More Americans killed by guns than all the wars we have ever fought

[Spoonman]

You'd have to be rational and open to honest discussion to understand what it's like to be me. But you're none of those things and could never be so lucky to be me. I'm not perfect but I sure as shit happy that I am able to use my brain way more effectively than you ever have.

you're all angry and whiny. no one wants to be like you.

Let me know when you're ready to get trounced again.

it sure won't be by you lmao!

 

[RDD_1210]

you have proof god doesn't exist? Science has proof god doesn't exist? I didn't think so

No. He doesn't. Which is why atheism is so illogical. Atheists assert knowledge that God doesn't exist. The only way to know that God doesn't exist would be to exist everywhere in and out of the universe simultaneously while at the same time being both in and out of time itselt. In other words, they would need to be a god to know there is no god.

Instead, they make arguments from silence. They haven't had experiences with God, therefore, there is no God. Illogical at best. Arrogant at its worst.

Agnostics have the superior argument. They dont know whether there is or isnt a God. Their problem comes when they start asserting that there is no way to know whether there is a God. Problem is there is.

Believers, one the other hand, can know there is a God. They know the same way they know anything else. They have an experience with one of their five senses. If I see God, I know there is one. If I hear Him, I know there is one. If I feel Him, I know there is one. (Ill forgo the last two and focus on the primary three for practical reasons).

That is why believers rely on eye witness testimony. Their own and the testimony of others to share the message God has for the world. Becaues the only way to convince others is for the others to have their own experiences with Him.

I didn't always know there was a God. There was a time I merely concluded that if there was a God and He wanted me to know He was there, He could let me know somehow. It was only after I recieved the revelations I did from the Holy Spirit that I knew there was a God. It was a very humbling experience. I've seen miracles since then. Ive experienced miracles myself. So I know God is there. And I know He loves us because I've felt His love. I know He loves everyone

Science doesn't deny that there is a god either. In fact, I find science as a strength to my testimony that there is a God. Understand the complex and delicat natures of the human body, for example, demonstrate the actions of a loving Father and not just mere happenstance. The fact that there are laws that govern the Universe testifies to me that there is a lawgiver who established those laws.

There are some that scorn and mock. but their arguments are shallow. Their logic based on false premises. They resort to straw men and have to mischaracterize or lie about their opponents beliefs. That tells me they either dont know what the believers they are talking to actually believe or are trying to intentionally decieve others. Either way, that's not something you have to do when you have the truth on your side.

PLEASE debate me on the existence of god. I would love the chance to expose you as a the idiot that you are.....again. Just say the word.

 

[RDD_1210]

you're all angry and whiny. no one wants to be like you.

Let me know when you're ready to get trounced again.

it sure won't be by you lmao!

Since it's happened multiple times in this thread, I could see how you would think we are running out of topics for me to show you up on. Good point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Between abortions and their mass murdering totalitarian leaders, Progressive have killed over 100 million humans

So

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAgRBq2jnz4]Original: Penn & Teller You Need To Shut The **** Up ! (HQ) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Avatar4321]

Wow, right over your head. But then again you believe in god, so rational thought and critical analysis aren't in your repertoire.

As I've said before Atheism is irrational. Theism of any kind can be both rational and irrational depending on the person. But Im not surprised you are making that claim. You don't want to consider the possibility you are wrong. Therefore, everyone else must be. Which is a difference between us. Im always looking for more information and correcting myself when I find discrepencies.

BTW, my response to Chris was an analogy. I used the same reasoning he did in another situation to demonstrate how the reasoning is flawed. It's not exactly an uncommon practice. since you didn't bother addressing the analogy or providing any analysis of your own but had to resort to childish character attacks, im going to guess you're just projecting your inadequacies onto others.

You're always looking for more information??!?! Did you really just say that?? Holy shit that's amazing.

And your ridiculous "argument" around cars has been debunked 100000 times already. There are plenty of laws making cars safer and tightening restrictions on what a car must have in order to be sold. The reason no one is looking to ban them is because there is a very important functions for automobiles that doesn't revolve around killing. The same can not be said for guns. The fact that this has to be explained to you is proof enough that you are not open minded or a rational person.

