Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1












Discuss this comedy gold. (Oh, sure, a lot of it is clearly just trolling, but that last one made me laugh really, really hard.)

Wow, I just say WOW

where did u find this

Reminds me of some of the dumb quotes of Jerry Falwell

Just to make clear, not all Christians share the same opinion and it does seem like the dumber ones decided to all get together and talk about how fake gravity is.

So yeah, this is comedy, very much, but please don't judge all Christians from this. Most of us haven't kissed our brains goodbye.

Obviously willofthewisp, fundamentalist Christians do not equal all Christians.

this must be where anne coulter spends her time on the web...

What is wrong with anything they said?

Originally posted by inimalist
this must be where anne coulter spends her time on the web...

I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!

This is almost too good

almost good enough to be fake...

Originally posted by inimalist
This is almost too good

almost good enough to be fake...

How many girls bring gay magazines to a boys house?

Yeah, my friend and I were talking about that one 2

I can't believe how stupid some people are. I got a good laugh out of some of the quotes and was also a bit dissapointed with how dumb or misinformed people can be. I mean seriously..regarding the first quote about gravitation, how low can your level of intelligence be if you can't understand something taught in a basic physics course.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Just to make clear, not all Christians share the same opinion and it does seem like the dumber ones decided to all get together and talk about how fake gravity is.

So yeah, this is comedy, very much, but please don't judge all Christians from this. Most of us haven't kissed our brains goodbye. Well you did have the likes of Jerry Falwell and his massive following that agreed with him and his views which is scary by any means.

Which is why we all need to examine some other belief system than the one we are handed at birth.

Unfortunately, the "no gravity" one appears to be real, or a facsimile of true craziness at the very least. The other ones...well, a lot of them are from Portal of Evil.

Fundies sure say the darndest things.

I thought Christians were the caring and forgiving ones, not unlike those filthy Muslims that will do something to you if you don't follow their beliefs.

Come on people, you're being intolerant of other beliefs.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Come on people, you're being intolerant of other beliefs.

No no. That's his/her belief, according to some, you must tolerate things like this.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No no. That's his/her belief, according to some, you must tolerate things like this.

Remember that when they a gathering stones or piling wood.

Ohh my Chuck these are hilarious. I was out of breath for around 3 minutes.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No no. That's his/her belief, according to some, you must tolerate things like this.

'Must'? I don't think so.

Besides the "wow that's wrong" chuckle factor, such quotes always leave me wondering how you go about changing the minds of people whose opinions are warped so thoroughly by blind religious faith and misinformation. Some of those posted seem faked to me, but the sentiments expressed do exist in many people.

We've all encountered lesser forms of it here on the forums occasionally, and I haven't really developed a way to counter it, so to speak.

I liken it to my own (de)conversion. I was a stalwart apologist for Catholicism, and a prepared one at that. But I know for a fact that in debates with people I encountered arguments which I refuted (or attempted to refute, I suppose) that I now use on the opposite side of the fence as a non-theist. But it was when I made the transition myself through thought and research, rather than being told such things by others, that I was able to judge them properly.

Which is why a strictly debating format seems flawed to me, in most cases, though it's usually all we have. The best I can think to do in such cases is to encourage them to search out the best arguments against their point of view on their own, if only to gain information about "the other side" or competing philosophies...not necessarily specifically to challenge their beliefs.

^ This.

ahahaaahaa ; sounds like my dad when i was 22!

Dont know what this guy means by secretive. What happens when a male and a female who like eachother get together?

*Whistles innocently.*

Toleration comes only when coupled with a sense of superiority and disdain.

Originally posted by Devil King
Toleration comes only when coupled with a sense of superiority and disdain. you just added so much to this clearly humorous thread

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
*Whistles innocently.*

Holy shit. I hope that isn't true. That is one of the most horrible things I have read. It would have been better, to me, if the father killed the child and had to go to prison and eat his buttsecks.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
you just added so much to this clearly humorous thread

Does that somehow make the point wrong?

Originally posted by Devil King
Does that somehow make the point wrong? yep

Originally posted by dadudemon
Holy shit. I hope that isn't true. That is one of the most horrible things I have read. It would have been better, to me, if the father killed the child and had to go to prison and eat his buttsecks.
That, my boy, was written by yours truly.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That, my boy, was written by yours truly.

Oh....that was satire.


In that case...it was funny.


man, that must have taken a while to type.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
yep

So, tolerating something has nothing to do with a sense of superiority and disdain? As soon as you say that statements are only worthy of merrit based on topic, then you discredit the majority of your posts in threads on this forum.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, tolerating something has nothing to do with a sense of superiority and disdain? As soon as you say that statements are only worthy of merrit based on topic, then you discredit the majority of your posts in threads on this forum.

Does the feeling set of all toleration always and completely overlap with the complete feeling set of superiority and disdain?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, tolerating something has nothing to do with a sense of superiority and disdain? As soon as you say that statements are only worthy of merrit based on topic, then you discredit the majority of your posts in threads on this forum. but chuck norris is in every topic. learn your history

Originally posted by chickenlover98
but chuck norris is in every topic. learn your history

LOL!


Splenda sales are up because Chuck Norris has no Equal.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
but chuck norris is in every topic. learn your history

Yeah, Mike Huckabee for President.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Could it also be the personal management of thought is implemented solely within the mind of the "tolerater" and is exclusive to a feeling of superiority and disdain?

a person has every right to assume themselve the bastion of toleration, but not the actual exercisement of that notion when it comes to others.

