Is There a Right to Life?

rightlife350Regardless of what it says in the Constitution, I don’t think there’s any demonstrable right for people to live and quite a bit of evidence that no such right exists.  As can be expected, this comes from a discussion with a rabid libertarian and their absurd natural rights nonsense.

People die.  Where is the right to life?  We execute criminals.  Where is the right to life?  People are murdered every day.  Where is the right to life?

I’ve made my thought clear in the past that rights are wholly human-invented and that we can change our minds pretty much any time we like.  We’ve done it plenty of times in the past.  There was a time in American history where blacks had few, if any, rights.  Then we had a war and suddenly, blacks had rights!  Amazing!  There was a time in American history when women had few, if any rights.  Then society decided that they should and passed the 19th Amendment.  Fantastic!  Of course, the libertarians would argue that they always had rights, we just didn’t recognize them, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

The image at the top of the page comes from a Christian t-shirt maker but I think it fits in quite nicely. Can someone please explain to me where this supposed “right to life” is self-evident?  How about inalienable?  I’ve already shown how it can be removed (alienable), thus the second is plainly incorrect. At best, believers can argue that they do not want it to be alienable, but wishes have no bearing whatsoever on reality.  I’m not going to go into the absurd fantasies that the religious go through to justify a supernatural cause for such things except to say that they have to actually prove that such a deity actually exists and actually wants those rights to exist and until they can, I’m not going to take their word for it.

Of course, we as a society can grant a right to life, after all, society is where rights actually come from, but we also get to decide the extent and limitations of any rights we want to grant.  We could, as a social unit, decide that life is the most important thing of all and follow more of a Jainist path.  We could decide, as a social unit, that life is only important for humans and nothing else counts, in fact, that’s mostly what we do in the western world.

There might be flowery language in a document that was written 250 years ago but that doesn’t necessarily mean that said document accurately describes the rights that we allow in the modern world.  Almost certainly, society has changed over the centuries and our views today do not necessarily reflect what our founding fathers might have wished for.

What this all comes down to is telling the difference between someone’s belief that things ought to be a certain way and their claims that things actually are a certain way.  I can appreciate people wishing for change, I’m down with that, but not when one’s only argument for change is that things are actually already different, so there. Let’s deal with things on a rational level instead of pretending that magically, some things are true because we wish that they were.

It’s not necessarily true.

564 thoughts on “Is There a Right to Life?

  1. Good observation, from a point of few I hadn't thought of. I slightly disagree, but my disagreement actually makes me agree with you. The Constitution doesn't say we have a right to life. The Constitution says we have a right to life only until due process is satisfied, then the government can kill us, thus some of us have no real right to life, as you say. We have at least a legal right to protect our own life, but we also have a legal right to take a life in certain circumstances in self-defense to save our own life or even just to prevent "serious bodily injury."

    1. We have whatever rights that our society defines for us to have. Beyond that, there is no right to anything. Rights come from people, not from some imaginary friend in the sky or nature or anything else. If society decided tomorrow that nobody has any right to life or liberty or the pursuit of happiness or whatever else, those rights would cease to exist. People need to understand the actual reality of the world around them and realize that it might not make them happy but it is what it is.

      Rights are one of the least understood ideas out there.

      1. You hit it spot on.
        "Rights come from people, not from some imaginary friend in the sky or nature or anything else"

        1. The founding fathers felt differently.

          And they based this country on their opinions that rights don't come from people but from a higher more intrinsic source.

          1. I understand you don't want to believe in any religion.
            But the founders did, and they came from a Christian kingdom.

            There was no dispute or even discussion about the meaning of the term when they used it. There are all sorts of federalist papers and letters arguing everything else, but not that.

          2. The Founders were diests. That is an established fact that can't be denied. They broke away from a christian kingdom to get away from religion and start a new country.

            They used "creator" so it could left open to a persons beliefs system. OItherwise they would have been more specfic like saying saying "god"

          3. Yes and deists from a Christian Kingdom that didn't seem to have any difficulty all agreeing on the heritage and it's definition of Creator.

            The word wasn't confusing for them.
            And that still shouldn't shift focus from the topic of the discussion.

            If we are all animals and haven't evolved then life is an accident. But as a civilization we have 'human rights'. The term implies there is no right for one life to rob another of it's life.

          4. We do have "human rights" given to us by other humans.

            It was not confusing and they used it for a reason. So religious nut jobs would not claim it meant their god. Not working to well

          5. And I can revert back to my first comment that America was founded on the principle that we were given our rights by the creator.

            They didn't argue what it meant, and gave the freedom to believe or not to believe. But they had those beliefs based on their heritage and culture.

            The enlightenment was a recent thing for them and they used those concepts.

          6. They used a specific word that meant a specific thing and they all understood it.

            And it's not for any man or person to take away human rights.
            Hitler tried it with the Jews and they had the war crimes trials after to make sure they were held accountable for it.

          7. Can you show "creator" was meant for a spefic thing. I know I can't.

            I can't for a reason because that is what they wanted.

            Check Mate

          8. Where? You claim creator means the christain god. Well prove it, I can't find any quotes from the Founders or documents to back up your claim. Maybe you have some evidence you can provide.

            I use check mate when I win

          9. You haven't shown I was wrong.
            You claim something, so you show evidence.

            I've shown evidence by the kingdom they came from.
            Evidence in that they argued everything they had disagreements on , and this wasn't one of them.
            That they used a single word, a word they all understood.

            If you can show that they didn't understand it or argued about it, I'd like to hear it.

            Until then, I'm just dealing with someone that likes to argue simply to argue and can't show his points are factual.

          10. "what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural."
            http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/do

          11. That wasn't by the founding fathers, that means that the changes in the language doesn't conform to what they meant, they had a perfectly clear view of it.

          12. There are 'human rights', given by man made laws in a society.
            But 'natural rights' are those bestowed on ALL humans by G-d…
            His vehicle for this is the US Constitution, a divinely inspired document. The Rule of Law is it's cornerstone….

          13. First off, if you want to make that claim, you need to prove God exists. Second, we live in a Constitutionally-guaranteed secular society, there is nothing divinely inspired about the Constitution. The rule of law is indeed a cornerstone of the American system of government, but laws are made by man, not by gods.

            Your faith in things doesn't impress anyone. It's what you can prove that matters. What, of the above, can you actually prove happened? Not much, I wager.

          14. Not trying to impress anyone. Simply expressing my faith in the Christian faith, the American Constitution, and Founding Principles.

            Renowned atheist & angry man, Dr. Richard Dawkins said, "Religion is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark."
            Dr. John Lennox, Oxford Don & famed mathmatician responded, "Atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light."

            What I ponder is this:
            if you choose not to have faith in the living G-d, why be so vitriolic and condescending towards those who do?
            Truly perplexing.

          15. Because chirstians have to be the most condescending people I have ever run across. They practice selective morality and try to act like they are better then everyone else.

          16. Just as there are good car salesmen and poor car salesman in every dealership, there are flawed Christians in every church.
            It's the flawed human way …
            Not everyone can see the light…eventhough His light shines on all…

          17. You can assert that all you like, but how is it any better than other religious believers making the same kind of unproven claims about their deities? Blind faith just isn't at all impressive.

          18. You can see the light? That means you prollably have mental disablilities. The fact is christians claim they are right about religion and all others are wrong when they have yet to produce any evidence to back up their claims, and I'm sorry but I am not going to base my life on a religion so full of holes and one like yours that has killed billions

          19. Yes Wee, I see the light of G-d all thru nature and civilized, non-communist, non-dimocrat, society…
            Wherever socialists are in charge, I see degradation, chaos, mismanagement, despair and hopelessness..

            Where G-d/faith are honored/revered, I see bounty, order, logic, and common sense…

            Think Detroilet MI on the one hand and Salt Lake City UT on the other…..

          20. As you seem to be blind to an abundance of proof all around you that G-d is the path, the light and the Way… I'm not surprised by your atheism..
            Try to create, in your lab, a living flower, a living coiled rattlesnake, or a gold atom…
            Faith is a gift, not all 'get it'….

          21. Sorry, you're engaging in the argument from ignorance. You cannot understand how something happens, therefore you arbitrarily assign an emotionally comforting cause to it without actually being able to demonstrate that your "cause" actually caused the effect. I could easily say that you're blind to the abundance of proof around you that leprechauns exist. I'd be no more rationally correct than you are. Be sure to let us know when you can draw a direct causal link between your God and anything in nature. Otherwise, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

          22. Nope, you make an attack you need to prove you point.
            You can't, you won't and you don't'

            Just tossing mud doesn't make you a debater, it makes you a mud thrower.

          23. I didn;t make an attack. You are trying to prove your god is real the burden of proof lies on you

          24. Reminds me of a great quote:

            "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

            …Stephen F Roberts

          25. The difference between science and religion is that the former is always willing to reconsider any of its theories, laws and rules. The catch is that the longer a theory is supported by evidence, the stronger the evidence must be to disprove it. Ask any religious person if they would accept any evidence disproving the existence of his/her god(s) and the answer will always be "No."

          26. Yet you are so intolerant that you won't consider the theory of intelligent design.

            That shows your quote is wrong.

