Gary Johnson on abortion [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

GabrielHandler

08-25-2010, 02:55 PM

I am still relatively new to this site and this is the first topic I am starting so why not dive right in. :D

So, it is no secret that I like Gary Johnson and when it comes to 2012 if Paul chooses not to run then I am ready to throw my support his way. I have seen a few posts about how his feelings on abortion sort of make or break whether people like him and would do the same. I was pretty curious on the issue and checked it out and was surprised to see how much pro-life legislation he supported even though people cursed him for stance. He also supports the overturning Roe v. Wade.

I understand that as an Ob/Gyn who delivered thousands of babies Ron Paul is strictly pro-life and those who support his generally are right behind him on this issue, as I am. However, I don’t feel like Gary should be dammed because of his stance, I mean overall it feels like his main stance is he wants it to be left up to the states. I dunno that is how I feel. I am interested to hear everyone else’s thoughts. The excerpt from his website is below.

“Life is precious and needs to be protected. Deciding to have an abortion is a very difficult decision. As Governor, Gary Johnson supported legislation that banned partial birth abortions and allowed for parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. He believes that ultimately it is a woman’s right to make such a decision during the early stage of pregnancy.

Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited. That is particularly true of decisions such as Roe vs. Wade, which have expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution. With the overturning of Roe vs Wade, laws regarding abortion would be decided by the individual states. “

EDIT: http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/abortion.html thanks for the suggestion to add it

nate895

08-25-2010, 03:02 PM

The reason why I cannot support someone who is pro-choice in any manner is because it symbolizes a different paradigm on ethical matters. Gary Johnson, and most libertarians, do not build their ethical views upon the solid foundation of the word of God. That means that they are building their entire system on a foundation of sand, and I am not going to trust someone who builds their house on the shifting sands of whatever secular ethical view is popular in the day, especially for someone like Johnson, who is a moderate utilitarian libertarian at best.

bucfish

08-25-2010, 03:03 PM

welcome Gabriel and thanks for the info next time though provide a link to the quotes

libertybrewcity

08-25-2010, 03:09 PM

I don't have a problem with it, but I am sure the majority of the Republican party does. This is one issue that will not change.

libertybrewcity

08-25-2010, 03:09 PM

What pro-choice Republican has gotten anywhere? I can't think of any in the Republican presidential primaries.

nate895

08-25-2010, 03:15 PM

What pro-choice Republican has gotten anywhere? I can't think of any in the Republican presidential primaries.

You cannot be openly pro-choice and expect to get very far (Giuliani's primary problem), but most of the GOP electorate doesn't hold professing pro-lifers feet to the fire. Then again, most of the GOP electorate hasn't held their incumbents feet to the fire in a while, but that is changing.

GabrielHandler

08-25-2010, 03:21 PM

nate895

08-25-2010, 03:33 PM

t0rnado

08-25-2010, 03:37 PM

muzzled dogg

08-25-2010, 03:39 PM

A philosophy based on the non-aggression principle is much more stable than a philosophy based on your imaginary friend in the sky.

damn homie

btw check sig

nate895

08-25-2010, 03:43 PM

A philosophy based on the non-aggression principle is much more stable than a philosophy based on your imaginary friend in the sky.

1) Gary Johnson's philosophy is not based on the NAP, it is based on utilitarianism, but he just happens to be closely aligned with the NAP. That can change at any time if he thinks the NAP is impractical. Similarly, anyone who believes in the NAP can just as easily stop believing if he, all of a sudden, finds a communistic moral code better.

2) The NAP is based on personal feelings solely. There is no rational reason to accept the NAP over "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" outside of a lawgiver. The Christian belief system is based on the living God, who has conquered death and has blessed His people throughout history, and has punished them for wrongdoing. The United States is a covenant nation under judgment from God for abandoning that covenant in pursuit of false gods.

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 03:52 PM

Yeah I cannot support anyone who supports abortion be legal.
He may correctly want to overturn RvW, but he'd still want abortion legal for early term in his state.

