A druid in a henge is as dumb or not as the case may be and a druid's belief system is as dumb or not as religion or witchcraft is....And a book is a book, and there are undoubtedly witchcraft books as there are religion books, though none of these books will stand up to scientific scrutiny....Only biased opinion.....As is the nature of debate.
Fortunately my troubles are currently, few and far between.
Gods are the obvious and unavoidable consequence of the proposal.....Belief in a super-nature beyond scientific scrutiny....It's the best strategy in this debate....Unless you are prepared to denounce the super-nature of gods, then you cannot denounce the super-nature of witchcraft, because you are inadvertently proposing that scientific method is unnecessary.
Was Jesus Christ the son of Mary Christ and the adopted son of Joseph Christ. Otherwise, why use the title of Christ in a totally non-religious debate setting?
And for similar reasons the Bible should not be permissible as evidence.
In fact the more one thinks about it, the more ridiculous the proposition becomes.
But:
"Only genuinely sane" is, not insane.
"Sanctity" has ambiguous definition and in the context of the proposition sanctity could be equally applied to the human capacity to interpret. Or in fact more so.
"Capacity" is obviously variable, whereas sanctity is far less so, if at all.
The resultant juxtaposition of ideas is confusing.
Creationism as a fundamental precursor to our observable universe in any guise should not be regarded as science, as there is no global standard for creationism.
But you cannot necessarily make logical arguments.
There are definitely no logical arguments left for a flat stationary Earth. All that is left are obstinate word players who are patently aware of the truth.
And:
What was once a theory may well now be a fact and so, what was once the theory has become the definition and is therefore no longer the theory.
Evolution is as obvious as creation is, if you think about it logically. Even if the precise details of past events and processes are often a tad sketchy.
We ourselves, are the instigators of technological evolution.
Nonetheless. Evolution is a simple concept relative to a far bigger sequence of events, rather than just the current Darwinian bit.
As such, "man to molecules devolution" can easily be regarded as being a part of the evolutionary sequence.
There is clear evidence to suggest that dominance of the sequence is shifting away from the fragile organic, towards more robust forms of intelligence.
It could be argued that the bible is consistently inconsistent. Which when you consider the haphazard nature of it's evolution is probably only to be expected.
If one discovered an egg, how would one know that it was extra-terrestrial and not an as yet undocumented species?
Or does the scenario extend to deep space exploration?
Based upon recent indiscretions, not voting would have been the more honourable approach....Though power corrupts, as the saying goes.
Your inability to understand my comments is your failing, not mine.
A clever woman could do both or neither. Though current social pressure would incline the clever woman towards a career.
A not so clever woman might feel compelled to think differently.
Are you referring to a clever or not so clever (heterosexual) woman?.....(Bowing to current social pressures re gender and sexuality)
"Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels". This is an undeniable truism, unless you specify a context. Where when etc.
You forgot to put was at the end.....Easy debate to win otherwise.
What is a "white person"? In making this distinction you are the only racist.
What is the scriptural definition of race?
A brain without a thought but not a thought without a brain. In so much as the thought brain relationship is currently exclusive. (Seemingly)
And I agree, opinions is opinions,
And scholastically supported argument, is a bunch of onions + pi.
And logic seemingly is, whilst simultaneously, seemingly is not.
I sense that you are riled by the logic of my comments.....Very ethanesque.
Enjoy your debate.
A druid in a henge is as dumb or not as the case may be and a druid's belief system is as dumb or not as religion or witchcraft is....And a book is a book, and there are undoubtedly witchcraft books as there are religion books, though none of these books will stand up to scientific scrutiny....Only biased opinion.....As is the nature of debate.
Fortunately my troubles are currently, few and far between.
Gods are the obvious and unavoidable consequence of the proposal.....Belief in a super-nature beyond scientific scrutiny....It's the best strategy in this debate....Unless you are prepared to denounce the super-nature of gods, then you cannot denounce the super-nature of witchcraft, because you are inadvertently proposing that scientific method is unnecessary.
A tempting debate.
"Witchcraft is pseudo-science and superstition, not compatible with scientific method."....Rather like the basis of the Christian Faith.
If a supernatural god is not pseudo-science then witchcraft is not.....So will you be prepared to denounce the Christian god as pseudo-science?
A sort of cry of desperation type debate, hoping to reach out to all those gun toting, right wing, evangelical rednecks.
If only the meek could inherit the Earth hey.
The Statement is reasonable enough and could apply to many aspects of society and social interaction.... So wherein might the contention lie?
Other than a typical Pro/Non Christian, atheist/theist type argument.
What do you actually want to debate?
LOL.
What is a general spank?
And how is it possible to generally spank more or less.
Presumably a general spanking is a good old general spanking.
I would suggest that the use of the word "generally" is somewhat counter-productive to the proposition.
Of course they have.
They are things that fly that cannot or have not been identified.
This is a no win debate for the contender.
Just want to see where you go with this.
Anyone can reject anyone if they wish to.