          27. I have considered it in the past and it makes no sense and has no proof to back it up

          28. Once more, you have your opinion. You're entitled to that.

            But you're not entitled to offer it as fact without proof.

            You demand that from me, fair is fair.

            See: Burden of proof.

          29. So you mean to tell me you went through both those links in less than a minute?

            YOU didn't even open them.

            You're done

          30. Well now that I had to chance to read them I can no they don't even come close

          31. Well you didn't even bother to read the links I provided no way you went through them all in less than two minutes

          32. You have that opinion, and that's all it is.

            You already said you won't open any links I post, so don't pretend you read my links.

          33. I did this time and the three links I provided shows your links are wrong based on evidence and mathmatics

          34. You didn't read them. It explains how intelligent design goes in areas not addressed by Darwin's theories.

            They, not fact. And you haven't proved anything, still.

          35. Science follows the evidence to a conclusion. Religion starts with a conclusion and throws out all evidence that contradicts it.

          36. The truth of Nebraska Man would never be known if "evolutionists" hadn't continue to question the initial conclusions.

          37. This is true of all of the problematic fossils, like Piltdown Man, which turned out to be a likely forgery by theists. We may never know who did it for certain but we do know that it wasn't the creationists who discovered the forgery, that was done by good, old fashioned science. It proves that the scientific method works, unlike creationism, which has never found any objective fact in it's history.

          38. To me 'life' is something I can pet, like a dog, kill for food, like a chicken, observe for its beauty, like a rose, or interact with on some level, like a female Victoria Secret model…

            A blob of protoplasm featured in your link, is about as lifelike as Saul AlinskyZero…

          39. Create something for me other than a blob, then we'll talk…..from Dr Fox, in the '70's, till now, you'd think some atheist scientist could have at least conjured up a simple amoeba or some plankton…
            Dr Frankenstein was way ahead of these atheists..

          40. Yet the life forms he mentioned would indicate more than chance, more than 'survival' of the most fit forms, due to the complexity and diversity.

          41. He mentioned more life forms after I shoved proof that life can be created in a lab up his a s s .

          42. Single cells.
            Nothing more.

            And my position is that intelligent design gave us skills, the fact that we can design single cell organisms doesn't mean intelligent design didn't happen.

          43. Then you should be able to provide evidence that intelligent design actually did happen. When are you going to do that, or anything else but make absurd claims?

          44. The bombardier beetle is evidence.

            The endocrine system is evidence.
            I see it everyplace, you refuse to see it anywhere.

          45. Yes, and that only proves that life was made in a lab. If we are made in the image of God, God can create life so it actually backs up my position on intelligent design.

            But don't let that stop you, go ahead and prove to the standards you demand from me that there is no god.

          46. Now you changethe question.

            You really make youeself look stupid, yo uget better at it everyday I can show some of us have not fullu evolved from monkeys. Reply Monkey roger

          47. Have fun with those moving goalposts. Back in the 60s and 70s, creationists said science could never create life… ANY life. Then science did and they moved the goalposts. Now they want complex, multicellular life. When science does it, they'll just move the goalposts again. It's how creationists are, totally unrealistic and unable to admit when they are wrong.

          48. Just because a scientist has figured out the DNA codes for the blob, doesn't mean they can or will be able to replicate swimsuit models, chickens, or flowers.
            Creating a blob of protoplasm my be technically 'life' but it's nothing needed, functional, or useful…

          49. You're right but it also dosen't mean they won't be able to to. See that is called having an open mind and not being a self indulged bigot

          50. Even with your mind open, I still can't see your brain…couldn't resist…lol..

          51. Actually, they've been doing that kind of thing in the lab since the 1970s. Check out the work Stanley Fox did back in the day.

          52. We don't have to, any more than we have to prove there are no leprechauns. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, you're the one that has to provide the extraordinary evidence.

          53. The evidence for G-d's existence is all around you….
            Just as the evidence for evil's existence is also all around you.
            You must simply have the courage to know and admitt the difference between the two and the effects of G-d and religion on man's free will.

          54. You still haven't been able to draw a direct causal link between the supposed evidence and God. Just claiming that God did it isn't enough, you have to actually prove it.

            When do you think you'll get working on that?

          55. The BUrden of Proof lies on lies on you. Every claim you make has been debunjed by several people and you refuse to except that. The news you don't want to hear any holes punched in a religion is enough to make it unbelievable

          56. Why should I have to prove anything? You haven't.

            Your opinion is interesting, but ignores several points that you can't explain away.

          57. You have made that claim, and I can claim Kermit is real.

            You have proved nothing and don't even attempt to, you just make lots of claims.

          58. Here's what a heretic named 'Cephus' wrote down thread.
            " The fact that I remain unconvinced is evidence that such a God doesn't actually exist."

            It's folks (atheists) like you that constantly espouse nonsense about the non-existence of an Almighty G-d…

          59. Clearly, you don't understand what the burden of proof is. No one here is claiming that God doesn't exist. We are waiting for you to prove that God does. Until you can provide direct evidence for the existence of God, you fail. Trying to say other people aren't proving things that they aren't even claiming doesn't absolve you of your burden of proof.

            Put up or shut up.

          60. So I have to prove myself, but your side doesn't?

            That doesn't sound like the burden of proof that sounds like ideology at work to me.

          61. One heed only look at the functionally of the two mentioned cities, Detroilet and SLC.
            In the former, it is and tax been a basket case for decades under the godless democrats.
            The corrupt idiots elected have no economic or fiscal sense. No idea how to run a government…only helping cronies and looting the taxpayers….

            While SLC, under people who respect
            G-d/religion, function smoothly and efficiently.
            The people elected have common sense and humility. The society functions as a result…

          62. Detroit's economy is bad because conservative corporations decided to use slave labor in Mexico and China.

            You are a ridiculous racist, Jamal.

          63. What exactly is a 'conservative' corporation?
            Is it one that tries to stay in business thru efficiency and relocation ?

            Or do you like the corporations that go out of business rather than succumb to union blackmail and unfriendly gubermint business policies ?

          64. Asking stupid questions doesnt distract from your racist lies about Detroit, Jamal.,

          65. You accusing him of racism doesn't make it true, not when you're the one who brags about impersonating.

            ejdulis replied to your comment on Scratch that, trying Intense Debate. / Politics, Guns & Beer:

            "I see others have taken my idea of impersonating you and others like Cowboy logic and winsorwhore.

            I am glad to have made such a great contrbution to the destruction of this site."

          66. You refusing to admit HPD is racist, doesn't make him less racist.

            Nor make your hate speech less vile.

          67. Have you noticed that HPDuuuuh is hunkered in the bunker at Navy's site, afraid to come out? He isn't using any of his other duplicitous aliases. Just the original HPDuuuuh. Ever since he was exposed as having the Barroid alias on Disqus. You need to copy that alias for the lawsuit. Pretty vile racism.

            Roger's running buddy.

            Barroid and JeepWonder, together again.

          68. Speaking of outcasts what happened to you at so many conservative sites?

            Perspective might explain some of your attitude, but not all of it.

          69. What you mean cvn and RF?
            Those sites? The communist sites that I got banned intentionally for exposing frauds and communists?

          70. No, I was being truthful and we all know you hate the truth.

            I treat others the way they treat me

          71. No, you don't. Ask Gentleman John.

            Oh, you're banned there since you behaved in a way they couldn't 'tolerate, evidently.

          72. Truth is always hate speech to libtard communists…

            When you got nothin' you fools resort to accusations of racism, war on women, income inequality, and lack of healthcare ….

            You think sensible people are so easily distracted by these shiny objects?
            Think again..

          73. Look at all the racist comment syo make when you use your "Jamal" profile. You're not fooling anyone

          74. I did. If you claim Jamal is Alinsky that also means you claim HPD is Alinskly since Jamal is HPD.

            Reading comprehension fail for you again?

          75. Still not reading my comment?

            Alinsky claims to impersonate people.

            That was his quote, he bragged about it.

            If you don't like that, talk to alinsky about it.

          76. I don't think so, and based on Alinsky's own quotes he impersonates people to put them in a bad light.

            Deal with it.

          77. And yet here I am, a conservative atheist and I don't think you've got an ounce of truth in anything you've posted. Imagine that.

          78. If you were an ACTUAL conservative, you would not denigrate religion, the concept of a Creator, or folks who choose to believe.
            You are simply a narrow minded know-it-all who understands absolutely nothing about the importance of G-d in a sane society..

          79. I don't know where you get the idea that political positions and religious positions have anything whatsoever to do with each other. It's only since the expatriate Southern Democrats took over the Republican Party that religion has been a recognized element of politics.

            It just goes to show that you're as ignorant about politics as you are about religion.

          80. Of course pôlitical positions and religious convictions, intertwine…
            look at you, for example, a delusional atheist progressive, who claims to be a conservative..funny!

          81. You know, you could be asked to leave and you're getting very close to being bodily escorted to the door. This is your only warning.

          82. Odd that you say that.

            There is an article right now at Drudge where the Pope is calling for the "legitimate redistribution of wealth".

            Humorously, they always have their hand out.

          83. I never made a racist comment while impersonating someone. And I only impersonated people on Brietbart to get around their daily moderator.

            You are a liar, and also lied about reporting Wee's comments on the Belfast site last week.

