If it makes you feel any better, that house would sell for at least double that price where I live.

Yes, I’m on one side, with dictionaries, etymology, and the majority of atheists, and you’re on the other side. I would agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

Google:

noun: atheism. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Gnostic - adjective. relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

Me:

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist.

Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist. Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief, which is why you can have an agnostic theist. Agnostic is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground. I can correct you, but I can’t make you understand it.

What I said is absolutely correct. If you have a disagreement perhaps you should be more clear and less snarky.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.

No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

People need to stop with ridiculous conspiracy theories. You’ve become what you hate

Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?

Oh no they didn’t. They went along with them.

What the hell are you talking about? Your comment is entirely divorced from reality. There were 175 cloture votes to break a filibuster on nominees during the Obama administration and 314 during Trump. Nearly doubled in half the time.

When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions. - Washington Post

It’s not though. The question makes the assumption that he would have been handed over for the Nuremberg trials.

It absolutely misses the point, and so have you. It is a hypothetical whereby he was captured, turned over to the Nuremberg trials, and found guilty. That’s the basis of the hypothetical. Saying that wouldn’t have happened absolutely misses the point of the hypothetical.

Don’t know if I’d say simpler, some of the games for the NES are downright punishing in their difficulty.

Honest question here.

…the nearest store is 20 miles away. There are no bus lines, there is no rail, there is nothing. I’ve posted this question to others and they all break down to “Well they should have transport”. Yes! They SHOULD.

But should they? At that point what mass transit would be economically feasible? I would think even a bus at that rate of ridership would be a waste.

Every religious person or atheists(atheism as a religion) believe their own religion it’s the only true one

Except atheism isn’t a religion, it doesn’t have tenets, beliefs, or dogma. Atheism is simply rejecting the belief of god or gods.

Not OP, but I’m an atheist. Indoctrination of children is immoral, teaching them about myths is not.

I’m wondering how you come to what morally right or wrong? What’s your logic or proof for your moral framework?

Simple. Start with a goal: happiness, well-being, etc. From there you can make objective decisions that further that goal.

As a theist, how do you come to morality? How do you get past the Euthyphro dilemma with regard to morality?

As to #1, yeah, I get you.

Are there young children having transition surgery? My understanding is that transitioning requires years of therapy. That young minors are typically only given puberty blockers, followed by HRT when appropriate. There are standards set by medical organizations.

#2 would concern me, but it seems regret over transitioning is a tiny percentage.

My understanding is that a lot of the regrets stem from society not accepting them.

#3 You’re talking about political capital, a thing I find almost no one understands.

What political capital is needed to not be an asshole. Do you need a lot of capital to not target already at-risk youth?

Capitalism is self regulating

It most certainly is not. The bargaining power of a corporation and individual worker are not the same. It’s why labor unions exist. Additionally governments should regulate commerce for the benefit of everyone.

Lastly, please review and understand the differences between your and you’re, as well as their, there, and they’re. Absolutely frustrating trying to read what you wrote.

Only if they microwave after thawing.

Thoughts?

Not particularly. Depends on the subject matter. For instance, a politician might be critical of current campaign finance laws being too lax, but still take advantage of said laws. In that situation it wouldn’t be hypocritical to say I want to change X, but until it changes, I’m following the same rules as everyone else.

Or maybe they are a hypocrite, I don’t know. They could be the worst person to raise the argument, but my only point was that it doesn’t invalidate the argument.

A hypocritical and dishonest interlocutor can still make a valid and sound argument. An ad hominem, whether Tu Quoque or otherwise, remains fallacious.

Whether you’re being called immoral by Person A or B doesn’t change the facts. Person A may be a bad person, they may not be the person you want to hear the argument from, but that doesn’t change that they’re right.

In propositional logic you only address one prong or aspect at a time. So using my example you could say yes, I am immoral for kicking puppies, but then by your logic, so are you. That wouldn’t be an ad hominem because you aren’t trying to invalidate their argument with your personal attack/logical argument.

Given a valid structure, true premises must necessarily lead to a true conclusion. A fallacy is an invalid structure; therefore, you cannot know whether or not the conclusion is true. If you can’t know the truth value of the conclusion, you wouldn’t be correct to reject their argument.

Using the go to example: Plato argues P1) All men are mortal, P2) Socrates is a man, C) Socrates is mortal. Valid structure, sound premises, the conclusion must be true.

Using the smoking example: P1) Person A claims smoking is dangerous, P2) Person A smokes, C) Smoking isn’t dangerous.

This argument is invalid in structure because Premise 2 is fallacious. Premise 1 doesn’t connect to Premise 2 to lead to the conclusion. Given no additional information, you would not be able to ascertain the truth value of the conclusion, it may or may not be true using this deductive argument.

It’s considered a formal fallacy.

you’re probably right to discount their arguments

You cannot square these two statements. If it’s a fallacy then you are not justified in discounting their argument. They may be a hypocrite, but it doesn’t mean that their argument isn’t both valid and sound. The smoking example by the other reply is a great example.