Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

And most of the non-believers here don't have any problem with your faith. It is a personal thing that you share with some of the rationally minded individuals here.In that view it is completely up to you. That which you come to through faith has nothing to do with what we learn with observation and reason.

---

Common sense isn't

I should remain mysterious as to what the true deep meaning of my signiture is.(your first guess is the original meaning, but it has to be apparent to most that the second is more truthful )

---

Common sense isn't

No that wasn't the point at all. As I noted some of the real scientist here have faith as well.What I was saying is that the faith side is separate from the reasoning side. It doesn't seem to make for good theology to try to use reason and observation. And it doesn't make for good science to try to use faith.

---

Common sense isn't

And of course it is. Creationism (that is a literal interpretation of Genesis and an attempt to say that it is stating scientific facts) is not an issue of faith. It is much more an issue of lack of faith.Those who are making the most noise about it try to suggest that there is scientific 'proof' for the young age of the Earth, a flood and that life didn't evolve. They can't seem to hold on to their faith if these things aren't proven with scientific processes to be true. That isn't faith.It is that form of "creationism" that some here are "versus". And this includes both unbelievers and believers.The mature Christians (and others) don't have this problem. Then to make your position clear you need to pick specific observations and show a reasonable and different interpretation that explains all that we know.

---

Common sense isn't

As I take the meaning of the word 'faith', no. If you mean by 'reasoning' evidence based reasoning. I've been lead to understand that faith is exactly what you believe without evidence or reasoning to it. You accept something because you, personally believe it not because anything has demonstrated to you that it is true. The first part is partiall correct for some and very incorrect for others. Some here that disagree with literalists still have no problem with the Bible and in fact are devote Christians. However, it is the literal interpretations that many here, both believers and not, have a big problem with.Even then most of us have little problem with the literal interpretations until the fundamentalists start to try to damage science education based on that. I don't have a problem with that. I don't see how one can expect such stories to get the history and very especially any natural facts anywhere near 100% accurate. I don't see why it matters if those parts aren't accurate.The majority of Christians fall into this group and some are friends and family to me. Why should I have any problem? What I think is that they are the Christians with real faith and don't need natural evidence to suport their faith unlike those with a weaker "faith" that need concrete support. I think the majority of Christians are the ones who really know what the intended message of the Bible is. I think the creationists (as the term is usually used) are the ones who have some sort of exaggerated worship of the Bible itself. It seems to be some sort of warped, misplaced devotion.Those that think that if the Bible isn't 100% true it is all wrong are on very shakey theological ground and seem to be just asking for the kind of attacks by atheists that we see here. In fact, they seem to be intent on handing the weapons to the atheists to attack Christianity. Very odd that is.

---

Common sense isn't

These two issues (age of earth and the flood) need to be taken to the threads already discussing them.In general, we find that one of the positions can not explain the data. Eg, a flood can not order the fossils the way they are found. When asked to explain this the creationists make assertions that are obviously wrong. Go to the threads on that topic and see what happens.So you are right that both sides have their own interpretations. However, one of them doesn't explain what we see so it is not correct. If you think that the two are really equivalent interpretations then you can try to defend one where others have given up and/or been unable to supply any back up for their assertions.

---

Common sense isn't