The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Interesting that you would use the word "fact" when discussing a religious decision which may be based on "faith".

One person's nonsensical ideology may be another person's deep faith.

Who gets to decide what is "nonsensical Ideology" and what is "sensible Ideology"?

Facts can be approached by critical analysis, reason, logic, direct observation, they can be demonstrated to be false or right, by proving them, or falsifying them.

Religious ideologies not only cannot be approiached this way, but even refuse to be approached this way, they just make arbitrary claims based on hear-say and then want these random claims being taken as the ultimate truth that people should just believe, most often for the religions earthly, powerpolitical interest.

Nonsensical by content that is indeed. Powerpolitically, as a tactic to secure power and influence, it makes a lot of sense indeed, psychologically, since it has been shown to collect a lot of followers being attracted by this method.

Securing as facts, needs brains. Theistic, organised, institutionalised religion refuses brains.

And faith (=Glaube). Just believing something, is one thing, and means nothing. Trust - is something very different, and is an empirically justified confidence based on past, repeated observations. You better trust in facts, not in contents of beliefs that you just believe, or not, without being able or being wanted to examine and analyse them. Putting trust into some random hear-say or relgious dogma, is no trust, but easyminded folly. You could as well play roulette. that you match the winning number, means not there is any link between your bet and the marble. It only means that - you were lucky.