Strident Atheists' Pre-Election Poll

Post Reply New Topic

I don't need to be a global citizen,
'Cuz I'm blessed by nationality.
I'm member of a growing populace,
We enforce our popularity.
There are things that seem to pull us under and,
There are things that drag us down.
But there's a power and a vital presence,
It's lurking all around.

We've got the American Jesus,
See him on the interstate.
We've got the American Jesus,
He helped build the President's estate.

I feel sorry for the Earth's population,
'Cuz so few live in the U.S.A.
At least the foreigners can copy our morality,
They can visit but they cannot stay.
Only precious few can garner our prosperity,
It makes us walk with renewed confidence.
We got a place to go when we die,
And the architect resides right here.

We've got the American Jesus,
Bolstering national faith.
We've got the American Jesus,
Overwhelming millions every day.

He's the farmer's barren fields, (In God)
The force the army wields, (We trust)
Expressions on the faces of the starving millions, (Because He's one of us)
The power of the man, (Break down)
He's the fuel that drives the Klan, (Cave in)
He's the motive and the conscience of the murderer, (We can redeem your sins)
He's the preacher on T.V., (Strong heart)
The false sincerity, (Clear mind)
The form letter that's written by the big computers, (And infinitely kind)
The nuclear bombs, (You lose)
The kids with no moms, (We win)
And I'm fearful that he's inside me... (He is our champion)

We've got the American Jesus
See him on the interstate
We've got the American Jesus
Exercising his authority
We've got the American Jesus
Bolstering national faith
We've got the American Jesus
Overwhelming millions every day

One nation, under God...

^ And I believe that is sufficient to count as an official declaration of Skafather's candidacy. Vote skafather84 for 2012! Because we've been waiting almost 20 years for this kind of stridency.

I don't think this forum has existed for 20 years. Maybe Alex Planck is being maintained by plastic surgeons and cosmetologists though.

In any case, if we are to have a campaign, we need to have moderated debates. That's just that. We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism. You know whose rationalism is the most awesome and glorious and hard? Mine. If you really believe in atheism, you need my strong and hard rationality inserted into this campaign. My rationality will make you feel good, and it accepting it is just another step to a better world.

that should be 30, not 20.

We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism.

In any case, if we are to have a campaign, we need to have moderated debates. That's just that. We can't have rhetoric get in the way of hard rationalism. You know whose rationalism is the most awesome and glorious and hard? Mine. If you really believe in atheism, you need my strong and hard rationality inserted into this campaign. My rationality will make you feel good, and it accepting it is just another step to a better world.

Talking dirty to me wont get you my vote. And your rationalism needs a prophylactic.

I disagree. The enemy we fight fights with rhetoric first and as its primary source of power and control. While the rationalism should be protected, the rhetoric needs to be finely tuned and turned louder at appropriate times while softer when necessary.

That is just false. You are incompetent in delivering a knock out blow to apologists. I can.

Evidence: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt143014.html

often statements attacking rhetoric are laced with rhetoric, and really just done on behalf of promoting a virtue.

Every apologist is defiant to logic and evidence to some extend. It is naive to think that one can convince an apologist simply by stating logic. The way to silence an apologist is to convince him he cannot hope to stay in the game by producing more nonsense. It is evident that the same 91 quits debating with me much sooner than with you.

I would be cautious on commenting on the way that AG takes on the debate, he has shown a large degree of familiarity with the subject matter. He does not make the mistake of assuming that the other side's contentions are unfounded, he just concludes that they are wrong.

The arguments I am putting forward have been subject to the peer-review process attacking the underlying definitions is a risky proposition since you are assuming they cannot be justified.