I'm sorry but you're the one that is biased and have your heels dug. I don't wish to to communicate with you either. However you're the one that decided to resp

I'm sorry but you're the one that is biased and have your heels dug. I don't wish to to communicate with you either. However you're the one that decided to respond to me. I'm up to talk but if you say something as rude as, "I don’t really wish to continue arguing with you" then I have no interest in anything you have to say. I kindly ask you to stop if you do not want to continue arguing with me, you're the one that responded to me in the first place. >I do think it’s useful to highlight here though that the difference between belief and non-belief is not pedantry, and it’s not inconsequential. If you don't wish to continue arguing with me why the heck are you still highlighting things? The difference is pedantic. It's like talking about the difference between adding a negative number and subtracting a positive number. You believe something exists. You disbelieve something doesn't exist. You believe something doesn't exist. You disbelieve something doesn't exist. These are linguistic phenomenons and you are just adding negative qualifiers to words thinking that it has a profound affect on meaning. It is 100% pedantic. Additionally my religion is not a belief. It is a logical conclusion built from the composition of facts. >The entire scientific method is about challenging ideas to discover the truth. When a scientist makes a claim to another scientist, the default position is “I don’t believe it. Please show substantial evidence to support your claim.” The scientific method cannot ever discover the truth. Proof is the domain of math and logic. In science and therefore the real world, nothing can be proven. To quote Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Science is not about proving things to be true. The entire endeavor of science is an attempt to prove something false. Repeated failures to prove something false only indicates that something "might" be true. This coupled with the fact that all observations tools in science have limited accuracy and limited precision makes it such that even the act of disproof is done through the lens of probability. Or in other words, nothing can really be disproven either. This is a bit philosophical and a bit too pedantic but the point is to illustrate that I understand the scientific method to a degree greater than even most atheists. >This is different from faith-based scientism, which is more similar to any other faith-based ism in that the method is to protect ideas from challenge in order to preserve the “truth”. Let me reiterate my point. My stance is not faith-based. It is self-evident logic. Every religious person you talk to parrots the buzz word of "faith" but really what they are saying to you is that their "belief" to them is as logical and rational as science is to you.