          84. You bring up skin color all the time.

            1 week ago @ Storyleak – The Inevitable Demise … · 25 replies · +2 points
            "He had time to go on Fox News a dozen times. Not once did he mention lazy rich white people."

            That's just one example.

          85. Only when pointing out your racism. And never while impersonating someone.

            You lied about reporting Wee's comments on Belfast and you are lying about this.

          86. Only to satire the racism of you and HPD.

            You also lied about reporting Wee's comments on Belfast. You are a pathological liar, and you are self aware of it.

          87. yes it is liar. You lied about reporting Wee;s comments on Belfast. You are a pathological liar. Trying to distract from HPD racism.

          88. Saying I am racist because I expose your racism, is a good example of your pathological lying, like when you lied about not reporting Wee's comments on Belfast.

          89. Come on Cephus, you know I deserve more credit than that.

            MLK's dream was to be judged by character, not skin color. When Alinsky (in the quote I used to show he brought up skin color) uses skin color I find that racist.

            Nothing more.

          90. True, but the bringing up of skin color constantly as if it matters indicates that skin color matters.

            Alinsky does that regularly.

            1 week ago @ Storyleak – The Inevitable Demise … · 2 replies · +3 points
            "Soak it up. But it's just a matter of time before we find a white conservative non-Jew that is also racist."

            1 week ago @ Storyleak – The Inevitable Demise … · 25 replies · +2 points
            "He had time to go on Fox News a dozen times. Not once did he mention lazy rich white people."
            On this one, if someone said "Lazy black people" it would be racist, and would deserve the label.

            1 week ago @ Storyleak – The Inevitable Demise … · 53 replies · +2 points
            "Maybe he will come out with a video saying that he thinks rich white "crackers" are lazy because of all the money they inherited, and not because they are white."
            Once again he speaks as if the color of the skin defines a person, that's racism.

            1 week ago @ Storyleak – The Inevitable Demise … · 56 replies · +1 points
            "There is a whole lot of…. I think 'colored people" are lazy, but not because I'm racist, but because I can blame liberals for it…going on."

            It was on pages 34 and 35 of his comment stream I could have gone farther back, but frankly sorting through his past comments isn't fun for me.

          91. Roger, you and your racist partner in cyber-crime are the two always injecting race and color into the conversation.

          92. YOu have them all saved on your comouter. Don't pretend you have to go through and sort them.

          93. Because religion is demonstrably harmful to society, perhaps? Also, we're not being vitriolic, we're pushing Christianity back where it has had an unfair advantage in society. It deserves to be pushed back to the boundaries of equality. Lots of Christians don't like having to compete in the marketplace of ideas and are pushing to get their religious beliefs special treatment in public schools, etc. That will no longer be allowed. It's unfortunate that some Christians misidentify disagreement with their religious positions as an attack on their religious beliefs. That's not the way that it works.

          94. You are here. You do have a very complex body that indicates at least the possibility of intelligent design.

            What evolutionary advantage would your delicate and intricate endocrine system have?

            Simpler and more durable would have been the evolutionary advantageous way for life to evolve.

          95. This may be news to you, but I never claimed it did. Why don't you actually read the comment before you attack it.

            I said it showed that your endocrine system was complex and prone to malfunction/disease, that if evolution were true the most simple yet dependable systems would be the most evolved.

            Your link does not prove the big bang, evolution, or that today is a product of accident.

            See how that works?

          96. My link was not suppose to prove any claims you just made since none of them corelate with each other

          97. You never read the read so how do you know it ignored your point. How fucking stupid are you?

          98. What proof would a person like you (know-it-all), need to acknowledge the existence of G-d?

            He, like Truth, cares not what ignorant fools, like yourself believe or think.

            For He and Truth exist in their unflappable continuum, anchoring the bedrock foundational principles of honest men, who do not spin or bastardize the language. Nor deceive thru word or deed.
            Nor do they make long, lame, rambling comments that no one reads…
            Good luck with your blog…

          99. Evidence would be nice. Some little shred of evidence to prove your god and only your god is real. christians have to produce any.

            Maybe you should stay on the communist site cvn with the rest of the outcasts where you belong?

          100. Why don't you provide a tiny itty bitty shred of evidence that God doesn't exist?

            No atheist has been able to provide a "shred of evidence" that God isn't real.

          101. Again it's up to you to prove your god is real. Pretty sure that has been explained to you

          102. Again, if you make the statement that my God isn't real then the burden is on you to prove it.

            Again, not a single atheist has offered a singe small shred of evidence that God doesn't exist.

          103. YOU made the claim first moron. The bible is historically inaccurate , factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

          104. Go ahead, I'm waiting. Offer a single small shred of evidence, if you make the assertion God doesn't exist it's up to you to prove it.

            And the dead sea scrolls how the Bible texts have remained accurate.

          105. If the christians god was so important why did they talk shit about him and never mention him in the Constitution?

          106. They set up government in the constitution.

            They laid out the reasons in the DOC. And they did mention the creator there.

            They were religious men that wanted a secular government, why would they bring up God in the constitution?

          107. In the DOC they did.

            Where have you been during that entire discussion here at this site? Even destroying dogma admitted that they came from a culture that was self described and in fact Christian in background.

          108. NO where in the DOC did they say anything against him or for him. MAtter offact they never mentioned him at all

          109. Sure they did.

            The "Creator" was listed as the source of our rights, and as Destroy explained they had a Christian heritage, their creator was the Judeo-Christian one. You haven't shown any other Creator was even in their lexicon.

            You are simply a bigot that won't admit to the obvious.

          110. Consider this, IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing christians, would there ever have been a revolution at all?

            "For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23

            This passage refers to humans rebelling against god, a statement that establishes the precedence of unconditional subservience which is further illustrated, very explicitly, by the following two passages:

          111. Again it does when it mentions the Christian 'Creator'.

            Why don't you prove that they didn't know about the Christian Creator and that they might have been referring to any other 'Creator'.

          112. 1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

            Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from god, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by god. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what god has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

            Would our Founding Fathers have initiated a rebellion if they thought it was a sin equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? The bible gives clear instructions to christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as the Founders clearly were. The Founders obviously did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact good christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with what is written in the Declaration of Independence.

          113. TNM, you really aren't in a position to quote from a book you pretend isn't real.

            And taking portions out of context only shows that you have no moral understanding of what the Bible teaches.

          114. You don't get to decide what postion I am in and since I understand it and show I understand it better than you I will continue to use it against you

          115. I know my religion and you are offerenign a flawed and inaccurate position.

            Morally we serve God before man.

            You go ahead and retain your bigotry, it will stop what little credibility you might have left.

          116. Hey if you can't prove it, it is sure not obvious so that makes you teh bigot

          117. Hey, if you can't misquote and twos the Bible into things It never teaches then does that mean you're a closet bigot?

          118. I an open minded that is what freethinkers are. You are unable to be a freethinker since your handlers have conditioned your beliefs

          119. No, you are not.

            You have yet to show a single shred of evidence God doesn't exist. yet you stay locked in that position.

          120. I don't have to show anything. Their is no evidence for his existence nor any evidence that he does exist. I will side with logic and science since religion is only historically accurate at getting shit dead wrong

          121. And I claim you have no evidence that He doesn't exist.

            And since we are here, and there is evidence in the complexity of our bodies that is evidence for intelligent design.

            Even if you refuse to admit it.

          122. So you do have any evidence or not? Just because we are hear does not mean a god or your god did it

          123. Sure, the complexity of the endocrine system.

            Now, what evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?

            Come on TNM if you have something now is the time, or just shut up and crawl back under your bigot bridge.

            Refusing to even consider that the other side might be right is the definition of bigot.

          124. I come from a Christian family and went to church for many many years and as I sat in church I realized none of it could be true. I have alo looked at other religions and came to the same conclusion. So I am not a bigot but you are. Still waiting for some evidence from you

          125. Yet you don't understand the religion, the teachings of Christ nor what the ideal safe for those who do follow Him.

          126. First of all, Roger, your statement that "America was founded on the principle that we were given our right by the creator" is technically incorrect. It is so because you are using the word principle incorrectly. This was not a principal but a belief.

            Secondly, let's state it directly and unambiguously: The Founding Fathers were wrong on this one. I know they stated it in the DOC. But just because they believed it does not mean it was true then or now. The evidence that there is a creator is virtually non-existent. Likewise there is no evidence that even if God exists – a claim which I reject without hesitation – this alone would be insufficient evidence to warrant acceptance of the claim that this God is the source of our rights.

            The Founding Fathers were expressing a belief, not a truth. Sure, they believed it to be true. But belief alone does not establish the truth of that belief.

          127. No it is technically correct.
            A document written for, and approved by confess says so.

            Printer-Friendly Version
            The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

            IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

            The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

            When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–

          128. I'll let you hang onto your mistaken use of the word. However, whether we call it a principal or a belief, it still stands that just because the Founding Fathers believed it to be true does not make it true. You have offered no evidence that your Christian God (or Creator) exists, nor that if this God does exist it is the source of our rights.

