No, that is what I actually agree with. What I disagree with is to have people who look at arguments, examine them rationally, and evaluate their falseness based on evidence, logic and reason.
Notices I only changed one word from truthfulness to falseness.
Please explain to me exactly what is wrong with this:
One person makes a remarkable claim, and says they can give evidence for it. A second person evaluates the evidence, finds it insufficient, and so rejects the claim.
What exactly is your problem with this process?
And I think the former is Good and the later is bad. The problem, as you say, is that atheists don't have the same moral framework to say the later is bad.
Sure atheists have a moral framework. It's the same as the one that most people in modern society have, and it's based on empathy and logic.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Euthyphro's Dilemma?
Well, that is not my argument.
Then I do not understand why you are telling us that most people throughout history have believed in a god or gods.
My argument is that people are not more rational, not that they are more knowledgeable.
Since the last few thousand years have seen enormous changes in our understanding of what rationality is, its importance in mathematics, science and daily life, and the enormous expansion of an education system to make sure all members of society are aware of these things, I would say you are wrong.
Sure thing. Look at what we are doing right now. We are having a debate about rationality and logic, claims and evidence. We bandy about words like fallacy, proof and reasoning, with some understanding of how they work. At any time before a few hundred years ago, this kind of conversation would have been the preserve of a minute percentage of the population - those with the education to make use of it. A few thousand years ago, people would quite literally believe anything. Today, we have a school system that ensures that the vast majority of the population has an education our grandparents would have drooled over, and our ancestors could not have imagined existed.
My point is that the genetic makeup of humans hasn't changed much so I don't know why you would expect people to be any more rational now. Knowledge increases over time and I have said as much. But knowledge isn't the same as how apt people are at thinking in general.
But a very large part of the knowledge we pass on to our children at school and college level is the importance of thinking, reasoning and testing. People are, on average, a lot more rational now than they were a few hundred years ago, and light years ahead of where they would have been a few thousand years ago.
I'm a creationist because I believe God created life. I am agnostic towards evolution.
I believe that it can, and without much difficulty; see above.
Evolution resulted in us being large-brained apes. Consequences of our increasing ability to think are the spoken and written languages I spoke of earlier, the development of rational thinking, and the increasing ability to disseminate it through society via printing and education.
What do you mean by doing this is "fine"?
I mean it's quite acceptable to read the arguments of others and integrate them into your own. It's also acceptable to quote others, providing you understand what they are saying. It's less acceptable to simply answer with an article or link, but it can be a good response at times, if you have reasons that you can justify.