Rights - Creator

[Deleted]

May 21, 2016 14:55:51 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

First of all, if you're omnipotent and omniscient, THERE IS NO RISK.

Secondly, this has little to do with the notion of claiming that the rights of Americans come from God, like the right to bear arms. God had nothing to do with it.

I claim negative rights come from God and everyone born is entitled to those rights.

[Kolt!]

I have NO problem with religion.

I have a problem with religion when people try to shove their religious beliefs down people's throats.

I can support a religious person's beliefs and practice when they don't make it impact my life. I support the religious person that uses their religion to shape their own life and doesn't use their religion in a way to deny someone else something. 

I know religious people that are friends of mine that 100 percent believe that it is not their right to judge someone else's lifestyle and only God's right. Therefore, they will serve them, they will treat them with respect, and they will let them life their life according to how they want to live their life. They don't 'believe' they're greater then Jesus who would serve the sinner whereas some religious people that judge others, are actually doing exactly what Jesus would not do.

I can't agree with people that say "I won't serve you because of my religious beliefs," but will serve the person that is having sex before marriage, had an affair, and sinned among many other sins. If you're not going to serve one sin why are you serving other sins? This is just a way to back up something someone doesn't like and deny them, not because they're sinning, but because this is one sin out of 100s of sins they don't like. 

I will take a person more seriously if they're saying "I won't do this for the LGBTQ, or the divorced person, or the people having sex before marriage." but they wouldn't. I haven't seen any cases of this. 

What's funny is when I go to get married if someone is against me being transgender they'd never know. My ID says i'm male and I'm only attracted to females. Therefore, someone could be against my marriage and still serve a cake to me unknowing that they're giving it to a trans person.

It's quite crazy to deny someone something just because you can tell right away the marriage is of two men, or two females, when the person behind them could be having sex before marriage...both a sin. 

--
I respect someone's religion when they don't use it as an excuse to try to judge someone else, and isolate someone else. Why is it a religious person does this when the bible literally says NOT to do this? When Jesus wouldn't deny the person food why should someone else? 

See I can't see that as a "your religious beliefs." I can however see someone saying "I won't marry you in this church, or even at all," because that's inside a church, and I can understand someone not wanting to marry someone when their entire sermon may just be about God and Jesus. I can see someone saying "I go to church every Sunday because I like to praise the lord." I can see someone saying "I'm going to shut down my business because of religious purposes on Sunday." 

But I can't condone those people judging someone else for their lifestyles, and then, proceeding to tell them they won't serve them because of this because that is judging them for their 'sins.' 

Also, not that I've seen it from you Hickle, but I see this all the time. On my own facebook, sadly.

How can someone claim to be christian, while posting "Freakshows, trannys are freakshows." "Transgender people are disgusting." "Gross two men kissing, they're going to hell." "Transgender people belong in the zoo." "They're not human."

Then when it comes down to it, deny these people something because of religious beliefs. These are people that would agree that someone should deny someone because it's their religious belief while saying all of this stuff in the same breath. 

That isn't religious beliefs, that's discrimination. 

You're sinning too, so what gives you the right to dictate whose sin is the worst, and then deny them this because of it? Just because their sin is more visable? That isn't a religious belief, that's picking and choosing which sins you condone and don't condone. 

If we really want to live where all sins are treated the same...let's try nominating the High Sparrow from the Game of Thrones who treats all sins the same... every. single. sin. Not a life I personally want to live but that's the life we'd almost lead if we were to live by the bible truly and treat sins all the same.

It doesn't matter if you cheat, are gay, had an affair, lied, had envy...the High Sparrow says a sin is a sin and he will condemn you for them all. 

He wouldn't say "Gays are worse then cheating, therefore, don't worry I'll let the cheating slide but not being gay." 

My point is how can someone pick and choose which sin to deny and claim it a religious belief? Why are they condoning one sin and not condoning the other sins? 

[weltschmerz]

May 21, 2016 15:50:58 GMT -5 @hickle said:

May 21, 2016 13:55:23 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Sure, pretend to get all butt-hurt when your religion comes under a bit of scrutiny.

Anything to avoid addressing the question I've posed to you repeatedly.

If rights come from a Creator, then why doesn't he grant these rights to everyone? He created everyone, didn't he?

