrap who would ask Noah if he had a building permit.
The fact of the matter is, philosophy is about thinking, is about having objective measures of standards employed to figure out that most beautiful of all things: truth.
C.S. Lewis made more people re-think about what they believe, about what they think they know, about what they consider to be important--- at a time of great despair--- and reinvigorated the thinking of a generation of people... which continues to this day.
If it weren't for people like Lewis, philosophy would be as inaccessible as you are attempting to make it.
And he was decidedly not trained as a theologian.
He was, however, a one-time atheist.

So it seems rather misleading to imply that John Hick was influential among 'recent British philosophers' when his main influence seems to have been among American Christians or, at
least, only among people already firmly committed to theism.
I don't know that anyone said he was "influential among" as much as he was a "recent British philosopher."
For a person who purports themselves to be one of an elite group of [harrumph-harrumph] academic philosophers, a [how did you put it again? oh, that's right...] a "one-eyed person in a kingdom of the blind," you seem to be particularly short-sighted when it comes to understanding context or correctly quoting plebes as ordinary as me.

If you are foolish enough to believe everything you find on the internet, then you should blame yourself for your gullibility.
I'm turning over a new leaf and starting my mission of second-guessing... starting with you, Duchess64... if that's your real name.