Atheist Ron Paul supporters

[LukeO]

That depends.

If you believe in Zeus, but not Thor, then you're probably a Greek pagan.

If you believe in Thor, but not Zeus, then you're probably a Nordic pagan.

If you don't believe in either one, but you believe in the God of the Bible who revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ, then you're probably a Christian.

If you believe that no gods exist at all, neither Zeus, nor Thor, nor the God of the Bible, nor any others, then you're an atheist.

If that description of an atheist is not what you are, but you merely lack belief in any of those gods without positively disbelieving in them, then you're an agnostic.

So what are you when you don't believe in Santa?

 

[Meatwasp]

Geez, not again. The vast majority of our Founders were Christians. Deal with it.

Forget it LE. It's like shovelling sh-- against the tide with those people. Ha!

 

[LibertyEagle]

Luckily the greatest, Jefferson, was well aware of religion and it's inherent evil.

He was not fond of organized religion, but he was very much a believer in Christ.

EDIT:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" --T. Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson - Notes on Virginia

"My views...are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others." -- Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson letter to Rush, 1803.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Libertarianism is a reflection of classic liberalism, which for the most part was deist, and not christian in any way. Like the founding of this country.

I hate to tell you, Luke, but America was founded on Christian principles. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I suggest you go right to the source and read the letters of our Founders. There, you will find the truth.

 

[erowe1]

So what are you when you don't believe in Santa?

Again, that depends on what you do believe in. You might be a Christian, a pagan, an atheist, or an agnostic.

I get it though. You want to pretend that "atheism" is some neutral ground, some natural state of non-belief of every human mind as it waits for something worth believing in to be demonstrated to it. That way you can reject God, and then tell him it was his fault.

 

[erowe1]

So what are you when you don't believe in Santa?

Oh, wait a minute. You're someone who was banned here before, aren't you?

Either that or you and he copy the same stock arguments from somewhere.

 

[Todd]

Maybe we can read Chuck Baldwin's recent article on how we can all work together. It's about Agnostics but it applies to everyone equally.

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3699

 

[pcosmar]

There's nothing to get. You disbelieve in infinite amounts of things that have never even been told to you, yet you'll claim to just believe they aren't true. You're using semantics at an elementary level and I actually feel a little embarrassed i'm even having to say that to you.

It is Not just "semantics at an elementary level". It is communications,, with words.
Words have meaning and convey concepts. Thoughts and beliefs.
You are trying to twist words to avoid what they mean in an attempt to "win" an argument, or prove some point.

Basically you are trying to trash the beliefs of others and deny that you have beliefs. Or somehow prove that your Faith (Atheism) is better than someone elses Faith.
I am merely pointing that your belief (that you can not prove) is no better or worse than the belief of others that base their belief on Faith.
This is simple reality. And basic logic.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

He was not fond of organized religion, but he was very much a believer in Christ.

qft.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I get it though. You want to pretend that "atheism" is some neutral ground, some natural state of non-belief of every human mind as it waits for something worth believing in to be demonstrated to it. That way you can reject God, and then tell him it was his fault.

Atheists can have belief, but the A at the front of Atheism defines the absence/lack of a specific belief, not the presence of it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Court rules Atheism is a religion

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895


Why we have to have this argument again is beyond me. It has been hashed and rehashed in numerous threads.

Here is some source material for those who still are claiming our Founders were not Christians: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?175069-Founders-Were-Christians

 

[ClayTrainor]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895

lol, well then, if someone in a black robe said it, it must be settled.

 

[pcosmar]

So what are you when you don't believe in Santa?

What do you mean "not believe in"?
Do you mean trust in him like a god? or that he is a current person that flies around giving presents?

or do you deny that someone once lived that the myth is based on.

or do you simply deny the existence of the marketing and guys in suits all across the country?
Thet kind of denial has a clinical description, I believe.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Maybe we can read Chuck Baldwin's recent article on how we can all work together. It's about Agnostics but it applies to everyone equally.

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3699

That was pretty classy of him.

 

[pcosmar]

Atheists can have belief, but the A at the front of Atheism defines the absence/lack of a specific belief, not the presence of it.

Wrong.
it defines a specific belief.
The belief that there is NO GOD. This is equally as unprovable as a belief in God.
It is based on faith.
Period.
All the mental gymnastics in the world will not change this.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You didn't refute anything I wrote. Libertarianism didn't begin when Ron Paul ran for President in 2008. Loads of books have been written by libertarians in the last 40 plus years, very few if any, based their cases on religious claims, and that certainly goes for Murray Rothbards numerous books.

...

"But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul."--Murray Rothbard

 

[LukeO]

He was not fond of organized religion, but he was very much a believer in Christ.

EDIT:


Thomas Jefferson - Notes on Virginia



Thomas Jefferson letter to Rush, 1803.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823.

 

[LukeO]

Wrong.
it defines a specific belief.
The belief that there is NO GOD. This is equally as unprovable as a belief in God.
It is based on faith.
Period.
All the mental gymnastics in the world will not change this.

It's not the belief that there is no God. It's the lack of belief in any one of the millions of Gods made up in history.

It's impossible to KNOW there is absolutely no God, like it's impossible to KNOW there are no ghosts.

You're on a non-starter here, fella.

 

[LukeO]

If i'm an Atheist for not believing in Jesus as a God, then anyone believing he is, is JUST as much an Atheist as I am for not believing Muhammad flew to heaven on a horse.

 

[pcosmar]

I really don't mind the Atheist supporters most of the time.
I just wish they weren't so aggressively antagonistic.

Especially new ones with old arguments. (almost like they had been here before)