Or does this creator smile benignly and say "I'm going to grant these rights to American citizens only. Everyone else can screw off."

I don't know what you are talking about again.  What right do you think is inherent to American citizens but not to others?

Of course you don't, even though I've explained it to you several times.

Let's start from scratch, shall we?

You're the one who said our rights come from a Creator. Which rights would those be?

[Deleted]

May 21, 2016 16:13:54 GMT -5 Kolt! said:

I have NO problem with religion.

I have a problem with religion when people try to shove their religious beliefs down people's throats.

I can support a religious person's beliefs and practice when they don't make it impact my life. I support the religious person that uses their religion to shape their own life and doesn't use their religion in a way to deny someone else something. 

I know religious people that are friends of mine that 100 percent believe that it is not their right to judge someone else's lifestyle and only God's right. Therefore, they will serve them, they will treat them with respect, and they will let them life their life according to how they want to live their life. They don't 'believe' they're greater then Jesus who would serve the sinner whereas some religious people that judge others, are actually doing exactly what Jesus would not do.

I can't agree with people that say "I won't serve you because of my religious beliefs," but will serve the person that is having sex before marriage, had an affair, and sinned among many other sins. If you're not going to serve one sin why are you serving other sins? This is just a way to back up something someone doesn't like and deny them, not because they're sinning, but because this is one sin out of 100s of sins they don't like.  I can't agree with them either.  The difference between my disagreement and yours is that you want to force your point with government force.  You seem to care not a whit if they sincerely believe it is against God's law or not.  You don't think so, so force them to your view.

I will take a person more seriously if they're saying "I won't do this for the LGBTQ, or the divorced person, or the people having sex before marriage." but they wouldn't. I haven't seen any cases of this. 

What's funny is when I go to get married if someone is against me being transgender they'd never know. My ID says i'm male and I'm only attracted to females. Therefore, someone could be against my marriage and still serve a cake to me unknowing that they're giving it to a trans person.

It's quite crazy to deny someone something just because you can tell right away the marriage is of two men, or two females, when the person behind them could be having sex before marriage...both a sin. I agree.  You and me are entitled to that opinion but not entitled to force it onto other. Do you want people to force their ideas on you?  If someone doesnt  want to do business with you, they are not forcing you in any way.  You  are forcing them if you force them to do business with you.  You are the aggressor if you use force first.

--
I respect someone's religion when they don't use it as an excuse to try to judge someone else, and isolate someone else. Why is it a religious person does this when the bible literally says NOT to do this? When Jesus wouldn't deny the person food why should someone else? Why is your business what is between them and their God? Who elected you God police?

See I can't see that as a "your religious beliefs." I can however see someone saying "I won't marry you in this church, or even at all," because that's inside a church, and I can understand someone not wanting to marry someone when their entire sermon may just be about God and Jesus. I can see someone saying "I go to church every Sunday because I like to praise the lord." I can see someone saying "I'm going to shut down my business because of religious purposes on Sunday." 

But I can't condone those people judging someone else for their lifestyles, and then, proceeding to tell them they won't serve them because of this because that is judging them for their 'sins.' Some people can't condone transgenders.  They should mind their own damn business. I think you should mind your own business and quit wanting to force your view onto others.

Also, not that I've seen it from you Hickle, but I see this all the time. On my own facebook, sadly.

How can someone claim to be christian, while posting "Freakshows, trannys are freakshows." "Transgender people are disgusting." "Gross two men kissing, they're going to hell." "Transgender people belong in the zoo." "They're not human." They sound like jerks.

Then when it comes down to it, deny these people something because of religious beliefs. These are people that would agree that someone should deny someone because it's their religious belief while saying all of this stuff in the same breath. 

That isn't religious beliefs, that's discrimination. Discrimination can be ugly but it is a right.  If you want to shut down freedom of speech, lets start with yours.  You don't like that idea?  Others don't like it that you want to punish them, if that is what you want.  If it is not what you want, I think we can agree they sound like hateful bigots and hopefully they will answer to God for how they lived their lives.

You're sinning too, so what gives you the right to dictate whose sin is the worst, and then deny them this because of it? Just because their sin is more visable? That isn't a religious belief, that's picking and choosing which sins you condone and don't condone.  If "you" above is meant to be me.  I have never said my sins are less.