            Since you are the one making the claim: That your God exists and that it is the source of our rights, the burden is upon you to demonstrate the truth of the claim with credible evidence. And stop this idiotic insistence that I have to prove it isn't true. As I said, this insistence only reveals how utterly ignorant you are of the fundamentals of logic, critical thinking and what constitutes an argument.

            Finally, how does quoting the DOC in any way provide an argument or evidence for you claim that what they wrote in there is a principal. It is in fact what they wrote that I am disputing is a principal. It was a belief. Quoting the goddamned document does not establish that it was a principal. It only shows what they wrote and what they believed. This alone does not establish that the statement written in the DOC is actually true.

            If that were the case then I could just as easily pull out a long passage from one of the Harry Potter books and insist that it must be true because it was written down. This would absurd. Just as your attempt to use the DOC as evidence that the statement written there is true because it is in the document.

          129. Yes. The Founding Fathers, while intelligent and knowledgeable individuals, were not infallible. Additionally, they were products of their time. A time in which much less was known about the material universe than is known today. Given what we have learned about the universe in the 200-plus years since the writing of the DOC, there is less reason and justification for believing in any supernatural entity. (Not that there was any credible evidence-based reason back then.)

            They believed in a Creator largely because they were culturally inculcated into that belief. They had no more evidence to justify the belief than you or any present-day believer has. I am a skeptic and a freethinker. That means I think for myself. I examine the evidence for a claim and judge conclusions based on that evidence.

            To accept everything the Founding Fathers wrote, whether in the DOC or any other document, simply because they are the Founding Fathers, is to engage in some form of ancestor worship. I don't worship anyone. You seem to have deified the Founding Fathers. I have not. While they were undoubtedly the intellectual elite of their time and performed a remarkable and courageous deed in forging this nation, this does not mean they should be free of criticism where warranted. I think they were wrong in the belief in a creator. I think they were wrong to ascribe our rights to this fictional creator.

            It is or ought to be obvious to any thinking person that they were capable of getting things wrong. Another example in both the DOC and the Constitution was slavery. It was not condemned in the final version of the DOC and it was actually condoned in the Constitution until passage of the 13th Amendment. Should I agree that slavery was okay then because they wrote it down on paper? Of course not.

            If I were given license to rewrite the DOC, I would take the references to a Creator and Nature's God out altogether. Reference to a Creator or Nature's God is not necessary for stating nor establishing the notion that we have rights.

          130. Yes you would remove any mention of any higher power.
            And yes you like to think for yourself.

            But thinking for yourself does not necessarily mean you have to reject all other thinking. And to recognize genius isn't a sign of admitting your own fallibility. Worship? Is it wrong to say the European enlightenment was an advance?

            They reached beyond their current thinking and embarked on a grand experiment, and it has paid off. We have stretched beyond our origins and it was basedon the thinking that people don't need permission to think and do, and say. Your comments here are a result of that freedom, had you written this kind of thinking under Roman rule, you might have faced consequences. Had you written this kind of thing under Cromwell, or Queen Elizabeth you wouldn't have done will at court.

            That alone proves that the founding fathers had it right.

          131. "But thinking for yourself does not necessarily mean you have to reject all other thinking."

            I did not say it did. But it does demand that you reject claims, beliefs, and assertions that are not substantiated by a sufficiently credible body of empirical evidence. That is what I am doing here. I reject the claim that there is a Creator because there is insufficient credible empirical evidence to support the claim that such an entity exists.

            "And to recognize genius isn't a sign of admitting your own fallibility."

            I did not say it was. Without some further explanation or clarification on your part, this comment has to stand as an irrelevant reply to my comment.

            Just how do my remarks about you seemingly worshiping the writings and thoughts of the Founding Fathers say anything about whether the Enlightenment was an advance? I never said it is wrong to think of the Enlightenment as an advance. If you think I did then again your reading comprehension problem is on display.

            No, No, No. The fact that they "reached beyond their current thinking and embarked on a grand experiment" does not prove that they got everything right. It does not prove that they got it right in asserting that our rights come from a creator. Ditto for everything else you said in that paragraph. None of what you said establishes that they got everything right. If you think this then you truly are engaging in a form of worship and not simply acknowledging their genius. I agree that they got much of it right. But they did not get right that there is a creator and that this creator is the source of our rights.

          132. Yes, actually you in effect did say that.

            It does not mean you must reject things, just that you examine them with an understanding you may change your conclusions once the evidence is examined.

            And recognizing genius is not a sign of admitting your own fallibility. Your inability to see this obvious truth speaks volumes. If you want to pretend intelligence then you're going to have to apply that better.

            Your entire point seemed to be that due to your open mindedness and free thinking meant you were to toss out the wisdom of the founding fathers as if it was worship of some sort. My response does stand and is relevant.

            You said this:
            "If I were given license to rewrite the DOC, I would take the references to a Creator and Nature's God out altogether. Reference to a Creator or Nature's God is not necessary for stating nor establishing the notion that we have rights."

            Based on what? You need to provide evidence. If you are going to make that sort of grand sweeping statement then prove your point. Fair is fair, you did say this to me.

            "You have offered no evidence that your Christian God (or Creator) exists, nor that if this God does exist it is the source of our rights."

            If you want to decide it all needs to be pulled, then provide proof that you're correct.

          133. Not so much. Most of the Founding Fathers were not Christian, at least not in any way identifiable today. If you read through the writings of the Founding Fathers, they were extremely critical of the organized church and of Christianity in particular. There was very little love between the American founding fathers and Christianity.

          134. They were critical of the organized churches, not the God behind it. Hence they were 'deists.'.

            And they did understand their Christian heritage.
            They came from a repressive nation and wanted freedom, instead of religious persecution. I can't say as I blame them.

          135. You're making too much of it. Just look at the Treaty of Tripoli which states clearly “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” This was universally acknowledged, not only by the government but by the states, it was apparently the belief of the time. Jefferson was extremely critical of Christianity and all religion when he said “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.” and “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” Madison was also clear, “The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.” How about Elbridge Gerry with “No religious doctrine shall be established by law.” I could go on and on, with Franklin, Washington, founding father after founding father being critical of religion, especially Christianity. There is no Christian heritage and the founding fathers sought to make sure that one was never established in the United States.

          136. It is a secular state.
            That much we agree on.

            But that doesn't mean that they didn't understand the term 'Creator' to mean the accepted definition of the day. And they did have a common heritage from a Christian kingdom, for all it's faults.

            What Wee has always argued is that they didn't have a definition for Creator and that they could have meant any number of things, even the muslim version of creator when it simply isn't the case.

          137. But what was the accepted definition of the day. You haven't actually told us this. You keep saying it was the Judeo-Christian God. But without telling us precisely what that means, how can we compare the beliefs about God of the founding fathers to what you keep asserting was the accepted definition of the day. In fact, this is what is at the very core of this argument. I have been arguing that they did in fact not believe in the God or Creator that most other christians of the time believed in, at least not one that shared the same characteristics. Even you said earlier that they were deists. Well, a deistic God is not anything like the God that went by the "accepted definition of the day" used by nearly all other christians of that time.

          138. No, we don't both know that. You claim to know that. Don't lump me in with your foolish claim. I am in fact claiming that there was not just one version of this Creator in the language of that day. If there were then there would not have been different sects of Christianity. There would have not been a need for the term deist to describe some of the Founding Fathers. There would not have been Unitarians. They certainly don't envision the same God that you do, unless you happen to be a Unitarian. If you are then you don't believe in exactly the same Creator that a Lutheran believes in. This would also have been true in the time of the Founding Fathers.

            If you claim to have provided the definition of this Creator that everyone used in the days of the Founding Father is true, then refer me to the specific reply in this thread where you stated what that definition was. I have read every one of your comments. None of them, as I recall, provided this definition. If I am wrong then point out the exact statement in which you provided this definition. All you keep repeating is that it was the Judeo-Christian God or Creator. But this actually reveals nothing about the definition of the term Creator that was widely accepted by the Founding Fathers and the population of this country in the 17th through the 19th centuries. This true in part because the term Judeo-Christian, as I pointed out in another reply was not in use during the time of the Founding Fathers. So how could this possibly be the definition of the term Creator that everyone used?

            In your mind there may have been one Creator at that time. But we aren't discussing what you think the term means today. Believers back then had different versions of what this Creator was like. Certainly you can't be so foolish and ignorant as to be claiming that a deistic version of this God is identical to the Old Testament version of this God? What version of this Creator do you think the Founding Fathers had in mind when they used the term Creator in the DOC? And how do you think this compared to the version of the Creator held in the mind of the general population of that time.

            Here is an analogy that might help you to understand what I am asking. Car is a name for a category of objects. Within this category are varieties. Well God is a general name. But there are different versions of God, not only between religions but within religions. There are different versions, or visions or varieties of the Christian God just as there are different varieties of cars. I know several people who believesin a Creator. But the Creator they envisions when they usesthat phrase is very different from the Creator that you believe in. They do not believe in a God that answers prayers. They do not believe in a God that performs miracles. What is true of this individuals is true of many others. What's true today was also true during the time of the Founding Fathers. There were different versions of your God in which people believed in. Again, for the umpteenth time, the deistic version of the Creator is very different from the Old Testament version of the creator. And this is at the heart of what we are discussing.

