The Left Loses Ground...

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No... .

So you are a dunderhead, too.

Am I?

How so?

"Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here?"

If you can't understood your thoughts and reasoning, how do you expect others to?

The reasoning is clear... its you who fails to understand it. Again, demonstrating a stark deficiency in the means to reason, thus presenting evidence of your sub-human nature.

Apparently your purpose is to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

Based upon what?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

Yeah, but your logic behind this assumption is rather anemic. You use the 'first mover' argument. Where the 'first mover' must be god.

Well I hear ya...

And all you need to do to discredit the nation is to produce an example of an action in nature which you can show to have occurred as a result of no 'mover'.

Best of luck...

(Reader, the reasoning Skylar advances is a long ago refuted premise... as there is no theory which can show a effect: Existence, that is not the result of a cause. Even the ethereal Leftist mystery regarding the conception of human life, actually begins at the beginning; being the simple effect of a well established cause.

Remember, if it is a Leftist notion, it is idiocy, being advanced by an idiot.)

 

[Skylar]

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

Yeah, but your logic behind this assumption is rather anemic. You use the 'first mover' argument. Where the 'first mover' must be god.

Well I hear ya...

And all you need to do to discredit the nation is to produce an example of an action in nature which you can show to have occurred as a result of no 'mover'.

I need 'discredit' nothing. Its you that has to factually establish that 'nature is god'. And you can't. All you can do is share your personal opinion on the matter. Which establishes nothing objectively.

Even logically, your claims are unsupported. As your lone 'logical' justification is your 'first mover' argument. Which doesn't even establish intentionality, sentience, or current existence of a 'first mover'. So even logically you're SOL.

And as for observations of nature......you cherry pick. Anything in nature that you don't like, you omit from your conception of 'natural law'. Take.....the predation of the sick, old, or very young. It happens all the time in nature. So is predation of the old and sick 'natural law'?

You always omit it. Which demonstrates that nature isn't your guide. You are your guide. As anything that doesn't match what you already believe is simply ignored. Including nature. Leaving you with your personal opinion and the same tired 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy that you always argue.

 

[Skylar]

So you are a dunderhead, too.

Am I?

How so?

"Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here?"

If you can't understood your thoughts and reasoning, how do you expect others to?

The reasoning is clear... its you who fails to understand it. Again, demonstrating a stark deficiency in the means to reason, thus presenting evidence of your sub-human nature.

Apparently your purpose is to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

Based upon what?

Your frequent, often pointless use of the phrase 'sub-human'. You go to extravagantly awkward lengths to call people that, often basing entire posts on the premise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Am I?

How so?

"Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here?"

If you can't understood your thoughts and reasoning, how do you expect others to?

The reasoning is clear... its you who fails to understand it. Again, demonstrating a stark deficiency in the means to reason, thus presenting evidence of your sub-human nature.

Apparently your purpose is to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

Based upon what?

Your frequent, often pointless use of the phrase 'sub-human'. You go to extravagantly awkward lengths to call people that, often basing entire posts on the premise.

I have never 'called' anyone sub-human. Although I have noted the characteristics that separate humanity from the sub-species... Pointing to the similar absence of those traits in certain individuals therein noting the sub-human nature of those individuals

 

[NYcarbineer]

So is freedom FROM religion.

Nope... That is literally NOT in the Constitution.

But ... Just to be cruel, you're invited to cite the specific section wherein you 'feel' the freedom from Religion is expressed IN the USC.

(Reader you'll find that this would-be 'contributor' is unable to demonstrate any validity of its claim. And the reality that it's claim is false... will in no way alter its feeling that what is not true... Is true.)

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Site anything I've ever said wherein I am seeking to impose my religion upon anyone.

Your mental disorder simply provides for you to be incapable of understanding that the United States is founded upon those things that are certain; which is to say self-evident truths... which you need to claim to be 'religious'. You then need to further claim that the U.S. Constitution precludes the means of individuals to convey those religious beliefs through law.

You do this because your mental disorder is a perversion of human reasoning. This perversion is widely known throughout human history as "evil".

So Gilligan, while such is not an epiphany, per se... it is good information nonetheless.

Are you stating for the record that you do not believe God's law should be supreme?

Do so to confirm that.

Would you care to offer evidence of any law which stands superior to the laws of nature?

I'm open to consider whatever evidence you have to offer.

(Reader, ... yes... Gilligan has just refuted its own would-be 'point'.

LOL! It can't help itself to do otherwise.)

You're lying. You're lying based on your own measure of what lying is. You said lying is claiming as truth something you cannot know to be true.

You cannot know God's view on what the nature of the governments of Men should be, therefore you are lying if you assert that any particular form of government is the right one in the eyes of God.

I actually can know God's view. And I absolutely DO know God's view.

Where did you get the idea that God's view was 'unknowable Gilligan?

What is God's view of you?

An expression of himself... The same as any parent views their children.

Are you actually trying to say that you do not instinctively understand that?

