How I Feel About Atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As every rebuttal on this thread has only served to affirm my opinion that atheism is nothing more than a pointless bias.

Consider the possibility that this is because your opinion is being informed by your prejudices.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

But it isn't false. YOU need to read more into the scientific journals out there. The journals and textbooks I speak of have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. This is a hang up of yours. Religion is not mentioned once in the journals and books I have read. Why are the ones you read the ones with all the definitive answers ? Have you read and studied all of them ? I doubt it. These are scientists who are not religious at all. They are serious, brilliant scientists, much more knowledgeable than either of us on the subject who come to these conclusions, through absolute scientific findings. They have no religious axe to grind because they are not religious. Their findings lead them to believe in the probability of an Intelligent Designer. That is not religion. You cannot say that their findings are false . They may be absolutely correct. You just don't want to research or consider these findings because you are afraid that your so called knowledge or truth or views may be challenged. A Creationist does bot have to have any belief or connection to any religion. Do you know what Creationism or Intelligent Design is ? It has nothing to do with religion. If your mind is open enough and your ego small enough you can do the research. Or do you claim to have absolute knowledge on the subject ? What is an actual scientific journal ? I have read many actual scientific journals written by genius scientists who support these claims. I doubt you are more intelligent and knowledgeable than them. And just because something is written in a textbook and accepted as true by many doesn't make it all necessarily true. Do you know how many textbooks in our school system are flawed ? You can do the research and decide for yourself. But many much smarter than you can offer complex scientific material and evidence to support their findings. Perhaps you are the one who believes in popularizations of your own liking. Science is always changing. What was true yesterday in science isn't always true tomorrow. There will be scientific facts which we claim today as probable that will be found out to be completely different in the future. If you knew anything about quantum physics you would know this. I find it ignorant of you to be so dismissive of what you have no certain knowledge of. How could you disregard or invalidate the findings of decades of intense scientific research that may challenge some of our preconceived notions about certain facts ? This is the job of science...to challenge accepted beliefs in the face of new discoveries and theories to further understanding and knowledge. That is what these scientists are doing. How do yo know what future research and discovery may reveal ? I suggest you take your own advice and do spend some time doing some research. I read all types of different scientific journals , by those believe in the possibility and probability of Intelligent Design to those who don't believe in Intelligent Design and everything in between. That is how you make an intelligent , informed decision on something. It seems like you would not read journals and books written by scientists who strongly believe in ID in the name of science because you have your mind made up about certain claims and are afraid of your current views being challenged. Possibilities contrary to what your closed mind holds really bothers you doesn't it ?

And , yes, there most certainly are scientific questioning to the suggestion of evolution. There is thousands of journals and books written on the topic. Read some of them if you are not afraid of that either. And I'm not talking about the religious ones. I'm talking about the scientific , non-religious ones. They are out there and the concepts are perfectly valid and completely scientific . Not false because you claim them to be with all of your infinite knowledge and understanding of all these matters.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

1. That's not "atheistic thinking". That is "gnostic atheist" thinking.
2. And a "gnostic atheist" only says there's no possibility of the existence of a god. He says nothing about the existence of any Intelligent Designer or Creator.And also some atheists believe in an Intelligent Designer.Strong atheist.Agnostic atheist. Doesn't know and doesn't believe but doesn't rule out the possibility that "God " may exist.

Thank you

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

So, you at least agree that it can be reasonable to lack a belief in a deity?

You still haven't answered me. I answered your question, can you answer mine ? Do you at least agree that it is reasonable to believe in a God/Intelligent Designer/Creator ? I apologize if you did answer and I just missed it.

 

[Polymath257]

