Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Meanwhile, you have yet to address the posts where I point out your irrational hatred of believers.

Because I hate no believers...at least not for believing...I have a family full of them, even.

LOL! Uh huh.

So leta review your contribution to the thread:

- your trust in scientific knowlesge is just faith!

- what benefit do you get from knowing stuff, anyway?

- you just hate believers!

 

[Grumblenuts]

But I also understand that faith doesn't require proof, and that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Faith requires magical belief. An absence of proof evidences nothing. An absence of evidence indicates zero validity, wishful thinking, and/or delusion.

"Proof" is for mathematics.

Indeed, in math and formal axiomatic systems of logic, proofs are precise, exacting things with true finality. However, in general logical proofs only establish a given argument's validity and, even then, only through rigorous, formal deduction in accord with established rules. In court proof is formally established through deduction from evidence. 'Tis truly a shame that dictionaries list "evidence" and "proof" as synonyms. Small wonder we invariably face know-it-all goobers like Dave.

 

[daveman]

Meanwhile, you have yet to address the posts where I point out your irrational hatred of believers.

Because I hate no believers...at least not for believing...I have a family full of them, even.

LOL! Uh huh.

So leta review your contribution to the thread:

- your trust in scientific knowlesge is just faith!

- what benefit do you get from knowing stuff, anyway?

- you just hate believers!

If that makes you feel better about yourself, sure.

 

[daveman]

But I also understand that faith doesn't require proof, and that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Faith requires magical belief. An absence of proof evidences nothing. An absence of evidence indicates zero validity, wishful thinking, and/or delusion.

"Proof" is for mathematics.

Indeed, in math and formal axiomatic systems of logic, proofs are precise, exacting things with true finality. However, in general logical proofs only establish a given argument's validity and, even then, only through rigorous, formal deduction in accord with established rules. In court proof is formally established through deduction from evidence. 'Tis truly a shame that dictionaries list "evidence" and "proof" as synonyms. Small wonder we invariably face know-it-all goobers like Dave.

I'm a know-it-all? Have you like been...not reading what I've written?

I have never claimed to know everything. I'm the guy who says there are some questions that can't be answered, remember?

At least make a token effort to keep up.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Unfortunately, I have read what you've written. It wasn't anywhere near worth the bother.

 

[daveman]

Unfortunately, I have read what you've written. It wasn't anywhere near worth the bother.

Oh, then you're just outright lying about what I've said.

A normal person would have the self-awareness to be ashamed. But you do you, Skippy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, then you're just outright lying about what I've said.

I'm not sure thats even possible, since, in your generally incoherent ramblings, you contradict yourself at the most fundamental levels.

You claim we do know some things,then you claim nothing can be known...because, hey,maybe there is magic!

One can't really misrepresent or contradict someone who takes all positions at once, sometimes in the same paragraph.

My advice to you is that, the next time you feel like hopping into a thread with both hands swinging, you pause for about 5 minutes (maybe 5 days, in your case) and get your talking points in order. This whole "not even sure what i am going to say next" thing isn't working out for you.

 

[deanrd]

So what is your basis, then, for dismissing the idea of a Creator? That there's no proof one exists?

That combined with having no empirical basis to share your blind faith in one. Tried long ago. Multiple times. Peer pressure galore! Even after enduring tons of verbal abuse from priests, ministers, and good little lemmings like you. Nope, just couldn't even begin to actually do it and look myself in the mirror. But that's just me. Completely unnecessary and illogical to demand that atheists somehow "prove" their disbelief in other's assertions of Creators or other magical stuff.

Maybe there is a creator. Maybe it is a rainbow unicorn who rides dragons in the 6th dimension. These magical beliefs are quite useless, in any pragmatic sense. They explain nothing and provide no useful predictions. They come without evidence and grant no insight.

Which again begs the question I asked before, and to which I received no answer:

What benefit would Mr. Average Joe American gain from knowing exactly how, say, the universe came about?

Another question: Would it kill you to at least make an effort to come up with something besides "rainbow unicorns" as a metaphor for religion? I mean, you've made your contempt for religion pretty plain -- but it's getting pretty boring, actually.

I really hate to have to explain this because the answer is so very obvious.

But I'll try.

The more knowledge people have about the world around them, the better decisions they will make. I prefer decisions based on "knowing" rather than "wishing".

If you feel the earth is new and God will take care of you, then of course, you have no problem with spewing filth into the air and trash into the oceans. After all, God will take care of you, until he doesn't.