For that to be true, you would be claiming yourself as God-less... or a being absent kinship with God, thus lacking the elements essential to claim the status of humanity; lacking the trait that separates humanity from the lower species. I hope for your own sake that is not true.

Please tell me it was a rhetorical exercise...

God is an invention of Man, and, even if a supernatural being or beings that fit the definition of gods exist,

gods are still the inventions of men because man has no evidence of gods.

So Man invented Nature?

Well... LOL! Thank you for sharing that Gilligan.

Now go home... you're drunk.

So you're actually an atheist? You believe that God is only a name for the Earth as we know it?

lol. okay...

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, but which government?

Government... OKA: Governing bodies comprised of human beings... whose flaws are inherently amplified by the power that such provides, over other human beings.

Yeah, but not all governments act the same, nor have the same protections of rights, freedoms, etc. Not all of the same power structure, basis, or extent. And depending on which government you're speaking of (and when), there will be a wildly different outcomes in relation to rights for those living under it.

Yet you're lumping them all together as if the results of any are identical. They're not. You'll need to get more specific for your claims to have any relevance.

And FWIW, I am not lumping anything together, I am speaking to the concept of governance itself... which by the nature of such, axiomatically clumps the elements of its composition.

Oh, sure you are.

Government was ruining Euro-Peon lives for hundreds of years throughout Europe, before people found a place to flee from such, which is when they came here... and summarily began to ruin lives here, through government.

That's most definitely lumping it all together. And governments come in a variety of flavors and extents. You lump them all together, assume identical outcome.

History contradicts you.

Legitimate in comparison to what?

Illegitimacy.

Illegitimacy according to who?

See, this is where you offer us your subjective opinion with a label attached to it....and then declare it 'objective'.

I don't think 'objective' means what you think it means.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

So you're rejecting the notion of a soul. A supernatural being. A Creator.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So is freedom FROM religion.

Nope... That is literally NOT in the Constitution.

But ... Just to be cruel, you're invited to cite the specific section wherein you 'feel' the freedom from Religion is expressed IN the USC.

(Reader you'll find that this would-be 'contributor' is unable to demonstrate any validity of its claim. And the reality that it's claim is false... will in no way alter its feeling that what is not true... Is true.)

Cite anything in the Constitution that allows you to impose your religion on others.

Site anything I've ever said wherein I am seeking to impose my religion upon anyone.

Your mental disorder simply provides for you to be incapable of understanding that the United States is founded upon those things that are certain; which is to say self-evident truths... which you need to claim to be 'religious'. You then need to further claim that the U.S. Constitution precludes the means of individuals to convey those religious beliefs through law.

You do this because your mental disorder is a perversion of human reasoning. This perversion is widely known throughout human history as "evil".

So Gilligan, while such is not an epiphany, per se... it is good information nonetheless.

Are you stating for the record that you do not believe God's law should be supreme?

Do so to confirm that.

Would you care to offer evidence of any law which stands superior to the laws of nature?

I'm open to consider whatever evidence you have to offer.

(Reader, ... yes... Gilligan has just refuted its own would-be 'point'.

LOL! It can't help itself to do otherwise.)

A law that limits a man to one wife is a law that trumps the law of nature.

Nature allows for polygamous human males, in fact, nature would encourage it as a component of survival of the fittest. The strongest, smartest human males should reproduce the most, by nature's laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Chimpanzees possess a certain amount of ability to reason.

LOL! Well... uh... thank you for sharing that Gilligan.

It is a WONDERFUL demonstration of the limitations relevant to you, and your on-going struggle with your own means to reason ... soundly.

(Reader... Shhhh ... don't upset it, it has no means to understand as it's means to reason does not rise to even that low threshold.)

Do you dispute it?

 

[Skylar]

"Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here?"

If you can't understood your thoughts and reasoning, how do you expect others to?

The reasoning is clear... its you who fails to understand it. Again, demonstrating a stark deficiency in the means to reason, thus presenting evidence of your sub-human nature.

Apparently your purpose is to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

Based upon what?

Your frequent, often pointless use of the phrase 'sub-human'. You go to extravagantly awkward lengths to call people that, often basing entire posts on the premise.

I have never 'called' anyone sub-human. Although I have noted the characteristics that separate humanity from the sub-species... Pointing to the similar absent of those traits in certain individuals

Which is why I've attributed your purpose in posting here to be to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

 

[Skylar]

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

So you're rejecting the notion of a soul. A supernatural being. A Creator.

In this thread perhaps. But Keys has already spilled the beans on his actual conception of god.

But God came to earth in the form of a human being whose name was Jesus. He lived a sinless life, saved many lives curing physical maladies and contested the power in his region, and he did so knowing that they would torture him, over several days and nail him to the cross to die a slow and agonizing death and he did so to spare you the eternal damnation you otherwise so richly deserve.

You need only ask him to save you from that, turn from your life of ignorance and pursuit of self fulfillment and praise him as your lord and savior and you will be spared.

The Existence of God Almighty Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which, of course, isn't supported by any of the 'logic' he's offering here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here?"

If you can't understood your thoughts and reasoning, how do you expect others to?

