Patrick.net

How to Destroy an Atheist in an Argument

By Dan8267   Follow   Thu, 31 May 2012, 6:46pm   5,897 views   68 comments
In Boca Raton FL 33433   Watch (2)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Viewing Comments 1-40 of 68     Next »     Last »     See most liked comments

1. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

   1   11:37pm Thu 31 May 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Hmmm... all those arguments sound strangely familiar.

2. warrior Follow Befriend 2 comments

   2   4:18am Fri 1 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Great video! Wish there was something in there about Stalin, Pol Pot or Communist China.

3. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 49 threads 2,625 comments Premium

   3   8:00am Fri 1 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Damn Atheists are so cocky. How can they be so damn sure there were never talking donkeys and pillars of fire and virgin births? They don't leave enough room for miracles!

4. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

   4   8:47am Fri 1 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Cloud says So how do we get rid of all this religion? It's been tried before. You don't, but economic opportunity and education for an entire population do a lot to reduce radicalism and extremists. Also, probably any of the examples you are thinking of where it has been tried before was a removal of traditional religion and they just replaced it with personality cults like Che Guevara in Cuba. In North Korea Juche is actually a full blown religion.

5. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,054 comments

   5   1:57pm Sat 2 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   An observation: There are atheists who simply don't believe in God or religion and keep that to themself. And then there are the atheists (with issues) such as Dan or others on this forum to a lessor degree, who aren't satisfied with this. They want to convince others of the folly that is religion. For the record, whenever I referred to Dan's arrogance, it was not in argument against atheism or for belief in God. It was just a reaction to what should be obvious to any rational objective person who is not invested in either side of the argument. It is ego which causes one to inflate the importance of their beliefs and to wish to push those beliefs on others. For these most egotistical atheists, their atheism has indeed replaced their religion, becoming much more of a religion than their childhood beliefs ever were. It was such ego that Einstein referred to with this: "The fanatical atheists," Einstein said in correspondence, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."[1][2] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook." [1] Isaacson, Walter (2007). "Einstein and Faith" Time 169 (April 5): 47. [2]Jammer, Max (2002). Einstein and Religion: physics and theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 97 ps: Dan you're still on ignore, but I saw this post under PAtricks new system which still shows me (ignored) links on the right side, which is fine. Why do I tell you this? Just to help you. Your response should be to others, not me. If you can tone down the arrogance a little, maybe your pov will seem like more than just a refection of your own inner conflict.

6. Hysteresis Follow Befriend (2) 14 threads 647 comments

   6   2:29pm Sat 2 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike

7. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

   7   2:31pm Sat 2 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike   marcus says An observation: There are atheists who simply don't believe in God or religion and keep that to themself. And then there are the atheists (with issues) such as Dan or others on this forum to a lessor degree, who aren't satisfied with this. They want to convince others of the folly that is religion. Tell you what Marcus, I'll never mention god again if no one else in the world does, too. Why should atheists being in the closet like gays had to be during the 1950s? That's no solution. When people's superstitions cause unjust wars, unjust laws, and interfere with the education, rights, and dignity of other people, I can make a damn good case in promoting rationalism over superstition and, in particular, atheism over monotheism. marcus says ps: Dan you're still on ignore, Ah, the commonly used, I can't hear you so I get the last word defense. It's quite popular with children. Marcus, the only posting of mine that you seem to ignore is the one where I demonstrated the utter hypocrisy of your "don't question other people's beliefs philosophy with the following scenario. Dan8267 says Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Islamic men in the Middle East, deeply and religiously believe that it is a moral imperative to honor kill a woman in their family if she has had sex with a man who isn't her husband, even if the woman was raped. Tell me that you "respect" that belief. It's a deeply held, religious conviction from another culture. Are you saying you would tolerate honor killings out of respect for these men's beliefs? I don't think that you are that fucked up. And the only alternative is that you are engaging in politically correct bullshitting. Actually, anyone who reads any of Marcus's posts should read the entire post above to show how inconsistent and incorrect everything Marcus writes is. In any case, I'm not going to follow Marcus's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that he wants to apply to atheists, but not the religious. And Marcus clearly doesn't "respect" the bat-shit crazy religious beliefs of others any more than I do. He just doesn't have the balls to come out and say it. But if you press him on the issue, like in the post quoted above, he'll lower his tail and run away in shame because even he doesn't even have the integrity to admit that religion doesn't make killing rape victims OK. And that's why his opinions aren't worth listening to. marcus says If you can tone down the arrogance a little, maybe your pov will seem like more than just a refection of your own inner conflict. Yet another reason why Marcus should read that old post. It clearly states what my interests and objectives are. But then again, it would require Marcus reading something longer than a comic book, and as he has said, he hates reading. Marcus, never confuse condescension and arrogance. It's not that I have a high opinion of me. It's that I have a low opinion of you.

8. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

   8   4:49pm Sat 2 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Dan8267 says When people's superstitions cause unjust wars, unjust laws please give examples of "just" wars and "just" laws. please share where, or upon what, this meter of "just" vs "unjust" in based/anchored. Thanks.

9. YesYNot Follow Befriend (2) 15 threads 428 comments Reston, VA

   9   5:30pm Sat 2 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Kudos Dan. I love these funny but to the point religious posts.

10. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    10   7:19pm Sat 2 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Bap33 says please give examples of "just" wars and "just" laws. A bit off topic, but OK. Just Wars (that didn't happen, but in which the U.S. should have acted) - Preventing genocide in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia - Preventing the slaughter of citizens in Libya and Syria Unjust Wars (that did happen) - U.S. Iraq war to prevent Saddam from selling oil in Euros. - War on Afghan people, as oppose to Taliban targets in Afghanistan - Drone killing of civilians - Acceptance of collateral damage The bottom line is that you cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve both liberty and greed.

11. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    11   7:22pm Sat 2 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Bap33 says please share where, or upon what, this meter of "just" vs "unjust" in based/anchored. If your serious about your inquiry, read the following site: http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/overview-treaties-and-customary-law.htm There are international laws passed after WWII that detail when and how warfare is legal and when and how it is not.

12. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    12   3:45am Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   That's a very weak argument Cloud.

13. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

    13   6:00am Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Dan, I am serious. The rules of war I kinda knew already. The muslaislaimic murderers on the planet are not protected by the rules of war, as they do a few things that classify them as gorillia/terror fighters, and the rules say it is ok to execute them, rather than capture. This is one reason the arguement about Gitmo is so funny to me. Those guys could all be executed, but have been granted life by the Americans - even though the rules of war say America can execute them. But, in your answer you say there was a reason to go to war, and you do not say why. A large part of my question/wonderment is based on the way you (or whoever) chooses when war is just. And, when laws are just. The "why" of the matter. Something as simple as those international laws is fine, except nobody has to follow them unless there is a threat of facing the American warriors. What I mean is, they lack enforcement - see Dufar for example - unless America does all the work, pays all bills, and gets tossed about like dog shit by the liberal biased and pro-muslamic press, the laws go unenforced.

14. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 49 threads 2,625 comments Premium

    14   9:56am Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   marcus says It was just a reaction to what should be obvious to any rational objective person who is not invested in either side of the argument. IE Not You. You want your untestable personal experience to count as evidence for a claim. I also doubt you'd bring up pushing religion if somebody said about some tragedy, "Shucks, I guess god works in mysterious ways". Dan is right, this is a DADT attitude. "as long as you shut up, we'll tolerate your (lack of) beliefs". F That. Religionists, including more liberal ones, never shut up, so why should I? marcus says And then there are the atheists (with issues) such as Dan or others on this forum to a lessor degree, who aren't satisfied with this. They want to convince others of the folly that is religion. There are also Georgists on this forum, Conservatives, Liberals, etc. Many of whom have strong viewpoints. Seldom are they the target of whinging about the strength of their evangelism. With atheists, we get pop psychological analysis. Cloud says And yet Leo, Dan and Thunder mock. Are you 3 smarter than say Pascal or Copernicus? Or Arthur Conan Doyle? Guy wrote a book about a detective who used amazing powers of perception and logic to solve crimes. A few decades later, he went on a crusade for the existence of Fairies. I mean real, little people, with pointy ears and wings. Pascal's wager is flawed. And Copernicus was very attached to his limbs and skin, being an atheist would have got him burned at the stake for sure in his times.

15. thunderlips11 Follow Befriend (13) 49 threads 2,625 comments Premium

    15   10:15am Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Cloud says Believers are stupid little children and these 3 mock them. What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Quoting what smart people believed is not an argument, it is an appeal to authority; it is scholastic. Observations and Verification of claims is Empirical.

16. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,054 comments

    16   11:36am Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Okay, I unignored for a moment, as curiosity got the best of me, to see how far off the deep end and in to one of his reductive fallcies he would go. Dan8267 says Ah, the commonly used, I can't hear you so I get the last word defense. It's quite popular with children. Actually it was meant to be more like - go ahead and get the last word, and since only everyone other than I will be listening, maybe you can tone down the emotion and arrogance a little. Dan8267 says Yet another reason why Marcus should read that old post. It clearly states what my interests and objectives are I read that post - it would seem that it's you who runs from the argument and doesn't read or comprehend what the other guy says. In that same thread, more than once I in one way or another said: marcus says I can understand people taking issue with fundamentalist christians or islamic fundamentalists as being an impediment to progress or worse. Maybe my language was not clear, but I was assuming people would know what I meant. If someone wanted to argue that the world would be better off without religious extremists or without fundamentalists (who take their Bible or Koran literally - when it suits them), I could accept that as a reasonable assertion. But to me this is far different than asserting that the world would be better off without any religion - and without any belief in god, even if it is possibly true (since eliminating all religion does eliminate the extremists and or fundamentalists- but still unknowable since it eliminates all religion - the belief of 80% of the world(some kind of belief in god)), but still also in my view possibly false. And yet you repeatedly said I had no answer for you as you went in to yet another long winded tantrum. Look up reductive fallacy Dan. It's where otherwise intelligent people whose judgement is blocked by emotion and ego resort to transparent and absurd generalizations. OR in some cases it probably happens from sheer stupidity of confusing isolated examples with their global generalizations (although can anyone be THAT stupid ?). Why don't you just condemn our species Dan? It's easy to come up with endless examples of how fucked up we are. It would seem that between: A) the potential for evil in humans B) the spiritual potential of humans. Dan somehow sees cause and effect. I say this is nothing more than a reflection of his personal issues he has yet to work out.

17. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    17   11:40am Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Bap33 says But, in your answer you say there was a reason to go to war, and you do not say why. I thought that was obvious from my answer. Preventing genocide and civilian massacres are good reasons to go to war. Protecting the profit margins of large corporations is not a good reason to go to war. Bap33 says they lack enforcement - see Dufar for example - unless America does all the work, pays all bills, and gets tossed about like dog shit by the liberal biased and pro-muslamic press, the laws go unenforced. That's not true. America acts unilaterally only when acting in its own selfish interests. Since WWII there has been considerable work in preventing WWIII and other wars because smart people realized that humanity simply would not survive WWIII. That's why international laws exist. And they can be enforce by international cooperation. Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of disregarding its own philosophies when they become inconvenient. Remember, the United States is every bit as guilty of committing genocide as Nazi Germany. The United States systematically eradicated an entire continent of people we now call Native Americans. Worse still, the United States has opposed the International Criminal Court and even reneged on the Rome Statue. It is widely believed that the real reason the U.S. did this was because our country is guilty of genocide by any reasonable definition. Yes, America's history is full of horrible things including genocide, slavery, child abuse in deadly working conditions, slaughter of innocent people striking against large corporations, just to name a few things. But you don't make America a nation to be proud of by white-washing or rewriting history. You make America a nation to be proud of by correcting the mistakes of the past and ensuring that they do not happen again. And in order to do that, you have to admit what those mistakes are. You have to remind people of the injustices of the past so that they don't become the injustices of the present. And if acknowledging the real history of the United States is "liberal bias", then what does that say about the conservative point of view? In any case, the past 70 years has shown what international cooperation can accomplish when nations act in the world's best interest rather than their own self-centered interests. Just take a look at the United Nation's success in El Salvador, Mozambique, Nambia, Cyprus, and Kashmir.

18. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    18   11:52am Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   thunderlips11 says that idiot Cloud says And yet Leo, Dan and Thunder mock. Are you 3 smarter than say Pascal or Copernicus? Actually, I wouldn't be surprised. Pascal and Copernicus were very intelligent, but they were no Frederick Gauss or Alan Turing. If you want us to bow to intellectual authorities, at least refer to the really intelligent ones, not just the 140 IQ ones. I've scored that high on IQ tests. In any case, Cloud's Appeal to Authority Fallacy carries no weight. First, those two individuals lived at a time where religious brainwashing was ubiquitous and anyone who even smelt like an atheist was burned at the stake. Second, when I listen to Pascal's or Copernicus's arguments, I listen to the argument, not the famous name attached to it. Finally, whether or not I'm smarter than Pascal or Copernicus is irrelevant. I'm far more knowledgeable then the both of them put together. That's the advantage of living in the 21st century. Unfortunately, most people don't bother exercising this advantage, Cloud being a perfect example. thunderlips11 says Pascal's wager is flawed. True. Pascal's wager is based upon the assumption that there are no disadvantages to belief in a god. 9/11 disproved that assumption.

19. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    19   11:52am Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   thunderlips11 says What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. ...and with derisive laughter.

20. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    20   12:02pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   marcus says Okay, I unignored for a moment, as curiosity got the best of me, to see how far off the deep end and in to one of his reductive fallcies he would go. Oh, just admit that you hang on my every word. You're like the dog who keeps getting kicked, but keeps returning to his master. Not that I approve of dog kicking, but it's the closest analogy I could make. Of course, you have yet to point out a single fallacy in any of my arguments. But hey, keep trying or more precisely, keep asserting. Some things really are simple matters like whether or not the Earth is flat. No amount of human cultural bullshit is going to change the factual issue of what is the shape of the Earth. So why would you think the factual issue of whether or not god exists, or more precisely, the Abraham god exists would be at all influence by mere human affairs? Human history and culture are irrelevant to questions of the origins of the universe. You see, we only occupy a tiny rock on a mediocre sun out of 400 billion suns in a galaxy that is only one of quadrillions upon quadrillions of galaxies. And humans have been in existence for only 200,000 to 2 million years, depending on how you arbitrarily define human. Yet, you think we should look at ourselves when determining if there is a creator of the entire universe? Now that's arrogance. Richard Feynman eloquently expresses how ridiculous this approach is.

21. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    21   12:18pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   marcus says I say this is nothing more than a reflection of his personal issues he has yet to work out. And that is precisely why you are the arrogant one. Instead of listening to all the incredibly detailed reasoning about how and why religion and superstitions are bad and why rational thought is necessary, you ignore everything I've said and try to make this about my personal life. In contrast, I've always held the position that the messenger is irrelevant. All messages stand or fall on their own. In addition to that, your writings are full of hypocrisies and contradictions. You claim that a person's religious beliefs should not be questioned out of respect, but when I give you the very real-world example of honor killings, you shrink away rather than trying to defend that ground or admit your failing. You constantly claim my writings are full of logical fallacies, but you give no example, no reference to a logical law to support those accusations. And then you flagrantly commit the most obvious and repeatedly exposed (on this site) logical fallacies. For example, you are clearly trying to poison the well right now. Marcus: Dan has some "personal" issues that he hasn't worked through. I don't know what they are or have any evidence regarding them, but somehow they cause everything he says to be wrong. I don't have any proof or reasoning that anything Dan has ever said is wrong, but he has personal issues as I asserted, so he must be wrong. So we can't listen to anything he says, and we have to ignore any evidence or proofs because Dan must by the very laws of physics be wrong since I asserted he has personal issues. Notice how I clearly demonstrated your logical fallacy. This is why you look retarded when you debate me. You never learn. I go out of my way trying to get you to learn, but like an old dog, you refuse to comprehend anything new. Look, I can accept that you were stupid when we started debating, but it's been months. Can't you learn anything from your mistakes? I put the logical argument on a silver platter for you, and you still don't even take the barest effort to comprehend why you sound like an idiot. As much as I have a distaste for stupidity, it's willful stupidity that I find offensive. There is no acceptable reason for you making the exact same mistakes over and over again. You claim to be a teacher; learn something.

22. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,054 comments

    22   12:46pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Dan8267 says You claim that a person's religious beliefs should not be questioned out of respect I never said this. What I said is that to make generalizations about ALL religions based on the practices of the radical fundamentalist is in my view fallacious and outright stupid childlike reasoning. I also have often said that making inferences about the beliefs of others (arrogant in and of itself), based on imagined childlike beliefs you used to hold, means that you have no experience with adult spirituality. And yet you arrogantly judge people for their religious beliefs. I have no judgement whatsoever about the beliefs of atheists. I respect them and their beliefs, and I say live and let live. It's only when they exhibit bizarre emotion and arrogance and a need to proselytize that they get under my skin.

23. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,054 comments

    23   12:52pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   You can't win this argument Dan, because your view is all about arrogantly judging others, which you must on some level understand is wrong. Sure come back with the most heinous examples of radical fundamentalist evil assholes and how you are right to judge them. And then coyly beat around the bush without ever explaining how this somehow makes it okay for you to negatively judge all religions and all spirituality. AGain Dan, one could use your exact kind of "reasoning" to condemn our entire species.

24. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,054 comments

    24   12:54pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   ASk yourself this Dan. Why can't you just not believe and leave it at that? Understanding the true answer to that is the same as understanding the role that your ego plays in all of this.

25. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    25   12:59pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   marcus says I never said this. That's all you ever claim. Hence your inability to denounce the honor killing of rape victims by their religious family members. marcus says And yet you arrogantly judge people for their religious beliefs. Actually, I judge their beliefs just like I judge the truth or falsehood of any claim. I also judge their dogma, which history has shown to be destructive and dangerous. marcus says You can't win this argument Dan, because your view is all about arrogantly judging others, which you must on some level understand is wrong. Again with the poisoning of the well. Are you even listening? But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake. Speaking of cake... marcus says AGain Dan, one could use your exact kind of "reasoning" to condemn our entire species ? Show me how "my reasoning" can be used to condemn our entire species and let's see if I can muster a rebuttal. If so, then you are wrong about "my reasoning".

26. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,054 comments

    26   1:06pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Simple. You use the ignorant or in some cases downright primitive and harmful practices of the most extreme fundamentalists to conclude that all religion is bad. It's understood that you believe the universe would be better off without all religion. I'll leave it to you to connect the dots. I know your style. You won't, but that's cool. I don't need to make my point anyway, to anyone who isn't irrationally invested in selling the atheist point of view. They see your emotion and arrogance just as much as I do. marcus says Understanding the true answer to that is the same as understanding the role that your ego plays in all of this.

27. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    27   1:16pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   marcus says Simple. You use the ignorant or in some cases downright primitive and harmful practices of the most extreme fundamentalists to conclude that all religion is bad. It's understood that you believe the universe would be better off without all religion. I'll leave it to you to connect the dots. I know your style. You won't, but that's cool. Dude, if you're going to argue that I use extreme cases to make the point that all religion is bad, it's your burden to quote the allege arguments that say that and to connect the dots. Not only am I not going to do the work for you, I couldn't even if I wanted to, because there are no such examples. marcus says I don't need to make my point anyway, to anyone who isn't irrationally invested in selling the atheist point of view. Actually, that's precisely what you need to do. And to assert that I'm the one being irrational is just laughable. marcus says They see your emotion and arrogance just as much as I do. More poisoning of the well? Christ, that's three times in under an hour. You have some chicken fucking stamina. I'll give you that.

28. KILLERJANE Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 600 comments

    28   1:34pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   So that's who you do on a Saturday night?

29. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,054 comments

    29   1:42pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Dan8267 says Tell me that you "respect" that belief. It's a deeply held, religious conviction from another culture. Are you saying you would tolerate honor killings out of respect for these men's beliefs? I don't think that you are that fucked up. And the only alternative is that you are engaging in politically correct bullshitting. Actually, I can't connect your dots. You somehow get from this, and that it's okay for you to judge these people as wrong in their beliefs about women, to you get to judge all the religious as wrong. Good times...

30. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    30   1:59pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   marcus says Actually, I can't connect your dots. Well that's a pussy way to admit defeat.

31. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

    31   4:35pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Dan8267 says Bap33 says But, in your answer you say there was a reason to go to war, and you do not say why. I thought that was obvious from my answer. Preventing genocide and civilian massacres are good reasons to go to war. Protecting the profit margins of large corporations is not a good reason to go to war. If civilian massacre is good reason, then you are behind Bush#1's efforts in iraq, and Bush#2 efforts towards islamoites, and those that protect them. Right? You skipped over alot of my questions. At any rate, who says it is wrong to have genocide or civilian massacre? Explain the reason or basis for such a law or belief, and by what function enforcement is to happen:.... by whom, paid for by what system, to who's satisfaction, and under what authority. Thanks.

32. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    32   4:54pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Cloud says All the great scientists were believers but Thunder Lips and Crazy Dan, and Leo think they are smarter than these men. Believers are stupid little children and these 3 mock them. Please furnish the quote where I am mocking "believers". Oh, you can't? Well that is because you are lying. Cloud says Most all the great leaders (except for Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao) were believers. Hmmmm, at least it is nice to know what you view as a great leader.

33. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    33   5:29pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Bap33 says If civilian massacre is good reason, then you are behind Bush#1's efforts in iraq, and Bush#2 efforts towards islamoites, and those that protect them. Right? I did support the first U.S.-Iraq War as it had a clear objective to remove an invading force from a sovereign nation. Naturally, I would have been more pleased with the U.S. if it hadn't acted because of its financial interest in the middle eastern oil, but rather to protect the rights of all people to be self-governed. The second U.S.-Iraq War was not about saving civilians, toppling a dictator, or preventing genocide. Nor was it about weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda, both of which were lies told by the evil G.W. Bush, or "Lord Barry" if you prefer. Given that a million Iraqi men, women, and children died horribly in that war, and the human and civil rights of countless others were violated, if I had to choose between the evil brought on by Bush/Cheney vs. that brought on by Saddam, I would choose the later as the lesser of the two evils. However, it is a false dichotomy as neither was necessary. The bottom line is that the U.S. government had evil intentions going into the second Iraq war, and intentions matter. They effect the methods and outcome of war. Bap33 says You skipped over alot of my questions. If I did, then it's because you did not present them in a coherent form. Try a list format. I never intentionally drop a question or issue. Also, be specific and clear in your questions. Bap33 says At any rate, who says it is wrong to have genocide or civilian massacre? You can't serious with that question. Do you really think that either something has to be explicitly prohibited by the Bible in some kind of fairy tale or it's ok? It is self-evident that murder is a violation of human rights, specifically the right to life. By extension, of course genocide and civilian massacres are wrong. Then again, the Bible does promote and condone genocide. That's one of the reasons you should stop looking to that collection of fairy tales for moral guidance. It was written by immoral men. Bap33 says Explain the reason or basis for such a law or belief, and by what function enforcement is to happen:.... by whom, paid for by what system, to who's satisfaction, and under what authority. Human rights. It's not rocket science. The concept is that human rights are universal. Sure, some crockpot could decide that humans don't deserve to exist and start killing people at random, but we shoot people like that. If people don't have the right to live, then how could any society function? Don't think to hard about this issue, it's not a hard problem.

34. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 761 threads 7,667 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    34   5:32pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   leoj707 says Cloud says Most all the great leaders (except for Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao) were believers. Hmmmm, at least it is nice to know what you view as a great leader. Even sadder is what Cloud considers a leader. You know who the greatest Roman who ever lived was? It wasn't Julius Cesar or any of the other emperors. Remove any one of them from history and sure the battles will change, but day-to-day life and long-term rates of violence and murder would not. The emperors are unimportant. The greatest Roman who ever lived was the guy who invented concrete. And we don't even know his name. But his invention still affects us today. We still benefit from concrete roads and buildings. That Roman contributed more to our quality of life and happiness than all the emperors and generals put together. Think about that.

35. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

    35   5:52pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Dan8267 says The second U.S.-Iraq War was not about saving civilians no, our citizens were murdered. Can America react to it's own murdered citzens?

36. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

    36   5:53pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Dan8267 says The bottom line is that the U.S. government had evil intentions going into the second Iraq war, and intentions matter. They effect the methods and outcome of war. enforceing the law you cite about not murdering citizens, is that reason enough?

37. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

    37   5:59pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Dan8267 says It is self-evident that murder is a violation of human rights, specifically the right to life. I think it is self-evident that we are endowed by our Creator with rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Your human life view will piss off the pro-abortion crowd. Human rights may be universal, but American Warriors are called on to secure human rights more than any other force on earth.

38. robertoaribas Follow Befriend (23) 55 threads 3,761 comments Scottsdale, AZ robertoaribas's website

    38   6:37pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Bap33 says Dan8267 says The second U.S.-Iraq War was not about saving civilians no, our citizens were murdered. Can America react to it's own murdered citzens? Who did Iraq kill?

39. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,094 comments

    39   6:40pm Sun 3 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Iraq supports islamites that murder citizens.

40. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    40   5:40am Mon 4 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Cloud says "Quoting what "smart" people believe? No Thunder Lips, not smart people, "GENIUSES." Geniuses who used science to change the world. Not four or five atheists activists pretending to use scientific nomenclature to speak about God. These men actually used science. The very thing you say disproves God's existence. Fairies, tea pots, great bearded one, mockery. Religion is a means used to describe God, not the thing itself. Just like words are merely symbols. Their faith isn't a product of their intelligence.

Next comments »     Last »