















The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: Can you read English?
Can you read English?
I was not arguing whether God existed or not.
I pointed out to an ATHEIST, who BY DEFINITION, does not believe in God, then logically, there would be an EQUAL PROBABILITY (i.e. ZERO) of God being EITHER Loving and Benevolant OR a "Brutal Authoritarian". For an atheist, it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for God to be more one than the other.
Yet, the atheist, fatlibertarian, chose to make a divisive post about "What if God were a Brutal Authoritarian?"
My question is WHY would he choose to do that, because to him, logically, God MUST have a PRECISELY EQUAL CHANCE of being loving and benevolent.
But he chose to post something divisive ON PURPOSE. The question is WHY?
Replies to this comment: