Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended ... ?

[Mudda]

I'm saying that you have NO PROOF that it exists.

And you have NO PROOF it DOESN'T exist... now what?

I agree, there's no proof either way, that's why I'm agnostic. But you can't claim something exists on the sole fact that it can't be disproven, that's absurd.

You can claim something is possible until it's disproved. Now, get busy disproving God, dipshit!

Being possible and being real are two different things. Now go back to your legos.

No... Not at all. Such that is not possible, has no means of being 'real'.

For instance, the notion that objective human rights can exist in the absence of God... is not possible, therefore is not real.

At best under such conditions... the best that could ever be expected, are 'subjective temporal privileges', which are subject to being withdrawn at any given time, without notice or concern for the consequences to those who formerly enjoyed such.

See how that works?

Human rights can't exist without God?
You're an idiot. Please move along.

 

[Boss]

Ah... so you're working on the premise that your senses are capable of sensing all that exist in the universe?

Interesting... . Will you snap a photo of the next quark that passes through you?

If that's not possible, please snap a recording of what gravity sound like... .

Can't do that, then offer me an explanation for the consequences, wherein an individual chooses to satisfy their every immediate whim, only to find that their life is unsatisfying?

You can't see, taste, hear or touch ANY of those realities... yet each are an immutable fact of nature.

So tell me now about why it is that these invisible realities exist, and you're
here demanding that if something is beyond the scope of human senses, that it cannot exist?

I'm saying that you have NO PROOF that it exists.

You have no proof that YOU exist, moron.

So you're of the position that these posts are being posted by a non-existent being? Bravo! You're an idiot!

No, I simply said that you cannot "PROVE" you exist. This has nothing to do with what I believe or whether you actually exist or not.

You're an idiot. Please move along.

No, I don't think I will, punk. YOU move along.

 

[Boss]

Human rights can't exist without God?

No. Move along, punk.

 

[LOki]

I'm saying that you have NO PROOF that it exists.

And you have NO PROOF it DOESN'T exist... now what?

I agree, there's no proof either way, that's why I'm agnostic. But you can't claim something exists on the sole fact that it can't be disproven, that's absurd.

You can claim something is possible until it's disproved. Now, get busy disproving God, dipshit!

Dipshit.

Hey... take your little website's own advice and stop trying to claim Science disproves God.

"Science disproves God."

Possibility exists until you can rule out all possibility. If you want to prove there is no God, that's what you have to do.

"If you want to prove there is no God, that's what you have to do."

Otherwise, you are expressing an opinion based on faith. A faith-based opinion is fine, but we're going to be honest about what it is.

Faith is not uncertainty.

 

[LOki]

Everything changes over time, it's a fact of nature. Now you know.

No... everything does not change over time. And if you had the slightest understanding of time... you'd understand why that is.

So what doesn't change over time? The bible? Nope, changed many, many times. The constitution? Nope, changed 27 times. So what doesn't change, well, aside from your underwear.

Yes, the thermodynamic laws of entropy apply to everything in the universe... (except for life if you believe the theories of idiots like Mudda.) You see, in his retarded way of thinking, while everything in our universe follows entropy (declines and decays over time) the emergence of life did just the opposite. But you see, this 1859 theory isn't "magic" because Mudda has slapped a Science label on it and pretends otherwise.

"magic"

 

[LOki]

I'm saying that you have NO PROOF that it exists.

And you have NO PROOF it DOESN'T exist... now what?

I agree, there's no proof either way, that's why I'm agnostic. But you can't claim something exists on the sole fact that it can't be disproven, that's absurd.

You can claim something is possible until it's disproved. Now, get busy disproving God, dipshit!

Being possible and being real are two different things. Now go back to your legos.

No... Not at all. Such that is not possible, has no means of being 'real'.

For instance, the notion that objective human rights can exist in the absence of God... is not possible, therefore is not real.

At best under such conditions... the best that could ever be expected, are 'subjective temporal privileges', which are subject to being withdrawn at any given time, without notice or concern for the consequences to those who formerly enjoyed such.

See how that works?

Wrong. Again. Still.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wrong. Again. Still.

Your most recent concession to the same standing point(s), is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[LOki]

Wrong. Again. Still.

