Atheism: an irrational philosophical system

SInce you find the "TA compelling perhaps you can explain why.Since the "TA" is not an argument at all - just a set of assertions, and since every form of the argument I have encountered avoids really discussing those assertions are we to take it that you simply assume that the assertions are true ?

Transcendasaurus:Thank you for your thoughtful insight and reply to Message #4. Let me digest a few thoughts and get back with you on your topics. We may want to discuss it on another thread.I do not intend to participate on this thread at this time since Grace's puppeteer and carnival sideshow tactics of debate (bait, wait, manipulate/dodge/switch, etc.) are deplorable and not worth the time of day.Actually, I am very apprehensive about any form of theocracy. I am not familiar with the term "theonomy" and should look into it before replying to your response.Again, thank you for your reply, your subject matter, and the opportunity to continue the discussion.Peace.

quote:

---

Actually, I am very apprehensive about any form of theocracy. I am not familiar with the term "theonomy" and should look into it before replying to your response.

---

You might like to search for articles, books and tapes on theonomy by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, as I find myself more and more convinced along his line of thinking on the subject. CMFnow.com is a good, short introduction to it.Thanks
Chris

Faith seperate from reasoning? That is interesting. Is it not possible that you arrive at faith through reasoning.Tell me if this assuption is correct. Most "non-believers"(for lack of a better term) have problems with the bible, not God. Christians who take the Bible literally, without reasoning make most here upset.Is that a correct statement?To go further, What do you think of a person who believes in God, the virgin birth, and the 2nd coming of Christ but thinks the Bible includes many truths, but also many stories that support God and Jesus teachings but may or may not be 100% accurate.

quote:

---

Since the "TA" is not an argument at all - just a set of assertions, and since every form of the argument I have encountered avoids really discussing those assertions are we to take it that you simply assume that the assertions are true ?

---

Well, I would call it an argument since it usually results in one side or the other defending themselves, but you can call it what you like. As for "avoiding those assertions", you would have to be more specific on what those assertions are. I wasn't there so I don't know what you mean.

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

So you say that you find the so-called "TA" compelling but you don't even know what it says ?Want to explain that ?

quote:

---

The mature Christians (and others) don't have this problem

---

Well, that's refreshing. I haven't been in this forum but 20 minutes before falling prey.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm sure you've kept up to speed on the current evolutionary debates between creationists and evolutionists, so take your pick. How about the fossil record?[note to lurkers.. I'm not arguing for or against so please don't jump in guns firing].One school of thought believes a young earth, the other an old. That's what they bring to the table when viewing the world, and fossils in particular. When examining the evidence, one sees the fossil as having been laid down over millions of years while the other views the same evidence as having been buried under a catastrophic flood. The evolutionist sees the evidence as proof of an old earth, while the creationist sees the same evidence, as proof of a young earth that was recently judged by God. Both sides find the evidence as supporting their views on origins, and they view it as "obvious", matter of fact and "common sensical".

quote:

---

So you say that you find the so-called "TA" compelling but you don't even know what it says ?

---

I said I don't know what assertions were made to *you* in particular so how can I even attempt to answer you unless you clue me in?

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

Well, you said this:

quote:

---

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.

---

...which is usually how people start the Argument from Alternate, Valid Interpretations of Data.I guess maybe you confused me, or something. Sorry for jumping the gun. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-02-2004]

So one side is basically centered on tangible verifiable evidence and probable hypothesis where the "other" side has one rule stating that a supernatural God can and Will do whatever He wants! Thus, even if the Bible were logically full of errors, perhaps the underlying message of human interactions between humans, base natural inclinations, and the need for God in a persons life and the story of how people throughout History attempted to communicate with God===That this is the essence of biblical inerrency! Human nature and supernatural interaction. Our interpretations of such phenomena.
The reality of Faith with the absence of proof. (whew! Tangled thoughts...sorry, guys!) I guess that my point is that any new inquiring mind who reads our collective thoughts on this post is not searching for intellectual proofs. They are searching, perhaps, for genuine interactions between humans searching for and defining meaning and truth in life. Be it a theory, or be it a belief.

By saying "demonstrated to you that is true" makes me ask this question. And please forgive the mystical tone... What is Truth? Is it a set of facts that point towards a probable conclusion? Or does the word probable mean there can be no "truth"? I think there is a fine line between your definition of faith, and your definiton of evidence based reasoning. Our viewpoints, from the limited I have read of your posts, are similar in many ways. In your opinin what makes people with similar viewpoints have different ideas about God? Parents? Friends? Environment in general? Just curious as to your opinion.

Well I wasn't talking about assertions only made to me. I was tallking about the so-called "Transcendantal Argument". I explicitly said as much.

quote:

---

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.

---

I think it does, but I'm not so interested in arguing over evidences since we both agree that they are interpreted. So tell me then, would you consider yourself to be a materialist? Or do you believe there is more to the human experience than just matter?