Politifact: Broun claims parallel to Ron Paul’s voting record

[whoisjohngalt]

Does that mean no?

ETA: I'm being serious.

That is an irrelevant question. I never argued that every single conclusion was reached by way of induction. I merely stated the truth, that humans intuitively use induction and that if they did not, they would be dead.

It's the reason you don't step off the edge of the roof on a 20 story building expecting to fly. What is your point?

 

[erowe1]

That is an irrelevant question. I never argued that every single conclusion was reached by way of induction. I merely stated the truth, that humans intuitively use induction and that if they did not, they would be dead.

What are the other ways to reach conclusions?

 

[whoisjohngalt]

What are the other ways to reach conclusions?

I already told you that I'm not interested in playing your games. I wasted enough time indulging you. You can challenge/attempt to refute my point or not. If you choose not, I will not continuing answering your abstract questions.

Here is one for you though. Do you deny your use of induction? Do you deny your belief in the laws of physics that govern the universe?

 

[CUnknown]

I'd prefer atheists, but yes, I think liberty activists should avoid associating with people that are extremists of this nature.

Thank you, mport. I live in Broun's district actually. I will be, if anything, actively campaigning to defeat him, whether from his House seat or this Senate seat, whatever. He's a nutcase, a fool, and a warhawk. How can he claim to believe in liberty if he wants to steal money from me so he can go kill people overseas?

Edit: I want to clarify that I have nothing against Broun's religious beliefs. I think his comments about evolution are embarrassing, and I can't imagine Ron ever saying those things, even if he privately believes them. Ron knows what should be kept private, he doesn't flaunt his religion like some. But anyway, my beef with Broun is just about solely about foreign policy. If Broun had Ron's foreign policy, I would support him. But he doesn't, and it changes the entire thing for me. It makes me doubt his sincerity, and then the fact that he's an idiot kicks in and all I feel is revulsion and embarrassment that he is supposedly my Representative.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

I do not tolerate things I find to be extremely destructive to humanity. First and foremost, the state. Way down the road, but still of concern to me, religion.

I hope nobody takes your stupid advice seriously because if they do libertarianism is never going to accomplish anything of significance if it's only a circlejerk of athiest secular types. Elitist attitudes like yours are just going to send people away from libertarianism in droves

 

[ifthenwouldi]

What are the other ways to reach conclusions?

Haha. Good luck getting an answer to this. You'll get plenty of wishy-washy, question-dodging responses, I'm sure.

 

[erowe1]

Do you deny your use of induction? Do you deny your belief in the laws of physics that govern the universe?

No I don't deny it. I absolutely affirm it. But I'm a Christian, so that comports with my world view.

The people who run into contradictions are the Randian types who insist that they're not religious, that they don't accept anything on faith, and that all they know they discovered by perfectly objective use of logic and empiricism.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

No I don't deny it. I absolutely affirm it. But I'm a Christian, so that comports with my world view.

The people who run into contradictions are the Randian types who insist that they're not religious, that they don't accept anything on faith, and that all they know they discovered by perfectly objective use of logic and empiricism.

A six day creation does not align with the laws of physics. It would require divine interference. Now as there is no evidence of any interference with universal physical laws, induction, which you don't deny we all use, suggests that we shouldn't believe in a six day creation. In fact, induction strongly suggests it's absurd.

That's not to say it didn't happen. But believing that's how it happened employs the same logic as believing God will allow you to fly if you jump off a 20 story building tomorrow.

On top of that, it's not biblical. Unless you are a fundamentalist who believes that not only the original writing of the Bible was inspired by the Spirit, but also every subsequent translation. And if that's your belief, it's a paradox since the Spirit would have had to inspire so many different translations.

 

[erowe1]

A six day creation does not align with the laws of physics. It would require divine interference. Now as there is no evidence of any interference with universal physical laws, induction, which you don't deny we all use, suggests that we shouldn't believe in a six day creation. In fact, induction strongly suggests it's absurd.

Induction doesn't demand that the laws of physics as we observe and describe them have always obtained without any exceptional cases. It only demands that they obtain enough to treat those exceptional cases as truly exceptional. So the question comes down to whether or not there ever have been exceptions (or miracles, or divine interferences, as you called them). The only way one can insist that there never have been would be by a purely religious dogmatism that they arrived at by blind faith apart from either logic or induction.

Unless you are a fundamentalist who believes that not only the original writing of the Bible was inspired by the Spirit, but also every subsequent translation. And if that's your belief, it's a paradox since the Spirit would have had to inspire so many different translations.

I'm not familiar with any Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, who have said that. Do you have anyone in mind?

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Induction doesn't demand that the laws of physics as we observe and describe them have always obtained without any exceptional cases. It only demands that they obtain enough to treat those exceptional cases as truly exceptional. So the question comes down to whether or not there ever have been exceptions (or miracles, or divine interferences, as you called them). The only way one can insist that there never have been would be by a purely religious dogmatism that they arrived at by blind faith apart from either logic or induction.


I'm not familiar with any Christians, fundamentalist or otherwise, who have said that. Do you have anyone in mind?

No, but the alternative is worse and that's not thinking it through. Paul Broun exhibits such behavior. Anyone who believes so adamantly in a six day creation without a simple review of the evidence is making a statement about his or her character and intelligence. An important piece of evidence is the fact that the Hebrew word also means period of time.

It's really his foreign policy that makes him unacceptable though. I don't think lack of scrutiny in determining one's religious beliefs necessarily translates. I wouldn't judge him on those criteria so long as it doesn't influence his policy. Acceptance of dogma/inability to think for one's self are not attractive qualities in a legislator.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I'm afraid anyone who agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy isn't going to do well here in the South.

It's 'rack'em sack'em ragheads' down here.

We still have people riding around with 'terrorist hunting permit' stickers on their pick-up trucks which they drive on their way to get more beer, then go home, sit on a couch, and not fight terrorism.

 

[CUnknown]

I'm afraid anyone who agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy isn't going to do well here in the South.

It's 'rack'em sack'em ragheads' down here.

We still have people riding around with 'terrorist hunting permit' stickers on their pick-up trucks which they drive on their way to get more beer, then go home, sit on a couch, and not fight terrorism.

Still doesn't mean we should support warhawks. The foreign policy part of Ron Paul's platform is the most important part, and I believe he himself has said so on a number of occasions. Anyone who wants to tax us or run up huge debts so they can kill people halfway around the world is just not a believer in liberty. They are a believer in tyranny.

 

[unknown]

Broun is not somebody we want to be associated with the liberty movement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html

A politician's religious or personal views shouldnt really matter IMO as long as it doesnt affect their views on freedom.

It never mattered to me where RP stood on evolution, God etc because I knew he wholeheartedly defended my right to believe whatever I wanted.

Although I'll admit that I would have been disappointed had RP made "pit of hell" type statements.

As far as voting differences with RP, my guess would be that he supported "terrorism" related garbage: Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA etc.

How great is it that Ron Paul is the standard in voting records.