If we really want to live where all sins are treated the same...let's try nominating the High Sparrow from the Game of Thrones who treats all sins the same... every. single. sin. Not a life I personally want to live but that's the life we'd almost lead if we were to live by the bible truly and treat sins all the same.

It doesn't matter if you cheat, are gay, had an affair, lied, had envy...the High Sparrow says a sin is a sin and he will condemn you for them all. 

He wouldn't say "Gays are worse then cheating, therefore, don't worry I'll let the cheating slide but not being gay." 

My point is how can someone pick and choose which sin to deny and claim it a religious belief? Why are they condoning one sin and not condoning the other sins? 

[Deleted]

May 21, 2016 16:25:48 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

May 21, 2016 15:50:58 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I don't know what you are talking about again.  What right do you think is inherent to American citizens but not to others?

Of course you don't, even though I've explained it to you several times.

Let's start from scratch, shall we?

You're the one who said our rights come from a Creator. Which rights would those be?

post 30 I answered that .  I think all negative rights come from our Creator and everyone has them.   Furthermore I think positive rights are bullshit and no one has a positive right.  The idea of a positive right contradicts itself.

[Kolt!]

The you wasn't in reference to you at all in the entire post. 

However, if they want to deny someone something go for it and suffer the consequences. However, to use "religious beliefs," is not what it is at all. It IS discrimination unless you are choosing to decide all sins are to be not served where you're serving them.

OH NO. I believe they're allowed to say whatever they want, go for it. In the midst of serving someone spill out all your hate but don't use your "religious beliefs," to deny someone something, because as soon as we start letting "religious beliefs" do one thing, then what's next? Let anything slide because it's their "religious belief"

If they want to serve me a cookie while saying how disgusting I am, go for it. But, don't deny me the cookie because of a "religious belief." Just say you find me disgusting and I'll probably never return but don't hide behind your religion. It isn't your religion telling you to deny someone something. 

It isn't a good business practice to spill out hate but that is their right with freedom of speech to spill out the most hateful words. What isn't in their right is to deny someone a service that they had opened for THE PUBLIC.

And to use "religious beliefs" to do so is just despicable when religion actually tells you not to do so.


A lgbtq member can't deny someone anything because they're against Christians. A Muslim person can't deny someone anything because it's against their religion when it comes to the public.

It seems to be ONLY Christians that want to deny someone something based on their "religious beliefs." they cry that their rights are the only rights being taken away, that other's have special rights, while at the same time someone tries to use religion to do this, or do that. 

A lesbian can't say "You're christian so I'm not serving you." A Muslim can't say "You're gay so I can't serve you." this works for everyone every where. This isn't just a law to hurt Christians, this is something that is to be for everyone. 


"Religious beliefs" only seem to protect the Christians, if we want to go that route. 

--

Selling me something isn't testing your beliefs or your ideas. It's basically telling me "I don't approve of you," that's it. If someone's beliefs can be tampered with that much then their beliefs aren't very strong. It is denying me a service that you're giving to the person behind me, which is not equal treatment, or equal rights. 

I'm not telling them "Sell me this cookie, now you better agree with me being trans, you better not pray that I get fixed. You better not think i'm sinning," i'm simply taking the cookie and leaving, my sins don't need to be discussed, their sins don't need to be discussed.

It's quite unfair that someone can judge someone because they're gay or lesbians, when there's so many other sinners out there. Someone could still be condoning sins they don't like, but can't see, but because they can see this 'sin' they discriminate. 

[Kolt!]

Looking back at my post when I say "they" I'm sorry, it's habit.

This isn't be trying to lump everyone together at all. As I've said I know Christians that truly believe it is not in their right to deny anyone anything or judge, and only God's right. They'd never use religion to do this to anyone. 

It's a bad habit to put "they" for me, but their's always exceptions to the rules. It is not all Christians and i'm VERY well aware of that. 

[weltschmerz]

May 21, 2016 16:31:01 GMT -5 @hickle said:

May 21, 2016 16:25:48 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Of course you don't, even though I've explained it to you several times.

Let's start from scratch, shall we?