The reasoning is clear... its you who fails to understand it. Again, demonstrating a stark deficiency in the means to reason, thus presenting evidence of your sub-human nature.

Apparently your purpose is to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

Based upon what?

Your frequent, often pointless use of the phrase 'sub-human'. You go to extravagantly awkward lengths to call people that, often basing entire posts on the premise.

I have never 'called' anyone sub-human. Although I have noted the characteristics that separate humanity from the sub-species... Pointing to the similar absence of those traits in certain individuals therein noting the sub-human nature of those individuals

Do you then saying this?

"It's a very serious thing, despite the habit of very foolish sub-humans called Leftists, or 'humanists' who like to make light of that very simple principle, much as they made light of the sound actuarial lending principles which they recently disregarded, managing to crash the international financial markets."

Go ahead. Deny it. Then I'll post all the times you've called people sub-human...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I need 'discredit' nothing.

Oh... Then the self-evident truth remains standing due to nothing having been presented in opposition. And with that: your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(See how easy this is Reader?)

 

[NYcarbineer]

The laws of nature have nothing to do with God

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

So you're rejecting the notion of a soul. A supernatural being. A Creator.

In this thread perhaps. But Keys has already spilled the beans on his actual conception of god.

But God came to earth in the form of a human being whose name was Jesus. He lived a sinless life, saved many lives curing physical maladies and contested the power in his region, and he did so knowing that they would torture him, over several days and nail him to the cross to die a slow and agonizing death and he did so to spare you the eternal damnation you otherwise so richly deserve.

You need only ask him to save you from that, turn from your life of ignorance and pursuit of self fulfillment and praise him as your lord and savior and you will be spared.

The Existence of God Almighty Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which, of course, isn't supported by any of the 'logic' he's offering here.

lol, he got caught trying to deny that supernatural being such as the Christian God cannot be shown to exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I need 'discredit' nothing.

Oh... Then the self-evident truth remains standing due to nothing having been presented in opposition. And with that: your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(See how easy this is Reader?)

You obviously don't know the meaning of self-evident OR concession.

 

[Skylar]

I need 'discredit' nothing.

Oh... Then the self-evident truth remains standing due to nothing having been presented in opposition. And with that: your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(See how easy this is Reader?)

All you're doing is labeling your personal opinion again. This time calling it 'Self Evident truth'. But its still just your subjective opinion.

See how that works?

You labeling your subjective opinon doesn't magically make it objective. Your argument runs into the same brick wall it always does.

 

[Skylar]

Nature IS God, Gilligan. No Nature, No God... No God, No Nature....

What God is that?

Nature, Gilligan. There's only one.

LOL! Or would you like to offer evidence of some other nature, that you're 'aware' of?

(Reader... LOL! I know, right ?)

So you're rejecting the notion of a soul. A supernatural being. A Creator.

In this thread perhaps. But Keys has already spilled the beans on his actual conception of god.

But God came to earth in the form of a human being whose name was Jesus. He lived a sinless life, saved many lives curing physical maladies and contested the power in his region, and he did so knowing that they would torture him, over several days and nail him to the cross to die a slow and agonizing death and he did so to spare you the eternal damnation you otherwise so richly deserve.

You need only ask him to save you from that, turn from your life of ignorance and pursuit of self fulfillment and praise him as your lord and savior and you will be spared.

The Existence of God Almighty Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which, of course, isn't supported by any of the 'logic' he's offering here.

lol, he got caught trying to deny that supernatural being such as the Christian God cannot be shown to exist.

I just like to keep that little quote in my pocket when Keys tries to reframe his argument regarding god.

 

[Lilah]

So you are a dunderhead, too.

Am I?

How so?

"Well, you misrepresent me... as if I were such a person, why would I be here?"

If you can't understood your thoughts and reasoning, how do you expect others to?

The reasoning is clear... its you who fails to understand it. Again, demonstrating a stark deficiency in the means to reason, thus presenting evidence of your sub-human nature.

Apparently your purpose is to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

Based upon what?

Guess.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The reasoning is clear... its you who fails to understand it. Again, demonstrating a stark deficiency in the means to reason, thus presenting evidence of your sub-human nature.

Apparently your purpose is to type the phrase 'sub-human' as often as possible.

Based upon what?

Your frequent, often pointless use of the phrase 'sub-human'. You go to extravagantly awkward lengths to call people that, often basing entire posts on the premise.

I have never 'called' anyone sub-human. Although I have noted the characteristics that separate humanity from the sub-species... Pointing to the similar absence of those traits in certain individuals therein noting the sub-human nature of those individuals

Do you then saying this?

"It's a very serious thing, despite the habit of very foolish sub-humans called Leftists, or 'humanists' who like to make light of that very simple principle, much as they made light of the sound actuarial lending principles which they recently disregarded, managing to crash the international financial markets."

Go ahead. Deny it. Then I'll post all the times you've called people sub-human...

That was me noting the absence of the traits that define humanity and noting that adherents to Left-think lack those traits.

(Reader note how eager they are to change the subject...)