It is a matter of ethical differences, I cannot support someone who supports the legality of murder of the unborn no matter at what level they support it. Yes I am a localist and I want things decided locally, but that doesn't mean I'm going to support someone who only supports something locally if that is something I find highly unethical.

If it was just a cultural difference or something, fine. But this issue is more than that. It'd be the same as if someone thought rape should be legal at the state level.

jmdrake

08-25-2010, 03:56 PM

damn homie

btw check sig

Well I guess this is as good a time as any to respond to your sig without doing a "thread derail". ;) I was pro choice before Ron Paul convinced me that individual rights extend to the unborn. Anyway, my rebuttal to your sig.

It is an interesting but very flawed hypothesis. I see now though where some people get the "pregnancy is a parasite" or a "foreign invasion" idea. Invasions happen by force. Infections happen by stealth. Pregnancies that aren't rapes happen by consent. Even when they are "accidental" it's a case of informed consent to the risk.

A better analogy is a boat. After all if the "unwanted guest" is in your house and you put him out he doesn't die. If your "unwanted guest" is on your boat and you throw him off in the middle of the ocean he most likely would die. Would any sane libertarian argue that you could invite someone on a boat, take him out to the middle of the ocean, and get tired of him and throw him overboard? And even in the case of "stowaways", most would find it barbaric to simply throw such a person overboard. The captain of the ship should make the stowaway get off at the earliest port to do the least amount of damage. That would be akin to taking a "morning after" pill (before the medical definition of conception which is implantation onto the uterus), or late in the late term having a cesarean section section to get the stowaway "out" and (if it survives) putting it up for adoption.

Slutter McGee

08-25-2010, 04:02 PM

The Christian belief system is based on the living God, who has conquered death and has blessed His people throughout history, and has punished them for wrongdoing. The United States is a covenant nation under judgment from God for abandoning that covenant in pursuit of false gods.

Oh brother. Go support Huckabee or something.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

jmdrake

08-25-2010, 04:02 PM

This is true, I have seen Giuliani as a prevalent example. I guess thing is that even though Gary's legislation is pro-life and he himself is pro-life, but as in politics believes in a woman's right to choose, does this speak louder than action? I am obviously not saying he is a poster child for anything.

I thought Gary Johnson was personally pro choice? What does it mean to be "politically pro choice" but "legislatively pro life"? :confused:

Anyway, Rand got hammered during the primaries by people trying to call him pro choice. The smear campaign didn't work because his opponent didn't have anything real to stick it on. But this same radical group of crazy pro lifers are trying to smear Ron Paul, Sarah Palin*, Antonin Scalia, Billy Graham and others as being "pro choice".

hxxp://prolifeprofiles.com/

These fruitcakes would have a field day with Gary Johnson. Could I personally vote for him? Sure. Does he have a prayer of winning the GOP nomination? (No pun intended). My personal opinion is no. But if he emerges as the candidate I will support him regardless.

*Note I do kind of agree that Palin is weak as a pro life candidate since as governor she nominated a pro choice judge to the Alaska supreme court. And yes I've heard the "her hands were tied" argument, but that's crap. She could have sent the recommendation back and said she wasn't going to fill the position until she got someone acceptable.

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 04:07 PM

A philosophy based on the non-aggression principle is much more stable than a philosophy based on your imaginary friend in the sky.

I'll agree with that.

TIAFE

08-25-2010, 04:11 PM

I believe Gary is personally pro-life, but supports the woman's right to choose. It used to say that on his website, but now it has changed so I dunno.

YumYum

08-25-2010, 04:12 PM

Bman

08-25-2010, 04:12 PM

nate895

08-25-2010, 04:18 PM

What is the "Word of G-d?"

Does G-d object to terminating a pregnancy where if the woman goes full term there is a 100% guarantee that she and the baby will die?

Well, the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The word of God is God's revelation to mankind concerning the things we must know in order to glorify Him and live a fruitful life. The book called the Holy Bible is unique in many ways that distinguishes it from other supposedly sacred texts, such as the Qur'an and the Vedas.

