# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Atheists for Ron Paul

## Esoteric

hey, with all these religious groups popping up for Ron Paul, I thought the only logical existential philosophy deserved its due...

Where are my fellow skeptics?  I know you're here   


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheis...779450?sk=wall

----------


## Billay

Booooo

----------


## Esoteric

> Booooo


Hey, I didn't go around boo-ing the "[name your fairy tale] for ron paul" threads!

----------


## ronpaulitician

> Hey, I didn't go around boo-ing the "[name your fairy tale] for ron paul" threads!


Do unto others...

----------


## Sola_Fide

Why don't we have "Statists for Ron Paul" and "Abortionists for Ron Paul" too?

----------


## Esoteric

By your logic, libertarianism is .. somehow.. a religious doctrine?  You say rights come from God, I say the initiation of force via government is simply immoral and unjust.  We're both libertarian, however I have no invisible friend dictating my beliefs.  A good number Paul supporters and libertarians that I know are also religious skeptics.

In the same way that Ron forms coalitions with Democrats over some issues, I happily join with evangelicals for the cause of Liberty - even if some are only libertarians because of their religious convictions.

----------


## ronpaulitician

> Why don't we have "Statists for Ron Paul" and "Abortionists for Ron Paul" too?


Supply and demand applies to politics as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> By your logic, libertarianism is .. somehow.. a religious doctrine?  You say rights come from God, I say the initiation of force via government is immoral.  No god.


That's right.  Political philosophies are always born out of theologies.  Theology is the ruling discipline.  What you believe about God, man, and the cosmos comes first before science, politics, ethics, anything...

Anyway, from an atheist worldview, there is no reason that a person _ought not_ to initiate force via government.  Both utilitarianism and natural law fail to philosophically defend the non-initiation of force. I've posted this clear argument many times on this forum.  The most recent one is in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t-video*/page2

----------


## ClayTrainor

Recently, I was touched by his great noodly appendage and am no longer an atheist.

----------


## ronpaulitician

> Both utilitarianism and natural law fail to philosophically defend the non-initiation of force.


Sounds like you're among those who would use heroin were it not deemed illegal by the state.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sounds like you're among those who would use heroin were it not deemed illegal by the state.


What do you mean?

----------


## Chibioz

I wouldn't put myself in the atheist camp but it's not a bad idea. Part of the problem I see here and in society in general is that people think their self righteous belief in one thing or another gives them the right to judge others. I for one welcome all open minded people who would support Ron Paul.

----------


## Esoteric

> What do you mean?


use that noggin of yours!  I see what he did.  It was quite clever.

----------


## Esoteric

> Part of the problem I see here and in society in general is that people think their self righteous belief in one thing or another gives them the right to judge others.


Is it not o.k. for us to "judge", say, statists?  You say judge, but I would say "draw conclusions about".  Language.. always the enemy of reason.  Theists will draw conclusions about atheists, and atheists will draw conclusions about theists.  Some of those conclusions will be true, while others will be false.

For example, aquabuddah suggested that atheists are naturally immoral, and without god, a statist society ensues.  I would reject that conclusion, as I am an atheist,  have a set of morals which I have deduced via reason and society (not god), and reject the initiation of force via government.

----------


## UWDude

> Why don't we have "Statists for Ron Paul" and "Abortionists for Ron Paul" too?


LoL

Wow.  You think Ron Paul is strictly a Christian movement?  Ron Paul is a libertarian movement, and libertarians probably have a higher percentage of atheists or agnostics in their ranks than most movements.  I've been an active libertarian since 1999.

I guess all the atheists should leave the ron paul movement.  We aren't welcome here.  LOL

Yeah I neg-repped you.  Divisiveness is stupid, stupid.

----------


## ProIndividual

I'm a deist...welcome fellow believer in reason (even if we disagree on the whole uncaused cause thing  ).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> use that noggin of yours!  I see what he did.  It was quite clever.




I know what he meant by it.  I asked that because I want to engage in a conversation because he clearly doesn't understand my argument.

----------


## febo

> ... the only logical existential philosophy ...


What's logical about asserting that something does not exist when it is impossible to prove that something does not exist?
I respect your belief, but don't call it _logical_.

----------


## king_nothing_

> Why don't we have "Statists for Ron Paul" and "Abortionists for Ron Paul" too?


Although I don't condone the antagonistic tone of the OP...this post is completely ridiculous. "Atheist Ron Paul supporter" is not a contradiction in terms.  Not even close.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is it not o.k. for us to "judge", say, statists?  You say judge, but I would say "draw conclusions about".  Language.. always the enemy of reason.  Theists will draw conclusions about atheists, and atheists will draw conclusions about theists.  Some of those conclusions will be true, while others will be false.
> 
> For example, aquabuddah suggested that atheists are naturally immoral, and without god, a statist society ensues.  I would reject that conclusion, as I am an atheist,  have a set of morals which I have deduced via reason and society (not god), and reject the initiation of force via government.



My argument is that an atheist worldview using either utilitarianism or natural law does not provide an adequate philosophical foundation for prescriptions.  Both systems fail to provide a logical or compelling basis to say one _ought_ to do anything.  Both systems commit the naturalistic fallacy.  I have shown this many times on this formu and I provided you a link where I spent a lot of time detailing the arguments with quotations.

If you want to debate then let's go.

----------


## Esoteric

> What's logical about asserting that something does not exist when it is impossible to prove that something does not exist?
> I respect your belief, but don't call it _logical_.


Well, you certainly do not understand what atheism is.  Atheism does not claim anything with certitude.  It's called A-Theism, in that they simply reject all existing theistic claims - just as theists reject all past and current theistic claims except for one - their own 

Atheism is the only logical existential philosophy because theistic claims are not supported by logic, but by faith.  Faith is a belief in absence of, and often in spite of, evidence.  Faith is not a reason to believe anything.  Those who cling to faith-based beliefs often do so in order to have comforting answers to existential questions, ie. when you die, something nice happens if you follow X moral code.  Frankly, I see this as cowardice, and I'm not afraid to call it as I see it.

----------


## ronpaulitician

> I know what he meant by it.  I asked that because I want to engage in a conversation because he clearly doesn't understand my argument.


Your argument is that unless someone or something tells you not to initiate force, you will do just that (be it via government or not). 
My argument (and Paul's argument) is that even without someone or something telling me not to use heroin, I will not use heroin.

One thing [label liberals] and [label organized religion followers] have in common in a sense that they are superior to their fellow man, in that when they argue that a certain law or decree is needed, it is typically not to keep themselves in check but all those lesser human beings who surely would not participate in properly funding the government without high tax requirements or who would surely participate in all forms of debauchery if not for their god's commandments.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What's logical about asserting that something does not exist when it is impossible to prove that something does not exist?
> I respect your belief, but don't call it _logical_.


Also, _what is existence?_   The assumption by atheists is that existence is only physical...and this assumption is made without any proof from them whatsoever.  

Not only that, but an atheist using an empirical epistemology _cannot even prove that all existence is not completely immaterial._   Think about it:  what is the proof that "reality" is not merely a dream?  

Empricism undermines rationality.  It is based on the inductive fallacy, so it is just another way in which atheism fails philosophically.

----------


## UWDude

pro-tip

when atheists/evolutionists who believe in evolution are flanked by fellow atheists/evolutionists trying to get to Ron Paul by attacking his personal beliefs, they don't start arguing Ron Paul is right about believing in a creator, they start arguing that it really doesn't matter, that it is policy and principles that count, not personal beliefs.

When creationists are flanked by evolutionists, they argue that evolution is right, and creationism is wrong.

One of these allows a way for people to join the movement, the other tells them it is an exclusive club.  There are 300M people in the US.  And a good percentage of them are atheist or believers in evolution.

believe me, whether god created the world, or whether it happened by chance has no bearing on the Federal reserve or our endless wars.  it is just another useless red team/blue team division. 

and to mirror Aquabuddha, there are evolutionists that try to argue if Ron Paul cant be smart enough to see creationism is a hoax, than he cant be smart enough to run the country, which is a hogwash cop-out to justify pointless bigotry.




> Also, _what is existence?_   The assumption by atheists is that existence is only physical...and this assumption is made without any proof from them whatsoever.


you keep attacking atheism like it is a dogmatic religion.  it isn't.  Many atheists like myself are open to the possibility of a spiritual world, and extra dimensions.  That doesn't mean I am open to the possibility that beings from this world or a being from the spiritual world wrote a rulebook that tells us not stick or dicks up asses or eat pork or stick dicks up asses while eating pork.

I am one of those atheists that believes in the possibility of intelligent design.  That doesn't mean I think the universe was created in seven days by a guy with a really powerful vocabulary.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your argument is that unless someone or something tells you not to initiate force, you will do just that (be it via government or not). 
> My argument (and Paul's argument) is that even without someone or something telling me not to use heroin, I will not use heroin.
> 
> One thing [label liberals] and [label organized religion followers] have in common in a sense that they are superior to their fellow man, in that when they argue that a certain law or decree is needed, it is typically not to keep themselves in check but all those lesser human beings who surely would not participate in properly funding the government without high tax requirements or who would surely participate in all forms of debauchery if not for their god's commandments.


No, that is not my argument....at all.

I already posted what my argument was:





> My argument is that an atheist worldview using either utilitarianism or natural law does not provide an adequate philosophical foundation for prescriptions. Both systems fail to provide a logical or compelling basis to say one ought to do anything. Both systems commit the naturalistic fallacy. I have shown this many times on this forum and I provided you a link where I spent a lot of time detailing the arguments with quotations. 
> 
> If you want to debate then let's go.



On the first page of this thread I provided a link to a thread where my arguments go in depth.

----------


## Esoteric

> My argument is that an atheist worldview using either utilitarianism or natural law does not provide an adequate philosophical foundation for prescriptions.  Both systems fail to provide a logical or compelling basis to say one _ought_ to do anything.  Both systems commit the naturalistic fallacy.  I have shown this many times on this formu and I provided you a link where I spent a lot of time detailing the arguments with quotations.
> 
> If you want to debate then let's go.



You're right, only in the fact that that nobody "ought" to do anything, period.  If you think you have an invisible friend telling you what you "ought" to do, so be it.  My morality comes from reason, not from a dogmatic preacher or holy book.  

Also, your argument is a red herring.  You are debating an argument which is irrelevant.  The argument that an atheistic society might be "immoral" or volatile does not make atheism itself less true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're right, only in the fact that that nobody "ought" to do anything, period.  If you think you have an invisible friend telling you what you "ought" to do, so be it.  My morality comes from reason, not from a dogmatic preacher or holy book.  
> 
> Also, your argument is a red herring.  You are debating an argument which is irrelevant.  The fact that an atheistic society might be "immoral" does not make atheism itself less true.  I also happen to reject that claim, but it is not the claim which was being debated.


That's right.  I am right.  There is no adequate basis for ethics in atheism, which is why atheistic worldviews have no final argument against tyranny.  Think about how profound that is.

But not only that, when one denies prescriptions, there is no reason to be consistent or rational...no reason to even argue a position using logic.

You see, this is where post-modernism leaves you:  with the conclusion that irrationality is as equally preferential as rationality.  

If you want to claim that rationality, or freedom, or free markets...are preferential by using utilitarian or natural law arguments, then you fall back into the naturalistic fallacy.

Atheism totally fails, which is why atheistic societies have been the most susceptible to outright tyranny.

----------


## Esoteric

> I am one of those atheists that believes in the possibility of intelligent design.  That doesn't mean I think the universe was created in seven days by a guy with a really powerful vocabulary.


I'm also one of those atheists.  I think it would be illogical to rule it out.  It IS logical to rule out religious explanations of intelligent design.  

It is possible that life on earth was seeded by some other being.  It is also possible that some other being set off the big bang.  We do know, however, that the biblical story of creation is, 100%, false.

----------


## UWDude

> There is no adequate basis for ethics in atheism.


Blah blah blah.  And the religion is the cause of the world's wars.  Both assertions are complete and utter poppycock.

....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> pro-tip
> 
> when atheists/evolutionists who believe in evolution are flanked by fellow atheists/evolutionists trying to get to Ron Paul by attacking his personal beliefs, they don't start arguing Ron Paul is right about believing in a creator, they start arguing that it really doesn't matter, that it is policy and principles that count, not personal beliefs.
> 
> When creationists are flanked by evolutionists, they argue that evolution is right, and creationism is wrong.
> 
> One of these allows a way for people to join the movement, the other tells them it is an exclusive club.  There are 300M people in the US.  And a good percentage of them are atheist or believers in evolution.
> 
> believe me, whether god created the world, or whether it happened by chance has no bearing on the Federal reserve or our endless wars.  it is just another useless red team/blue team division. 
> ...



Why does everybody always selectively quote me?  

What is the proof that existence is not entirely immaterial?

----------


## Esoteric

> That's right.  I am right.  There is no adequate basis for ethics in atheism, which is why atheistic worldviews have no final argument against tyranny.  Think about how profound that is.
> 
> But not only that, when one denies prescriptions, there is no reason to be consistent or rational...no reason to even argue a position using logic.
> 
> You see, this is where post-modernism leaves you:  with the conclusion that irrationality is as equally preferential as rationality.  
> 
> If you want to claim that rationality, or freedom, or free markets...are preferential by using utilitarian or natural law arguments, then you fall back into the naturalistic fallacy.
> 
> Atheism totally fails, which is why atheistic societies have been the most susceptible to outright tyranny.


Uh, where do I start...

Your claim that "there is no basis for ethics in atheism" is the equivalent of saying "there is no basis for ethics in liberty".  With liberty comes great responsibility, just as with secularism comes with great responsibility.  No, atheists do not fear of going to hell.  *Is that the only way for someone to act morally? *  <-- This is the root of your argument.

Further, even if that claim were true, how does that make atheism less true?  If atheism is the correct position to hold, then any societal argument you can come up with is irrelevant to that fact.  Should someone believe something which is clearly false, just because it MIGHT be best for society?

"The assertion that a religious man is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the assertion that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

----------


## UWDude

> What is the proof that existence is not entirely immaterial?


who cares?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> who cares?


Obviously, not you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Uh, where do I start...
> 
> Your claim that "there is no basis for ethics in atheism" is the equivalent of saying "there is no basis for ethics in liberty".  With liberty comes great responsibility, just as with secularism comes with great responsibility.  No, atheists do not fear of going to hell.  Is that the only way for someone to act morally?  
> 
> Further, even if that claim were true, how does that make atheism less true?  If atheism is correct position to hold, then any societal argument you can come up with is irrelevant to that fact.  Should someone believe something which is clearly false, just because it MIGHT be best for society?
> 
> "The assertion that a religious man is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the assertion that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."


I am fine with you admitting that there are no prescriptions, that tyranny and liberty are both equally preferential, and that irrationality and rationality are both equally preferential.  I have shown it, and thank you for conceeding the point.

Now, as to the argument that it doesn't prove Christianity just because we have a sure defense of liberty and atheists don't...well, I agree and conceed that point to you.  

It is not my argument that atheism is false just because it can't philosophically defend against tyranny.  My arguments for the truth or falsity of either position are for another thread.

----------


## Esoteric

> Also, what is existence? The assumption by atheists is that existence is only physical...and this assumption is made without any proof from them whatsoever.


WRONG.  Atheists claim that there is no proof for anything which is metaphysical, and thus, it is illogical to hold any supernatural belief.  This does not rule anything out, it simply acknowledge a *lack of evidence.* 

Atheists don't assume anything.  We leave the assuming up to people of "faith" aka "assumption".

BTW, utilizing the metaphysical has been the tool which religions have used throughout history in order to gain believers.  Because the metaphysical cannot be dis-proven, it has served as the basis for all modern theology.

By exploiting that which is unknown, people could justify belief.  For example, greek mythology made claims that the gods were in the clouds and in the sea - places which had not yet been explored.  This wrongfully justified people's belief.  Now that the entire physical world has been explored, modern religions must claim that god is invisible.  It's still the same bull$#@!, to but it bluntly.

----------


## AceNZ

> Anyway, from an atheist worldview, there is no reason that a person _ought not_ to initiate force via government.


I disagree.