Originally posted by Devil King
a person has every right to assume themselve the bastion of toleration, but not the actual exercisement of that notion when it comes to others.

Yes they do; especially when it comes to others. Universal tolerance, in my opinion, is the next in humanity. We have yet to obtain universal tolerance...which, btw, I have been trying to get across that tolerating someone is not necessarily thinking you are superior to them.

I LOVED your use of the word "bastion". I was thinking of Access Control lists when I said, "personal management of thought is implemented solely within the mind". A bastion (specifically, a bastion host firewall) is perfectly in line with my thought process because that is a type of firewall. Man...it is abusrd how that worked out.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes they do; especially when it comes to others. Universal tolerance, in my opinion, is the next in humanity. We have yet to obtain universal tolerance...which, btw, I have been trying to get across that tolerating someone is not necessarily thinking you are superior to them.

I LOVED your use of the word "bastion". I was thinking of Access Control lists when I said, "personal management of thought is implemented solely within the mind". A bastion (specifically, a bastion host firewall) is perfectly in line with my thought process because that is a type of firewall. Man...it is abusrd how that worked out.

universal toleration is practically a contradiction in terms.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, Mike Huckabee for President. least he has a sense of humor. and chuck norris

Originally posted by chickenlover98
least he has a sense of humor. and chuck norris

...pssst....my post about Chuck....

Originally posted by Devil King
universal toleration is practically a contradiction in terms.

By your definition, yes.

By this definition, no:

"Tolerance with respect to the actions and beliefs of others"

The other ones listed that fit my use have more to do with religion, but they are very close to what I am using the word for.

Originally posted by dadudemon
but they are very close to what I am using the word for.

Then we can all assume you realize there is no "I" in "we" or "us". It comes as no suprise to me that you feel you speak for everyone.


Originally posted by chickenlover98
least he has a sense of humor. and chuck norris


...and nothing else.

Originally posted by Devil King
Then we can all assume you realize there is no "I" in "we" or "us". It comes as no suprise to me that you feel you speak for everyone.





...and nothing else. its funny cause he isnt barack obama.

Originally posted by Devil King
Then we can all assume you realize there is no "I" in "we" or "us". It comes as no suprise to me that you feel you speak for everyone.





...and nothing else. of course he speaks for everyone. has he told you the word of jesus christ as it pertains to the bible?

First of all, I'm thinking that you're thinking a little too deeply into the issue. Secondly, now that my thread is thoroughly derailed, does the pro-choice advocate feel the same way when she chooses not to abort a fetus? Does she think, "I literally hold the power of life and death over this fetus. I am God to it. Its existence is solely based on my good pleasure"?

To answer the question--and to rebutt your claim--no, the woman does not. She thinks, "I'm pregnant; whoops. Better get this taken care of because I wouldn't want a kid interfering with my life."

Similarly, the person against homosexual marriage probably thinks something along the lines of, "Homosexual marriage is wrong. I don't think it should be allowed. I should vote 'no.'"

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First of all, I'm thinking that you're thinking a little too deeply into the issue. Secondly, now that my thread is thoroughly derailed, does the pro-choice advocate feel the same way when she chooses not to abort a fetus? Does she think, "I literally hold the power of life and death over this fetus. I am God to it. Its existence is solely based on my good pleasure"?

To answer the question--and to rebutt your claim--no, the woman does not. She thinks, "I'm pregnant; whoops. Better get this taken care of because I wouldn't want a kid interfering with my life."

Similarly, the person against homosexual marriage probably thinks something along the lines of, "Homosexual marriage is wrong. I don't think it should be allowed. I should vote 'no.'" i agree. and lemme just say i didnt derail your thread. i apologize

If you didn't derail the thread, then there is no need for apologies. Also, I was referring to the Captain. Anyway, I am having a lovely time trolling the **** out of Facebook with the spiel I posted.

I am also trying to explain how it is the LORD's will that blacks be enslaved and how the Emancipation Proclamation goes against His divine plan.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First of all, I'm thinking that you're thinking a little too deeply into the issue. Secondly, now that my thread is thoroughly derailed, does the pro-choice advocate feel the same way when she chooses not to abort a fetus? Does she think, "I literally hold the power of life and death over this fetus. I am God to it. Its existence is solely based on my good pleasure"?

To answer the question--and to rebutt your claim--no, the woman does not. She thinks, "I'm pregnant; whoops. Better get this taken care of because I wouldn't want a kid interfering with my life."

Similarly, the person against homosexual marriage probably thinks something along the lines of, "Homosexual marriage is wrong. I don't think it should be allowed. I should vote 'no.'"

First, you always assume everyone else is thinking too deeply into your perspective. Second, I doubt that gay rihts have anything to do with life or death, unless we assume that a person is voting to kill gay people, rather than granting them the rights the voter themselves think they're entitled to and are in a position to bestow on others.

Originally posted by Devil King
Then we can all assume you realize there is no "I" in "we" or "us". It comes as no suprise to me that you feel you speak for everyone.

I agree that my idea that the next step in human civilization is universal tolerance is just that...my idea. You obviously adhere to only one definition of the word "tolerance" and only one application of the word tolerance. You personify the very thing you are defining....Tolerance comes served with a sense of superiority and disdain.

