Magical thinking.

[Anarchon]

I don't see it.

The way you troll, I couldn't care less.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The way you troll, I couldn't care less.

Okay.

Here we are with you claiming YOU can do what the brightest minds that have ever existed on the planet have been unable to do...and you are going to do it in an obscure, relatively minor-league Internet forum devoted to Politics.

I can understand why you want to limit the people arguing in opposition to that laughable thought.

Your comment "You might want to realize they came from common definitions. For example, one is that gods are supernatural entities"...is essentially a gratuitous assertion...not an axiom. For certain, "Gods are 'supernatural' entities"...is completely gratuitous...self-serving...and not an axiom.

But apparently you are unwilling to define what "natural" and "supernatural" mean...in an attempt to get away with it.

Okay...I enjoy humor as much as the next guy.

When you grow some balls and are willing to discuss this reasonable as I originally proposed...just let me know. Otherwise I'll just stick around and laugh at the amateurish attempts you are making here.

 

[jimmymccready]

In the early days there were both, you know, clearly distinguished. Serfs have very clear rights: they either work so many days a week for their feudal master or give him some part of the crop, and that, basically is IT. Yes, there were still theoretically slaves for a long time after we kicked out the Roman administration here (for instance) but the numbers were very small, because it was easy to escape and join the Germans or other barbarian gangs. The Normans, I gather, made it illegal in 1066.

Serfs could be severely punished for not turning the crops, for running away, for insubordination. The Normans may done that in England, but in great parts of Europe it continued.

 

[jimmymccready]

Anarchon knows which premise that cannot proves his point, yet insists he can, so he trolls along.

 

[iolo]

Serfs could be severely punished for not turning the crops, for running away, for insubordination. The Normans may done that in England, but in great parts of Europe it continued.

they weren't having any sort of fun, but they were better off than slaves is all I say.

 

[kudzu]

they weren't having any sort of fun, but they were better off than slaves is all I say.

I don't think so.. They could be turned out of their houses by the Lord of the Manor.

 

[iolo]

I don't think so.. They could be turned out of their houses by the Lord of the Manor.

So could 'free labourers' on farms until Labour stopped it, in the 1950's, I think. But I've never heard of it happening to serfs, actually. Any evidence?

 

[kudzu]

So could 'free labourers' on farms until Labour stopped it, in the 1950's, I think. But I've never heard of it happening to serfs, actually. Any evidence?

Same with coal miners.. If Dad and his sons were killed in an explosion all the survivors were turned out of company housing.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't think so.. They could be turned out of their houses by the Lord of the Manor.

its called eviction......still happens every day........

 

[Evmetro]

You have probably heard some atheist claim that believing in a Creator is magical thing.
So, what do atheists believe?
Atheists believe that NO ONE created EVERYTHING from NOTHING.
I don't know about you, but that seems pretty magical to me.

Either option requires faith.

 

[Grugore]

Either option requires faith.

There is evidence for a Creator. There is absolutely no evidence that the universe popped into existence on its own . The first requires faith. The second requires blind faith. Do you appreciate the difference?

 

[kudzu]

There is evidence for a Creator. There is absolutely no evidence that the universe popped into existence on its own . The first requires faith. The second requires blind faith. Do you appreciate the difference?

What is your evidence for a Creator? The Creation myth came out of Babylon.

 

[Ross Dolan]

There is evidence for a Creator.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR. There actually is no evidence that "what exists" is a creation. You call it a creation because you are determined to posit a "creator"...because of your blind guess that a god exists.

There is absolutely no evidence that the universe popped into existence on its own .

There is no evidence that "it did pop into existence." (The Big Bang covers just what we humans call the universe...which may not be all that exists) There is no evidence that it did not just pop into existence.

You are working with blind guesses on this.

Everything that exists...may always have existed.

The first requires faith.

"The first" requires a blind guess. So does the second. By the way, it is okay that you refer to your blind guesses as "faith." They are still blind guesses no matter what you call them.

The second requires blind faith.

The second requires a blind guess...just as the first does.

Do you appreciate the difference?

There is no difference except in your imagination.

 

[jimmymccready]

they weren't having any sort of fun, but they were better off than slaves is all I say.

Depends where. If you are saying American Negro chattel slavery was awful by comparison, yes; I believe it was than serfdom of the same era.

 

[Anarchon]

But apparently you are unwilling to define what "natural" and "supernatural" mean...in an attempt to get away with it.

I defined them specifically. When you find them, if you find them, will you apologize?

 

[Anarchon]

Anarchon knows which premise that cannot proves his point, yet insists he can, so he trolls along.

I see why you're unable to identify the faulty premise, you can't even speak English.

 

[jimmymccready]

I did identify it.

You know atheism is a faith belief, just like theism.

 

[Anarchon]

I did identify it.

No, you haven't. There were 4 premises in that proof. Pick one. Tell me what is wrong with it.

You know atheism is a faith belief, just like theism.

Not that you are correct, but this is a strawman. This has nothing to do with identifying which premise was faulty, nor even the issue at hand.

Also, I see that you're responding without quoting, in an effort to avoid notifying me of your responses. You're not being a coward now that someone has called you on your bullshit, are you?

 

[jimmymccready]

I did identify that your premise was false: you can't prove it. And, yes, atheism is a faith belief like theism.

 

[kudzu]

I did identify that your premise was false: you can't prove it. And, yes, atheism is a faith belief like theism.

Atheism isn't a faith.. Its the absence of belief in the supernatural.