But it isn't false. YOU need to read more into the scientific journals out there. The journals and textbooks I speak of have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. This is a hang up of yours. Religion is not mentioned once in the journals and books I have read. Why are the ones you read the ones with all the definitive answers ? Have you read and studied all of them ? I doubt it. These are scientists who are not religious at all. They are serious, brilliant scientists, much more knowledgeable than either of us on the subject who come to these conclusions, through absolute scientific findings. They have no religious axe to grind because they are not religious. Their findings lead them to believe in the probability of an Intelligent Designer. That is not religion. You cannot say that their findings are false . They may be absolutely correct. You just don't want to research or consider these findings because you are afraid that your so called knowledge or truth or views may be challenged. A Creationist does bot have to have any belief or connection to any religion. Do you know what Creationism or Intelligent Design is ? It has nothing to do with religion. If your mind is open enough and your ego small enough you can do the research. Or do you claim to have absolute knowledge on the subject ? What is an actual scientific journal ? I have read many actual scientific journals written by genius scientists who support these claims. I doubt you are more intelligent and knowledgeable than them. And just because something is written in a textbook and accepted as true by many doesn't make it all necessarily true. Do you know how many textbooks in our school system are flawed ? You can do the research and decide for yourself. But many much smarter than you can offer complex scientific material and evidence to support their findings. Perhaps you are the one who believes in popularizations of your own liking. Science is always changing. What was true yesterday in science isn't always true tomorrow. There will be scientific facts which we claim today as probable that will be found out to be completely different in the future. If you knew anything about quantum physics you would know this. I find it ignorant of you to be so dismissive of what you have no certain knowledge of. How could you disregard or invalidate the findings of decades of intense scientific research that may challenge some of our preconceived notions about certain facts ? This is the job of science...to challenge accepted beliefs in the face of new discoveries and theories to further understanding and knowledge. That is what these scientists are doing. How do yo know what future research and discovery may reveal ? I suggest you take your own advice and do spend some time doing some research. I read all types of different scientific journals , by those believe in the possibility and probability of Intelligent Design to those who don't believe in Intelligent Design and everything in between. That is how you make an intelligent , informed decision on something. It seems like you would not read journals and books written by scientists who strongly believe in ID in the name of science because you have your mind made up about certain claims and are afraid of your current views being challenged. Possibilities contrary to what your closed mind holds really bothers you doesn't it ?

Yes, I am quite familiar with creationism and ID. I have been following them for almost 3 decades now. And the fact that you think Creationism and ID have nothing to do with religion shows just how little you know about the subject.

Yes, I read graduate level texts in biology. I have been a research mathematician for 30+ years and I have completed the qualifying exams for a PhD in physics. So, no, I do NOT deal with the popularizations. I look at the actual science and read the actual journals like 'Science' or 'Physics Reviews'.

OK, show me *one* refereed scientific journal that promoted ID. One where actual research is being published by specialists in the field.

 

[Polymath257]

You still haven't answered me. I answered your question, can you answer mine ? Do you at least agree that it is reasonable to believe in a God/Intelligent Designer/Creator ? I apologize if you did answer and I just missed it.

it isn't based on reason. It is based on wanting to believe. But, because it is independent of the other truths, it is a non-contradictory way to go.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

it isn't based on reason. It is based on wanting to believe. But, because it is independent of the other truths, it is a non-contradictory way to go.

You still haven't answered the question. You asked me if I can at least find it reasonable to believe in the non-existence of a Deity and I said yes. So you don't believe it is reasonable to believe in a Deity ? You say that is unreasonable ? It is just as unreasonable to not believe in a Deity. And by Deity I mean the possibility of a Creator/Intelligent Designer. I find it completely reasonable to believe in the possibility of an Intelligent Designer. The alternative is that we came into existence from nothing out of mere chance. That isn't a truth. I don't believe in the possibility of an Intelligent Designer because I want to. I do because it makes more sense to me . I can say the same thing about you, that your view that the possibility of an ID doesn't exist isn't based on reason, it's because you want to believe that. Neither of us know which is true, so how can one be more unreasonable than the other ? The fact that this universe and humans exist at all makes it very reasonable to believe there may be an ID behind it. Believing that this all came from noting out of some magical chance seems more unreasonable to me actually. But at least I can admit there is a possibility of the non-existence of a Creator since NOBODY actually knows. You honestly can't find it reasonable to believe in the possibility of a Creator ? I find that unreasonable....And my belief in the possibility of a Creator isn't based on "wanting to believe" at all . It's based on what's more logical and makes more sense and is more reasonable to me. It is completely based on reason, so I disagree with your idea on that. But it doesn't make the alternative unreasonable either. It has nothing to do with wanting to believe, though......So is your answer to my question , " NO ? " I answered you with a one word answer , 'Yes." Can you just answer yes or no. I'm not arguing or debating, I just want to know your answer as you wanted to know mine and I answered you .

