DIYbanter - View Single Post - Oregon official who bullied Christian bakery owners loseselection

Sterling Archer

pretended :

That is not what he said or implied.

When non-secular people petition for societal changes and do so on the
basis of their delusions pertaining to invisible friends (as you did
earlier); the secular community has the obligation to make people like
you substantiate your assertions about the actual existence of the
basis of your petition.

When you are unable to prove the existence of god(s) and their
creations, wishes, desires or edicts, it is at that point your
arguments fall apart and your petitions become null and void.

If such delusions are not challenged, we would end up with legislation
codified on the basis of what the Martians want to see happen. There
is virtually no difference between your gods and extraterrestrials.
Wait, I need to clarify, the existence of ET's is statistically more
likely than the existence of god(s).

Without pointing to "god", you have no seemingly reasonable argument
for legally defining marriage as only a union between one man and one
woman. Since you can't establish the existence of god, your argument
crumbles.

More Religious claptrap from the hysterical atheistic fringe.
You have the right to believe what you want. You do not have the right
to force it down the throats of others and publicliy denigrate and
chastise those who believe differently than you. YOUR rights to not
"trump" the rights of others just because you "believe" you are right.
The fact you claim to KNOW you are right just proves you may well be
delusional - just like you clain "deists" are.

As a Canadian, your understanding of the civil rights of Americans is
sorely limited.

American citizens have the inviolable right to publicly challenge and
chastise anyone.

As a theist, you base much of your arguments upon belief, which is your
Achilles heel. As an atheist, my arguments are based upon empirical
evidence, not belief.

If anyone attempts to modify public policy or legislation and formally
introduces an unsubstantiated fairy tale such as "gods will" as
justification for the change, we have the right to challenge and demand
proof of their assertions.

For example, let's say you are an American (you are not), and you
successfully petition your representative to introduce legislation that
mandates the Hebrew ten commandments be displayed in all public
buildings; you rationalize this by claiming they are the words of some
deity. As citizens, we all have the right to demand empirical proof of
the existence of this deity and that the commandments originated with
this invisible friend (among many, many other questions).

When it comes to the law of the land, your supernatural and
superstitious "beliefs" are irrelevant (beyond your personal right to
have them) what is relevant are facts established by empirical
evidence. If you want to legislate on the basis of the words of some
invisible friend, all we ask is that you produce this friend. If the
friend exists, you should be able to comply. If the friend doesn't
exist, the foundation of your legal argument crumbles to dust.