That’s irrelevant to your first two claims, which were about public discussions there. For the third, if you want your correspondence with Joshua to be personal and private, stop making claims about its contents.
Where is your retraction?
Are you American?
1 Like
Aye. White, Christian, married, and retired.
That’s mostly a discussion between you and Joshua. It’s not anti-religious in the slightest.
1 Like
Roy,
Where is your mind?
What I wrote was true for the time I was there.
A murder is a murder, even if the perpetrator eventually becomes a priest.
The fact you are here harassing me says something to me. But I don’t plan on conversing with you if you insist on your zealous view of revisionism. Cease. Or I’ll never respond to a posting of yours again.
My condolences 
.
1 Like
I should have seen that coming.
Roy,
I provided that discussion as the intellectual underpinning for my latter complaints.
Where is your evidence?
It wasn’t.
If it had been true, showing that should be trivial - but you couldn’t show it then, and you can’t show it now.
If you don’t want your claims to be exposed as false and insulting, stop making false and insulting claims.
I frequently find that both Americans and Brits - especially those that have never crossed the Atlantic - both see the others’ country as being worse.
In reality, both are better in some ways, and worse in others. Unfortunately both are currently deteriorating, although the US is (IMO) deteriorating faster at the moment.
I’m sorry that you took my “Condolences” as a suggestion that Brits are worse. It wasn’t.
If you were sad about being British, my “condolences” would have been appropriate. If, on the other hand, you were pleased to be British, my “condolences” would have been nothing more than a simple misunderstanding.
Now consider the possibility that you were sad about being British, and that I had said: “That’s fantastic!”, then you would have thought I’m a wanker. I figured: better “mistaken” than “a wanker”.
1 Like
You are being insulted? So when I said that PS was “flooded” with “Atheists”…. were you insulted by the word “FLOODED”? Or do you find the word “Atheist” to be inherently insulting?
Roy,
You are half right in this PS posting you shared with me:
My last sentence was wrongly expressed: “Atheists would be part of the BioLogos audience…” should have been written more fulsomely as “Atheists, rejecting Adam & Eve as historically de novo creations, would be more tolerant of BioLogos for obvious reasons!”
But how wrong YOU were! “This atheist most certainly would NOT be part of the BioLogos audience…” and yet, here you are chasing after me. Why exactly ARE you here at BioLogos?
3 Likes
I’m reminded of the point C.S.Lewis made about needing to start with a great good in order to get a great evil.
@Tim_nz
You do understand that until that time covers a broad time period? Flew was born in 1923 and had a 50 year career in philosophy before the year 2000 and all before the internet became mainstream. Your nitpicking on this is embarrassing, as is using data from 2004 on when most of his career is long before this.
This is basic knowledge, and Dawkins is a scientists, not a philosopher. Flew was a well renowned philosopher and advocator atheism.
Why don’t you use the Wayback machine to search the internet from 1950-2000, the time when his career existed. Let me know what kind of results you get from the 70s and 80s.
I find it compelling. The best resource I’ve found on the topic is Jason Waller’s Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments: What (If Anything) Should We Infer From the Fine-Tuning of Our Universe for Life?
He covers just about every issue there is and goes through pros and cons for everything. It’s far better than the amateur nonsense floating around on the internet in our echo-chambers.
Yup. Right after he offered a caricature of comoslogical arguments which tells me he doesn’t understand them. But he does understand straw man critiques of them as he writes: “The reply that God is self-caused (somehow) then raises the rebuttal: If something can be self-caused, why can’t the universe as a whole be the thing that is self-caused?” He may not embrace any of them explicitly, but he is ascribing legitimacy to the objections. Stop nitpicking.
It’s not his brightest moment but new atheists are that annoying and their arguments are that poor.
Vinnie
3 Likes
ChatGPT tells me: “No published evidence has turned up. The phrase appears to originate in post-conversion apologetic writing (Feser, Dembski, book blurbs) and then gets endlessly repeated.”
3 Likes
This was my last official posting at PS.org back in January of this year. I look forward to a brand new year as January 2026 rushes towards us all.
As a courtesy I provide the full text here:
“Joshua has only agreed (thus far) to say he has not taken the GAE out of the PS.org mission.”
“He has so far declined all other invitations to discuss how an energetic group of non-theist Evolutionists can develop and sustain a sense of trust and “peace” with Christians Creationists… Creationists who have little choice but fixate on the atheist motivations of their correspondents (because there are so few theological discussions here embracing God’s use of evolution to create humans). Regardless of how unpersuasive my appeals have been (apparently EXTREMELY so) … the pro-Evolution Christian audience continues to vote with their feet. I can only join them.”
“In fact, it has dawned on me that of all the millions of pro-Evolution Christians available, there is only non-atheist me who feels betrayed by the lack of support to have a safe place where Christians can discuss GAE with other Christians. And I am a Unitarian!”
“I think William Lane Craig holds the answer I seek:
“This 1+ hour video received 11,000+ views since 2021 and is PS.org’s 3rd highest rated video:
William Lane Craig Ends His Search For Adam and Eve
“Since Michael Heiser’s death (whose 17 minute PS video garners over 123,000+ !!! views since 2022 !!!) , W.L.Craig is the best and greatest living example of who @swamidass wants to attract as supporters.”
“I am not in the running. But until such time W.L.Craig (or someone like him) becomes a regular participant I can only be a distraction.”
George Brooks
January 2025
Antony Flew responding to Richard Carrier on Internet Infidels in 2000:
Those rumours speak false. I remain still what I have been now for over fifty years, a negative atheist. By this I mean that I construe the initial letter in the word ‘atheist’ in the way in which everyone construes the same initial letter in such words as ‘atypical’ and ‘amoral’. For I still believe that it is impossible either to verify or to falsify - to show to be false - what David Hume in his*Dialogues concerning Natural Religion* happily described as “the religious hypothesis.” The more I contemplate the eschatological teachings of Christianity and Islam the more I wish I could demonstrate their falsity.
I first argued the impossibility in ‘Theology and Falsification’, a short paper originally published in 1950 and since reprinted over forty times in different places, including translations into German, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Welsh, Finnish and Slovak. The most recent reprint was as part of ‘A Golden Jubilee Celebration’ in the October/November 2001 issue of the semi-popular British journal Philosophy Now, which the editors of that periodical have graciously allowed the Internet Infidels to publish online: see “Theology & Falsification.”