Every time I open Hannity forums I'm amazed by the hate

[njandrewg]

This time they are talking about assassinating Ahmadinejad.

These people are insane.

[Noog]

When Fox is the only place you get your news...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

They don't think about what the reaction of Iran would be LOL morons. barbarians

[chiefsmurph]

I have a math teacher who is completely into current affairs / politics, but he completely beleives that we should pretty much nuc the entire middle east and kill Ahmadinejad. Drives me crazy. Know he reffers to me as Ron Paul after I slipped him into a conversation.

[Matt Collins]

http://forums.hannity.com is filled with people who are very close minded. It happens on the left and on the right though.

I constantly get banned there for no reason without an explanation and without provoking, skirting the rules, or being antagonistic. Their moderators are morons and don't know how to administer a discussion forum fairly.

(Just so no one thinks I'm a hypocrite, I personally own and manage a forum with 12k people on it so I do have an informed opinion on this)

[Alabama Supporter]

Nevermind.

I don't think people understand that Iran will not roll over and die like Iraq. They can actually retaliate.

[csen]

What I'd like to know from the Iran hawks is let's say we invade Iran and take out their government just like we did in Iraq. The result in Iraq has been more chaos, with the Middle East more aligned in their resentment against the US, and Iran has grown more bold.

If we did the same in Iran, what would be the result? Daisies and daffodils and everyone in the Middle East and the US singing kumbayah? Doubtful. Seems to me like it'd either be one big al Qaeda hornet's nest, with no authority anywhere, or Russia or China would fill the gap and we'd have an even bigger enemy on our hands with an even weaker military.

That's what people don't realize; you can't look at Iran in isolation. One of the reasons Japan invaded Manchuria, drawing our ire, was because of the ideas of communism spreading in China with Soviet Russia on the march -- taking Manchuria was somewhat defensive in that it'd be a buffer state (anyone who's played Risk knows what this is all about). Our somewhat irrational provoking of Japan is what led them to ally with Hitler and Mussolini as a check against the US. By going after one enemy you often create new ones...

[Givemelibertyor.....]

I tried to read some of that forum, and gave up after ten minutes. Some of them were saying that RP was just trying to get draw attention to himself when he questioned Bernanke. They are defending the Federal Reserve for crying out loud.

Beware of the HANNITIZED.

[trispear]

This time they are talking about assassinating Ahmadinejad.

These people are insane.I'm sorry you must be a LIBERAL MOONBAT. I will plug my ears and start chanting "They hate us for our freedoms" now.

[Givemelibertyor.....]

I'm sorry you must be a LIBERAL MOONBAT. I will plug my ears and start chanting "They hate us for our freedoms" now.

Let not your heart be troubled, trispear. ;)

[bygone]

I don't think people understand that Iran will not roll over and die like Iraq. They can actually retaliate.

I hope they like the idea of being drafted.

[Givemelibertyor.....]

Not to mention that an attack on Iran, could very well mean that the Russian Beast will awaken..................

[mavtek]

This is why we must expand our efforts to the poor and non voting.

[mavtek]

This is why we must expand our efforts to the poor and non voting.

[trispear]

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about that forum, the more I read it, the more I see the moderators themselves specifically painting RP supporters in a bad light in a very unprofessional way.

[nexalacer]

I have to question YOUR sanity for continuing to visit that forum. It's stupid to debate with people who refuse to look at an argument rationally. It's why I laugh at Atheists that try to debate Christians.... you CAN'T debate an irrational belief!

And the Hannity folks are through and through irrational. I think anyone who goes there must have some sort of masochistic side to their personality. Can't be healthy.

[micahnelson]

I have to question YOUR sanity for continuing to visit that forum. It's stupid to debate with people who refuse to look at an argument rationally. It's why I laugh at Atheists that try to debate Christians.... you CAN'T debate an irrational belief!

And the Hannity folks are through and through irrational. I think anyone who goes there must have some sort of masochistic side to their personality. Can't be healthy.

I used to go there to escape the echo chamber, hone my arguments, and figure them out. I learned that since they are motivated by fear, we should scare them.

Make them more afraid of an economic collapse then a terrorist attack.