          139. Wee….
            What would it take for you to acknowledge the existence of G-d ?
            A personal audience with some cool tricks? Or show you His drivers license?

            Come on… Just because you've never actually seen Him, does NOT mean He doesn't exist.
            Especially when His work is all around you..

            I'll bet you believe in a Big Foot, tho….

          140. It would take undenaiable evidence ands facts not this hocus pocus shit you guys present which is debunked everytime with logic.

            Never seen any facts that show big foot is real so no I don't. I am a fact based person and personally I would never live my life based on a religion that has killed billions and can't even be proven to be true.

            What work is all around me?

          141. And perhaps if you could prove to that standard that there wasn't a god, then it might be a position that counted for more than just your opinion.

          142. As has been said here repeatedly, the burden is upon you to provide an argument built upon compellingly convincing credible empirical evidence that God exists. This is not the burden of a person who rejects Gods" existence. Try this out: replace the word God in your entire line of reasoning with the word unicorn. You claim that unicorns exist. I reject that claim because there is no evidence for their existence. You then insist that I have to prove they don't exist. Do you see the absurdity in your line of reasoning. This is no different than what you are doing here concerning God's existence. You claim God exists. I and others reject that claim because of a lack of credible, empirical evidence. You then demand that instead of you proving God's existence by providing evidence, that we must prove God does not exist. This is no different than the unicorn example. It is you who is not properly applying the fundamental principles of logic and argumentation. It is you who needs some instruction in Logic 101, Argumentation 101, Critical Thinking 101, as well as what constitutes credible empirical evidence and what is meant by burden of proof.

          143. And has been said here repeatedly why don't you meet the same standards of proof you want to impose on the other side?

            Fair is fair.

          144. This is not a question of fairness. You are now sounding like a dullard. This is an issue of following the rules of logic, of critical thinking and of argumentation. These rules require, among other things, that the person making the claim has the burden of proof. Look it up. You are the one claiming that God exists, not I. I have merely said that I don't accept the truth of this claim because there is insufficient credible empirical evidence to support it. You have failed to provide this evidence. Why should I accept as true a claim you make without providing evidence to convince me that it is true.

            If you claimed that your car is red in color l would be well within the bounds of rational thought and reason to not accept this claim until you provided evidence that the claim is true. And this is a trivial claim compared to the extraordinary claim you are making: that there is a God, a supernatural entity responsible for the creation of the universe; one that is concerned with the affairs of humankind; one that answers prayers, intercedes in this world on behalf of people, and performs miracles. Such an extraordinary claim requires you to provide extraordinary evidence. So get busy doing so or stop insisting to me that this God of yours exists. I will not accept the truth of that claim until you have met your burden of providing the sufficient level of evidence to warrant believing it to be true.

            Finally, stop with the fair is fair bullshit. In the context of this discussion your repeated use of this phrase reveals that you don't understand the concept of fairness. It is in fact unfair of you to continually ignore the rules for constructing an argument and demonstrating the truth of a claim.

          145. It is about fairness.

            You are so sure of your beliefs that you seem to think I should be as well.

            I'm so sure of my beliefs that I am not threatened to have someone disagree.

            See the difference? That's why the burden of proof should be equal for both our positions.

          146. Wee….do you gave a brain? Of course you'll say a resounding YES!

            But you've never actually seen your brain, but you knòw it exists because it functions, albeit, inefficiently….., to get you to your terminal each day, then to your job detailing cars at the dealership.

            But to me, I deny you and Alinsky have half a brain between yous, because I, personally, have never seen it actually function in a logical way.
            Only lame retorts, defensiveness, and outright lying…

          147. "Wee….do you gave a brain?"
            I never gave a brain to anyone, but science can prove people have brains. I can deny you have a brain because you have never once made an intelligent comment. Here's the facts,If something exists, it can be scientifically quantified (measured and evaluated relative to its mass, energy, location, capabilities, and other qualities). For example, scientists have quantified millions of items ranging from from dark holes in outer space to tiny atomic particles (such as the recently discovered Higgs Boson). If something cannot be scientifically quantified, it does not exist (in the real universe).
            •Spiritual entities such as gods, devils, heavens, hells, angles, the tooth fairy, etc. have never been and cannot be scientifically quantified. Therefore these spiritual items do not exist (except in the imagination of religious individuals).
            Sorry it took so long I was detailing your car. Got the rotten booze smell and left over semen from your boyfriend out of the back seat. Pretty gross. Next time try and swallow

          148. So you've NEVER seen your brain, yet you believe you have one..
            Eventhough there is no actual proof of it's existence….!?

            Funny how you 'think'…!

          149. Well beings you have to have a brain to survive I know I have one. Did have a brain scan once after a car wreck so I have seen pictures of it.

            Check Mate

          150. Checkmate? So far, you haven't even claimed a pawn..! LOL, Pinhead…

            So you've see x-rays or scans of your own brain, but you still have NOT seen it.
            I see evidence of G-d most everywhere as well as evidence of the devil…G-d gave us humans something called 'free will.
            A human quality that leaves all decisions up to us…nothing us predetermined….
            Some choose to believe, others not.

            But to impugn and ridicule those that do believe seems rather small and insecure…as well as narrow and simple minded…..

          151. Nope, you're done. You have not been able to prove the existence of god. I asked you fro undeniable evidence and have produced nothing. Your brain refrence is apples to oranges since you have to have a brain to survive

          152. I've had a brain scan, does that count? I actually have seen my brain. But don't let that stop you from making ridiculous arguments.

          153. No …it's just a picture….you've never actually seen your own brain…
            Like me showing you a pic of Jesus to prove G-d's existence..

            You may think my argument is ridiculous but when one does not have the gift of faith, all arguments sound ridiculous to the non believing heretic….

          154. I saw a guys brain come out of his head after a cow crushed it.

            Your argument is riduculous

          155. Now he did say you've never seen YOUR brain, but yeah, he's going to be dishonest about that anyhow, so it really doesn't matter.

          156. Well he shows how dishonest christians are and how they are afraid of the truth

          157. You never prove anything.

            And I think I ought to do your tactics.

            I assert that God is real, and you have offered not a single Shred of Evidence that He isn't.

            Prove your position.

          158. No, it was an old farmer. One of his cows got lose and he was trying to load in the back of a truck by himself in the middle of the HWY. He must of slipped and the cows hove crushed his skull. I was the first person there

          159. I am sure it was instant death, felt bad for the guy. This was before people had cell phones so I had to go to the house down the road and call 911.

          160. A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary. How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

            Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god

          161. All rational people wonder and decide for themselves.

            You just make claims with nothing to back it up. I can quote Christians who say it's logical to see the creation around us and see the design of an intelligence at work.

          162. Go ahead and show us a picture of Jesus. Oh wait, you can't, everything we have are just artist impressions of Jesus, we have no clue what Jesus might have actually looked like! However, the images of the brain that I've seen are actual pictures of the physical object. Therefore they're a lot better than any claimed pictures of Jesus.

            Try again and stop being so dense.

          163. And the same can be said for other historical figures.
            Yet you believe they all existed and deny the historical Jesus.

            What standard of proof do you require again for acceptance of a historical figure?

          164. I believe they need to see a drivers license and a few parlor tricks…otherwise G-d is a non entity…

          165. If God exists and is as powerful as theists claim, he would know what would convince me and would have the power, and presumably the desire, to provide whatever that might be. The fact that I remain unconvinced is evidence that such a God doesn't actually exist.

          166. Hey, two of the brightest had opposing views…so it's a wash among among the elitist intelligencia…so what's your point?

            "Einstein emphasizes that religion, not science, is where a culture finds the source and expression for what should be, rather than what is."

            Carl Sagan: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

          167. Roger thought Jefferson won that war. He is completely ignorant about history.

          168. As you are ignorant of, well, most everything important….like religion, economics, politics, and human nature…
            You are a sad, silly, poor excuse for a metroman….

          169. What is your point, or are you just dancing around like a typical pathological liar?

            I schooled you in that history, among other, you thought Jefferson won, stupid.

          170. You only exhibited your biases and unwillingness to face facts.

            My point is that I was correct, and you just blow smoke.

          171. You sent a link that showed I was correct, stupid. You are trying to distract from the ignorance you had about Jefferson winning that war.

          172. They did. Go to war is different from winning the war you reframing pos.

          173. You didn't answer the question.

            Why? You realize that your point was batted down like the other irrelevancies you spout.

          174. You need to clarify your question? Are you asking who won while Jefferson was President (like we were talking about), or are you trying to re frame the question so you don't look so fing stupid?

          175. Yep it is clear you are just attempting to distract from how fing stupid you are.

          176. That kind of retarded logic explains who you believe having the last word.

            Next time don't be so stupid, read the history BEFORE you claim Jefferson won that war.

          177. Jefferson quit because the business men were angry he lost that war, and you went on line saying Jefferson won the war.

            Just like you lied about reporting Wee's comments on the BElfast site. A typical NON follower of Christ's teachings.

          178. And during that time we quit paying tribute.

            They aren't here and the marine's song reflects that we stood up to them.

            Did you ask the Pirates side of the story?

            OH, they're gone!

          179. We went to war because Jefferson refused to keep paying the tribute. And out of all the established powers that pid, we stood up to them and did rather well, and they still aren't here.

            That's the bottom line, isn't it? We are here and they aren't. They are the losers.

          180. Had he kept paying tribute we wo0uldn't have had a war with them.

            You really are desperate to apam places today, aren't you?

          181. He paid tribute, and they kept prirating, stupid. Read a book besides all the teen girl sci-fi you are obsessed with.

          182. And you two are so distracted you can't even contribute to any discussion.

            All insults all the time, it's so 'troll'.

          183. It gives you a sense of accomplishment, a sense of self worth, to look at the right hand column, and see every post there was made by a Roger. You poor self deluded little turd.

          184. You asked about my feelings about light. So I told you I have sex with my girlfriend with the light on to answer your question, stupid.

          185. Yes, you asked, and i told you that i have sex with my girl with the lights on.

          186. I have much more information about the sweet sex, and I know you are super interested, otherwise you would noy keep replying about it. You creepy OCD virgin.

          187. Since when is exposing your pathological lies though insults a bad thing?

            You lied about what Jesus said. He said he came BY a sword, not to be USED by a sword.

          188. Since when?

            Jesus didn't live a life of violence, was never recorded as touching a sword until one pierced His side at His death.

          189. Not all his actions are record in the bible, stupid.

            You have to go by faith that he wasn't lying. But you can't just make up your own interpretations.

          190. It's recorded in the bible. Kinda like your annulment is recored on court records.

          191. We are here, they aren't. We won.

            For you to call that stupid, well… it explains why you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

          192. You may think so. But you never do.

            Growling under the bridge, lurking the darkness.

            It really isn't a pretty picture.

          193. "They came from a repressive nation and wanted freedom, instead of religious persecution."

            This statement is not true of the founding fathers. Their religious freedom was not be restricted by England at the time the conflict broke out between the colonists and England. Your above statement is often used to describe the original settlers who came here from England in the 1600s. But even there it is a misleading description. The original settlers weren't interested in freedom of religion. They practiced only freedom of their own religion. They weren't opposed to persecuting members of other faiths once they got here to the shores of North America. In fact, they did so rather frequently. They were no less repressive in their behavior than were the authorities in England from whom they fled.

          194. Of course not.
            The really, really big ones I copied from your partner Warren's archive page.

          195. It was the reason that settlers came here to begin with. By the time conflict broke out, there was very little direct control by England of the colonists and their religious beliefs. I thought I made that clear when I said "they came from a repressive nation". Yes, they did. Then they were part of a new social order here. You're feeling the need to correct and comment on things that don't need to be corrected if you'd just read what's actually being written.

          196. This comment thread is getting so long it is becoming difficult to keep track of who said what and where in the thread. So I can understand your confusion Cephus. But I am pretty sure that I was responding to a comment made by Roger, not you. And if I somehow mistakenly attributed a comment made by you to Roger, then know that was not my intent and I was in fact addressing my comment to Roger.

          197. What you wrote is what passes for a response in that brain of yours? As a thinker and debater your skills are pathetic and just not up to the challenge.

          198. You finally actually made a comment of normal length.

            I was beginning to wonder if the long huge comments were some sort of compensatory technique.

          199. Interesting, sounds like you were thinking about the length of this man's dick. Very telling, Roger.

          200. Think about it for a minute.

            What woman in her right mind, would be interested in a man who has a 24/7 love affair with his computer……….

          201. So, you're not just a troll but a lonely one?

            I don't care, if you can't figure it out I don't discuss personal issues on this forum.

          202. Lonely?

            I'm not the one that has been posting non-stop all day long. Happy Mothers Day, you little prick………..

          203. You keep trying to push for personal information, very telling. Why would I discuss it with the person who defends comments like this one?

            7 hours ago @ Big Government – Occupy-Linked Hacker G… · 0 replies · 0 points
            "Not chop, chop, just one single blade coming down fast.

            Your head will still be alive while it is in the basket, but you could never really be anymore brain dead than you are now.. "

          204. So does your girlfriend ever tell you not to be scared of me and start mentioning her like a man?

          205. Still determined that you deserve to know personal details?

            This isn't that sort of site and I don't talk to people like you about things you have no business asking.

          206. Your girlfriend knows I own you bitch. That's why you are too scared to mention her.

          207. Is your girlfriend hiding under the bed because how how you are my bitch?

            Are you under your sheets?

          208. Those two never played by the rules.

            Not even their own.

            They make things up as they go along.

          209. You were insulting me for criticizing teaparty1776 on the Von Mises site for his long comments.

            You talk out of both side of your mouth.

          210. You just love sitting here all day long, day in and day out, talking to yourself, don't you Rogere? You didn't fare too well this morning at LRC did you?

          211. Your s h it led me to your gutter. I wear a plug over my nose when reading your replies.

          212. Your own little world where comments like this are still defended?

            Alinsky Hero USA replied to your comment on Scientists Developing Real 'Terminator' Autonomous Robot / Storyleak:

            "They were down for over three hours and now all comments need to be approved. they only have five commenters anyway. And all ll five are retards."
            Go to comment

          213. There is a stalker that collects all my comments. And his lawsuit was dismissed.

            You can keep my comments on your computer as a souvenir.

          214. Says the guy who defends comments like this?

            9 minutes ago @ News From Antiwar.com – Obama Calls Iran's Nuc… · 0 replies · +1 points
            I just thank Allah every day that I'm not you.

          215. That doesn't help your dismissed lawsuit, but I\m glad you are happy with your OCD souvenirs.

          216. Nope, not wrong. And your'e still making lame claims.

            Like kosher pigs.
            Not chewing cud, not kosher.
            Leviticus 11:3
            Deuteronomy 14:7

          217. It's in the bible, stupid. He also enjoyed pushing a shoving people at the Temple.

          218. Is that one of the pretend things you made up that might have happened?

            You really better keep your day job if that's the best you can come up….

            Oh no… posting here is your day job. Maybe you should keep working on that writing and hope you get up to Nichalodean standards/

          219. I helped write Soap Dish, and you seemed to love it.

            Jesus is on record pushing and shoving in the bible, stupid.

          220. If you had the only watch in the room and I could verify your info as soon as you provided it, I still wouldn't ask you for the time of day.

            You simply aren't factual far too often.
            Sort of like those kosher pigs.

          221. I have the only girlfriend between the two of us. And you have a lawsuit that has already been dismissed.

          222. Still the troll, still the derailer.

            So did you get the short straw and get the job of keeping me busy here so your posse members could go after the latest story on LRC?

          223. You seem interested since you can't stop replying to my comments about having sex with my girlfriend.

          224. No, I do not seem interested in your sexual activities, and have explained it myriads of times.

            TMI, this isn't an adult dating site.

          225. You must be interested, or you would not keep replying to my comments about me havbing sweet sex with my girlfriend.

          226. You are interested, otherwise you would stop replying to the sweet sweet sex disscussion I am talking aboiut.

          227. By using the same profile all the time

            Not hiding behind guest comments and actually responding to people that say things.

            All insults all the time, it limits you.

          228. But…. I'm confused. I thought you take weekends off?

            Anyhow, can't you pretend you're here for actual discussion?

          229. Roger loves seeing his name in the right hand column. It is all about Roger.

            All Roger.
            All the time.

          230. All guest all the time.
            All insults, all the time.

            Is it because you're too old and not able to ruin your own site any more than you have?

          231. First off, Roger, the founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, did not mean what you think they meant by the use of the phrase "nature's God." They were referring to a deistic version of God, not the one you apparently believe in. You need to actually research this. You can start with an essay titled "Who Is Nature's God found here: http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html.

            Secondly, of course there is no debate about the use of the phrase "nature's God" in the Federalist Papers. There is a very good reason for this, but not the one you are implying. The "nature's God" phrase is in the Declaration of Independence. The Federalist Paper's were a "series of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers). This is a completely different document. In fact it is the governing document of the United States. The Declaration of Independence is not. The Declaration states the sentiments and principals upon which the founding fathers felt it was justified to separate from England. But this document contains none of the actual governing principals. I find it hard to understand why you think that the fact that there was no mention of the phrase "nature's God" in the federalist papers makes any relevant point about the intent of the founding fathers when they established the United States of America.

            Though the United States of America came into existence with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1778, the United States of America we know today is based on the Constitution which replaced the ineffective Articles of Confederation some 4 years later. It should be noted that neither of these governing documents employed the phrase "nature's Creator", nor did either of these documents use any language that explicitly or implicitly was intended to establish the United States as a christian nation. These were not stupid, uneducated individuals, with little command or understanding of the English language. Just the opposite. If they had intended for this to be a Christian nation in any sense of that phrase. they certainly would have said so directly and in clear, unambiguous language.

          232. Where did I ever say anything about Jefferson's quote on 'Nature's God'?

            Your'e trying to put words in my mouth.

          233. Come on. You can and should do better than that. You know full well that is not what the authors of the Declaration of Independence meant by that word.

            First, an interesting historical fact: the original draft of the Declaration, the very first one Jefferson penned, did not contain the reference to a creator. This wording was added some later in a revised draft before the document was submitted to the Congress for debate.

