Reason and evidence are not the only systems. They are, however, the only useful systems.

Yes, some people are poor at reasoning namely because they don't do it often enough. Practice makes perfect, as it were.

Pot, meet kettle.

O rly? The only useful ones?

Then how come Oprah had a guest who explained how she was attacked when she decided to let her conscious reason override her gut telling her she was in danger.

Didn't you know most people are operating off their intuition the majority of the time. They can't stop and analyze every action of every day before performing it.

If you ask me reason is good for providing explanations after an event. It's probably used by people more after an event than before.

Piper in his book "Taste and See" explains that there's the News and there's Commentators.

"There are preachers and not just teachers for the same reason there are reporters and not just commentators. The reason is that there is news and not merely comment. News begs to be heralded, at least if it's good news. Later it may need to be explained and argued about."

You're not getting it. Intuition is reason based on previous collected information. Once you reasoned something out, it becomes your new intuition until such a time you see fit to reason the problem again.

Now, intuition is useful for the reason you pointed out, namely it's much faster. However for problems in which we are sitting down and discussing, we should resort to the much more accurate tool of reason.

Not buying your predilection for reason.

Everyone reasons but not everyone reasons from the same motives.

If you can't ascertain motive then you ought to be careful who you reason with.

Here's an interesting thread. As I come across more I will link them in this thread so check back, ok?

The Reality of the Resurrection
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...ection-456579/

Motive doesn't matter with regard to reason, the arguments stand on their own accord. That is not to say you shouldn't try to find conflicting data, but that should be true of anyone's arguments, no matter how 'pure' their motives may be.

I don't believe that.

People cherry pick. Sometimes they do it unintentionally but some people may do it intentionally.

In an ideal world you have fair arguments but a lot of people want to win more than they want to be fair.

Of course people cherry pick, and that's why you should try to find conflicting data, and reason out the problem.

~1m³ of quantum foam* and an anti-radiation device**.

Biblical Archaeology
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...eology-855851/

The God Gene
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...d-gene-143283/

A Kind of Evidence and Craig
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...-craig-855856/

The Gospels Historicity and Timeline
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...meline-252402/

Hugh Ross' Evidence with the Probability Numbers:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/arti...y-of-the-bible

That's just a start.

Let me know if you need more evidence posts. But I think that's probably enough. Enough at least to support the claim I made above that I've been collecting evidence for years.

Tjmj90 if you read the Introduction to The Apologetics of Jesus by Geisler and Zukeran at one point it says:

"Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia, which means a defense. The apologist uses reason and evidence to present a rational defense for the Christian faith. Jesus was continually confronted with the need to defend his claims to be the Messiah, the Son of God. So by definition, he was an apologist.

Despite the fact that Jesus was an apologist and that by common consent he was probably the greatest teacher ever, it is strange indeed that no one has written a major work on the apologetic methods of Jesus. This book is an attempt to correct that serious omission.

Those who oppose apologetics in favor of a leap of faith without evidence will be disappointed in Jesus. Nowhere does he call on anyone to make an unthoughtful and unreasoned decision about his or her eternal destiny. Everywhere Jesus demonstrates a willingness to provide evidence for what he taught to every sincere seeker. Indeed, the Law and the Prophets, which Jesus came to fulfill (Matt. 5:17), inform us of a God who says, "Come now, let us reason together," (Isa. 1:18), and exhorts us to test false prophets (Deut. 13:1-5, 18:14-22). And those who were taught by Jesus exhort us to "give reason for our faith" (1 Peter 3:15) and not to make a leap of faith in the dark but rather to take a step of faith in the light- in the light of the evidence he has provided in nature (Rom. 1:19-20), in our hearts (Rom. 2:12-15), and in history (Acts 17:30-31)."

So we do have an evidentiary case it's just not understood very well. It could be that the fideists outnumber the evidentialists or that over time listening to and being led by God has become a more dominant theme than presenting evidence.

I havent launched a religion that has killed thousands.

I am better than jesus.

Jesus saved the world. The only sword he ever used was the Word of Truth. But that's not true of other religious founders. If you took the time out to compare the founders rather than 10 billion religious concepts you might be able to sort your way to the truth.

Note the saved is past tense. It's a done deal.

You left out the one about Aliens creating the pyramids. Your intuition was spot on there.

Sweet, so you can quit your proselytizing, right?

We're all saved, your work here is done.

That was a speculative thread.

I didn't realize most atheists took everything so literally or I would never have attempted anything imaginative on here.

Do you really enjoy being so critical and unforgiving?

Holding onto criticism and unforgiveness is like holding onto a cup of poison. In the end it'll do more damage to you than it does to the one being criticized.

Constructive criticism is overrated imo.

More to it than that I'm afraid and I don't think you can speak for everyone.

Why don't you seek out another forum if I bother you or just put me on ignore?

To you? yes.

But that is mostly because I hate you.

You are the embodiment of everything that is wrong with my country. You make me ashamed for the human race. You, in essence, are a bad, dishonest, mean person.

Ignore me then.

But remember....I actually did what everyone on here demands a theist do: I got evidence and I double checked a lot with the scriptures.

So I complied with both God and men's requirements.

This a very important post. Hope no one overlooks it.

Links to evidence threads.

thanks for the links, will go thru them at somepoint in the next couple days

The Egyptian Connection

We're going to have to take you literally so long as you believe in the miraculous sans evidence. You're basically forcing us to use Poe's Law with regard to any of your posts.

Oh, I almost forgot. If you're into the more supernatural claims you could read M. Scott Peck's 2 forays into the field of demonic possession.

He's a Harvard educated scientist who in his scientific opinion believes there are cases of it occurring. He went into it expecting to prove it didn't occur but he came out with the opposite conclusion.

The book: Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption by M. Scott Peck

Are you aiming to show that the intent or purpose of something is better served by an alternative approach?

I don't think so.

I'm just used to master's negativity toward me in his posts and I'm hoping he'll realize its harder on the him in the end than it is on me.