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.

There is, it’s the constitution. You can’t be a member of the House without being 25 or a senator without being 30.

That’s a scary thought, guard your fireplace!

Because someone needs to be enslaved to provide universial health care. If even one person wants to opt out, no matter how wrong their reason you if you allow don’t allow it they are enslaved.

Congratulations, you just said the dumbest thing I’ve read on the Internet in a very long time. That’s impressive!

I pay for the military, for roads, for schools, for police, for fire departments…and I can’t opt out of any of that. So am I already a slave? If so, then I might as well get some healthcare out of the deal.

If I’m not already a slave then universal healthcare isn’t making me a slave either. No one would be forcing you to use your healthcare either.

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

Neighbor: Why does this dog eat so much corn!?!

They may not know step 3, but they know that step 4 is PROFIT!

I’m le tired

Well, have a nap…then fire the missiles!!

(hoping you were making this reference, or this comment is going to be super weird)

https://youtu.be/Pk-kbjw0Y8U?si=zWvWdQKsOsLiubEu

There are a lot of folks advocating communism who seem to lack any historical context.

Do you have a historical context? Are you comparing the economic system of communism against capitalism? Or are you comparing nations who claimed to be communist but were actually authoritarian governments against democratic republics? Remember, North Korea calls themselves a Democratic Republic, names don’t mean a lot.

Do we have any historical context for a democratic republic with a communist economic system?

Here’s part of the Wikipedia definition of communism:

A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).

I’m unaware of a society like that.

A contract, as has already been mentioned, but be sure to address all terms. Are you selling him the clothes or is it a consignment situation? You then need to determine either the price, if a sale, or the split of proceeds if it is a consignment. What price are you authorizing him to sell them, $5 per, $25, $100? Can you request their return if he hasn’t sold them, and at what point? Who pays to ship the items each way? Risk of loss, during shipment there, during consignment, during possible return shipping?

It is essential to determine every possible outcome that you can imagine.

I just asked who has been barred from the ballot as a result. I’m aware of Republican candidates raising the issue in TX, only to be informed that it’s unconstitutional. To my knowledge, no one has ever been barred since that case. If you have different information please let me know.

If someone were barred, they would sue in federal district court and immediately receive an injunction. Federal courts cannot ignore precedent from SCOTUS.

The text is never going to be removed for sure because that takes action. But also no one is enforcing it either. I’d love to hear about anyone it’s been enforced against, if they exist.

You know, if they actually followed the moral teachings laid out in the Bible - the spirit, not the letter - I’d almost be okay with this.

Have you read the Bible? It’s pretty horrific all the way through. Any good is pretty well overshadowed. The spirit and the letter are awful.

Turn the other cheek, but also buy your slaves from the heathen that surround you and feel free to beat them with a rod as long as they don’t die immediately.

We have a law in Texas that an Atheist can’t hold office. Really stupid, but it would have to be challenged to get rid of it.

Just to be clear that’s unconstitutional. That law has no force or effect.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

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?