[uncloned21]

WOW that is an ugly picture of hannity at the top (i guess they all are)

http://forums.hannity.com/

thats what you call a "shit-eating grin"

[trispear]

I have to question YOUR sanity for continuing to visit that forum.To understand how my "enemy" thinks.:D

In reality, it's a nice diversion though I stopped reading the threads, more or less and just follow the stories they bring up.

[tekkierich]

I have to question YOUR sanity for continuing to visit that forum. It's stupid to debate with people who refuse to look at an argument rationally. It's why I laugh at Atheists that try to debate Christians.... you CAN'T debate an irrational belief!


Great job representing a Dr. Paul supporter there. I am sure you alienate no one with that comment.

[nexalacer]

Great job representing a Dr. Paul supporter there. I am sure you alienate no one with that comment.

Ok, so telling the truth is alienating? I've never talked to a Christian that says their belief is rational. They say it doesn't need to be rational because it's faith, and I'm fine with that, if they're honest about it. But the fact is, a rational argument is wasted breath on someone who sticks to his guns based on an irrational belief. You can believe what you want, that's the beauty of Ron Paul's message, and I think that's EXACTLY what I'm expressing here.

[trispear]

I'm a Christian and I have no problem with nexalacer's position.

[tekkierich]

Using the word irrational can be divisive. I understand what you are meaning purely semantically, but may would not.

Explaining it as you have done in the last post is much better I think then using the single word irrational.

[jacmicwag]

Paul owns Hannity because they both know that Hannity is a lightweight when it comes to history. After the last debate, Paul thoroughly defused the Hannity attack to the point where Shawn was dropping his papers and looking confused. This will only get better the more times they meet.

[paulitics]

Yes the cowards are only motivated by fear over there. Rulers, exploit this after any tramautic event, like a 911, because it creates irrational behavior. Then they can give solutions that benefit themselves and not the people. The weak are more willing to trust who they feel are authority figures. Its sick, but true.

[nexalacer]

Using the word irrational can be divisive. I understand what you are meaning purely semantically, but may would not.

Explaining it as you have done in the last post is much better I think then using the single word irrational.

The word "irrational" can be divisive when talking to people that don't use rational thought. I would think most people that come to Ron Paul, even if they don't use rational thought in religion, are at least somewhat open to rational thought in general. Otherwise, how did they become interested in such a rational man? People who never use rationality are usually afraid of such a person.... hence the Hannity forums.

[Kregener]

Neither Russia or China is going to stand by wringing their hands while we obliterate Iran.

Not that the neocons care.

[constituent]

for all a-theistic people out there, particularly those devout a-theists who seek
to convert the sheeple "believers" out there...

go read THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH and understand how irrational it is to form a
structured argument built on your faith in the irrationality of faith and the non-existance
of a higher power.

[The Dane]

Ok, so telling the truth is alienating? I've never talked to a Christian that says their belief is rational. They say it doesn't need to be rational because it's faith, and I'm fine with that, if they're honest about it. But the fact is, a rational argument is wasted breath on someone who sticks to his guns based on an irrational belief. You can believe what you want, that's the beauty of Ron Paul's message, and I think that's EXACTLY what I'm expressing here.

I support constituents POW:

The Atheists also have a faith, dont forget that.
Their faith is that everything comes from nothing and returns to nothing. (Like "nothing" could exist without "something" to experience it.)... chaoticly manifesting without any reason, without sense of being, intelligence or meaning. That is true superstition and irrational belief.

[EvilEngineer]

for all a-theistic people out there, particularly those devout a-theists who seek
to convert the sheeple "believers" out there...

go read THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH and understand how irrational it is to form a
structured argument built on your faith in the irrationality of faith and the non-existance
of a higher power.

I got bored of trying to argue religion with people a few years back. For a while I was on the mailing list over at www.antichrist.net, but the cyclical arguments we were always presented with by serious bible-thumpers just got old. We tried rational debate tactics of point - counter point, but they always ended up in ad hominem attacks from them. I realized that those that had been indoctrinated and had no interest in analyzing another view point would never be convinced of anything different than what they believe.

