Atheist Ron Paul supporters

[jmdrake]

Why have you chosen to start tossing insults? Can’t you defend your claim? Once again, the one who advocates religion is the one who initiates aggression.

LOL. Wrong again bub. Notice the conditional "if" in his statement as in "if you are too shallow minded to understand 2 + 2 = 4". That doesn't mean you are shallow minded. It's one of those "if the shoe fits wear it" kind of things. Anyway I'll give you a hint to what you're not understanding. IS in all caps isn't a verb. It's a title. Rev9 is most referring to the original Hebrew name of God.

 

[idirtify]

We have a saying in the software tools world. RTFM (read the fucking manual). It applies here. If you are too effing lazy to read that and want your hand held then your philosophical stance on anything is quite suspect.

Rev9

You are calling me “effing lazy” because I questioned your claim without first reading your link and searching for a possible basis in a 33,000-word, 73-page article?? Considering the fact that you already read it, yet refused to answer my simple question, your choice of insult to describe ME is most curious. But wait…it gets worse: you then extend your logic to conclude that since I didn’t read the 73 page article, that my “philosophical stance on anything is quite suspect”. Wow, that must be SOME article! LOL.

 

[idirtify]

Didn't you notice that he used all caps? End of argument.

Please explain how the use of ALL CAPS means “end of argument”.

 

[Revolution9]

You are calling me “effing lazy” because I questioned your claim without first reading your link and searching for a possible basis in a 33,000-word, 73-page article?? Considering the fact that you already read it, yet refused to answer my simple question, your choice of insult to describe ME is most curious. But wait…it gets worse: you then extend your logic to conclude that since I didn’t read the 73 page article, that my “philosophical stance on anything is quite suspect”. Wow, that must be SOME article! LOL.

It sure is. It is the question of all questions about mans tyranny to other men...answered. You are lazy or simply not curious or if you were a psychopath..not saying you are, would either have no relevance due to lack of empathy and a so effing what attitude or be pissed it unmasked the gambit.

Rev9.

 

[Revolution9]

Seems we are getting off-topic but…
So governments are needed to protect us from the 5% who are psychopaths, who then concentrate in a much higher percent in said governments?? How does that work?

Vigilance of the citizenry..like the RP campaign as a prime, in your face right now as you read this example.

HTH
Rev9

 

[idirtify]

LOL. Wrong again bub. Notice the conditional "if" in his statement as in "if you are too shallow minded to understand 2 + 2 = 4". That doesn't mean you are shallow minded. It's one of those "if the shoe fits wear it" kind of things. Anyway I'll give you a hint to what you're not understanding. IS in all caps isn't a verb. It's a title. Rev9 is most referring to the original Hebrew name of God.

Yeah right. Then neither would this be an insult:
“If you are too IDIOTIC to understand my point, then I refuse to explain, since you are acting like an IDIOT.”

EDIT: If you claim god has a name, no matter what it IS, you are claiming existence.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah right. Then neither would this be an insult:
“If you are too IDIOTIC to understand my point, then I refuse to explain, since you are acting like an IDIOT.”

EDIT: If you claim god has a name, no matter what it IS, you are claiming existence.

Except your claiming to have enough knowledge of theism to be able to effectively debate it, but you don't know the significance of the capitalized form of the verb "to be" in Judeo-Christian theology. In other words you're debating something you don't understand and don't seem willing to take the time to learn enough to effectively debate it. But hey, have fun being insulted.

Edit: And I even gave you a HUGE hint.

 

[idirtify]

It sure is. It is the question of all questions about mans tyranny to other men...answered. You are lazy or simply not curious or if you were a psychopath..not saying you are, would either have no relevance due to lack of empathy and a so effing what attitude or be pissed it unmasked the gambit.

Rev9.

Once again you demonstrate no problem elaborating on the content of the article. So why can you not answer my earlier question? I mean considering your elaboration, you can’t credibly call me lazy - without looking like you cannot refute my point.

Look, I’m sure it’s a good article; but if it’s as good as that, why can’t you defend it?

edit: I see you finally have in your next post. hold on...let me reply.

 

[idirtify]

Vigilance of the citizenry..like the RP campaign as a prime, in your face right now as you read this example.

HTH
Rev9

See, that wasn’t so hard. Problem is: that’s the same old tired argument. I thought your article had added a new perspective. Apparently not.

Yes, of course everyone knows there are more sickos in government. So why/how does that show the necessity of government?

 

[idirtify]

Except your claiming to have enough knowledge of theism to be able to effectively debate it, but you don't know the significance of the capitalized form of the verb "to be" in Judeo-Christian theology. In other words you're debating something you don't understand and don't seem willing to take the time to learn enough to effectively debate it. But hey, have fun being insulted.

Edit: And I even gave you a HUGE hint.

Sorry, try harder. I’m afraid “to be” is synonymous with “to exist”.

