Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism: an irrational philosophical system
scottyranks
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 171 (81875)
01-31-2004 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by nator
01-30-2004 9:22 PM


Re: Christian Consistency Would Be Dangerous For Some Christians
After stumbling upon this site, and reading through several hours of past posts, I am...bemused. Without a doubt most here are extremely intelligent. Much smarter than me... Much debate back and forth over issues of God, the universe, atheist etc. There would be no debate if anything could be proven. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in God. A "Christian" believes in one God, and the virgin birth of God's son, Jesus. Christians believe in the teachings of the Bible. That teaching includes trying to "convince" others of their beliefs. We are all somewhat a product of our environment. Whatever belief "you" (and I am speaking to anyone) hold has ben shaped by many factors. Your parents, your peers, your experiences.
I am a Christian. Not raised one, but had several influences that led me to Christ. I can not, and will not try to debate on this or any forum the existance of my God or any other. There would be no word "faith" if we had a videotape of the entire history of time.
So, in a simplistic way, which I am sure will drive some crazy, my heart, mind and soul lead me to follow Christ. I can not prove it through moral thoery, evolution, big bang, or a clever combination. Just as I can not prove his existence, so can no one prove the contrary. But, the way I feel, the way I live my life, the satisfaction I feel based upon my beliefs is enough for me. That is the only way I can come close to "convincing someone" to believe in Jesus. Human nature is very strange, we will all always question. The driving force behind most of our culture, and most recorded civilizations is the desire to belong. I believe, with no proof, that that desire is for God.
I hope I did not offend anyone, intellectually or otherwise. ...scott

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by nator, posted 01-30-2004 9:22 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 01-31-2004 8:19 PM scottyranks has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 92 of 171 (81876)
01-31-2004 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by scottyranks
01-31-2004 8:14 PM


Faith and Reason
Just as I can not prove his existence, so can no one prove the contrary
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by scottyranks, posted 01-31-2004 8:14 PM scottyranks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by scottyranks, posted 01-31-2004 8:28 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 97 by scottyranks, posted 01-31-2004 9:01 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 100 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-02-2004 2:13 AM NosyNed has replied

  
scottyranks
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 171 (81878)
01-31-2004 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by NosyNed
01-31-2004 8:19 PM


Re: Christian Consistency Would Be Dangerous For Some Christians
Please explain the last comment "common sense isn't". I think I understand, so briefly will do if you do not have much time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 01-31-2004 8:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2004 8:41 PM scottyranks has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 171 (81880)
01-31-2004 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by scottyranks
01-31-2004 8:28 PM


It's his signature text, not a comment in regards to the topic. I think what he means is that common sense isn't really all that common. Or maybe he means it isn't all that sensical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by scottyranks, posted 01-31-2004 8:28 PM scottyranks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by scottyranks, posted 01-31-2004 8:46 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 96 by NosyNed, posted 01-31-2004 8:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
scottyranks
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 171 (81883)
01-31-2004 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
01-31-2004 8:41 PM


Re: Christian Consistency Would Be Dangerous For Some Christians
Or maybe I have little because I did not realize that was his signature text...Maybe he is psychic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2004 8:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 96 of 171 (81885)
01-31-2004 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
01-31-2004 8:41 PM


Is it?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2004 8:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
scottyranks
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 171 (81886)
01-31-2004 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by NosyNed
01-31-2004 8:19 PM


Re: Christian Consistency Would Be Dangerous For Some Christians
Per your reply, Ned, does that mean I am less observant and not as skilled at reasoning? This is a friendly question by the way... scott

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 01-31-2004 8:19 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 02-02-2004 1:55 AM scottyranks has replied

  
Transcendasaurus
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 171 (82066)
02-02-2004 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Abshalom
01-26-2004 1:27 AM


Re: you mean theonomy?
quote:
Grace, if you have time, please tell me how a Christian Theocracy, totally unrestrained by secular (and God forbid, secular humanist) laws or courts, would deal with violators of Biblical Law regarding, just for an example, adultery.
In order not to overburden your time, I am just asking for a response to this one question at this time rather than having to address all the other examples that one might drag out regarding the Inquisition and sundry witch trials.
Interesting topic, and I'm wondering why it isn't addressed more. The Biblical punishment for adultry and soothsaying was/is capital punishment. My understanding is that the State is responsible for carrying out punishment, not the church. I would say the Church was acting immorally during the Inquisition, in that God does not command profession of faith in Him on threat of capital punishment. It's actually worse in that God deals with non-belief personally on judgement day. As for the Salem Witch trials: there's another case in history where the innocent are wrongfully condemned (if they truly were not practicing witchcraft). So in short, you have supposed Christians acting against God's revealed Word. Sola Scriptura is the only way to arrive at a proper view of God's moral requirements and punishment.
Tran.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Abshalom, posted 01-26-2004 1:27 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Abshalom, posted 02-02-2004 1:36 PM Transcendasaurus has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 99 of 171 (82068)
02-02-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by scottyranks
01-31-2004 9:01 PM


Reasoning
Per your reply, Ned, does that mean I am less observant and not as skilled at reasoning?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by scottyranks, posted 01-31-2004 9:01 PM scottyranks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by scottyranks, posted 02-02-2004 6:27 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Transcendasaurus
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 171 (82069)
02-02-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by NosyNed
01-31-2004 8:19 PM


