CrashFrog vs. Juhrahnimo: A friendly discussion

quote:

---

And I guess you didn't read post 27. You falsely accused me of calling you stupid, when it was creationfan who did it. And....? Did you make a mistake or falsely accuse me on PURPOSE?

---

And you did the same thing with me on the thread you mentioned - did you make a mistake or falsely accuse me on PURPOSE?

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

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 :-)

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

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

This is not the actual the thread to get into it - but we are not even sure about the eyewitnesses let along what they say!If you are really interested in looking at this in an objective manner - take a look at what the big thinkers and political figures of the time were saying.bestCharles

quote:

---

So do most atheist scientists who support evolution. That doesn't negate their testimony.

---

News to me - we never take a scientist at their word, that why we have replication.

quote:

---

Let's say you're also hired at God publicist. What would you have God do to prove his existence to the world? What would your proposed operating plan look like?

---

1. Appear to the world2. THE END.

To everyone - Of course the 5 year-old will remember - this is god, if he wants them to remember they will.He can keep showing up to people for everything - being everywhere at once forever should be no problem.

Why would people be willing to die for a faith that was "questionable" (as you might say)?Well people killed themselves to catch a lift in a spaceship that was passing by.....

quote:

---

But I'm not talking about brainwashed people. I'm talking about the FOUNDERS of a faith. The people who saw and heard things as they happened, like the sick being healed, the lame walking, the dead coming to life, lepers cleansed, the blind seeing, etc. The crown jewel of course, being the Son of God rising from the grave.

---

Well that's what they claim - all the best con artists have a decent story.

quote:

---

But the question I'm asking is: What purpose do you think these "founders" of Christianity had for promoting this supposed "lie" of Jesus rising from the grave? I'm guessing you think the disicples perhaps stole the body out of the grave, as the "elders" of the synagogue told the soldiers to report? Matt. 28:13

---

You've got to get out of this circular reasoning of supporting the bible by quoting the bible. Can you provide us with any supporting testimony from non-christian sources?

quote:

---

I currently have in my library more books on apologetics... I'm trying to keep it at a layman's level... I'm debating on an entirely different level here...

---

I don't see this in that post crash? was it deleted?J - if you said this, then I forget "layman's level" it's weak stuff. You might want to present your better material as what you've said so far has been heard 100 times before.

quote:

---

And that's why you will be "without excuse". Sorry.

---

No need to be sorry - I've heard the christian scare tactics 100s of times before as well.