A statement of my disbeliefs

Hi Robinrohan, Lfen makes a point that it is in our best interest to survive as a species that we do what we do. Why do we help babies? Because not to would lead to the extinction of the human race. Thats a pretty damn good reason dont ya think? I know what your thinking, well what difference would the extinction of the human race make. None. except for the fact that we are here and can not help but be here.And since we are here we are forced by both nature and our minds to do that which will promote our existance. I believe the answer to that question is existance itself. You can believe otherwise. Take care.

The conclusion I've come to is that there are many things I cannot begin to explain or understand. It's just there.This is where I draw the line though.I do not begin using words like entity, or attributing human characteristics like revenge, jealousy, love, etc. I do not begin to build a religion around what I can't explain in a vain assumption that everyone else is as ignorant as I. It (life/nature/the unexplained) just exists.

Yes, your entire life in between. Life is a palet and we can paint, draw, construct, OR destroy in any way we choose. This might sound schamltzy, but it's reasonably true.The extreme example in support of what you suggest is the monk who spends his entire life in the pursuit of what's behind the "more than just you're born and then you die". The irony is that for this monk there has been "just" being born and dying and no reason for living beyond himself. That is truly the epitome of no reason or purpose for one's life....you've done nothing with it.

Was the article given (http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/strobel_cfac.htm), a peer reviewed paper?PS. is peer reviewed translated as evolutionist reviewed?

This is a nice dodge. I take it you think that Scientist=evolutionist?Look I can't be bothered to dance around with you for 97 posts - can you provide any peer-reviewed evidence that science disproves the atheist postion or not?If not - please don't waste my time - I've seen nothing in your posts I've not seen 1000 times before. I half expecting you to scream "it's a theory not a fact!!!" next.Piss in the pot or get off it.In fact the more I think about it - none of this has anything to do with this thread. What don't you start your own and people can debate you there?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26-May-2005 01:42 PM

Well if we are looking at 'peer-reviewed evidence' then the post you gave me did not show enough scientific evidence to prove that the claims made by many of the persons interviewed (with exception of Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) were false.With the interview against Robin Collins, Paul Jacobson said that creationists find the evolution theory to be improbable then obviously the idea of a God creating the world is improbable. That statement does no stand to scrutiny since the creationists just need to find the probability of a powerful God. Since there is constant religious movements out there, with historical written material, that say there is a God (many more than those who say the world evolved) then the probability factor rests largely on the creationists shoulders.
Again, with the exception of Jonathan Wells and Stephen C. Meyers, the author of the website does not use any clear and deliberate points to make the statements made to be false.Therefore I find there is enough in the books by Lee Strobel (not all interviews in the books are foolproof. ex. Jonathan Wells and Stephen C. Meyers), to show that there is good evidence to point an Intelligent Designer.
I made my point, Mr. Knight, so if you wish to keep argueing your point for 97 posts, it's your choice. In my own opinion, and this is opinion, i have not seen enough evidence to show me there is no Intelligent Designer, and from my own study I would base the Intelligent Designer as the one described in the Christian Bible.
Either way, if you wish to keep going, go ahead, but i don't feel like starting a new thread.
DanThis message has been edited by Namesdan, 05-26-2005 02:03 PM

I will have to agree also.However, when it comes to 'finding the god of the torah', I will say that I agree with the Jewish attitude about the rewards of living the 'Good life' is the good life itself, not a mythical afterlife.

Several things.Behe's 'Darwin's black box" was not a peer reviewed scietnific article. It basically took several of the problems that were currently being looked at, and said 'It's too complex, it must be an intelligent designer', using the logical fallacy of personal incrdibiltiy.All the puzzles that were mentioned in Behe's book have been solved BTW.
No intelligent designer needed, and hte concept of 'Irreducable complex' is discredited.As for those other books, I don't know Patrick GLynn's book, but Lee Strobels books are poorly written rewrites of claims that are thoughly
discredited. Their 'evidence' is not evidence what so ever.

Based upon the subtle "mockery" of your response (correct me if I'm wrong) I think NosyNed may serve you better. Albeit, this entire forum seems to me as a metaphysical forum with mega-ToEs, YECs, philosophical refutes, etc.Unless you agree that consciousness and conscience are truly metaphysical phenomena (if there be such a thing in what's left of your (and/or Ned's) reality)But to you Lurkers, consider: Robinrohan's Newtonian physics hardly seem to apply to cosmic ToEs or relativistic phenomena. How much less do they apply to metaphysics, conscience, consciousness, and real personal events?

I'm not sure what this is all about.I just try to reason things out for myself as best I can.What I said above was a review of my "gut feelings."Perhaps it is foolish but it seems to me reasonable.

robinrohan The pattern of the atoms as they interact in complex forms is what constitutes "you".The existence is a result of the atoms in there interactions. Because of our ability of speech which has progressed through the ages to allow us to refine our thinking process.By the advent of agriculture and the centralization of capital wealth that allowed societies to progress from surviving to more complex interplays. This,in turn,allowed things like the discussion of which is the best way to allocate resources and to whom led naturally into discussions that required the concept we term Ethics.

---

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

Forgive me, I may have aspired too much here.This message has been edited by Philip, 05-30-2005 01:19 PM