Excuse my English. I used an online translator, and perhaps not very good.

I would make on the subject under discussion, because I think there are some doubts.

In the link http://lasteologias.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/del-ateismo-a-la-fe/, already commented on the attack on the Lord's senility flew, resulting in a response related book written by him, entitled "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind", which I transcribe below:

"My name is in the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I will not allow the publication of a book with my name with which I am not one hundred percent agree. I needed someone to write because I have 84 years. That was Roy Varghese's role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I'm old is exactly wrong. I may be old, but it is difficult for someone to manipulate me. This is my book and it represents my thinking. "

With regard to the reasons why it changed its mind with regard to God, responding in an interview in the read link http://www.protestantedigital.com/new/nowleerarticulo.php?r=207&a=1849 where reads:

"Benjamin Wiker: You say God is in that" it is possible that nobody is more surprised than me that my research on the Divine had passed, after all these years, from denial to discovery. "The others can also be very surprised, perhaps more so that the end seemed very sudden. But in God we find that there has actually been a very gradual process, a migration of two decades, "as you say. God was the conclusion of an argument rather long . But have not had an argument on that point where you were suddenly surprised to realize that, after all, "there is God?" In some sense, "you heard a voice within the same evidence said "you hear me now?

Anthony flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the idea of Einstein and other scientists notable that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical universe. The second was my own idea that the integrated complexity of life itself which is much more complex than the physical universe can be explained only in terms of an intelligent source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply can not be explained from a biological perspective, despite numerous efforts to do so. With each passing year, the more we discover the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less possible it seems that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. It made me felt that the difference between life and non-life was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins comical effort to argue in the mirror of God that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If this is the best argument you have, then the matter is settled. No, I did not hear any voices. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion."

You stated, "...these people congratulate themselves for every soul "saved"..." - that is the entire answer there!

Not the entire answer and not the entire quote either. Ebon goes on...

regardless of whether that conversion took place through coercion, indoctrination or trickery - as if people's lives were goals in a game and the only objective was to score the most points. Like predators who hunt the sick and the weak, they target the people who are least able to resist them - those who are bereaved and emotionally vulnerable, who are suffering from dementia or cognitive decline, or even those who are dead and unable to defend themselves

These are not well intentioned do gooders, these are people willing to distort the facts and the lives and legacies of real people to prop up their delusions.

You stated, "...these people congratulate themselves for every soul "saved"..." - that is the entire answer there! They believe that they have saved a soul! That is all there is to it. They are happy because they believed they have saved a soul from eternal damnation. Think about that; this is naturally a big thing for them to be "saving" people. I don't understand what sort of twisted logic leads you to believe that they are blood-sucking, evil-doers out to harass the weak (that's not what you said, but this image easily fits into your view of them). Christian Evangelists are often just simple people, with simple beliefs. They do not have bad intentions. Leave it at that, and don't go around blowing things out of proportion simply because you don't like people of faith.

I confess, I do sometimes wonder why I sometimes visit forums like this. It is consistently a pointless endeavour.

I suppose that depends on what your goal is in doing so. You'll find most people here quite open to debate, though they will ask you to provide evidence for what you believe. If you goal is convert people here, there isn't really much chance of that happening, or if you're hoping people to accept what you say without asking any questions, that is not likely to happen either.

Atheists are welcome in AA.

They are welcome but AA is a religious institution who's success rate does not differ from the population at large. Not only that, but as far as I can tell the treatment hasn't changed since it came to be in the first place. I know I hear that people can make their 'higher power' anything they want, though the AA office is quite clear that the higher power is their god; however the one thing people in AA are not allowed to do is not admit they are powerless over their addiction and capable of living their own life. Not a treatment I would look upon with high regard.

I know you don't believe in God, so I suppose you cannot accept what I say as being valid. And yet here I am.

Perhaps AA helped you for reasons entirely perphiral to god, like a social support system, people who have gone through addiction to talk to, or a group to spend your time in instead of your addiction. But the main point is you can't be sure it was god's help unless you have evidence that that part aids recovery, and as far as I know there is none that it does. It's wonderful that you overcame your addiction, but give credit were credit is do; to your being strong enough to do so.

Why do I have to demonstrate my understanding to you?

As for my faith, well, it is I have said. I made no claim that AA was the only solution to anything. I am well aware of other approaches. I am expressing what I have experienced and witnessed. This is not a fantasy I make up to tell atheists. In fact, I know atheists in AA. Atheists are welcome in AA.

