POLL: Ron Paul supporters religion.....

[hells_unicorn]

Devout Practicing Catholic here.

P.S. - For those of you who believe that the founding fathers were all Deists, look up Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and James Madison (all Presbyterians of varying degrees) as well as Charles Carroll of Carrollton (Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence and biggest financial contributor to the Revolution, also a staunch supporter of George Washington even during his lowest times as General of the Continental Army), as well as Daniel and John of the Carroll. Daniel Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimmons were the two Catholic signers of the Constitution, and John Carroll founded Georgetown University and was instrumental in gaining independence of the American Catholic Church from the British Diocese.

 

[QuesoPantera]

blimp for the agnostics

I'm tickled that we have such a variety of faiths here, glad we're all united for liberty!

 

[Mike S.]

Christian, of the "born again" variety.
Good idea to put this poll up! It points out the diversity of the Ron Paul support. Just in my own circle of friends and family I have brought into the Ron Paul fold, two are Catholic, one is atheist, one is some sort of New Age belief (spiritualist?), and 6 or 7 other hopefuls are like myself.

 

[QuesoPantera]

Agnostic here, but why did you lump Atheist and Agnostic together?

I agree, there is quite a distinction there. Atheism is an absolute belief in the absence of a God figure. Agnostics like myself reserve the possibility of the existence of God, or even the possibility that some existing faith has it "right" - but in the absence of hard empirical evidence (beyond the books, which have immense logical holes and historical translation issues) I cannot affirm or dismiss God outright.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Is non-religious in this poll supposed to represent a stronger option than atheism?

I chose atheism but I think I should have chosen non-religious.

 

[xtravar]

Wow, so many people here lack a basic understanding of religious philosophy.

The "gnostic" base deals with knowledge and the "theist" base deals with belief.

Agnosticism is not a belief or lack thereof. It is a lack of knowledge.

You either actively believe/suspect there is a god or you do not. If you do not, you are an atheist.

When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof falls upon that person. It is not the atheist's burden to prove there is no god, but the theist's burden to prove there is a god. That is how science and logic work.

If you are unconvinced, or on the fence, about theism, then you are an atheist, plain and simple.

... why am I bothering?

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Atheism FTW!

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Atheism simply means not religious. It's like the word atypical = not typical. Atheist = not theist.

Agnostic has no real meaning. If you are claiming agnostic you are an atheist.

 

[BuddyRey]

I've never attended a service, but I adore the spiritual and philosophical ideals of the Quakers. Pacifism, voluntarism, tolerance, and reverence for free will and the human spirit. Even though clean living and modesty is encouraged, it's never couched in terms of self-denial, excessive judgement, or original sin. They believe that there's a little bit of God in everybody. That's a faith I could really sink my teeth into.

 

[Yom]

I agree, there is quite a distinction there. Atheism is an absolute belief in the absence of a God figure. Agnostics like myself reserve the possibility of the existence of God, or even the possibility that some existing faith has it "right" - but in the absence of hard empirical evidence (beyond the books, which have immense logical holes and historical translation issues) I cannot affirm or dismiss God outright.

No strong atheism is an absolute belief in the absence of a God figure. Weak atheism is that there's no evidence of such a god, and is little differentiable from Agnosticism.

 

[iloveronpaul]

Atheist/Agnostic. I am not a fan of organized religion but I have nothing against spirituality. at the same time I don't like either of these lables.

 

[Oliver]

I believe the Bible was written by Satan to make sure he gets ALL the Christian souls!

MUHAWAWAWAAAAH!

 

[4Horsemen]

I'm a satanist, and a member of Temple of Set.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

http://www.xeper.org/pub/xp_main.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[nbhadja]

No strong atheism is an absolute belief in the absence of a God figure. Weak atheism is that there's no evidence of such a god, and is little differentiable from Agnosticism.

I guarantee you that almost all atheists are "strong atheists" by your definition.

Atheism- There is no god.

 

[JenaS62]

Agnostic here. Meaning that I believe that you can never prove or disprove the existence of God.

 

[JenaS62]

I'm a satanist, and a member of Temple of Set.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

http://www.xeper.org/pub/xp_main.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

4 Horsemen - do you believe that Enki is Satan?

 

[Eric21ND]

Wow, so many people here lack a basic understanding of religious philosophy.

The "gnostic" base deals with knowledge and the "theist" base deals with belief.

Agnosticism is not a belief or lack thereof. It is a lack of knowledge.

You either actively believe/suspect there is a god or you do not. If you do not, you are an atheist.

When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof falls upon that person. It is not the atheist's burden to prove there is no god, but the theist's burden to prove there is a god. That is how science and logic work.

If you are unconvinced, or on the fence, about theism, then you are an atheist, plain and simple.

... why am I bothering?

Good point. I was going to state this, but then said "why bother". Agnosticism doesn really carry any weight, because believers or disbelievers don't really have "knowledge", they have faith or you don't. Nobody has complete knowledge. Agnostics must ask themselves why they are agnostics concerning religion and not other highly improbable things? Why does religion get special treatment. Do you ever hear someone say I'm agnostic concerning the existence of Santa or the Easter bunny? No, of course not because its reasonable to just say they do not exist. But if you're agnostic concerning religion you would have to also be agnostic concerning a whole host of other issues and its just not practical.

 

[CAKochenash]

And the number one cause of the rapid increase in the Atheist population in America is..........(drumroll)........

 

[Oliver]

And the number one cause of the rapid increase in the Atheist population in America is..........(drumroll)........

God telling Bush to invade innocent countries?

 

[Swmorgan77]

Damn, mormons aren't even listed as chrisitians. I might be an atheist, but isn't this a slam against Joseph Smith's flock?

I don't take offense at not being considered Christian because I know the term is not defined by belief in Jesus as having been the Messiah and divine. (Which we believe)

It is defined by implicit acceptance of the various early Church fathers and the creeds of Christendom which were adopted long after the era of the apostles and are not scriptural, such as the Nicean creed etc.

If acceptance of those creeds is the measuring stick of "Christian" then I readily reject the label.

John Adams rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and Thomas Jefferson never did align himself with a Christian denomination and remained hostile to them, though he fervently professed his belief in the scriptures themselves. He simply thought that all churches in existence were out of harmony with the scriptural record and teachings. He even went so far as to predict that coming generations would restore true Christianity and viewed the undertaking of providing political freedom in America as a stepping stone towards that.