Prove there's a god.

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
You used ad hominem.
In any debating contest, you would have lost

You are a simpering moron.

In any debating contest, your ass would be tossed into the street by the nap of your neck.

14th Amendment

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
How??

How

Back to you, squa.

Silent Assassins wrote:

<quoted text>You have to call her and Hiding out when they go freaked out psycho because they can not handle it.

Your religions are dying, because of us atheists, and our support of all the atheist organizations. BTW - we are growing, while you radicals are shrinking.

Angel in Black wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
hahaha, that's great!

I gotta remember that line--it is sooooo versatile!!

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Firstly - My buddy won the debate
Once you made any kind of personal attacks, the debate is over.
In any event - the Supreme Court disagrees from you. The hearing in question has not been overturned. The ruling stands.

Your buddy lost the debate.

Proof is that he denies his own words.

He admitted the Court makes unconstitutional rulings.

So the ground for defending the present reversal is gone from under his feet, as it relates to what the actual principle in the Constitution is.

The Supreme Court is not the Constitution.

So when you say the protection is in the 14th amendment, you are lying.

It is not there.

You are an idiot.

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Firstly - My buddy won the debate
Once you made any kind of personal attacks, the debate is over.
In any event - the Supreme Court disagrees from you. The hearing in question has not been overturned. The ruling stands.

You know....

When I was in the Army, during basic training the DI's would have made Buck and whoever hold hands and skip everywhere in the platoon area they went.

Was pretty amazing just how soon the differences and such were ironed out.

Just so you know, Buck, we had a DI, SFC Graham, that was 5'2" and could put you on the ground in about 3 seconds.

I don't care who you are.

So, there was no choice in skipping and holding hands.

Or there was hell to pay.

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>
It does if you expect rational, thinking adults to believe in it.

Big_Poppa_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you need proof that you're your parents child?

My parents are not mythical beings that demand love while threatening eternal damnation.

Big_Poppa_ wrote:

<quoted text>We know the wind exists but can't see it.

We see and feel its effects; therefore, we know it is real. Not so with your "god."

Big_Poppa_ wrote:

<quoted text> I know, weak analogy

Yes, it is.

Big_Poppa_ wrote:

<quoted text> but nonetheless it proves a point.

No it doesn't.

Big_Poppa_ wrote:

<quoted text>The master needs not prove anything.

"Master?" Is *that* what you call it? So, you see yourself as a slave to your "master?"

If you expect me to believe in your god, you are required to prove its existence.

Big_Poppa_ wrote:

<quoted text>Do great sports players need to prove anything? Pele, Tendulkar, Messi, Tiger Woods etc? NOPE.

They're not the issue.

Big_Poppa_ wrote:

<quoted text>We are the apprentices. We have much to prove.

Then why can't you?

Big_Poppa_ wrote:

<quoted text>God don't need to prove anything to anyone.

If you "god" were real, it wouldn't have to.*You* make the claim; *you* are obligated to prove it, or admit defeat.

Silent Assassins wrote:

<quoted text>Why don't you do some research, because the 14th Amendment has been argued and the intent at the time was the issue. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were amendments to reflect the times.
If gays wish to amend the constitution then they need to try and enact an amendment for that purpose. They can try for a sexual orientation amendment and try to seek 2/3 vote in house and senate.

Under the 14th they have protection.

That is according to your Supreme Court.

Take it up with them

Sir Doctor wrote:

<quoted text>Thanks, no mention of sexual behavior such as homosexuality of bestiality. Got it, gay behavior is chosen behavior.

I didn't see it either.

Sir Doctor wrote:

<quoted text>Thanks, no mention of sexual behavior such as homosexuality of bestiality. Got it, gay behavior is chosen behavior.

So is religious behaviour. It's chosen and unnatural.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Your buddy lost the debate.
Proof is that he denies his own words.
He admitted the Court makes unconstitutional rulings.
So the ground for defending the present reversal is gone from under his feet, as it relates to what the actual principle in the Constitution is.
The Supreme Court is not the Constitution.
So when you say the protection is in the 14th amendment, you are lying.
It is not there.
You are an idiot.

Buddy won the debate - You launched an ad hominem attack, and it's over from there. If you can't keep it civil, there is no debate. You don't win a debate by superior swear words or dirtier insults.

It's the Supreme Court's duty to uphold the Constitution.

For now, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that the 14th Ammendement provides protection.

Take it up with them

Nontheist wrote:

<quoted text>
You know....
When I was in the Army, during basic training the DI's would have made Buck and whoever hold hands and skip everywhere in the platoon area they went.
Was pretty amazing just how soon the differences and such were ironed out.
Just so you know, Buck, we had a DI, SFC Graham, that was 5'2" and could put you on the ground in about 3 seconds.
I don't care who you are.
So, there was no choice in skipping and holding hands.
Or there was hell to pay.

Your 5'2 DI could not have put me on the ground if I was drunk.

His face would be right in the best part of my power band, and he would never touch me, except for eating my fists.

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Ola Yellodog
It was a giant turtle.
Sneezed once!
Poof! All life on earth created

YELLODOG wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be funny if people didn't really believe it.

The same thing is said of your book of lies, your religion, your "god," and your insanity.

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
And those atheists are waiting for one of you godbots to PROVE how life began and how this universe was created.
Go on, just one little morsel of proof and you’ll have a whole new raft of followers - But seeing as how you can’t prove jack sh|t we’ll stick with what we know.

YELLODOG wrote:

<quoted text>
thats just it, you are SUPPOSE to be able to reason it out in your mind, using commonsence.

What the fuck do you know about common sense? You believe in talking snakes.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
You are a simpering moron.
In any debating contest, your ass would be tossed into the street by the nap of your neck.

Sigh.

Yeah Buck.

Have you got anything else than ad hominem?

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Under the 14th they have protection.
That is according to your Supreme Court.
Take it up with them

A few years earlier in Bowers that protection was not in the 14th.

That is according to the Supreme Court.

The 14th changed not by one letter in the interim.

So how did the protection arise in the 14th?

I'll give you the answer.

It didn't.

So it came from somewhere other than the 14th.

You're stupid. You should never discuss the Constitution.

Redoran wrote:

<quoted text>
Your religions are dying, because of us atheists, and our support of all the atheist organizations. BTW - we are growing, while you radicals are shrinking.

So is the fungus in your ass.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Your 5'2 DI could not have put me on the ground if I was drunk.
His face would be right in the best part of my power band, and he would never touch me, except for eating my fists.

pffft...

He wasn't normal, or even sane. He would have killed you.

Redoran wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response is typical of that of a rabid, insane Xian. Thank you for me, knowing that I did the right thing by leaving your totally Evil Cult, many years ago. BTW - I hope you enjoy your Catholic Pedophilisms on your kids, relatives, and 'specially, your Lovely Mommy!!!!!!!!!! Yea! Go Buck, how many more conquests before you are incarcerated for your Evil Life on this here "Rollin Dirt Ball".

waaasssuuup wrote:

<quoted text>
violence & a tit-for-tat mentality is not typical of a follower of Christ,

But hate, hypocrisy, rudeness, misogyny, narcissism, insulting people and sexually suggestive remarks made to anonymous women on the internet apparently are, for christians like you.

Matthew 10:32--38:
32 "Every one therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.

33--But whoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.

34--Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35--For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

36--and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.

37-- He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me."

Fuck your war monger jesus.