Originally posted by Devil King
First, you always assume everyone else is thinking too deeply into your perspective. Second, I doubt that gay rihts have anything to do with life or death, unless we assume that a person is voting to kill gay people, rather than granting them the rights the voter themselves think they're entitled to and are in a position to bestow on others.
You missed it ("it" being the point).

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You missed it ("it" being the point).

"the point" being what you meant to express?

That the Cap's wrong because he's assigning false motive.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That the Cap's wrong because he's assigning false motive.

No, you misunderstood me. I was more defining what the "it" in your previous post was and asking for your confirmation than inquiring about the specifics.

Ah. Well, yes, then.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree that my idea that the next step in human civilization is universal tolerance is just that...my idea. You obviously adhere to only one definition of the word "tolerance" and only one application of the word tolerance. You personify the very thing you are defining....Tolerance comes served with a sense of superiority and disdain.

I don't adhere to only one definition, if I did there would only have been a single definition in my post. My point is that 2 of the 3 definitions represent my view, while only one supports yours. So, if there is anyone here that subscribes to only one definition, it's you.

And you mean to tell me that you have your head so far up your ass that you refuse to understand what I'm talking about? You disagree with the notion that "gay rights" are rights bestowed on homosexuals by a public majority that thinks rights are theirs to pass out as long as the applicants meet their standards?


Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That the Cap's wrong because he's assigning false motive.

To who?

People who are against gay marriage.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo

Discuss this comedy gold. (Oh, sure, a lot of it is clearly just trolling, but that last one made me laugh really, really hard.)

that was funny, but i think the first one was the most funny. i lol'd

"Give money and be healed, in the name of Jesus!"

Common quote.

Amen and amen, and RA, RA, RA!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
People who are against gay marriage.

People can think it's wrong for what ever reason they wish, but failing to realize it's not their place to pass out rights is motivated by the fact that anyone asked them in the first place. This is where the sense of superiority comes from in this situation.

I'm going to Heaven and you're not........Hehe, Haha.......

Like that?


You're gonna burn and I'm gonna......well, I don't really know what I'm gonna do.........I guess I'll just float and sing.

No, I'm going to heaven too. And when I get there, I'll have my foreskin back.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, I'm going to heaven too. And when I get there, I'll have my foreskin back.

Me too.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, I'm going to heaven too. And when I get there, I'll have my foreskin back.

Foreskins are not allowed.

*speaks in a Bardock voice* Hard to do when all you can say is Ich heBe Gott......*Imagin that "B" as very special"

How do you know for sure? Says the German.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
*speaks in a Bardock voice* Hard to do when all you can say is Ich heBe......*Imagin that "B" as very special"

How do you know for sure?

God told me.glare

Well god told me too something different. It said "Live and let die"....

I said Otay.......Youre the boss...lol

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Foreskins are not allowed.

Well, most of Europe is going to hell then.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, most of Europe is going to hell then.

The plan is working.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Well god told me too something different. It said "Live and let die"....

Paul McCartney is God?!

Damn...It's out now..

Actually it was John, but......well, he must RISE again! Amen and Amen.........*said in Egyptian accent*



















Oh, that's Antichrist...........



Okay, I'm cool with that.

I saw a fundamentalist video recently saying the Pope was the antichrist...they're not too happy about him visiting the States.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1












Discuss this comedy gold. (Oh, sure, a lot of it is clearly just trolling, but that last one made me laugh really, really hard.)

Oh my...so much for Love thy neighbour...this isnt comedy its dangerous!

As for the killing gays thing, let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...

"several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years." man this proves religion is for the worlds idiots that dont know crap from an apple, god the gravity one killed me to

Originally posted by Devil King
People can think it's wrong for what ever reason they wish, but failing to realize it's not their place to pass out rights is motivated by the fact that anyone asked them in the first place. This is where the sense of superiority comes from in this situation.
Again, looking too much into it. I'm skeptical that there's a sense of "superiority."

The word "GIVE' COMES TO MIND.

Originally posted by Devil King
I don't adhere to only one definition, if I did there would only have been a single definition in my post. My point is that 2 of the 3 definitions represent my view, while only one supports yours. So, if there is anyone here that subscribes to only one definition, it's you.

This is where we disagree, significantly.

"No, my version is more encompassing."

"No, MINE is."

"Nuh uh!"


I don't feel like posting 8+ definitions that correspond to my version. Your versions support my definition better. You generalized with typical cynicism. I called you on a generalization with my questions. Just say, "okay okay..it isn't always true" we be done with it.


However, I agree with your homosexual example. Point taken. Point understood. You're preaching to the choir.

Originally posted by Devil King
And you mean to tell me that you have your head so far up your ass that you refuse to understand what I'm talking about? You disagree with the notion that "gay rights" are rights bestowed on homosexuals by a public majority that thinks rights are theirs to pass out as long as the applicants meet their standards?

Wow.

okay another quote. "Pray hard cause if not it';lll jump into you..i.e..demon." crybaby


* 11 year old frozen in seat*

"I'm not talking about a simple power outage. I'm talking about enriched plutonium which comes from the conversion of uranium into WMD. It is considered the most dangerous substance known to man and absolutely will shut off the electricity present in planes. All any terrorist has to do is drop large quantities of plutonium from airplanes onto American soil and it will render electricity completely useless. And the chain reaction that will occur from the US shutting down will be global. We Americans have had the capacity to do that to our enemies for years. I had erroneoulsy thought that atheists knew that since they claim to know so much about our universe.



