Ron Paul: Our Liberties Come From Our Creator

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul rocks! What else can I say?

I can't argue with that!

 

[swatmc]

They were formed from the Earth in Genesis. What of it? My view states that God + dirt = humans. Your view states that time + dirt = humans.

Wow.

That post PERFECTLY sums up my disgust for religion and how it much it lies to people.

The religious people told you that you were made of dirt.

Science tells you that you were made of star dust.

The atoms in your right hand come from a different star than the atoms in your left hand.

What concept do you feel is more awe inspiring?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Wow.

That post PERFECTLY sums up my disgust for religion and how it much it lies to people.

The religious people told you that you were made of dirt.

Science tells you that you were made of star dust.

The atoms in your right hand come from a different star than the atoms in your left hand.

What concept do you feel is more awe inspiring?

I don't feel stardust is awe-inspiring if it means there's no meaning to life, which there isn't in the atheist worldview. Also, you are using false equivcation by saying "science" says you come from stardust. No, some scientists say that, but that is simply because they presuppose evolution. They can't find anything on earth that would account for life, so they say "Well, gee, since we can't find a way life could have arisen on earth, it must have come from outer space." Tell me which is more reasonable now. Your appeal to inspiration is silly because you tried to play both sides of the aisle by stating it was "science" (in other words, it was logical), and on the other hand, you were appealing to emotion by saying it is awe-inspiring.

For the record, I do find it awe-inspring because God had the power to create all of those stars and we see this complexity all around us that seems to have a PURPOSE. With atheism, however, there is no purpse.

As for the morality argument, I am done with that. It should be obvious to anyone that, without an authority, there is no objective right or wrong to bas ANYTHING on. Society is immoral no matter what happens because you are violating someone's morals by favoring the majority. It all comes down to using society to impose your morality on other people. That is the only way that can happen. If you think atheism has a better track record on morality, then you should take a look at Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc.

However, if we follow God's morality, then we are all on the same page and there is an authority on which to base the morality of society. I recognize that we can't appeal to religion in this country, but that is just to show that that is what this country is based on, and that is why God's morality is totally consistent with liberty and freedom. Atheism, however, is the ANTITHESIS of liberty and freedom because you must suppress some people in order to get them to conform to society's rule of "self-ownership." If someone doesn't like self-ownership, then too bad because the majority gets to decide what is moral and they impose their morality on anyone who disagrees. Christianity is completely consistent with liberty because that is the basis for self-ownership and reaching out instead of using force to get your ideas across.

Ok, now I am done with the morality thing.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So, he is powerful enough to protect an innocent child from an attacker, and is fully aware of it, but refuses to intervene?

I answered your question already. Only God knows the reason for the things He does. Your appeal to morality in the absence of any basis for morality is just silly.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I leave the religious folks on this board with this, because the weekend has begun and it's time to get silly.

But think about what religions have told you your entire life. Think about how they told you that you were sick, and were commanded to be well by irrationally submitting to an unseen authority.

The bible was written by people who had NO IDEA what was really out there.

This is what you are made of:



This is what we know about a FRACTION of the known universe:



This is how science saved MY soul and might just save yours:


Are you willing to trade ALL of this beauty, scientific observations, and truth for any of the words written by MEN who claim to be speaking for the divine?

The universe is a very scary but interesting place.

Humans have only reached a fraction of our potential.

The first step towards TRULY making progress and jumping head first into the future is the rejection of organized religion. They have been holding us back for far too long and continue to be the antithesis of liberty.

Keep up the fight against tyrannies/oppression in ALL it's forms.

QUESTION AUTHORITY.

If...

Matter can not be created or destroyed

And...

Time has a beginning because the universe is expanding

And...

Two objects can not occupy the same space

Would you speculate the point of origin is logical or illogical?

Is there evidence of multiple points of origin or coinciding three dimensional universes to support a random, illogical point of origin?

I am not that big into quantum physics but I do believe there are a few of those genuises around here.

