Can science explain how our planet exsists in the state that it dose ie supporting life. Despite how incredibly rare that is? Can it explain how our planet somehow hit the intergalactic lottery and not only has all the right factors for supporting life interrerorly but exteriorly as well such as the moon, being the exact right distance from the sun, and having Jupiter in just the exact perfect position to protect us from meteors despite scientists themselves stating how incredibly rare even one of these factors are by themselves?

Quite right. Atheists belive their is no God and thus that the universe in all its complexity can exist. And the exact correct conditions for life observed here on earth could happen by simple random chance. Despite the mathematical likelihood of such a planet forming with these exact Characteristics in the exact right place ie the correct distance from the sun with a gas giant like Jupiter close by to protect the planet from meteors is so infetesmally small as to be virtually impossible. I doubt this.

You just unwittingly proved my point. You made the claim that God dosent exsist thus you have the burden. As you said I rejected your claim my proof (if it's even required) is your inability to prove y I urge own opposing claim is you can't prove that God dosent exsist thus it's not irrational to think that he does. People thought the world was flat until it was proven otherwise, people thought the world was the center of the Universe until it was proven otherwise, in the same vain people belive that God exsists and until it is proven otherwise their is no reasion to belive that he dosent.

How can Atheism predate humanity? Just because a species isn't intelligent enough to to conceive of a God or ask questions that may lead to assumptions of God's existence dosent make them atheist. And even if it did we are talking specifically within the context of Humanity.

he who makes a positive claim must prove it

That actually was not originally a part of this rule. That was a latter addition added due to the false assumption that one cannot prove a negative. That is obviously false. If I make the negative claim that you are not stronger than me (provided that it's true) then I can quite easily prove such a thing.

if you didn't claim he exsisted contrary to all common sence and logic

Implying.

I assume you were around back then? If so I'll assume it is simply the senility catching up to you, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate

Are you suggesting that atheist predates religion, because if so then there are very many archeologists who would like to have a word with you.

As for your following point whigh I won't quote as it is very long

All I will say is ASSERTIONS ASSERTIONS EVERYWHERE.

humans have always believed in fairies and sea monsters and wechselbälger

Prove to me they don't exsist I dare ya

I never said they didn't. Not that I belive they do I simply mean that I never made that claim and therefor I need not prove it. So no.

BTW sea monsters do exsist they are called giant squid.

We are born with our rights. They ate inherent. Government dose not give rights, anything that's been given can be taken away and is therefor a privilege.

Because they want to get free shit via looting. Oops I mean undocumented shopping.

Simply because capitalism relies on the already established law of nature. Those who risk the most revive the most. Those who work to establish a company for instance and take on the considerable risk involved gain the most from the success of their endeavor. Those who risk nothing receive nothing.

Capitalism works because it is natural Communism tries to reshape nature so it fails.

The thing about the second ammendment is that an armed populose is significantly harder to oppress. Despite all the power of the state guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the oppressed (a lesson I though we already thought you brits) guns even the playing field.

Well I suppose Capitalism not really having a "perfect form" even in theory therefor can.

Exept for the evidence supporting it. People who disavowed do so out of fear of being labels a racist. But if you look at human genetics you will see regional variations. And word to the wise Wikipedia is not an academiclly exepted sourse

Correct. Therefor I'm inclined to believe that any future endeavors at creating a socialist state will end similarly.

I agree. We need to stop makeing up new races for every large ethnicity. But we shouldn't ignore real science.

Caucassians stem from the carcasses mountains in Mesopotamia, negroids are from Southern africa, and mongoloids are from asia. And skin color isn't the only devotion of racial identity, for instance whites, latenos, and Arabs are all Caucasian.

I'll admit I don't know a lot about non Marxist Communism. But the point is expanding socialism was a goal of the USSR the historical face of Communism. And that was the point of common room.

The problem with communism is that it can't exsist in its "perfect form"

Actually it is. It was done to abolish boarders so to speak wich is central to Marxist communism.

Well genetic speaking humans of different races share 97% of the same DNA. But yes the three race theory is still taught. In fact it's a bit more than a theory.