But as usual, you haven't thought things through at all and are speaking from ignorance again" that guy is soooooo dumb

"Make sure your answer uses Scripture, not logic." lol sounds like JesusisAlive

Originally posted by Devil King
People can think it's wrong for what ever reason they wish, but failing to realize it's not their place to pass out rights is motivated by the fact that anyone asked them in the first place. This is where the sense of superiority comes from in this situation.

Who passed out the Human Rights Bill..................people did.

Originally posted by The big EH
"I'm not talking about a simple power outage. I'm talking about enriched plutonium which comes from the conversion of uranium into WMD. It is considered the most dangerous substance known to man and absolutely will shut off the electricity present in planes. All any terrorist has to do is drop large quantities of plutonium from airplanes onto American soil and it will render electricity completely useless. And the chain reaction that will occur from the US shutting down will be global. We Americans have had the capacity to do that to our enemies for years. I had erroneoulsy thought that atheists knew that since they claim to know so much about our universe.



But as usual, you haven't thought things through at all and are speaking from ignorance again" that guy is soooooo dumb

"Make sure your answer uses Scripture, not logic." lol sounds like JesusisAlive

I think you have it wrong. There is a such a thing as an EM burst the will fry all electronics withing range, but I have never heard anything about plutonium shut off the electricity present in planes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you have it wrong. There is a such a thing as an EM burst the will fry all electronics withing range, but I have never heard anything about plutonium shut off the electricity present in planes.

The EMP from a nuclear explosion would definitely fry electronics within a certain vacinity. Just dropping plutonium would only cause radiation poisoning.

I don't like demons running around in churches.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The EMP from a nuclear explosion would definitely fry electronics within a certain vacinity. Just dropping plutonium would only cause radiation poisoning.

That is what I thought too.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Again, looking too much into it. I'm skeptical that there's a sense of "superiority."

Of course there is. The people who espouse their religion as a reason are prime examples. And it can be viewed the same way as when a parent says "I'm doing this for your own good". Well, they're not my parents. So, they aren't doing it because they care. They're doing it because some dumb shit, democracy-lauding moron decided that equal rights were up for debate.


Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where we disagree, significantly.

"No, my version is more encompassing."

"No, MINE is."

"Nuh uh!"


I don't feel like posting 8+ definitions that correspond to my version. Your versions support my definition better. You generalized with typical cynicism. I called you on a generalization with my questions. Just say, "okay okay..it isn't always true" we be done with it.

Hey, don't drag me into the childish nature of your conversational skills. I posted the definitions and you said I only subscribed to a single definition. Well, in point of fact, you actually only agree with one of them, and that's the happy-go-lucky, everyone loves each other somewhere deep inside version.

Sure, I'll change to suit you. Your head really is up your ass, isn't it? I'm sure in your utopian vision of the world no one of religion is an arrogant prick. Do you support gay marriage? More to the point, do you think it's any of your business?



Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Who passed out the Human Rights Bill..................people did.

What the hell is a human rights bill?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you have it wrong. There is a such a thing as an EM burst the will fry all electronics withing range, but I have never heard anything about plutonium shut off the electricity present in planes.

......That wasn't the point.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
......That wasn't the point.

What was it, because I'm having a hard time figuring it out myself?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
......That wasn't the point.

What was the point?

Originally posted by Devil King

What the hell is a human rights bill?

He probably means the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Originally posted by Devil King
What the hell is a human rights bill?

Universial Declaration of Human Rights.

See, the problem here is Devil King. If there is to God to whom we are all responsible then we humans are indeed the supreme authority on this Earth. Thus it is up to us to decide what rights people have...you can't claim you have a "right" if you cant say where it comes from...

Originally posted by Devil King
What was it, because I'm having a hard time figuring it out myself? Originally posted by Bardock42
He probably means the Universal Declaration of Human Rights I think the point was that all that guy said is scientifically incorrect, yet he talks from a view of superiority. It's a pretty funny quote.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Universial Declaration of Human Rights.

See, the problem here is Devil King. If there is to God to whom we are all responsible then we humans are indeed the supreme authority on this Earth. Thus it is up to us to decide what rights people have...you can't claim you have a "right" if you cant say where it comes from...

I am not addressing any sort of UN resolution. In the United States we collectively agree: "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."

"Creator" is intentionaly ambiguous, and was included by Mr. Jefferson to show due consideration to the religious and philisophical beliefs of all men, including those who don't subscribe to religion, as he himself did not.

But you will notice that the word "Rights" is capitalized. This is because these rights are "unalienable", which means they are ours from birth and can not be GIVEN or taken. And if we should follow that logic to the present day, one person in this country does not have a right that another does not. Period.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Universial Declaration of Human Rights.

See, the problem here is Devil King. If there is to God to whom we are all responsible then we humans are indeed the supreme authority on this Earth. Thus it is up to us to decide what rights people have...you can't claim you have a "right" if you cant say where it comes from... That's always the case though. You only have a right if someone grants it to you. But you generally have the freedom even if people deny you it.

Originally posted by Devil King
I am not addressing any sort of UN resolution. In the United States we collectively agree: "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."

