Six Iranians arrested for dancing to promote islam

[stu]

But they are interpretations nonetheless. Neither you nor I nor anyone in this thread can say for certain either way.

This is why getting into a discussion on God with an atheist is silly - neither side can prove anything.

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 insist"natures god" is the same as "God" and "their creator" is the same as God is just the usual expected sideshow to avoid the obvious.

 

[Trader666]

A couple of "rabid zealot" theists trying to insist"natures god" is the same as "God" and "their creator" is the same as God is just the usual expected sideshow to avoid the obvious.

Once again, the STUpid rabid atheist insists that although the founders used the words "God" and "Creator" they didn't mean either.

 

[jem]

It looks like the 2 of you fell for the trolls boulder dash again.
This argument started when the troll stated Natural Law is inconsistent with a Creator.

Part of the many proofs I produced to show the troll his ignorance was the Declaration of Independence. The troll then made some lies up about the Dec of Indep.
We proved him to be lying.

Then the troll idiot started making up crap about whether the founders view of God was consistent with a Christian's. No one was arguing that point.

The troll got you all distracted with his troll misdirection.
Nobody but a rabid atheist troll says Natural Law is inconsistent with a Creator.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The discussion essentially is not about God anymore than it is about governments or Kings.
.

It was for me.

 

[Ricter]

It looks like the 2 of you fell for the trolls boulder dash again.
This argument started when the troll stated Natural Law is inconsistent with a Creator.

Part of the many proofs I had to show the troll his is a lying moron is that the founders of our country did not find it inconsistent when the wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Actually, whatever the Founders believed does not prove that natural law is, or is not, consistent with a creator. They said it is, other people say it isn't.

 

[jem]

OK lets start.
First go ahead an prove that statement...

not... that Natural Law can exist without a Creator...
but essentially a Creator could not have made Natural Law.

cause this is what the the troll stated...


"It doesn't matter if the founders did or didn't find natural law inconsistent with a "Creator". It simply is. "

Actually, whatever the Founders believed does not prove that natural law is, or is not, consistent with a creator. They said it is, other people say it isn't.

 

[Ricter]

OK lets start.
First go ahead an prove that statement...

Ok.

(Speaking as if a Founder)
"There are unicorns. They are consistent with Natural Law. Duh!"

 

[jem]

that dog don't hunt... try again.
show us how natural law is inconsistent with a Creator and find us scholars who have said such a thing.
Seriously, you should be able find some commie bozos to back that comedy up.
krugman? maybe some south american born leftist?

Ok.

(Speaking as if a Founder)
"There are unicorns. They are consistent with Natural Law. Duh!"

 

[Ricter]

that dog don't hunt... try again.
show us how natural law is inconsistent with a Creator and find us scholars who have said such a thing.
Seriously you should be able find some commies bozo to back that comedy up.
krugman? maybe some south american born leftist?

Lol, wtf! you're on about Krugman again, lmao!

 

[jem]

let me know when you are done with the distractions and ready to show us how Natural Law is inconsistent with a Creator.

Lol, wtf! you're on about Krugman again, lmao!