Re: Faith and Reason
quote:
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.
That might go down smoother if this forum wasn't called Evolution versus Creationism Regardless, the "sharing" is obviously irrating to many; it doesn't take but a quick perusal thru the threads to see that. Nice try though!
quote:
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.
I disagree! And based on your signature, you should too! This statement presumes that facts speak for themselves. Even your signature "common sense isn't" [so common] expresses the notion that all evidence is interpreted. That is what exactly what makes murder mysteries so appealing... you presuppose the Butler did it all through the movie until you get that last piece of evidence that overturns every fact you were so confident in when you applied that evidence to the Butler.
Anyone else notice that the logo to this forum says "Creation Versus Evolution" (CVE) but the forum is named EVC?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 01-31-2004 8:19 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2004 2:31 AM Transcendasaurus has replied
 Message 104 by NosyNed, posted 02-02-2004 11:00 AM Transcendasaurus has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 171 (82070)
02-02-2004 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Transcendasaurus
02-02-2004 2:13 AM


Anyone else notice that the logo to this forum says "Creation Versus Evolution" (CVE) but the forum is named EVC?
You ever notice that in movie posters like this one:
They list the actors in reverse order as their pictures appear? It's to avoid complaints about who's getting the top billing. I imagine it's Percy's intent to give both evolutionism and creationism the same coutesy.
That is what exactly what makes murder mysteries so appealing... you presuppose the Butler did it all through the movie until you get that last piece of evidence that overturns every fact you were so confident in when you applied that evidence to the Butler.
The problem with the Presuppositionalist argument is that it assumes that all preconceptions and interpretations are equal. They're not, of course.
For instance creationists complain about how it's the materialist viewpoint that dominates our science classes and culture, but they forget that their viewpoint dominated western thought for almost 1,300 years after Christ.
What do we call that period? The Dark Ages. In the years after, when we've subsitituted the set of "preconceptions" represented by materialism, we've accomplished so much: from the realization of universal gravitation, to the re-emergence of theatre, to the development of medicine, communications and the internet, and even putting a man on the moon.
Clearly one of those "preconceptions" is superior to the other. I'll stake my money on methodological naturalism any day of the week, including Sunday. Reject the scientific process if you like, but shouldn't you sell your computer and move to a cave at that point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-02-2004 2:13 AM Transcendasaurus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-02-2004 3:14 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Transcendasaurus
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 171 (82073)
02-02-2004 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
02-02-2004 2:31 AM


quote:
The problem with the Presuppositionalist argument is that it assumes that all preconceptions and interpretations are equal. They're not, of course.
Capital "p"? Are you referring to Vantil's Transcendental Argument or my argument? All I said was that evidence is interpreted and then gave an example. I don't even think what I said is controversial in evidentialist circles let alone philosophical ones. I think you're overreacting a bit. My point doesn't entail abandonment of the "scientific process".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2004 2:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2004 4:16 AM Transcendasaurus has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 171 (82079)
02-02-2004 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Transcendasaurus
02-02-2004 3:14 AM


All I said was that evidence is interpreted and then gave an example.
Right, but you wouldn't be the first one to use that as a stepping stone to imply that creationism is simply an alternative but equally valid interpretation of data.
But your own example disproves the idea that there's mutliple valid interpretations of data:
quote:
you presuppose the Butler did it all through the movie until you get that last piece of evidence that overturns every fact you were so confident in when you applied that evidence to the Butler.
Evidence isn't interpreted piece by piece. You interpret evidence by generalization, like connecting the dots. You can't connect a single dot all by itself. It's those multiple points of data that allow for valid interpretations. You'll note that in your own example, when all the data is revealed, "the butler did it" ceases to be avalid interpretation.
Given a weight of evidence, there's only one valid interpretation: the right one. Any other interpretations are the result of either fallacious reasoning or incomplete data. Of course, all scientific theories suffer from incomplete data; it's this steady influx of data that is responsible for the change in scientific theory over time.
I think you're overreacting a bit.
Yeah, I might have. Sorry about that. I kinda saw this as my big chance to leap down the throat of a presuppositionalist. Sorry if I missed my mark. If I did,let me pose the question: what, to you, would be significant about the idea of multiple valid interpretations?
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-02-2004 3:14 AM Transcendasaurus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-02-2004 12:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 104 of 171 (82109)
02-02-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Transcendasaurus
02-02-2004 2:13 AM


Re: Faith and Reason
That might go down smoother if this forum wasn't called Evolution versus Creationism
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.
This statement presumes that facts speak for themselves. Even your signature "common sense isn't" [so common] expresses the notion that all evidence is interpreted.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-02-2004 2:13 AM Transcendasaurus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Transcendasaurus, posted 02-02-2004 7:29 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Transcendasaurus
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 171 (82119)
02-02-2004 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
02-02-2004 4:16 AM


The Butler Did It
quote:
Right, but you wouldn't be the first one to use that as a stepping stone to imply that creationism is simply an alternative but equally valid interpretation of data.
It's true that I do argue the TA because I find it compelling, but the intention of my post was light converstation with Ned because he seems to be a down to earth person that I would enjoy conversing with, and because I don't have time to carry on a full fledged debate. I work for a living I also wouldn't call creationism an alternative on equal grounds. I have a feeling you are bringing in other debates into this. If you feel compelled to argue with me, then argue my points not others I have no idea what others have said nor do I care to defend positions that I don't hold.
quote:
But your own example disproves the idea that there's mutliple valid interpretations of data:
I don't hold that position and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you came to the conclusion that I do. I certainly didn't write that. I said data is interpreted in response to NosyNeds statement that faith has nothing to do what we learn. Regardless of whether you think faith yields valid interpretations or not wasn't the point. It affects how the data is interpreted.
thanks
[This message has been edited by Transcendasaurus, 02-02-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2004 4:16 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 12:24 PM Transcendasaurus has replied
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2004 8:08 PM Transcendasaurus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024