Sum1hugme

As an addition to what I said about the surplus of one making up for a deficit in another in fighting. I think that's why former football players do really well in MMA when they first start because their athleticism is so developed, that their technique can be lacking and still dominate. But then when they start getting into harder matches where their competition is equally athletic and more technically developed, they start losing

Really the rulesets modify the technique. But like the size of a tennis court and the weight of the ball require a light, technical touch, rather than an aggressive one in most cases.

Judo was fundamentally changed by olympic rulesets. Judo used to have a really good ground game, but with the olympic rulesets scoring throws and not allowing ground fighting, olympic judo, and as a result almost all judo became a sport of pretty much just throws instead.

"What I mean is that the theory does not necessarily suppose materialism or atheism..."

"Not so, it's an assumption."

"'Nothing about what we know about the universe actually indicates there is a god.'

That's an opinion, I gave you the alternative interpretation."

"No, atheism is not a neutral position nor is it any more reasonable than a theistic interpretation. Atheism is an interpretation and one that requires a positive assertion. This is why I made the argument I made."

"The very products of what the universe produces through processes is the demonstration, or better put interpretation. It's commonsense really, even though it's an interpretation because we know from our own observations that inanimate materials don't construct things on their accord. Bricks don't build houses, logs don't build cabins, metal and electrical components don't build automobiles ect ect...there is always a constructor of a construction, a builder for buildings, a producer for productions, a manufacturer for manufacturing ect ect.."

"You have to be aware of how evidence is defined and what constitutes evidence."

"'How is the existence of intelligence and things created by intelligence evidence of a god?'

I'll let you think on that for a bit lol. "

Evolutionary theory is a model that describes how life diversifies. That's not an "interpretation", that's just a description of reality. 

"The moment you claim there is no need for 'supernatural intervention' you've injected your own opinion."

  Actually my friend, that's simply a statement of fact. Nothing about what we know about the universe actually indicates there is a god. I argue that reserving belief in such things is more reasonable than belief without reservation. So atheism occurs naturally when one is being reasonable.

  There has simply never been a demonstrated event of supernatural intervention, so why assume it's so?

"Materials, recipes and processes are associated with agency/intelligenc"

  Recipes, yeah sure there is some association. But the materials and processes, these are things that occur naturally. 

"I think if you look again, and consider that processes are associated with intelligence God becomes more and more necessary as an explanation for why anything occurs at all and why inanimate forces including energy acts as an intelligent operation. .Don't give me the old "God of the gaps" baloney either lol, the correlation is much more than guesswork, no one has to guess because there's strong indication. When you consider that mixed the abundant supply of spiritual observations we have a damn good shot at being correct."

  Haha, then don't give ME that god of the gaps baloney either. The correlation is just a correlation, not causation. These spiritual observations, how are they evidence of a god? 

  You are reading intelligence into processes so you can draw the false analogy to god creating things intelligently. How is the existence of intelligence and things created by intelligence evidence of a god?

"The western "scientific" materialist worldview couldn't be more alien to being human. I go so far as to call it anti-human. It is like knowing a tree by chopping it down and counting its rings."

"Who is talking about magic? With respect magic is the only explanation for "nothing was there, and then for no reason, nothing decided to explode".  That is magic because unless there were principles of law in existence,  and something for the principles of law to interact or engage with then magic is the only explanation. We won't even get into the absolute impossibility of statistical nonsense that after the magic of something happening for nothing exploded for no reason that life on our planet came about   "

" Yet for you or any atheist to say "I have not seen any evidence for the existence of God, so therefore I am an atheist" and yet purport it is because you have actually done your homework is well self deception."

" I personally would wish that atheist's just admit that they make a choice because it helps them to fit in with their peers, or because they don't like the idea of a nasty monster god, or that they think it is part of the human travel to rid themselves of superstition."

"Failing to prove it to you - does not mean I have failed.  It only means that you do not understand logic and reasoning. "

"For anyone to come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God's existence and ignore completely the origin of humanity is absurd"

"the idea of no god is not related to origin of humanity. I think that has to be a nonsense."

"the idea of no god is not related to origin of humanity. I think that has to be a nonsense."

The United States ought to institute a federal jobs guarantee

Lol alright

I gotcha man. My final rebuttals was where I picked up on the straw men. But final round blitzkriegs are frowned upon, so I tried to just state the fallacy, restate my actual case, and move on instead of bringing up whole new arguments for you to have to address at length In your closing statements.

"A debate I was recently in. "Government is necessary to perform several basic functions." In my opponent's last speech, it felt like most of his arguments were "this is a strawman, moving on" without any analysis as to why."