Is Ron Paul A Visionary Or A Nut Job?

[daclassicgamingmaster]

Christianity isn't irrational if you believe that Mary was a virgin and knocked up by God. Personally, I prefer the flying spaghetti monster theory.

Anyway, this die hard Christian stuff is awesome, really, but I think getting back to thoughts on Ron Paul would be excellent.

 

[Blah]

Don't bother. This topic is a lost cause so I've reported it. Have a nice day.

 

[imec]

QUOTE
I've given up responding to you sentence-by-sentence because a large proportion of it seems to be the same gibberish repeated again and again.


But it's so much easier. :lol:

QUOTE
I believe Christianity is irrational. I believe in telling people that should they ask me what I think of it. I believe in the ability to state my beliefs and for others to state theirs. I believe in respecting the right to have a belief but not in respecting the belief itself because I see it as fundamentally flawed. And I believe in free expression.


Alright, you believe in unbiased free expression, for everyone, including Christians.

QUOTE
I do not believe in stifling Christianity or any other religion, only in not forcing it upon people who do not want it forced upon them (e.g. prayer in schools, preaching in public places). I certainly don't want Christians killed, nor do I want to force them to stop believing in God. I do not believe that all Christians are evil, nor do I believe that they are all the same, but I do think that it, along with anything accepted by faith alone which tries to shape people's lives, is dangerous. I would like to make it clear that I don't want to eliminate that danger.


So, you believe that say, my Junior High science teacher had the right to tell everyone in the class that there isn't a God, and that those that believe so, are merely uneducated or just plain foolish. If my teacher had the right to explicitly tell everyone in the class that God doesn't exist, why shouldn't I be able to tell a single person that God does exist. Why is that so? I'm just having a hard time believing that the rich Christians have influence over the school, or other public systems.

QUOTE
I do not believe that there is some kind of Muslim world domination conspiracy. It's ridiculous.


About as ridiculous as Mohammad commanding that every Muslim kills an infidel because God hasn't given them the right to worship him? Or is it as ridiculous as Mohammad cutting a slice out of the moon after completing his epic speech?

QUOTE
I am an individual. Is placing my beliefs in what is best for everyone really worse than placing them in two-thousand-year-old dogma?


I don't know, is it worse to believe morality is a figment of evolution, or a figment of the media? Wait, I think Elmo is on, let's see how he can influence me today.

 

[nickspoon]

Alright, you believe in unbiased free expression, for everyone, including Christians.

You have something right for once.

QUOTE
So, you believe that say, my Junior High science teacher had the right to tell everyone in the class that there isn't a God, and that those that believe so, are merely uneducated or just plain foolish. If my teacher had the right to explicitly tell everyone in the class that God doesn't exist, why shouldn't I be able to tell a single person that God does exist. Why is that so? I'm just having a hard time believing that the rich Christians have influence over the school, or other public systems.

You misunderstand. The question of whether or not God exists is not relevant in science lessons. All that is being taught is how we understand science. The subject of God ought to be completely avoided. Also, I am not going to prohibit you from telling people that there is a God. You may, provided that there is some cause to do so and not simply because you'd like to go out in the street and shout about it.

QUOTE
About as ridiculous as Mohammad commanding that every Muslim kills an infidel because God hasn't given them the right to worship him? Or is it as ridiculous as Mohammad cutting a slice out of the moon after completing his epic speech?

About as ridiculous as a virgin birth? Or is it as ridiculous as allowing you to enslave people from neighbouring countries?

QUOTE
I don't know, is it worse to believe morality is a figment of evolution, or a figment of the media? Wait, I think Elmo is on, let's see how he can influence me today.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that the media controls my morality? Because that's not what I'm driving at at all.

 

[DaveC]

Nick, you are trying to reason with the unreasonable, and apply logic to someone who is illogical.

These guys that believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and actually buy that flummery about talking snakes, apples, arks, floods etc they are hopeless. They are gone. Their version of reality is so distorted it is laughable. They are obviously ignorant of any science and were probably home schooled by evangelical fundamentalists. They go around telling everyone God exists. How do THEY know? There is absolutely 0 proof of any supernatural cloud monkey. Their own moldy Bible contradicts itself and doesn't even make any sense by it's own standards, yet they want to run their lives and everyone elses by it. It is so inconsistant that even as fiction it is poor.

 

[nickspoon]

Nick, you are trying to reason with the unreasonable, and apply logic to someone who is illogical.

These guys that believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and actually buy that flummery about talking snakes, apples, arks, floods etc they are hopeless. They are gone. Their version of reality is so distorted it is laughable. They are obviously ignorant of any science and were probably home schooled by evangelical fundamentalists. They go around telling everyone God exists. How do THEY know? There is absolutely 0 proof of any supernatural cloud monkey. Their own moldy Bible contradicts itself and doesn't even make any sense by it's own standards, yet they want to run their lives and everyone elses by it. It is so inconsistant that even as fiction it is poor.

