|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism: an irrational philosophical system | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scottyranks Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scottyranks Inactive Member |
Please explain the last comment "common sense isn't". I think I understand, so briefly will do if you do not have much time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scottyranks Inactive Member |
Or maybe I have little because I did not realize that was his signature text...Maybe he is psychic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
scottyranks Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transcendasaurus Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transcendasaurus Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transcendasaurus Inactive Member |
quote: 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transcendasaurus Inactive Member |
quote: 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: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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024