Atheist Ron Paul supporters

Robert68's first post:
I significanlty agree. In the early 90’s or so, there was a widely respected extensive written survey taken on the beliefs of libertarians. And (not surprising to libertarians at the time), a significant percentage of them identified themselves as non-religious. Libertarianism wouldn’t exist without the non-religious. Murray Rothbard didn’t base his case in his books on religious claims.

..
"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

I was referring to those who were identifying themselves as libertarians around the time of the poll I mentioned, and those doing so for 20 plus years, when the number of those in the US identifying themselves as “libertarian” took off. During that time period there was a major non-religious or atheist presence with libertarians, and I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that has changed. How many religious books are there at “Laissez Faire Books: an Essential Resource For Liberty Since 1972”? And many religionists in this forum have said if Ron Paul wasn't a Christian they wouldn't be supporting him, you may be one of them; that's not evidence of principled support for his political positions.

Regarding that quote you posted, misleadingly putting Murray Rothbards' name under it, it comes from an article with no citations, credited to Catholic Christian Lew Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker, in the then right wing conservative (now neocon) National Review, in 1990, at a time when both Rothbard and Rockwell had distanced themselves from libertarians, and were trying to create a new political coalition involving Christian conservatives. But most relevant is the fact that the books and writings of Rothbard (and Rand, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and others, that have influenced libertarians for decades) are not religious writings. That quote simply has no bearing on what I wrote.

The poll I mentioned was published by Liberty magazine in 1988, and given free to new and re-subscribers for many years after. It was sent to 200 subscribers randomly chosen. And “No incentive to return the poll was provided, aside from a postage paid envelope. A total of 62 were returned to us. Respondents were invited to "answer whichever questions you wish," and "to attach a sheet of paper and expand or explain any answers."

On the proposition, “There is a god”, the result was 26% agree. A comment next to this by the poll publishers was, “Apparently the common perception that libertarians are almost all atheistic is no more accurate than the perception that libertarians are nearly all anarchists”.

On the question “What are you political beliefs based on?”, among the choices, “my religious beliefs” received 19%. On the question of who had influenced their thinking, among a long list of choices, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard were a close top two, and Ludwig Von Mises, Thomas Jefferson, F. A Hayek, and Milton Friedman were the next four. No religious leaders were chosen or written in (which they could do). On the question, “Which of the following best describes your religious training as a child?”, the results were “Roman Catholic” 33%, “Mainline Protestant” 30%, “Fundamentalist” 7%, “Jewish” 10%, “None” 13%, and “other” 7%. On the question, “Do you consider yourself a follower of any religion today?”, the result for “No” was 77%.

Also, I notice the late David Nolan, who was one of the founders of the Libertarian Party, is identified as a Unitarian Universalist, which is different than the standard religion, and their followers "may be atheist, theist, or any point in between.”

Below are the relevant pages from "The Liberty Poll" referred to:
 
Last edited:
My Best Friend Kelly put it best when he said "An atheist is someone who hasn't been close to death yet."
And someone that accepts religion only as the result of a near death experience is only taking out a faith based insurance plan. God just became the 'lender of last resort' and you think that's a good thing?
For the agnostics out there (including those who don't believe in God, while still admitting that it's possible God might exist):

Why do you allow arbitrary claims as ideas that are proper to consider, discuss, or evaluate? Why not simply dismiss the arbitrary out of hand? "I don't know" is a cop-out. The arbitrary is not on a par with the rational and things that are supported by real evidence.

Why do you demand proof a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the positive? You ask for others to prove that God does not exist.

Why do you allow the possibility for things for which there is not a single bit of evidence? In the real world, in order for something to be possible, there must be at least some evidence.

I should say that I called myself an agnostic for a long time. However, in reality I was just being a coward. I felt afraid to admit my atheism to my friends and family; I was afraid of retribution, argument and disharmony. In retrospect, it was a mistake. Intellectual dishonesty was much more damaging in the long run.
I claim myself as agnostic though doubt the existence of God and I don't consider it arbitrary or intellectually dishonest at all. Proof of nothing proves nothing and a lack of proof also proves nothing. Right now I cannot prove how many people are resident scientists on the south pole so should I belief none exist there at all? Or simple answer honestly with 'I don't know'?
 
