Teaching evolution in biology classes should be mandatory, with no chance to opt out

> No one should be forced to learn about biology. That was not the point. Every democratic first world country has laws that require kids to have a minimal education. Biology is included in it because kids need a basic understanding of it to be fit for eventual career in academia.
1 destekleyen
1 safsata bildirimi
Dayatma Safsatası

The death penalty is acceptable in some cases

The 1991 case I just gave you was a case were the government found him guilty and was known to be guilty by the government until he was brutally executed. That is with the exception of us maybe not being on par with how we define "was known to be guilty" which I am referring to as legally guilty.

The death penalty is acceptable in some cases

> You can conceive of a case where we *know* the person is guilty, so this argument is invalid. Many people who were *known* to be guilty were executed and were still later proven innocent by the US government. The latest case I found is as early as 1991!! One is already way too much.

Non-locality invalidates atheism.

I don't see why this would invalidate anything. As far as I can think, this argument seems nonsensical.
3 destekleyen

Creationism is a scientific doctrine

There are exactly zero "problems" with the cambrian explosion.
1 destekleyen

Transhumanism is evolution continuing by other means

penis
1 destekleyen
2 safsata bildirimi
Önyargılı Dil Safsatası

Astrology is not a science

That makes no sense. The comment above simply pointed out that the original claim of astrology (stars influence humans) has no evidence to back it up.
2 destekleyen

The rich will always get richer, and the poor poorer.

Yes the second one should have actually been OP's statement to have a better discussion.

Children should not be allowed to wear religious clothing.

Atheism is not a religion.
2 destekleyen

The rich will always get richer, and the poor poorer.

My opinion is that the original argument should have said: The rich generally get richer and the poor generally get poorer. Meaning that the gap is getting bigger. In this context, your premise would have been irrelevant. Sadly, OP kind of missed that opportunity.

Conservatives serve the entitled rich, not the public.

I fail to see how those are examples of exaggeration.

Conservatives serve the entitled rich, not the public.

And why would I have to exclude exaggerating? It is part of the definition.

Human Beings are not born owing a debt to society.

You seem to have problems with reading my premises. Civil rights are not human rights. They are separate, and can only be granted by the state. I am not even talking about human rights. Driving a car on a public road is not a human right.

The rich will always get richer, and the poor poorer.

Increase in overall life quality does not make wealth differences go away. You might have misunderstood me.

The rich will always get richer, and the poor poorer.

Quality of life /= Differences between wealth in a population. Your first premise is irrelevant for the original argument then.

Human Beings are not born owing a debt to society.

Like I said, civil rights are impossible to be granted without a state. For example, the right for a citizen to use the public road would be impossible without states. Because a) a drivers licenses are only given by the state and b) every public road in the whole world has been built by the state.

The rich will always get richer, and the poor poorer.

Could you elaborate?

The rich will always get richer, and the poor poorer.

Yes. OP should have at least said GENERALLY or something like that. Now every single response with an example will prove him wrong.
1 destekleyen

Human Beings are not born owing a debt to society.

I fail to see how my prior premise is wrong with your response. They are still granted by the state and agreed upon by humans.

Conservatives serve the entitled rich, not the public.

Reasonable fear-mongering is an oxymoron. It's called raising awareness. Definition: Fear mongering is the deliberate use of fear based tactics including exaggeration and continual repetition to alter the perception of the public in order to achieve a desired outcome.