> Both utilitarianism and natural law fail to philosophically defend the non-initiation of force.


Perhaps, but Objectivism provides a clear and philosophically consistent end-to-end defense.

----------


## brenton

@AB2010

you're so off base about this, i don't understand why you think it's a good idea to try and spurn ron paul followers who aren't religious when they espouse the same views about government that you presumably do. it appears to me that you think a person can't be moral unless they're a christian? or religious at all?

----------


## Alternative 336

> Uh, where do I start...
> 
> Your claim that "there is no basis for ethics in atheism" is the equivalent of saying "there is no basis for ethics in liberty".  With liberty comes great responsibility, just as with secularism comes with great responsibility.  No, atheists do not fear of going to hell.  *Is that the only way for someone to act morally? *  <-- This is the root of your argument.
> 
> Further, even if that claim were true, how does that make atheism less true?  If atheism is the correct position to hold, then any societal argument you can come up with is irrelevant to that fact.  Should someone believe something which is clearly false, just because it MIGHT be best for society?
> 
> "The assertion that a religious man is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the assertion that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."


Christianity isn't about fearing hell. Why would a Christian fear hell, true Christians won't go there..lol! Christianity isn't about achieving happiness in this physical life either. Your previous posts about imaginary friends and what have you, shows your intolerance to even the idea of a God. Not to mention they were totally unnecessary! I'm glad we both agree on being Libertarians, but have some respect for other peoples values.

----------


## Esoteric

> I am fine with you admitting that there are no prescriptions, that tyranny and liberty are both equally preferential, and that irrationality and rationality are both equally preferential.  I have shown it, and thank you for conceeding the point.
> 
> Now, as to the argument that it doesn't prove Christianity just because we have a sure defense of liberty and atheists don't...well, I agree and conceed that point to you.  
> 
> It is not my argument that atheism is false just because it can't philosophically defend against tyranny.  My arguments for the truth or falsity of either position are for another thread.


Dip$#@!, you can't draw the conclusion that "tyranny and liberty are equally preferential" and "irrationality and rationality are equally preferential" from atheism, or from anything I said.   You're putting words in my mouth, and drawing false conclusions.  

There's this thing called reason.  Some people, notably Ayn Rand (atheist) use it to draw conclusions.  It does not put tyranny and liberty on equal footing philosophically.  Do you still assert that the act of being an "atheist" somehow translates into thinking that there's no reason to believe in liberty over tyranny?  How can you not see that this is an illogical argument?

*Oh, and your Christianity just happens to motivate a few statists, if you haven't noticed.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Perhaps, but Objectivism provides a clear and philosophically consistent end-to-end defense.


No it doesn't.  Ayn Rand was a Lockean anyway.  John Robbins has already dissected and destroyed Objectivism in my opinion:

----------


## Alternative 336

> WRONG.  Atheists claim that there is no proof for anything which is metaphysical, and thus, it is illogical to hold any supernatural belief.  This does not rule anything out, it simply acknowledge a *lack of evidence.* 
> 
> Atheists don't assume anything.  We leave the assuming up to people of "faith" aka "assumption".
> 
> BTW, utilizing the metaphysical has been the tool which religions have used throughout history in order to gain believers.  Because the metaphysical cannot be dis-proven, it has served as the basis for all modern theology.
> 
> By exploiting that which is unknown, people could justify belief.  For example, greek mythology made claims that the gods were in the clouds and in the sea - places which had not yet been explored.  This wrongfully justified people's belief.  Now that the entire physical world has been explored, modern religions must claim that god is invisible.  It's still the same bull$#@!, to but it bluntly.


Atheists assume a naturalistic explanation to everything. I could give you a few proofs of God. As a Christian Apologist I have become very familiar with some of the arguments. Let's start with this one.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause.

Now, we already have tons of empirical evidence explaining premise 2, so it hard to deny that in the face of evidence. 

The cause of this universe would have to itself be independent of universal laws because it would have to exist independently of what has yet to be created. 
Things don't come uncaused out of nothing.
So therefore, the origin of the universe seems to only make sense with the idea of a Creationist God.

----------


## Esoteric

> Your previous posts about imaginary friends and what have you, shows your intolerance to even the idea of a God. Not to mention they were totally unnecessary! I'm glad we both agree on being Libertarians, but have some respect for other peoples values.


Well, do you tolerate statists?  I think that people should be able to debate topics like religion openly.  Also, you say "values", but I would say "superstitions"  .. there's that language again

----------


## AceNZ

> Also, _what is existence?_   The assumption by atheists is that existence is only physical...and this assumption is made without any proof from them whatsoever.


I can't speak for all atheists, but in my case the most important thing to know is that *existence exists*.  I don't need to assume anything about the detailed nature of existence to know that part.




> Not only that, but an atheist using an empirical epistemology _cannot even prove that all existence is not completely immaterial._   Think about it:  what is the proof that "reality" is not merely a dream?  
> 
> Empricism undermines rationality.  It is based on the inductive fallacy, so it is just another way in which atheism fails philosophically.


Empiricism is a highly flawed philosophy, which is closely associated with subjectivism.

Empiricists believe there is no moral knowledge; there are no absolute truths; no principles; everything is uncertain and relative; "good" means "I want it"; "bad" means "I don't want it"; there are no answers to moral questions; the only way to have an ethics is to observe what people desire; everything comes from consciousness; they are usually champions of selflessness because "that's the way they feel."

An Objectivist like me would say that reality is not a dream because reality has primacy over consciousness; *Consciousness is a means of observing reality*.

Hey, that's two out of the three Objectivist axioms in one post.  Not bad.  Just for completeness, the third one is: things are what they are.  Also known as Aristotle's law of identity, or "*A is A*."

----------


## Esoteric

> So therefore, the origin of the universe seems to only make sense with the idea of a Creationist God.


well, sir, your conclusion is where you go wrong.  yes, something sparked our universe into existence.  No, it does not necessarily need to be something which is supernatural.  There are numerous hypothesis, such as parallel universes, bubble universe model, etc.  I can see where deists are coming from, but I don't like the fact that they say with certitude that it was a god which sparked our universe into existence. 

Also, the infinite regression argument is irresolvable, because we don't know if time itself is just a construct of our own universe.  Everything may just simply exist, period.

----------


## Bergie Bergeron

Not that debate again...

----------


## AceNZ

> 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
> 2. The universe began to exist
> 
> Therefore the universe has a cause.
> 
> Now, we already have tons of empirical evidence explaining premise 2, so it hard to deny that in the face of evidence.


I disagree.  There is no evidence suggesting that the universe began.  Even if the Big Bang is correct, it says nothing about the very earliest points in time.  There are also competing theories that explain the available evidence as well or better than the Big Bang, such as Brane Theory and Big Bang / Big Crunch cycles.

I would argue that precisely because of #1 above, that the universe (it's more accurate to say "existence") can't have a beginning.  It just *is*.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No it doesn't.  Ayn Rand was a Lockean anyway.  John Robbins has already dissected and destroyed Objectivism in my opinion:


AceNZ,

I'd like to get your thoughts on this video.  Thanks.

----------


## febo

> Well, you certainly do not understand what atheism is.


You are conflating atheism with agnosticism. You appear to be an agnostic not an athiest.
Your depiction of faith is a little shallow if I may say.

----------


## AceNZ

> No it doesn't.  Ayn Rand was a Lockean anyway.  John Robbins has already dissected and destroyed Objectivism in my opinion:


Sigh.  Not this again.  The person speaking in that recording doesn't understand Objectivism.

He said Ayn Rand adopted the metaphysics and epistemology of the Communists.  That's a lie.  The Communists had a very mystical metaphysical view that was not at all based in reality, and their epistemology was certainly nothing like what Rand described in her lengthy book on the subject -- including things like the nature of concept formation and how we know things.

He also claims that the use of retaliatory force is a violation of rights, according to "logic."  In other words, self-defense is a violation of rights.

The guy's a nutjob.

----------


## AceNZ

> AceNZ,
> 
> I'd like to get your thoughts on this video.  Thanks.


I listened to the first 10 minutes or so; that's about all I can stomach.  The full hour and a half would drive me crazy.

However, if there's a particular segment that you'd like me to comment on, if you can give me a time reference when it starts, I'll give it a try.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Atheists assume a naturalistic explanation to everything. I could give you a few proofs of God. As a Christian Apologist I have become very familiar with some of the arguments. Let's start with this one.
> 
> 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
> 2. The universe began to exist
> 
> Therefore the universe has a cause.
> 
> Now, we already have tons of empirical evidence explaining premise 2, so it hard to deny that in the face of evidence. 
> 
> ...


As an agnostic, I don't think your premises are too far-fetched from logic in that it's completely _possible_ that someone/something created the universe BUT the conclusion that a Christian God & NOT a Muslim God or a Hindu God(s), etc etc created it is extremely flawed, it's a non sequitur.

----------


## AceNZ

There are four primary axes of philosophy:

Rationalist / intrinicist (the dominant line of Western ethics, including Plato, Christianity and Kant) -- reality but not consciousness
Subjectivist / empiricist (includes skepticism and pragmatism; David Hume, Bertrand Russell) -- consciousness but not reality
Objectivist (Rand, Peikoff) -- consciousness and reality
Nihilist (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche) -- neither consciousness nor reality

They are each fundamentally irreconcilable with the other.  It's generally futile to try to talk someone solidly anchored in one axis into another, unless they express a willingness to consider alternative views.  My goal here is not to talk anyone into my view, but rather to simply explain it.  If you're going to disagree with me, it would be nice if you could at least disagree with something that's true, rather than something made-up or misunderstood.

----------


## Oukvekpwv

> Part of the problem I see here and in society in general is that people think their self righteous belief in one thing or another gives them the right to judge others.


or non-believe, as you can see.. it goes both ways..

The first thought i had as i read this thread is that i cant believe that we are having this argument, though after reading it i get it a little but its still not completly productive or to the point of order.. if people want to make a group, then make a damn group..

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> hey, with all these religious groups popping up for Ron Paul, I thought the only logical existential philosophy deserved its due...
> 
> Where are my fellow skeptics?  I know you're here   
> 
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheis...779450?sk=wall


I'm atheist and I would join your group. But do you think this is a good idea? Look at the ignorant reactions of Ron Paul's OWN supporters.... Instead of embracing people of all different beliefs, many just argue their own religion because they see atheism as a sort of attack on their beliefs.

How would the general public react? I don't think this is a net positive, unfortunately, so I'm not joining. Sorry.

----------


## sailingaway

> By your logic, libertarianism is .. somehow.. a religious doctrine?  You say rights come from God, I say the initiation of force via government is simply immoral and unjust.  We're both libertarian, however I have no invisible friend dictating my beliefs.  A good number Paul supporters and libertarians that I know are also religious skeptics.
> 
> In the same way that Ron forms coalitions with Democrats over some issues, I happily join with evangelicals for the cause of Liberty - even if some are only libertarians because of their religious convictions.


No, but 'atheist' is a term that describes being 'anti' something. It's entire definition is of opposition to something else.  It is a provocative term. 'Skeptics' for Ron Paul might be better, even though it also defines doubt about something.  It just isn't as confrontational.  Names of supporter groups are FOR marketing purposes.

----------


## Exponent

Individuals for Ron Paul!

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Also, _what is existence?_   The assumption by atheists is that existence is only physical...and this assumption is made without any proof from them whatsoever.  
> 
> Not only that, but an atheist using an empirical epistemology _cannot even prove that all existence is not completely immaterial._   Think about it:  what is the proof that "reality" is not merely a dream?  
> 
> Empricism undermines rationality.  It is based on the inductive fallacy, so it is just another way in which atheism fails philosophically.


What is heaven and hell? The assumption by Christians is that their is life after death...and this assumption is made without any proof from them whatsoever.

Not only that, but a Christian using common sense cannot even prove that reality is not completly immaterial. Think about it: what proof do you have that reality, as you type a response, yes right now as you read this, is not all you have before you're existence is gone, forever?

Spirituality undermines facts and reality. It is based on a faith fallacy, so it is just another way which Christianity, like all faith based religions fails philosophically.

----------


## asurfaholic

> hey, with all these religious groups popping up for Ron Paul, I thought the only logical existential philosophy deserved its due...


I think this opening post is pretty offensive. Rights don't come from groups, they come from individuals.

----------


## sailingaway

> What is heaven and hell? The assumption by Christians is that their is life after death...and this assumption is made without any proof from them whatsoever.
> 
> Not only that, but a Christian using common sense cannot even prove that reality is not completly immaterial. Think about it: what proof do you have that reality, as you type a response, yes right now as you read this, is not all you have before you're existence is gone, forever?
> 
> Spirituality undermines facts and reality. It is based on a faith fallacy, so it is just another way which Christianity, like all faith based religions fails philosophically.


Am I going to end up splitting off huge chunks of a long thread to the 'religion' category? Or could you guys please save me the trouble and just carry that part of the debate there, going forward?

We have had this debate before, many times, and that is the proper place for it.

VA is NEVER going to convince AquaBuddha, and AquaBuddha is NEVER going to convince VA....

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> Atheists assume a naturalistic explanation to everything. I could give you a few proofs of God. As a Christian Apologist I have become very familiar with some of the arguments. Let's start with this one.
> 
> 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
> 2. The universe began to exist
> 
> Therefore the universe has a cause.
> 
> Now, we already have tons of empirical evidence explaining premise 2, so it hard to deny that in the face of evidence. 
> 
> ...


Wow. Of all the arguments for God existence, that's the most retarded.  It contradicts itself immediately.  If things don't come uncaused out of nothing then, by your own logic, God must have been created by some external force thereby negating his Godness.

Look, I don't mind debating these sorts of things but put a little thought into it.

----------


## asurfaholic

You don't have to believe in God or Christ to be a supporter. We are all fighting for the same things - rather than make an offensive post that insults the belief of many Ron Paul supporters, why not just state why you support Ron Paul? Then there's no debate, and no feelings get hurt.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> No, but 'atheist' is a term that describes being 'anti' something. It's entire definition is of opposition to something else.


No, that would be anti-theist.  And skeptic is too non-specific.  Of what are you skeptical? Global Warming, God, me winning American Idol?

----------


## Carehn

Im an Atheist for Ron Paul.

----------


## sailingaway

> No, that would be anti-theist.  And skeptic is too non-specific.  Of what are you skeptical? Global Warming, God, me winning American Idol?


Hm, that wasn't what I was used to it meaning, but you may be right as to the original meaning:  http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...eist_etymology




> In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods", instead of the earlier meaning of "impious". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.


NOW skeptics seems more neutral.  But I don't really think Esoteric plans to found this group, I think he was making a point, and I do see that point, but I don't think it would be helpful to Ron to have a group with that name, as VA notes.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Am I going to end up splitting off huge chunks of a long thread to the 'religion' category? Or could you guys please save me the trouble and just carry that part of the debate there, going forward?
> 
> We have had this debate before, many times, and that is the proper place for it.
> 
> VA is NEVER going to convince AquaBuddha, and AquaBuddha is NEVER going to convince VA....


That's your call. But for the record the reason I did not join the OP's group is because I agree that religious topics alway causes fights and would be a net negative for Ron Paul.

The difference here is that AquaBuddha lumped Atheists (me) in with Statists and Abortionists based on my non-belief in religion. I do believe that merits a response.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> I think the biggest reason that people do that is because usually, you ARE attacking our beliefs. You attack the very fundamental things what we believe in. 
> 
> What I can't understand is why any one person would make it their religion to try to believe that there is no God. Whats the point of that? Make it your religion to shut down other people's religious belief? There's no logic to that.


First of all, if disagreeing with someone's beliefs or simply stating what you think constitutes an attack we have bigger problems.  If you think AC/DC are the greatest band ever and I don't, am I attacking your beliefs?

Secondly, atheist don't try to make disbelief a religion. We simply don't believe.  Just like I don't believe Gnomes live in my garden.  When I see evidence of a Gnome living in my garden, I'll believe it.

----------


## justatrey

Do agnostics count? I guess we need agnostics for Ron Paul!