"Creator" is intentionaly ambiguous, and was included by Mr. Jefferson to show due consideration to the religious and philisophical beliefs of all men, including those who don't subscribe to religion, as he himself did not.

But you will notice that the word "Rights" is capitalized. This is because these rights are "unalienable", which means they are ours from birth and can not be GIVEN or taken. And if we should follow that logic to the present day, one person in this country does not have a right that another does not. Period.

So your rights where given to you by the founding fathers...who subsequently withheld them from the slaves...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So your rights where given to you by the founding fathers...who subsequently withheld them from the slaves...

No. The document was written by men. Men who then turned around and realized that those rights were not theirs to give. Unalienable, creator, self-evident, these words are not just tossed in because they sound nice. They have meanings and intent. And these very same men went on to say that the government existed to protect those rights, not to grant them, bestow them or impart them to citizens of foreign nations or even it's own citizenry.

edit: they were withheld from slaves, but a great many of the "founding fathers" desired rights for slaves, but to maintain a revolution against Britain, they had to have the support of the southern colonies, which had an economy based on slavery. But even 100 years before the civil war, they knew it woud end up tearing the country apart.

So..where do these rights come from? Your just born with them? Says who...why? What evidence do you have to prove we all share the same rights?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So..where do these rights come from? Your just born with them? Says who...why? What evidence do you have to prove we all share the same rights? My wife?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So..where do these rights come from? Your just born with them?

That's right. Whom ever you may desire to ascribe them to is up to you. You say it's Jesus; Ali Hazeem says it Allah; Joe Schmoe says it's Yahweh; Billy Buddhist says it doesn't matter and Athiest Alan might believe it's the process of evolution and the wonders of science and nature.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What evidence do you have to prove we all share the same rights?

Are you alive? Do you like being treted unfairly? Do you think your neighbour has the right to make you convert to his religion? Do you think Islam should be spreading it's religion at the end of a gun? Do you think the Pope should have ultimate authority on Earth? How would you feel about owning another human being?

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you alive?
Well, by Digimarks logic, I dont know is the only answer I can give.

Originally posted by Devil King
Do you like being treted unfairly?
Not really but I don't like the idea of State Benefits...but some people believe it's their right...so whether I like it or not proves nothing.


Originally posted by Devil King
Do you think your neighbour has the right to make you convert to his religion?
Really, please clarify on this one! I would say it's OK for him to discuss his religion with you and explain why he believes you should believe in it yes...rational discussion is a good thing.


Originally posted by Devil King
Do you think Islam should be spreading it's religion at the end of a gun?
Should anyone be allowed to spread anything with force? Though whether I think it should or not doesn't really explain rights...


Originally posted by Devil King
Do you think the Pope should have ultimate authority on Earth?
He does and should have

Originally posted by Devil King
How would you feel about owning another human being?

I don't like the idea.


That was all very good but it doesn't say much for those Rights you described. Which as you said, can be withheld in certain economic/wartime factors.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, by Digimarks logic, I dont know is the only answer I can give.



One, I'm not even in this discussion. Two, this comment is wildly out of context, and doesn't include the entire argument but only the part that you want to mock me for.

Really, I understand that we don't see eye to eye on much in this forum, but at least I'm respectful to you.

And btw, his questions were rhetorical, intended to show you that rote answers we'd all give to such questions establish common rights apart from any religious belief.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


One, I'm not even in this discussion. Two, this comment is wildly out of context, and doesn't include the entire argument but only the part that you want to mock me for.

Really, I understand that we don't see eye to eye on much in this forum, but at least I'm respectful to you.

And btw, his questions were rhetorical, intended to show you that rote answers we'd all give to such questions establish common rights apart from any religious belief.

My dear digimark it was a playful joke intended to illustrate the wondrous world of different opinion and varied interpretation. My apologies to you.

Furthermore, his questions may have been rhetorical but were no less bogus- infact by asking them he defeated his own argument. He stated rights were not given by man...I asked what his evidence was, he refered me to my own beliefs...if rights are defined by what we believed. Then in ancient Rome women did not have the unalienable un-given right to choose their husband...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, by Digimarks logic, I dont know is the only answer I can give.


Not really but I don't like the idea of State Benefits...but some people believe it's their right...so whether I like it or not proves nothing.



Really, please clarify on this one! I would say it's OK for him to discuss his religion with you and explain why he believes you should believe in it yes...rational discussion is a good thing.



Should anyone be allowed to spread anything with force? Though whether I think it should or not doesn't really explain rights...



He does and should have



I don't like the idea.


That was all very good but it doesn't say much for those Rights you described. Which as you said, can be withheld in certain economic/wartime factors.

Oh, christ, I didn't realize you were Catholic.

I described no rights.

Yes, well, as a gay man, I don't have the same rights as you would in this country and that has nothing to do with the war or the economy...so your example doesn't really mean much.

I'm not addressing the reality of how this country works. I'm addressing the intent on which it was founded. I would invite you to consider the rights that are being taken away from Americans due to the "War on Terror". There is a reason people are pissed off. Because the government shouldn't have the ability to take away rights, but it is. And you should remember that Rights are differrent from rights.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
My dear digimark it was a playful joke intended to illustrate the wondrous world of different opinion and varied interpretation. My apologies to you.