Well in a way it was. You see the USSR controlled it's satellite states through an agreement known as "common room" Because of which the Warsaw pact country's operated almost as a single country. Sort of like the relationship between the American State and federal governments.

Outside of the three genetic subdivisions of homosapians (negriod/negro, caucasoids/caucassian, and mongoloid) race is largely a social construct.

I understand that. I'm simply comparison g the two in order to make my point.

Well as a gun owners er you certainly need to be smart about were you go with your gun. But his point was that a sign is not going to deter someone from breaking a law or rule if he/she was already intending to brake a more serious law to begin with.

But compared to the middle east...................................

You just hurt my brain.............................................................

Not if you morally object to it for legitimate reasons and not simply out of hatred for the religion in question.

Then that would refute your previous claim as there has been a cease fire in effect in northern Ireland for the last decade.

But that implies that it's being judged relative to the rest of Europe which doesn't have a lot of terrorism to begin with so being the "terrorist capitol of Europe" doesn't really mean much.

No that would be the middle east. Given that there are way more terrorists there than in northern Ireland.

Given the unemployment rate in the US that's nor realistic.

It won't work because we have too many people the cost of covering even a fraction of our total population will be impossible to pay without going deeper into debt.

no it isn't you opened your property to the public

It's still privately owned by the individual. Just because it's assumed everyone can enter that doesn't mean the owner can't tell people to leave.

Except you do agree with denying service to anyone who is not like you because your backwards

That's the opposite of what I said. I don't personally condone it but it's the person's right my opinion is irrelevant.

a statement you can't prove

I know this is a joke but, I don't have to prove it as it is a statement of opinion.

you moved us back 50 years

you brought up slavery you don't see me getting on your case.

I know you didn't mean it but you weren't jokeing*

I was referring to the comment about me making a mistake by assuming you were smart enough to follow along without needing everything spelled out. But yes the racism was also unintentional (technically meaning it's not actually racism) learn the difference between presenting examples and condoning segregation.

I don't even know how to respond to this. I may be a good debater but I can't counter an argument that hasn't been made. If you have a point then make it otherwise your just wasting my time.

The morality or immorality of segregation aside it's a simple fact that laws prohibiting the denial of service to any individual is a violation to the property rights of the business owner. I may not agree with a store owner denying a Blackman service because of his skin color but it is his right to do so. The same way I don't agree with the racist message of the KKK but say they should be aloud to say it it's their right to do so. And I knew you were joking I was simply trying to move the conversation forward. And the second time I was joking as well.

I was counting on you to be smart enough to know what I was talking about without needing me to spell it out for you. My mistake.

the court decided it was okay

Did you even read my last post it should have been handled in a state court. The federal judges ruling isn't valid.

false it was court ordered

So we can through in a charge of corruption as well. Other than that it makes no difference the courts can break the law.

you aren't protesting anymore and your threatening the officers

UN armed protesters (and they were unarmed go look at the video) are not a threat to officers under any circumstances other than a riot. Officers can only justify using deadly force if the reasonably feel they are in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

by that logic 911 wasn't terrorism either

AL quida attacked American civilians not the government.

the government didn't attack because of terrorism

"Making a terrorist threat" is simply what the charge is called.

and his statement recently and the fact that he had guns

Reguardless he was not the aggressor the BLM was

they didn't spend that much money

They spent 3 million dollars to collect a 1 million dollar debt.

the government didn't steal it

Dude look up the elements of robbery.

you miss quoted me

Go back and reread the very last line of your last post.

cases get thrown out when the cops obtain evidence illegally if they got thrown out for excessive force Noone would be in prison

First of all I resent that statement it's childish and statistically impossible(the second part) second excessive force dose get cases thrown out if it is decided that the force used constitutes a violation of the suspects constitutional rights.

I never said they were. I was talking about the business.

Think about it. If this was all about a wedding then what's easier? Simply going to another bakery? Or gilding a lawsuit? After they were denied it was no longer about getting their cake, at that point it was all about putting his head on a pike.

Economically speaking the cost of a lawsuit vs the cost of a cake at Safeway it makes no seance from a cost standpoint to not simply take your business elsewhere. There's no way this was about cake.

