[quote=@Odin]
I shouldn't have to even explain this but the point I was making was entirely theoretical and based on general principles of constitutions. Hence I said constitution[b]s[/b] because the US of A does not have multiple constitutions. In Europe constitutions are changed very frequently. The issue I have furthermore with what you wrote is that the constitution for the US of A was [i]meant[/i] to be changed according to the actual person that, yknow, wrote it, but people later on decided they were lazy and constitutions should remain the same. 

I disagree with you calling what we said nihilism too. It's not nihilism - it's the rejection of natural forces that put forward such 'laws' and 'rights' that humans have to abide by. There is no natural right to freedom of speech and there is no natural body of nature that enforces it. The right to free speech was given to us by someone that decided he liked the idea of it, but it can just as easily be taken away or 'trampled' as MDK put it nicely. There is nothing preventing it. You can say 'it's my right' and I'll turn around and say 'yes, yes it is, but I'm taking it anyway' and unless you have weaponry, economical power or diplomatical sway (hint, you have nothing, because you are my citizen and I can take all [i]that[/i] away too) you stand powerless to change that. That's not nihilism - that's common sense. So either you are using the word nihilism wrong, or you are entirely confused about what I was saying. Perhaps both.

Furthermore I am not sure why you think that religion = I have a natural right to things. This is not true at all. I am religious in a broad sense and our religion teaches us we need to work for everything because not even the gods will give us what we want without something in return. Ergo there are no natural rights except the right of the strongest, which is a dynamic variable that changes all the time. If I want something, I take it - whether that is physical goods, ideology, or a right. It's not a natural power [i]giving[/i] me those things, it is me [i]taking[/i] those things. That's not nnihilistic
[/quote]

That could not be more incorrect. They didn't want things to change willy nilly. That's why they made it so difficult to do so, in the first place. If anyone actually thinks that any of the original amendments that we have now that the founders wanted to give the ability to remove them, let alone easily, they fundamentally misunderstand the Constitution and the founding fathers. (But I already said that.) Since we are a constitutional republic our Constitutional Amendments have to mean something. The laws can't consistently change like they would in a democracy when it's the will of the people majority to change the law however they wish to see fit. Hence why the founding fathers found that so evil. Also these theoretical constitutions of Europe don't exist. Places like the UK Poland and much of elsewhere doesn't have a codified constitution. If they have anything at all. Constitutions are not equivalent to laws. Just so we're clear, because that seems to be what you're speaking about.

My point is you're seemingly using this phrase to disregard the rights that others already have put in place. Because saying people don't have rights nowadays just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially in America. Which is why you're theoretically suggesting that constitutions were just supposed to be amended without thought and the Second Amendment could be removed tomorrow if we were doing what we were supposed to be doing. And I'm taking that context into consideration. You're right that laws were created by man but if your religious you have God given rights. So atheists wouldn't try to self preserve if they were living somewhere without any laws that said on a piece of paper that you were allowed to keep yourself alive then I suppose that's on them. I know that some people confuse what should be a right and what shouldn't be. But I didn't think that was the discussion we were having.

Actually most religions do not revolve around the idea of doing good deeds and working to get to Salvation. Christianity, for example, the only thing that you need to do is accept Jesus Christ in your heart. That's not a whole lot of work. (Since we're discussing religion.) The idea that you need to not do something and for it to magically occur is somehow the definition of right, is not what a right is.