How is one orgins story considered better than another

[downbeatplumb]

Now before you spend alot of energy telling of all the 'proof' you think you have. Be honest with yourself and acknoweledge that It all boils down to you pointing to a guy or a group of people who you believe to be credible because they are smarter than you, and what they think. And for them what they think is based on what someone smarter than them thinks, and so on goes the daisy chain.

Bottom line what you believe about which ever side of orgins you stand on your belief is 'Faith based.' Fore a faith in 'facts' (A statement that can be proven or disprooved) is still faith.

That being the case what makes your faith any more important than anyone elses? Just because you point at the ground then to a book to decipher what it is you think you see in the ground, does not make you any less dependant on faith, than a man who points to God then the bible to discern his version of Orgins.

Why shouldn't both accounts be taught side by side, not as an excersize of which is right and which is wrong, but as what some believe verses what others believe. I truly think most of us will be shocked that neither strict interpertation of said events is correct.

You have a basic understanding of what science is.

Science tries as best it can to negate any bias we have and to just go with the facts.

Faiths are all about believing any old shit despite conflicting evidence due almost exclusively wanting to cling to ancient just so stories.

So which is going to be a more reliable description of the truth?

[Esquilax]

You know, I would have no problem with any theist who humbly believed as an act of faith and left it at that. But the minute they try to justify that belief either to themselves or others, they lose it. I mean, if the moment is right, and you want to share your hunch with someone you think would be helped by it. Sure, go ahead. But don't misrepresent it by over selling.

And it's worse with putzes like Drich who- and I find this extremely telling, myself- feel that the best way to validate their faith-based beliefs is by attacking and devaluing everyone else's beliefs. It's this bizarre, selfish thing they have, where if the cost of legitimizing their beliefs in their own minds is to make everyone else's beliefs and epistemology objectively worse, then that's a cost worth paying. Except they never seem to even realize that it's everyone else, paying for them.

[robvalue]

Hmm. It is a common tactic, if I can make myself believe science is wrong, then the only other explanation for everything ever is a magic man in the sky, so I win.

Life isn't as simple as that. Never is. It's hard work, and if an answer seems too easy it probably is.