<p>Regardless, no one is choosing to believe in a God because we are staring into a “ocean of our own ignorance”, rather we are believing in something not logically explainable because faith allows us to do so.</p>
So, is it also coincidence if you predict that you’ll be alive tomorrow and - gasp - you are?!</p>
<p>Someone said they could reasonably predict that they would be alive tomorrow. You said “no one can predict their death,” which is a completely different subject (life != death).</p>
<p>I made a funny that you did not realize was one (whether or not it was funny is a horse of a different color, but I do believe it is most clearly a joke). Then I decided to run with it since it was a perfectly valid negation of your point. “Predict” does not imply any measure of certitude or any paranormal abilities. The fact is, “The Langhorne”, as his friends call him, did predict his own death. You were the only one to start rambling about psychics. I never said anything about psychics, you did - please do not make things up to try to make me appear foolish (“lulz, u tried to say that Sammy was a psychic!”). It’s called a “straw man,” when you make something up, attribute it to someone, and attack that in place of their actual argument.</p>
<p>Evolution is of course something that I can’t argue against. However, thought of a life being created randomly from molecules without intervention amuses me.</p>
<p>Not to mention that saying that life is simply too complicated to have sprung up on its own is an appeal to intuition, a classic hallmark of a flawed argument. In other words, it sounds good - a scenario where DNA randomly starts accumulating to form life doesn’t spring rapidly to the imagination. But as anybody who has studied science on an elementary level knows, you simply can’t expect most of the physical world to intuitively make sense. </p>
<p>First, as a very religious person I find this thread very offensive and should not be allowed on CC. Second, many of you have said that religious individuals are very close minded, but on the contrary I view you as somewhat close minded. You are so caught up in your logic and reasoning that you cannot envision that some things in this world may not be comprehensible to the human mind.</p>
<p>Second, many of you have said that religious individuals are very close minded, but on the contrary I view you as somewhat close minded.</p>
<p>The scientific method (the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge–Wikipedia) is central to this issue; you accept this method or not.</p>
<p>The problem occurs when the scientific method produces results that contradict the beliefs of a religion; evolution is the common example in this country.</p>
<p>Both “sides” are closed-minded, I think. One side is closed-minded to allowing religion to contradict what science has shown (to believers in the scientific method, at least) to be true; the other side is closed-minded to anything that contradicts the religion. One side bases its beliefs on investigations and experiments; the other side bases its beliefs on (typically) old books. Both sides hand down their beliefs from one generation to the next.</p>
<p>My opinion, coming from someone who attends a Catholic college-prep private school.</p>
<p>We evolved. </p>
<p>@ vossron
“the other side bases its beliefs on (typically) old books.”</p>
<p>nah, thats just the hardcore conservatives. </p>
<p>Anyone who has taken a course on Bible study knows that the Old Testament stories are explanations designed for simple, uneducated people; that it isn’t supposed to be read literally or used as a historical reference, and that the reader should be focusing on the message the writer is trying to tell. </p>
<p>For example, Gen 1 contradicts Gen 2, so those stories can’t be taken for historical significance. The story of the Tower of Babel was used as an explanation for the different languages of the earth. Of course, this isn’t true. Isolate a group of people from birth, and they’ll develop a form of communication. The ages of people were used to signify their importance in their time. The oldest anyone of that age could have lived to was about 40. Numbers were important to the Old Testament writers, for they had religious significance (such as 40 years = generation, 40 days = time of cleansing, etc.) And, if people still went by the Laws of Leviticus, every person who cuts their hair or wears clothing made of different material would be sentenced to death.</p>
<p>The Old Testament should be read to find meaning, not as a historical reference. </p>
<p>This is why I have an A+ in Scripture class :)</p>
<p>someday i’m going to read the bible, and understand what the hell everyone is talking about =) </p>
<p>i wouldn’t mind being exposed to the christian stuff, but since my parents are pretty much atheists, i don’t ever understand any of the stuff people talk about when they’re quoting the bible.</p>