----------


## sailingaway

> That's your call. But for the record the reason I did not join the OP's group is because I agree that religious topics alway causes fights and would be a net negative for Ron Paul.
> 
> The difference here is that AquaBuddha lumped Atheists (me) in with Statists and Abortionists based on my non-belief in religion. I do believe that merits a response.


I wasn't going to split off what had already been said, I could just see it going into a discussion which belongs in a different forum.

----------


## Theocrat

> hey, with all these religious groups popping up for Ron Paul, I thought the only logical existential philosophy deserved its due...
> 
> Where are my fellow skeptics?  I know you're here   
> 
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheis...779450?sk=wall


That Facebook group will be great for reaching out to big government "atheists" and winning them over to Ron Paul's campaign! It's just great to see so many "atheists" supporting a Christian for once.

----------


## Invi

> Individuals for Ron Paul!


Wanted: Facebook group.




> It contradicts itself immediately.  If things don't come uncaused out of nothing then, by your own logic, God must have been created by some external force thereby negating his Godness.


This. "God just is" or "has always been" after just stating that everything has a cause or must be set into motion.. It just annoys me. It's one or the other, really. I don't buy "everything but God has a cause."




> Secondly, atheist don't try to make disbelief a religion. We simply don't believe.  Just like I don't believe Gnomes live in my garden.  When I see evidence of a Gnome living in my garden, I'll believe it.


Also this. I suppose it's just simpler to quote people than to reword it.

----------


## sailingaway

> First of all, if disagreeing with someone's beliefs or simply stating what you think constitutes an attack we have bigger problems.  If you think AC/DC are the greatest band ever and I don't, am I attacking your beliefs?
> 
> Secondly, atheist don't try to make disbelief a religion. We simply don't believe.  Just like I don't believe Gnomes live in my garden.  When I see evidence of a Gnome living in my garden, I'll believe it.


That last couplet suggests that people who do have faith in God are idiots, though.  You could compare it to not believing in something a little more credible and be seen as less attacking other people's beliefs.

----------


## Thargok

This is a great way to counter Bachmann's attack that Ron isn't a Christian... Let's just put atheist and Ron Paul side by side as much as we can.

I'm really starting to think that a lot of people here are either trying to sabotage this race for their own personal gain, or they believe that the role of the grassroots is to drop the ball.

----------


## YumYum

> First of all, if disagreeing with someone's beliefs or simply stating what you think constitutes an attack we have bigger problems.  If you think AC/DC are the greatest band ever and I don't, am I attacking your beliefs?
> 
> Secondly, atheist don't try to make disbelief a religion. We simply don't believe.  Just like I don't believe Gnomes live in my garden.  *When I see evidence of a Gnome living in my garden, I'll believe it.*


If you witnessed miracles, would you then believe?

----------


## sailingaway

Ron is deeply Christian.  Bachmann's campaign suggesting otherwise (if that rumor is true) is going to blow up as nothing else could have done, against her, I predict.  Religious people mind that sort of game playing the most.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Recently, I was touched by his great noodly appendage and am no longer an atheist.


Same here.

I have finally found God, and he looks delicious!

----------


## YumYum

> Same here.
> 
> I have finally found God, and he looks delicious!


Why is that guy's tee-tee so small??

----------


## PastaRocket848

I'm all for an "atheists for Ron Paul".  I'll carry a card for that one...

I don't see why anyone would be upset.  People are free to believe in whatever they want, and it has absolutely zero bearing on their  commitment to liberty.  Maybe if we had more representation politicians wouldn't think they had to act like they believe in talking snakes and immaculate conception to win an election.  

The world would be a better place if religion and politics were less entangled.

----------


## libertarian4321

Now that I've found a God, I feel like I should be burning incense, sacrificing a goat, stoning adulterers, shaking rattles, chanting, or something meaningful in a religious sort of way.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Booooo


Why boo? I'm glad atheists support Ron Paul. You only want people who agree with you on everything to support liberty?

----------


## libertarian4321

> Why is that guy's tee-tee so small??


You'd have to ask Michelangelo.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> This is a great way to counter Bachmann's attack that Ron isn't a Christian... Let's just put atheist and Ron Paul side by side as much as we can.
> 
> I'm really starting to think that a lot of people here are either trying to sabotage this race for their own personal gain, or they believe that the role of the grassroots is to drop the ball.


Your statement can be reversed for atheists who see Ron winning evangelical honors; in fact I have seen this happen personally. 

Christian or Atheist... the point of Ron's campaign is to get people to vote on his principles and voting record, not on his religious group. 

Your statement treats atheists as a minority group meant to be minimalized, that sounds like politics as usual, my friend.

----------


## Invi

> If you witnessed miracles, would you then believe?


Is it going to be evident that God or whomever made this miracle? Is He going to be there, and say it was Him and not some other deity?

For the record, I'm not trying to be an ass. Legitimate questions. If the answers are "no" and there is no way to directly link the miracle to something specific (it couldn't be anything but God! does not count), then I don't see how it would change anything.

----------


## d1sCo

Esoteric, you and your friends condescending tone is both unnecessary and rude. I cannot stand atheists who feel the need to point out that those who hold religious beliefs are "illogical" or that they believe in "fairy tales". Theism is a major philosophical view that has been held and defended by some of the greatest minds in history. To indicate that any rational thinking man would turn away from theism is folly. 

Disagree with it all you like, but don't belittle it or throw mud at it, that only makes atheist seem like weak minded bullies. They have to kick and yell and put the other kid down so that people can't see that inside their arguments are flawed and break down during the most tender and tragic moments of life. 

-d1sCo

----------


## robert68

> That's right.  Political philosophies are always born out of theologies.  Theology is the ruling discipline.  What you believe about God, man, and the cosmos comes first before science, politics, ethics, anything...
> 
> Anyway, from an atheist worldview, there is no reason that a person _ought not_ to initiate force via government.  Both utilitarianism and natural law fail to philosophically defend the non-initiation of force. I've posted this clear argument many times on this forum.  The most recent one is in this thread:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t-video*/page2


From a religious (doesn't mean atheist) worldview, there’s often a good reason one _ought_ to initiate the use of force, because one thinks "God" wants them to. 

Also, you imply above that you’re a subscriber to the non-aggression principle, but you’ve clearly stated in other threads that you aren't.

----------


## trey4sports

> That's right.  Political philosophies are always born out of theologies.  Theology is the ruling discipline.  What you believe about God, man, and the cosmos comes first before science, politics, ethics, anything...
> 
> Anyway, from an atheist worldview, there is no reason that a person _ought not_ to initiate force via government.  Both utilitarianism and natural law fail to philosophically defend the non-initiation of force. I've posted this clear argument many times on this forum.  The most recent one is in this thread:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t-video*/page2


utilitarianism does defend against force of the state.

----------


## BrendenR

Dupe.

----------


## BrendenR

As an atheist, I cannot stand the bickering on both sides that comes up with this issue.

People like AquaBuddha get my blood boiling. You're seriously equating an atheist libertarians with "abortionists" and "statists"? Is that something that Ron Paul would do? Certainly not. Because Ron Paul knows that liberty does not subscribe to a specific religion. That all allies in the pursuit of liberty should be embraced.

I would stand side by side with any Christian that would fight with me for liberty, and I expect any Christian to stand side by side with any atheist in the fight for liberty.

And to you fellow atheists who spout off about "fairy tale gods" and all this nonsense. Yes, that is our personal belief, but like the militant Christian, all your jabs get you is more foes than friends. This is not the place to fight about religion, this is the place to stand together for liberty.

EVERY CHRISTIAN, WHO THINKS ATHEISTS HAVE NO PLACE IN THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT,
EVERY ATHEIST, WHO THINKS INSULTING CHRISTIANS GETS US ANYTHING, READ THIS:

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin654.htm

Here, I'll post it for all of you too lazy to click the link.




> By Chuck Baldwin
> June 23, 2011
> NewsWithViews.com
> 
> I couldn’t count how many times I’ve heard a sincere Christian say to me, “Chuck, all we have to do is elect more Christians to public office.” I wish it was only that easy! The fact is we have been electing “Christians” to public office for decades. In fact, when is the last time you voted for someone who did NOT proclaim to be a Christian? Most everyone in public office claims to be a Christian. In my whole life, I never remember a candidate for public office saying, “Vote for me; I’m an atheist.” Do you?
> 
> Richard Nixon claimed to be a Christian; Gerald Ford claimed to be a Christian; Jimmy Carter claimed to be a Christian (he even taught Sunday School and took alcohol out of the White House); Ronald Reagan claimed to be a Christian; Bill Clinton claimed to be a Christian (how many times did we see Clinton on his way to church with his giant-print Bible under his arm?); George Bush I and II claimed to be a Christian. Bush II held prayer meetings in the White House we are told. Even Barack Obama claims to be a Christian. Ditto for virtually every congressman and senator ever elected. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, men and women, whites and blacks: they all claim to be Christians. If electing “Christians” was all we needed to do, we should be in the Millennial Kingdom by now!
> 
> Of course, I can hear many Christians now saying under their breath, “But we need REAL Christians in public office.” And, of course, the people saying this are the ones who are qualified to know which ones are REAL Christians and which ones aren’t. Right?
> ...

----------


## pcosmar

> As an atheist, I cannot stand the bickering on both sides that comes up with this issue.


As a Christian, though rather irreligious, it annoys me as well. 
And it is getting old.

We have folks here of many faiths. and Dr. Paul supports the right to believe as you wish. 
He want the government out of our lives,,mind, body, and spirit.

The constant antagonism here has run off many, And I hope they still support Dr. Paul, if not this forum.

Deliberately offending the voting base is not very smart.

----------


## Thargok

> Your statement can be reversed for atheists who see Ron winning evangelical honors; in fact I have seen this happen personally. 
> 
> Christian or Atheist... the point of Ron's campaign is to get people to vote on his principles and voting record, not on his religious group. 
> 
> Your statement treats atheists as a minority group meant to be minimalized, that sounds like politics as usual, my friend.


I forgot that atheists make up the bulk of the voters in Iowa, and Republican voters in general.  So yes, let's actively help the Bachmann campaign in order to try to pick up a group that is 6% of the population, which on average is younger than 35 so they are less likely to vote statistically.  And yes they are a minority, and yes you need a majority to win, so do you risk disenfranchising 70% of the population for 6% or do you risk the 6% for 70%?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> utilitarianism does defend against force of the state.


Nah, it doesn't.  "The greatest good for the greatest number" arguments were the basis for Marxist regimes.  

Not only is it impossible to calculate the pains or pleasures needed to prove utilitarianism, the argument falls back into the naturalistic fallacy, because the fact that men are motivated to act by pain and pleasure does not imply that they ought to be.

----------


## MelissaWV

> As a Christian, though rather irreligious, it annoys me as well. 
> And it is getting old.
> 
> We have folks here of many faiths. and Dr. Paul supports the right to believe as you wish. 
> He want the government out of our lives,,mind, body, and spirit.
> 
> The constant antagonism here has run off many, And I hope they still support Dr. Paul, if not this forum.
> 
> Deliberately offending the voting base is not very smart.


This, since the bickering continued even after his post.

I do think the insults against Christians are only slightly more silly, given that Ron is pretty open about his Christianity.  Then again, the idea that a group of atheists supporting Ron would ruin his campaign is ridiculous.  The media will pick up and run with whatever they can.  Did you know there are former prostitutes that support Ron Paul?  Of course, the other campaigns have some unsavory folks supporting them as well.  It's just you usually don't hear about it.

Wouldn't it be awesome if, instead of attacking our own base, we concentrated on getting the word out as to who's funding those other campaigns?

Nah.  We should still be going back and forth about what's "illogical" about one another's beliefs.

The only illogical thing I see is a genuine supporter wasting time putting other genuine supporters down or shushing them, when we could all turn and face the foe together.  We're going to need everyone we can get.  That includes people who don't believe as you do.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> That last couplet suggests that people who do have faith in God are idiots, though.  You could compare it to not believing in something a little more credible and be seen as less attacking other people's beliefs.


I never said idiot.  I think that's you projecting your feeling about non-believers on me.  Wouldn't it then be fair to say that people of faith think non-believers are idiots?  Or that Christians think Hindus and Jews are idiots?

----------


## MelissaWV

> I never said idiot.  I think that's you projecting your feeling about non-believers on me.  Wouldn't it then be fair to say that people of faith think non-believers are idiots?  Or that Christians think Hindus and Jews are idiots?


Not me.

----------


## pcosmar

> Did you know there are former prostitutes that support Ron Paul?  Of course, the other campaigns have some unsavory folks supporting them as well.  It's just you usually don't hear about it.


I have no doubt some current prostitutes support him. There are also racists that support him,,for their own reasons. As well as many other minorities of little significance.
That does not mean it is particularly wise to advertise it. It would likely be used against Ron, and that would be against my interests.
Maybe I'm selfish that way.
I keep myself separate from the official campaign, though Ron has my support, I am not going to start a Facebook page or website for "Felons for Ron Paul".

It just doesn't sound like a good idea.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I have no doubt some current prostitutes support him. There are also racists that support him,,for their own reasons. As well as many other minorities of little significance.
> That does not mean it is particularly wise to advertise it. It would likely be used against Ron, and that would be against my interests.
> Maybe I'm selfish that way.
> I keep myself separate from the official campaign, though Ron has my support, I am not going to start a Facebook page or website for "Felons for Ron Paul".
> 
> It just doesn't sound like a good idea.


Indeed.  It would also seem to me that it runs rather counter to the idea that we're individuals first and foremost.  I guess I find it silly when people don't act like it's the phrasing and compartmentalizing that is bad.  Lately there seems to be an unfortunate streak of even thinking the individuals themselves are the problem.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> Not me.


Precisely.  There's a difference between thinking someone is simply wrong or mistaken and thinking they're an idiot.  I, for one, don't understand why people get so defensive about all this.  If you truly believe then why do you care what anyone else thinks as long as they're not trying to coerce you into not believing?  The same goes for the atheists/agnotics.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> As an atheist, I cannot stand the bickering on both sides that comes up with this issue.





> I would stand side by side with any Christian that would fight with me for liberty, and I expect any Christian to stand side by side with any atheist in the fight for liberty.



I am a Christian and I totally agree with you.  We need to stop this before it tears us apart.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

Reps up to BrendenR and LibertyEagle.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Now that I've found a God, I feel like I should be burning incense, sacrificing a goat, stoning adulterers, shaking rattles, chanting, or something meaningful in a religious sort of way.


Join me in a lords prayer?

Our saucer which art in a colander, draining be Your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy meatballness be done on earth, as it is meaty in heaven. Give us this day our daily sauce, and forgive us our lack of piracy, as we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us from non-red meat sauce. For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. Ramen. 

Hail meatsauce, full of beef. The Spaghetti Monster is with you. Blessed are you among sauces, and blessed is the spice from your shaker. Heated meatsauce, monster of taste, pray for us non-pirates now and at the hour of our hunger. RAmen

Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day our garlic bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. RAmen.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Join me in a lords prayer?
> 
> Our saucer which art in a colander, draining be Your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy meatballness be done on earth, as it is meaty in heaven. Give us this day our daily sauce, and forgive us our lack of piracy, as we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us from non-red meat sauce. For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. Ramen. 
> 
> Hail meatsauce, full of beef. The Spaghetti Monster is with you. Blessed are you among sauces, and blessed is the spice from your shaker. Heated meatsauce, monster of taste, pray for us non-pirates now and at the hour of our hunger. RAmen
> 
> Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day our garlic bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. RAmen.


Why would you post this when you know that all it would do is incite more fighting?  Is that your goal?  If so, why?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Why would you post this when you know that all it would do is incite more fighting?  Is that your goal?  If so, why?


I can only imagine you'd be the only one willing to start a fight over such nonsense. 

Posting Anything that isn't Christian or Constitutional is considered antagonistic by you. Mellow out a bit

I was touched by his great noodle appendage, what's your problem?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I can only imagine you'd be the only one willing to start a fight over such nonsense. 
> 
> Posting Anything that isn't Christian or Constitutional is considered antagonistic by you. Mellow out a bit.


I didn't make the post, YOU did.  And the question was why you did it.

----------


## MelissaWV

/tangent.

