Moontanman

No Photon Propeller, I have asked you for evidence of your assertions, nature is not evidence of anything but nature and the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive assertion. My belief or disbelief in anything is not relevant to the issue of evidence. If I said I believed there was a invisible dragon in my basement would that be enough of a reason to believe me? What if i said that invisible dragon was responsible for the creation of the universe would that make it more believable? Your incredulity is meaningless and the universe has no obligation to satisfy you and your assertion about cause and effect is so much horse feathers. Even if i allow that any effect has to have a cause why does that cause have to be god? Maybe some brobdingnagian creature someplace ingests dark matter and excretes universes and has no intelligence what so ever? Your assertions need to be supported by evidence and trying to insult my intelligence is laughable. Your assumption of some guilt is insulting and against the rules, if you want to trade insults I suggest you go someplace else there is no room for that here...

See the OP post above, if you want to debate what god is or if god is real I suggest you start your own thread, meantime making positive assertions does require evidence...

My logical self can see the statistics and draw a reasonable conclusion that overall we would all be safer if guns were non existent. My emotional self cannot make that leap, this seriously disturbs me. I don't see myself as a threat to society because I have a gun. In fact if i wanted to hurt someone I doubt lack of a gun would hinder me much. I don't see having a gun as a logical incentive to hurt anyone.

No I have asked for evidence, so far you have given none, in the face of no evidence the default position is not to believe...

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, your claim is extraordinary and so requires positive evidence, my position is the default position. You are making a positive assertion I am simply asking for evidence of your assertion so far all you have is belief, belief does not equal knowledge...

As I have said before assertions with no evidence can be dismissed without evidence... There is no reason to assert a God or creative force or architect. It's quite possible the laws of nature are completely random when a universe expands from what ever they expand from, you have no evidence that contradicts this... And again, your belief is not knowledge...

None the less on this forum to make a positive assertion requires evidence, even in the religion section. It is not a pulpit for you to assert your beliefs...

No the properties of nature require no creator, no master, they reflect nothing but natural processes, your belief in this is nothing but belief and belief is not knowledge... It is not self evident to me and I'm guessing few others on this site would support such meaningless assertions...

Claims with no evidence are easily dismissed without evidence, you have nothing but your belief, belief is not evidence of anything...

This is nothing but double talk, if you are going to make these assertions you will have to do better than that... Circular reasoning is not evidence of anything...

You keep making these assertions with no evidence other than your assertions, please back up what you are claiming with evidence...

I have some thoughts on that as well, but not the TV stuff but that is another thread... Complexity arises from chaos spontaneously, no architect is necessary or implied, evolution is a prime example of this... Created by what? Created how? What evidence do you have for this assertion?

How to fly on nothing...

It's interesting that the knowledge supposedly given to us directly from god is wrong...

God has granted us choice? If that is Can you give some evidence of this?

Can you supply some evidence of what you are asserting?

Since no creature has ever used fire in this manner (that we know of) and this is fiction you can say it comes from where ever you want but the hollow teeth parallels the way a spitting cobra sprays it's venom. It's not outside the laws of physics or biology for a creature to exist that sprays two chemicals that ignite on contact. Some beatles use a similar method but it comes out of their rectum... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle There is some speculation that spitting cobras were the origin of the fire breathing dragon myths....

Two hollow teeth that are connected to glands that excrete two substances that upon being sprayed into the air they mix and spontaneously ignite a few centimeters outside her mouth...

This brings concealed carry to a whole new level...

John, I did provide those figures, 11,101 homicides by guns, 6220 homicides by handguns, 679 homicides by long guns... BTW John, your source is from an anti gun control group...

Let's take guns out of it and substitute swords and then claim because I have a pocket knife I am more likely to run amok and kill people because people with swords do this... Your statistics limp all guns into one category "a gun" I would be more comfortable if the claim was handguns but to say "a gun" is far too broad a term to accurately describe anything. Your statistics are not as meaningful as you claim due to this lumping... If you want to commit suicide you would almost certainly use the easiest method available to you, if you have a gun then a gun would be what you use. A more accurate way to measure or compare this is to look at suicide rates and see how much more likely suicide is in populations that have guns vs populations that do not. I know guns can be used to protect one's self or others, i have done so, guns can be used and held in private ownership safely, I have done so for almost 50 years while raising two sons, the vast majority are held legally and safely. That is why i am so sure, much like a car, most people mind the laws, drive safely, and rarely if ever have an accident much less kill someone yet some people who own cars use them like toys, showing off as though the car is a toy and guess what, automobile deaths are about the same as gun deaths in the US. While some auto deaths are due to other factors a great many can be traced back to people who drive but don't know how or who don't obey the rules, in some cases even suicide... Could we eliminate death by auto by banning autos? Of course, public transport could be used to make cars unnecessary just like "big brother" could be used to make guns unnecessary but the police force that would be required is just as unreasonable as the public transportation that would be required to eliminate cars. I can see reasonable gun reform, background checks, licenses and training before you can own them possibly even having to have liability insurance much like owning a car but the idea that I personally would be safer without a gun is not supportable. Gun deaths in the US Homicide by gun 2011... 11,101 Handgun Homicide 2011... 6,220 Long gun Homicide 2011... 679 Gun homicides (other) 2011... 1,684 Suicide 2011... 19,776 Accidental 2011... 851 Unknown 2011... 222 source http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

You missed my point, it says "a" gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a crime.... you cannot use statistics to predict the actions of individuals. That is not a prediction for guns it's prediction for criminal who own guns, everyone who owns a gun is not a criminal, does not commit suicide or shoot anyone accidentally. To imply that owning a gun makes any particular individual more likely to do these things is not true nor can you say that gun owners in general are part of this fantasy. That is the strawman... In fact I know it is not a fantasy since I used a gun to stop a crime once in my life i know it happens and is not a fantasy...

I guess I need to clarify what I saying since I got neg rep for my last post. I understand that "they want to take away all our guns" is a strawman but it's a very effective one. It's a strawman the NRA touts at every one of it's meetings both national and local. this claim of they will have to remove my gun from cold dead hands is their rallying cry, I think the leaders know this but are simply inflaming the masses to make sure the sale of guns continue... This gun cause is truly analogous to a fundamentalist religion and to understand the mindset of these people you have to think of it that way. As in most religions the majority are reasonable people who don't know or don't want to know what the fringes of their religion are doing or how it affects them. the reality is like any religion it's the fringe fundamentalists who are the driving force of that religion, they make sure the main body of the religion toes the line as closely as possible and uses fear to keep them from leaving the fold. In religion that fear is hell fire in gun theism it's fear of crime. I think it's useful to think of it this way...

Laws are already in place that restrict the ownership of military grade weapons, I cannot go to a gun store and legally buy a full automatic weapon much less nukes or attack aircraft no matter how much money i have. The precedent of limiting guns has already been established...