 

[Polymath257]

You still haven't answered the question. You asked me if I can at least find it reasonable to believe in the non-existence of a Deity and I said yes. So you don't believe it is reasonable to believe in a Deity ? You say that is unreasonable ? It is just as unreasonable to not believe in a Deity. And by Deity I mean the possibility of a Creator/Intelligent Designer. I find it completely reasonable to believe in the possibility of an Intelligent Designer. The alternative is that we came into existence from nothing out of mere chance. That isn't a truth. I don't believe in the possibility of an Intelligent Designer because I want to. I do because it makes more sense to me . I can say the same thing about you, that your view that the possibility of an ID doesn't exist isn't based on reason, it's because you want to believe that. Neither of us know which is true, so how can one be more unreasonable than the other ? The fact that this universe and humans exist at all makes it very reasonable to believe there may be an ID behind it. Believing that this all came from noting out of some magical chance seems more unreasonable to me actually. But at least I can admit there is a possibility of the non-existence of a Creator since NOBODY actually knows. You honestly can't find it reasonable to believe in the possibility of a Creator ? I find that unreasonable....And my belief in the possibility of a Creator isn't based on "wanting to believe" at all . It's based on what's more logical and makes more sense and is more reasonable to me. It is completely based on reason, so I disagree with your idea on that. But it doesn't make the alternative unreasonable either. It has nothing to do with wanting to believe, though......So is your answer to my question , " NO ? " I answered you with a one word answer , 'Yes." Can you just answer yes or no. I'm not arguing or debating, I just want to know your answer as you wanted to know mine and I answered you .

No, I do not see it as 'completely reasonable' to believe in an intelligent creator. Complete reason would withhold belief until there was sufficient evidence. And that would hold either direction: existence or non-existence. Neither view, as in an active belief or disbelief is completely reasonable. But the withholding of belief (i.e, a *lack* of belief) *is* completely reasonable: it is how we proceed with any existence claim without supporting evidence. Do you understand the difference between a lack of belief and an active disbelief?

Now, you present a false dichotomy between Intelligent Design and 'Pure Chance'. Those are clearly NOT the only two alternatives. For example, there could be non-random physical laws. So, no, your alternative is NOT a truth.

Also, and a HUGE problem with the ID position is the question of where the 'designer' came from: what allowed the 'creation' of the creator'? All you have done is push one level down in the rabbit hole. In essence, you avoid the question.

And what that means is *ultimately* there either has to be an infinite regress (which is a very logical possibility) or there is something that is not caused (another very logical possibility). Both are not just possibilities, but one or the other is a necessity.

Next, I did NOT say that I find it unreasonable to believe in the *possibility* of a creator. That is very, very different that actually believing in a creator. But simply having an uncaused cause does NOT imply the existence of an intelligent creator. That is a great deal more than what the logic can provide. That suggests it is NOT reason that leads you to the conclusion, but an active *wanting* to believe in spite of a lack of reason to do so.

So, again, the *reasonable* alternative is to withhold belief until there is evidence one way or the other. Now, if you *want* to believe, acknowledge it as going beyond reason and logic and bask in that beyondness.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Yes, I am quite familiar with creationism and ID. I have been following them for almost 3 decades now. And the fact that you think Creationism and ID have nothing to do with religion shows just how little you know about the subject.

Yes, I read graduate level texts in biology. I have been a research mathematician for 30+ years and I have completed the qualifying exams for a PhD in physics. So, no, I do NOT deal with the popularizations. I look at the actual science and read the actual journals like 'Science' or 'Physics Reviews'.

OK, show me *one* refereed scientific journal that promoted ID. One where actual research is being published by specialists in the field.

Is ID just a religious or theological concept?


The Short Answer: Intelligent design theory is a scientific theory even though some religions also teach that life was designed. One can arrive at the conclusion that life was designed through both the scientific method, or through religious methods (i.e. faith/divine revelation). Science is a "way of knowing" using observations and the scientific method. Religion is a way of knowing using faith and divine revelation. Intelligent design theory detects design through only the scientific method. Intelligent design theory tells us (i.e. "knows") that life was designed by using the scientific method and uses no reliance upon faith or divine revelation. Some religions, via faith or divine revelation, also may tell us that life was designed. However that does not make intelligent design theory a religious or theological concept. Something is religion or science based upon the methods it uses to make its claims, not based on the claims it makes. Simply because religion coincidentally does make many of the same claims does not make intelligent design a "religious concept." Religions may tell us that life was designed (some religious traditions teach that life developed from lower life-forms, which developed from non-life) but intelligent design theory makes the claim that life was designed purely through the scientific method. Intelligent design theory is a strictly scientific concept. Thus, sometime ID proponents talk about intelligent design from a religious perspective. This is possible to do without negating the strictly scientific basis for intelligent design.

