Sancho you write

'Flew isn't a fundamentalist, as you are'

When did I claim he was a fundamentalist? What is your definition of a fundamentalist? There seems to be a few fundamentalist atheist on these posts.

SJ

'Flew is often held aloft by apologists as some kind of trump card (I like to call it the 'Argument ad Flewum'). '

No he is not a trump card just someone who studied for 50 years and came to the only sensible and honest conclusion that he had to go where the evidence was. And it certainly wasn't and isn't with evolution.

By the way SJ you are right. We are all hellbound unless we are justified by the Sinless One. Self righteousness will get none of us anywhere. Thank God for sending Jesus.

Did you miss the fact that Flew "accepts Darwinian evolution"? Or did you just filter it out because it renders your claims null and void?

It's quite clear, runner, that you know nothing about Antony Flew, what he wrote or thought, or how it relates to the theory of evolution - not at all. You just heard he was a recanted atheist and decided to put your words in his mouth and attribute to him beliefs that he not only does not hold, but actively refutes.

But since you're claiming him as a comrade, do you support Flew's claim that the Christian god is a "cosmic Saddam Hussein", no better than the god of Islam?

Sancho you write

'Did you miss the fact that Flew "accepts Darwinian evolution"? Or did you just filter it out because it renders your claims null and void?'

The fact is that Flew knew Darwinian evolution has no answers for beginnings. Have you filtered that fact out? I don't consider Flew a comrade as He obviously is not a confessing Christian. What has that got to do with the price of eggs? There are many scientist who know that Darwinian evolution is an adult fairy tale with no scientific basis.

Flew's view of God as reported by you assuming you accurate is about as credible as the atheist view of their being no God. Whenever you deny the Only True God you replace it with some fantasy. He along with you seems to have done that.

runner: "No he is not a trump card just someone who studied for 50 years and came to the only sensible and honest conclusion that he had to go where the evidence was."

I'm still unimpressed. What will impress me is arguments, not invalid appeals to authority. If the Pope quits believing tomorrow will you do likewise?

"The fact is that Flew knew Darwinian evolution has no answers for beginnings."

No one is claiming it does. It explains biological diversity, not origins. We don't yet fully understand the origin of matter, but that doesn't stop us from devising laws of physics and chemistry to dscribe how matter behaves.

"I don't consider Flew a comrade as He obviously is not a confessing Christian. What has that got to do with the price of eggs?...Flew's view of God as reported by you assuming you accurate is about as credible as the atheist view of their being no God."

Then why did you mention Flew?

"There are many scientist who know that Darwinian evolution is an adult fairy tale with no scientific basis."

And what PROPORTION of the scientific community to they make up?

"so evolution is only a theory and hear I thought it was a belief system or religion"

Yes, it's only a theory in the same way gravity is only a theory. Your misunderstanding stems from the duplicity of creationists and the non-logic used to argue against science.

Runner you're a troublesome, fundie troll. Why persist?

Oh, runner. You’re the gift that keeps on giving.

This effort is particularly entertaining. You’re so desperate to smear the theory of evolution that you have to exploit someone who describes your god as “an oriental despot” by citing opinions he doesn’t hold, then claiming that his contempt for your beliefs is irrelevant because - even though he mocks your religion and endorses evolution - he doesn’t deny the possibility of a divine origin.

By your reasoning, the Catholic church is more atheist than Christian because it acknowledges the process of evolution. The Discovery Institute is also atheist because it promotes “microevolution”.

But really, you knew nothing about Antony Flew when you wrote that post. Between the snake-handling and talking in tongues, someone’s leaned over to you in church and said “psst! Runner! A bloke named “Flew” used to be an atheist, but changed his mind.”

So instead of reading up about Flew and what he actually believes, you came straight to OLO and started dropping his name to back up the surreal claims you make to shield yourself from the uncertainties of the real world.

What did you think would happen? Did you think we’d all say, “well, runner says a once-prominent atheist now believes in god”, and run straight down to Hillsong? Did you think no-one would be familiar with Flew or bother to even check his Wikipaedia entry?

Since you’re just going to lie, why stop at Flew? Why not claim the full support of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins? Considering they’ve both written more in their lifetimes than God has in 2000 years, they have a lot more authority.

You make a laughing-stock of yourself and of Christianity. Keep up the good work, old bean.

And why are you so uncomfortable with plurals?