A Question for Libertarians

[The Free Hornet]

As for your use of the label "troll," I have noticed a recurring pattern. Not only does it seem to be one of your favorite words, but it seems to be that every time you use it, here on this website called "Ron Paul Forums," you apply it to people who agree with Ron Paul precisely where you differ from him. Might this be another label you like to use idiosyncratically?

No. There is simply no better explanation for post #61.

In the context of my reply to an Ayn Rand devotee, there is little other explanation for your behavior.

Interviewer: You do not accept the existence of a god, a divine prime mover?

Ayn Rand: No.

Interviewer: Now the reason you don’t is because you can’t prove that such an entity or being or energy exists.

Ayn Rand: I can’t nor can anyone else. There is no proof.

Interviewer: There is no proof so therefore you’ve concluded that there isn’t one?

Ayn Rand: That’s right.

Interviewer: You can’t prove there isn’t.

Ayn Rand: You are never called upon to prove a negative. That’s a law of logic.

http://www.polyatheist.com/?p=92

Ayn Rand, BTW, was incorrect in some of her positions. Ron Paul is also incorrect in some of his positions. This does not greatly detract from my respect for either of them. They are individuals that think/thought for themselves.

If you have a reference where Ron Paul defines atheism, that would be appreciated. Until then, you ought not to claim Ron Paul as supporting your perspective.

[erowe1]

That Ayn Rand interview is a good illustration of someone who conforms to the traditional definition of "atheist." She states that she has concluded there isn't a God.

[The Free Hornet]

No it didn't. The folks at infidels.org said it did, while they were illustrating my point about atheist apologists doing that. But the OED did not do that. ["The OED gave both the positive and negative versions." -me]

You lie: the OED definition of atheism includes the "negative atheism". That's what makes you a troll.

The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, offers the follow definitions that are relevant to correctly defining atheist:

...

atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-...on-Atheist.htm

Here is how the OED defines "atheism":

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...finitions.html

Definition of atheism
noun [mass noun]

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Origin:

late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...nglish/atheism

^ a b Simon Blackburn, ed. (2008). "atheism". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 2011-12-05. "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[erowe1]

You lie: the OED definition of atheism includes the "negative atheism". That's what makes you a troll.

RoyL?

I don't lie. I copied and pasted the definition. I didn't include the "disregard of duty" part because it wasn't relevant. Anyone can check if for themselves. Those sources you give present the same definition when they quote the OED. The only problem with them is that they try to twist it into including lack of belief in the existence of a god, rather than disbelief in the existence of a god. But that is what I would expect from atheist apologists at the websites you're using.

[Smart3]

Jesus Christ

I'm not the Christ.

_______________

Ron Paul usually uses the word 'atheist' in a generic manner. Someone who doesn't believe in Jesus, Allah, Shiva, Zeus, etc.

[DerailingDaTrain]

According to The Sealed Nectar, a modern Islamic biography of Muhammad written by the Indian Muslim author Saif ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, the Angel Gabriel visited Muhammad while he was washing clothes at Umm Salama’s house, asking that he should unsheathe his sword and to go to the Banu Qurayza and fight them. Mubarakpuri claims Gabriel said that he with a procession of angels would go ahead the fort of Banu Qurayza and cast fear in their hearts.

Of course he did.

The Invasion of Banu Qurayza, also known as the Massacre of Banu Qurayza, took place in the Dhul Qa‘dah during February and March of 627 CE (5 AH).

The Islamic Prophet Muhammad besieged the Banu Qurayza for 25 days until they surrendered. One of Muhammad's companions decided that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment, after which all male members of the tribe who had reached puberty were beheaded. According to Daniel C. Peterson and Martin Lings, this judgment was in accordance with the law of Moses as stated in Deuteronomy 20:10-14. The Muslim jurist Tabari quotes 600-900 being executed. The Sunni hadith do not give the number killed, but state that all males were killed and 1 woman (the 1 woman is according to Sunan Abu Dawud). The rest of the woman and children were sold in exchange for weapons and horses, according to Islamic sources.

[Pericles]

Theocracy is generally incompatable with most libertarian thought.

[helmuth_hubener]

Questions for xkrazy201x:

xkrazy201x, have you ever taken a class in Islam?
xkrazy201x, have you ever read the Qur'an?
xkrazy201x, have you ever known a Muslim?
xkrazy201x, have you ever set foot outside of the US?

The answer, by the way, to all of these questions will almost certainly be no.

[Muwahid]

Guess you didn't see my reply to you, prompting you to post the exact same thing twice.

Of course he did.

@DerailingDaTrain

Your post seems to be just as deceptive. This is because you've left very important facts out. do you think the Muslims just came upon this tribe and decided to execute them for no reason? No of course not, but you should have asked yourself this.

The story of Qurayza in breif is as follows: Banu Qurayza was a Jewish tribe in Medina, they had a truce with the Muslims. The Makkans came to attack the Muslims (see: battle of the trench), when the battle started Banu Qurayza betrayed the Muslims and attempted to help the Mekkans overwhelm the Muslims into defeat.

They were not successful, and of course punishment was to be done on the tribe for their betrayal.

Heres the funny part. Muhammad (ص) wanted to be lenient on them and allowed an arbitrator they chose from their allies to choose their punishment! He then chose the punishment of the Torah (because they were Jewish), which was what followed.

That's unfair? They chose the arbitrator, and the arbitrator used Mosaic law, Muhammad (ص) had NO say in the punishment. This event has been used to no avail for a long time to make Islam look vicious, only problem.. was, mosaic law lol

[smhbbag]

The libertarian view on radical Islam:

It doesn't exist.

And if it did, it's our fault.