I claim myself as agnostic though doubt the existence of God and I don't consider it arbitrary or intellectually dishonest at all. Proof of nothing proves nothing and a lack of proof also proves nothing. Right now I cannot prove how many people are resident scientists on the south pole so should I belief none exist there at all? Or simple answer honestly with 'I don't know'?

There is evidence that scientists might be resident at the south pole (research papers, photographs, etc), so that statement is not arbitrary, and having doubt regarding exactly how many are there is perfectly reasonable.

A better comparison would be an invisible pink elephant, living under your house. Do you also have doubts about that?

The intellectual dishonesty enters the picture because claiming you don't know means that you accept that there is some evidence that points to the possibility that God might exist. Which evidence do you accept? If the answer is none, then why does doubt remain? Having doubt does not mean that there may be evidence that you are not yet aware of. In the example above, what evidence could you be presented with that would prove to you that such a creature existed?
 
The intellectual dishonesty enters the picture because claiming you don't know means that you accept that there is some evidence that points to the possibility that God might exist. Which evidence do you accept? If the answer is none, then why does doubt remain? Having doubt does not mean that there may be evidence that you are not yet aware of. In the example above, what evidence could you be presented with that would prove to you that such a creature existed?
Illogical. Saying I don't know in no way suggests that I believe some proof does exist. It means exactly what it says...I don't know. It's far more honest than semantically trying to validate a position that relies on false logic.

I don't know which color shirt my neighbor is wearing. Does that mean I believe there is proof he has shirts of all 13.6 million colors? Does that mean I believe there is proof he even has shirts at all? No, it means I don't know. I didn't see him today.

Stating I don't know if a God exists or not suggests nothing in terms of proof for either side of the debate. Does my neighbors wife wear granny panties or a thong? I don't know. Does this suggest I believe she even wears any? Does this suggest I believe those are the only types she wears?

Perhaps you are suggesting that by saying I don't know that I am accepting the notion that God's existence can be proven just that the proof hasn't been presented yet. If so, that's still illogical. A God can exist without proof of said existence therefore a God can also not exist without proof of non-existence. Thus existence or a lack therefore is independent on the existence of proof. So when I say I don't know, I am being completely honest without taking the easy way out or being intellectually dishonest.
 
I don't know which color shirt my neighbor is wearing. Does that mean I believe there is proof he has shirts of all 13.6 million colors? Does that mean I believe there is proof he even has shirts at all? No, it means I don't know. I didn't see him today.

Saying you don't know what color shirt your neighbor is wearing is perfectly reasonable, but saying so requires the acceptance of some evidence. You've seen other men with shirts. You might have a shirt yourself. You know that all shirts have a color. You therefore know that it's possible that your neighbor is wearing a shirt, and if so, that the shirt has a color.

Does my neighbors wife wear granny panties or a thong? I don't know. Does this suggest I believe she even wears any? Does this suggest I believe those are the only types she wears?

Again, your statement is perfectly reasonable, but it requires acceptance of some facts and evidence. You know that some women wear panties or a thong; you therefore have evidence to believe that it's possible that your neighbor's wife might do the same.

Perhaps you are suggesting that by saying I don't know that I am accepting the notion that God's existence can be proven just that the proof hasn't been presented yet. If so, that's still illogical.

No, I'm saying that to honestly claim you don't know, you must accept some evidence for it to be possible. Not proof, but possibility.

To extend your first example above: would you ever say that you don't know what color volcano your neighbor is wearing? No, because humans don't wear volcanoes. Or perhaps you have doubts about that, as well?

A God can exist without proof of said existence

We may be getting somewhere with this statement. Does this also mean that you think God can exist without there being any evidence for His existence? If so, I suggest to you that this is intellectual dishonesty. To exist has meaning. Perhaps a definition of the term "arbitrary" would be useful:

A claim is arbitrary if it is put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. An arbitrary idea is a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality.

So, to have doubts about the arbitrary is to deny the requirement for a connection between reality and percepts or concepts. That's what I mean by being intellectually dishonest.
 
Saying you don't know what color shirt your neighbor is wearing is perfectly reasonable, but saying so requires the acceptance of some evidence. You've seen other men with shirts. You might have a shirt yourself. You know that all shirts have a color. You therefore know that it's possible that your neighbor is wearing a shirt, and if so, that the shirt has a color.
Irrelevant. Knowing what a shirt is is analogous to knowing what a deity is. I can further state that my neighbor may own something that I've never see, never known the name of or heard of its existence. And I don't know what color it is either. Do I have to accept certain evidence that I know nothing of for me to say I don't know what my neighbor has? No, because I simply and truly don't know.