Regarding “hint”: Claiming that I can’t understand doesn’t fly when it’s so obvious that YOU can’t explain.

 

[MelissaWV]

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Seems we are getting off-topic but…
So governments are needed to protect us from the 5% who are psychopaths, who then concentrate in a much higher percent in said governments?? How does that work?

Excellent point. Even Hamilton was smart enough to know that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary". He, of course, failed to see (or ignored) that the less-than-angelic nature of men makes them even more dangerous when given power under his ideal Federalist model. /end ramble

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Please explain how the use of ALL CAPS means “end of argument”.

Perhaps you would be better served if I explained sarcasm as a form of humor.

 

[idirtify]

Perhaps you would be better served if I explained sarcasm as a form of humor.

Sorry, when I see no smilie, I usually miss the sarcasm. Good one!

 

[DamianTV]

Seems we are getting off-topic but…
So governments are needed to protect us from the 5% who are psychopaths, who then concentrate in a much higher percent in said governments?? How does that work?

Hey, dont forget, the 5% who are psychopaths, most of them already hold public office!

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry, try harder. I’m afraid “to be” is synonymous with “to exist”.

Regarding “hint”: Claiming that I can’t understand doesn’t fly when it’s so obvious that YOU can’t explain.

I already did explain it. You just aren't sharp enough to get the hint. You must not have played any adventure games as a kid or read in Sherlock Holmes novels. Holmes would have figure this out and the first post and without the aide of Google. Last hint. Google "Meaning of YAWEH" and get back with us.

Oh, and one other thing. I've learned through observation that you seem to enjoy playing the victim.

 

[idirtify]

I already did explain it. You just aren't sharp enough to get the hint. You must not have played any adventure games as a kid or read in Sherlock Holmes novels. Holmes would have figure this out and the first post and without the aide of Google. Last hint. Google "Meaning of YAWEH" and get back with us.

Oh, and one other thing. I've learned through observation that you seem to enjoy playing the victim.

Typically arguments do not rely on hints and games and cryptic meanings to debate a point. If you are going to continue in this way, it’s a safe assumption that you CAN’T debate the point with any credible clarity. Otherwise you would.

So back to the point: One can’t argue that god exists, then think rebuttals can be avoided by saying he doesn’t really exist, but then say that he has being and names.

 

[emazur]

Atheist here. And Colbert has something to say to you aggies!

 

[DamianTV]

Free Speech. The Popular Thing will never need the protection of Freedom of Speech from the First Amendment. The First Amendment is there to protect the Unpopular Thing. When a Revolution Begins, the True Patriot is a rare and scorned man. The First Amendment.protects that Patriots Right to be Patriotic. I sincerely believe that it is more important to defend the Rights of those who say things that you DONT agree with, as opposed to only supporting the Rights of people that you DO agree with. That is, I would rather suffer the results of having too much freedom than too little.

Freedom of Religion: We, The Ron Paul Supporters, The State Citizens, The Tea Party, The Christians, The Athiests, The Catholics, The Jews, The Muslims, we ALL need to Lead by Example. The Athiests of our group need to fight harder to protect the Rights of Christians to be Christans. We the Christians need to defend the Rights of the Athiests to be Athiests. We need to stick up for each other. We can not stand divided and conquered based on our opinions of Religion.

We dont need to attack each other for the differences in our beliefs. When we fight amongst ourselves, we ALL fall down.

 

[idirtify]

Free Speech. The Popular Thing will never need the protection of Freedom of Speech from the First Amendment. The First Amendment is there to protect the Unpopular Thing. When a Revolution Begins, the True Patriot is a rare and scorned man. The First Amendment.protects that Patriots Right to be Patriotic. I sincerely believe that it is more important to defend the Rights of those who say things that you DONT agree with, as opposed to only supporting the Rights of people that you DO agree with. That is, I would rather suffer the results of having too much freedom than too little.

Freedom of Religion: We, The Ron Paul Supporters, The State Citizens, The Tea Party, The Christians, The Athiests, The Catholics, The Jews, The Muslims, we ALL need to Lead by Example. The Athiests of our group need to fight harder to protect the Rights of Christians to be Christans. We the Christians need to defend the Rights of the Athiests to be Athiests. We need to stick up for each other. We can not stand divided and conquered based on our opinions of Religion.

We dont need to attack each other for the differences in our beliefs. When we fight amongst ourselves, we ALL fall down.

Great post except for the conclusion.

By disagreeing with each other’s beliefs, we are not “attacking each other” or “fighting amongst each other & falling down” (both phrases implying real aggression), but are only doing what you previously described: practicing “free speech”. And in the case of atheists disagreeing with Christian beliefs, the “speech” is literally about “the unpopular thing”.

So while I completely (fight hard to) defend the rights of the religious to disagree with the non-religious and vise versa, the problem is predominantly the religious who claim that the non-religious SHOULD NOT disagree with the religious. (I have a whole thread about this in this same forum. You might want to check it out.)