The post that was quoted here has been removed

No, I am not at all interested in having a high chess rating at RHP. I would rather have a high chess rating over the board, but I have always been a slow thinker on everything and playing under quicker time controls doesn't seem suited for me, especially since I have grown so old.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You (FreakyKBH) evidently are an extremely ignorant, arrogant fool
with poor reading comprehension.
You talk pretty.
Let's break it down, shall we?
When I read a sentence such as this one, I am left with but a few conclusions.
One is that you are so beholden to the melody of the words that their meanings and applications are insignificant.
Another is you don't know what the words mean, but you heard them used before by someone you admire and you wanted to impart the same results you felt in the past.
The last one--- and I do hope I'm wrong on this one--- you're just a big fat turd.

You also seem to have little or no comprehension of the differences between academic philosophy and popular 'philosophizing'.
Except for when I illustrated the difference between the two, I'd say you're mostly right.

I was *not* writing a comprehensive ranked list of 20th century British
philosophers in terms of importance.
Of course you weren't, dear; no one said you were.

I know (or knew, it's been a while since I was reading them) much more
about Bertrand Russell and A.J. Ayer than I could mention in a brief post.
You could probably write a sentence or two, I'm now sure of it.
What was curious, however, is how you mentioned two of the more popularly known philosophers but somehow missed Moore.

...and the Wikipedia statement was misleading to imply that was his primary field.
What was that thing you said?
Something about reading comprehension?
The Wiki page simply mentions three British dudes who are popularly considered philosophers of some stripe or another who focused much of their energies on the philosophy of religion.
To lend that thought even more credibility, some Christian right-wing nut-job got into The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and edited that "much of his writing is directly or indirecetly of philosophical interest."
Kinda like what you said.
Kinda like what I said before you said what you said.

That's a blatant falsehood, an extreme misrepresentation by FreakyKBH.
Where exactly did I write that I am 'one of an elite group of ... academic
philosophers'?
Exaggerate much?

FreakyKBH has dishonestly put his words into my mouth.
You looked so hungry; I was just trying to help.
Although I have to admit: it's hard putting words in your mouth when your foot is taking up most of the room.

Indeed, my self-reference as a 'one-eyed person' was an expression of
modesty, alluding to my ignorance of so much of academic philosophy.
Remember when I said you put your foot in your mouth?
Perhaps English isn't your first language.
Perhaps reason eludes your faculties.
Perhaps you really are just a big fat turd.
I dunno.
But the fact remains: you can't insult an audience from a position of alleged superiority on a topic and not expect to be held accountable.
You walked into the party like you were walking onto a yacht.
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye; your scarf? It was apricot.

Oops. Wrong lyrics.
What I meant to say is you barged into the conversation by segueing off of a thread which contained Antony Flew for the purpose of discussing his conversion from atheism.
You then insulted everyone on the site as being deficient in knowledge as it relates to "academic philosophy," as though that was a news flash for anyone here.
You based your insult, presumably, on your exposure to the topic.
To add injury to the insult, you decry all as blind but declare yourself sighted (at least with one eye).
'You can't see, but I can,' we hear you sniff dismissively.
Then, in a masterful move revealing both flexibility and a super-elasticized jawbone, you insist your expression was modesty?!?
Encore!

I don't bother to follow most of the arguments in this forum because I
suspect that I already have come across them in more sophisticated forms
by some people with more academic philosophical training.
I am going to name my next child after you, if you are not opposed.

FreakyKBH warrants no response beyond absolute disdain.
God I wish I knew what that meant.
It sounds delicious!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

lol, you trollin again?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"For the record, GrampyBobby recently created a thread about the nominal
'conversion' of Antony Flew..." Thread 157557

"I shall not regret leaving you..." Stay safe; be well...

The post that was quoted here has been removed

RobbieCarrobie warrants no response beyond absolute disdain 😵

YouTube

Originally posted by Rank outsider
If nothing else, this will answer one great philosophical question.

What happens when unstoppable rudeness hits immovable arrogance?

New Yorkers take notes.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Why (how) is it that every time you post something, it's as though the ocean is taking a deep breath--- a step backwards--- and then releasing a torrent of crap?
A tsunami of shiitake mushroom, minus the mushroom, minus the 'ake,' minus that extra 'i?'

I looooove my cocoon of ignorance: it's so warm and comforting.
And you can do literally zero to penetrate its barrier of love.

Why don't you go beat some baby seals to death?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

So I pointed out
that, in his later years, Antony Flew suffered from dementia, and some
strong questions have been raised about his responsibility, if any, for the
last book _There is a God_ that he nominally wrote. I cited an article
(including an interview with Flew) by Mark Oppenheimer for the 'New York
Times Magazine'. My conclusion is that Roy Varghese, an American
Christian apologist, wrote _There is a God_ (which Antony Flew himself
conceded), and Antony Flew was persuaded or manipulated to put his
name (which was much more famous than Varghese's) on it.

If you are going to make suspicions like that - Anthony Flew, old and not too mentally keen anymore, was perhaps munipulated by publishers of a Christian bent then equal suspicion could be raised about Stephen Hawking.

He clearly refers to God in "A Brief History of Time" but latter seems to be the darling of New Atheists announcing that there is no need of God to explain the existence of the universe.

Sometimes I have had a similar question whether some zealous anti-religious propagandists are using Stephen Hawking's age for agenda promotion as well.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander ?