Why do atheists say rights are real because they are written down and because people act like they do?

[LoLATDemocrats]

LOL. I guess sky daddy exists too then!

Rights are not real and stop dogmatically acting like rights are a thing, when they are not.

And no, there's zero evidence I believe in any god.

I'm just pointing out how dumb atheists are.

Updates

1 y

Atheists are hilarious. Pathetic. So you believe in something immaterial that will never be actualized through empirical demonstration. Do you also believe in a magical leprechaun rights giving fairy that grants you these rights?
LOL.
At least religious nutjobs are living in a delusion (which you can't prove either way) that their god has been actualized through empiricism and will be actualized again.

I believe in things that can be demonstrated with actual EVIDENCE.
You should try it.

Updates

1 y

Anyone that believes in self-evident anything needs their head examined.
Its literally asserting something without justification based upon circular reasoning.
I guess god exists because he's self evident. I dont need anything to prove that, because well, he's self evident.
Of course, an atheist would believe in self evidence.
Because they're stupid.

[NaultD]

So how is Paul the Apostle different then say some random cult leader today to even you or i? Are they god themself, people pretending to be god, posesed by god, who determines what's what. At some point you have to ignore false prophet scripture.

With laws made by people you can pin down that they are just like you or I. You got the material conditions of backing up said law. You can analyze the power dynamics of the monopoly of violence or forces.

If there is any gaps of the doctrine we can come together as equals and solve it. With gods faith it's a one way communication.

Even the fact that English wasn't invented yet during biblical times, there is on some level a false prophet where a normal person is using gods name and power to their own mortal interruptions of the translation.

For my own faith i like Sartre's radical freedom where Jesus is a prime example of a radically free person. He is ultimately not bound by the norms of the time and chooses to live a just merciful charitable that people write about him and follow his example.

https://youtu.be/G-kSu2QIxUs?si=JY-oyNrMAGsLKiPm

[NaultD]

This is after 2000 years of persevering our religious texts, whats going to happen in the next 2000 years or even longer. What's going to be the next fire great library of Alexandria

https://youtu.be/t39yilFl79A?si=XntyftimkckSXvMn

Just something similar to chew on.

[LoLATDemocrats]

You cannot argue, whatsoever.
Even if paul was a fraud that would not change the fact that laws are a social construct, they don't exist anymore than the flying spaghetti monster.

>>If there is any gaps of the doctrine we can come together as equals and solve it. With gods faith it's a one way communication.<<

One way communication is a self-refuting notion. HAHAHA. Since when has ANY group of people come together and universally agreed on any doctrine. I mean the protestants, the democrats, the republicans all agree with all the same documents dont they?
Oh right. They dont.

>>You got the material conditions of backing up said law. <<
Having weapons to use force to back up something written down does not legitimize a law, nor does it make it real.
If you think it does, i guess mohammed is real because of the force used in 9-11.
I mean the material conditions are the planes and the weapons they used during that time.
And you can analyze the power dynamics between religions. I guess that makes allah real on grounds you can analyze power differences. LOL.

>>With laws made by people you can pin down that they are just like you or I.<<
No. No you can't. Laws don't demonstrate people are the same. Not even biology does that, especially when humans are vastly complex and varied.

You are literally arguing a non sequitur.

[NaultD]

That's the power of radical freedom.
Creatio ex.

[NaultD]

You're like 80% of the way there with the analysis. Maybe "Existence precedes essence" will help you to the finish line.

We exist from nothing. In that creats radical freedom to do anything. People freak out knowing anything is possible. I'm someone who says we should embrace this fact.

Because Ultimately, all of humanity across all time created the essence of everything we care about right here right now. It's not perfect but It's ours. Nothing is going to change that.

As much as we created this essence we can change it in the future. With material conditions and power dynamics. The tools and willingness to use said tools.

[LoLATDemocrats]

How are you this retarded?

[NaultD]

We actualize our laws with our daily actions. Murder is wrong people feel extreme emotions but what is murder? We have to channel and process these things. This is how we create evidence in the first place. Then use that evidence to make new laws and reenforce feelings.

Yet it all stems from the original radical freedom.

[LoLATDemocrats]

>>We exist from nothing.<<
Nope. Question begging nonsense. Not even atheist prophet Lawrence Krauss (whom hilariously stupid atheists get this idea from) asserts we literally come from nothing. Almost nothing is not nothing. Genius.

>. People freak out knowing anything is possible. <<
Thats false because its a contradiction. Your logic is really bad.
You must be an atheist. You argue like one.

The proposition "Everything is possible" would include all propositional statements.
Which includes the statement and possible world where "nothing is possible." And "the impossible is possible"

You shouldn't believe in contradictions. Not if you want to be taken seriously.

You also said this: "Nothing is going to change that."
After saying "Anything is possible."
HAHAHA.
I guess its NOT possible that something will change that?
Or is ANYTHING possible.
Make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself.

[LoLATDemocrats]

>>We actualize our laws with our daily actions.<<
No we don't. Acting as if something exists doesn't make it exist. Just because someone talks to his toaster, doesn't mean there's actually a voice coming out of it.

>>Murder is wrong people feel extreme emotions but what is murder? <<
Sounds like just your opinion. What are you basing that on? Says who?
I bet the murderers think its fine.

>>This is how we create evidence in the first place. <<
Nobody "creates" evidence.
Thats not how evidence works.

[NaultD]

It's called philosophy. Fun stuff.
Your whole point hinges on social construct dosen't mean anything very nihilistic. You can look at that philosophy too.

I choose to live in a world where sisyphus can choose to be happy. From there anything and everything is possible that our human spirit desires.

If we didn't choose that nothing could become something. Like how do we have letters and numbers? They are social constructs as much as any rights or laws we even need Writing to communicate them?

[LoLATDemocrats]

And you must find it fun to get philosophy wrong.
Its called logic. You should have fun being correct.
You can look up what the logical law of noncontradiction is.

I know more about philosophy than you buddy, and its evident in your answers.
look up the word "stupid."
Just because you tell people to look up things, doesn't mean you're making an actual point.

"I choose to live in a world where sisyphus can choose to be happy."

Thats great. People dont get to choose to live in a world that isn't commensurate with reality.
Unless you want to disagree with the correspondence theory of truth. Yes that's a philosophy term, which im sure you dont understand.

You dont get to live in a world that allows logical contradictions, dummy.
Human beings use logic to validate reasoning. Including the reasoning you're using RIGHT NOW.

Nobody chooses nothing becoming something. You're literally talking like you're on crack.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Chew on this: "Nothing is going to change that."
After saying "Anything is possible."
HAHAHA.

[NaultD]

What makes humanity different from the sum total parts of our chemistry and base atomic material like a rock or to be crude just a corpse?

We are far greater then the sum of our parts.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Yawn. Moving the goalpost to a topic nobody cares about.
Remember you said this:
"Nothing is going to change that."
After saying "Anything is possible."

[NaultD]

That's the fun part. Even looping back to language it changes all the time. Nothing is sacred at the same time we as humanity can make something sacred.

https://youtu.be/4utXb3auOew?si=g2bn83232LdQYi3V

Why do this? Because we want to create a world worthy of our humanity.

[LoLATDemocrats]

The laws of logic aren't just language, you lunatic.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Why should i believe a single word you say when you are basically supporting the use of lies?
When you say "Im not on a computer right now" Thats a contradiction. Without contradictions, you couldn't distinguish what a lie was from what the truth is.

you're literally retarded.

[LoLATDemocrats]

LOL. Literally arguing against the laws of logic (by using the laws of logic) by mere use of arguing.
Cutting off the very branch in which you sit.
And you imply that you understand philosophy?
You dont.

[NaultD]

We are digging into the deepest part of the human condition. The very first step of reality.

So back too it then. We use language to understand the world around us. Language seeing as there's a few thousand of them not one perfectly logical are used.

I'm also not on a computer but potential a smart refrigerator but in reality a phone.

Life is complicated kinda like schrodinger cat thought experiment. Cat is both alive and dead in the same way the universe has no meaning and humanity in that creates meaning.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Again, logic is not just language. An apple is still an apple even if we called it a basketball.
Stop using drugs, theyre rotting your brain.

>>I'm also not on a computer but potential a smart refrigerator but in reality a phone.<<

See, now you're just babbling because you know you've lost the argument.
Patheitc.

[LoLATDemocrats]

>>Cat is both alive and dead in the same way the universe has no meaning and humanity in that creates meaning.<<
WRONG.
You are using meaning with using descriptors to describe things in reality. Meaning is inherent in the universe. Or nobody could make sense of the proposition "we make our own meaning"
Furthermore, all axioms that are arranged together in sentences, and even all concepts have inherent meaning.

How do we know this? Because even the idea of subjectivity is objective and subjectivity of even a preference is nearly infinite in objective truth assertions, given the nature of nested propositions.

But thats way too over your head, because you're an obvious dishonest hack.

[LoLATDemocrats]

>>has no meaning and humanity in that creates meaning.<<
Again, you can't create meaning out of no meaning. You're an idiot.

[NaultD]

Then what's the meaning of life then? Why do the things we do that's so illogical? Also this boils down to you hating liberals so why does humanity choose to create meaning even in a meaningless life? Step by step creating the active world we live in with cool new stuff.

Why would or should people follow you in this dump of absolute truth and can people find happiness there?

[LoLATDemocrats]

Im glad you think bringing up schrodingers cat as an argument was a good idea. Especially since its based upon INDETERMINATION. Meaning its not an assertion that its in fact both alive and dead at the same time. Its meant as a metaphor.

The cat's state is unknown or undefined until the box is opened and an observation is made. In this view, it's not accurate to say that the cat is both alive and dead, but rather that we simply cannot know the state of the cat until the measurement happens. The superposition doesn't represent reality as two states simultaneously existing; it represents our lack of knowledge about the actual state.

You really think you know stuff, dont you?

[LoLATDemocrats]

Oh well, because humans do things illogically therefore logic isn't real? Such a great argument.

I guess because people do things logically therefore emotions aren't real then!

"this boils down to you hating liberals"
No evidence of that, and strawman.

>>so why does humanity choose to create meaning even in a meaningless life? <<
Question begging and i already refuted that.
Learn to read.

>Why would or should people follow you in this dump of absolute truth<
Never made that claim or anything like it.

[NaultD]

But in quantum computing the mere human observation changes the state of said quantum bit. Our own experiences and existence changes things on a meta level of the world.

[LoLATDemocrats]

You really are stupid.
Before measurement, the qubit is not literally in the state of both 0 and 1 simultaneously in the classical sense. Instead, it exists in a superposition of potential outcomes. Quantum mechanics uses probability amplitudes to describe these potential outcomes rather than treating them as fully realized states.
Fail.

[NaultD]

People should be able to read between the lines. Lol at democrats. You are the one playing the strawman from the beginning with zero good faith.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Futhermore, The state isn't fully defined until it's observed. It’s not that the qubit is "both 0 and 1" in a classical sense—it’s that the state itself is indeterminate or probabilistic, and there is no definite value is assigned until you measure it.
LOL.
Again, you think you know things, when you dont.

[LoLATDemocrats]

When a measurement is made, the qubit collapses into one definite state (0 or 1). This doesn't mean the qubit was EVER both 0 and 1.

[LoLATDemocrats]

"People should be able to read between the lines. "
No they shouldn't. According to you, lies are okay. you're the one defending them.
Im bad faith? When you're defending the use of lies?
HAHAHA.

[LoLATDemocrats]

You haven't demonstrated a single strawman I've made.
Not a single one.

Not that it matters, since lying is fine according to you.
I could just lie all day. I mean lies only have meaning based upon what i decide they mean.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Someone flips a coin and hides it from your view and asks "heads or tails?"
YOUR dumb ass is going to go "both!" because you don't know.

This is the kind of stupidity people like you are invoking when they bring up that Schoedinger's cats nonsense. They literally dont know what it actually was saying.

[LoLATDemocrats]

And even if i GRANT your incorrect view, and suppose your analogy of schrodingers cat is how you validate people creating meaning... its STILL invalid.

Because the meaning that "reality changes based upon how we look at it." Would still be there prior, else your reality wouldn't even be possible.

So even if i GRANT your analogy, it STILL Fails.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Way to go, way to take multiple compounding L's
You must be an atheist democrat.

[NaultD]

In good faith look up some existental philosophy. We are standing on the shoulders of giants after all. So any homework for me? Im Happy to expanded my horizon.

Existence processed essence. At least pretend that going into it.

[LoLATDemocrats]

In good faith look up logic and pick up any book at all.
You have no evidence that i don't understand existential philosophy.
I do have evidence you dont understand philosophy, quantum mechanics, and you dont understand logic. Because i have corrected you multiple times on each one.

>We are standing on the shoulders of giants after all. <<
Thats just a platitude.
>>Existence processed essence.<<
Thats false by the way. And I demonstrated it already.
And you assume hilariously even after i demonstrated its being false that i dont understand it.
Thats how stupid you are.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Its easily refuted in terms perhaps even YOU might understand. (doubt it.) Because in order to make sense of existence itself, this requires essence of existence.

Essence of existence refutes existence proceeding essence because of the nature of cogency required to make sense of the idea itself.
Jean-Paul Sartre and people like him have been repeatedly refuted.
Deal with it.

[NaultD]

Any Source then. Fucking hell

I'm trying to extend an olive branch here and you want a genocide. With this level of animosity how could the human race have any level of cooperation?

[LoLATDemocrats]

And I've REPEATEDLY refuted it. You just didn't get it.
Ill refute it AGAIN.
People who believe in that nonsense typically mean that humans are not born with any predetermined purpose or essence; rather, individuals create their own meaning and essence through their actions and choices after they come into existence.

The problem? You cannot come to that determination without nested propositions, some of which are the laws of logic.

Its literally false because its self refuting.
To assert that "existence precedes essence" implies that there is a meaning behind that assertion. If meaning is claimed to be constructed by humans, then the statement itself assumes a foundational understanding of meaning and existence that must predate its assertion.

FAIL.

[LoLATDemocrats]

The proposition "we create our own meaning" requires a context in which meaning can be understood. If everything is devoid of meaning until created by individuals, then the very act of proposing that we create meaning becomes meaningless unless there is some prior understanding of what meaning is. Therefore, the assertion that meaning does not exist prior to human agency is contradictory.

[LoLATDemocrats]

you're an idiot and so are people that think Jean-Paul Sartre is smart.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Next time dont assume people dont know something. I didn't do that to you, you just prove to me you dont and i point it out.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Thats literally a genetic fallacy. Fucking hell.
An argument is not false on grounds of where it comes from.
2+2=4 is still true even if a moron says it, and its still true if you read it from a crackerjack box.
Stop being a retard.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Im not going to believe any of your assertions including 2+2=4 unless you quote me a mathematician.
Something is either contradictory or it isn't. I already showed you the argument. Deal with the argument and not the source.
Thats literally a logical fallacy.

[LoLATDemocrats]

How does it feel to have your entire worldview shit on and destroyed?
Well, be better next time and read some more.
I mean its called philosophy.
Read a book on it sometimes. Its fun stuff.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Your only defense as it has been repeatedly is to deny contradictions, which as i said is hilarious because it makes you knowing anything (including knowing that denial of logic is good) impossible.
You couldnt know that lies are good to do, or that lies ought to be defended, or that logic should be questioned.
You couldnt tell truths from falsehoods, because that requires knowledge of a contradiction.

So all you are left with is bubbling incoherent nonsense.

Good luck with that.

[NaultD]

Is this what you mutter to yourself as sisyphus pushing the boulder up the mountain of life? Fuck I'd expect all of humanity to kill themselves in your world view yet they don't. They are happy as a clam as i am. Ignorance is blissful after all and in my world I can be my own god.

So good luck in your world I'm going to find my own happiness.

[NaultD]

Had a great time truly

[LoLATDemocrats]

>>Is this what you mutter to yourself as sisyphus pushing the boulder up the mountain of life? <<
Yawn.
There are so many things wrong with your response.

1. Symbolizing the human struggle against futile tasks—it does not directly engage with the concepts at play in the discussion about existence and essence.

2. Its question begging. You have no evidence that "in general" humanity is engaging in
a struggle towards meaninglessness. You are already asserting your claim is correct. Which I already refuted.
You are failing at an internal critique.

3. And its an argument from personal incredulity. let me guess, God does not exist because corn flakes doesn't jump into your mouth, you have to get up and actually shovel food into your mouth.

God doesn't exist, because bad thing happen.
And bad thing happen is i wish my teeth would brush themselves.
God is not your personal cosmic butler who bows to your every wish.
Thats literally a hilarious strawman that no religious believer holds.

>>Fuck I'd expect all of humanity to kill themselves in your world view yet they don't.<<
Of course they would, based on you MISREPRESENTATION of it.

>>They are happy as a clam as i am<< No evidence of that.

>>Ignorance is blissful after all and in my world I can be my own god.<<
Nope. thats literally a contradiction.
In my world, your world doesn't exist and therefore im correct, and you're wrong.

Its my truth that your truth is false. And since everything is just opinion, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

Ooops, now you're back to your incoherent nonsense.

Wait. you're going to FIND your own happiness? That implies there's happiness out there that exists, dont you MAKE your own happiness?

you're hilariously wrong all over the place.

[LoLATDemocrats]

IM a god of ALL worlds and realities. And i say your world doesn't exist.
My truth is better than yours.

And its hilarious how you probably dont get how what i just said destroys even your last comment.

[Lliam]

I am an atheist who believes in self-evident, unalienable human rights. Emperors, dictators, and few governments recognize that fact. But it is the right of people to demand their basic rights and not be treated as commodities.

The wealthy elites who are pushing to achieve their totalitarian Great Rest/New World Order/One World Government think people are no better than factory farm animals.
Well, I don't recognize their authority. I think for myself and am no factory farm animal.

[Youlostthedebate]

>>Your confused<<

Says the person who typed 'your' instead of 'you're'. And you ought to provide evidence for someone's confusion. And it has everything to do with your comment because obviously someone who doesn't type you're and is apparently allergic to punctuation, might be a bit confused about grammar.

Furthermore, bringing up someone's age is a genetic fallacy. Him being an old adult he should have known better.

Pathetic.

[HelpfulWoman]

Eh, deciding what basic things human beings are entitled to is different to religion. Nevermind that rights will have also have religious undertones for instance..

but easy to tell you only want to act your age and insult atheists rather than have a conversation

[The_Confusion]

I see this is a throwaway account and even if it wasn't, it might be like arguing with a wall. But I'll tell you that what's observable with the naked eye or a camera lens, and measurable with other common scientific instruments, isn't all that exists. You're correct about religion being a delusional metaphorical rape machine (they often justify violence on children...) things that people call spiritual or magickal is more real than the physical and you don't have to be fuckin schizo to see that. If someone wants a general proof about spiritual and magical practices, I do partake in remote viewing. That's how I convinced some forum members who were very sceptical of anything non physical of the existence of so called "magic". I actually learn a lot myself by shitting around on here, I learn non linearly about the topics I discuss by a method very similar to remote viewing. Aka clairvoyance, it's like I open myself to channel useful garbage to write. And it's nothing like some sort of woowoo demon-slaying enlightening orgasming supernatural event. No. It's not feeling too different from regular thinking, though can involve sort of automatic actions where you do productive things with a cleared empty mind. We all to some extent channel non physical entities, even "inanimate entities" as you may think of it, all the time. And that's how people really are being "demonic" without being full on possessed, actual spirit possession is quite different from just channeling spirits or even non sentient "thought forms" which is really useful. Anyways, a good place to start is "remote viewing" for which there are websites with "practice targets".

[OfDeath]

Rights are intersubjective. People, governments and organisations agree on certain rights being afforded to all humans.

Atheists don’t all collectively say they are real in any other sense or even in the above as. You are making a straw man argument.

[OfDeath]

The comparison you’ve made between rights and religion both being written down therefore should be equally real is a false equivalence fallacy. Rights are based on empirical facts based in medical and scientific evidence for the human condition. Whereas, religion is based on myth and legend.

One is arrived at through real world effects and the other is entirely imagined.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Wrong. "Rights are based on empirical facts based in medical and scientific evidence for the human condition."
No they are not. Rights are entirely based upon human conventions. They are made up.
They are even worse than religion. Nobody claims rights are made of matter.
Whereas' religion does.
Asserting religion is based upon myth is question begging and you have no evidence to support such a claim.
But even if I GRANT that its true, both are entirely imagined.

Your false equivalency fallacy is entirely based upon question begging b. s.
Fail.

[LoLATDemocrats]

"You are making a straw man argument."
No I am not. Atheists still believe in something that does not exist and act as though they do.
You are making a straw man argument of my position.

[LoLATDemocrats]

by the way, dumb dumb. Theists ALSO claim "god is based on empirical facts based in medical and scientific evidence for the human condition."
I guess you must accept those claims JUST BECAUSE they claim it.

Oh right, you dont.
Exactly. And i dont believe you just because you claim it either.
Not just that, because i know you're wrong.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Futhermore, Intersubjectivity means "existing between conscious minds; shared by more than one conscious mind."

You'd have to prove your mind isn't the only one that exists. Nobody has done that yet. So, strike one.
2. Just because SOME people agree on what rights are, (for example that they are intersubjective) does not make those persons opinions correct, on grounds they simply agree.
3. The pathetic claim that you can derive rights "what you ought to do" From empirical facts is easily refuted. How? Because you cannot derive moral prescriptions (what ought to be) directly from factual descriptions (what is). In other words, knowing facts about the world doesn’t automatically tell you what you should do.

Fail.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Yes. Believing in something immaterial that will you acknowledge will NEVER be actualized through empirical demonstration is WORSE than religion.

At least religion THINKS it will someday be actualized, or it has been actualized.
you're a joke.

[OfDeath]

https://youtu.be/lHytjEj7B9g?si=C9nQRHILTd5VsMVn

[LoLATDemocrats]

Im not watching that.
Also not an argument. Or any evidence that you are correct.
Typical atheist, can't bring evidence to support their assertions.

[OfDeath]

The irony of that last sentence.

[LoLATDemocrats]

The stupidity of your last comment.

[OfDeath]

The irony of that sentence too.

[Anonymous]

do atheists still think Christians believe God is some magic sky daddy rather than some omnipresent entity beyond mortal comprehension that encompasses everything?

in terms of rights, life is the only God-given right. every other right is derived from physical might meaning only the strong dictate the rules

[LoLATDemocrats]

Nope. God doesn't give rights. Rights are entitlements absent duties.
Rights are not real.

[Opinion Owner]

then where does life come from? who gives out every other right besides life?

[LoLATDemocrats]

Irrelevant. You aren't entitled to things just because you exist. Your life can be taken away at any time by anyone, including a god.
So much for your "rights"

[Astarlessnightsky]

I don't get it, thats exactly how rights work they are written down in a constitution and other such documents. Thats why they can change and evolve.

How else would they work.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Thats how belief in god works, Its written down and other such documents.
How else would it work?
Oh right. Just because its written down doesn't mean they are real.
Stop with the nonsense.

[Staximus]

The all powerful magic sky daddy is a mythical being and a figment of your imagination. If you worship an imaginary god or human being like Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. then you're in a cult and dumber than a bag of hammers.