You're the one who said our rights come from a Creator. Which rights would those be?

post 30 I answered that .  I think all negative rights come from our Creator and everyone has them.   Furthermore I think positive rights are bullshit and no one has a positive right.  The idea of a positive right contradicts itself.

These rights? These rights were granted by a creator? Was that before or after he drowned everyone? Before or after he commanded to kill unbelievers and the horse they rode in on?

"Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery"

[Deleted]

May 21, 2016 17:18:41 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

May 21, 2016 16:31:01 GMT -5 @hickle said:

post 30 I answered that .  I think all negative rights come from our Creator and everyone has them.   Furthermore I think positive rights are bullshit and no one has a positive right.  The idea of a positive right contradicts itself.

These rights? These rights were granted by a creator? Was that before or after he drowned everyone? Before or after he commanded to kill unbelievers and the horse they rode in on?

"Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery"

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.  If you are under the impression I am a Christian, I am not.  If you are under the impression I think the Bible is the word of God, I do not. 

I have no f'ing idea what point you are trying to make.

eta: but that is a good list of many of the rights that I think all people are born with and are given by their Creator

[weltschmerz]

May 21, 2016 17:21:45 GMT -5 @hickle said:

May 21, 2016 17:18:41 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

These rights? These rights were granted by a creator? Was that before or after he drowned everyone? Before or after he commanded to kill unbelievers and the horse they rode in on?

"Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from slavery"

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.  If you are under the impression I am a Christian, I am not.  If you are under the impression I think the Bible is the word of God, I do not. 

I have no f'ing idea what point you are trying to make.

eta: but that is a good list of many of the rights that I think all people are born with and given by their Creator

You're the one who has posted on numerous occasions, that our rights come from a creator.

Here's an example.

"I do not think it fair that posters are limited on discussing where rights originate if they think they come from a Creator. It is part of the Declaration of Independence that we get rights from a Creator. If we cannot say rights come from outside of us, what are you left with? And if you are allowed to say they come from outside of us, what do you call that other then God or the Creator or words that mean the same?"

Then, when asked to clarify your position re which rights you meant, you play dumb and act like you don't know what I'm talking about.

[Deleted]

I dont know what you are talking about.  What part of that is playing dumb?

 I think we have a Creator. I think our rights come from Him. I do not think He is the god of the Bible. I think the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence isn't the God of the Bible either.   The "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" part of the declaration, I believe is the truth.

I have said numerous times, that the rights protected by the constitution are rights that all humans have.  I have posted that probably more then a dozen times over the years, maybe a few dozen times.  I have posted that I am not a Christian probably a few dozen times.

[weltschmerz]

May 21, 2016 17:41:26 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I dont know what you are talking about.  What part of that is playing dumb?

 I think we have a Creator. I think our rights come from Him. I do not think He is the god of the Bible. I think the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence isn't the God of the Bible either.   The "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" part of the declaration, I believe is the truth.

I have said numerous times, that the rights protected by the constitution are rights that all humans have.  I have posted that probably more then a dozen times over the years, maybe a few dozen times.  I have posted that I am not a Christian probably a few dozen times.

So AGAIN....which rights would those be? Just tell me, instead of babbling about negative vs positive rights and how you're not a Christian.

WHICH rights were given to all human beings by a creator? Why do you keep refusing to answer the question?

[Deleted]

post 38 I said the list you provided is a good start. I am not going to list out all the negative rights. You can look at the definition of negative right and if it fits i think that is God given.  If you do  not want to do that start with the list of negative rights you provided.  Those rights are given to all people by our Creator.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2016 17:49:45 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

May 21, 2016 17:41:26 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I dont know what you are talking about.  What part of that is playing dumb?

 I think we have a Creator. I think our rights come from Him. I do not think He is the god of the Bible. I think the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence isn't the God of the Bible either.   The "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" part of the declaration, I believe is the truth.

I have said numerous times, that the rights protected by the constitution are rights that all humans have.  I have posted that probably more then a dozen times over the years, maybe a few dozen times.  I have posted that I am not a Christian probably a few dozen times.

So AGAIN....which rights would those be? Just tell me, instead of babbling about negative vs positive rights and how you're not a Christian.