Debate me on the existence of god. Show me how open minded you are.

Yes. Im always looking for more information. It's called self education. Instead of expecting the government to teach me something, I like doing independent studies.

There are laws making guns safer and tightening restrictions on how they are made. No one is disputing the need for them. And guns do serve a very important function: SELF DEFENSE and SECURITY.

Personally, I think the need to stay alive is more important then the need I have to get someplace quickly. Im sure that the Founders agreed with me, which is why they wrote the Second Amendment.

It doesn't change the fact that using chris's logic, we should ban cars. You seem to think that I am arguing to ban cars. I like cars. Im using it to make a point that his argument is flawed. It still is flawed even with your attempts to argue contrary. BTW I appreciate the fact that you are at least trying.

As far as debating the existence of God, that would be fine. Perhaps you can do what the other people I've discussed the topic with haven't been able to do and provide a way to know there is no God that doesn't involve being God to find that information.

Proving a negative is always difficult though.

 

[emilynghiem]

you have proof god doesn't exist? Science has proof god doesn't exist? I didn't think so

No. He doesn't. Which is why atheism is so illogical. Atheists assert knowledge that God doesn't exist. The only way to know that God doesn't exist would be to exist everywhere in and out of the universe simultaneously while at the same time being both in and out of time itselt. In other words, they would need to be a god to know there is no god.

Instead, they make arguments from silence. They haven't had experiences with God, therefore, there is no God. Illogical at best. Arrogant at its worst.

OK I think I see where you are coming from.

I agree with you the type of atheism you point out is conflicting is "belief there is no God"
which is different from "not believing or perceiving there is a God"
that I find can be consistent and rational. It can usually be resolved by agreeing
what universal aspect of life or concept that person DOES believe in
which would be the "equivalent" of what God means in someone else's system.

They usually believe in "some aspect" which "other people" attribute to God
without putting it in those terms or seeing it that way.
Since this is an issue of semantics, and aligning common principles
with different terms people use, that is still rational and not a fault on one party more than the other for seeing the world through a different lens.

Thanks, Avatar!
I appreciate your fair and well-thought out perspective.

 

[Spoonman]

Let me know when you're ready to get trounced again.

it sure won't be by you lmao!

Since it's happened multiple times in this thread, I could see how you would think we are running out of topics for me to show you up on. Good point.

aerosmith wrote a song for you. Dream on!

 

[Avatar4321]

You'd have to be rational and open to honest discussion to understand what it's like to be me. But you're none of those things and could never be so lucky to be me. I'm not perfect but I sure as shit happy that I am able to use my brain way more effectively than you ever have.

Rational and open to honest discussion? Don't take this the wrong way, you are incredibly illogical and close to discussion. Granted, you aren't the worst on the board in that, but you're far from being the most rational and open.

The fact that you don't see why it would be a good thing for people to be able to defend themselves from attack tells me you aren't very rational.

 

[Spoonman]

you have proof god doesn't exist? Science has proof god doesn't exist? I didn't think so

No. He doesn't. Which is why atheism is so illogical. Atheists assert knowledge that God doesn't exist. The only way to know that God doesn't exist would be to exist everywhere in and out of the universe simultaneously while at the same time being both in and out of time itselt. In other words, they would need to be a god to know there is no god.

Instead, they make arguments from silence. They haven't had experiences with God, therefore, there is no God. Illogical at best. Arrogant at its worst.

Agnostics have the superior argument. They dont know whether there is or isnt a God. Their problem comes when they start asserting that there is no way to know whether there is a God. Problem is there is.

Believers, one the other hand, can know there is a God. They know the same way they know anything else. They have an experience with one of their five senses. If I see God, I know there is one. If I hear Him, I know there is one. If I feel Him, I know there is one. (Ill forgo the last two and focus on the primary three for practical reasons).

That is why believers rely on eye witness testimony. Their own and the testimony of others to share the message God has for the world. Becaues the only way to convince others is for the others to have their own experiences with Him.