This is just in response to your claim that ID has to be based on religion and not pure science. Religion may play a part in ID/Creationism , but not in all cases. That is what I meant. Of course we can go way deeper into this, but you seem to limit your research to specific journals when there are numerous scientific journals besides those that you only refer to or find worthy. If you want to read the specific details and findings that science has led in regards to ID being a plausible hypothesis, you can surely find them since you have studied this topic for so many decades.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, I do not see it as 'completely reasonable' to believe in an intelligent creator. Complete reason would withhold belief until there was sufficient evidence. And that would hold either direction: existence or non-existence. Neither view, as in an active belief or disbelief is completely reasonable. But the withholding of belief (i.e, a *lack* of belief) *is* completely reasonable: it is how we proceed with any existence claim without supporting evidence. Do you understand the difference between a lack of belief and an active disbelief?

Now, you present a false dichotomy between Intelligent Design and 'Pure Chance'. Those are clearly NOT the only two alternatives. For example, there could be non-random physical laws. So, no, your alternative is NOT a truth.

Also, and a HUGE problem with the ID position is the question of where the 'designer' came from: what allowed the 'creation' of the creator'? All you have done is push one level down in the rabbit hole. In essence, you avoid the question.

And what that means is *ultimately* there either has to be an infinite regress (which is a very logical possibility) or there is something that is not caused (another very logical possibility). Both are not just possibilities, but one or the other is a necessity.

Next, I did NOT say that I find it unreasonable to believe in the *possibility* of a creator. That is very, very different that actually believing in a creator. But simply having an uncaused cause does NOT imply the existence of an intelligent creator. That is a great deal more than what the logic can provide. That suggests it is NOT reason that leads you to the conclusion, but an active *wanting* to believe in spite of a lack of reason to do so.

So, again, the *reasonable* alternative is to withhold belief until there is evidence one way or the other. Now, if you *want* to believe, acknowledge it as going beyond reason and logic and bask in that beyondness.

If you read all my posts, I am only speaking of the "possibility" of a creator as a reasonable belief. As far as logic is concerned, it is very logical to believe that a creator may exist. Why would it be logical not to believe in the possibility of a creator ?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, I do not see it as 'completely reasonable' to believe in an intelligent creator. Complete reason would withhold belief until there was sufficient evidence. And that would hold either direction: existence or non-existence. Neither view, as in an active belief or disbelief is completely reasonable. But the withholding of belief (i.e, a *lack* of belief) *is* completely reasonable: it is how we proceed with any existence claim without supporting evidence. Do you understand the difference between a lack of belief and an active disbelief?

Now, you present a false dichotomy between Intelligent Design and 'Pure Chance'. Those are clearly NOT the only two alternatives. For example, there could be non-random physical laws. So, no, your alternative is NOT a truth.

Also, and a HUGE problem with the ID position is the question of where the 'designer' came from: what allowed the 'creation' of the creator'? All you have done is push one level down in the rabbit hole. In essence, you avoid the question.

And what that means is *ultimately* there either has to be an infinite regress (which is a very logical possibility) or there is something that is not caused (another very logical possibility). Both are not just possibilities, but one or the other is a necessity.

Next, I did NOT say that I find it unreasonable to believe in the *possibility* of a creator. That is very, very different that actually believing in a creator. But simply having an uncaused cause does NOT imply the existence of an intelligent creator. That is a great deal more than what the logic can provide. That suggests it is NOT reason that leads you to the conclusion, but an active *wanting* to believe in spite of a lack of reason to do so.

So, again, the *reasonable* alternative is to withhold belief until there is evidence one way or the other. Now, if you *want* to believe, acknowledge it as going beyond reason and logic and bask in that beyondness.