Why is only "his great noodly appendage" mentioned?  Does he have lesser ones?

Wouldn't his "great appendage" usually be... you know... I mean... does this whole religion make you gay?

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> does this whole religion make you gay?


No, just fat from all the carbs.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I didn't make the post, YOU did.  And the question was why you did it.


Because the great spaghetti monster is lord, His presence must be made known and shared.

----------


## Esoteric

> First of all, if disagreeing with someone's beliefs or simply stating what you think constitutes an attack we have bigger problems.  If you think AC/DC are the greatest band ever and I don't, am I attacking your beliefs?
> 
> Secondly, atheist don't try to make disbelief a religion. We simply don't believe.  Just like I don't believe Gnomes live in my garden.  When I see evidence of a Gnome living in my garden, I'll believe it.


Well put.  Arguing against religion is considered "attacking someone's' beliefs", however arguing any other topic is fair game.  

I assume this is because people's religion become synonamous with their existence.  They are afraid of the view of reality without it - namely the likelihood that when you die, nothing happens.. and I say "likelihood" in the same way that there is a "likelihood" that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

----------


## Carehn



----------


## YumYum

> Join me in a lords prayer?
> 
> Our saucer which art in a colander, draining be Your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy meatballness be done on earth, as it is meaty in heaven. Give us this day our daily sauce, and forgive us our lack of piracy, as we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us from non-red meat sauce. For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. Ramen. 
> 
> Hail meatsauce, full of beef. The Spaghetti Monster is with you. Blessed are you among sauces, and blessed is the spice from your shaker. Heated meatsauce, monster of taste, pray for us non-pirates now and at the hour of our hunger. RAmen
> 
> Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day our garlic bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. RAmen.


LOL!!! Even though I am a believer, I died laughing at this. I have been to a spaghetti monster convention with my cousin, and you should have given the closing prayer.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> LOL!!! Even though I am a believer, I died laughing at this. I have been to a spaghetti monster convention with my cousin, and you should have given the closing prayer.


heh... 

I wish i could take credit for it, but I ripped it right out of the Uncyclopedia.  http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/F...Noodles_Prayer

----------


## AceNZ

I support Ron Paul, because he is able to keep his religious beliefs separate from his views of government.

I support him because he has principles rooted the Constitution, including the separation of church and State and free speech.

I support him even though I disagree with him about his views on abortion, although I respect and understand his views, particularly given his prior occupation as an obstetrician.

I support him because he is a champion of Liberty and freedom, including freedom of religion, which also means the freedom to not have a religion.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I support Ron Paul, because he is able to keep his religious beliefs separate from his views of government.
> 
> I support him because he has principles rooted the Constitution, including the separation of church and State and free speech.
> 
> I support him even though I disagree with him about his views on abortion, although I respect and understand his views, particularly given his prior occupation as an obstetrician.
> 
> I support him because he is a champion of Liberty and freedom, including freedom of religion, which also means the freedom to not have a religion.


+10000000

----------


## Alternative 336

> Wow. Of all the arguments for God existence, that's the most retarded.  It contradicts itself immediately.  If things don't come uncaused out of nothing then, by your own logic, God must have been created by some external force thereby negating his Godness.
> 
> Look, I don't mind debating these sorts of things but put a little thought into it.


The premise is everything that begins to exist has a cause. God never began to exist, therefore God doesn't need a cause. You should take your own advice. Out of nothing, nothing comes. This is talking about causation. Nice try. Also, I didn't limit which God it could be, It's about supernatural causation. How could the cause of the universe be natural, if the universe doesn't exist beforehand?

----------


## Alternative 336

While many people probably think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails, it doesn't. Once again, I'm not using the argument in an attempt to prove God necessarily, but to debunk the idea of a natural explanation to the origin of the universe. Other theories just push the problem back further, and you still end up at an absolute beginning. Unless you want to argue that the universe is eternal. The problem with that is that since we already know about the heat death of the universe that is coming in a long-time from now, how come it didn't already happen at some point in the infinite past? 

Aside from all that, it amazes me that Atheists use this mantra about lack of evidence and when someone tries to push an argument, all of the sudden they talk about theories that hardly have any good backing. As long as it supports what they "don't believe" then it's fine. It seems to me to be a double standard. But lastly, I realize its a mistake/huge waste of time to talk to Atheists who aren't willing to change their position, because it usually ends up in insults. I didn't bother reading like 5 pages of this thread, because it's pointless. If you want to be an Atheist, that's fine don't make fun of other people's religion. It seems to me that the idea of God really frustrates and upsets a lot of Atheists. To me, that's living proof that God exists. When people mention something I know is false, like Santa Claus, I don't get bent out of shape. It doesn't make sense how something that apparently doesn't exist can provoke you to be anti-christian and what have you. Oh well, not coming back to this thread. I am here to support Ron Paul, not argue about religious values. I have my own and as a Libertarian, I respect your own.

----------


## Esoteric

I am passionate about liberty - but I am also passionate about atheism.  If people start making such ludicrous comments as "athesists for ron paul = statists for ron paul", then I'm not going to sit back and say yeah, you're right, it's a contradiction in terms lol.. becuase it's delusional thinking, based on religious brainwashing.  I wish i could find more palatable terms, but it is what it is. 

Just as statism will not go away unless we do something about it, religion will linger as well, unless the stigma is lifted with regard to openly refuting religious arguments, and not having respect for childish superstitions and cowardice.  That's why I defend atheism militantly, just as we defend liberty militantly.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am passionate about liberty - but I am also passionate about atheism.  If people start making such ludicrous comments as "athesists for ron paul = statists for ron paul", then I'm not going to sit back and say yeah, you're right, it's a contradiction in terms lol.. becuase it's delusional thinking, based on religious brainwashing.  I wish i could find more palatable terms, but it is what it is. 
> 
> Just as statism will not go away unless we do something about it, religion will linger as well, unless the stigma is lifted with regard to openly refuting religious arguments, and not having respect for childish superstitions and cowardice.  That's why I defend atheism militantly, just as we defend liberty militantly.



Go defend your atheism somewhere else!  This forum is named after a Christian who is running for President!!  We do not need the likes of you, promoting your selfish interests where newcomers to Ron Paul can see your tripe!!!!!

----------


## AceNZ

> Unless you want to argue that the universe is eternal.


Yes, the universe is eternal.  It had no beginning.




> The problem with that is that since we already know about the heat death of the universe that is coming in a long-time from now, how come it didn't already happen at some point in the infinite past?


There are a number of theories that provide explanations for this.  I like Brane Theory, but it's not the only one.




> If you want to be an Atheist, that's fine don't make fun of other people's religion.


Yet it's OK for Christians to attack atheists or the the things we support and believe in?




> It seems to me that the idea of God really frustrates and upsets a lot of Atheists. To me, that's living proof that God exists. When people mention something I know is false, like Santa Claus, I don't get bent out of shape. It doesn't make sense how something that apparently doesn't exist can provoke you to be anti-christian and what have you.


It's not the idea of God that frustrates and upsets me.  It's a belief system that's anchored in irrationality, which in turn is responsible for many of the problems in today's politics and economics that directly affect me.  In particular, I find the concept of altruism to be extremely offensive and destructive. For example, the whole welfare state is rooted in the Christian ideal of being your neighbor's keeper -- and neo-cons are self-described Christians who have decided that global war is a Good Thing.

I do have to admit one thing: a thoroughly consistent Christian would have to endorse theocracy and totalitarianism. Since RP and the Christians supporting him reject those ideas and support freedom and individual rights instead, I respect you for that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I support Ron Paul, because he is able to keep his religious beliefs separate from his views of government.
> 
> I support him because he has principles rooted the Constitution, *including the separation of church and State* and free speech.
> 
> I support him even though I disagree with him about his views on abortion, although I respect and understand his views, particularly given his prior occupation as an obstetrician.
> 
> I support him because he is a champion of Liberty and freedom, including freedom of religion, which also means the freedom to not have a religion.


I thought you might find this interesting.  There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution; contrary to popular opinion.




> The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
> 
> by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
> 
> Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 2, 2003
> 
> Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
> 
> *In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state" metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!*
> ...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul85.html

----------


## AceNZ

> Go defend your atheism somewhere else!


So you would turn away atheists who support Ron Paul, rather than let them defend their philosophy?  Are you sure you aren't a closet Huckabee supporter?




> This forum is named after a Christian who is running for President!!


AFAIK, everyone who has run for president in at least the last century has been a Christian.




> We do not need the likes of you, promoting your selfish interests where newcomers to Ron Paul can see your tripe!!!!!


Yet calling someone else's beliefs "tripe" is supposed to attract newcomers?

What about supporting free speech and freedom of religion?  Those are cornerstone beliefs of RP.  I would think newcomers would be attracted to a site and a candidate where people aren't persecuted for their beliefs, and where they feel free to say things that aren't in 100% alignment with their candidate, and yet where they support that candidate anyway.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yet it's OK for Christians to attack atheists or the the things we support and believe in?


No, I don't think so.  But, if you had been watching closely over the years, you would have seen insults thrown at Christians and God, in threads that you couldn't even imagine why such a post would even be made.  Far and away, the God-hating posts have outnumbered any denouncing atheists.  It's rare for the Christians on the board to throw the first knife, although it has happened.  What usually happens is some insult is made about Christians' "imaginary friend", etc. and then we are off to the races.

I am a Christian and I will defend your right to be an atheist to my last breath.  You have every right to your own beliefs.  But, here, on this political forum bearing Ron Paul's name, who is after all a Christian, I would expect members who want to see him elected President, stop with the constant insults against Christians.  The campaign and Ron Paul are going to a lot of effort to court Christians; by tailoring the message to one they can hear.  It just does not make sense for we, the supposed supporters, to be doing our damn best to tear down everything they are doing.  Just what do you think that a new person who comes here will think of Ron Paul when they see all this crap?  For most of today, there were TWO atheist threads on page 1, if you hit New Posts.  TWO.  There were no Christian threads, but 2 atheist threads.  Between this $#@! and the people who are on this board for the sole reason of recruiting for anarchy, I doubt Paul stands much of a chance.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> I am passionate about liberty - but I am also passionate about atheism.  If people start making such ludicrous comments as "athesists for ron paul = statists for ron paul", then I'm not going to sit back and say yeah, you're right, it's a contradiction in terms lol.. becuase it's delusional thinking, based on religious brainwashing.  I wish i could find more palatable terms, but it is what it is. 
> 
> Just as statism will not go away unless we do something about it, religion will linger as well, unless the stigma is lifted with regard to openly refuting religious arguments, and not having respect for childish superstitions and cowardice.  That's why I defend atheism militantly, just as we defend liberty militantly.


You know the man whose forum you are on happens to be a Christian that you seem to despise. While there is nothing wrong with being an Atheist you should realize that there is nothing wrong with being a Christian either or any religious belief for that matter. To win this election we are going to have to appeal to a wide base and that includes Christians and others so to sit here and ridicule religion as being "childish" and "cowardice" is going to really push people away. Please think about that!

----------


## Deborah K

> So you would turn away atheists who support Ron Paul, rather than let them defend their philosophy?  Are you sure you aren't a closet Huckabee supporter?


No!!!  I would never turn atheists away!  If you can't defend your philosophy without ad hominem attacks then you have no legitimate argument to stand on.  What a cheap shot.  You don't even know what the hell you're talking about.




> AFAIK, everyone who has run for president in at least the last century has been a Christian.


Way to completely miss the point.




> Yet calling someone else's beliefs "tripe" is supposed to attract newcomers?


I'm calling his Christian bashing tripe, Genius.





> What about supporting free speech and freedom of religion?  Those are cornerstone beliefs of RP.  I would think newcomers would be attracted to a site and a candidate where people aren't persecuted for their beliefs, and where they feel free to say things that aren't in 100% alignment with their candidate, and yet where they support that candidate anyway


No one is attracted to a mindset that attacks another's belief system for brownie points.  Give me a break!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Go defend your atheism somewhere else!  This forum is named after a Christian who is running for President!!  We do not need the likes of you, promoting your selfish interests where newcomers to Ron Paul can see your tripe!!!!!


I am dissappoint 

I wonder if this is how Ron Paul would respond to such a post.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am dissappoint 
> 
> I wonder if this is how Ron Paul would respond to such a post.


And yet you're not disappointed at esoteric for his Christian bashing.  I see.

----------


## AceNZ

> I thought you might find this interesting.  There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution; contrary to popular opinion.


I agree with RP. The first amendment has been misinterpreted.  The government should not be able to make laws that either forbid or encourage any sort of religious practice, provided that no force or coercion is involved. If someone wants to voluntarily pray in school, I have no problem with that.

However, I and many others still view the first amendment as a separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So you would turn away atheists who support Ron Paul, rather than let them defend their philosophy?  Are you sure you aren't a closet Huckabee supporter?


HOW ABOUT EVERYONE LET EACH OTHER HAVE THEIR OWN DAMN RELIGION.  Stop the damn pot shots, innuendos and insults.  I doubt the usual instigators can do that, however.




> AFAIK, everyone who has run for president in at least the last century has been a Christian.


They SAID they were a Christian.  That does not mean they were one.




> Yet calling someone else's beliefs "tripe" is supposed to attract newcomers?


Go see who drew first blood.




> What about supporting free speech and freedom of religion?


This is a PRIVATE forum.  There is no freedom of speech.  The 1st Amendment applied to the government.



> Those are cornerstone beliefs of RP.


Dr. Paul is a fervent advocate of private property rights.  He also understands the 1st Amendment and it does not mean what you say it means.




> I would think newcomers would be attracted to a site and a candidate where people aren't persecuted for their beliefs, and where they feel free to say things that aren't in 100% alignment with their candidate, and yet where they support that candidate anyway.


We are Ron Paul's ambassadors.  What we say and do reflects on Dr. Paul and his chances of becoming President.  Right now, he is trying to win the Republican nomination.  The Republican party is largely made up of Christians.  At the same time that he is doing his best to win them over, you are here bashing them.  Does that make sense to you?  It wouldn't be a big deal for a few comments, but TWO THREADS TITLED WITH ATHEISM were on the front page all day long.  No threads about Christianity were there that I saw.  Just ATHEIST ones.  

Sheesh, people.  Do you frickin' want Ron Paul to win?  Or, is this some kind of damn game with some of you?  I swear, this is so frustrating.  Why in hell should I even waste my time calling anymore Republicans in Iowa, when some of you are back here doing your damnedest to sink his campaign?

I am so disgusted.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> And yet you're not disappointed at esoteric for his Christian bashing.  I see.


I think philosophical ideas are open for full discussion on the off topics/ hot topics/ philosophy boards, unless im mistaken.  I would agree that Personal insults are bad.

There is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people, and i think that distinction is important, don't you?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I agree with RP. The first amendment has been misinterpreted.  The government should not be able to make laws that either forbid or encourage any sort of religious practice, provided that no force or coercion is involved. If someone wants to voluntarily pray in school, I have no problem with that.
> 
> However, I and many others still view the first amendment as a separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."


Well, you obviously do NOT agree with Ron Paul.  Because he clearly disagrees with your interpretation.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think philosophical ideas are open for full discussion on the off topics/ hot topics/ philosophy boards, unless im mistaken.  I would agree that Personal insults are bad.
> 
> There is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people, and i think that distinction is important, don't you?


Faith in God is not an "idea".  It's a belief system.  If you think it's okay to attack a belief system with insults rather than facts, then never again complain when your belief system (atheism) is attacked with insults.  And as long as there are people on this forum attacking Ron Paul's values using insulting words, and parodies to attacke those values, you can rest assured it will be addressed by those of us who have had enough!

----------


## AceNZ

> No!!!  I would never turn atheists away!  If you can't defend your philosophy without ad hominem attacks then you have no legitimate argument to stand on.  What a cheap shot.  You don't even know what the hell you're talking about.


OK, so I must have misinterpreted what you said.  You know: "Go defend your atheism somewhere else!"




> Way to completely miss the point.


Wasn't your point that criticizing Christianity would somehow damage RP's candidacy, because he is Christian?

My point was that how could it damage him any more than it would damage every other candidate at the same time, since they are also Christian.