I think your observation and assertion about religion is incorrect. Religion is not the problem. Religious people that initiate aggression is.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I have a better response to this, than I provided in my previous post....



Not they cannot. It's not a man-made rule, it's a logical axiom. A self evident truth.

"To argue against self-ownership is to be caught in a "performative contradiction" because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who he is trying to persuade have a right to disagree. If they have a right to disagree, then they have legitimate authority over themselves" - Hoppe

It is true that humans can act against another human, but this is a violation of the non-aggression principle, not the principle of self-ownership. Acting Humans are exercising ownership of themselves.

Let me clarify. Your assertion of self-ownership as a logical axiom only proves that you do, indeed, own yourself. However, it says nothing about governing the interaction between human beings. It does not justify your ability to suppress the actions of others, and it provides no basis for moral treatment of other people. The principle of non-aggression has strong basis in the Bible. However, in an atheistic worldview, where all of our lives are meaningless, there is no reason to follow it. You do it because you perceive it as being in your best interest in your current situation in society. However, if someone else does not like society, you have no basis to claim that they are wrong. Ok, done now.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If...

Matter can not be created or destroyed

And...

Time has a beginning because the universe is expanding

And...

Two objects can not occupy the same space

Would you speculate the point of origin is logical or illogical?

Is there evidence of multiple points of origin or coinciding three dimensional universes to support a random, illogical point of origin?

I am not that big into quantum physics but I do believe there are a few of those genuises around here.

I think your observation and assertion about religion is incorrect. Religion is not the problem. Religious people that initiate aggression is.

This is correct. +rep

 

[specialkornflake]

I support RP because of Liberty. If RP introduces more people to Liberty because they share these beliefs with him then that's overall a good thing. I didn't go from a Mormon Republican to an Atheist Ancap without a few steps along the way. Separately, I can be very critical of supernatural beliefs being treated as if they were on par with scientific discovery.

 

[robert68]

Since the Biblical “creator” authorized countless aggressions against human beings, if our Liberties come from ‘him’ we’re cooked.

 

[FrankRep]

Since the Biblical “creator” authorized countless aggressions against human beings, if our Liberties come from ‘him’, we’re cooked.

Man's Law/Government is much more cruel and abusive than God's law.

 

[robert68]

..

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Since the Biblical “creator” authorized countless aggressions against human beings, if our Liberties come from ‘him’ we’re cooked.

Were only cooked only if people condone religious fanatics using force in order to police unreasoned interpretations of morality. And there are plenty of em...

These are the people who would argue against atheism stating reason comes from God but then would throw reason right out the window saying if the Bible tells me to kill then I must kill.... nice application of God given reason eh....

 

[ClayTrainor]

I answered your question already. Only God knows the reason for the things He does.

That's not an answer to my question I am not asking Gods reason for anything, I am asking

1. Is he powerful enough to protect an innocent child from an attacker?

2. Is he all-knowing enough to be aware of it happening at the time?

3. Is it his choice to not intervene?

Simple questions deserve simple answers. If you choose not to answer them, than there is no real honest discussion taking place here.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Let me clarify. Your assertion of self-ownership as a logical axiom only proves that you do, indeed, own yourself.

And that's completely consistent with everything I've said about self-ownership.

However, it says nothing about governing the interaction between human beings. It does not justify your ability to suppress the actions of others, and it provides no basis for moral treatment of other people.

The Golden Rule is the basis for morality. The golden rule is deriviative of logical axioms such as self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle deals with human interaction, the self-ownership principle deals with human ownership, both of which can be established as logical axioms, regardless of whether or not there's anything about them in a book.

The principle of non-aggression has strong basis in the Bible.

Is this what you believe to be the basis of morality? A book 100% written and translated by men?

However, in an atheistic worldview, where all of our lives are meaningless, there is no reason to follow it.

A pure nonsense assertion. Not even worth responding to.

Please answer my questions before responding any more, so I can have a better idea of where you're coming from.

 

[Ranger29860]

If you are going to argue that Jesus never existed, then you are running up against almost all historians, atheist and theist alike.

