tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2458634386590112108..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Flew and the Burden of Proof, or the Presumption of CompetenceVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43064278038009113022007-11-11T02:12:00.000-07:002007-11-11T02:12:00.000-07:00Here is the Harper Collins press release site for ...Here is the Harper Collins press release site for doubters everywhere to look at<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.harpercollins.com/footer/pressReleases.aspx" REL="nofollow"> Press Releases </A><BR/><BR/>Let us see the atheists try to wriggle out of that!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43581815172730695392007-11-11T02:05:00.000-07:002007-11-11T02:05:00.000-07:00'"See Richard Carrier's blog on evidence that much...'"See Richard Carrier's blog on evidence that much of the book is neither by Flew nor Varghese, but by Bob Hostetler.'<BR/><BR/>Varghese said it was.<BR/><BR/>The proof of the pudding will be when Victor decides that he simply cannot recommend Flew's book to his students, as it is so badly written.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7930963727052275542007-11-10T15:09:00.000-07:002007-11-10T15:09:00.000-07:00"See Richard Carrier's blog on evidence that much ..."See Richard Carrier's blog on evidence that much of the book is neither by Flew nor Varghese, but by Bob Hostetler.<BR/><BR/>Carrier's evidence seems to solidly establish that parts of the book were either not written by Flew or that Flew has completely lost his memory of the relevant events involving interactions with Carrier."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course, Carrier is a popular atheist apologist with a strong agenda to push. His blog entry amounts to one big whopping speculation without a shred of evidence, and the claims therein have turned out to be factually incorrect, given that Flew has just released the following statement in response the NYT article:<BR/><BR/>The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking.<BR/><BR/>From the publisher’s office. Thanks to Steve Laube, the Literary Agent for the project. amazon.com/review/RU8MI4LZBIH4W/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm/Will Hawthornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707984281579660082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10747939304524496692007-11-09T13:16:00.000-07:002007-11-09T13:16:00.000-07:00'Yeah, why doesn't Flew tell us his views about Re...'Yeah, why doesn't Flew tell us his views about Reading F.C.'s chances of staying in the Premier League this season, if he really wrote the book?'<BR/><BR/>Was there space after Flew put in the baseball anecdotes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38856844294403065742007-11-08T20:51:00.000-07:002007-11-08T20:51:00.000-07:00"The fact that you, as an atheist, think poorly of..."The fact that you, as an atheist, think poorly of these arguments does not prove fraud."<BR/><BR/>The fact that FLEW thought poorly of some of those arguments AFTER his conversion, but then seems to have forgotten this when he wrote "his" book, however, does. The fact that he does not counter or even mention obvious counter-arguments made against the arguments made in the book, despite the fact that the real Flew knew of them and talked about them, does. And so on.Badhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07225890125470949454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25037183810063144942007-11-08T20:15:00.000-07:002007-11-08T20:15:00.000-07:00See Richard Carrier's blog on evidence that much o...See <A HREF="http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html" REL="nofollow">Richard Carrier's blog</A> on evidence that much of the book is neither by Flew nor Varghese, but by Bob Hostetler.<BR/><BR/>Carrier's evidence seems to solidly establish that parts of the book were either not written by Flew or that Flew has completely lost his memory of the relevant events involving interactions with Carrier.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87442086223787606342007-11-08T15:48:00.000-07:002007-11-08T15:48:00.000-07:00The story that Flew changed his mind has already b...The story that Flew changed his mind has already been published. What more was there to be said? If Flew was competent to write something more on the issue he should've at least done so in a journal or magazine of some type. If he wasn't, then why would Varghese want to do so? I think I have a partial answer. Varghese wanted to make some money off a best selling book. I just hope Flew gets his share.<BR/><BR/>Now we are left with applying the same types of higher criticism toward that book as we must do with Plato's Dialogues and the gospels. Who said what and why? Such an exercise isn't worth it to me. If I want to read the arguments on behalf of the issues pro or con there are better books.<BR/><BR/>So I hope you'll pardon me if I pass on this book. I cannot tell who wrote what and who didn't. Besides what Flew believes makes no difference to me about what I should believe. People have been changing their minds on the God question down through history, and most of the changes have been from belief to non-belief since the Enlightenment. No wonder Christians want to parade one important success through the streets, since such a parade is so small to begin with.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12935437411380055772007-11-08T13:26:00.000-07:002007-11-08T13:26:00.000-07:00*Sigh* Yeah, why doesn't Flew tell us his views a...*Sigh* Yeah, why doesn't Flew tell us his views about Reading F.C.'s chances of staying in the Premier League this season, if he really wrote the book?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5040060521799366692007-11-08T13:16:00.000-07:002007-11-08T13:16:00.000-07:00Why would Flew's views have anything to do with wh...Why would Flew's views have anything to do with what was written in 'Flews' book?<BR/><BR/>Tricky question. I might have to think about that before answering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14569991606831617682007-11-08T12:17:00.000-07:002007-11-08T12:17:00.000-07:00Flew has always found the doctrine of everlasting ...Flew has always found the doctrine of everlasting punishment abhorrent, and he still does. So do universalist Christians like Tom Talbott. Why would Flew's views on everlasting punishment have anything to do with his views on whether the universe was designed?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77048356015171038912007-11-08T11:06:00.000-07:002007-11-08T11:06:00.000-07:00In a recent video, plastered all over You Tube, Fl...In a recent video, plastered all over You Tube, Flew talks about the doctrine of eternal torture.<BR/><BR/>Of course, Flew's new book does not discuss this.<BR/><BR/>Flew's book shies away from discussing things close to the heart of Flew - such as deism, and the Christian doctrine of eternal torture.<BR/><BR/>Don't buy Varghese's book. Watch the video of Flew if you want to know Flew's views.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49647279257156090802007-11-08T10:56:00.000-07:002007-11-08T10:56:00.000-07:00Excellent point. It's a bit disconcerting to see F...Excellent point. It's a bit disconcerting to see Flew's statements pulled this-way and that-way in some philosophical tug-of-war.Daniel Wesleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11122828577925113174noreply@blogger.com