> I'm calling his Christian bashing tripe, Genius.


OK, except that's not what you said, which was: "We do not need the likes of you, promoting your selfish interests where newcomers to Ron Paul can see your tripe!!!!!"  I don't see anything there about Christian bashing.  I also didn't view the post of Esoteric's that you responded to as being Christian bashing.  He wrote about religion in general, not Christianity specifically.




> No one is attracted to a mindset that attacks another's belief system for brownie points.  Give me a break!


What you describe as "attacking another's belief system" most people see as intellectual debate.  The whole foundation of free speech is to support the right of other people to say things that you strongly disagree with, including things that bash your belief system.

BTW, if you think Christians are being bashed here, you have no idea what it's like growing up as an atheist in the US.  Talk about being bashed, shunned, criticized, marginalized, mocked and ostracized!

----------


## LibertyEagle

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nd-ambassadors

----------


## LibertyEagle

> My point was that how could it damage him any more than it would damage every other candidate at the same time, since they are also Christian.


Because the Christian-bashing is being done on *RON PAUL* forums.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Faith in God is not an "idea".  It's a belief system.


I am aware.  A belief system is still an idea and/or a series of ideas.




> If you think it's okay to attack a belief system with insults rather than facts, then never again complain when your belief system (atheism) is attacked with insults.


I think everything and everyone should be made fun of, for the sake of humility and honesty. 




> And as long as there are people on this forum attacking Ron Paul's values using insulting words, and parodies to attacke those values, you can rest assured it will be addressed by those of us who have had enough!


I think you have bigger dragons to slay, if ya know what i mean.

----------


## Deborah K

> OK, so I must have misinterpreted what you said.  You know: "Go defend your atheism somewhere else!"


As I've already stated, you have a pretty weak case if you need to insult a belief system in order to defend your position.




> Wasn't your point that criticizing Christianity would somehow damage RP's candidacy, because he is Christian?
> 
> My point was that how could it damage him any more than it would damage every other candidate at the same time, since they are also Christian.


NO, this was not my point. Making your case using logic and reason wouldn't damage his election.  Nuff said on that point.




> OK, except that's not what you said, which was: "We do not need the likes of you, promoting your selfish interests where newcomers to Ron Paul can see your tripe!!!!!"  I don't see anything there about Christian bashing.  I also didn't view the post of Esoteric's that you responded to as being Christian bashing.  He wrote about religion in general, not Christianity specifically.


 I don't distinguish between "religion" and "Christianity" when it comes to issues such as this because the terms are interchangeable since the issue revolves around atheism vs. faith in God.  Read his post again and switch it around so that it reads like he was talking about atheists and then tell me it wasn't insulting.




> What you describe as "attacking another's belief system" most people see as intellectual debate.  The whole foundation of free speech is to support the right of other people to say things that you strongly disagree with, including things that bash your belief system.


So you consider using insulting language as intellectual debate?  Well, that's really all I need to know about you.





> BTW, if you think Christians are being bashed here, you have no idea what it's like growing up as an atheist in the US.  Talk about being bashed, shunned, criticized, marginalized, mocked and ostracized


So is this what this is really all about?  Atheists with hurt feelings have found a venue where they can get some pay-back?

----------


## Deborah K

> I am aware.  A belief system is still an idea and/or a series of ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> I think everything and everyone should be made fun of, for the sake of humility and honesty. 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have bigger dragons to slay, if ya know what i mean.


I can slay big dragons and do this.  I'm a woman, we're good at multi-tasking.  But thanks for the concern.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I can slay big dragons and do this.  I'm a woman, we're good at multi-tasking.  But thanks for the concern.


haha, no problem.  Slay them god dam dragons down to the ground, Deb.!

----------


## Revolution9

> I am aware
> 
> 
> 
> I think everything and everyone should be made fun of, for the sake of humility and honesty.


Well.. Should I join the fray on the side of Christians to show what a bunch of halfwit, incompetently thinking, 3D laboratory Universe hypnotized, materialistic, uncomprehending blowhards the whole lots of anarchists posting incessantly here are by babbling and drooling this crap incessantly, wafting up like the effluvience of an abattoir gutter, flinging puerile agitprop and backhanded insults about other peoples true beliefs and faith in the One True God, when you simply think YOU are the $#@!, you created yourself and bootstrapped yourself into an upright position with jaw a jibber jabbering between stuffing it with pie?

Yer Pal
Rev9

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Well.. Should I join the fray on the side of Christians to show what a bunch of halfwit, incompetently thinking, 3D laboratory Universe hypnotized, materialistic, uncomprehending blowhards the whole lots of anarchists posting incessantly here are by babbling and drooling this crap incessantly, wafting up like the effluvience of an abattoir gutter, flinging puerile agitprop and backhanded insults about other peoples true beliefs and faith in the One True God, when you simply think YOU are the $#@!, you created yourself and bootstrapped yourself into an upright position with jaw a jibber jabbering between stuffing it with pie?
> 
> Yer Pal
> Rev9


Suddenly, i'm hungry for pie.

----------


## Theocrat

> Suddenly, i'm hungry for pie.


Excuse me, Clay, but are you seriously supporting Ron Paul's campaign, or are you just here to promote anarchy and "Atheism" to the entire forum?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Excuse me, Clay, but are you seriously supporting Ron Paul's campaign, or are you just here to promote anarchy and "Atheism" to the entire forum?


By wanting pie?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Excuse me, Clay, but are you seriously supporting Ron Paul's campaign, or are you just here to promote anarchy and "Atheism" to the entire forum?


I'm not here to promote anything really, other than individual liberty and free-markets.  I am just here in representation of myself and my thoughts

----------


## ClayTrainor

> By wanting pie?

----------


## reillym

> So is this what this is really all about?  Atheists with hurt feelings have found a venue where they can get some pay-back?


Christians aren't bashed on this forum, ignorance is. The fact that they two coincide much of the time is irrelevant to the intentions of the people on this board.

----------


## MelissaWV

> 


Is that... an anarchy pie?  It is!!!

----------


## Revolution9

> Christians aren't bashed on this forum, ignorance is. The fact that they two coincide much of the time is irrelevant to the intentions of the people on this board.


Perhaps you would like to explain where they coincide and use examples of real Christian ethics and philosophy. Not this phony point a finger at some historical double-minded psychopath who hid within Churchianity whilst proclaiming themselves in public a Christian but doing the handiwork of "the devil", to use a metaphor for a particularly malevolent power and principle. I think the sepulcher you will fashion will be of dust and bone and within it's chamber only the illusions of the self deluded sorcerer will prevail.

Best Regards
Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Is that... an anarchy pie?  It is!!!


Looks like post dose munchies to me.. Cherry too..one of my faves!

Rev9

----------


## Carehn

Are you guys still going off about this? Why not just say that half of god exists and call it good.

Edit - Lets end this

Honestly not one of you on this site believes in god. End of story. You may lie about it but that's the truth. You know it. You will not admit to it but YOU ( and by you I mean YOU) will not admit to it. 

No healthy working mind can 'believe' in god or anything else without some 'reason' to do so. Don't go off about the sky and sea and birds being a reason. You know damn well they are not.

----------


## Revolution9

> I'm not here to promote anything really, other than individual liberty and free-markets.  I am just here in representation of myself and my thoughts


Well, I do say I like you much better than some of the clownage and their vaudeville acts. Not verbose, somewhat subtle and intellectual, waits for a good shot before taking one. We could use that type of supporter to assist with untoward intrusions as they occur, without resorting to banishment and all that BS. Just the loudmouths in the corner of the party make quite alot of noise, ya know..the type of idiots that are at a rock show or shindig or party and they just gotta make some other group or person who cannot defend themselves against their group, the butt of their jokes..kinda like bullies and $#@!. Someone wants to knock their lights out for disrespect and they whine they weren't doing crap to deserve it. I am sure if you have been around the block once or twice you have ventured into these twits as some venue or other. That is kinda what a few buttwads do around here. I never liked me no bullies much being an army brat stuffed through 12 schools in ten years and dealing with them at every new school, so I learned a few things about them and how to frustrate the $#@! out of them, and make groups of folks laugh at them when they were trying to humiliate me as the new kid in town. ..Served me well in business affairs later with a few adjustments. Kept some forums fairly tidy over the years and let the good folks go about the business of the forum. Be glad if ya helped out with the promoting part of supporting Ron Paul, individual liberty and real free markets.

Best
Rev9

----------


## MelissaWV

> Are you guys still going off about this? Why not just say that half of god exists and call it good.
> 
> Edit - Lets end this
> 
> Honestly not one of you on this site believes in god. End of story. You may lie about it but that's the truth. You know it. You will not admit to it but YOU ( and by you I mean YOU) will not admit to it. 
> 
> No healthy working mind can 'believe' in god or anything else without some 'reason' to do so. Don't go off about the sky and sea and birds being a reason. You know damn well they are not.


It had turned into a friendly thread about pie until this.  

Oddly, I do believe in God.  The particulars are of no matter.

That pie, however, is delicious-looking.

----------


## Carehn

> It had turned into a friendly thread about pie until this.  
> 
> Oddly, I do believe in God.  The particulars are of no matter.
> 
> That pie, however, is delicious-looking.


Damn. I must have missed it!

I take it all back.

Now what about this pie. I will go back a page.

----------


## Revolution9

> Are you guys still going off about this? Why not just say that half of god exists and call it good.
> 
> Edit - Lets end this
> 
> Honestly not one of you on this site believes in god. End of story. You may lie about it but that's the truth. You know it. You will not admit to it but YOU ( and by you I mean YOU) will not admit to it. 
> 
> No healthy working mind can 'believe' in god or anything else without some 'reason' to do so. Don't go off about the sky and sea and birds being a reason. You know damn well they are not.


If a boulder falls on your foot you know it. My mind is for this world. My heart is not but mitigates my travels through this world. Once the boulder of experience of God falls on your head, you know it in your heart and everything around you, above and below you is a part of that apocalypse (the removing of the leather masks)...until your mind makes you forget by tarrying in time again beyond the moment. A tough place to remain in constantly, but no mistaking it for illusion or counterfeit hallucination.

HTH
Rev9.

----------


## Revolution9

> Damn. I must have missed it!
> 
> I take it all back.
> 
> Now what about this pie. I will go back a page.


A is for Awesome pie. I may make a peach one. The problem is I am not sure I can make a classic pie crust with gluten free flower. I like to use flour, butter, sat, cold water and yummy pie filling. Anybody have any experience with gluten free baking of pies?

Rev9

----------


## Carehn

edit - I want nothing to do with this thread and I love you all.

----------


## angelatc

> Excuse me, Clay, but are you seriously supporting Ron Paul's campaign, or are you just here to promote anarchy and "Atheism" to the entire forum?


IIRC he's Canadian. He can't donate or even vote.  Yeah, he's totally here to support Ron Paul.

----------


## angelatc

> Christians aren't bashed on this forum, ignorance is. The fact that they two coincide much of the time is irrelevant to the intentions of the people on this board.


Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Christians are routinely bashed on this forum, and it is entirely relevant to the intentions of the people on this board.  Doug Wead is working hard to appeal to the evangelical voters, while half of us here are praying they don't come here and see the intolerant venom that the atheists produce.

----------


## MelissaWV



----------


## Esoteric

> Are you guys still going off about this? Why not just say that half of god exists and call it good.
> 
> Edit - Lets end this
> 
> Honestly not one of you on this site believes in god. End of story. You may lie about it but that's the truth. You know it. You will not admit to it but YOU ( and by you I mean YOU) will not admit to it. 
> 
> No healthy working mind can 'believe' in god or anything else without some 'reason' to do so. Don't go off about the sky and sea and birds being a reason. You know damn well they are not.


You'd think they would be that rational.. but for believers, faith is somehow passed off as a good reason to believe something.. and unlike religions of the past, the writers of modern theologies made a clear attempt to make the existence of a god un-falsifiable.  In the past, the gods were in the mountains, in the clouds, or in the sea.  Mormons still believe that their heaven is in our physical universe.  So now, faith + unfalsifiable god = belief in X religion.  It's such a sinister thing when you think about it.  

The writers of the bible even copied the stories of the egyptian god Horus for the foundation of the story of Jesus.  

*Horus:*
Born of a virgin, named "Isis-Miri"
Born on the 25th of December
Birth was announced by a star in the east
Birth was attended by 3 wise men.  
He had 12 disciples
was Resurrected after death

It doesn't take a 200 IQ to see religion for exactly what it is, yet it boggles my mind as to how many seemingly intelligent people in non-scientific areas still cling to blind faith-based existential superstitions.

By the way, it's fine if you disagree with me, but I sense a bit of the hostility may be directed toward the atheists here.  May I suggest that it is because refuting your religion touches you at the core of your existence?  We aren't making fun of something childish and vain like, say your looks.  We're refuting an IDEA that you hold.  I love a good debate, but I guess this is what happens when the opposition is left speechless - silly attacks.  I don't see anyone suggesting someone like aquabuddah get banned, for his equally as militant (though slightly less logical ) defense of his religion.

----------


## TER

My only meager contribution to this thread is to address something pasted here by the OP:




> The writers of the bible even copied the stories of the egyptian god Horus for the foundation of the story of Jesus.  
> 
> *Horus:*
> Born of a virgin, named "Isis-Miri"
> Born on the 25th of December
> Birth was announced by a star in the east
> Birth was attended by 3 wise men.  
> He had 12 disciples
> was Resurrected after death.


Christians, while the most blessed of God, do not own exclusive rights to God, for He is the Father of all people and all creatures.

Christ fulfilled not only the hundreds of prophecy in the Old Testament, which were ministered by angels and through the mouths and witness of the holy Prophets of Israel, but fulfilled the prophecy of holy men and women living thousands of years apart from each other and spanning the entire globe.  This is the work of angels and confessed and confirmed through the mouths and witness of the holy Prophets of every age, finding it's ultimate and salvific truth in Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Reason, Wisdom, Logos, Tao, and Word of God.

What I pasted above shows a feigned or deliberate ignorance of history, for the circumstances regarding His birth and His death have been consistent since the very beginning, and are those which have been taught, preserved, defended and died for all the way back to the very Apostles.  These men gave their very life as a witness to the truth they had discovered, or more accurately, was uncovered for them.  

Tell me, would anyone here sacrifice their very life to assert the truth that the nativity account was fabricated and 'copied' from ancient Egyptian confessions for deceitful and nefarious reasons?  Or to testify to the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

But these holy and virtuous men, and the men after them, and so on and so forth, and two thousand years later, and billions upon billions of believers and countless numbers of martyrs later, the witness and the confession is that the similarities between an ancient Egyptian religion are neither coincidental nor inconsequential, but rather revealing and truth-bringing, _timeless_ truths that man did not discover by the power of their own minds, but by the providence and will of God, Who gave knowledge to those who sought Him, even as they sought Him in part.

When the enemy of God sees examples of religious worship or belief that predates Christ and which have remarkable similarities, he will claim 'BS!', or 'It's forgery!', or 'It's fabrication!', when he has_ no proof at all_ to make these claims other than the fact that if it weren't what he has made himself believe it to be, then it would be* an actual fulfillment in prophecy, an eternal truth which defies all human understanding*, having them to endure a massive quake to the very foundation of their understanding about life and the meaning of it.

These quakes can only be temporarily avoided (if at all), for the confession is that one day we will all give an account of our lives.

But because we choose to justify our sins, or make excuses for them, or simply cover our eyes and believe sins do not exist, we must _needs_ make Him impotent and powerless, and so point at Him and mock Him and crucify Him or simply ignore Him, so that _we_ might be the god of our reality and master of the anarchy of our thoughts, unaided and unsupported by the One Who brought us into existence and Who gives us life.  Instead, we are full of malice and jealousy and hate, all brought forth from our pride and self-worship.

Indeed, Christ fulfilled the philosophies of the ancients of philosophers, and to this we ascribe glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Life-giving Spirit! Amen.

----------


## Revolution9

> The writers of the bible even copied the stories of the egyptian god Horus for the foundation of the story of Jesus.  
> 
> *Horus:*
> Born of a virgin, named "Isis-Miri"
> Born on the 25th of December
> Birth was announced by a star in the east
> Birth was attended by 3 wise men.  
> He had 12 disciples
> was Resurrected after death
> .