            Here is Jefferson's original wording:

            "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . . . (Source: http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm)

            Jefferson and the other members of the Continental Congress knew exactly what they were doing when they chose the word "Creator." They did not mean what Roger is implying: a God who involved itself in the daily affairs of the universe and humans. If this is what they intended to convey then they knew full-well that they could have used the word God in the Declaration. They did not.

            So what did they mean.? The term creator was commonly understand in their time to refer to a deistic god; a god who may have initiated all of the natural processes but has since been uninvolved. (Source: http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html.) This is a god that does not answer prays, does not perform miracles, and is generally disinterested in the affairs of humans.

            "Deists were characterized by a belief in God as a creator and "believed only those Christian doctrines that could meet the test of reason."[18] Deists did not believe in miracles, revealed religion, the authority of the clergy, or the divinity of Jesus. Like Jefferson they "regarded ethics, not faith, as the essence of religion."[19]…Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways." (Source: http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html)

            Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, believed that a person by the name of Jesus Christ existed and that he was a great moral philosopher and teacher. But he rejected all of the supernatural, mystical, mythical stuff that was attached to Christ after his death. This is evidenced both by comments Jefferson wrote during his life and the Jefferson Bible he produced.

            So, Roger, you are most definitely wrong in your belief about what the founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, meant by the use of the word "nature's Creator."

          234. Of course not.
            You overlook that they all were from a Christian kingdom, the King was the head of the church.
            They had one religious background, one only. They had a value system derived from that culture and 'Creator' meant only one thing to them.

          235. You know, the one where the King pronounced himself head of the Church and usurped power from the self-proclaimed leadership in Rome.

            Complete separation of church and state coupled with a minimalist state is a good thing.

          236. I overlooked nothing. I am well aware that they lived in a culture and time in which Christianity was everywhere. I fully understand that the colonies were established by England, which at that time could be described as a Christian Kingdom and that the King was the head of the church. But none of this is relevant to the point I made in rebuttal to you.

            Is it not clear to you that the revolution against England was in part to rid itself of a King and the notion that the head of state rules by divine right? They were rejecting a portion of this Christian kingdom to which you refer. The First Amendment to the Constitution was a further effort to separate the state from religion. Over the next several decades following the adoption of the Constitution, each of the individual states de-established their state established Churches. The Founding Fathers were attempting to place a considerable amount of distance between the state and religion.

            Did you read the essay at the link I provided. If not read it and don't bother offering another comment until you have done so. It is clear that the Creator to which the founding fathers was referring was not the creator that most people then believed in, nor the one that most believers believe in today. They did in fact have a different meaning of the term Creator compared to the what the term meant to most people of that time. Go do the research and stop annoying us with your obviously uninformed opinion.

          237. I understand all that.

            But you still don't explain why all that being true they didn't mean anything other than the Christian creator when they used the term.

          238. And they were from the society dogma described, the only creator in their world was the Christian Judeo/Christian one.

          239. Of course it was. Try reading the societal description by Dogma.
            That was the only one they had any contact with in their heritage.

          240. Read destroy dogmas comment about their culture and heritage.

            There was never anything but Christian values and background.

          241. You say that without showing in His life where Jesus did love violence.

            He understood His teachings would have a violent reaction, much as is going on in Nigeria today.

            But nothing showing Christians should actually cause the violence.

            That is a subtle difference most would understand, even if you don't.

          242. Either way Jesus wanted violence to spread his name.

            And he liked pushing and shoving people in the Temple after a nice day of infecting a farmer's pigs with demons.

          243. Nope, that's mohammed.

            Jesus spread His name from healing the sick, comforting the poor and meeting the ones with questions.

            And if the farmers had been kosher and not raised pigs, it wouldn't have been an issue.

          244. I said Jesus.

            And the farmers were kosher, stupid.

            Try learning the bible before you run your mouth.

          245. Kosher pig farmers?

            Is that like reasonable islamists?

            The term precludes your comment making sense.

            This is one of those times that your claims at being of Jewish descent are proven wrong, any Jew would realize how patently impossible that would be.

          246. Yes, kosher farmers that owned pigs, stupid. Try learning the bible. No wonder you don't know about all of Jesus's pushing and shoving.

            You clearly dont know what being kosher means. You better google it, stupid.

            BTW it was a herd of pigs bot owned by any farmers. Learn the bible.

          247. Pigs are unclean, learn the Bible. They are not to even be touched.

            To have a pig for food on your farm meant you weren't kosher.

          248. Why would I discuss personal issues with the person who said this:

            20 minutes ago @ http://912wolverines.com/ – growl · 3 replies · 0 points
            Having your head in a basket would make everyone here pleased.

            And we would keep your head in the basket until your girlfriend came to get you.

            It would dry up and be food for insects. The first time your head was ever used for something useful.

          249. You give out all your personal information on ID, but have never once mention havinbg a girlfriend with over 140,000 comments. That is creepy.

          250. You have never mentioned a girlfriend with ANYBODY, yet post picture of your fat family.

          251. I get it … kind of like "Intelligent Roger". Ha ha, you are absolutely right – that makes no sense whatsoever.

          252. No, there was nothing but what you identify as Christian values and background. Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church, has adopted all kinds of cultural and social ideas from other religions and other societies and incorporated them into it's own belief structure. Many things that are considered Christian today didn't start out that way and certainly do not appear in the Bible.

          253. Hey Roger, there was no Judeo/Christian concept in the days of the Founding Fathers. See my other replies on this subject. The Judeo-Christian notion was a concept unfamiliar to the Founding Fathers. I challenge you to find a sufficient number of passages in the writings of the Founding Fathers to substantiate the claim that this term was used and understood in their time. Hell, I'll be surprised if you can find even a single passage in the writings of the Founding Fathers where they used this term.

          254. Yes, there was.

            See my other replies.
            The term doesn't matter, it's the values that matter.
            No murder. No theft. No false witness, particularly under oath.
            One God, even if they had different ways of reaching out to that deity.

            I'll be surprised if you would admit to anything, you don't even think that the founding fathers meant what they said about the 'creator'.

          255. They said "creator" but no where did they say "one god" I have read the thread several times

          256. You haven't proved that their society had any other understanding of God than the Christian one that has been discussed here in this thread.

            See:Burden of proof.

            Prove your point.

          257. In the very word "Creator" it's singular.

            Now, answer my question.
            If you can. You can't, but it will be interesting to see how you avoid addressing the point.

          258. Okay, let's see if we can't clear up this mess you have created. I suppose at this juncture in the conversation it is time for you to describe with clarity and detail what you mean by the "Christian creator."

            What are the attributes of this creator? For example, is your version of the Christian creator the Karen Armstrong version (God is love)? Is it the version that biblical literalists believe in: omnisicient, omnipotent, present everywhere, vengeful, jealous, i.e. the creator depicted in the Bible? Is this creator to which you refer something between? And if so, specify exactly the attributes and characteristics of this Christian creator. Because this is what we are arguing about and you don't seem to get that point. I never said the founding fathers did not believe in a creator. Clearly some of them did. But they did not believe in the Creator as described in the Bible. The one who performed miracles and slaughtered whole populations. So in clear, unambiguous words describe just who the hell is this Christian creator about which you keep babbling. Once you've done this then I will provide you with an explanation as to why "they didn't mean anything other than the Cristian creator."

          259. Your historical analysis of their culture was adequate.
            I may want to shade in small details but you were thorough enough for me to use your description to show that when they said creator was understood to be one from a Christian perspective.

            They came from different religious denominations, detonations that fought and were rivals in the past. But they all in their own way accepted the Judeo-Christian God as the one true God. Even the theists did, but rejected the organized systems to approach that God.

            What are my attributes of the creator? That would be my opinion only, and I have tried not to let that color my historical interpretation of the founding father's version.

          260. He asked for your opinion because you never speak clear about them. You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

          261. I have been in this forum long enough to smell a trap.

            I am careful to not get backed into the typical corners. If I am defined I'd rather do it myself than have some one such as yourself play a 'gotcha' moment.

          262. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

            If your argument is solid, then there is no trap that can hold you.

          263. So then why do you talk out of both sides of your mouth? Why can't you even make clear your attributes of the creator?

            Because you don't have an argument, you rather just dance around like a typical pathological liar.

          264. So then I don't toss pearls to swine.
            You are not someone that appreciates truth and certainly would chew it up like pigs would do with pearls.

          265. You don't have pearls, you spent all your money on a failed lawsuit the last time we tore you a new one and exposed you stupidity.

          266. Yes, I do. I can expect the other person to offer proof to the same standards they expect from me. I can avoid the obvious talking points tossed out by the other side. I can even explain why I don't agree with their opinions.

          267. Except we have, we've presented demonstrable data that you ignore and then don't provide any demonstrable data back. You're the one presenting talking points and empty claims, you're the one who isn't presenting any objective evidence or demonstrable proof.

          268. Except what? You make claims of accepted theories as if they are facts, as in the case of the big bang. I provided many links for demonstrable evidence in archeology backing up the credibility of the contemporaneous authors that told of historical Jesus and you said you didn't read them or remember them, there were too many comments being posted.

            So, I'm the one posting links with evidence and you still make claims without backing them up to the same level of proof you demand from me.

