no one has proof of truth, it is corrupt to say that. just like our justice system is flawed your argument is flawed. i am glad to know that you do not claim an absolute truth that clears alot up for me and you beliefs.
It's much more likely that you made faulty assumptions based on misunderstanding what I said. If you want me to clear up what I think, then ask me directly about it. Don't try to draw conclusions based on what I say, because you do not have a good track record of drawing correct conclusions in this thread.
explain this to someone wrongly convicted of a crime they did not commit, there is a chance of error.
innocent people serve life sentences because of reasonable doubt all the time. with that being said all people/ general public are either innocent or guilty so that makes all people a person of interest. there is no way to escape this conclusion. the general public is either guilty or not. (state of limbo or in my argument FAITH)
People are sometimes wrongfully convicted of crimes, yes. But that has nothing to do with what I said. It is a non sequitur, it does not follow from my statements. Furthermore, your statement about all people (the general public) being innocent or guilty is meaningless to this discussion, because scientific theories have nothing to do with individuals committing crimes.
so i guess your belief in evolution is definitely flawed beyond a reasonable doubt because there is legitimate proof that people are wrongly convicted on the basis of reasonable doubt. so in a court of law your argument would lose because i have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that your argument is not betyond a reasonable doubt. i dont claim i can proove Christianity to you, but to me it just makes more since because we have been created as faithbeings( that is who we are to our innermost core being) and that is a matter of faith. i know where you come from with your beliefs and how you conclude your philosophy.
This is comparing apples and beach balls. The legal system has absolutely nothing to do with scientific theories, and the fact that you would even try to make that comparison demonstrates that you really don't understand what science is all about. Also, if you actually tried to prove in a court of law that scientific theories were not proven beyond reasonable doubt by arguing that people are wrongfully imprisoned, you would be laughed out of court. Also, it's pretty obvious that you don't know where I come from, how I think, or what conclusions I come to, so you should not make statements that are pretty clearly wrong.
by the way we are also just as much an emotional/ love/ fear being as we are a faith being.
The fact that we have emotions does not have anything to do with faith. It has been aptly demonstrated that animals have emotions. Do they have faith as well? Good luck finding out.
how does athiesm decide what is moral or what is love/ hate/ fear where did that moral authority originate from? and how and why? and do you conclude that since evolution is not absolute that the only absolute is that we are a being of faith and love?
Atheism doesn't decide the first thing about that. Society decides what is moral, I decide what is ethical. Love, hate, fear, etc, are all emotions that developed through evolution. Moral authority comes from society; a person who abides by what is considered moral in a society is a moral authority.
And I do not accept your conclusion that the only absolute is that we are beings of faith and love. I categorically dispute your conclusion as untrue, nonsensical, and imaginary. While faith and love exist, they are not absolutes. Not everyone has faith, and not everyone has love.