Nonetheless I will accept this as an atheistic Easter challenge just to see how you run with it.
In as much as classification is an exercise and so is what it is.
One could easily sub-class foetus-hood.
By definition non-theism is atheism.
So how do you see things differently?
Guilty of what?.....Set by whose standards.
Was Jesus Christ the son of Mary Christ and the adopted son of Joseph Christ. Otherwise, why use the title of Christ in a totally non-religious debate setting?
And for similar reasons the Bible should not be permissible as evidence.
In fact the more one thinks about it, the more ridiculous the proposition becomes.
Would be fun to debate.
But:
"Only genuinely sane" is, not insane.
"Sanctity" has ambiguous definition and in the context of the proposition sanctity could be equally applied to the human capacity to interpret. Or in fact more so.
"Capacity" is obviously variable, whereas sanctity is far less so, if at all.
The resultant juxtaposition of ideas is confusing.
Sound
Yes.
But were Marx's economic assumptions (Labour Theory of Value) rooted in socialist idealism rather than in pure economics.
Incorrect, simply as in an unworkable hypothesis? That is to say a flawed philosophy from the outset.
Or an incorrect hypothesis in light of what we can conclude from experience? based solely upon economics.
Marx the philosopher, economist or pretender?
How exactly are you defining "a soul".
"Abiogenesis is possible and supported by evidence."
Well. That's a self supporting truism in a nutshell if ever I saw one.
It's like saying, frying pans are possible and supported by evidence.
Not a great deal of science required.
The position you hold is in fact, that abortion should not always be illegal.
Also.
How do you differentiate between slightly dangerous, normal danger, abnormal danger etc?
Creationism as a fundamental precursor to our observable universe in any guise should not be regarded as science, as there is no global standard for creationism.
1) The fact is. Your definition of a fact is factually incorrect.....Look it up.
2) A process that may be logically applied, may not necessarily result in a logical conclusion.
3) Theorem.
Word play!
Logically you can make arguments.
But you cannot necessarily make logical arguments.
There are definitely no logical arguments left for a flat stationary Earth. All that is left are obstinate word players who are patently aware of the truth.
And:
What was once a theory may well now be a fact and so, what was once the theory has become the definition and is therefore no longer the theory.
Evolution is as obvious as creation is, if you think about it logically. Even if the precise details of past events and processes are often a tad sketchy.
We ourselves, are the instigators of technological evolution.
Not a lot of sea in central Europe.
The central bit is a dead give away.
If that is the new social edict.
Then perhaps it's now time for the state to take complete control over population management.
Enforced egg and sperm harvesting and subsequent sterilization programmes.
Factory farming and isolated mono-programming.
Though, who is in control and therefore who decides the programme?
Donald is a good entertainer. He sure does make us chuckle.
And when they pull his strings. He does and says the funniest things.
What does the Q actually represent?
It will be interesting to see how this one works Bill.
Love your opening argument.
Intersex is better described as a developmental abnormality rather than a birth defect.
The uncorrupted definition of gender is quite specific.
And dysphoria and trans are state's of mind rather than a states of gender.
So the proposition is basically correct.
You're theories are factually incorrect.
A scientific theory can be tested repeatedly and be shown to have consistent results. but this still doesn't make it a fact.
Yep. As ever.
Chupa Cabre, Yeti, Loch Ness Monster et al.
But unsurprisingly no one as actually (verifiably) seen one.
And some people still like to think that the Earth is flat. Probably the same people who like to think that the Chupa Cabre exist.
How better to promote the idea, than to go out and kill a few unsuspecting ruminants.
"Natural Biological Phenomenon" In other words, Human Beings.
Fully explained.
Where's the debate?
If it was a fact then it would not be a theory.
Evolution is a basic principle and science is a basic exercise. The complexity is in the finer details of what we attempt to understand.
Extinction is just as much a part of the evolutionary sequence as development is.
And evolution has no problems. It's only human beings that create imaginary problems. Evolution will continue as it will.
And my fourth point simply suggests that the extinction of organic life on Earth is probably an inevitable consequence.
And a lot of the god thing is probably just another inevitable consequence of our imagination.
Though the notion of creation is nonetheless reasonable.
And I think that it is fair to suggest that the 0 to 1 pre-organic creation event occurred more than seven thousand years ago. (Prove me wrong)
Gods fail for exactly the same reasons.
Nonetheless. Evolution is a simple concept relative to a far bigger sequence of events, rather than just the current Darwinian bit.
As such, "man to molecules devolution" can easily be regarded as being a part of the evolutionary sequence.
There is clear evidence to suggest that dominance of the sequence is shifting away from the fragile organic, towards more robust forms of intelligence.
The proposition is illogical anyway.
Because theism and atheism are simply opposing points of view, and both are demonstrably occurrent.
Probability is completely irrelevant.
There really should be a debating category labelled gobbledygook.
It could be argued that the bible is consistently inconsistent. Which when you consider the haphazard nature of it's evolution is probably only to be expected.