Either. I see your intention is clear. Divert and redirect.
Only fools believe that their 'holy book' is correct and all others are not.
Doesn't that deny, at its core, the divinity of scripture?
You just don't understand the process.
Were you trying to f*ck your toilet again Dave? I thought we talked about this...*wink
It's not anti-science to not want to circumcise your son. The AAP found that while the benefits outweighed the risks, it was not so great as to recommend the practice across the board. It left the decision to parents and their cultural, ethical and religious beliefs.
Yes x10 commandments! All humans, theists and non-theist alike, had broken these 10 signs of love.. ....
That isn't going to make your magic tree - talking snake - rib woman story true. Creationism is still a pant load. So what is the point?
You said boundaries. Why specify and shift the goalpost now?
No, abstaining from sex, using a condom, or having the will power to pull out before ejaculation is "being responsible if you can not afford to provide for that child."
I can see why women might get uncomfortable with men in a kickboxing class. Men are generally larger, with greater reach. (I'm speaking in generalities here). There is a reason why boxing, wrestling, and such are segregated by weight. Weight means momentum. A heavy person has more power behind a properly thrown punch. reach also has an impact in combat sports.
I've never liked the Russian government....
I know very well of the distinction, but this has little to do with what we were discussing. You made a claim about the nature of reality with no way to prove it, you just assert it as truth. I showed you how that is in error since anyone can follow the same model of making claims of absolute knowledge of something. The Aristotelian distinction makes the same error of assuming that god is that "necessary" existent thing/being, with no point of reference other than assertion. I go back to old Hitchens who stated, "I can grant you all the miracles and you'd still be left with an empty cup", because even if we assume the "necessary thing/being" is some sort of god, you'd be in no way able to say that therefore, it is the christian one....or any other specific god for that matter. Still, there is no reason to assume a god/being to begin with without committing a logical fallacy. You are stuck in an endless loop of logical fallacies and circular reasoning and the worst part about it is, you are unwilling to engage in honest discussion about it or be humble about your level of knowledge. You want to say, "This is what I believe, but can't prove it", I'm ok with that statement, even though we still won't agree on the nature of reality. But you don't say this, you say, "I know this to be true"....don't provide any evidence though, just assert it, then sidestep any logical points or questions. It's the height of arrogance and ignorance. I'm done now.
Actually, once that action is taken, they've got you where they want you.
How about my my ballsack?
Our fault and our baby we made alone ??
It started as a spiritual commitment, now it has become a way of life.
"So the concept of him is popular."
if it was a love scene, wouldnt he be holding a stereo over his head playing music?
is that a real response? god of the gaps is - I don't know, therefore god. there is no such thing as science of the gaps, but I assume you mean something along the lines of - I don't know, but this body of objectifiable facts is positively indicative of this conclusion. meaning follow the evidence, as opposed to assuming that "goddidit".
Very true. Mandkind is inherently power hungry and tribal.