WHICH rights were given to all human beings by a creator? Why do you keep refusing to answer the question?

And if you want to have a conversation, try using a little bit of common civility.

[mmhmm]

May 21, 2016 17:53:45 GMT -5 @hickle said:

post 38 I said the list you provided is a good start. I am not going to list out all the negative rights. You can look at the definition of negative right and if it fits i think that is God given.  If you do  not want to do that start with the list of negative rights you provided.  Those rights are given to all people by our Creator.

The bolded, above, is the crux of the problem with discussions like this one. What you think is not what everyone thinks. It applies to you and cannot be cast onto others. You believe negative rights are given by God, or a Creator. That's great. Others may believe differently. That's great, too.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2016 18:49:15 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 21, 2016 17:53:45 GMT -5 @hickle said:

post 38 I said the list you provided is a good start. I am not going to list out all the negative rights. You can look at the definition of negative right and if it fits i think that is God given.  If you do  not want to do that start with the list of negative rights you provided.  Those rights are given to all people by our Creator.

The bolded, above, is the crux of the problem with discussions like this one. What you think is not what everyone thinks. It applies to you and cannot be cast onto others. You believe negative rights are given by God, or a Creator. That's great. Others may believe differently. That's great, too.

What you said above is what you think.  Its the point of message boards, post what you think.

For the record though, what I think about negative rights is either correct or incorrect.  It either holds or fails on its on and has nothing to do with what I or you think.

[mmhmm]

May 21, 2016 19:04:38 GMT -5 @hickle said:

May 21, 2016 18:49:15 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The bolded, above, is the crux of the problem with discussions like this one. What you think is not what everyone thinks. It applies to you and cannot be cast onto others. You believe negative rights are given by God, or a Creator. That's great. Others may believe differently. That's great, too.

What you said above is what you think.  Its the point of message boards, post what you think.

For the record though, what I think about negative rights is either correct or incorrect.  It either holds or fails on its on and has nothing to do with what I or you think.

While you may think that way, hickle, I don't agree with you. I'm not a black and white thinker. In my world, there are many shades of gray. While there are absolutes, to be sure, what you're talking about here isn't one of them, in my opinion. My opinion and your opinion have equal value, and the opinions of others here hold equal value to yours, and to mine. You're welcome to post what you think. We all do that. What you're not welcome to do is to state, unequivocally, that your opinion is the only correct opinion. That's what starts board battles.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2016 21:23:02 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 21, 2016 19:04:38 GMT -5 @hickle said:

What you said above is what you think.  Its the point of message boards, post what you think.

For the record though, what I think about negative rights is either correct or incorrect.  It either holds or fails on its on and has nothing to do with what I or you think.

While you may think that way, hickle, I don't agree with you. I'm not a black and white thinker. In my world, there are many shades of gray. While there are absolutes, to be sure, what you're talking about here isn't one of them, in my opinion. My opinion and your opinion have equal value, and the opinions of others here hold equal value to yours, and to mine. You're welcome to post what you think. We all do that. What you're not welcome to do is to state, unequivocally, that your opinion is the only correct opinion. That's what starts board battles.

My opinion is my opinion and I am humble enough to think it  does not change anything about what God is or isnt.  I do not understand how you or anyone can think that God, if He exists, is not an absolute.  I do not believe I have ever seriously said I was absolutely correct on anything. 


You seem to me to be harder on people who defend the idea of God or a Creator then on those who mock the idea. It was said earlier in the thread that he 'had people drown" or some such.  Religion was mocked in another thread as 'inventing creators and an imaginary post-mortem afterlife."  Why is that poster not cautioned that her opinion is not the only correct one?

I am not a Christian.  I think there is a lot of anti-Christian bigotry on this forum.  Do I miss the posts where you tell those people to quieten down the attitude?

For the record,  I believe the statement "eta: I reject the idea that rights are given to us by law. Rights are given to us by our creator and protected or not protected by law." was the whole of why I was called out for religious talk on the topless pool thread.  I went back several days worth of my posts and saw nothing else religious. In post 30 on the Venuezuela thread you 'liked' a post of Virgil's where he said it was allowed to raise a religious belief or precept as long as it was germane to the topic and didnt develop an arc.  I realize it might have developed an arc, but it wasnt my doing as I only posted that one sentence the last several days before you called things out.