This also holds true for people in this election. It takes a rational mind to understand a different view point and to then question your own beliefs on a matter as a result. What we face with the Hannitized is an irrational base, dead set on their course without any room for debate or different ideas.

P.S. Hi James, I guessed you would be tracking this external link to the site. Cheers :)

[nexalacer]

for all a-theistic people out there, particularly those devout a-theists who seek
to convert the sheeple "believers" out there...

go read THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH and understand how irrational it is to form a
structured argument built on your faith in the irrationality of faith and the non-existance
of a higher power.


I support constituents POW:

The Atheists also have a faith, dont forget that.
Their faith is that everything comes from nothing and returns to nothing. (Like "nothing" could exist without "something" to experience it.)... chaoticly manifesting without any reason, without sense of being, intelligence or meaning. That is true superstition and irrational belief.

Well, before The Dane's support, I was going to read That Hideous Strength if I could have found a pdf for it (I don't buy dead people's books if I don't have to), but if it's that same nonsense, I'm not interested.

I, as an Atheist, have no faith that everything comes from nothing and returns to nothing. My understanding that there is no god or gods comes from a number of different sources. But that's not really relevant here. The point here is that, although science is an extremely new way to explain the universe, it has done more in 400 years the accurately explain our universe than religion has done in 5000+ years. Specifically, nothing "comes from nothing and returns to nothing" as this hypothesis would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy of the universe is constant, therefore all entities in such a universe are created with that energy and when they are destroyed, the energy returns to the system. And chemistry has done wonders in showing how atoms come together to form the objects we know in a very non-chaotic fashion. There is order to the chemical reactions that came from the natural properties of the components.

This is not to say science has figured it all out, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. And so, just as I am willing to accept rational evidence for scientific conclusions about the nature of our universe, I am also willing to accept rational evidence for the existence of a deity. But, up until this point in my life, I have not found a single piece of rational evidence for the existence of a deity, where as I've seen a plenitude of evidence to support the scientific theories that explain the nature of the universe, as far as we know it currently.

Your linguistic games don't work if my understanding of this world is not based on faith. That is, you cannot call my understanding an irrational faith if it is not based on faith. Very plainly, it relies on empirical evidence.

This does not mean I am trying to convince you that there is no deity. I don't give a shit what you think, unless you are willing to have a rational argument or provide empirical evidence to back up your theories. THAT is how science works. THAT is what my understanding of this world is based on. You can choose an irrational faith in a deity all you want, and if it makes you happy, good for you. But I will not argue this sort of nonsense anymore.

I will one more time state my understanding, as I have come to it through empirical evidence:
1) Belief of an entity without empirical evidence is irrational.
2) There is no empirical evidence for deities.
3) Deities are irrational.

[constituent]

sorry, but i view science as an expression of God's residual (if you will) divinity
manifest in the children (pronoun of your choosing) loves...

science is a beautiful thing and one very tiny peice of a very very large puzzle.
i find with time that the more answers i'm presented w/ or conclusions i come
to on my own, a whole world of questions and uncertainty arises on a level i
had yet to perceive let alone comprehend...

for what it's worth.

[constituent]

P.S. Hi James, I guessed you would be tracking this external link to the site. Cheers :)

who is james?

[constituent]

....

[EvilEngineer]

who is james?

The owner of the site I mentioned. He tracks his traffic pretty well, and will wonder why there is a link to his site from here. He will more than likely check to see what was said, and that is why I was saying "Hi" to him.

[constituent]

oh, ok... i was thinkin' mistaken identity perhaps? or, is there someone watching us?

[nexalacer]

sorry, but i view science as an expression of God's residual (if you will) divinity
manifest in the children (pronoun of your choosing) loves...

science is a beautiful thing and one very tiny peice of a very very large puzzle.
i find with time that the more answers i'm presented w/ or conclusions i come
to on my own, a whole world of questions and uncertainty arises on a level i
had yet to perceive let alone comprehend...

for what it's worth.

If science is an expression of residual divinity, why did we only "discover" it 400 years ago? Where was God's residual divinity manifest in the children God loves for the previous 1.5 - 2.5 million years? Or if you only want to count modern human, the previous 200,000 years?