Redeeming property owed them

He owed them money not his cattle. That's how he supports his family, and no don't care what the federal judge said that case should have been handled in a state court.

Does not apply because not robbery

It meets all the elements.

self defense

I didn't realize protesting ware noted such levels of "self defense" from officers.

part of their property owed

Again no

correction armed protesters

The militia were armed the protesters were not.

not terrorists

Our government is the biggest terrorists out there.

they had sniper rifles

I was talking about Mr Bundy's remarks he made years back about defending his property with guns.

I'm not sure what you mean

if I tell you that I'll shoot you if you come to my house it's not considered a terrorist threat.

False

elaborate

false

elaborate

but your wrong about that

for reasons of?

but you committed a crime

First of all no I didn't second of all if the local police beak a law while apprehending a suspect the charges against the suspect are usually dropped, the fed broke 9.

Those laws are Unconstitutional as they violate property rights.

I had assumed anarcho-Capitalism and Libertarianism were the same thing. I am for limited government but I also recognize that government is and always will be to some extent a necessary evil. I find the idea that society can exist without government to be a bit naive.

The gay couple sued him to remove resistance to their cause. Specifically his and any baker who dosent want to be sued by Homo-Nazis. Believe me I know how these gay-stapo work. There is no way being denied a cake is such a traumatizing event or that a cake is so valuable a resource that they warrant or even justify the high costs of a lawsuit based on their merits alone. This was done for the Reich.

You don't understand it's not wronging them. There are other bakery's around he has the right as the business owner to deny service to anyone for any reason.

Unfortunately, there were no laws broken by the feds

Oh really? Let's go down the list shall we?

1) Cattle rustling with the added charge of, 2)armed robbery since force and/or fear and a weapon was used to do it.

3) assault and battery4)aggravated assault and 5)abuse under the color of authority- I'm not mad about the tazzers in fact those aren't even weapons, but slamming Amon Bundy's face into the dirt and rubbing it in with a boot all for taking pictures of a road, body slamming a pregnant women, and sticking a dog on an old lady (and if it wasn't intentional then it's negligence)

6) destruction of property- the killing of his cattle

7) menacing- pointing guns at unarmed protesters

8) making terrorist threats- telling unarmed protesters that they would shoot them if they didn't leave.

9)Evidence tampering- burying the cattle they killed.

it stops being peaceful when you tell the people you are protesting that you have guns if they come near you.

It's only considered marketing a terrorist threat if the person has the intent, ability, and opportunity to carry out the act of violence threatened at the time of issuance. Furthermore the threat cannot have been stated in a way as to insinuate that a provocative action (having not already been taken) need be taken by the threatened party before the violent action takes place.

loaded for a group of people who said they were armed and turned out to be

The only people who were armed when the BLM arrived was the BLM agents. The militia came in soon after. I guess the director of the BLM has the gift of foresight.

to cover the money he owed

Oh yeah spend 3million dollars to collect 1 million dollars great plan government. It's called a lean dipshits look it up.

he illegally allowed his cattle to graze and threatened government officials that is at least 2 laws

I already explained why his remarks weren't legally threats. And illegally grazing cattle (on land the federal government stole from the state at its formation) does not require a law enforcement response consisting of 200 armed federal agents, APCs, a SWAT team (the BLM has a SWAT team just let that sink in for a moment), police dogs, snipers, and the theft and killing of his cattle. Haven't these guys ever heard of a lean?

But he was within his rights to deny them service it's his business.

The motive is what links it to activism. They did it to make an example of this guy.

Its activism because of the motive behind sueing the person

The land belongs to Nevada. It was taken by the BLM without compensation being payed to the state (in other words stolen) to be used as a tortoise reserve. Mr Bundy payed his fees to the county but refused to pay then to the federal government as an act of peaceful civil disobedience to protest the BLMs illegitimate claim over the land. He wasn't hurting anyone and the BLM goes to his house loaded for war steals his cattle attacks his friends and family and threatens protesters. Sure Mr Bundy broke A law but for Christ sake how many laws did the Feds break?

The whole reason they sued him is because they didn't respect his right as a business owner to chose who he dose business with. simply because he didn't want to serve them because he doesn't recognize gay marriage as marriage.