CrashFrog vs. Juhrahnimo: A friendly discussion

Hum...let's look at what the good prof. said AFTER the interview:

quote:

---

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

---

About his ideas on DNA

quote:

---

have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder." He says "it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics." Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics--yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew's method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims). As Flew admitted to me, and to Stuart Wavell of the London Times, and Duncan Crary of the Humanist Network News, he has not made any effort to check up on the current state of things in any relevant field

---

secweb.orgSo he's not current or upto date on scientific thinking and we are suppose to care about his views on God because.....As a christian who became an atheist - It basically came down to this - I saw (as I got older) no evidence for the figure described in the bible, I heard no "voices", saw no guiding hand. I've never been one for doing things out of habit - so that was the endThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-18-2005 20:16 AM

The problem with Flew is that he's never been an atheist, as far as I can tell; he's widely reported as one but has never said that he is. Rather he was and continues to be a deist.Regardless, the answer to your question is, if you'll pardon my Polish, "I don't give a fuck." Why would I care about the beliefs of some old fogey? Atheism isn't like religion; we don't follow dogma or worship leader figures. If atheism doesn't do it for Flew, I don't see why it's any of my concern.

So, basically, you fully believe that the lights go for good as soon as they cover you up with dirt? Just absolutely no hope for an afterlife? It that's question is too spiritual, I guess you can ignore it and I'll understand.

quote:

---

So, basically, you fully believe that the lights go for good as soon as they cover you up with dirt?

---

Well that's idea is still good enought for Flew :-)

No, I fully believe that absolutely none of us really know what happens after we die, just as absolutely none of us really know if there's a God or not, or if the supernatural exists. The reason that I know that none of us knows these things is because I know these things are fundamentally unknowable; hence, atheism.

Great link, thanks. So, your statement: could be correct, or perhaps Flew is backpeddling for obvious reasons. Or perhaps has been coached by his buddies to backpeddle a little for the sake of damage control. Idunno. But still a good article.And I appreciate you sincerity for sharing: Well, now waitasec. I'm getting a different idea now after reading that statement. It wasn't just a an overwhelming compilation or preponderance of evidence that left you know choice but to abandon your belief in God, but just a LACK of God's existence. It seemed to me that CrashFrog weighted his decision more on the overwhelming evidence for evolution, while you weight yours more on lack of God. Well, maybe nevermind responding to that; I might be wrong. Let me see if I can get clarification a different way by asking a question:Are you asking (or expecting) God to "show" himself to you somehow? Would that make it easier to believe in him? Please don't misunderstand my motives here; I'm not trying to corner you. I'm just trying to understand the thought process of an X-Christian. Also, the post from Cosmo #53 above is quite interesting reading in regard to personal experience.

I should clarify my answer -

quote:

---

it basically came down to this - I saw (as I got older) no evidence for the figure described in the bible, I heard no "voices", saw no guiding hand.

---

Was coupled with a growing interest in science and rational thinking.

quote:

---

Are you asking (or expecting) God to "show" himself to you somehow? Would that make it easier to believe in him?

---

Maybe when I was very small. No I'm not expecting it - I'm at the stage when the only way I would believe in a god would be if he appeared in front of me and said "I'm God"** yes I know all the "don't/can't test god stuff.I have no faith in personnal experience in that sense - it's too too easy to fool people. There was a great doc on British TV last week - a guy pretended to be a preacher to see if using common mindtricks he could "convert" people. It was amazing stuff, he had all of them convinced.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-18-2005 21:33 AM

Wait, what? Where exactly did I say that?Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.I don't believe there's any evidence that God exists. The reason I believe this (this belief being called "atheism") is because there doesn't seem to be any evidence that God exists.