Indeed, I was just trying to put it nicely

 

[OMars]

Ouch. :lol:

 

[Yrx]

Nick, you are trying to reason with the unreasonable, and apply logic to someone who is illogical.

These guys that believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and actually buy that flummery about talking snakes, apples, arks, floods etc they are hopeless. They are gone. Their version of reality is so distorted it is laughable. They are obviously ignorant of any science and were probably home schooled by evangelical fundamentalists. They go around telling everyone God exists. How do THEY know? There is absolutely 0 proof of any supernatural cloud monkey. Their own moldy Bible contradicts itself and doesn't even make any sense by it's own standards, yet they want to run their lives and everyone elses by it. It is so inconsistant that even as fiction it is poor.

I saw a while back a quote from you that went something to the effect of, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts." This post blurs the two considerably.

Yes, these people believe in an earth that's 6000 years old, etc. But you know what? That doesn't mean they're uneducated dopes. People that believed these same things are some of the very founders of science. Actually one of them IS the literal founder of the scientific method, Francis Bacon. If you want some more names, try a few like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac Newton, and Carolus Linnaeus.

People that believe things like this have weighed the evidence as presented by more than just the evolutionary mainstream. They still believe in natural selection, and what is often called "micro-evolution." It's just a different interpretation involving how old the earth is, and it's really not hurting anybody in any way. And if you disagree with that, then give me a specific, factual example of how not believing in millions of years could endanger anything or anyone.

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

Note: those people lived many years ago. Modern science has proven new things at this point, thanks to numerous technological advances.

eg, radio carbon dating

 

[Blah]

That and nobody has any real proof of how old the earth really is. Its not like theres a "born on" date stamped on Antarctica.

The scientific theory regarding the earth's age is based on the assumption that the processes that happened to bring the earth into existence were going on at the same rate at the beginning as they are now. The half-life of carbon could have changed due to a number of causes.

Likewise, the theory that the earth is around 6000 years old is based in the faith that God, being all-powerful, actually did bring everything into existence in 6 days and rested on the Sabbath (which is Saturday, btw. Constantine changed the Christian observance to Sunday in an effort to distance them from the Jews. What he did was wrong but nobody cares anymore.), and that the fossils we see are a result of the Great Flood.

In my book neither theory has much scientific provability to it, nobody has seen the events of the beginning unfold in action so nobody has any proof.

I do however have a personal relationship with God, and hold that in a higher regard than any scientist's babble. There is no way a human can prove the existence of God to skeptics, but just because you don't have a relationship with Him doesn't mean I can't. If you keep a closed mind and heart, He will leave you alone, But if you seek, you shall find. God wants nothing more than to be humankind's real best friend. Pretty benevolent and humble for their creator IMO.

In any case, the topic really isn't that relevant to a political discussion. A real candidate is in it to make a difference, right? Being a minister wouldn't stop that. You say that as a minister Ron Paul has put God as the top priority in his life, but you forget to think about that a minister would certainly believe that it was God that got him there, and that as such, working hard as President is what God wants him to do.

I am still not decided on who gets my vote, Ron Paul didn't say much in the NH debates (looks like they wouldn't let him talk, LOL) and the other guys looked pretty good too, talking about getting big industry out of Washington, and improving healthcare and immigration policy. However, one can't really be sure about anything they say, Bush for example promised to change things for the better (doesn't everyone?), but in 8 years I haven't seen much positive change.

 

[Yrx]

It might be worth mentioning that "radio-carbon" dating covers a large number of methods, and some of them have contradictory results. Carbon 14 dating is accurate because it uses historical evidence to find an equivalent age, but it doesn't cover anything prehistorical. Other methods of dating are used to "prove" ancient ages, but are inconsistent. Especially when something dated this way comes out as millions of years old, but it still contains carbon 14, a complete contradiction. Volcanic action has also been shown to drastically skew dates.

So yeah, politics. lol

 

[fawny]

Creationist claptrap....

Let's consider this for a moment. Scientists are not out to disprove the bible. They are focused on discovering facts about the universe. They are paid to do this by those who can benefit from their discoveries.

They are not going to get paid if they can not produce verifiable results. A large number of radiometric dating methods are employed because they have proven accurate in relation to other dating methods and each other. To date something several methods are employed to get as accurate a figure as possible. If, as creationists claim, these methods contradict each other there would be no basis on which to even try and date something.

Creationists, on the other hand, desperately want to believe one particular iron age creation myth. By their very nature they are prepared to believe anything their creed tells them to - or they wouldn't be creationists. Those who profit from their gullibility have resorted to feeding them this kind of misinformation to counter the overwhelming, verifiable evidence that the myths are just a myths.