Your most recent concession to the same standing point(s), is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Wrong. Again. Still.

 

[Boss]

And you have NO PROOF it DOESN'T exist... now what?

I agree, there's no proof either way, that's why I'm agnostic. But you can't claim something exists on the sole fact that it can't be disproven, that's absurd.

You can claim something is possible until it's disproved. Now, get busy disproving God, dipshit!

Dipshit.

Hey... take your little website's own advice and stop trying to claim Science disproves God.

"Science disproves God."

Possibility exists until you can rule out all possibility. If you want to prove there is no God, that's what you have to do.

"If you want to prove there is no God, that's what you have to do."

Otherwise, you are expressing an opinion based on faith. A faith-based opinion is fine, but we're going to be honest about what it is.

Faith is not uncertainty.

Linking to an activist atheist website isn't proof. Sorry.

The "burden of proof" works both ways, whether trying to prove there is a god or trying to prove there isn't a god. You cannot say "God does not exist until proven to exist." That is a faith-based conclusion and one that, ironically, contradicts the scientific method. You can say, the possibility of God exists until you've eliminated all possibility.... which you can never do.

 

[Mudda]

Human rights can't exist without God?

No. Move along, punk.

So Atheists can't have or be for human rights? You realize how dumb what you just said is, don't you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

magic"

The Reader will need to determine if they feel that the laws of thermodynamics is a function of magic, or not.

You simply need to understand that if you believe that the laws of nature are magic, you're an imbecile.

 

[LOki]

I agree, there's no proof either way, that's why I'm agnostic. But you can't claim something exists on the sole fact that it can't be disproven, that's absurd.

You can claim something is possible until it's disproved. Now, get busy disproving God, dipshit!

Dipshit.

Hey... take your little website's own advice and stop trying to claim Science disproves God.

"Science disproves God."

Possibility exists until you can rule out all possibility. If you want to prove there is no God, that's what you have to do.

"If you want to prove there is no God, that's what you have to do."

Otherwise, you are expressing an opinion based on faith. A faith-based opinion is fine, but we're going to be honest about what it is.

Faith is not uncertainty.

Linking to an activist atheist website isn't proof. Sorry.

The "burden of proof" works both ways, whether trying to prove there is a god or trying to prove there isn't a god. You cannot say "God does not exist until proven to exist." That is a faith-based conclusion and one that, ironically, contradicts the scientific method. You can say, the possibility of God exists until you've eliminated all possibility.... which you can never do.

"Linking to an activist atheist website isn't proof. Sorry."
(Also, explaining logical fallacies = "activist atheist." How self-indicting can you get? LOL!)

"You cannot say "God does not exist until proven to exist.""

"You can say, the possibility of God exists until you've eliminated all possibility.... which you can never do."

 

[LOki]

magic"

The Reader will need to determine if they feel that the laws of thermodynamics is a function of magic, or not.

You simply need to understand that if you believe that the laws of nature are magic, you're an imbecile.

HAHAHA! ROFLMNAO! THANK YOU!

Maybe you should aquaint yourself with the laws of thermodynamics before you come to the aid of a superstitious retard who is ENTIRELY ignorant of the laws of nature.

Oh! My bad! YOU'RE one of those superstitious retards! ROFLMNAO!

 

[Boss]

Human rights can't exist without God?

No. Move along, punk.

So Atheists can't have or be for human rights? You realize how dumb what you just said is, don't you?

Not dumb at all, it's the truth. There is no basis for any human right without God. Morality becomes subjective in the absence of accountability to a higher authority. The human mind can always find a way to justify and rationalize his own self-indulgent behavior.

If your viewpoint were true, we wouldn't need for police departments to have internal affairs departments. We could assume that every police officer was committed to uphold the law because they are police officers. There is no need for any oversight, they are fully capable of being good cops and following the rules. Of course, I am sure you can see where this would fail sooner or later. Without an authority to hold them accountable, there is nothing to prevent them from becoming unaccountable.

Human rights and morality are the same way. I'm betting you would find an issue of "human rights" with the detention of persons at Gitmo... or two homos at the alter,.... at the same time, you find no issue with 50-million unborn babies being sucked down a tube for convenience and vanity. These things you call "human rights" become whatever you make them into or out of... because you have no God.