[LoLATDemocrats]

The all powerful magic rights granter is a figment of your imagination. If you worship this rights giving fairy, then you're in a cult and dumber than any religious nutjob.

[LoLATDemocrats]

by the way, i literally said in the post that there's zero evidence that i believe in a god.
But i can't expect atheists to not assert things without evidence. Thats literally all they do.
It can't be a figment of "my" imagination when i just asserted there's no evidence i believe in a god.

I believe in things with EVIDENCE. You should try it.

[DrPepper12]

Rights are illusions. It's enforcement and respect of those rights that make them real.

Why are you pointing out how dumb you are?

[LoLATDemocrats]

Wrong. So rights manifest into reality just because people act like they are. Thats exactly what you just said. I guess god exists then, because religions are illusions, its people going to church and taking sacrament that makes god real?
Why are you proving how stupid you are?

[slatyb]

What? Which atheists are saying that?

[LoLATDemocrats]

Um just about all of them. Tell me then, how do you justify rights existing if not by what i just said exactly?

[slatyb]

All of them? Please provide a verified quote from one of them.

[LoLATDemocrats]

On this very page. FunkyMonkee for one.

LOL.

[slatyb]

I can't look that up. Please post a quote or a link to one.

[LoLATDemocrats]

You can't look up who is on this page? Thats hilarious, and an obvious lie.

[LoLATDemocrats]

You must be an atheist, you're dishonest like one.

[Still-alive]

This isn’t a serious post

[LoLATDemocrats]

@Still-alive Thats not a serious comment.
Even if i grant that's true its not an argument and doesn't falsify anything that was said, by anyone.

[Still-alive]

c'mon look at your dumb username. you think we should take you seriously? lmao

[LoLATDemocrats]

@Still-alive Comeon look at YOUR dumb username. Thats asserting we should value a rando persons opinion on the internet. I see no good reason to value your opinion. And you think we should take that comment seriously? lmao.

[Still-alive]

not just that, level 1, no pfp, and you come right out the gate with an aggressive question like this? you're just trolling. cmon lol. get real

[Still-alive]

anyways i reported you. hopefully you'll be gone soon.

im outta here

[LoLATDemocrats]

@Still-alive Even if i grant you that im trolling, that's not an argument. Genius.
And nice rage quit. Coward.
Comeon, you lost and you ran away.
Get real.

[LoLATDemocrats]

@Still-alive OH NO! You reported me. I also reported you.

[LoLATDemocrats]

@Still-alive Lol. Poor democrat atheist who got triggered and lost the argument and ran off an pissed himself.

[Avicenna]

Maybe they mean natural law?

[LoLATDemocrats]

Natural law isn't real either, on top of it being provably false and a logical fallacy.
Bed bugs forcibly copulate in order to reproduce. And thats natural.
The appeal to nature fallacy is a logical fallacy that assumes something is good or bad because it's natural or unnatural.

Then one of the key things in nature is evolution. Which by the way, evolution cannot and does not account for truth. So any attempted truth proposition you could try and garner via evolution would be dubious at best.

[jahaims]

When you think you are using logic lmfao

[LoLATDemocrats]

When you think thats a good comeback. Lmfao.

[FunkyMonkee]

Because they are!

[LoLATDemocrats]

Great sky daddy is real too then!

[FunkyMonkee]

No it isn't.

[LoLATDemocrats]

Yes it is, sky daddy is written down and people act like he exists, just like rights. So therefore, he exists too.

[FunkyMonkee]

Prove it.

[LoLATDemocrats]

It's called a logical entailment of your position.
Shame you don't understand basic logic.

[FunkyMonkee]

Still waiting for the proof! Logic your way out of that!

[Anonymous]

Your confused

[Opinion Owner]

What does that have to do with this question you’ve got to be kidding me on everything you said

[Opinion Owner]

You’re a kid and it doesn’t

[Youlostthedebate]

Lol you got destroyed.

[Youlostthedebate]

Go ahead and delete this post too, im just going to post underneath this anyways, which you can't control. Awww. too bad.