Furthermore, his questions may have been rhetorical but were no less bogus- infact by asking them he defeated his own argument. He stated rights were not given by man...I asked what his evidence was, he refered me to my own beliefs...if rights are defined by what we believed. Then in ancient Rome women did not have the unalienable un-given right to choose their husband...

No, my friend, not bogus. What's bogus is that these ideas and the reality of their intent was realized 300 years ago, and you still don't understand them.

Yes, they did have the right to choose their husband. It simply wasn't allowed to them, by other humans. That's why the US isn't Rome.

And I referred you to your own beliefs as a matter of where you have every right to believe those rights came. For me "their Creator" doesn't mean Jesus Christ. For you, it does, and that's your right.

Just to be correct though. Gay men obviously have the same rights as straight men in the US.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
My dear digimark it was a playful joke intended to illustrate the wondrous world of different opinion and varied interpretation. My apologies to you.

Furthermore, his questions may have been rhetorical but were no less bogus- infact by asking them he defeated his own argument. He stated rights were not given by man...I asked what his evidence was, he refered me to my own beliefs...if rights are defined by what we believed. Then in ancient Rome women did not have the unalienable un-given right to choose their husband...

Ah. Fair 'nuf then.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just to be correct though. Gay men obviously have the same rights as straight men in the US.

yes. all men have the same rights. but gay men and straight men do not have the same rights.

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh, christ, I didn't realize you were Catholic.

I described no rights.

Yes, well, as a gay man, I don't have the same rights as you would in this country and that has nothing to do with the war or the economy...so your example doesn't really mean much.

No no, I didn't mean standing laws I meant the American Declaration of Independence...which dished out "unalienable Rights" but suspended them for some, my point was that these "rights" while being described as comming from a creator were in fact given by man...

Again, the fact that the government feels it can withhold Rights from you it gives to other citizens seems, to me, to suggest that the rights are certainly not "unalienable"

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not addressing the reality of how this country works. I'm addressing the intent on which it was founded. I would invite you to consider the rights that are being taken away from Americans due to the "War on Terror". There is a reason people are pissed off. Because the government shouldn't have the ability to take away rights, but it is. And you should remember that Rights are differrent from rights.

I'm glad you made the distinction at the end there and I agree with you the government does not have the right to remove your Rights.

However, that was not my question...what do you base these Rights on, where do you think they come from and what evidence do you have that they are in fact real? Or does that even matter?

Originally posted by Devil King
yes. all men have the same rights. but gay men and straight men do not have the same rights. They do. They don't have the same relation to the rights. But I would be just as oppressed as you by the laws of the US, even though I personally could easily forfeit the right I believe everyone should have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They do. They don't have the same relation to the rights. But I would be just as oppressed as you by the laws of the US, even though I personally could easily forfeit the right I believe everyone should have.

All men in the US have the same rights. But gay men (and women) and straight men (and women) do not have equitable rights. That is why it's descrimination.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No no, I didn't mean standing laws I meant the American Declaration of Independence...which dished out "unalienable Rights" but suspended them for some, my point was that these "rights" while being described as comming from a creator were in fact given by man...

Again, the fact that the government feels it can withhold Rights from you it gives to other citizens seems, to me, to suggest that the rights are certainly not "unalienable"



I'm glad you made the distinction at the end there and I agree with you the government does not have the right to remove your Rights.

However, that was not my question...what do you base these Rights on, where do you think they come from and what evidence do you have that they are in fact real? Or does that even matter?

I really get the sense you're trying not to understand this. Rights were NOT HANDED OUT, they were DECLARED. AS FACT, as reality in the human condition. They are not, as was said, given by kings, gods, popes or presidents to all people, as it was up to the people to decide where they came from, but that their opinion does not change the fact that they have them. And as mind-boggling as it will sound to you, you have the right not to think you deserve any rights that weren't passed out by Jesus. If that's where you think you got your rights, run with it. But you have rights. And the only possible out for you is to deny that you have rights.

Originally posted by Devil King
I really get the sense you're trying not to understand this. Rights were NOT HANDED OUT, they were DECLARED. AS FACT, as reality in the human condition. They are not, as was said, given by kings, gods, popes or presidents to all people, as it was up to the people to decide where they came from, but that their opinion does not change the fact that they have them. And as mind-boggling as it will sound to you, you have the right not to think you deserve any rights that weren't passed out by Jesus. If that's where you think you got your rights, run with it. But you have rights. And the only possible out for you is to deny that you have rights.

I do believe we have Rights, I do believe that they cannot be taken away as well.

HOWEVER, lets think about this...

The Signatories accept that all mankind has Rights that they are born with and are not given to by the State...however, they then choose to suspend those rights to slaves because, as you said, they needed to maintain the support of the southern states in order to fight against Britain. What does this tell us? These men who accept Rights are not given by any man then claim sovereignty over these Rights and choose who may have them and who may not. (My point is you can't refer to that Declaration as evidence for the existence of human rights..its simply people giving their opinion on them, which they dont seem to feel is too binding anyway.)

I am not nor have I ever said I do not believe we as human beings have Rights but I am asking you where do you think these rights come from, what evidence do you have for these rights and does it matter if they aren't actually real anyway and just taken upon by us...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
what do you base these Rights on?

Are you alive?

Your debate with digimark aside, you are sitting behind your computer screen reading and typing. So I'm guessing you are.