I didn't always know there was a God. There was a time I merely concluded that if there was a God and He wanted me to know He was there, He could let me know somehow. It was only after I recieved the revelations I did from the Holy Spirit that I knew there was a God. It was a very humbling experience. I've seen miracles since then. Ive experienced miracles myself. So I know God is there. And I know He loves us because I've felt His love. I know He loves everyone

Science doesn't deny that there is a god either. In fact, I find science as a strength to my testimony that there is a God. Understand the complex and delicat natures of the human body, for example, demonstrate the actions of a loving Father and not just mere happenstance. The fact that there are laws that govern the Universe testifies to me that there is a lawgiver who established those laws.

There are some that scorn and mock. but their arguments are shallow. Their logic based on false premises. They resort to straw men and have to mischaracterize or lie about their opponents beliefs. That tells me they either dont know what the believers they are talking to actually believe or are trying to intentionally decieve others. Either way, that's not something you have to do when you have the truth on your side.

yea, i noticed, like the rest of his posts - no substance. just a bunch of no you posts.

what i always liked is how genesis described the creation of the earth pretty much the same way and in the same order as science does today. only genesis did it a few thousand years before science even developed the tools to validate it.

 

[Avatar4321]

You'd have to be rational and open to honest discussion to understand what it's like to be me. But you're none of those things and could never be so lucky to be me. I'm not perfect but I sure as shit happy that I am able to use my brain way more effectively than you ever have.

you're all angry and whiny. no one wants to be like you.

Let me know when you're ready to get trounced again.

What makes you think you trounced him to begin with? Because you said so?

 

[RDD_1210]

As I've said before Atheism is irrational. Theism of any kind can be both rational and irrational depending on the person. But Im not surprised you are making that claim. You don't want to consider the possibility you are wrong. Therefore, everyone else must be. Which is a difference between us. Im always looking for more information and correcting myself when I find discrepencies.

BTW, my response to Chris was an analogy. I used the same reasoning he did in another situation to demonstrate how the reasoning is flawed. It's not exactly an uncommon practice. since you didn't bother addressing the analogy or providing any analysis of your own but had to resort to childish character attacks, im going to guess you're just projecting your inadequacies onto others.

You're always looking for more information??!?! Did you really just say that?? Holy shit that's amazing.

And your ridiculous "argument" around cars has been debunked 100000 times already. There are plenty of laws making cars safer and tightening restrictions on what a car must have in order to be sold. The reason no one is looking to ban them is because there is a very important functions for automobiles that doesn't revolve around killing. The same can not be said for guns. The fact that this has to be explained to you is proof enough that you are not open minded or a rational person.

Debate me on the existence of god. Show me how open minded you are.

Yes. Im always looking for more information. It's called self education. Instead of expecting the government to teach me something, I like doing independent studies.

There are laws making guns safer and tightening restrictions on how they are made. No one is disputing the need for them. And guns do serve a very important function: SELF DEFENSE and SECURITY.

Personally, I think the need to stay alive is more important then the need I have to get someplace quickly. Im sure that the Founders agreed with me, which is why they wrote the Second Amendment.

It doesn't change the fact that using chris's logic, we should ban cars. You seem to think that I am arguing to ban cars. I like cars. Im using it to make a point that his argument is flawed. It still is flawed even with your attempts to argue contrary. BTW I appreciate the fact that you are at least trying.

As far as debating the existence of God, that would be fine. Perhaps you can do what the other people I've discussed the topic with haven't been able to do and provide a way to know there is no God that doesn't involve being God to find that information.

Proving a negative is always difficult though.

I want to see gun laws tightened because I can see data in other countries showing that they have figured out how to reduce gun violence dramatically compared to us. I want guns restricted because they offer no inherent value other than to kill or injure. If they were a measure of security, we would be the safest place in the world with the amount of guns we have per capita. But we're FAR from it. Why is that? Bad guys aren't deterred by people who have guns and eliminating guns won't eliminate criminals but it will result in fewer deaths when violent crimes happen as the data from numerous other countries show us can happen when done the right way.

And there is no way I can prove with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, just like you can't prove with 100% certainty that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist or that Tupac isn't still alive or that the loch ness monster isn't real. But I can prove that in all likelihood, "God either doesn't exist OR is powerless OR doesn't give a shit". One of the three is absolutely true. That much I can prove. Do you wish to proceed?

 

[RDD_1210]

it sure won't be by you lmao!

Since it's happened multiple times in this thread, I could see how you would think we are running out of topics for me to show you up on. Good point.

aerosmith wrote a song for you. Dream on!

Watch, I'll show you up again. Explain why Japan has so few gun related murders? Like next to nothing. Does Japan have no criminals?
When you don't answer this again. I'll have shown you up....again.

 

[RDD_1210]

You'd have to be rational and open to honest discussion to understand what it's like to be me. But you're none of those things and could never be so lucky to be me. I'm not perfect but I sure as shit happy that I am able to use my brain way more effectively than you ever have.

Rational and open to honest discussion? Don't take this the wrong way, you are incredibly illogical and close to discussion. Granted, you aren't the worst on the board in that, but you're far from being the most rational and open.

The fact that you don't see why it would be a good thing for people to be able to defend themselves from attack tells me you aren't very rational.

Of course it would be good for people to defend themselves. But reality shows us thats not what is happening. For every one person who fends off a home invader with their gun how many more people are shot who did own a gun? Owning a gun does not deter criminals. If it did, we'd have one of the lowest gun violence rates in the world.

 

[RDD_1210]

you're all angry and whiny. no one wants to be like you.

Let me know when you're ready to get trounced again.

What makes you think you trounced him to begin with? Because you said so?

Because he brushed off multiple points by changing topics. I'm still waiting for his answer about Japan. That was pages ago.

 

[Redfish]

More Americans have been killed by guns since 1968, than have been killed in all the wars the United States has ever fought.

1,171,177 killed in all the wars we have ever fought.

1,384,171 killed by guns in the United States since 1968.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mmentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

how many have been killed by abortions since 1968?

 

[Redfish]

Since it's happened multiple times in this thread, I could see how you would think we are running out of topics for me to show you up on. Good point.

aerosmith wrote a song for you. Dream on!

Watch, I'll show you up again. Explain why Japan has so few gun related murders? Like next to nothing. Does Japan have no criminals?
When you don't answer this again. I'll have shown you up....again.

the japanese culture is nothing like ours. the two are not comparable.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Let me know when you're ready to get trounced again.

What makes you think you trounced him to begin with? Because you said so?

Because he brushed off multiple points by changing topics. I'm still waiting for his answer about Japan. That was pages ago.

Japanese Gun Control​

www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Japanese Gun Control. ... II. Gun Possession and Gun Crime: Almost Nil. ... Near absolute gun prohibition had existed for over three centuries, ...

 

[RDD_1210]

aerosmith wrote a song for you. Dream on!

Watch, I'll show you up again. Explain why Japan has so few gun related murders? Like next to nothing. Does Japan have no criminals?
When you don't answer this again. I'll have shown you up....again.

the japanese culture is nothing like ours. the two are not comparable.

Right, it's nothing like ours. They don't have some weird need to justify the deaths of thousands of innocent people every year so they can keep their toys.

Great point!

 

[Redfish]

What makes you think you trounced him to begin with? Because you said so?

Because he brushed off multiple points by changing topics. I'm still waiting for his answer about Japan. That was pages ago.

Japanese Gun Control​

www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

Japanese Gun Control. ... II. Gun Possession and Gun Crime: Almost Nil. ... Near absolute gun prohibition had existed for over three centuries, ...

but they all have samurai swords and knives of all sizes and shapes.

how do you propose to remove all of the guns from the hands of criminals in the USA?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Chris: I guess while you are at it, maybe you should ban
angry spouses or depressed teens? Would that solve the problem if they are the cause?

If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.

Nancy Lanza found this out when her son killed her and two dozen school children in Newtown.

People who drive cras are more likely to die in car accidents. According to your "logic" we should ban cars too.

Thanks, I agree this analogy of Avatar's was a fair way to point out the illogic in Chris' argument. And it does not matter if Avatar agrees or disagrees with either gun or car policies, either way, the analogy is a close parallel and helps explain the fallacy.