I'm not quite sure what the last statement is worth, as I don't understand it. Where do you get your answers? If they are presented to you, by whom are they presented? Is there something wrong with new questions and uncertainty? What does this have to do with science?

I feel like I sound contrary, but honestly, I'm just curious. I like to understand and I can't understand without asking these questions.

[constituent]

I feel like I sound contrary, but honestly, I'm just curious. I like to understand and I can't understand without asking these questions.

don't sweat it, your posting history is not one of a contrarian.

i get my 'answers' from pretty much everywhere b/c i have a voracious
appetite for information from all sources and find the world to
be a genuine beautiful and splenderous place, this goes for
the larger universe as well.

in my life, i've gone through many phases of 'primary curiosities' running
the gauntlet from 'science' as we call it today, to 'science' as the cavemen
knew it and every color of -theism out there. same thing for history, philosophy,
ecomonics, on and on and on.

the primary foundation on which my belief structure stands is the idea that
i am truley clueless and ignorant to the universe as it stands... this provides
me with the motivation to always seek new ways of dissecting life and the
universe. some might view embracing this degree of uncertainty as troubling
and see building one's worldview off of it as the fool's errand of a trouble mind...

and that may be. but i view 'the unknown' as a beautiful gift and reminder of
my own insignificance in the grand scheme of things. i've found great comfort
in this idea during many very rough times and feel like i'm doing alright not
in spite, but because of it.

if you'd like to engage in a metaphysical discussion sometime that'd be great.

i'm priming myself for the debate right now, and doing multitasking abunch of other
stuff, so my brain wouldn't have the capacity for it at the moment, but
i'm glad we've touched base.

[Richard in Austin]

Sorry this now off-topic since this thread became a Christian vs Atheist debate, but wow, those Hannitized guys are something else. Sounds like a bunch of really nasty 14-year-olds in there.

[Dustancostine]

This time they are talking about assassinating Ahmadinejad.

These people are insane.

Are you on the Hannity forum or the fredthompsonforum.com?

[Dustancostine]

(anyone who's played Risk knows what this is all about).


LOL, I think this where Bush is taking his strategy from. He thinks that if he takes all of the Persian countries (Turkey to Afghanistan), he is going to get extra men.

:D

[mikelovesgod]

If science is an expression of residual divinity, why did we only "discover" it 400 years ago? Where was God's residual divinity manifest in the children God loves for the previous 1.5 - 2.5 million years? Or if you only want to count modern human, the previous 200,000 years?

I'm not quite sure what the last statement is worth, as I don't understand it. Where do you get your answers? If they are presented to you, by whom are they presented? Is there something wrong with new questions and uncertainty? What does this have to do with science?

I feel like I sound contrary, but honestly, I'm just curious. I like to understand and I can't understand without asking these questions.

You sound like a guy knocking on the door of truth and every time it opens you run away. You make fanciful statements that Christianity isn't rational when it fact it is, and then make unfounded premises without proper principles to base those on.

Here is a quick version (and I was a philosophy major so to say I'm not focused on reason is laughable and I can assure you that your reasoning is fallacious and down-right ignorant in the perennial sense of the term):

-If God exists and reveals truth that is greater than human reason
-Than one has an obligation to seek that truth and follow God
-And finally one has the obligation to understand those truths in the light of reason although they can surpass natural reason (e.g. forgiving people who hate you)

God is demonstrative through reason, and to assert that a deity is irrational is the height of irrationality. Imagine a flower declaring in the vegetative form that there is no higher form of life and everything above it is irrational. When you compare your intellect with God's the comparison fails because you don't know anything to the mind of God comparatively speaking.

Is God demonstrative or reasonable? Obviously because the greater cannot come from the less (reasonable) and to assert that lesser beings can on their own accord create higher life without impetus or intelligence and then create intelligent life is IRRATIONAL. God is positively demonstrative from matter, gradation of being, and final cause.

You don't realize how irrational your position is as an atheist. Agnostics have a leg to stand on when they say they don't know, but when they become rational they have to admit that atheism is emotional, not rational. Stay an agnostic, you'll sound more rational.

[CurtisLow]

This time they are talking about assassinating Ahmadinejad.

These people are insane.

That's because there all grown up CrAcK babys.

