Well, that's liberal speak for you.
In reality, conservatives are about big government controlling social behavior
liberals are about big government controlling fiscal behavior. Take the emotional baggage out of it, if you please. Both sides are about 'helping people.' Just in their own way...
Not really. The biggest difference isn't about whether big government is wanted. It's about where it's wanted. It used to be that the conservatives would advocate for regulation of private lives...like marriage and child birth and the way people behave, but stay away from business and finance...
I musta missed that one.
In all honesty, all I have ever run into is someone claiming 'Godidit" for some reason completely unrelated to anybody else's lack of belief.
When they run into that lack of belief, the believer's response is usually some form of "see?' you can't prove me wrong, so I'm...
I'll have to take your word for that one. I've never met anybody who makes that claim. I've met people whose words might be taken that way...
As in, the non-believer says 'we don't know how this happened, and therefore nobody can have an opinion or any reason to believe that a Creator God is...
Oh, well, me too. Science can go find the 'hows' and 'whats' all it wants to. I happen to believe that's one of the reasons we are HERE, to learn to think and to figure out this stuff.
Science cannot, and should not, be answering the 'why,' ...
And religion should stay out of the 'how.'
I agree.
She doesn't.
The problem I had wasn't with the idea that she claimed she knew. It was why she claimed she knew, and that this reason was the equivalent of a theist claiming that s/he KNOWS God exists BECAUSE nonbelievers do not know that He does.
Ok, that was convoluted but I hope...
You should. There is a huge difference.
A more likely scenario would be : mrs Second says 'I know this guy and he is thus and so because of this or that, and the fact that Mr. First says he doesn't know just proves I'm right."
But that's different.
In the first instance, you are claiming that Ms. Second claims that she knows BECAUSE Mr. First did not.
As far as I am aware, theists in general do not base their belief in someone else's non-belief. (I certainly don't.)
I come up against the opposite, more often than...
No.
She has given them enough evidence to ask Mr Spuds where he was, and to ask Ms. second what she has against Mr. Spuds, but the logic doesn't follow.
Any belief which does not harm another....and by 'harm' I mean physical harm to someone who doesn't knowingly volunteer for it, needs relegating/denouncing.
So....the guy whose beliefs cause him to physically block access to the events of another, such as intentionally playing loud music for...
Wow. That's an interesting question. Are you positing the questions for a Master's theisis or a doctoral dissertation?
What hypothesis are you going to come up with? 'cause frankly, I'd REALLY like to read it.