Which came first..The Deity or the myth? There are sigils and signposts pointing to destinations and entities for a purpose and it isn't academic.

Like pie. Or Pi in the sky. It is great to eat a pie on a sunny day. Nourishment for the soul/sol I would say.

Pie Eater
Rev9

----------


## Esoteric



----------


## Alternative 336

There have been a handful of Atheists, who haven't been offensive on this topic and a handful who have. The Horus and Jesus comparisons aren't entirely factual and this alone doesn't prove that Jesus wasn't who he said he was. No serious historian doubts that Jesus existed, so the question is, is Jesus the messiah? Well, one of the popular arguments is that Jesus being the son of God serves as the best explanation for the empty tomb, spread of Christianity, and post-mortem appearances. In Jewish culture, the idea of resurrection wasn't common. So it was an odd position to take. There also appears to be no reason why they would make up the story and then knowing they were lying die gruesome deaths. 

And as for some of the other stuff I hear, about "rationality" and "every Christian lying". Get real guys, repeating the mantra that faith is irrational doesn't make it true. You can have such a thing as reasonable faith. You take a leap of faith just being an Atheist, because you assume a naturalistic explanation to everything, when you can't know for sure and Christians take a leap of faith as well. Leave it be, because these debates can get so complex when I personally don't think it is necessary. I think you can earnestly seek God and you will know, wholly apart from any philosophical arguments.

----------


## Esoteric

> Get real guys, repeating the mantra that faith is irrational doesn't make it true.


You're right!  Repeating it doesn't make it true.  It's true because it's true!  There's a name for the type of fallacy you committed with that post .. it's slipping my mind.

I'd love to  hear your logic behind your assertion that faith is a rational basis for formulating any belief.

----------


## RM918

You know, I'm pretty sure it's possible to be an atheist without insulting someone else's customs and insinuating that people with different customs than you are 'illogical' and believe in 'fairy tales'. And if you don't already realize this, you aren't as logical as you would proclaim.

----------


## Alternative 336

> You're right!  Repeating it doesn't make it true.  It's true because it's true!  There's a name for the type of fallacy you committed with that post .. it's slipping my mind.
> 
> I'd love to  hear your logic behind your assertion that faith is a rational basis for formulating any belief.


Reply to the historicity of Jesus and the defense that Jesus being the Son of God was the best explanation for the events following Jesus' Death, knowing that it wasn't Jewish custom to believe in Resurrection in that same post you quoted. I haven't seen any deep thought processes from you yet, other than insults and pop-atheist lines like "Christians believe in fairy tales", "belief in God is irrational", etc. You are going to have to surface positive arguments that show that God can't possibly exist.

----------


## AceNZ

> You take a leap of faith just being an Atheist, because you assume a naturalistic explanation to everything, when you can't know for sure and Christians take a leap of faith as well.


This is not true. There is no "leap of faith" required to be an atheist.  Faith is a belief in something without evidence or reason, usually based in emotions (and ultimately faith in the superiority of others).

As an atheist, I don't need faith to explain the world around me.  I don't _assume_ a "naturalistic explanation," I can see it with my own eyes.  I can tell that the world exists, that my consciousness observes it, and that things are what they are.  I know that my senses are reliable.  I explain the things around me by using my mind to apply reason, to process incoming percepts into concepts.  So yes, I can know for sure.  I feel sorry for anyone who believes they can't.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think philosophical ideas are open for full discussion on the off topics/ hot topics/ philosophy boards, unless im mistaken.  I would agree that Personal insults are bad.
> 
> There is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people, and i think that distinction is important, don't you?



There are ways to attack ideas that don't attack people.  Calling something people believe in a fairy tale is calling the person believing it an idiot.  You can say why YOU don't believe, that you have seen no evidence or had no evidence you found credible presented or whatever, you certainly can defend atheism and people shouldn't attack your views or say it is because you are an idiot, either.  

The one thing here that troubles me is the idea mentioned by Esoteric that 'religion shouldn't linger' and trying to _eradicate religion_ is different from being an atheist yourself.  Tolerance is the byword here, trying to eradicate someone's faith, be it in God or in a godless universe, is different than just defending or explaining your own. THAT I would object to.  

I'm not reading this whole thing.... I'm a very lazy mod.  But if there is a real problem in terms of trying to eradicate religion HERE (what you do elsewhere not being my business) report it and a mod will evaluate it.

----------


## Travlyr

> I am passionate about liberty - but I am also passionate about atheism.  If people start making such ludicrous comments as "athesists for ron paul = statists for ron paul", then I'm not going to sit back and say yeah, you're right, it's a contradiction in terms lol.. becuase it's delusional thinking, based on religious brainwashing.  I wish i could find more palatable terms, but it is what it is. 
> 
> Just as statism will not go away unless we do something about it, religion will linger as well, unless the stigma is lifted with regard to openly refuting religious arguments, and not having respect for childish superstitions and cowardice.  That's why I defend atheism militantly, just as we defend liberty militantly.


Interesting take.

Atheism is your choice. It is not mine. How can I know which of us is right? What is right for you is not right for me. If the universe is expanding, then logically there had to be a beginning. Who, what, how did it start? I have no way of knowing ... only guesses.

When I was very young, I learned that Jesus was my friend. Since I was scared of the dark and I liked to hang-out in the woods by the river, it was comforting knowing that I was not alone.

Later, I quit going to church because the church I was going to wanted me to be dressed up in a suit while presenting myself to God. I did not have money for a suit, and I figured God had to take me as I am anyway.

Now, it is still comforting knowing that I'm not alone. Why does that matter to you? It is peaceful for me.

----------


## sailingaway

> This is not true. There is no "leap of faith" required to be an atheist.  Faith is a belief in something without evidence or reason, usually based in emotions (and ultimately faith in the superiority of others).
> 
> As an atheist, I don't need faith to explain the world around me.  I don't _assume_ a "naturalistic explanation," I can see it with my own eyes.  I can tell that the world exists, that my consciousness observes it, and that things are what they are.  I know that my senses are reliable.  I explain the things around me by using my mind to apply reason, to process incoming percepts into concepts.  So yes, I can know for sure.  I feel sorry for anyone who believes they can't.


I disagree with this but you are entitled to your belief

----------


## Deborah K

> You'd think they would be that rational.. but for believers, faith is somehow passed off as a good reason to believe something.. and unlike religions of the past, the writers of modern theologies made a clear attempt to make the existence of a god un-falsifiable.  In the past, the gods were in the mountains, in the clouds, or in the sea.  Mormons still believe that their heaven is in our physical universe.  So now, faith + unfalsifiable god = belief in X religion.  It's such a sinister thing when you think about it.  
> 
> The writers of the bible even copied the stories of the egyptian god Horus for the foundation of the story of Jesus.  
> 
> *Horus:*
> Born of a virgin, named "Isis-Miri"
> Born on the 25th of December
> Birth was announced by a star in the east
> Birth was attended by 3 wise men.  
> ...


What a total hypocrite!   And may I remind you, in your self righteousness, that Ron Paul is a Christian.  Get it???  It doesn't take an IQ score of 200........

----------


## Deborah K

> Christians aren't bashed on this forum, ignorance is. The fact that they two coincide much of the time is irrelevant to the intentions of the people on this board.


Well then, allow me to bash some more on ignorance - YOUR ignorance, if you think Christians aren't bashed on this forum.  You are doing your side no justice with comments like this for the whole forum to see. You are either as ignorant as you claim religion is, or you are dishonest, or both.

Get it through your thick skull - criticism of religion with the use of logic and fact is NOT the issue - bashing the values of the man this forum is named after will no longer be tolerated by those of us who want him in the White House.  It's just that simple.

----------


## Deborah K

> Are you guys still going off about this? Why not just say that half of god exists and call it good.
> 
> Edit - Lets end this
> 
> *Honestly not one of you on this site believes in god*. End of story. You may lie about it but that's the truth. You know it. You will not admit to it but YOU ( and by you I mean YOU) will not admit to it. 
> 
> No healthy working mind can 'believe' in god or anything else without some 'reason' to do so. Don't go off about the sky and sea and birds being a reason. You know damn well they are not.


Project much?

----------


## Bman

> My argument is that an atheist worldview using either utilitarianism or natural law does not provide an adequate philosophical foundation for prescriptions.  Both systems fail to provide a logical or compelling basis to say one _ought_ to do anything.  Both systems commit the naturalistic fallacy.  I have shown this many times on this formu and I provided you a link where I spent a lot of time detailing the arguments with quotations.
> 
> If you want to debate then let's go.


I've got to stop reading through this thread after this post and say...

This from someone who believes that a virgin birth and resurrection is a foundation for a belief system?

Hold on...



It's coming....






OK.  I feel much better now.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've got to stop reading through this thread after this post and say...
> 
> This from someone who believes that a virgin birth and resurrection is a foundation for a belief system?
> 
> Hold on...
> 
> 
> 
> It's coming....
> ...


Srsly?  That's the best counter-argument you have?  If so, you lose the debate.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Srsly?  That's the best counter-argument you have?  If so, you lose the debate.


There's a debate going on?  I thought people were just trying to make themselves feel infinitely superior by putting down others' attempts to answer questions they can't even answer for themselves.

----------


## Esoteric

> You know, I'm pretty sure it's possible to be an atheist without insulting someone else's customs and insinuating that people with different customs than you are 'illogical' and believe in 'fairy tales'. And if you don't already realize this, you aren't as logical as you would proclaim.


I find nothing wrong with this, and I don't agree with your terminology.  If someone comes from a family of statists, and I argue the case for liberty, am I insulting someone's customs, or do I have the right to make my case?  There is no reason why religion shouldn't be the subject of scrutiny, just like any other topic.  If I'm debating a statist,  the debate is about an ideology.  If I call statism, for example, cowardly, or a fairy tale, I'd be met with counter-arguments.  Also, in the context which I use these terms, they aren't personal attacks, as I have a basis for believing these things regarding religion.  If you believe I am somehow a coward for being an atheist, I'd love to hear your rational basis.  

I call religious believers are cowards because they cling to their belief in order to have comforting answers to existential questions.  They surround themselves with people who are equally as deluded, in order to reinforce their blind faith-based beliefs.  They are afraid to accept scientific facts which contradict their holy book.  They are afraid of accepting life for what it likely is.  They avoid analyzing human existence rationally, but prefer to use blind faith.  This is cowardly behavior, and irrational behavior.  The only reason why it persists is because people want so badly to believe that their life has meaning beyond the physical - something which has never been the case, and there is NO reason to believe it will ever be.  

I've noticed that it is a common tactic for theologians to attack the fact that skeptics are even questioning their religion.  If I want to refer to religions as fairy tales,  then you should try to convince me otherwise, rather than attacking the fact that I am challenging your position.

----------


## Deborah K

> I find nothing wrong with this, and I don't agree with your terminology.  If someone comes from a family of statists, and I argue the case for liberty, am I insulting someone's customs, or do I have the right to make my case?  There is no reason why religion shouldn't be the subject of scrutiny, just like any other topic.  If I'm debating a statist,  the debate is about an ideology.  If I call statism, for example, cowardly, or a fairy tale, I'd be met with counter-arguments.  Also, in the context which I use these terms, they aren't personal attacks, as I have a basis for believing these things regarding religion.  If you believe I am somehow a coward for being an atheist, I'd love to hear your rational basis.  
> 
> I call  religious believers *Ron Paul is a* are cowards because they cling to their belief in order to have comforting answers to existential questions.  They * Ron Paul* surround themselves with people who are equally as deluded, in order to reinforce their blind faith-based beliefs. They * Ron Paul is* are afraid to accept scientific facts which contradict their holy book. They  *Ron Paul is* are afraid of accepting life for what it likely is.  They *Ron Paul * avoid analyzing human existence rationally, but prefer to use blind faith.  This is cowardly behavior, and irrational behavior.  The only reason why it persists is because people want so badly to believe that their life has meaning beyond the physical - something which has never been the case, and there is NO reason to believe it will ever be.  
> 
> I've noticed that it is a common tactic for theologians to attack the fact that skeptics are even questioning their religion.  If I want to refer to religions as fairy tales,  then you should try to convince me otherwise, rather than attacking the fact that I am challenging your position.



Do you f'king get it yet????

----------


## Theocrat

> ...I've noticed that it is a common tactic for theologians to attack the fact that skeptics are even questioning their religion.  If I want to refer to religions as fairy tales,  then you should try to convince me otherwise, rather than attacking the fact that I am challenging your position.


The interesting thing is skeptics are never skeptical of their own skepticism.

----------


## Theocrat

> Do you f'king get it yet????


Since he's not understanding the logical implications of his challenge towards religious believers, in general, and Christians, in particular, let me break it down for him in a syllogism:

*Premise A:* Religious people are cowards who live in delusion, based on blind faith, and reject scientific facts because they do not want to accept reality.

*Premise B:* Ron Paul is a religious person (being a Christian).

*Conclusion:* Therefore, Ron Paul is a coward who lives in delusion, based on blind faith, and rejects scientific facts because he does not want to accept reality.

That's basically what you're saying about Ron Paul, Esoteric, and if you really believe that, then why do you support him and visit these forums?

----------


## Deborah K

> Since he's not understanding the logical implications of his challenge towards religious believers, in general, and Christians, in particular, let me break it down for him in a syllogism:
> 
> *Premise A:* Religious people are cowards who live in delusion, based on blind faith, and reject scientific facts because they do not want to accept reality.
> 
> *Premise B:* Ron Paul is a religious person (being a Christian).
> 
> 
> 
> *Conclusion:* Therefore, Ron Paul is a coward who lives in delusion, based on blind faith, and rejects scientific facts because he does not want to accept reality.
> ...


This thread has just been pwn'd

----------


## kill the banks

even skeptics can define an intelligent entity ... of all the limbic characteristics we live though that dilute our behavior from being one I would suggest the golden rule is the true spirit of love and truth and the highest characteristic function of an intelligent entity ... did Christ see it more than you ? 

~ the more physics advances ( ie entanglement quantum theory ) the more one sees a v real communion in the physical reality of the matter and a true intelligent skeptic would agree we mostly waste our time arguing what we both truly want to be

----------


## Alternative 336

> I find nothing wrong with this, and I don't agree with your terminology.  If someone comes from a family of statists, and I argue the case for liberty, am I insulting someone's customs, or do I have the right to make my case?  There is no reason why religion shouldn't be the subject of scrutiny, just like any other topic.  If I'm debating a statist,  the debate is about an ideology.  If I call statism, for example, cowardly, or a fairy tale, I'd be met with counter-arguments.  Also, in the context which I use these terms, they aren't personal attacks, as I have a basis for believing these things regarding religion.  If you believe I am somehow a coward for being an atheist, I'd love to hear your rational basis.  
> 
> I call religious believers are cowards because they cling to their belief in order to have comforting answers to existential questions.  They surround themselves with people who are equally as deluded, in order to reinforce their blind faith-based beliefs.  They are afraid to accept scientific facts which contradict their holy book.  They are afraid of accepting life for what it likely is.  They avoid analyzing human existence rationally, but prefer to use blind faith.  This is cowardly behavior, and irrational behavior.  The only reason why it persists is because people want so badly to believe that their life has meaning beyond the physical - something which has never been the case, and there is NO reason to believe it will ever be.  
> 
> I've noticed that it is a common tactic for theologians to attack the fact that skeptics are even questioning their religion.  If I want to refer to religions as fairy tales,  then you should try to convince me otherwise, rather than attacking the fact that I am challenging your position.


We all know this game, Esoteric. You aren't looking to be convinced, you are looking to piss people off and waste their time! If you are so sure of your Atheism, go look up William Lane Craig debates, go to websites like www.carm.org, read a C.S. Lewis book. How about you actually take time to understand the Christian worldview (then assess if you really think it's so far-fetched to believe in God) instead of acting like a brat on the forums. This whole thread was just a big cry for attention.