[nexalacer]

You sound like a guy knocking on the door of truth and every time it opens you run away. You make fanciful statements that Christianity isn't rational when it fact it is, and then make unfounded premises without proper principles to base those on.

Here is a quick version (and I was a philosophy major so to say I'm not focused on reason is laughable and I can assure you that your reasoning is fallacious and down-right ignorant in the perennial sense of the term):

-If God exists and reveals truth that is greater than human reason
-Than one has an obligation to seek that truth and follow God
-And finally one has the obligation to understand those truths in the light of reason although they can surpass natural reason (e.g. forgiving people who hate you)

God is demonstrative through reason, and to assert that a deity is irrational is the height of irrationality. Imagine a flower declaring in the vegetative form that there is no higher form of life and everything above it is irrational. When you compare your intellect with God's the comparison fails because you don't know anything to the mind of God comparatively speaking.

Is God demonstrative or reasonable? Obviously because the greater cannot come from the less (reasonable) and to assert that lesser beings can on their own accord create higher life without impetus or intelligence and then create intelligent life is IRRATIONAL. God is positively demonstrative from matter, gradation of being, and final cause.

You don't realize how irrational your position is as an atheist. Agnostics have a leg to stand on when they say they don't know, but when they become rational they have to admit that atheism is emotional, not rational. Stay an agnostic, you'll sound more rational.

You're basing your "rational" approach to a God on an a priori existence of God with no empirical evidence, and you're calling MY reasoning fallicious? OK. I'm not going to continue this with you, unless you wish to use empirical evidence for your "reasonable" claim that god exists.

My position as an atheist does not mean I'm not willing to say I don't know. What it means, is I'm willing to say I've never seen EVIDENCE, therefore I can come to a conclusion that AT THE MOMENT I am very confident that there are no gods. But, like all scientific, RATIONAL thought, if there is evidence, then I will agree to it.

You can call me a fool for not believing in a contradictory deity (all-knowing AND all-powerful -- If it was all knowing, why would it need to be powerful enough to change everything? If it was all powerful, why would it need to know what was going to happen?), but to say Atheism is based on emotion is the irrational position. Not to say some Atheists are not Atheists because of emotion, but not all Atheists arrived at that way of thinking through the same means.

I used to be what you'd call agnostic, and the more I thought about it, the less a deity made sense. And honestly, I'm not an "evangelical" atheist because I really don't think it matters whether there is a deity or not. Most religions say the deity won't interfere in this world anyway, so what's the point? And I'm not willing to base my belief on what MIGHT happen after I die, something that is so completely unverifiable it's laughable that it's considered truth.

So yeah, I'm done. And arguing that atheism is irrational... just... wow.

[nexalacer]

Sorry this now off-topic since this thread became a Christian vs Atheist debate, but wow, those Hannitized guys are something else. Sounds like a bunch of really nasty 14-year-olds in there.

Yeah, sorry bout that, didn't mean to derail the thread. My original point was that Hannitized guys are irrational. And I stand by that.... arguing with them is pointless... just like arguing with Christians... as the "debate" has proven.

The saddest thing about the Hannity crowd is that they are mostly grown adults... yet they DO sound like children with their frightened ramblings.

[Syren123]

This time they are talking about assassinating Ahmadinejad.

Politely remind them that regime change begins at home.

[The Dane]

...
The point here is that, although science is an extremely new way to explain the universe, it has done more in 400 years the accurately explain our universe than religion has done in 5000+ years. Specifically, nothing "comes from nothing and returns to nothing" as this hypothesis would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy of the universe is constant, therefore all entities in such a universe are created with that energy and when they are destroyed, the energy returns to the system. And chemistry has done wonders in showing how atoms come together to form the objects we know in a very non-chaotic fashion. There is order to the chemical reactions that came from the natural properties of the components.



Yes, i studied thermodynamics in the university. The problem with the second law of thermodynamics is that if it was true, everything around us should go towards increased entrophy (disorder). If you observe the development of the actual history of the universe, you will see that we are going towards increased order. The second law of thermodynamics works only for small isolateable systems without life, and its dosent work for the manifestation on the big scale at all.

