Disbelief is just the state of not being convinced. Evidence is what convinces a rational mind. With insufficient evidence, if one is being rational, then one is not convinced.
According to evolution, you're still a monkey. And a mammal. And a vertebrate. And an animal. And a eukaryote.
Assuming, of course, that you are a human.
You just have incorrect beliefs about what an ape is, and are attempting to legitimize those poorly considered convictions with a the false veneer of "instinctive understanding". You are an ape.
"If you meet the Buddha on the path, kill him” is oft attributed to 9th century Chinese Buddhist monk Linji Yixuan. Or is it, Yixuan Linji? I can never remember. In any case, this is not a directive to go around killing religious leaders. It is a warning against attachment to instruction and...
What would the existence of prior tetrapods have to do with the discovery of tiktaalik in the late devonian being considered a correct prediction? You are implying relevance, without any justification to your implication.
A institution does not exist save as the actions of the people who officiate and support said institution. When the officials who are charged with the the responsibility to provide checks and balances on the actions of said prime minister choose to look the other way, then yes it is a murderous...
There is nothing dishonest or unjust in ignoring a claimant while investigating a claim. That is the only honest and just way to go about it. And of course that is where you finish. As we have established, the notion that the thought your have about your religion are your opinion makes you...
I don't need to twist your words. Everything you say about your religion, its truth, or is goodness, is your opinion. No more. No less.
As for your of "love", assuming that you are sincere, it is a parasocial love. It only manifests in ways that are meaningful to you. Nothing that is...
No. I'm afraid not. You are just trying to force stuff into terms that make you more comfortable. You cannot even bear to acknowledge that people have thoughts outside of your beliefs, can you?
In one of his novels, Steven Brust gave the criteria as a being that 1) cannot be controlled (in context, via arcane arts), and 2) can occupy more than one [non-contiguous] place at one time. He was obviously having fun, but it remains the most robust taxonomic criteria that I have yet to see.
One for each sect of Christianity. Plus the weird offshoots of Christianity. Plus the Baha'i and all of the cults that try to coopt Christianity. Plus the offshoots of those.
I don't why you think there is a "the" story. There are many stories about Jesus. And many interpretations of stories about Jesus. Tens of thousands. If you have one that is not about a man who lived 10 thousand years ago...shrug.