I know, as an experiential fact of my life that the closer I seek to be inline with God's will, the greater my freedom and enjoyment of life. I know, that when I pray and hand my life and will over to God, that I am not so reactive or caught with self. I know that the practice of meditation and worship strengthen me. I know you don't believe in God, so I suppose you cannot accept what I say as being valid. And yet here I am.

I confess, I do sometimes wonder why I sometimes visit forums like this. It is consistently a pointless endeavour.

Not a Very Big Bang about Genesis (Gerald Schroeder) by Mark Perakh
Book Review: The Dawkins Delusion, by Alister McGrath by tobe38 A Load of Bright

and the above Richard Carrier links on Antony Flew. You might also want to peruse our host Ebonmuse's writings, "Ebon Musings"

Steve, I am willing to hunt down more rebuttals for you, but I am reluctant to do much more unless you first read the links I gave you and have demonstrated that you understand the arguments that Mark Perakh and tobe38 have made.

The success rate for AA recovery is exactly the same as the success rate for quitting on one's own (roughly 5% last I heard). It offer no alternatives for people who don't want to begin by admitting they are powerless losers and start believing in god. Give you father and brother some credit; they weren't powerless over their addiction, they were powerful enough to overcome it.

Some books? there's

Gerald Schroeder "The Hidden Face Of God - How Science Reveals The Ultimate Truth" and
"The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom"
Paul Davies "The Mind of God".
Michael Behe "Darwin's Black Box".
Let's not forget Antony Flew.
Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn "Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith"
Thomas Crean "God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins"
Alister E. McGrath "The Dawkins Delusion"

I could go on, and I have a lot more to read. I love it.

As for your last point, even atheists on the particular atheist forum I am referring to were quite disgusted by the responses and attacks. But I'm not here to prove to you that I'm not lying or that I'm too sensitive.

As for my own faith, well it's personal. It's my experience with the divine and it saved my life. Literally. And then it gave me a new life. I know this is true and have no real need to prove it. Frankly, I cannot prove it. It saved my fathers life and my brothers life. In fact, as a result of my father, my brother and myself handing our life and will over to the care of God within the context of Alcoholics Anonymous, at different times, and under similar but significantly different circumstances, the lives of many others have also been helped.

God is not a hypothesis in my life, or the scores of others I personally know. It is a daily practice that provides the power of a daily reprieve. I have seen some atheists become devout theists in AA. I have also seen the wonderful transformation of their lives.

You can believe what you like of course. But I know and have witnessed many beautiful transformations in AA, not least of which is my own.

CYA.

I have read many books by scientists and philosophers and just regular people who believe in a God. I find many of their arguments quite compelling.

For instance?

Many atheist arguments remind of the Monty Python skit where a character pays for an argument but all he gets is a person who says things like "no there isn't", "no it's not" etc.

Which is actually perfectly valid if the theist does not meet her burden of proof. For my part, I've never met a compelling argument for belief. I'd like to hear one if you have one.

In my own, admittedly limited way, I have tried to engage atheists in debate and found it to be a most horrible experience. Almost without fail the debates have rapidly degenerated into childish personal attacks.

I get this complaint from theists all the time, and when investigated, it usually turns out that the theist is being overly sensitive, that any argument against their faith is taken as a personal attack. I don't know you, and I'm not saying that's the case with you, but if you stick around here, I think you'll find that the vast majority of the people here will engage your argument and will show it to be lacking.

I have read many books by scientists and philosophers and just regular people who believe in a God. I find many of their arguments quite compelling. I suggest you actually read some of these after opening your mind and then offer refutations to their arguments and not just contrary statements. Many atheist arguments remind of the Monty Python skit where a character pays for an argument but all he gets is a person who says things like "no there isn't", "no it's not" etc.

Attacks on a person's credibility due to their age really is unreasonable. I have seen videos of Flew in interviews etc. and he seems quite sane to me. Certainly, his recent debates and this most recent book shows me no evidence of dementia. Even, so, dementia does not necessarily equate to gross irrationality.

In my own, admittedly limited way, I have tried to engage atheists in debate and found it to be a most horrible experience. Almost without fail the debates have rapidly degenerated into childish personal attacks.

Anyway, hope everything works out as you expect.

Steve.

Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of (most recent update: 27 Dec 2007)
Craig the Annoyed
Antony Flew's Bogus Book

And here's a review of AF's book by NYT reviewer Anthony Gottlieb -- it's not very good.