Six Iranians arrested for dancing to promote islam

[jem]

you are distorting logic with non sequitor after non sequitor.
Of course a Creator could have created immutable laws.
Some would even say that when the Creator started our universe with a big bang some of the physical constants were set. And those fine tunings... are indicative of a creator.

Of course a creator could (which is different than saying did) make natural law and physical constants.
you are a troll to argue otherwise.


Finally you claim your a not an atheist? Why do you make such STUpid arguments if you accept the fact there could be a Creator?

As I said, I have neither. You're wrong again. It isn't safe to assume what you assume.


Lol. how funny that is, watching you make up another unsafe not to say ignorant assumption. Now it's about where I'm from.
By the way, I haven't mentioned anything about "our Constitution". I suggested a basis for one in line with drafts of the Declaration of Independence, that Iran might take to help move themselves away from the dark ages.

Shows how little you properly understand about anything you try to supposedly read.


What makes me think God is supernatural ? well duh....because it is supposed to be.

The vast majority of the universe that isn't directly detected isn't supernatural.
God is.
It says more about your stupidity if you really don't know the difference why.


Yeah sure.

So when he says
"Natural law is a concept of objective truth, not religious preference "....

you think having religious preference for a God is not a religious preference.
It's very telling how you God Botherers can never hold a rational conversation.

God can't reasonably, rationally or logically take away natural law or human rights. Which as an aside, happens to be another reason for your God not being omnipotent.

It, God, whatever that is, can't be a source either, as so called God given rights are highly contradictory from one version to another , no matter the culture.

The Cardinal is simply being a lot more honest than you ever are.

 

[stu]

Twin goofs riding tandem

Poor STUpid... eviscerated again, and nothing of substance to come back with. At least tell us what country you're a citizen of and post from. You do know that much, don't you?

There ya go, I just knew you wouldn't be able to get past step one.

you are distorting logic with non sequitor after non sequitor.
Of course a Creator could have created immutable laws.
Some we even say that when the creator started our universe with a big bang some of the physical constants were set. And those fine tunings... are indicative of a creator.

Lol @ you rambling. Always good for a laugh.

No one's mentioned immutable laws. That's another kettle of fish. You don't get this at all, well no surprise there.
Even a Cardinal says inalienable rights and natural law are not from religion, and you haven't anything other than irrational wishful thinking to show otherwise.

Anything resembling any kind of supernatural Creator such as God is next to useless when it comes to inalienable rights. Reasons already given.

The whole concept obviously eludes you. Fortunately, it doesn't elude most people in the Western world.

 

[jem]

1. no you moron you are mis interpreting simple statements... the cardinal stated the truth of Natural Law predates the Church established by Jesus

2. note... you have been arguing Natural Law is immutable. You are truly ignorant of jurisprudence and you do not even take the time to look words up.

Full Definition of IMMUTABLE

: not capable of or susceptible to change

Twin goofs riding tandem


There ya go, I just knew you wouldn't be able to get past step one.



Lol @ you rambling. Always good for a laugh.

No one's mentioned immutable laws. That's another kettle of fish. You don't get this at all, well no surprise there.
Even a Cardinal says inalienable rights and natural law are not from religion, and you haven't anything other than irrational wishful thinking to show otherwise.

Anything resembling any kind of supernatural Creator such as God is next to useless when it comes to inalienable rights. Reasons already given.

The whole concept obviously eludes you. Fortunately, it doesn't elude most people in the Western world.

 

[jem]

http://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law.php


"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)

The Founders DID NOT establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator­ endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.

Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.."

 

[Trader666]

Twin goofs riding tandem
There ya go, I just knew you wouldn't be able to get past step one.

That's pretty funny coming from the rabid atheist who claims he's not and is so STUpid he can hardly write about God without contradicting himself

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
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482

For the third time: what country are you a citizen of, and what country do you post from?

 

[Spike Trader]

Twin goofs riding tandem

. .
that was really funny.

 

[stu]

That's pretty funny coming from the rabid atheist who claims he's not and is so STUpid he can hardly write about God without contradicting himself

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
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482

For the third time: what country are you a citizen of, and what country do you post from?

Nope, still neither of those.

As you're clearly still struggling, consider thinking in simple numbers.
Take 1 baby step now instead of a full sized one before going into a question of citizenship ( item 2 in not addressing the topic ).
Otherwise in all reality, you're never going to manage step 1 at all.

Hope that helps.

 

[stu]

http://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law.php
"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature...is of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)

"The National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS) is a conservative, religious-themed constitutionalist organization, founded by Latter-Day Saint political writer Cleon Skousen.[1] It was formerly known as The Freemen Institute."wikipedia

Copying religious comments from a religious website on a subject made independent of religion, is lame.

A God Creator is not logical or reasonable nor is it a supportable rational philosophical position for the source of inalienable rights.

Creator being nothing other than the law of nature as stated above, renders imaginary supernatural God Creator irrelevant in matters to do with inalienable rights.

Just as it is and as it should be.

 

[jem]

you are an ignorant troll stu,
of course many of the people stating Natural Law may come from a Creator. to be consistent in thought most atheists have to become moral relativists.

yes many of the founders were religious... and they were asserting their rights came form God not the King.... that is why the declaration states

"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence


This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[6] containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[7

"The National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS) is a conservative, religious-themed constitutionalist organization, founded by Latter-Day Saint political writer Cleon Skousen.[1] It was formerly known as The Freemen Institute."wikipedia

Copying religious comments from a religious website on a subject made independent of religion, is lame.

A God Creator is not logical or reasonable nor is it a supportable rational philosophical position for the source of inalienable rights.

Creator being nothing other than the law of nature as stated above, renders imaginary supernatural God Creator irrelevant in matters to do with inalienable rights.

Just as it is and as it should be.

 

[Trader666]

Nope, still neither of those.

As you're clearly still struggling, consider thinking in simple numbers.
Take 1 baby step now instead of a full sized one before going into a question of citizenship ( item 2 in not addressing the topic ).
Otherwise in all reality, you're never going to manage step 1 at all.

Hope that helps.

Yup, it helps show what a STUpid, delusional, pathological liar you are. Like almost everything else you post