Six Iranians arrested for dancing to promote islam

[Ricter]

Just a historical to finish off Stu's stupidity and ricters odd comment about having to be a believer.

If you are part of a historical movement against authorities ... such the Protestant Revolution was against the Catholic Church and Monarchs of Europe...

and you are looking for justifications to make you movement legitimate, strong and powerful.

You are going to consider saying natural law, comes from the creator and that it can't be changed by man. And, some of your most important points with will impressively be aligned with that Natural Law. You might even create such argumentation even if you are not a believer.

If you do not think people do this in even weaker forms... I present to you Obama saying he is a Christian and Hillary saying the bible is her guide.

Sure, they're all appeals to authority, often if not mostly made for merely political ends. But those appeals do not mean that those supernatural authorities actually exist. Maybe you're not claiming that and my response is off the mark.

 

[jem]

of course I am not claiming that. we cant know the answers to metaphysical questions.

how many fricken times do I have to state there is a difference between faith and facts.

go back an read the beginning of the thread... so you know what a troll stu has been.

Sure, they're all appeals to authority, often if not mostly made for merely political ends. But those appeals do not mean that those supernatural authorities actually exist. Maybe you're not claiming that and my response is off the mark.

 

[stu]

Just a historical to finish off Stu's stupidity and ricters odd comment about having to be a believer.

If you are part of a historical movement against authorities ... such the Protestant Revolution was against the Catholic Church and Monarchs of Europe...

and you are looking for justifications to make you movement legitimate, strong and powerful.

You are going to consider saying natural law, comes from the creator and that it can't be changed by man. And, some of your most important points with will impressively be aligned with that Natural Law. You might even create such argumentation even if you are not a believer.

If you do not think people do this in even weaker forms... I present to you Obama saying he is a Christian and Hillary saying the bible is her guide.

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 be changed by man."
That's better... much less a failure of human reasoning.

 

[stu]

I think their appeal to authority was pragmatic on at least two levels, (one being political). The belief that there is an objective authority beyond us goes a long way to heading off existential chaos and nihilism. Yes, I like to think of the founders as also philosophers.

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.

Anyway, what is the argument here in this thread, that belief in a creator/Creator/god/God by our founders means that there must be such an entity? Jem and Tarder surely cannot be arguing that.

I suppose religious apologists more times than not must necessarily grasp at any straw in the wind including the most f'kin ridiculous ones.

 

[Trader666]

I suppose religious apologists more times than not must necessarily grasp at any straw in the wind including the most f'kin ridiculous ones.

Not nearly as ridiculous as the straws rabid atheists like you grasp at... the twisted pretzel "logic" you used in your pathetic attempt to negate the founders' use of the words "God" and "Creator" reached a new level of STUpidity

 

[jem]

its an approach to an argument, its not a comment on whether there is a Creator or not.
a marxist like you should be very familiar with the idea.
you know the quote about opium.

please bring back the old stu... your trolls are not the least bit challenging. they are just elementary crap.

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 be changed by man."
That's better... much less a failure of human reasoning.

 

[stu]

Not nearly as ridiculous as the straws rabid atheists like you grasp at... the twisted pretzel "logic" you used in your pathetic attempt to negate the founders' use of the words "God" and "Creator" reached a new level of STUpidity

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

 

[stu]

its an approach to an argument, its not a comment on whether there is a Creator or not.
a marxist like you should be very familiar with the idea.
you know the quote about opium.

please bring back the old stu... your trolls are not the least bit challenging. they are just elementary crap.

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 childish insults work both ways.

 

[Trader666]

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

That's hilarious coming from a rabid atheist troll like you who spews self-contradictory absurdities like this:

It [the Christian God] expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God.
The Christian God would have to be an atheist anyway, so it's just as likely any Heaven would be for those like Itself.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482

 

[jem]

1. More moronic stuff from this new even more ignorant stu.
Yeah a person who spends time here pushing for no income tax and a much smaller federal govt and constitutional rights of americans is a fascist. Good try.


2. You mean instinctively the way you write comedy instead of argument. Yeah they really avoided God when the chose to start off the DofI like this:

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,

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 childish insults work both ways.