RE: Creationism
September 12, 2010 at 11:29 pm
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2010 at 11:31 pm by Liu Bei mixed with Leondias.)
Firstly, this a true arguement: i.e Polynesia, Samoa,New Zealand, and Australlia.
Secondly, No that is not the same, I have not rejected other faiths for lack of evidence but for princples or key concepts in the religion that do not make sense to me or ARE NOT POSSIBLE.
Thirdly, if they haven't been disproved then they are still a possiblity that they are true, you are fundementally wrong suggesting that we can't consider a religion solely because it hasn't been disproved, we can due to the fact that they are possible and then we can consider arguements for existance, because if they aren't possible then there no reason to evaluate them.
Fourthly, I see your point but to determine faith also is based on some ethical choices(or it should) so if it makes sense to you, as humans, we should assume its true, only on a moral and ethical basis not on existance which can be determined in if it possible. But it may lead to multiple answers. So thats where we choose.
Secondly, No that is not the same, I have not rejected other faiths for lack of evidence but for princples or key concepts in the religion that do not make sense to me or ARE NOT POSSIBLE.
Thirdly, if they haven't been disproved then they are still a possiblity that they are true, you are fundementally wrong suggesting that we can't consider a religion solely because it hasn't been disproved, we can due to the fact that they are possible and then we can consider arguements for existance, because if they aren't possible then there no reason to evaluate them.
Fourthly, I see your point but to determine faith also is based on some ethical choices(or it should) so if it makes sense to you, as humans, we should assume its true, only on a moral and ethical basis not on existance which can be determined in if it possible. But it may lead to multiple answers. So thats where we choose.