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you alive?

Your debate with digimark aside, you are sitting behind your computer screen reading and typing. So I'm guessing you are.

So life equals Rights?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I do believe we have Rights, I do believe that they cannot be taken away as well.

HOWEVER, lets think about this...

The Signatories accept that all mankind has Rights that they are born with and are not given to by the State...however, they then choose to suspend those rights to slaves because, as you said, they needed to maintain the support of the southern states in order to fight against Britain. What does this tell us? These men who accept Rights are not given by any man then claim sovereignty over these Rights and choose who may have them and who may not. (My point is you can't refer to that Declaration as evidence for the existence of human rights..its simply people giving their opinion on them, which they dont seem to feel is too binding anyway.)

I am not nor have I ever said I do not believe we as human beings have Rights but I am asking you where do you think these rights come from, what evidence do you have for these rights and does it matter if they aren't actually real anyway and just taken upon by us...

And I also explained that the rights we all have as living human bengs were denied to some, and for the same reason you mentioned women in ancient Rome. They were denied by some, but a majority of the peopple involved in the process believed that those rights were applicable to slaves. Just because some did not think they were does not mean the slaves didn't have them, it meant they were forcibly denied to them. Again, you're getting carried off by how the US government works (or worked) and not what was the intent.

These rights are our when we're born. As to where they come from, that is up to each and every person to decide for themselves. AGAIN, you can think they come from God; I happen to believe they are ours by virtue of existence. You are more than welcome to think that god has the ability to take them away from you. But I do not think He does, because I do not think He is particularly interested.

Originally posted by Devil King
I happen to believe they are ours by virtue of existence.

Thank you, thats all I needed to know...


So, you'll be supporting Equal Rights for the Great Apes then?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So life equals Rights?

Yes.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes.

Can I ask why?

Originally posted by Devil King
Yes.

Then do you believe in animal right? If so, then how are those right different from human right.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thank you, thats all I needed to know...


So, you'll be supporting Equal Rights for the Great Apes then?

"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."

I, personally, think that animals do have the right to exist without being needlessly murdered as a resource or hinderance to human needs and desires. But, I do nott hold that you have to subscribe to the same idea.

Originally posted by Devil King
"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."

I, personally, think that animals do have the right to exist without being needlessly murdered as a resource or hinderance to human needs and desires. But, I do nott hold that you have to subscribe to the same idea.

I'm sorry, why do we have rights because we live but animals don't...

Oh, and why do you quote that Declaration?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I'm sorry, why do we have rights because we live but animals don't...

Oh, and why do you quote that Declaration?

Are you not understanding me? I think they do have rights. But I do not think that just because I think they do that you have to as well.

Governments are not created to govern or protect animals.

Why do you quote the bible? The Declaration is a wonderfu example of mankind's ability to seperate it's own condition into equal categories based on the reader of the words. In it, I find my right to exist and persue happiness. In it, you can find your right to persue happiness as you see fit to translate it from the intentions of your definition of god. We both win. Your bible does not provide such liberty or consideration.

I think you have the right, it's simply denied by the people in power. A lot of countries on this planet don't have the ability to excersice their own rights. Tibet, China, Darfur, Saudi Arabia, ect. These people have rights, they simply aren't in a position to enjoy them. And the US is inching closer and closer to a need for a bill of the lack of our rights. In fact, we pretty much have been since the day after we elected our first independant government.

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you not understanding me? I think they do have rights. But I do not think that just because I think they do that you have to as well.

Governments are not created to govern or protect animals.

So why do I have to acknowledge your rights but not the rights of animals...since Rights are given by Birth.




Originally posted by Devil King
Why do you quote the bible? The Declaration is a wonderfu example of mankind's ability to seperate it's own condition into equal categories based on the reader of the words. In it, I find my right to exist and persue happiness. In it, you can find your right to persue happiness as you see fit to translate it from the intentions of your definition of god. We both win. Your bible does not provide such liberty or consideration.

First off I'm not quoting the Bible...so that was silly of you...

So you believe the Declaration codifies what your rights are...though it is not the governing body of what your rights are...

Oh by the way, theres a Latin Term for what you just did, attacking someone elses belief when your own is questioned...even if the other persons beleif is not part of the debate...I can't remember what it is... bet Bardock would know.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So why do I have to acknowledge your rights but not the rights of animals...since Rights are given by Birth.

Because I am your equal. And I just said you "don't have to", I choose to because I believe animals do have the right to their own existence.






Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
First off I'm not quoting the Bible...so that was silly of you...

So you believe the Declaration codifies what your rights are...though it is not the governing body of what your rights are...

You do quote the bible, a lot. I've seen you do it a dozen times in half as many threads today alone. You quote it and interpret it and substantiate it.

It isn't a matter of believing it does. In point of fact, it does. You've never read eith the DoI or the US Constitution, have you?

Originally posted by Devil King
Because I am your equal. And I just said you "don't have to", I choose to because I believe animals do have the right to their own existence.








You do quote the bible, a lot. I've seen you do it a dozen times in half as many threads today alone. You quote it and interpret it and substantiate it.

It isn't a matter of believing it does. In point of fact, it does. You've never read eith the DoI or the US Constitution, have you?