Link? Hell just cite a book from one major historian. Also show me statistics on historians belief (proof) of jesus's existence is the majority view. You can not just simply claim that and not back it up. I am referring to the biblical account of jesus that did the things he did.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Time has a beginning because the universe is expanding

How is that evidence of time having a beginning? Even if some kind of Big Bang did occur, it had to be the result of something else that occurred before it, to ad infinitum.

I see no reason to believe there is a beginning, or end to time, space and existence itself. Am I missing something?

 

[Ranger29860]

How is that evidence of time having a beginning? Even if some kind of Big Bang did occur, it had to be the result of something else that occurred before it, to ad infinitum.

I see no reason to believe there is a beginning, or end to time, space and existence itself. Am I missing something?

A point of origin of an event we can view is not the beginning of everything. Just because we can trace 1 event back to origin(big bang) which BTW is not the prevalent theory anymore(will get link). Does not mean that 1 event was the first event. There could have been 5 big bangs before this one and before that who knows. Just because we can only observe 1 part of the does not mean there is not a bigger picture.

Take the earth for example. We started at first believing we were the center of the universe. We could only at the time observe the earth and sun and a stars that appears to go around us. Not until we were able to observe the event behind why the stars and sun moved in the sky did we observe the events preceding what we thought was everything(which opened up a ton of new observations). Same apply's to the big bang or any other point in science were we have hit a wall.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Were only cooked only if people condone religious fanatics using force in order to police unreasoned interpretations of morality. And there are plenty of em...

These are the people who would argue against atheism stating reason comes from God but then would throw reason right out the window saying if the Bible tells me to kill then I must kill.... nice application of God given reason eh....

Except that God would never say that. In fact, He explicitly tells us NOT to kill.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's not an answer to my question I am not asking Gods reason for anything, I am asking

1. Is he powerful enough to protect an innocent child from an attacker?

2. Is he all-knowing enough to be aware of it happening at the time?

3. Is it his choice to not intervene?

Simple questions deserve simple answers. If you choose not to answer them, than there is no real honest discussion taking place here.

I freely admit that God has the capability to do all of these things. I don't understand why you think it's some damning piece of logic against God if it's true. I can't tell you what God would do because I am not God, but since I know that these things do happen, then I know that God allows them because it's part of His plan.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

And that's completely consistent with everything I've said about self-ownership.

Quite.

The Golden Rule is the basis for morality. The golden rule is deriviative of logical axioms such as self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle deals with human interaction, the self-ownership principle deals with human ownership, both of which can be established as logical axioms, regardless of whether or not there's anything about them in a book.

In an atheistic worldview, there is no basis for the golden rule. Is this hard for you to understand, because it should be self evident. If someone initiates aggression against you, are you going to tell them they are wrong because the golden rule says so? Where does the golden rule come from? In an atheistic worldview, there are no rights or wrongs because anyone can choose to do anything and nobody can cite a rule that applies to everyone. In the Bible, however, there is a known Law, and people must follow it or else they know what punishment they get. This is where much of our legal system comes from. The golden rule is not an over-arching basis for morality between human beings because it only applies to those who wish to accept it.

Is this what you believe to be the basis of morality? A book 100% written and translated by men?

I base my morality on the Bible, which was written by men who were inspired by God. In fact, this shows the absurdity of your views. You are saying it's absurd if I accept the rules of men, and yet that is the only place your rules can come from. In an atheistic society, only government can give us consequences if we don't follow the rules. If we follow God, we know the rules and treat people accordingly. There are no over-arching rules except through force in your worldview, and that is the antithesis of freedom.

A pure nonsense assertion. Not even worth responding to.

Your life is meaningless in an atheistic worldview. What's the point of life if we all just end up dying anyway? Why would there be any reason to overcome suffering or help others if we know we are just going to sink into nothingness. Your view is not only depressing, it's dangerous. People who think their lives are meaningless and have no purpose tend to do irrational things.

Please answer my questions before responding any more, so I can have a better idea of where you're coming from.

You're welcome.