PEER-REVIEWED INTELLIGENT DESIGN RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS PUBLISHED IN SCIENCE JOURNALS

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

PEER-REVIEWED INTELLIGENT DESIGN RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS PUBLISHED IN SCIENCE JOURNALS

No, I do not see it as 'completely reasonable' to believe in an intelligent creator. Complete reason would withhold belief until there was sufficient evidence. And that would hold either direction: existence or non-existence. Neither view, as in an active belief or disbelief is completely reasonable. But the withholding of belief (i.e, a *lack* of belief) *is* completely reasonable: it is how we proceed with any existence claim without supporting evidence. Do you understand the difference between a lack of belief and an active disbelief?

Now, you present a false dichotomy between Intelligent Design and 'Pure Chance'. Those are clearly NOT the only two alternatives. For example, there could be non-random physical laws. So, no, your alternative is NOT a truth.

Also, and a HUGE problem with the ID position is the question of where the 'designer' came from: what allowed the 'creation' of the creator'? All you have done is push one level down in the rabbit hole. In essence, you avoid the question.

And what that means is *ultimately* there either has to be an infinite regress (which is a very logical possibility) or there is something that is not caused (another very logical possibility). Both are not just possibilities, but one or the other is a necessity.

Next, I did NOT say that I find it unreasonable to believe in the *possibility* of a creator. That is very, very different that actually believing in a creator. But simply having an uncaused cause does NOT imply the existence of an intelligent creator. That is a great deal more than what the logic can provide. That suggests it is NOT reason that leads you to the conclusion, but an active *wanting* to believe in spite of a lack of reason to do so.

So, again, the *reasonable* alternative is to withhold belief until there is evidence one way or the other. Now, if you *want* to believe, acknowledge it as going beyond reason and logic and bask in that beyondness.

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design : Article : Nature

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, I do not see it as 'completely reasonable' to believe in an intelligent creator. Complete reason would withhold belief until there was sufficient evidence. And that would hold either direction: existence or non-existence. Neither view, as in an active belief or disbelief is completely reasonable. But the withholding of belief (i.e, a *lack* of belief) *is* completely reasonable: it is how we proceed with any existence claim without supporting evidence. Do you understand the difference between a lack of belief and an active disbelief?

Now, you present a false dichotomy between Intelligent Design and 'Pure Chance'. Those are clearly NOT the only two alternatives. For example, there could be non-random physical laws. So, no, your alternative is NOT a truth.

Also, and a HUGE problem with the ID position is the question of where the 'designer' came from: what allowed the 'creation' of the creator'? All you have done is push one level down in the rabbit hole. In essence, you avoid the question.

And what that means is *ultimately* there either has to be an infinite regress (which is a very logical possibility) or there is something that is not caused (another very logical possibility). Both are not just possibilities, but one or the other is a necessity.

Next, I did NOT say that I find it unreasonable to believe in the *possibility* of a creator. That is very, very different that actually believing in a creator. But simply having an uncaused cause does NOT imply the existence of an intelligent creator. That is a great deal more than what the logic can provide. That suggests it is NOT reason that leads you to the conclusion, but an active *wanting* to believe in spite of a lack of reason to do so.

So, again, the *reasonable* alternative is to withhold belief until there is evidence one way or the other. Now, if you *want* to believe, acknowledge it as going beyond reason and logic and bask in that beyondness.

https://evolutionnews.org/2007/05/scientists_who_support_intelli/

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, I do not see it as 'completely reasonable' to believe in an intelligent creator. Complete reason would withhold belief until there was sufficient evidence. And that would hold either direction: existence or non-existence. Neither view, as in an active belief or disbelief is completely reasonable. But the withholding of belief (i.e, a *lack* of belief) *is* completely reasonable: it is how we proceed with any existence claim without supporting evidence. Do you understand the difference between a lack of belief and an active disbelief?

Now, you present a false dichotomy between Intelligent Design and 'Pure Chance'. Those are clearly NOT the only two alternatives. For example, there could be non-random physical laws. So, no, your alternative is NOT a truth.

Also, and a HUGE problem with the ID position is the question of where the 'designer' came from: what allowed the 'creation' of the creator'? All you have done is push one level down in the rabbit hole. In essence, you avoid the question.

And what that means is *ultimately* there either has to be an infinite regress (which is a very logical possibility) or there is something that is not caused (another very logical possibility). Both are not just possibilities, but one or the other is a necessity.

Next, I did NOT say that I find it unreasonable to believe in the *possibility* of a creator. That is very, very different that actually believing in a creator. But simply having an uncaused cause does NOT imply the existence of an intelligent creator. That is a great deal more than what the logic can provide. That suggests it is NOT reason that leads you to the conclusion, but an active *wanting* to believe in spite of a lack of reason to do so.

