Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)

Although you're trying to be clever again, number three is actually wrong.Until you can prove that your name is ... or any other claim you make, why should we take your word for it?Until you can prove that you shouldn't send me a million dollars every minute, are you going to send me a million dollars every minute?

Really? You really missed the entire point of my post? Look, there's no easy way to say this but here goes.From what I've seen fom you so far you are either:a) The dumbest person I've ever talked toorb) Pretending to be a complete idiot in order to get a rise out of people, which is perhaps even sadder.So which is it?

To show you that the burden of proof is not upon the one disbelieving the claim.Here, let me break it down for you, if you don;t get it after that (or pretend to), I would advise you to either learn something before you comment again, even if it is just reading comprehension or a quick "how to debate" course, or just give up here, because ther's obviously no point in trying to teach you something.Ok, here we go:You stated in Message 127: This measn that unless someone can without a doubt show your name isn't ..., he should take your word for it. This is not how you operate in real life, now is it? You don't go around believing people until you can prove them wrong.To this I replied with the following in Message 128 Here I tell you that you're trying to be funny again. Perhaps I misjudged, and you really don't understand the slightest thing about how the world works. I also tell you that your statement in the previous message is wrong. I ask you a question. A question you haven't answered. Would you care to do so? I use an argument ad absurdum to show you why having to disprove something before not beliving it to be true is a stupid thing to do. If you really thought you should disprove things before you can stop believing them, you should be sending me 1 million dollars every minute. Since I do not hold the position that I should disporve something before I don't belive it, your reply in Message 129: Shows that you missed the entire point of my message. Because I am not the one advocating that kind of behaviour, and in fact think it's completely stupid to act that way. You on the other hand say this is perfectly normal, so, I await your 1 million dollar deposits, thank you very much.

Your most artful dodge yet. So, again it seems that something you made up is not supported by any evidence.Tell us when you'll stop making stuff up please, so we can start taking you seriously.

I don't believe you don't believe in atheists.Edited by Huntard, : did quote wrong

Sounds a bit wrong to me, you shouldn't fight with your family. Science doesn't dictate what is right or wrong. Science is a way of finding out how the world works. Are you saying it shouldn't change to incorporate better data? Concepts of right and wrong change all the time. Once, slavery was thought to be right, once Jews were reviled by the church. It's a bit different now, isn't it? Not really, no, since those "findings" are based on actual data, and the latter is not. By the way, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any scientific study that claims "wine is good for you" or "wine is bad for you" Don't confuse what the media report with what scientists think. I don't know anybody that is doing that.