Though to be honest I could have said something similar in the thread  many days ago.  It is a strongly held belief of mine that we are born with inherent rights and they are not limited by who we are or where we live.

ymam.proboards.com/thread/49425/venezuela?page=2

I use 'absolute' to mean 'not qualified or diminished in any way; total.'

[weltschmerz]

"You seem to me to be harder on people who defend the idea of God or a Creator then on those who mock the idea. It was said earlier in the thread that he 'had people drown" or some such. Religion was mocked in another thread as 'inventing creators and an imaginary post-mortem afterlife." Why is that poster not cautioned that her opinion is not the only correct one?"

How was that mocking? Thin-skinned much?

It's my opinion, we invented creators and this imaginary post-mortem afterlife.

You have evidence to the contrary?

[verrip1]

May 22, 2016 2:24:37 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

"You seem to me to be harder on people who defend the idea of God or a Creator then on those who mock the idea. It was said earlier in the thread that he 'had people drown" or some such. Religion was mocked in another thread as 'inventing creators and an imaginary post-mortem afterlife." Why is that poster not cautioned that her opinion is not the only correct one?"

How was that mocking? Thin-skinned much?

It's my opinion, we invented creators and this imaginary post-mortem afterlife.

You have evidence to the contrary?

That last bolded question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fundamental separation between teleology and science/logic.  If one wishes to argue teleologic subjects like religion, then inherently any sort of human-generated rules of evidence or logic are extraneous.  [In teleology, a + b does not necessarily mean that it equals b + a.]  Teleology including religion is based on the primacy of outcome and cause, not the primacy of observable fact, classical logic and science.  It's like trying to mix water and grease, you can beat them down to little bits and pieces as far as you want, but the two moeities are always separate from the teleological perspective, as they should be from the scientific/logical perspective (but seldom are).  A god is not subject to science, to classical logic or to what one could "prove".

It's an intriguing area of philosophy, though.

[mroped]

Believing in God/Creator is one thing but believing that your rights come from this not proven to exist entity is a bit out there.
Believing in something greater than yourself comes in handy in times of need. This is why religion in all its forms was created. Those that came up with the idea, after seeing that it works to their advantage started using it as a tool to control a bigger number of people.
They did it to the extent of controlling the whole world!
Ofcourse, God had to take diferent names, shapes and forms but nonetheless this all powerful being became an important tool.

In our specific case as a society- American- when the Declaration of Independence was written, the vast majority of the population was believing in God so using a general term-Creator- to name a source for the rights of the people, seemed fit for the occasion!
If the writers of the Declaration of Independence would've said " ...certain inalienable rights given to us by this group of educated gentlemen..." people would've just tossed that and not follow through with it. 
It would sound like a king would be traded for a few litle, smaller kings but all the same kings. Hence the need to name one source that all would understand to some extent and follow the call.

At least that's how I see it and again just to be clear, I do believe in God!

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

May 22, 2016 4:05:59 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

May 22, 2016 2:24:37 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

"You seem to me to be harder on people who defend the idea of God or a Creator then on those who mock the idea. It was said earlier in the thread that he 'had people drown" or some such. Religion was mocked in another thread as 'inventing creators and an imaginary post-mortem afterlife." Why is that poster not cautioned that her opinion is not the only correct one?"

How was that mocking? Thin-skinned much?

It's my opinion, we invented creators and this imaginary post-mortem afterlife.

You have evidence to the contrary?

That last bolded question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fundamental separation between teleology and science/logic.  If one wishes to argue teleologic subjects like religion, then inherently any sort of human-generated rules of evidence or logic are extraneous.  [In teleology, a + b does not necessarily mean that it equals b + a.]  Teleology including religion is based on the primacy of outcome and cause, not the primacy of observable fact, classical logic and science.  It's like trying to mix water and grease, you can beat them down to little bits and pieces as far as you want, but the two moeities are always separate from the teleological perspective, as they should be from the scientific/logical perspective (but seldom are).  A god is not subject to science, to classical logic or to what one could "prove".

It's an intriguing area of philosophy, though.

You should check out Science: A Four Thousand Year History(a short review for ya). I think you would really enjoy it Vman.