Did former atheist Antony Flew commit the unpardonable sin by following the evidence wherever it leads?

While I agree with those who are criticizing the subtitle of his book, I think most of you are sidestepping the question. And I don’t care whether or not you read it. Now, is Flew guilty of committing the unpardonable sin or not?

@Dreamstuff Entity, didn't you block me? If so, don't you think it is hypocritical to disallow me to answer your questions, yet turn around and answer mine. Furthermore, my question was whether or not Flew committed the unpardonable sin by following the evidence wherever it leads. I made no claims that he embraced theism, although it is very much similar to deism, and practically the opposite from atheism. From what I've read from you so far, it is clear that you haven't read his book.

@Dreamstuff Entity, how is what I've posted so far an argument from authority? In fact, I'm unaware that I've even put forth an argument; rather a simple little question for you to answer. Furthermore, you probably shouldn’t have dated your posts, for Flew’s book describing his journey from atheism to deism wasn’t published until 2007. You should stick with the latest sources. If you don’t, you could make Flew out to still be an atheist.

@Dale Sturtevant, I didn't know Charles Darwin was an atheist, let alone a notorious one.

@Dale Sturtevant, but employing the reality of suffering in order to deny the existence of a good God is to make a moral judgment. Such a moral judgment requires an objective moral law in order to meaningfully contrast good and evil. Yet, if an objective moral law exists rather than moral preferences of individuals or societies, by logical consequence there must be a moral lawgiver. This would be God. The problem of suffering, when raised as a disproof for God, assumes the reality of the God it is trying to disprove. It is people who put themselves in hell, not God. Hell is where they want to be, not where God wants them to be.

Flew flat-out denies any type of an afterlife, including hell and heaven. He also doesn't believe in a personal, loving God that accounts for evil and suffering, thus, your objections to not investigating Flew's reasons for following the evidence where it leads is irrelevant.

Although there may be hypocrites in the church and Hollywood, I think they’re more abundant in the First Church of New Atheism, in that they never apply the same historical, scientific, and philosophical criteria of truth to Christianity as they would naturalism. Dale Sturtevant is a case in point concerning philosophy, using the wrongness of suffering as evidence for the nonexistence of a loving God without telling us where such objective standards of good and evil come from.