 

[Mudda]

Human rights can't exist without God?

No. Move along, punk.

So Atheists can't have or be for human rights? You realize how dumb what you just said is, don't you?

Not dumb at all, it's the truth. There is no basis for any human right without God. Morality becomes subjective in the absence of accountability to a higher authority. The human mind can always find a way to justify and rationalize his own self-indulgent behavior.

If your viewpoint were true, we wouldn't need for police departments to have internal affairs departments. We could assume that every police officer was committed to uphold the law because they are police officers. There is no need for any oversight, they are fully capable of being good cops and following the rules. Of course, I am sure you can see where this would fail sooner or later. Without an authority to hold them accountable, there is nothing to prevent them from becoming unaccountable.

Human rights and morality are the same way. I'm betting you would find an issue of "human rights" with the detention of persons at Gitmo... or two homos at the alter,.... at the same time, you find no issue with 50-million unborn babies being sucked down a tube for convenience and vanity. These things you call "human rights" become whatever you make them into or out of... because you have no God.

God, if it exists, is the first aborter, he makes stillborn babies and deformed babies that can't live outside the womb. Man is just taking after God. Plus, you can't prove a God exists.

 

[LOki]

Human rights can't exist without God?

No. Move along, punk.

So Atheists can't have or be for human rights? You realize how dumb what you just said is, don't you?

Not dumb at all, it's the truth. There is no basis for any human right without God.

Since this God of yours is entirely superstition, it necessarily follows that there is no basis for any human right.

Not surprising considering the human rights record of the superstitious.

Morality becomes subjective in the absence of accountability to a higher authority.

Accountability to the chief leprechaun of some fatous superstition still results in "subjective" morality.

The human mind can always find a way to justify and rationalize his own self-indulgent behavior.

Historically, that's been the "WILL OF GOD."

If your viewpoint were true, we wouldn't need for police departments to have internal affairs departments.

Nonsense.

According to YOUR view point, we wouldn't need for police departments to have internal affairs departments... the Police are accountable to your God.

Come to think of it, according to your viewpoint, we don't need police either.

We could assume that every police officer was committed to uphold the law because they are police officers.

Certainly true if your God held them accountable.

There is no need for any oversight, they are fully capable of being good cops and following the rules.

Well, we all know who's making a list and checking it twice...

What am I talking about?!?! God has no need of lists.... He certainly doesn't need to check it even once!

Of course, I am sure you can see where this would fail sooner or later.

Only if the authority the police were accountable to was a superstition.

Without an authority to hold them accountable, there is nothing to prevent them from becoming unaccountable.

Well, the chief leprechaun of some fatous superstition suely won't hold them accountable for anything.

Human rights and morality are the same way.

Well, that explains the behavior of the superstitious. And authoritarian statists.

For the rest of us, rights are based upon the rational principle of applying valid logic to the verifiable facts of reality.

I'm betting you would find an issue of "human rights" with the detention of persons at Gitmo... or two homos at the alter,.... at the same time, you find no issue with 50-million unborn babies being sucked down a tube for convenience and vanity. These things you call "human rights" become whatever you make them into or out of... because you have no God.

Or, because it's all God's will.

"Prove" it's not.

 

[Boss]

Since this God of yours is entirely superstition, it necessarily follows that there is no basis for any human right.

Without God, there isn't.

We observe this in nature every day. Animals in the wild do not have respect for rights among each other. Their "morality" is based around survival of the fittest. And such would be the case in humans if not for spiritual enlightenment and our blessing of grace as humanity.

You say God is superstition but again, this is an opinion you can't prove. Now... we can't have an intellectual conversation if you are allowed to establish your opinions as facts but I'm not allowed to do the same. I can't prove God and you can't prove NO God. So any claims of God being superstition are your opinions and not facts. It is not any different than me proclaiming you are wrong because the Bible says you are.

 

[Boss]

God, if it exists, is the first aborter, he makes stillborn babies and deformed babies that can't live outside the womb. Man is just taking after God. Plus, you can't prove a God exists.

I don't need to prove a God exists. In order for you to prove a God doesn't exist, you need to eliminate any and all possibility any god can exist... you can't do that. This is good enough for me. I have my faith and know what I believe.

 

[2aguy]

Human rights can't exist without God?