I said I'M NOT, the Bible was not part of the debate, you attacked it as a means to support your own attitudes towards that Declaration. I have read it actually...I am not criticizing it...I am just interested to know why you value it so highly...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I said I'M NOT, the Bible was not part of the debate, you attacked it as a means to support your own attitudes towards that Declaration. I have read it actually...I am not criticizing it...I am just interested to know why you value it so highly...

So, why don't you have to value my rights?

I didn't attack it. I said it doesn't provide rights for anyone excpt the people who believe in it, and even those rights are based on specific adherence. The DoI does not do this. In fact, it does the opposite. This is why I value it.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, why don't you have to value my rights?

I didn't attack it. I said it doesn't provide rights for anyone excpt the people who believe in it, and even those rights are based on specific adherence. The DoI does not do this. In fact, it does the opposite. This is why I value it.

I do value your rights and I do value your existence...

Never said I didn't.

Jesus "Love your neighbour, do unto him as you would have done to you."

Thats an unrestricted command.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I do value your rights and I do value your existence...

Never said I didn't.

Jesus "Love your neighbour, do unto him as you would have done to you."

Thats an unrestricted command.

A command that is not supported by the first half of the bible, but is included and soundly ignored by many of the followers of the second half; just as has been done with the Declaration.

Jesus had wonderful intentions, as a historical figure (real or mythical) I support many of his teachings, soundly. As did Mr, Jefferson, who had a copy of the bible from which he had removed every reference to the divinity of Christ. But, like Jefferson and Franklin, his good intentions were corrupted as soon as the pen was lifted from paper. As soon as Jesus said it, it was used to condemn others and practice the exact opposite of what he was saying.

Originally posted by Devil King
A command that is not supported by the first half of the bible, but is included and soundly ignored by many of the followers of the second half; just as has been done with the Declaration.

The first half is almost irrellevant- it provides a context for what Jesus did.

Indeed, many Christians ignore it...yesterday I saw a video in which some American Fundamentalists said the government should execute homosexuals...

Needless to say Jesus would not want that...but these "Christians" are ignoring another famous line, "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone".

However, just because people who claim to be Christians do not follow the Bible as they should does not actually dilute the text itself.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The first half is almost irrellevant- it provides a context for what Jesus did.

Indeed, many Christians ignore it...yesterday I saw a video in which some American Fundamentalists said the government should execute homosexuals...

Needless to say Jesus would not want that...but these "Christians" are ignoring another famous line, "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone".

However, just because people who claim to be Christians do not follow the Bible as they should does not actually dilute the text itself.

The first half of the bible is contradictory to the second half and illustrates the new covenant established by Jesus, with humanity. I have always assumed the OT was included in the bible to illustrate the compassion of Jesus and the magnitude of the change he represented. But it is not looked at that way by most of his followers. Most would say they are of equal merrit, which practically denies the reality of the new ageement Jesus was here to usher in.

Again, it's toally up to you if you want to assume Jesus is the only one truly worthy of "casting the stone". But he didn't do it. And what has mankind spent the last 2000 years doing? Casting stones.

The text isn't dilluted by followers, it's dilluted by itself; which was the fault of the human beings who worte it and then later got together to decide which parts of the infallible words of god should be included.

At least in the DoI, it was men saying they were men realizing it for themselves.

Originally posted by Devil King
Again, the intention was corrpted practically as soon as the idea was written down.

They are not given to us by the government, despite the position held for many years by our politial system. They are protected by the government. This was the intention of our system of government. And rights are not, should not as was intended by the founders of this REPUBLIC, granted by the majority. It is for this very reason that I have made the accusation that asking the majority to bestow or give rights to a minority is contrary to the system of government on which this nation was founded. So what are the rights of every person?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So what are the rights of every person?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which, as you said, the persuit of happiness is pretty vague. Life is not, and liberty is much less so.

Originally posted by Devil King
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which, as you said, the persuit of happiness is pretty vague. Life is not, and liberty is much less so. Even life is not, lets say you wanted to end your life? What if you needed food to live, who is supposed to provide you with the food if you can not get it? Then we can get into the whole medical thing.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Even life is not, lets say you wanted to end your life? What if you needed food to live, who is supposed to provide you with the food if you can not get it? Then we can get into the whole medical thing.

Life is a right. You have to right to live. It does not address the quality of life, as there must be some things the individual does for him or her self. Besides, the quality of life is not a constant, and certainly not the desired quality of life. The quality of life is more often than not dependant upon the era in which we live. You have to right to live, but it does not say you have the right to live off someone else. And as far as I'm concerned, people should be allowed to off themselves if they want.

Originally posted by Devil King
What was it, because I'm having a hard time figuring it out myself?

He says it will completely shut down a plane's electricity, and then right after says terrorists can start dropping it from PLANES. If it shuts off a plane's power, how can you drop it from a plane?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
He says it will completely shut down a plane's electricity, and then right after says terrorists can start dropping it from PLANES. If it shuts off a plane's power, how can you drop it from a plane?

Oh, I thought you were saying you understood what he was saying. You have an excellent point.

Nah, the guy's talking out of his ass. Enriched plutonium won't do shit to electrical plants.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Nah, the guy's talking out of his ass. Enriched plutonium won't do shit to electrical plants.

It'll poison a fair few people though won't it?

the fundamentard was thinking of electro-magnetic pulse. you would also kinda have to cause atomic fission, but im sure it can be done with box cutters.