I understand your thought: But many of the truths to which most of us cling depend greatly on what we choose to believe. For example, George Washington crossed the Delaware and made history. YOU cannot know that for a fact, simply because it's not possible for you (or me) in particular. But there are written eye-witness accounts that it happened. You can choose to believe it or not.
When Martin Luther nailed his famous (infamous?) list of gripes on the church door, he changed history. But was it really Martin Luther, or someone else? There are written eye-witness accounts of what happened. We can choose to believe eye-witness accounts or not. In the case of Jesus resurrection (and I know this will blow this thread wide open with a flurry of responses), there are eye-witness accounts of him being most certainly dead, but alive again on the third day. We can choose to believe that or not. But it's HOW we choose that will make the difference for us individually; we can believe just because we like the story, or reject the testimony just because we don't like the story. Or because we like the eyewitnesses, or because we DON'T like the eyewitnesses. Or, like you basically said, because it's humanly "impossible" or at least highly unlikely. But how many times have you heard a story that seemed impossible, but you basically had to believe it because of the overwhelming eyewitness testimony? I myself have refused to believe some absolutely impossible thing happened once, until I saw the video tape footage with my own eyes. Or perhaps you've experienced something so incredible that you were almost embarrassed to tell anyone because you didn't think anyone would believe you? But yet you KNEW for a fact that it was TRUE because you experienced it yourself. So, for something to be fundamentally unknowable seems a little limited. Maybe, that is. Just my thoughts.Anyway, in regard to eyewitness accounts, what do you think of testimony of the four gospels and the eyewitnesses themselves? Just curious.

See the problem is this: "Experiencing" something doesn't make it true.

Sorry, I take it back. I guess I misunderstood. Plz strike from the record.

Thank you, Obi Wan-Kenobi. Well, no, there's not. There's perhaps accounts of those accounts - maybe - but none of the authors of the Bible were eyewitnesses, or claimed to be.I believe in the essential veracity of the historical events you described because they're quite mundane - people cross rivers or hammer nails all the time. I can observe people doing these things if I choose to.But nobody has ever been observed to rise from the dead after three days; it's apparently impossible. The standard of proof to substantiate these claims, therefore, is much, much higher. Not ever. Of course, I make it a point to attempt to understand the difference between those things that are just really hard to do; and those things that are physically impossible. I don't claim this knowledge to be perfect, of course.But I've never seen anything "impossible" happen. No supposed "magic" or "psychic" power has ever withstood scrutiny; it's always tricks and nonsense. (Now I'm playing the Han Solo to your Ben Kenobi.) Well, lets put it this way. If God wanted to act or exist in such a way that his presence could never be detected, he could. So I can't say that the total lack of evidence for God means he doesn't exist. The same thing goes for everything supernatural. If it exists but doesn't want to be detected, then it won't be.The question of the existence of God is essentially unknowable. Now, the flip side is, if God wants to be indetectable, he has to act like he doesn't exist. Hence, I'm safe in acting like he doesn't exist. What eyewitnesses?

Crash,It's been some decades since I read Lyall Watson's book THE ROMEO ERROR so all this is hazy but as I recall he cites quite a number of cases of people being assumed dead and then reviving and some of them IIRC had been thought to be dead for a period of days. IIRC this "problem" was one of the things leading to the instituting of embalming. Watson is a fascinating author but at times he is not rigorous enough about his sources. This however does however seem possible to me. Before the advent of EEG or ECG it would have been possible for people to have been comatose or in conditions where vital signs were not detectable by the technology of the day.On the other hand, Watson may have been researching popular urban legends of the times and none of that happened. I would like to reread his book. But what do you think of the possibility that Jesus was not dead but so near death everyone assumed he was dead and then once taken down from the cross revived? This was the basis of the book THE PASSOVER PLOT.lfen

It seems a little far-fetched. I don't think crucifixion is that survivable. If half the account of the passion is true I don't see it as survivable.

quote:

---

Well, no, there's not. There's perhaps accounts of those accounts - maybe - but none of the authors of the Bible were eyewitnesses, or claimed to be

---

Well, Jesus on the cross told John to take care of Mary, His mother. There were all kinds of people watching this thing. Also, after He arose, He appeared unto many. Sometimes by the roomfull, walking right through the door or wall! Then He hung around was it a month or 40 days or so after He rose, and then, as He flew up into the clouds, many watched Him do it. He even gave em a few goodbye words. (in like manner I shall return. from the sky) Besides Him, many of the old testament people rose from their graves as well and appeared unto, "many". Paul the apostle missed a lot of the action, but managed to be an eyewitness as well, cause Jesus Personally came in some quantum fluctuation or something, and appeared to the former christian slayer and tormentor! This is one eyewitness who got sore eyse as a result, however, but did manage to get top billing in the eternal hall of fame, by getting his name carved right into the aprox 6000 mile long, 25 story high wall of heaven, that are made of precious stones, like diamonds, and rubies. 12 layers, each layer about 2 stries high, and on which the 12 famous 'pearly gates are located. So, eyewitnesses? You bet you life.