No. Move along, punk.

So Atheists can't have or be for human rights? You realize how dumb what you just said is, don't you?

Not dumb at all, it's the truth. There is no basis for any human right without God.

Since this God of yours is entirely superstition, it necessarily follows that there is no basis for any human right.

Not surprising considering the human rights record of the superstitious.

Morality becomes subjective in the absence of accountability to a higher authority.

Accountability to the chief leprechaun of some fatous superstition still results in "subjective" morality.

The human mind can always find a way to justify and rationalize his own self-indulgent behavior.

Historically, that's been the "WILL OF GOD."

If your viewpoint were true, we wouldn't need for police departments to have internal affairs departments.

Nonsense.

According to YOUR view point, we wouldn't need for police departments to have internal affairs departments... the Police are accountable to your God.

Come to think of it, according to your viewpoint, we don't need police either.

We could assume that every police officer was committed to uphold the law because they are police officers.

Certainly true if your God held them accountable.

There is no need for any oversight, they are fully capable of being good cops and following the rules.

Well, we all know who's making a list and checking it twice...

What am I talking about?!?! God has no need of lists.... He certainly doesn't need to check it even once!

Of course, I am sure you can see where this would fail sooner or later.

Only if the authority the police were accountable to was a superstition.

Without an authority to hold them accountable, there is nothing to prevent them from becoming unaccountable.

Well, the chief leprechaun of some fatous superstition suely won't hold them accountable for anything.

Human rights and morality are the same way.

Well, that explains the behavior of the superstitious. And authoritarian statists.

For the rest of us, rights are based upon the rational principle of applying valid logic to the verifiable facts of reality.

I'm betting you would find an issue of "human rights" with the detention of persons at Gitmo... or two homos at the alter,.... at the same time, you find no issue with 50-million unborn babies being sucked down a tube for convenience and vanity. These things you call "human rights" become whatever you make them into or out of... because you have no God.

Or, because it's all God's will.

"Prove" it's not.

the human rights record of atheists is far worse.....the Christian .religion, when embraced brings civilization....

 

[2aguy]

Human rights can't exist without God?

No. Move along, punk.

So Atheists can't have or be for human rights? You realize how dumb what you just said is, don't you?

Not dumb at all, it's the truth. There is no basis for any human right without God.

Since this God of yours is entirely superstition, it necessarily follows that there is no basis for any human right.

Not surprising considering the human rights record of the superstitious.

Morality becomes subjective in the absence of accountability to a higher authority.

Accountability to the chief leprechaun of some fatous superstition still results in "subjective" morality.

The human mind can always find a way to justify and rationalize his own self-indulgent behavior.

Historically, that's been the "WILL OF GOD."

If your viewpoint were true, we wouldn't need for police departments to have internal affairs departments.

Nonsense.

According to YOUR view point, we wouldn't need for police departments to have internal affairs departments... the Police are accountable to your God.

Come to think of it, according to your viewpoint, we don't need police either.

We could assume that every police officer was committed to uphold the law because they are police officers.

Certainly true if your God held them accountable.

There is no need for any oversight, they are fully capable of being good cops and following the rules.

Well, we all know who's making a list and checking it twice...

What am I talking about?!?! God has no need of lists.... He certainly doesn't need to check it even once!

Of course, I am sure you can see where this would fail sooner or later.

Only if the authority the police were accountable to was a superstition.

Without an authority to hold them accountable, there is nothing to prevent them from becoming unaccountable.

Well, the chief leprechaun of some fatous superstition suely won't hold them accountable for anything.

Human rights and morality are the same way.

Well, that explains the behavior of the superstitious. And authoritarian statists.

For the rest of us, rights are based upon the rational principle of applying valid logic to the verifiable facts of reality.

I'm betting you would find an issue of "human rights" with the detention of persons at Gitmo... or two homos at the alter,.... at the same time, you find no issue with 50-million unborn babies being sucked down a tube for convenience and vanity. These things you call "human rights" become whatever you make them into or out of... because you have no God.

Or, because it's all God's will.

"Prove" it's not.

so hitler was simply using a rational principal of applying his valid logic to his problem with Jewish people? dittos mao and Stalin and how they dealt with those who opposed them...mass murder made complete sense and logic to them.....