Comment: From such a vitrolic person as yourself,

(See in situ)

From such a vitrolic person as yourself,

I expected another sharp comment, at most.

I've seen you around the boards. I needn't rely only on what you've written on this article.

However, I do like to answer questions, so I'll take the time.

"by your endless assertions that they are somehow less intelligent, less informed, and less evolved than yourself?"

I've never said that I'm more intelligent or evolved, just more informed. I've also always provided information that people can use to inform themselves. Your comments show your presuppositions and bias.

"Has it never occurred to you that when you do attack someones faith, that it is reasonable for that someone to feel as though you are challenging much more than a belief system, but who they are as a person?"

I haven't attacked anyone's faith in my articles or in the comments. In fact, I've been recognized as one of the most fair people here. I point out the incorrect comments made by anyone, regardless of their beliefs - including atheists.

"Unfortunately, what many non-believers consider an affront, many of the rest of us would consider conversation."

An ironic statement, considering what I just quoted above.

I don't take offense to any discussion. I take offense to unwarranted attacks on my character. I admit my mistakes even when they're small, so it really gets on my nerves when people portray me as a mindless zealot who is self-obsessed.

"Many other non-believers have even gone so far as to take their cases before the courts in an attempt to stifle and supress the freedom of religious expression"

I challenge you to show me one case of this. I expect to find that you'l only link to stories that are actually about the use of public funds for religious purposes, or the use of official decrees to support religious practices - neither of which are suppression. I stand for your freedom to pray in school, put up nativity scenes at your home, etc. I don't stand for public school principals dedicating school time to prayer, or for mayors dedicating public land to relics of the Christian faith, Islamic faith, or any other.

If you'd actually read my articles and comments, you'd know that my personal phrase is "I don't want 'In God We Trust' or 'There Is No God' on the dollar; both are a wrongful use of public resources".

"Declaration of Independence but the U.S. Constitution. While the number of believers in America may be steadily declining, those who agree with you are still very much in the minority."

History is full of incorrect assumptions. The founding fathers were simply men, and putting mentions of a deistic god in their work was one of their failures. As someone who support Ron Paul, I would also expect you to recognize that a good standard of law and practice is not "what the majority thinks".

Our laws and practices should be fair - no mention of god or religious sect, and no declarations against god or religious sects.

"You declare yourself an Atheist, I highly doubt it, but have it anyway you choose."

What? Why would you think that?

"You are clearly, quite religious about your beliefs, and it's annoying."

Again, you seem to be conflating me with other people you dislike. I'm not dogmatic (the word you meant to use), though I am steadfast when I can point out an indisputable fact.

"If I spent even a fraction of the time espousing my own particular brand of monotheism here at the DP, as you have done espousing your atheistic views"

My own brand of atheism? Yeah, you definitely haven't read my posts. And the amount of time I've spent? I've spent equal time correcting atheists and theists, and most of my time has focused on campaign messages for Paul and illustrating the issues involved in abortion.

Again, you clearly don't know me or my work.

"Your atheist buddies could have avoided it altogether, as I typically avoid your posts when I see them."

Wow. "Your atheist buddies"? You clearly admit here that you don't have a clue who I am, what I believe, or what I do.

"This may surprise you, but I am also very interested in your opinions, and what you may think and feel about a variety of subjects of interest to you."

Then how about paying attention? Because when you don't pay attention, you write me off as "a single issue zealot.", and you end up turning more people away from the three issues that are the focus of my articles: civility, research, and personal reflection.

"agreeing to disagree agreeably is a bit of an art form and some are better at it than others, but I think we all try"

Look at that! It's the point of my entire article! You know, the one you're commenting on right now, without having even read?

"The problem with posts such as yours is that they begin and end with disagreement"

Like I said, "You know, the one you're commenting on right now, without having even read?"

"or a devoted follower of old horned head himself has to do with getting Ron Paul elected to the Presidency"

The civility or lack of civility espoused by Ron Paul's supporters has everything to do with whether or not he gets further support easily or only at great lengths. That's part of what this article was about.

Get off of your high horse sustained by legs of persecution complex. I get a worse kindness-to-crap return ratio on this site for being kind to theists than many of the theist members get for being asses to me. I don't let that color my future responses to theists or atheists. I respond to every individual based on how they respond to me - and I often take a few minutes away from a negative post before responding so that I'm not responding out of anger. Isn't that practice also a central message of individualistic libertarians?

Your comment got a short, negative response because it was so deserving of one. Grow up.

+ Follow the Cooperative principle
+ Civility first
+ Constructive comments