Search results

Lol. Really? Don’t worry too much, that clearly wasn’t trying to keep you engaged :D But now you're being ridiculous. You started the conversation!! Then you ran just as soon as admitting for you it was about god. For someone not interested in anything I say, you’re sure acting like...

Well at least now we have something in common.

Gotten nowhere because you've cut and run. You finished by saying for you it was about God, although I'd asked you to consider the wider and essential basic philosophy behind the issue. But you are right in that respect. Not discussing an issue is unlikely to move it anywhere. Which is I...

What a closed minded ignorant world you must be living in. Not accepting everything on face value, reasonably questioning dictionaries and scholars is why dictionaries change and scholars and everyone else becomes better informed. Quite unlike yourself, remaining the gigantic troll you are as...

It was for you, about God. So just a matter of cut and run as far as you were concerned ?

Nothing quite like thinking for yourself is there.

The discussion essentially is not about God anymore than it is about governments or Kings. What is there to interpret? The philosophical understanding about inalienable rights is that nothing, not even Gods can repudiate or forfeit them. A couple of "rabid zealot" theists trying to...

Neither founders or finished Declaration use the word "God" by itself. Looks like you two are not incapable of having a domestic via me without even knowing it.:D:D What you goofs are still obviously ignorant of unlike most reasonable folk, is that governments Kings and Gods change...

Come on. Are you really this slow..... it's a case of what's good for the goose. By calling me something I am not doesn't mean you are not a fascist either. No they really didn't write 'Creator with a big C'. Jefferson's hand written draft shows you how they did no such thing. As an after...

Not being able to follow the thread of an argument is one reason why you're such an idiot. So you're not a facist like I am not a marxist. Congratulations you got the point without realizing. They didn't write "God". They hand wrote nature's god. Not semantics , but the age of Enlightenment...

What's crap is that approach to an argument.. and why the founders instinctively steered away from it... was crap then and is crap now, as evidenced throughout history. As a fascist you would be conversant with its ideas. you know the way your Fuhrer used it. See how those elementary crap...

.....or to put it more succinctly, you just don't like anything that doesn't fit with your own fucked up notions.

Quite likely they weren't that bothered with the inclusion, particularly as it makes no fundamental difference even when words referring to deity are turned into proper nouns. I suppose religious apologists more times than not must necessarily grasp at any straw in the wind including the most...

So you're basically saying in looking for justifications, dishonesty, superstition and make believe are the best tools you can have. In other words, the religious approach. Brilliant. "You are going to consider saying natural law, <strike > comes from the creator and that it </strike> can't...

Just to be clear, I don't say "Creator" is not referred to as a supernatural being. I say the founders in their wisdom did not refer to "Creator" or originally write in their own hand no less, (which does give some indication of their thinking) the word "Creator". They amend later to include...

They are discernibly self-evident. Surely that's more than a sufficient source. :)

Men do say strange and weird things when caught up in religious superstition. Actually the law of nature is called surprise surprise, the law of nature. Not "the laws of his Creator". The idea that everything must have a Creator except a Creator, is the age old formal fallacy of special...

Have you two angry ladies made a pact, together forever - wrong whatever or something.

Yes, but as you say, what creator? Not God, I agree. The wording being so ambiguous it can mean anything to anybody. Your emphasis toward religion is not in line with the Establishment Clause where it is made abundantly clear that in the first instance, it is religion that has no place in...

Methinks you project too much. Don't you know why you posted that natural rights can't be contingent upon beliefs of any particular culture - when all the time you're determined to delude yourself they can? :p Don't bother. It's just another of your incoherent unthinking rambling ignorant...