1. If a belief is backed up by evidence then it will stand up to any kind of honest scrutiny. It's only when people have beliefs that aren't backed up by anything apart from faith that they start getting worried by people questioning them. Criticism of a belief is a good thing and helps everyone learn more and discern whether a belief is valid or not. This is not in the interest of religion, which is why they hate it.
If someone is sufficiently skeptical, the only way to force a belief onto that person is by providing evidence to support it. I would never worry about say a flat earther trying to convince me of his/her beliefs. If he/she had a decent point and enough evidence then I may investigate further. I care about what is true, not what I want to believe.
Atheism isn't even a positive statement. It is just saying to the Theist "Why should I believe your claim as I can't see any evidence to support it".
2. Far better to leave something unanswered than make something up with no evidence to back it!
Normally the Theist says "Science answers the how, Religion answers the why" or some other bollocks like this. "Why" is a really loaded term, essentially coding for "What is the reason for", implying there must be a reason. They may come up with an argument like "Bad people must be punished after they die or otherwise it would be unfair" which implies all sorts of things with no evidence whatsoever, just an appeal to a persons sense of justice.
3. What's the point of Genesis. If it is meant to be a laymans version of what actually happened it would at least get the order of events right (plants/light/sun etc). If it had turned out to be correct through science then I doubt any Theist would have come up with the idea it isn't meant to be taken literally.
The person writing it could have just written "God created everything" to replace pages of drivel.
4. Not my area so I can't really comment.
If someone is sufficiently skeptical, the only way to force a belief onto that person is by providing evidence to support it. I would never worry about say a flat earther trying to convince me of his/her beliefs. If he/she had a decent point and enough evidence then I may investigate further. I care about what is true, not what I want to believe.
Atheism isn't even a positive statement. It is just saying to the Theist "Why should I believe your claim as I can't see any evidence to support it".
2. Far better to leave something unanswered than make something up with no evidence to back it!
Normally the Theist says "Science answers the how, Religion answers the why" or some other bollocks like this. "Why" is a really loaded term, essentially coding for "What is the reason for", implying there must be a reason. They may come up with an argument like "Bad people must be punished after they die or otherwise it would be unfair" which implies all sorts of things with no evidence whatsoever, just an appeal to a persons sense of justice.
3. What's the point of Genesis. If it is meant to be a laymans version of what actually happened it would at least get the order of events right (plants/light/sun etc). If it had turned out to be correct through science then I doubt any Theist would have come up with the idea it isn't meant to be taken literally.
The person writing it could have just written "God created everything" to replace pages of drivel.
4. Not my area so I can't really comment.
