Hi there, CEO of Fonolo here.

However, if you take just a little step back you'll realize that radio spectrum isn't an unlimited resource, and with data usage growing at such phenomenal rates there's no real way to get people to be more efficient about their usage (like, for example, pulling your podcasts over landlines instead of clogging up cell towers with them) without usage limits of some sort

What a bizarre argument. There is obviously a difference. Atheists not believing in something does not lead directly to immoral behaviour and the persecution of others. Christians discriminate against women and homosexuals, and they seek to impose their dogma on others.

I truly can't say if you honestly believe in this absurd oversimplification, or if this is supposed to a parody.

The typical response at this point is that atheism is as much dogma and seeks to impose its will on other too, but that is incorrect.

Of course it is. A dogma is an abstract concept and quite unable to impose its will on anyone, since it doesn't have any. People holding to a dogma are a different matter entirely. And at that point it doesn't really matter what the dogma is; it has become a flag, a symbol to divide the world to us and them and justify oppressing or outright killing the latter.

Most people aren't obsessive-compulsive enough to impose their dogmas on others, but some are, and at that point it's up to the rest of the society whether they'll kill all opponents or write propaganda books.

Since there is no God to hand down morality and punish you for disagreeing everything is up for debate and only a persuasive argument will work.

Go to any forum where atheists and theists debate each other and watch the arguments used. Are they persuasive? Or are they just a pack of chimps flinging feces at each other? Because I've rarely seen the former - in fact, the only times I have has been when the people haven't tried to persuade each other, but have simply debated for fun.

Then again, I guess this doesn't really disagree with you: only a persuasive argument will work, and short of a personal appearance of God(s) there simply aren't any persuasive arguments about their existence.

It should also be noted that the whole concept of "God hands down morality and punishes you for disagreeing" is pretty much confined to monotheistic religions; and even for them, it's an oversimplification (and sometimes downright incorrect - even with basic Christianity, there's a view that sin creates its own punishment without any interference from God) - exactly the kind of oversimplification people engage in to make other people and their beliefs seem ridiculous, so they can be dismissed without bothering to actually argue them. This is also know as the "strawman argument".

You (and a lot of other people) gave money to a guy whose political career consisted of being a first-term US Senator after a couple of years in the state legislature. What did you expect?

You (and a lot of other people) gave money to a guy whose political career consisted of being a first-term US Senator after a couple of years in the state legislature. What did you expect?

Anti Same-Sex marriage, Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and anti-abortion

This is the one thing that is somewhat evangelical, but so what if his position is to remove all power from the federal state? Then he can't say boo about any of those issues, it's up to the states (as it should be).

People get that confused about Palin too, even though she also is against abortion she has said before in an interview that it should be up to regions to decide about abortion for themselves.

Anti-Civil Rights Act

Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level.

That's not evangelical. That's common sense, when you look at the hash the feds have made of education. That's $40m that could be going to students or even weed for the needy, all money better spent than paying a bunch of buerocrats to dictate how education is to be handled exactly the same from beverly hills to the inner city of NYC. Her's a thought, perhaps different regions have different approaches that would better serve students. Break up the NEA and send that money out to the states for education that makes sense.

Anti-EPA

I am a staunch environmentalist and think the EPA is past its prime, too much absurd regulation.

I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.

I didn't really figure out where my stances were until after listening to Gary Johnson, who while running as a Republican is, in fact, a Libertarian.>