Kokesh on Atheism + Libertarians

[PaulConventionWV]

The point is you can create something better than this. There is nothing we are not capable of. About the only thing we cannot do is destroy the universe. Aside from that, anything you want, you can create, eventually.

I think you are wrong. If you say there is nothing we cannot create, the burden of proof is on you. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest what you are saying is even remotely true. However, I do believe that all things are possible through God, but only through God.

Saying we can make something better than this does not mean "there is nothing we are not capable of." It means there are *some things* that we are capable of.

 

[tttppp]

The universe is just part of God. It can be finite without God being finite.

I don't see why saying God created us, the earth, the sun, and the planets is so much different than saying He created the whole universe. All you have to do is add a few more things to the list of things that God created, and it would be the whole universe? Are you saying God can only have created 4 things? Where did you come up with that idea?

I think you are assuming that the universe is infinite and then saying an infinite God cannot create another infinite being. You would be correct, and that's why the universe is finite. It is only a partial representation of God. We are allowed to see 2 dimensions and perceive 3, but there could be more than that. The fact that we can only perceive 3 dimensions does not mean that there are not more and that God could not have created us to only sense those 3.

God could create a lot more than just us, the earth, the sun, and the planets. I was just giving an example. Who knows, maybe he even created the physical laws we see today. But that does not mean he created EVERYTHING. My suggestion is that zero=infinity. In that there an infinite amount of Gods, so it is certainly possible we came from a God. But it is not possible for God to have started everything. We could not have come from absolute nothing.

 

[tttppp]

I think you are wrong. If you say there is nothing we cannot create, the burden of proof is on you. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest what you are saying is even remotely true. However, I do believe that all things are possible through God, but only through God.

Saying we can make something better than this does not mean "there is nothing we are not capable of." It means there are *some things* that we are capable of.

The only way I can prove it is to harness infinite energy. If I did that someday, would you consider that proof?

 

[tttppp]

It's not a problem at all. God is eternal and didn't need a creator because He had no beginning. The universe did have a beginning. Everything that exists had a beginning. You had a beginning. We see that, within the constraints of the laws of the universe, everything had a beginning. However, God is not subjected to the laws of the universe, so it is not necessary for Him to have a beginning. Only things in this universe, including matter and energy itself, had to have a beginning.

Saying that there was a bunch of matter floating through space for eternity before it finally started to evolve into us doesn't solve your problem. First, you have to explain how something can exist for eternity before anything happens to it. Secondly, you have to explain WHY the universe all of a sudden decided to start evolving.

Energy constantly evolves from one thing into another. A star can explode and from the ashes, form planets, then possibly life organisms, then possibly something like us. I don't think evolving is the best term. I would say changing. Everything in one way or another is based on energy. I have yet to see someone create energy out of absolute nothing, so we really haven't been able to see a beginning point for energy. Everything we do today is just turning one form of energy into another. We are not inventing new energy.

Also, its possible everything we can see was created by a God and had an apparent beginning. But that is different than saying God created EVERYTHING.

Also, we could be created by nobody, we could have been created by some being that is really no more special than we are. There is really no way to know. I don't know how you can be so certain to take it a step further and say we were definitely created by a perfect being that we always be infinitely better than us.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

Logic refutes atheism and atheism denies logic.

What new depths of religious quackery is this? :o

 

[LawnWake]

I don't follow Adam's logic here. How does libertarianism lead one to be an atheist or agnostic?

I don't know, so I'm an atheist libertarian

 

[LawnWake]

If your faith was logical, it wouldn't be your faith. Who needs 'faith' if you have 'logic'? Does that even make sense? I notice a lot of 'christians' who undermine their own faith by trying to explain it. It's weird. They believe God is infinite and beyond human understanding and reasoning and then try to explain God and his actions (and his perfection) using human (imperfect) reasoning and logic (which is a human construct aswell).

The point's kinda that the whole 'I'm God, I created this and I sent my own son to Earth to be sacrificed for you.. and then I resurrected him and he came back to heaven' is really hard to believe in the first place and something like this would require proof. But you have no proof... and you acknowledge that your reasoning is inadequate in explaining or comprehending God, but in spite all of that, you have FAITH. And that's what's supposed to make your faith strong in the first place.

If believing in the whole Bible thing made Earthly, easy to believe sense, your 'faith' is pretty much expendable by definition. Hell, faith wouldn't even be necessary.

This thread is one of many examples of how religious people are way more blasphemous than their non-religious counterparts.

Libertarianism was founded by agnostics/atheists (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Ayn Rand...), so to argue that libertarianism is inherently theistic is stupid. I know no religious member of this forum will ever understand this, but to people such as myself, religion and government are the same thing. The same exercise of undeserved authority over the masses that are prefered to be quiet and obedient over critical and rebellious. This is exactly why Marxists are anti-religion. They recognize the similarity of forcing undeserved authority on to the masses through through the state or religion and they wanted to replace religion with statism because they're so compatible. Statism and religion are really just different sides of the same coin. But you know, people are allowed to be statists and they're entitled to their opinion and same with religious people and I hold neither ideas against them.

 

[jmdrake]

Adam's "musings about Mitt Romney" puts this thread in an entirely different perspective. The thought of political assassination to save this country has never gone through my head as it apparently went through Adam's. I'm glad he was able to "reason" away that idea. But such desperation shows a result of a lack of faith. I have faith in God, faith in Ron Paul and faith in the campaign. But ultimately my faith is in God and His power and desire to work out and ultimate good from whatever happens. Through my faith I know that evil will not ultimately triumph. So I have no reason to even consider the "ends justifies the means" route. As 1 Cor 13 points out, faith leads to hope and hope leads to love. Love ultimately casts out all fear. As "Yoda" said, "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." (Yeah, just cause I'm a Christian doesn't mean I don't love Star Wars.)

 

[Sola_Fide]

Ron Paul On Christianity+Libertarianism

If you've never watched Ron Paul's Values Voters speech from 2011, give it a watch. I think its basically a short manifesto of Christian libertarianism. I agree with almost everything Ron says here and in fact I use a lot of arguments in this speech to try to persuade more Christians to support Ron.

There is this element of Ron Paul that, frankly, many secular people choose not to recognize as integral or even valid to the freedom message. But there has always been a strain of libertarianism in Christianity (sometimes prominent and other times dormant in history...but nevertheless there).

 

[Ivash]

Atheism to most atheists just means "an absence of an active belief in any deities."

How does that defy logic?

Nah, today in America that is called being 'agnostic'. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Once upon a time what you said would be right, but definitions of words change.

I believe the term 'faith' has also changed for a lot of religious people, so they have some stuff that (to them) logically supports their faith as well. The fact that the literal definition of the word 'faith' doesn't back it up yet is simply a sign that English kind of needs to evolve to accept this new definition.

 

[Muwahid]

If your faith was logical, it wouldn't be your faith. Who needs 'faith' if you have 'logic'? Does that even make sense? I notice a lot of 'christians' who undermine their own faith by trying to explain it. It's weird. They believe God is infinite and beyond human understanding and reasoning and then try to explain God and his actions (and his perfection) using human (imperfect) reasoning and logic (which is a human construct aswell).

Well I think you're right about this part. I've always argued that if you can scientifically explain "God" then you've refuted God, since God is meant to be supernatural. But I don't think that's what Kokesh was on about nor what people are debating. Trying to say that religion quells thought and makes people just "accept" is not true. Even if you're atheist I think you should recognize what Adam said was hardly coherent as a point I had trouble following it.