Edit: and even though the first law of thermodynamics might be true: - that the energy in the universe might be constant (which im not sure about), it dosent determine if there is a God or not.
Even if God is consioness, is consiousness energy? I dont think it is the same. Even if it was the same it would only partially prove that God dosent expand. But since its not the same, and the first law of thermodynamics is not verifyable on a big scale, one can not even conclude that.

I will drop it here since i know that your tired of preachers.

[nexalacer]

Yes, i studied thermodynamics in the university. The problem with the second law of thermodynamics is that if it was true, everything around us should go towards increased entrophy (disorder). If you observe the development of the actual history of the universe, you will see that we are going towards increased order. The second law of thermodynamics works only for small isolateable systems without life, and its dosent work for the manifestation on the big scale at all.

Edit: and even though the first law of thermodynamics might be true: - that the energy in the universe might be constant (which im not sure about), it dosent determine if there is a God or not.
Even if God is consioness, is consiousness energy? I dont think it is the same. Even if it was the same it would only partially prove that God dosent expand. But since its not the same, and the first law of thermodynamics is not verifyable on a big scale, one can not even conclude that.

I will drop it here since i know that your tired of preachers.

The purpose of bringing up the 1st law was just to point out that I don't believe "nothing comes from nothing" since the first law says that "something" is a constant. Therefore, "something," that is matter and energy, has always existed, it has only changed in state.

As for the 2nd Law, it's main requirement is a closed system. The Universe, as we know it, is not a closed system due to the presence of black holes. Perhaps further study in dark matter can explain this, but as of yet, the knowledge of dark matter is extremely limited because the discovery is very recent.

As for your edit, you're not sure that one of the only solid facts in science is true or not? Based on what evidence? There is a reason they are called the LAWS of thermodynamics. But you are correct, it doesn't determine if there is a god or not. But while it's impossible to prove a negative, it is necessary to prove a positive. Thus, since the law exists, and could provide an explanation for the fact that things exist, then it's not necessary for me to prove that it wasn't the result of a god. It is the burden of proof of the believer in god to prove the existence of the positive.

And I don't completely understand your last point. Maybe there is a language barrier? But I don't think god is consciousness because I don't think there is a god. I am perfectly willing to accept the most simple answer for our own consciousness: the electrical activities and chemicals present in our brain allow for our consciousness. As far as your expansion of God, this is where you lost me. Can you clarify?

[constituent]

And I don't completely understand your last point. Maybe there is a language barrier? But I don't think god is consciousness because I don't think there is a god. I am perfectly willing to accept the most simple answer for our own consciousness: the electrical activities and chemicals present in our brain allow for our consciousness. As far as your expansion of God, this is where you lost me. Can you clarify?

Ok, just to run w/ this a little bit. I recently saw a study that pointed to the lack in temperature change in the brain's "circuitry" that one would expect to find as a result of electrical transmissions... the question now is whether or not the impulses are light or sound... does anyone know of further developments in this field of research?

[The Dane]

About consciousness: there are many levels, theres normal waking counsciousness, theres the consiousness of dream and the one of deep sleep. Those kinds of counsiousnesses are different from each other. But they are also interconnected and often they mix up (ie. day dreaming, or the fact that after a night without dreams, still one knows that one have been sleeping for some time - so its not on/off/on. - And that also applies concerning death).

So i think that difficult to say yea, the brain works ONLY like a computer, because anyone who will spend some - or alot - of time looking into themselves will see that this explanation is not enough.

About God: if you have a God you will also have another category of counsiousness, which is the Counsiousness of God. About God expanding, thats just another way of saying that i believe in evolution, not just old Darwin who was just misused by certain interests in history but much more than that. The point of evolution is not material, but spiritual... As you, by now, might have guessed i would say :p

[constituent]

About consciousness: there are many levels, theres normal waking counsciousness, theres the consiousness of dream and the one of deep sleep. Those kinds of counsiousnesses are different from each other. But they are also interconnected and often they mix up (ie. day dreaming, or the fact that after a night without dreams, still one knows that one have been sleeping for some time - so its not on/off/on. - And that also applies concerning death).



Have you read THE FORGOTTEN LANGUAGE by Erich Fromm?