Believing in something with no speck of truth and is made up of myths and theories, or believing in something logical that has been backed up by facts?
Example: The myth about God vs Evolution!
2007-07-25 19:50:33 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
to all of you I change religion to myths, theories, and bad opinions!
2007-07-25 19:56:25 · update #1
Well this is what it all boils down to, isn't it? Which is more likely to hold your weight - a chair you can see, or a chair you can't see but passionately believe is there. The only way in which the invisible chair can get anyone to try and sit in it is to persuade them there's more VIRTUE in trying to sit in a framework of nothing than there is in sitting in an ordinary, physical chair.
lol welcome to Falco's Metaphysical Furniture Store...
2007-07-25 20:19:29 · answer #1 · answered by mdfalco71 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, logically speaking it is more reasonable to assume that there is no God based upon cold hard facts which is what I assume you mean when you ask for a "speck of truth". However, feelings that one gets from God are typically not considered evidence, so it depends really upon the person because if you have truly felt that God exists it would be illogical to not believe in Him and I don't care what religion you're talking about.
2007-07-26 02:59:22 · answer #2 · answered by Calista 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
God is something you can experience for yourself ( if you want) - Evolution is just a theory you are made to believe in.
Notice.
Whatever argument you have can be used against you.
So start looking for the truth instead of arguing.
2007-07-26 03:03:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
the problem is that people try to seperate the two,
If there is a god, and everything is 'gods' design then evolution would simply be the way it works.
but because many devout followers of a religion seem scared to question the world around them as it may question their own faith.
The smart people are the ones that question everything and come to their own conclusion based on what is in front of them, whether that enchances their faith or whether is "weakens" it is a personal thing.
2007-07-26 02:58:51 · answer #4 · answered by chloe_saiana 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the scientific world, a reaction without an action is not logical. Evolution is the study of reaction and not action. Therefore it is logical to a point, but if one goes back far enough, it cannot be explained to my satisfaction. I still tend to look at my television set or my PC and say "someone thought this up and made it."
2007-07-26 02:55:38 · answer #5 · answered by Starjumper the R&S Cow 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just one small correction. Religion is not made up of myths and theories, rather myths and opinions.
2007-07-26 02:54:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The scientific method is more logical, of course. However, when you corner a True Believer and ask him or her for empirical proof--like levitating or faith-healing an amputee--they usually fall back on the tiresome 'I believe out of faith' argument. 'Faith' is just another fancy term for 'wishful thinking', and when a person turns into a zealot, don't even bother wasting your time trying to make them think logically...
2007-07-26 03:02:12 · answer #7 · answered by crypto_the_unknown 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Um, sorry to break it to you, but God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. Many people believe in both. I don't but some people do. Hell some Deists believe in both and it is perfectly compatible.
2007-07-26 02:56:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Believing God is out of our Logical.
but evolution only human intelectuality which below God's.
2007-07-26 02:56:20 · answer #9 · answered by Si semut 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Who told you that this is an "either-or" thing? You do NOT have to be an atheist to accept evolution.
2007-07-26 02:55:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