Again, your statement is perfectly reasonable, but it requires acceptance of some facts and evidence. You know that some women wear panties or a thong; you therefore have evidence to believe that it's possible that your neighbor's wife might do the same.
But my neighbors wife might also wear a garment I've never heard of or seen before and I can say with absolute certainty that I don't know what color it is. I can't even say said garment exists because I don't know.


No, I'm saying that to honestly claim you don't know, you must accept some evidence for it to be possible. Not proof, but possibility.
Of course you have to accept the possibility that my neighbor could own something I've never heard of or his wife to wear a garment I've never seen or for a deity to exist...because I don't know.

To extend your first example above: would you ever say that you don't know what color volcano your neighbor is wearing? No, because humans don't wear volcanoes. Or perhaps you have doubts about that, as well?
That's an illogical construct. A deity is not despite my doubts to ones existence.

We may be getting somewhere with this statement. Does this also mean that you think God can exist without there being any evidence for His existence? If so, I suggest to you that this is intellectual dishonesty. To exist has meaning.
Certainly a deity can exist without evidence of said existence. Consider how many things we've recently discovered that prior to discovery was obviously not in an evidentury state. Look at string theory. Things could possibly exist in several dimensions we cannot observe. Could be Tribbles...could be a deity. I don't know.

A claim is arbitrary if it is put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. An arbitrary idea is a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality.
A claim would be arbitrary only if evidence existed and was ignored. A complete lacking of observable evidence removes the criteria for being arbitrary. There is no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or doesn't. Would it then be arbitrary of me to claim it doesn't? Would it be arbitrary to claim I don't know.

I'm not stating I don't know because I've not given a concerted effort into scrutinizing the possibilities or evidence available. I'm saying I don't know because no evidence exists to be scrutinized.
 
I think you've pretty much made my point for me. Just a few responses to your last post:

There is no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or doesn't. Would it then be arbitrary of me to claim it doesn't?

Yes. What could be more obviously arbitrary than claiming that various random things don't exist?

Would it be arbitrary to claim I don't know.

Yes.

I'm saying I don't know because no evidence exists to be scrutinized.

And I'm saying that's arbitrary.

Atheism should not be a belief that there isn't a God (which is a denial of the arbitrary); it should be the lack of a belief in a God. The two perspectives are easily confused, but there's a philosophically important difference.
 
We aren't discussing atheism, we're talking about agnosticism and the stance of not knowing something as being arbitrary.

Hey, guess what is sitting on my top shelf. I bet you don't know. Would it then be arbitrary for you not to know? Not at all. To be arbitrary would require that you gave a conclusion based on no thought or research. The fact that "I don't know" is not technically a conclusion means it's not arbitrary. Had you said I have a lamp on my shelf, that would be arbitrary.
 
I thought atheist was defined as someone who doesn't believe in God. I don't claim to know everything, but I don't believe there's a God, just as I don't believe in unicorns. Saying there are no unicorns is not a claim to know all things. If convincing evidence presents itself, I'll change my mind.

It goes on within you and without you.

HTH
Rev9
 
How many atheists do we have in our US gulags? Have any nationwide groups been telling atheists they can't have a building near the WTC? How many people suggest not allowing atheists to visit the US, or kick them all out? I mean seriously, nobody really gives a crap about atheists.

Except if you don't believe in the god of the bible, you can forget about getting elected to any public office in the USA - unless you pretend to be religious.
 
"An atheist is someone who hasn't been close to death yet."

Bull. I've nearly died on so many occasions I can't even remember them all, and not once have I ever been tempted to buy into theism.

This is as dumb as saying there are no atheists in foxholes. There are plenty.
 
I don't understand why people don't stop talking about this issue...I've seen about 50 of these threads on RPF alone.

If you believe in God, pray that God will reveal Himself to the atheists.

If you're an atheist, why do you even care....


Now let's move on to getting Ron elected.
 
I don't understand why people don't stop talking about this issue...I've seen about 50 of these threads on RPF alone.

If you believe in God, pray that God will reveal Himself to the atheists.

If you're an atheist, why do you even care....


Now let's move on to getting Ron elected.