As for the rest of your post: People aren't deluded, if you want to go that route then scientifically show me the part of the brain, the imbalance of chemicals, that makes someone a Christian. Also, science and religion don't contradict. Contemporary cosmology is right in line with the universe having an absolute beginning for one. If God can create the universe, surely the same God can manipulate natural laws to prove his divinity, and resurrect Jesus (that is small time in comparison to creating the universe).

----------


## AceNZ

> That's basically what you're saying about Ron Paul, Esoteric, and if you really believe that, then why do you support him and visit these forums?


You make a very good argument. I am now wondering why I am here at all, and why I spent all that time, money and effort supporting RP in 2008.

Originally I thought RPF was a place where I could find like-minded people for interesting discussion and debate on subjects that are of interest to me.  Now I see that rational discussion is not possible with a large fraction of the people here.  If RP won the white house, would his staff be a reflection of this group?

----------


## Deborah K

> You make a very good argument. I am now wondering why I am here at all, and why I spent all that time, money and effort supporting RP in 2008.
> 
> Originally I thought RPF was a place where I could find like-minded people for interesting discussion and debate on subjects that are of interest to me.  Now I see that rational discussion is not possible with a large fraction of the people here.  If RP won the white house, would his staff be a reflection of this group?


Are you admitting that you can't make a logical argument against religion without insulting believers?  Because that is the issue at hand here, no matter how you'd love to wordsmith it.  Atheists can't, on the one hand, call the religious illogical, irrational, cowards, and then conveniently omit Dr. Paul from their insulting analogies.

----------


## AceNZ

> Are you admitting that you can't make a logical argument against religion without insulting believers?


I thought I knew the difference between what's insulting and what's not, but maybe I'm wrong.  I don't think my posts have been insulting, and I certainly never intentionally insulted anyone -- but you tell me.




> Because that is the issue at hand here, no matter how you'd love to wordsmith it.


From your perspective, I can see why you think that's the issue.  From my perspective, it's something completely different.  I've made many posts trying to explain it, and all I get back is what a crazy person I am. I have never been looking for agreement here, just understanding.  Seems to be impossible.




> Atheists can't, on the one hand, call the religious illogical, irrational, cowards, and then conveniently omit Dr. Paul from their insulting analogies.


Yes, and herein lies my mistake. I thought RP was able to keep his religion separate from his politics, so it didn't bother me. As I talk with Christians on this forum, I'm starting to believe that's not really true -- which makes me reconsider my choice.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You make a very good argument. I am now wondering why I am here at all, and why I spent all that time, money and effort supporting RP in 2008.
> 
> Originally I thought RPF was a place where I could find like-minded people for interesting discussion and debate on subjects that are of interest to me.  Now I see that rational discussion is not possible with a large fraction of the people here.  *If RP won the white house, would his staff be a reflection of this group?*


Let's hope not.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I thought I knew the difference between what's insulting and what's not, but maybe I'm wrong.  I don't think my posts have been insulting, and I certainly never intentionally insulted anyone -- but you tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> From your perspective, I can see why you think that's the issue.  From my perspective, it's something completely different.  I've made many posts trying to explain it, and all I get back is what a crazy person I am. I have never been looking for agreement here, just understanding.  Seems to be impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and herein lies my mistake. I thought RP was able to keep his religion separate from his politics, so it didn't bother me. As I talk with Christians on this forum, I'm starting to believe that's not really true -- which makes me reconsider my choice.


I sympathize with your attempts to communicate, but you should understand that there really is a problem on these forums with people who do not think their generalizations through.  Consider the following (and no, I am not quoting you directly)...

Christians are unable to separate their religion from themselves (but I love Ron Paul, a Christian, because he can hold his own beliefs, be a firm and vocal Christian, yet have room in his mind and heart not to legislate his particular flavor of religious beliefs on the rest of us).

You believe those fairy tales?  What an irrational person you are! (but I love Ron Paul, because he is a rational, logical person who wants to get this country on the right track).

Christians want their stupid Creationism taught in schools.  It's a step in the wrong direction.  If people were educated, they would not believe all this nonsense. (but I love Ron Paul, who not only wants to do away with the DOE, but is a highly-educated human being who does, in fact, believe a great deal of this nonsense).

* * *

It is not, despite other posters' attempts to say it is, limited to religion.  Let's consider things further:

If you're in the military, you're there to kill.  You're a tool of the Military Industrial Complex, etc.. (but I love Ron Paul, who served admirably in the military helping people and not killing people, and who is the only one in the race with military experience).

Congress?  Pah!  Politicians.  I wish someone would clean up Washington through and through.  None of them are worth a damn.  (but I love Ron Paul, who has served quite some time in the House, and who now has a son in the Senate who isn't too shabby).

Old people suck.  The previous generation gave us all our problems, and shackled us into slavery to pay for their Medicare and Social Security and stuff.  (but I love Ron Paul, who presides happily over his family of several generations, and who was born before Pearl Harbor was even an idea in the back of someone's mind).

Ron Paul can separate himself from the stereotypes all of those things bring to mind, but when someone flings out a generalization like those, they do insult Dr. Paul.  There really is no way around that.  When there's a snide comment made about Christians, Government workers, politicians, men, the elderly, military, and so on... that comment *is* being made about Ron Paul.  

There are many on these forums who do not seem to remember that.

This is why it's annoying to many of us, and as for rational discussion not being possible... well... all I can say is a thread that started out the way this one did kept most of the rational folks away.  It's the same players whose minds will not be changed, speaking in the same ways that have inflamed each side for years.  There's nothing new under the sun here.

----------


## AceNZ

> I sympathize with your attempts to communicate, but you should understand that there really is a problem on these forums with people who do not think their generalizations through.


You're right.  Unfortunately, for me anyway, this argument is working against RP, not for him.  This thread and others like it raised some legitimate questions in my mind as to whether RP is who I thought he is.

So, I went looking for myself.  Sure enough, RP doesn't accept evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

That's highly disturbing to me.  It's a sign of a lack of rationality.  And yes, that comment is directed at RP, not as some generality.

I also saw that RP was actively pandering to Christian evangelicals in Iowa.  Again, very disturbing.

I guess I really thought that I could ally myself with certain Christians when it comes to things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  However, the more I talk with Christians, the more I realize that I was mistaken.  What few shared values we may have are overwhelmed by differences in our core philosophies.  Returning to a constitutional government won't do us any good if it's embedded with religion.

I may come back to RPF for a short time to finish off a few threads, but after three and a half years since I first joined, and 1300+ posts, I really think I'm done here now.  I'm sure the atheist haters will rejoice as they drive former supporters away.

----------


## Revolution9

> You're right.  Unfortunately, for me anyway, this argument is working against RP, not for him.  This thread and others like it raised some legitimate questions in my mind as to whether RP is who I thought he is.


I call you out for playing this gambit. It is puerile and childish.

Rev9

----------


## Alternative 336

> You're right.  Unfortunately, for me anyway, this argument is working against RP, not for him.  This thread and others like it raised some legitimate questions in my mind as to whether RP is who I thought he is.
> 
> So, I went looking for myself.  Sure enough, RP doesn't accept evolution:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
> 
> That's highly disturbing to me.  It's a sign of a lack of rationality.  And yes, that comment is directed at RP, not as some generality.
> 
> I also saw that RP was actively pandering to Christian evangelicals in Iowa.  Again, very disturbing.
> ...


Let me give you an argument against naturalism and evolution:

1. On Naturalism our cognitive faculties are the result of evolutionary processes. 
2. Natural selection would only serve to honor survival value rather than truth value. 
3. On Naturalism there are no transcendent or outside sources of truth other than one's mind. 

Conclusion: The naturalist has no way of rationally affirming that naturalism is true or if it just holds survival value. 

So while you say people are being illogical for not taking evolution to be true, you have no way of affirming yourself that it is true, or that the natural world is all their is. While you may say that well I can observe it and know it to be here, does it rule out any supernatural explanations to anything? This is the point about leap of faith I've been trying to get across to you previously.

The rest of your post is also pretty ridiculous, you were respectful before I admit, but saying that talking to evangelicals is disturbing and that not supporting evolution makes you illogical, you are truly bastardizing what logic is and you are letting your hatred of organized religion distance you. If you are unwilling to vote for Ron Paul based on any of your above "disturbances" then good riddance!

----------


## jmdrake

> You think Ron Paul is strictly a Christian movement?  Ron Paul is a libertarian movement....


And here I was all along thinking Ron Paul was a person.

----------


## AceNZ

> Let me give you an argument against naturalism and evolution:
> 
> 1. On Naturalism our cognitive faculties are the result of evolutionary processes. 
> 2. Natural selection would only serve to honor survival value rather than truth value. 
> 3. On Naturalism there are no transcendent or outside sources of truth other than one's mind. 
> 
> Conclusion: The naturalist has no way of rationally affirming that naturalism is true or if it just holds survival value.


1. OK
2. Truth is required for survival.  For example: "this is food and not poison"
3. The mind is not a source of truth; it is the means by which humans discover truth.




> So while you say people are being illogical for not taking evolution to be true, you have no way of affirming yourself that it is true, or that the natural world is all their is. While you may say that well I can observe it and know it to be here, does it rule out any supernatural explanations to anything? This is the point about leap of faith I've been trying to get across to you previously.


I understand the point you were trying to make.  I just disagree, at a very deep and fundamental level.




> The rest of your post is also pretty ridiculous, you were respectful before I admit, but saying that talking to evangelicals is disturbing and that not supporting evolution makes you illogical, you are truly bastardizing what logic is and you are letting your hatred of organized religion distance you. If you are unwilling to vote for Ron Paul based on any of your above "disturbances" then good riddance!


Yeah, nice.

----------


## reillym

> Let me give you an argument against naturalism and evolution:
> 
> 1. On Naturalism our cognitive faculties are the result of evolutionary processes. 
> 2. Natural selection would only serve to honor survival value rather than truth value. 
> 3. On Naturalism there are no transcendent or outside sources of truth other than one's mind. 
> 
> Conclusion: The naturalist has no way of rationally affirming that naturalism is true or if it just holds survival value. 
> 
> So while you say people are being illogical for not taking evolution to be true, you have no way of affirming yourself that it is true, or that the natural world is all their is. While you may say that well I can observe it and know it to be here, does it rule out any supernatural explanations to anything? This is the point about leap of faith I've been trying to get across to you previously.
> ...


Not realizing that evolution is scientific fact is illogical. There has yet to be one single piece of evidence to discredit evolution.

There is nothing more than "survival". Making up fairy tales to reassure weak minds is silly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not realizing that evolution is scientific fact is illogical. There has yet to be one single piece of evidence to discredit evolution.
> 
> There is nothing more than "survival". Making up fairy tales to reassure weak minds is silly.



You have the weakest, most slave-like mind here.  Notice how you are hook, line, and sinker for your fairy tale of Darwinism.  You won't even consider any evidence that runs counter to your primary presupposition.  You are a religionist.

If "survival is all there is", then you have justified every tyranny that ever was.  Look around the world right now and see how this entrenched secularism has condemned our post-modern age to an era of statist slavery.

"Darwinism suits my purpose."  -Karl Marx

You, and people like you are the brainwashed purveyors of tyranny in our time.  

True Christianity, like the Christianity at our founding, is the only hope for freedom in our world.  There is no peace without the Prince of Peace, and there is no Liberty without the One who makes men free.  There is no other sure foundation for the freedom of a people than a firm belief in our Creator.

Darwinism is responsible for more death, misery, and destruction than any worldview in the history of the world.

----------


## TheViper

> You have the weakest, most slave-like mind here.  Notice how you are hook, line, and sinker for your fairy tale of Darwinism.  You won't even consider any evidence that runs counter to your primary presupposition.  You are a religionist.
> 
> If "survival is all there is", then you have justified every tyranny that ever was.  Look around the world right now and see how this entrenched secularism has condemned our post-modern age to an era of statist slavery.
> 
> "Darwinism suits my purpose."  -Karl Marx
> 
> You, and people like you are the brainwashed purveyors of tyranny in our time.  
> 
> True Christianity, like the Christianity at our founding, is the only hope for freedom in our world.  There is no peace without the Prince of Peace, and there is no Liberty without the One who makes men free.  There is no other sure foundation for the freedom of a people than a firm belief in our Creator.
> ...


 Tyranny and peace are at the exploitation of the person, not the belief structure they follow.

Peace and tyranny can find traction regardless of the medium of belief of the pacifist or oppressor.  

You are just as closed minded as you claim Reillym to be.  Look in your ow mirror before casting stones of judgement.  I thought Jesus taught you that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Yes, you are correct.  I have my primary presuppositions too.

But my presuppositions provide a philosophical bulwark against tyranny, Darwinism doesn't.

----------


## TheViper

> Yes, you are correct.  I have my primary presuppositions too.
> 
> But my presuppositions provide a philosophical bulwark against tyranny, Darwinism doesn't.


Q1. Is that even needed?
A1: No.  You do not need a theological foundation to grasp the idea that tyranny is bad.

Q2. Does it prevent tyranny?
A2: No.  History has proven that great acts of tyranny have been on display by men of many creeds.

Q3. Given Q1 and Q2, why the elitism?

----------


## Alternative 336

> Not realizing that evolution is scientific fact is illogical. There has yet to be one single piece of evidence to discredit evolution.
> 
> There is nothing more than "survival". Making up fairy tales to reassure weak minds is silly.


When has evolution been proven to be anything more than a theory? Also, is the idea of a Creationist God and Evolution incompatible? No. Although, I personally don't believe in evolution. The point I was making is not that you can't come to know things are true on naturalism, but that through naturalism you have no outside source of logic.Why do we need survival/truth value period if there is no observable meaning to one's life? 

I think Aquabuddha was talking about moral relativism Viper. By the way, there has yet to be any overriding proof that God doesn't exist either

----------


## Alternative 336

A quick google search rendered these scientific arguments against Darwinian Evolution:

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

----------


## TheViper

> *When has evolution been proven to be anything more than a theory?* Also, is the idea of a Creationist God and Evolution incompatible? No. Although, I personally don't believe in evolution. The point I was making is not that you can't come to know things are true on naturalism, but that through naturalism you have no outside source of logic.Why do we need survival/truth value period if there is no observable meaning to one's life? 
> 
> I think Aquabuddha was talking about moral relativism Viper. *By the way, there has yet to be any overriding proof that God doesn't exist either*


 Bold 1 - You are correct.  It is a theory and as such is welcome to chances to the theory as new data is understood.  But it's current iteration of the theory is what is considered the best understood concept we have at this time.

Bold 2.  Then doesn't that just make God a theory?

----------


## TheViper

> A quick google search rendered these scientific arguments against Darwinian Evolution:
> 
> http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml


I just read through that list and those aren't scientific arguments themselves bu conjecture.  I'm not saying they don't hold any validity just as a means to debunk evolution, it's akin to throwing a pebble against a stone fortress and expecting it to collapse.

----------


## Deborah K

> I thought I knew the difference between what's insulting and what's not, but maybe I'm wrong.  I don't think my posts have been insulting, and I certainly never intentionally insulted anyone -- but you tell me.


I don't know if your posts have been insulting.  You decided to defend esoteric against my responses to him.  That tells me that you advocate using insulting language to describe people of faith, since that is my primary complaint against him. 





> From your perspective, I can see why you think that's the issue.  From my perspective, it's something completely different.  I've made many posts trying to explain it, and all I get back is what a crazy person I am. I have never been looking for agreement here, just understanding.  Seems to be impossible.


If you don't like being insulted, then why would you defend someone else who does it?





> Yes, and herein lies my mistake. I thought RP was able to keep his religion separate from his politics, so it didn't bother me. As I talk with Christians on this forum, I'm starting to believe that's not really true -- which makes me reconsider my choice


There are two ways to look at this comment:

1.  It is a disingenuous way to garner sympathy, cause concern over losing the atheist vote, and make this about you and your hurt feelings, rather than about electing the only hope this country has. 

2.  It is a prime example of why we have to be careful on this forum not to insult, denigrate, or attack values that Ron holds dear.  If an atheist, who's an established member is thinking about leaving the movement and abandoning his support for Ron, because he's offended by other members, imagine what people who come here for the first time think - where the overriding mindset is that of established forum members continuously permitting and overlooking Christianity and Constitution bashing - for the sake of "free speech". Try to get my point - this isn't about your philosophy, this is about the manner in which you articulate it. (you, meaning the bashers)

If this were some hokey, little forum that was buried in a thousand pages, it wouldn't matter.  It's not.  It is prominent.  