So, again, the *reasonable* alternative is to withhold belief until there is evidence one way or the other. Now, if you *want* to believe, acknowledge it as going beyond reason and logic and bask in that beyondness.

http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Polymath ....I know you asked for ONE refereed scientific journal that promotes ID , but the list goes on and on. I think you may not have studied as much as you claim. Or will you disregard these studies because your mind is made up on the subject ?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, I do not see it as 'completely reasonable' to believe in an intelligent creator. Complete reason would withhold belief until there was sufficient evidence. And that would hold either direction: existence or non-existence. Neither view, as in an active belief or disbelief is completely reasonable. But the withholding of belief (i.e, a *lack* of belief) *is* completely reasonable: it is how we proceed with any existence claim without supporting evidence. Do you understand the difference between a lack of belief and an active disbelief?

Now, you present a false dichotomy between Intelligent Design and 'Pure Chance'. Those are clearly NOT the only two alternatives. For example, there could be non-random physical laws. So, no, your alternative is NOT a truth.

Also, and a HUGE problem with the ID position is the question of where the 'designer' came from: what allowed the 'creation' of the creator'? All you have done is push one level down in the rabbit hole. In essence, you avoid the question.

And what that means is *ultimately* there either has to be an infinite regress (which is a very logical possibility) or there is something that is not caused (another very logical possibility). Both are not just possibilities, but one or the other is a necessity.

Next, I did NOT say that I find it unreasonable to believe in the *possibility* of a creator. That is very, very different that actually believing in a creator. But simply having an uncaused cause does NOT imply the existence of an intelligent creator. That is a great deal more than what the logic can provide. That suggests it is NOT reason that leads you to the conclusion, but an active *wanting* to believe in spite of a lack of reason to do so.

So, again, the *reasonable* alternative is to withhold belief until there is evidence one way or the other. Now, if you *want* to believe, acknowledge it as going beyond reason and logic and bask in that beyondness.

The Catch-22 of Peer-Reviewed Journals

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Polymath....You asked for the research so I really hope you read these few examples. I'm not here to argue or convince anyone of anything. You seem intelligent and a to be a promoter of science. ID and Creationism also promote science often. I just hope you are open to further research and not content with only current or accepted concepts in science. New scientific discoveries have always evolved and continue to expand. When a scientist doesn't question ideas and concepts any longer, I find that to be counter productive to all science stands for. Not everything is set in stone as we have been led to believe or in what we have concluded for ourselves. There is always room for new alternative ideas based on science or some that aren't based on science that are also found to be of truth. There is much we don't know. So we must always be thinking and learning and evolving. I just wouldn't be so quick to accept everything as definite. It doesn't always work out like that. Things are definitely not always what they seem to be on the surface. Science itself has told us this and proven this many times.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not here to argue or convince anyone of anything.

Lucky you, then.

ID and Creationism also promote science often.

Uh, no. There is no truth whatsoever in that.

So-called Creationism can't even exist without direct denial of scientific knowledge. And ID is just creationism with make-up.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Lucky you, then.



Uh, no. There is no truth whatsoever in that.

So-called Creationism can't even exist without direct denial of scientific knowledge. And ID is just creationism with make-up.

Uh, yes.
I will not even entertain any further discussion with someone who thinks such as yourself.
I say the same thing to you, there is no truth whatsoever in what you posted to me.
You are wrong in that your claim is unprovable.... and the reasonable possibility of Creationism does exist WITH the support of scientific knowledge.
Take off the narrow blinders.
Your post is the most ridiculous and shallow statement I have ever read on any post concerning this.
I would like to see you on a stage with all of the brilliant scientists , philosophers, and academics who would tear your comments to shreds.
People like you give atheism a bad reputation.
I shouldn't even respond to your frivolous statement but I felt I had to.
Unlucky you.

 

[PureX]

Mythology has as much value as any work of fiction.

If that work of fiction intends to capture, characterize, and promote essential cultural philosophical ideals. Most works of fiction do not aspire to that sophistication.

Religious faith has as much value as any crux.

Only when viewed through an anti-religious bias. I'm not religious, nor do I promote it. But even I can recognize that it has significant individual and social value. And faith is essential to all of us, every day, in countless ways.