This is precisely why the religious should be kept out of politics. They are too willing to believe anything that supports their beliefs , even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Politics should be about dealing with the real world and real issues not imagined impossibilities.

Remember James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior ?

Do you want your future controlled by people who say things like the following ? :

"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns"

and

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand"

Would you choose to be paying this man with your taxes ? I think he is the same guy who declared that trees cause air pollution.

 

[LHC]

Reading this thread is worse than watching a Kent Hovind video.

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

I, too, believe there is a higher force. I don't think it's a cloud man, though.

I don't, however, believe in anything else related to religion. I think the New Testament is a bunch of crazy mumbo jumbo, and even for my religion, I don't chose to follow much of the Old Testament (which is a bit less nutty than the New, sorry Christians ).

I am NOT a fan of organized religion. It leads to irrational behavior. It leads to traveling miles and miles to a "house of God" just to pray. It's ridiculous.

I'm by no means an Atheist, but I DO support overwhelming scientific proof over metaphysical bull.


Just wanted to get that out there.

 

[nickspoon]

I do however have a personal relationship with God, and hold that in a higher regard than any scientist's babble. There is no way a human can prove the existence of God to skeptics, but just because you don't have a relationship with Him doesn't mean I can't. If you keep a closed mind and heart, He will leave you alone, But if you seek, you shall find. God wants nothing more than to be humankind's real best friend. Pretty benevolent and humble for their creator IMO.

I don't mean to offend (but I probably will anyway) but I am of the firm belief that these so-called "personal relationships" with God are nothing more than imaginary. Possibly even some kind of subconscious reaching out. I watched a video recently of a group of Christians who essentially tried to get their children to have seizures on the ground and spout incoherent gibberish. They openly encouraged what would be seen by most psychologists as a nervous breakdown. I have serious doubts in the validity (or at least wisdom) of a god who expresses himself through means which are considered illnesses.

I'd also like to ask, if God wants nothing more than to be humankind's best friend, why does he not come out and just say so? It would really only be the most closed-minded atheists who would doubt in any way Jesus appearing right in front of them and telling them that there is a God. Especially if he appeared to all atheists simultaneously.

 

[Blah]

That "slain in the spirit" stuff with them rolling around like a seizure is just a bunch of Pentecostal crap that has no basis in the word of God.

 

[OMars]

That "slain in the spirit" stuff with them rolling around like a seizure is just a bunch of Pentecostal crap that has no basis in the word of God.

Amen.

 

[Sphinxter]

In America you can be both.

 

[Yrx]

If you don't believe what I said, then you can go look it up. It's scientific fact that carbon 14 can't read prehistorical dates, because the half-life of carbon 14 is too short. And if a different dating method shows something as millions of years old, but it still has carbon 14 in it, then it obviously can't be millions of years old. And there are cases on record about what I mentioned with volcanic activity.

I'm not arguing my brains out against good science, I'm pointing out BAD science that is for some reason held onto. Science is all about reasoning and finding the correct answers, right? Then I would like to ask why countless dates are thrown out the window because they don't fit the current model. If the evidence conflicts with the theory, the logical thing would be to fix the theory, not throw out the evidence and blame it on human error when the results are consistently the same. There are problems with old earth science. That doesn't mean drop everything and be a creationist, it means that they need to FIX things about theories.

But like I said, if you don't believe me on all of this, you can look it up. It's not that hard.

Anyways, the entire point was that not believing in evolution doesn't make you just plain incompetent. Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for 10 years. In that time, he kept the government secular, but MUCH more importantly, he ran the government really well. He improved his state. That's what being the elected executive is supposed to be about, not whether you like his personal beliefs. Right?

@ Sphinxter: lol

 

[DaveC]

I, too, believe there is a higher force. I don't think it's a cloud man, though.

Just wanted to get that out there.

Higher force? Like the nuclear forces gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction?

Or you mean you don't like the "established" God(s) because it sounds too silly, so you made up your own? I hate to say it but that is even nuttier than believing the established religions. I mean none of those are good so only you know what the "real" supernatural force is about? No one else has caught on to it and made a real organized religion from it until you discovered that there was this force

Also you "young earthers" should realize there is alot more evidence for the age of the earth than carbon dating. You are correct the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years. But religious types distort truth by what they omit just as well as what they distort. Ever hear of Radiometric dating? Didn't mention that for some reason Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age. Then there are fossils (again dated with the above method), Rock strata layers, plate tektonics on and on. All the religious guys have for "proof" is an old and poorly written book written by humans? Oh yeah, right it was written from the word of God. And you know this how? Where you there? Oh you just blindly believe what someone else tells you. I see that makes sense