3RU7AL

What I actually said is that capitalism is about the evolution of better processes and products

Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.

this seems to be a violation of "states rights"

States shouldn't have the right to ban marijuana if a majority of the states want it legalized as commerce.

The most feisable way to pay off the debt is higher taxes and lower spending.

this claim is provably false

How else do you plan on paying off the debt?

Congress shall have the power to remove state restrictions on commerce provided it removes from all states.

As are the green Unicorns found on the Planet Zog.

Which are actually independent, sentient, photosynthetic, horse like plants that absorb nutrients through their horn like structures.

Strange but true.....Prove me wrong.

Because they're referred to that way in texts

It might make theists stumble over their words but that doesn't make it a good argument. It's just a sematic game.

If god is a man, then yes he has a penis.

And there's still  no guarantee that you will end up with you preferred choice candidate.

Never before has a protest forced congress to evacuate the building.

Please explain what pointing to one example cherry picked

Nice atheist definition. It ignores whole religions and theists but who is surprised. 

Someone who calls themselves a diest and justifies that label by calling the big bang a god is just an atheist in denial.

There are theists who do not believe that any sacred text was written by a god. This is a fundamentalist  concept. Not all theists believe gods interfere in human affairs. Deists do believe an entity was involved in creation. They are theists. If they're ashamed of that then they should call themselves atheists. 

You have no argument whatsoever to defend the former presidents actions.

The claim here is that Trump intended for mob rioters to attack the US Capitol.

I would say that's a pretty big difference, but that's just my opinion.

Define, "accept."

An atheist says "I don't know how the universe and all of existence came about, let's try to find out"

A diest says "agoddidit"

But when it comes to their beliefs these are very different.

someone who believes in a god

I'm not hostile to rich white guys! The only one I hate is Bill Gates because he SLAUGHTERS PEOPLE. I completely agree with you. He's murdering  right out in the open... have you seen what's happening in Africa? The "life saving vaccines" he's giving to people? Please. Liberals remain complicit in this mass genocide and won't open their eyes until it's too late. I've already went to my job's HR department to ask if we can uninstall Microsoft Office Suite before Bill Gates starts invading our brains and harvesting memories through Microsoft Word. People think it's an innocent little program to draft documents and spreadsheets. Oh no. It's part of his next strategy to kill everyone on the planet. I'm on your side. 

Lies. This is why theists can't stand to engage in conversation with atheists. You listen to nothing, you don't believe anything theists say about their own thoughts and practice, and then you make up your own mind about what we believe and don't believe. 

something that is not relavant to this conversation.

If it can be shown not all religions are true, then the proposition is not unfalsifiable.  It is logically impossible for all religions to be true. The proposition is logically falsifiable

Are all religions equally true?

equally unfalsifiable

I'm going to disagree with you. It is logically impossible for all religions and their competing claims to all be true. It follows from this - not all gods are true. 

Deists and pantheists are theists. 

And GODS and religions have been an important part of the process of data development and associated material manipulation.

Are all religions equally true?

Do social welfare transfers mitigate poverty? Does it serve your point if those who receive social welfare are still poor?

America and Canada should just form some sort of EU lite organization then.

That strikes me as odd. Default acceptance leads to outlandish and contradictory beliefs.

Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REAL

Proposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REAL

which do you accept and which do you reject ?

I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly accept claims of truth to proposition A.

Voting is nice an all, but I can’t help but feel that uninformed voting is worse than uninformed people not voting. Some vetting would be nice, but I am going to wager a guess that expecting that voters should be able to read at an 8th grade level or pass high school or speak English is the “controversial” position

The best thing that can be said about the system is that it if it’s done well it truly does prepare you for the academic life of college and the twelve years of boring and humiliating grind prepares you for boring and humiliating office jobs, but if you don’t go down that track as most don’t I’m not convinced it was worth anywhere near twelve years of your youth 

Earlier you said uniformed people make bad decisions that impact everyone else,

If we focused law enforcement on illegal employers rather than illegal immigrants we'd  make a major impact on that problem in no time.  Much cheaper and easier to enforce.  Put a few restaurant and hotel and golf course owners in jail for perpetuating illegal immigration, those opportunities will quickly dry up and the primary motivation for most illegal immigration goes away.

I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real.

I'm not going to sit here explaining how the scientific method helps us determine what's real.

Proposition A is "a god exists". The opposite of that is "no gods exist", which is proposition B. So if one's rejection of proposition A = acceptance of proposition B, then ones rejection of proposition A = acceptance of its opposite.

I'm not arguing that not accepting something = accepting the opposite. I'm suggesting that rejecting the truth of proposition A means accepting the truth of its inverse, proposition B.