sneaky is sneaky.....at least with the defiant one we know where they stand and we can act accordingly..
A simplistic argument from a simplistic mentality. Very Colmes. Don't agree with A? Make a leap of the imagination and jump to B. Since it has to be explained to you (again), fighting terrorists is an altogether different thing than fighting nations like Russia or China. Mutual Assured Destruction kept the USSR from launching their nukes, and it most assuredly does the same with China. Ah, so if we trust in God more, everything would be fine. Interesting - that is the same mindset the 9/11 terrorists and their brethren possess. Our nation's security requires more than fatalistic wishing for all mankind to hug one another. If people like you were in power, the US would have handed the keys over to Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin decades ago. Yes, you would sacrifice millions of your fellow citizens in your dedication to the pursuit of following protocol. What good are rules if they are not enforced? And again, the US took action to protect itself without the sanction of a laughable international body. Thank goodness. What is unreasonable about cutting off the head of a snake before it strikes? If there is a loaded gun pointed at your head, and you have the opportunity to remove the bullets, wouldn't you do so? Obviously not. You would wait for the trigger to be pulled and then, if you're still alive, pray for the shooter to stop. LOL! I'll remember that next time you mention the two of them in the same sentence.
To use your own bent logic: Your obvious emotional reaction speaks volumes of your position Your use of mega fonts clearly shows your complete lack of self control Poor ART. Salpped down left and right and then he CRACKS for all to see You truly are one of the most logically impaired people I have come across. But then again, I don't need to point this out to anyone here peace axeman
ART: The flaw in your logic, if it is actually logic and not emotionalism... ART:BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO You guys are wasting your time arguing with a completely inconsistent hypocrite like ART. peace axeman
That is the evidence to support your conclusion? You are like Pavlov's dog then. Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Amazing that it is so easy to get you to reach false conclusions. Oh, and according to your logic dogs are atheists too.... Now it all makes perfect sense.
Wow... more giant fonts, and even blue Your uncontrollable emotional response speaks volumes Of course dogs are atheists. They do not posses a belief in god or gods and therefore perfectly fit the definition. For some strange reason, you are completely incapable of grasping such a simple and concise concept. This is why people should not argue with you. You prove time and time again you are not even capable of LEARNING anything. You are so obviously emotional attached to your flawed arguments (notice the giant blue fonts), that you are incapable of even conceding the obvious, such as the definition of atheism which is widely accepted by experts in the field (Leading atheistic writers, philosophers, etc). But of course... ART is right. Everyone else is wrong. The theist claims he has the authority to define what atheism is. How absolutely absurd. For the last time: A-theism = without theism. It's as simple as that. Do dogs posses theism? Of course not. Why do I ever bother? Clearly you are wrong and reality slaps you in the face. Unfortunately, not even reality can get through to someone who is incapable of learning. How pathetic. Off the deep end you go again. It's fun watching everyone on this thread shred your silly arguments to pieces. How many times will you dodge TM? Are you gonna check on that cease fire agreement? Of course not... because then it would make it incredibly clear that we had every right to go back in and enforce it I leave you with your shattered splinters of your pathetic position. Truly logically impaired. peace axeman
Lets try this again... Atheists define themselves as I define them. Philosophy professors have the same definition. Leading atheistic writers agree on the definition. The word itself defines its precise meaning. a-thiesm: A = without, theism=theism... direct translation: "without theism". Just like agnosticism. "without knowledge". But nooooooo.... we are all wrong and 777 (the theist) knows the only real definition of atheism. LOL! How delusional. Do you realize how completely stupid you sound? Your wrong. Plain and simple. How many times must I prove this? Doesn't matter. You prove again your incapable of learning. Poor 777. He continues to claim that dogs and plants are not atheists when its so obviously true by DEFINITION. That my friends... is a perfect example of delusion. You only think otherwise because you don't want to admit your a failed atheist, since everyone is born an atheist. (without knowledge of god). You sound like such a complete idiot stating what is obviously wrong. You think dogs are not atheists because they cant choose it? LOL. Sooooooooooooo clueless. Are you really this dense?? I guess so I'll prove it yet another way. Tell me... have you chosen to be an a-blorpian ??? NO. You dont even know what an a-blorpian is now do you? So by your flawed logic, you cannot be an a-blorpian because you are not even capable of choosing to be one or not. But the fact is... you do not posses a belief in blorpianism, and are THEREFORE an a-blorpian. See how easy that was? Totally debunked again. Your too easy ART. Your arguments are so pathetically weak and obviously wrong. Let me clue you in here.... BY DEFINITION everyone who has no knowledge of blorpianism is an a-blorpian, and yet that includes plants and dogs because CHOICE is irrelevant to the definition. Your lack of logical reasoning capability is quite astounding. Poor poor ART. He is just mad that he was born an ATHEIST and is now a FAILED atheist. LMAO peace axeman