          269. First, I was not setting a trap for you. And your implication that I was is insulting.

            Then let us forget about your opinion. Tell me what you think was the vision of God the founding fathers had in their mind. And don't weasel out by saying the Judeo-Christian God. As you and I both know this term is so broad that without actual clarification from the person who uses this term we cannot be certain that we are talking about the same God.

            Do you think the founding fathers interpreted Judeo-Christian God to mean the God described in the Bible and that I made reference to in my previous post? Or do you think they subscribed to a softer interpretation of the term Judeo-Christian God, the one that is all lovey-dovey? Or is it something else they had in mind when the phrase Judeo-Christian God entered their mind? This is important because it is at the core of the conversation we are having. Show some courage here and state a position. As I said before I am convinced the founding fathers, at least the majority of them, had a deistic God in mind, which I described in an earlier post. Do you agree or disagree with this claim? If not, why not? Do not reply with obfuscating language. Stake out a clear position. I am not setting you up for anything. Others here may attack you in the way you fear. But if you have been paying attention to my posts, you know that I will address your comments. If you can't do as I have asked here, then there is no point in continuing this discussion because I can't be sure we are talking about the same thing. And your refusal to comply with my request here will be judged by me as a reflection of an unwillingness and a lack of desire to engage in honest and sincere actual debate.

            "…my historical interpretation of the founding father's version."

            A final comment. You have not actually offered a clear and unambiguous interpretation of the founding father's version. As I already said, you must clearly articulate what you think was the image the founding fathers had in mind when they used the term Creator or Judeo-Christian God. Just saying they believed in the Judeo-Christian God is inadequate, given that this term, without any specifics, is to ambiguous. It obfuscates rather than illuminates. I have claimed that they believed in a deistic God. I argue that this is not the traditional or classical Judeo-Christian God.

          270. The term "Judeo-Christian" is not weaseling out. For those familiar with it is a very definitive term. I have offered that interpretation. But just as you deny that a "Judeo-Christian" term isn't definitive you ignore all other definitions I have clearly offered.

            And your lack of understanding that is why you don't think that the founders as deists (a term different in their time than it is today) wouldn't mean the Christian God as creator. They wouldn't have advocated for any one churches view of that, but it is a commonality among Christians of all denominations.

          271. List of resources continued on the myth of and misuse of the phrase "Judeo-Christian.

            "To begin with the bizarre: although the term first appears in the mid 19th century, it only gained its current implication – that of a shared value system and morals – in the 1940s. President Eisenhower made the concept a household term when he connected it with the Founding Fathers in a 1952 speech:
            "all men are endowed by their Creator." In other words, our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men created equal."  
            To the astute reader of history, President Eisenhower's statement seems incredibly bizarre in light of the balance of Jewish-Christian relationships. There is practically no precedent whatsoever for understanding Judaism and Christianity as sharing a common core of beliefs, practices, or morals. Moreover, there's a good argument to be made that the entire foundation of Western civilization (which is more or less co-terminus with Christendom) is based on opposition to Judaism and it's values (for instance, the work of David Nirenberg).
            (Source: http://www.stateofformation.org/2014/04/the-myth-

            The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition
            (Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-myt

            Lastly here is a book you might want to get out of the library and read or purchase, though the title pretty much says it all. The book is
            The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, and Other Dissenting Essays, by Jewish historian Arthur Cohen. http://www.amazon.com/Judeo-Christian-Tradition-O

          272. Why do you think the term matters more than the values it represents?

            And those values were present.
            You may want to pretend that the term means things that it doesn't.
            There is overlap between Judaism and Christianity.

            Those shared values were present in the time of the founding, and it mattered in how they approached government. One was that the fallen nature of man would need to be limited in how power was distributed and checked so that no one person could have undue influence on the rule of law.

          273. "And your lack of understanding that is why you don't think that the founders as deists (a term different in their time than it is today) …"

            Well then provide what the definition of deist was in the time of the Founding Fathers. I don't think you are correct on this, but I'll give you the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of this assertion.

          274. You need to stop using the term Judeo-Christian to refer to what the founding fathers believed. This is not a term that would have been used by the founding fathers, and likely was not even known to them. It is a phrase that is of rather modern origins. It wasn't first used until the 1820. By this time most of the founding fathers were dead, and those who were still alive would all be dead within the next twenty years. Charles Carroll was the last of the signers of the DOC to die (1832). James Madison probably should be considered the last of the founding fathers. He died in 1836. So the term Judeo-Christian is not one that would have been in common usage during the time of the Founding Fathers. It did not come into common usage until the middle of the 20th century. My point here is that your use of the term to describe what the founding fathers believed is historically inaccurate. I suggest you research the topic. Below I offer some resources with which you might begin you investigation. I have included passages from each, but I suggest you read each in its entirety.

            "The earliest use of the term "Judeo-Christian" in the historical sense dates to 1829 in the missionary journal of Joseph Wolff,[2] and before that as "Judeo Christian" in a letter from Alexander M'Caul dated October 17, 1821.[3] The former appears in discussions of theories of the emergence of Christianity, and both are used with a different sense from the one common today. "Judeo-Christian" here referred to Jewish converts to Christianity.[4]
            (Source :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian)

            "The first recorded uses of the term “Judeo-Christian” were in England in the 1820s, though it was used quite differently than it is in today’s political rhetoric. The term was first coined by protestant missionaries who used it to refer to those Jews who had “seen the Christian light” and chosen baptism, though it took more than a century for “Judeo-Christian” to enter the general lexicon.
            The term was actually popularized by liberals in the 1930s at the newly-founded National Conference of Christians and Jews who, concerned about the rise of American nativism and xenophobia during the Depression, sought to foster a more open and inclusive sense of American religious identity. Prominent protestant clergy who were members of the NCCJ’s National Council eschewed efforts to convert Jews—a somewhat radical stance that, along with a determination to change entrenched attitudes towards non-Protestants, alienated many conservative Christian groups.
            (Source: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politic

            "The term ‘Judeo-Christian’ lacks explanation, description, or definition. ‘Judeo-Christian’ would appear to be a politically correct term indicating that America is not strictly a Christian nation, but also one that accepts Jews.

            "I would argue America was founded on the virtues of Enlightenment. The thinkers of the Enlightenment, who studied human nature and advanced and clarified the concept of human rights, and established the validity of many of these ideas of individualism: self-responsibility, self-reliance, independent spirit, and individual liberty.

            "The United States has no state religion; in fact, the Constitution, the first governing charter of the United States, makes no reference to any deity at all, Christian or otherwise. In fact, the only references to religion of any kind in the Constitution are a prohibition against the government establishment of a religion, and the prohibition of any religious test as a “qualification to any office or public trust…”
            (Source: https://www.myactsofsedition.com/2014/04/28/ameri

          275. Even when you are presented with links and facts you still choose to ignore them.
            Imagine that. Reminds of when you said this:
            Roger 169p • 57 minutes ago
            Facts are an inconvenient stumbling block until you learn to ignore them.

            Roger 169p • 6 days ago
            Ignore the facts, they aren't important.

          276. You keep doing the partial quote and ignoring the rest of the thread in that discussion.

            And once more you prove me correct, you pushed you agenda and ignored the facts you found inconvenient.

          277. Yes they are. We both know that.

            But why don't you go ahead and prove your point by posting the thread so people can draw their own conclusions?

            And once more you ignore facts, and learn to ignore them.

          278. They are whole quotes and you damn well know that site no longer uses ID and the comments are gone. Those are whole quotes. You claim to be christian and you sit here and lie through your teeth

          279. We both know they're not and not taken in context, the context being that you and people with your tactics avoid facts to push your agenda, and once you learn to avoid facts pushing that agenda is easier.

            Like your agenda of saying that the 'Creator' the founders refer to in the Declaration of Independence, you pretend there were multiple choices and it could mean anything.

            The fact is that they had a very singular idea of the "Creator" and you can't show otherwise.

          280. Those are you whole quotes and you said what you said. You can try and weasle out of it all you want, but it won't work for you

          281. They are not.
            They ignore the thread, and the way you use them proves my point.

            You ignore facts, and you do so to push your agenda.

          282. So what? Regardless of what the Founding Fathers thought, what their opinions or beliefs might have been, that doesn't make it factually true. They couldn't have supported their beliefs with logic or reason back in the day, any more than people who believe that now could.

          283. But that goes against his argument. I wasn't stating wether they were right to not, just that it was their beliefs, and that they agreed on them as the country was founded.

          284. And to think if the trolls hand 't been out in force I would have enjoyed doing perhaps 1/4 of that and not had to counter so much bunk.

  2. The concept of "rights" whether they be human, natural or expressed in The Bill thereof is a purely human construct. Absent a commonly accepted framework, the only "rights" an individual has are those that he or she can enforce or defend against those who would intrude upon them. I can see that getting very messy, very fast. So, Cephus, while I understand what you've written here and don't disagree with it, I'm left wondering if there are practical implications.

    Also, I like your motto. A word to the wise … sometimes stupidity hides in plain sight.

    1. Then most people have no rights because most people have no ability to enforce their rights against others, particularly others larger or better armed than they are. That's why societies come up with rights that they enforce collectively, such that everyone in the society has them. If the only thing you want is what you can carve out for yourself, that tends to be very little and a lot more ego than practice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)