We are in an election cycle.  I want Ron Paul to be my President.  I refuse to let his message and his reputation be tainted by people who can't seem to think beyond their own selfish reasoning, and who seem unable to make their points without attacking Ron's values. And don't try to pretend like you don't know the difference. (the bashers)

Last time, we had to contend with the zealots from the truther movement (zealots, not the normal truthers).  We had to contend with some idiot who wrote racial articles for a newsletter named after Ron Paul.   Deja vu anyone?  Can we learn from last time?  Or are we really that stupid?

----------


## reillym

> When has evolution been proven to be anything more than a theory? Also, is the idea of a Creationist God and Evolution incompatible? No. Although, I personally don't believe in evolution. The point I was making is not that you can't come to know things are true on naturalism, but that through naturalism you have no outside source of logic.Why do we need survival/truth value period if there is no observable meaning to one's life? 
> 
> I think Aquabuddha was talking about moral relativism Viper. By the way, there has yet to be any overriding proof that God doesn't exist either


Go look up the meaning of "theory" in the science world. It is not what you think it is.

I win, you lose.

----------


## reillym

> You have the weakest, most slave-like mind here.  Notice how you are hook, line, and sinker for your fairy tale of Darwinism.  You won't even consider any evidence that runs counter to your primary presupposition.  You are a religionist.
> 
> If "survival is all there is", then you have justified every tyranny that ever was.  Look around the world right now and see how this entrenched secularism has condemned our post-modern age to an era of statist slavery.
> 
> "Darwinism suits my purpose."  -Karl Marx
> 
> You, and people like you are the brainwashed purveyors of tyranny in our time.  
> 
> True Christianity, like the Christianity at our founding, is the only hope for freedom in our world.  There is no peace without the Prince of Peace, and there is no Liberty without the One who makes men free.  There is no other sure foundation for the freedom of a people than a firm belief in our Creator.
> ...


You pull a Karl Marx quote?

Marx is not the end all be all of evolutionary science. Sorry, that quote is meaningless. People use things to push their message, welcome to the world!

True Christianity? Like the one at our founding? Like the one that didn't allow women to vote or slaves to live? Right....

There is no proof that "darwinism", whatever the $#@! that is, is responsible for any death whatsoever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

Thinking there is a fairy in the sky is silly. You don't believe in Santa too, do you? Hope not...

----------


## pcosmar

> There is no proof that "darwinism", whatever the $#@! that is, is responsible for any death whatsoever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


"darwinism" Or the theories based on Darwin's writings are the  basis for Eugenics. It has been responsible for death not only in the US but worldwide. Hitlers Germany is a glaring example of it taken to it's logical conclusions.

----------


## Alternative 336

> Go look up the meaning of "theory" in the science world. It is not what you think it is.
> 
> I win, you lose.


I'll just take all of your close-minded silly comments and respond to them all with this: You are an ignorant tool!

----------


## TheViper

> "darwinism" Or the theories based on Darwin's writings are the  basis for Eugenics. It has been responsible for death not only in the US but worldwide. Hitlers Germany is a glaring example of it taken to it's logical conclusions.


Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity is the basis for the atomic bombs dropped on japan.  I suppose you with to blame Einstein for those actions?

----------


## DamianTV

> Are you admitting that you can't make a logical argument against religion without insulting believers?  Because that is the issue at hand here, no matter how you'd love to wordsmith it.  Atheists can't, on the one hand, call the religious illogical, irrational, cowards, and then conveniently omit Dr. Paul from their insulting analogies.


Just to clarify.  I do not like either side that have decided they should impose their Religious Beliefs, or Lack Thereof on others.  Ron Paul is usually ommitted from those types of statements from either side because of one major point: Ron Paul does not impose his Religious Beliefs onto others.  Religious Non-Intervention Policy.

(This message was sponsored in part by the Department of Redundancy Department.)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity is the basis for the atomic bombs dropped on japan.  I suppose you with to blame Einstein for those actions?


I don't see why I would.  If we had American heads of state claiming that an atomic bomb must be dropped on Japan because of Einstein's theory, then I might give your argument merit.

But this is exactly what we have with Hitler's eugenics and Communist regimes:  the justification of their murder using Darwinism.

----------


## erowe1

> Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity is the basis for the atomic bombs dropped on japan.


I don't think that's true. Is it?

----------


## TheViper

> I don't see why I would.  If we had American heads of state claiming that an atomic bomb must be dropped on Japan because of Einstein's theory, then I might give your argument merit.
> 
> But this is exactly what we have with Hitler's eugenics and Communist regimes:  the justification of their murder using Darwinism.


 OK, then.  So anytime a leader points to a religion as the basis for his wars, his oppressive regimes, his evil actions, are we supposed to damn the tyrant, or the religion?

Berating a theory for the actions of a person is inane.  That's a very long straw you are grasping.



> I don't think that's true. Is it?


 By my statement, I'm saying that if it were not for Einsteins theory, we'd not have the bombs to drop.

----------


## Bman

> Srsly?  That's the best counter-argument you have?  If so, you lose the debate.


Is this supposed to mean something, or just more of your inane rambling.  I responded to someone who constantly was pointing out a groups lack of logic, while supporting a virgin birth and resurrection, so please tell me what is logical about a virgin birth and a resurrection?  I've seen some confused people but watching you over the years makes me wonder what cult you will eventually end up in.

----------


## jmdrake

> OK, then.  So anytime a leader points to a religion as the basis for his wars, his oppressive regimes, his evil actions, are we supposed to damn the tyrant, or the religion?


For the record, some atheists here tend to blame the religion as opposed to the tyrant.  I don't know if that's true for atheists in general.  But (some) of the RPF bunch are generally the most hateful and possibly unhappy people I've met.  Then there are those that are a pleasure to talk to.  I guess the same goes for Christians as well.




> By my statement, I'm saying that if it were not for Einsteins theory, we'd not have the bombs to drop.


More people died from the conventional bombing of Tokyo than died from the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki.  So even without Einstein's theory.....

----------


## TheViper

> For the record, some atheists here tend to blame the religion as opposed to the tyrant.  I don't know if that's true for atheists in general.  But (some) of the RPF bunch are generally the most hateful and possibly unhappy people I've met.  Then there are those that are a pleasure to talk to.  I guess the same goes for Christians as well.


Perhaps that is true but as Ron Paul himself would tell you, that doesn't make it right to do it yourself.  If you stoop down to their level, you're no better than they are and you've not only doing what you are calling bad but giving those guys more ammo to work with.




> More people died from the conventional bombing of Tokyo than died from the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki.  So even without Einstein's theory.....


Oh, that may be true but it's irrelevant to my point.  Volume of death isn't the issue, it's the act itself.   Einstein's theory enabled those bombs to be dropped but nobody would say those bombs being dropped is Einsteins fault. 

On a similar note, we do call it the Nobel peace prize.  We don't blame him every time someone uses dynamite to blow somebody up.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't know if your posts have been insulting.  You decided to defend esoteric against my responses to him.  That tells me that you advocate using insulting language to describe people of faith, since that is my primary complaint against him. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like being insulted, then why would you defend someone else who does it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+rep And I agree on your point about not bashing.  Let me add to it from a "truther" point of view.  (I don't know if I've viewed as a zealot or not).  Last go round I didn't say boo on forums about 9/11 until I had to contend with "zealot" anti-truthers.  My initial exposure was on the main Meetup forum from an anti-truther who insisted on continually bringing the subject up when *nobody* else was doing it.  Oh, and this same person insisted on promoting the myth that Ron Paul supported gay marriage.  In my times canvasing I never ran into anyone who was confused about, or concerned about Ron Paul being a truther.  I *did* run into someone confused and concerned about Ron Paul's position on marriage.  (And for the record, Ron Paul openly supported DOMA).  I guess my point is, why invite the dissension?  I haven't read through this thread from top to bottom (and I'm not going to), but as a Christian I could care less if someone else wants to start an "atheists for Ron Paul" group.  As long as they make it clear that they respect Dr. Paul's personal beliefs and are just happy he believes in the non establishment and free exercise clauses that shouldn't be a problem.  It's the "Ron Paul is all right, but something is wrong with all of the rest of you Christians" attitude that takes me aback sometimes.  But on the flip side I'm sure atheists get tired of the "Atheists!  Prepare to defend your position!" threads too.

----------


## jmdrake

> Perhaps that is true but as Ron Paul himself would tell you, that doesn't make it right to do it yourself.  If you stoop down to their level, you're no better than they are and you've not only doing what you are calling bad but giving those guys more ammo to work with.


It doesn't make it wrong either.  For the record I actually believe some tyrants have used and manipulated (and even been manipulated by) religion to do evil, and some have used, manipulated and and even been manipulated by Darwinism to do evil.  And?  So what you call "stooping down to their level" I call pointing out the need to be consistent in evaluating world events.




> Oh, that may be true but it's irrelevant to my point.  Volume of death isn't the issue, it's the act itself.   Einstein's theory enabled those bombs to be dropped but nobody would say those bombs being dropped is Einsteins fault.


Because the availability of the implement of destruction was not the motivating factor.  Tell me this.  Do you blame the influence of Karl Marx for the atrocities that happened under communism?  Now to my knowledge Marx never said the peasants should be rounded up and sent to gulags to work until they died or that farmers should be uprooted to cause mass starvation, but that's what happened. 




> On a similar note, we do call it the Nobel peace prize.  We don't blame him every time someone uses dynamite to blow somebody up.


Again, you're conflating motivation with implementation.  That doesn't mean everyone with the particular motivator will take that particular act.  I will depart from RPF dogma and say that not all socialists are necessarily evil either.  Some folks here want to force everyone to hate MLK based on unsubstantiated claims of that the Highlands School he trained at was "socialist".  (The funny thing is that Tennessee didn't accuse the Highland School of socialism until after they got involved with civil rights).  But part of me is like "So what?  Say if King looked at the horrific plight of African Americans at the time and decided to try to take a short cut to equality?  While that would be ill advised it's not inherently evil."  That said, I'm able to keep separate the idea that individual socialists are not necessarily evil while understanding that socialism as a philosophy has led to some evil things.  (And so has every philosophy).

----------


## TheViper

> It doesn't make it wrong either.  For the record I actually believe some tyrants have used and manipulated (and even been manipulated by) religion to do evil, and some have used, manipulated and and even been manipulated by Darwinism to do evil.  And?  So what you call "stooping down to their level" I call pointing out the need to be consistent in evaluating world events.


So you're advocating consistency regardless of the morality, quality of debate, self respect, etc...?

The influential factor can be direct or indirect.   If man A tells man B to go kill man C, man B then kills man C, who is at fault for killing Man C?  Obviously man B but man A is on the hook for conspiracy.

Now if man A says Man C is bad and man B kills man C for it, who is at fault for killing man C?  Man C alone.

So blaming Darwinism for the actions of a dictator is silly.  And who is to say the dictator would kill those people anyway regardless of what Darwin theorized?  Dictator may have simply had the same mind set, concepts and ideas anyway.

----------


## jmdrake

> So you're advocating consistency regardless of the morality, quality of debate, self respect, etc...?
> 
> The influential factor can be direct or indirect.   If man A tells man B to go kill man C, man B then kills man C, who is at fault for killing Man C?  Obviously man B but man A is on the hook for conspiracy.
> 
> Now if man A says Man C is bad and man B kills man C for it, who is at fault for killing man C?  Man C alone.
> 
> So blaming Darwinism for the actions of a dictator is silly.  And who is to say the dictator would kill those people anyway regardless of what Darwin theorized?  Dictator may have simply had the same mind set, concepts and ideas anyway.


First off you're being silly with your example.  I'm not saying Darwin should be dug up and put on trial for murder.  Let's change the scenario a bit.  Let's say man A says "People of man C's race aren't really human and deserve to be killed."  Under our current law man A is not on the hook for conspiracy.  However if man A says "People of man C's race aren't really human and deserve to be killed" and later tells his followers "Man B sure did do a good job of killing man A" then he *can* be on the hook, at least in a wrongful death civil suit.  (That would be the Tom Metzger case.)  Did the after the fact praise of man B help convince man B to kill man A?  Of course not.  So why the verdict?  Because we legally recognize that someone can have culpable influence even when it doesn't meet the legal definition of conspiracy.  And even if the verdict had *not* gone against Metzger, it would still be silly to argue that he had *no* influence on man B.

But rather than going back and forth with silly hypotheticals, why don't you just answer my earlier question?  Do you believe that Marxism had an influence on and is at least partially responsible for actions by people like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot yes or no?

----------


## TheViper

I've already answered your question indirectly.  Influence is only one factor of many to consider.  Not only can it be argued that the influence is directly responsible for implant ideas in Stalin or Pol Pot's mind but it can also be argued that those men would have had that mind set to begin with anyway.   But it is still the actions of those individuals in point.

Neither Darwin nor Jesus spoke of their respective beliefs just to give some wacko years later the mentality to kill others so why consider those belief structures are a reason for the evil actions of others?

----------


## Exponent

> ..."People of man C's race aren't really human and deserve to be killed."...


If we are using such an example to make an analogy to evolution, then the proper type of statement is (at worst), "People of man C's race aren't really human."  There is no normative statement explicitly or implicitly included in the theory.  Any addition of such a statement is an addition by a human, probably with existing moral views projected onto the theory, and is thus the responsibility of whomever added such judgments.

----------


## jmdrake

> If we are using such an example to make an analogy to evolution, then the proper type of statement is (at worst), "People of man C's race aren't really human."  There is no normative statement explicitly or implicitly included in the theory.  Any addition of such a statement is an addition by a human, probably with existing moral views projected onto the theory, and is thus the responsibility of whomever added such judgments.


You miss the point of the analogy even though I brought up Tom Metzger.  TheViper was claiming that you could *never* hold person A responsible for person C's death, even in a moral sense, as long as person A didn't directly order the death.  That is provable false as the concrete example of Tom Metzger shows.

----------


## jmdrake

> I've already answered your question indirectly.  Influence is only one factor of many to consider.  Not only can it be argued that the influence is directly responsible for implant ideas in Stalin or Pol Pot's mind but it can also be argued that those men would have had that mind set to begin with anyway.   But it is still the actions of those individuals in point.
> 
> Neither Darwin nor Jesus spoke of their respective beliefs just to give some wacko years later the mentality to kill others so why consider those belief structures are a reason for the evil actions of others?


LOL.  I see you can't even bring yourself to use the name "Karl Marx" in your response even though I directly asked you about Marx.  That alone speaks volumes.

----------


## DamianTV

So if the name isnt Karl Marx, and the person tries to promote any sort of Religious Tolerance, they are just ignored.  Typical by BOTH sides.

Ok, you two love birds can go back to bashing each other over the heads with big sticks and dragging each other back to the opposites cave now.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Go defend your atheism somewhere else!  This forum is named after a Christian who is running for President!!  We do not need the likes of you, promoting your selfish interests where newcomers to Ron Paul can see your tripe!!!!!


Why are some of you Christians so narrow minded.

As a Pastafarian, I am NOT afraid of atheists.  Atheist are simply people who have not yet been touched by God's noodley appendage.

In every atheist, I see an opportunity to save- to bring that atheist to the one true God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just as I try to bring wayward voters to Ron Paul.

----------


## Revolution9

> Why are some of you Christians so narrow minded.
> 
> As a Pastafarian, I am NOT afraid of atheists.  Atheist are simply people who have not yet been touched by God's noodley appendage.
> 
> In every atheist, I see an opportunity to save- to bring that atheist to the one true God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just as I try to bring wayward voters to Ron Paul.


You are violating Dept of Agroculture hogwashing regulations.

You people actually think this FSM $#@! is funny? It is puerile and lame and the province of poseurs and uncreative malcontents to make it appear they have some snarky ass in tow. But it ain't even their crapola..they suck at the ragged attempt of humor tit of those who ain't too funny.

Rev9

----------