Because this is the "Religion" Sub-forum, within the Off-topic forum. People come here to do this. If this thread was in the main forum, you would have a valid point.
 
Because this is the "Religion" Sub-forum, within the Off-topic forum. People come here to do this. If this thread was in the main forum, you would have a valid point.

My point was arguing about it for years doesn't do much. No one will be changing their minds either way when you debate them like this...I used to waste hours debating it too!

But true I do now see it's the religion sub-forum, I saw it on the latest posts home page...you guys are entirely free to waste your time changing nobody's opinion and just making more enemies. Have fun!
 
As a Christian I have often referred to myself as "non-religious", or more often as irreligious.
I do not "belong" to any denomination or sect of Christianity, and have often though organized religion does more harm than good.
I suppose it depends on whether you consider ANY belief (faith) a religion.
But then , I suppose that the Atheist Faith (belief) could also be called a religion, if you consider any belief (faith) a religion.
;)

In the context of this subject, from my standpoint, being religious is having the belief, or pretending to believe, that fundament truths and morals only come from one or a few select sources, usually dead “prophets” and “saints” that supposedly lived long ago. Also, the religious person believes that they, or a person (or persons) of their choosing, can speak for those select sources about what those fundamental truths and morals are. They don’t believe in an omnipotent creator as they usually claim, but rather a severely handicapped one, because the one they believe in can’t communicate fundamental truths and morals directly to each of his creation, but only through the religious means previously described.
 
Last edited:
Atheism should not be a belief that there isn't a God (which is a denial of the arbitrary); it should be the lack of a belief in a God. The two perspectives are easily confused, but there's a philosophically important difference.


It is. There are two definitions of atheism, really. It is a broad brush. There is a big difference between the two for sure, though.
 
Splitting Hairs Creates Separate Strands

Atheism should not be a belief that there isn't a God (which is a denial of the arbitrary); it should be the lack of a belief in a God. The two perspectives are easily confused, but there's a philosophically important difference.

I've been reading both of those definitions over and over again to understand the gist of your distinctions, but it seems the former definition is what an "atheist" is, while the latter definition is what an agnostic is.

In simple etymology, the word "atheism" means "no God." So, an "atheist" would be a person who believes or knows there is no God. That, though, would require absolute knowledge in order for it to be true because it rests on a universal negative.

However, the mere lack of belief in God just means that from all the evidences which have been presented, one is not convinced that God exists. But that person would still be open to the possibility that God does exist, given evidence that would satisfy him (hence, the stress on the word "convince"). So, all the person is saying is that I don't know yet if God exists, until I get the "right" evidence. Essentially, that is what an agnostic is.
 
I've been reading both of those definitions over and over again to understand the gist of your distinctions, but it seems the former definition is what an "atheist" is, while the latter definition is what an agnostic is.

In simple etymology, the word "atheism" means "no God." So, an "atheist" would be a person who believes or knows there is no God. That, though, would require absolute knowledge in order for it to be true because it rests on a universal negative.

However, the mere lack of belief in God just means that from all the evidences which have been presented, one is not convinced that God exists. But that person would still be open to the possibility that God does exist, given evidence that would satisfy him (hence, the stress on the word "convince"). So, all the person is saying is that I don't know yet if God exists, until I get the "right" evidence. Essentially, that is what an agnostic is.


My take on all this is that I am an agnostic BUT atheist when it comes to the monotheistic religions...I would make the affirmation that Jesus is NOT the son of GOD and that christianity is a primitive type of fable...the fact that many religions and god have existed prior to christianity should be enough to suggest that even to a christian...christians have to recognize that if they weren't born into a christian family they well never have been christians etc...religion is very much linked to the geographic and regional areas you are born into. What amazes me is how seriously some of these christians take their religion despite mounting evidence and common sense that suggests otherwise. I attribute this to the communities they live in were everything revolves around church and there is tremendous social pressure to conform etc...what a shame.
 
Last edited:
If atheism is a religion, then not playing football is a sport, not collecting stamps is a hobby, 'OFF' is a TV channel and "deceased" is a "lifestyle".

:) Wrong.

It means not playing football when playing football is the path to eternal life, not collecting stamps when collecting stamps is the way to truth, peace and joy, 'Off' on the TV when the hidden secrets and mysteries of life are being broadcasted over it, and "deceased" not being a 'lifestyle', but rather, the doorway to true and eternal life in the presence of God.
 
Back
Top