As for God on abortion when the life of the mother is at risk, God's Revelation never specifically addresses, so I cannot be dogmatic, but I would tend to lean towards the idea that God would allow abortion in that situation since it is not specifically condemned and it is saving at least one of the two lives as opposed to letting both expire. However, all options to save the life of the child ought to be pursued first. It is almost an impossibility given modern medical sciences for that situation to occur, and before that time, there was no way to be certain that the mother or child would die.

nate895

08-25-2010, 04:20 PM

If this truely is your bar, I don't see how you can find anyone electable.

If by "electable" you mean that the person can be elected to public office, then I really don't care. It isn't about winning public office to me anymore; it is about confronting the anti-Christian society we live in today.

GabrielHandler

08-25-2010, 04:21 PM

nate895

08-25-2010, 04:27 PM

I guess what I was trying to say that in the political realm he is pro-choice going by the standard definition (politically pro-choice). However, as Governor he supported pro-life legislation (legislatively pro-life). I dunno if that makes any more sense, but overall I guess I am just wondering if people even noticed the pro-life stuff he did in New Mexico?

I recognize them. They don't go near far enough. Furthermore, he believes that in the early stages, the state shouldn't punish the wrongdoers. As with ChaosControl, I believe this is an issue that gets to the heart of our ethical values, and Gary Johnson is lacking on it, and I therefore cannot support him.

Bman

08-25-2010, 04:28 PM

If by "electable" you mean that the person can be elected to public office, then I really don't care. It isn't about winning public office to me anymore; it is about confronting the anti-Christian society we live in today.

Seems to me that you hold an idea that if you are not christian you are anti-christian. Am I wrong in this belief?

t0rnado

08-25-2010, 04:28 PM

1) Gary Johnson's philosophy is not based on the NAP, it is based on utilitarianism, but he just happens to be closely aligned with the NAP. That can change at any time if he thinks the NAP is impractical. Similarly, anyone who believes in the NAP can just as easily stop believing if he, all of a sudden, finds a communistic moral code better.

2) The NAP is based on personal feelings solely. There is no rational reason to accept the NAP over "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" outside of a lawgiver. The Christian belief system is based on the living God, who has conquered death and has blessed His people throughout history, and has punished them for wrongdoing. The United States is a covenant nation under judgment from God for abandoning that covenant in pursuit of false gods.

Your belief system is founded upon myths and plagiarized material. Based on what you've stated, it is obvious that you're only moral because you fear punishment from your imaginary buddy. There is no rational reason for you to believe in one bullshit religion over another, while there is a rational reason to favor libertarianism over communism.

nate895

08-25-2010, 04:34 PM

Seems to me that you hold an idea that if you are not christian you are anti-christian. Am I wrong in this belief?

Yes

Luke 11:23:

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 04:36 PM

*Note I do kind of agree that Palin is weak as a pro life candidate since as governor she nominated a pro choice judge to the Alaska supreme court. And yes I've heard the "her hands were tied" argument, but that's crap. She could have sent the recommendation back and said she wasn't going to fill the position until she got someone acce

Also she said she contemplated an abortion with her latest child since he had Downs.

That shows she isn't pro-life at all, only pro-life when convenient.

YumYum

08-25-2010, 04:37 PM

Well, the Word of God is Jesus Christ. The word of God is God's revelation to mankind concerning the things we must know in order to glorify Him and live a fruitful life. The book called the Holy Bible is unique in many ways that distinguishes it from other supposedly sacred texts, such as the Qur'an and the Vedas.

You are correct. According to the Bible Jesus is the "Word of G-d". Many Christians will say that the "Word of G-d" is the Bible.

As for God on abortion when the life of the mother is at risk, God's Revelation never specifically addresses, so I cannot be dogmatic, but I would tend to lean towards the idea that God would allow abortion in that situation since it is not specifically condemned and it is saving at least one of the two lives as opposed to letting both expire. However, all options to save the life of the child ought to be pursued first. It is almost an impossibility given modern medical sciences for that situation to occur, and before that time, there was no way to be certain that the mother or child would die.

You are leaving yourself wide open with the statement I put in bold, because the argument can be made by pro-abortionist that G-d doesn't condemn any abortion. What also can be argued in this scenario is that if abortion is illegal, and while G-d may or may not approve of terminating the pregnancy, it is imperfect humans that would ultimately make the decision for the mother as to whether she will go full term, thus risking her life.

I am against abortion, more from a Libertarian point of view, but there is no realistic way to end illegal abortions, and there are times when a woman's life is endangered by carrying the baby. The woman should have a choice whether she wants to live or die.

nate895

08-25-2010, 04:39 PM

Your belief system is founded upon myths and plagiarized material. Based on what you've stated, it is obvious that you're only moral because you fear punishment from your imaginary buddy. There is no rational reason for you to believe in one bullshit religion over another, while there is a rational reason to favor libertarianism over communism.

For one, this isn't a debate about the truth or falsity of our religious beliefs, so I will hold off to the proper subforum and thread for that one. Suffice it to say that there is absolutely zero proof that any of the Christian were plagiarized, and actually quite the opposite is demonstrable in most cases. I refer you to tektonics.org to answer your questions. Secondly, I have no fear of punishment of wrongdoing. Anyone who knows the Christian religion knows that the Christian religion is about forgiveness for immoral deeds, and that we have no fear of meeting our Creator because our forgiveness is certain.

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 04:41 PM

I am against abortion, more from a Libertarian point of view, but there is no realistic way to end illegal abortions, and there are times when a woman's life is endangered by carrying the baby. The woman should have a choice whether she wants to live or die.

Well we can at least ban the practice and thus never allow funding for it. We can also prevent the procedure from being allowed in any clinic. Will it still happen illegally? Yes. So does other forms of murder and rape. But we can lessen it, and it is our responsibility to do what we can to lessen it.

I can agree with allowing the mother to have the choice if her life is endanger. Then it is a form of self defense rather than murder.

Bman

08-25-2010, 04:41 PM

Yes

Luke 11:23:

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

That's a bit confusing. That's a yes as in you do believe all non christians are anti-christian?

nate895

08-25-2010, 04:45 PM

You are leaving yourself wide open with the statement I put in bold, because the argument can be made by pro-abortionist that G-d doesn't condemn any abortion. What also can be argued in this scenario is that if abortion is illegal, and while G-d may or may not approve of terminating the pregnancy, it is imperfect humans that would ultimately make the decision for the mother as to whether she will go full term, thus risking her life.

I am against abortion, more from a Libertarian point of view, but there is no realistic way to end illegal abortions, and there are times when a woman's life is endangered by carrying the baby. The woman should have a choice whether she wants to live or die.

You are correct, I could say it better than I did. However, what I mean is that there is not sufficient Biblical reason, either explicitly or be good and proper logical reasoning given Biblical premises that could lead to absolute certitude that God would find such an action by a woman to be sin. On the case of willful abortion with no danger, the Bible teaches that life begins at conception and that we should not take another person's life that is not sinning in certain manners, so a fetus should be given every right a person outside the womb has.

nate895

08-25-2010, 04:49 PM

That's a bit confusing. That's a yes as in you do believe all non christians are anti-christian?

Yes, all people who are not Christian are anti-Christian. If you do not bow the knee to Christ, you are necessarily in rebellion against Him. That does not mean that non-Christians necessarily go around insulting Christians all time, just that they have a fundamentally anti-Biblical, anti-God, and anti-Christ worldview that will express itself when confronted with the Gospel.

libertybrewcity

08-25-2010, 04:50 PM

If by "electable" you mean that the person can be elected to public office, then I really don't care. It isn't about winning public office to me anymore; it is about confronting the anti-Christian society we live in today.

We live in an anti-Christian society? Let me see..We have Christians beating up Muslims and trampling on the 1st amendment rights in New York. We have parishes posting signs that Jesus wants war. We have priests having Harry Potter book burnings. If anything, out society is anti-Muslim, but I would say generally a good chunk of Christians are what is destroying society.

nate895

08-25-2010, 04:57 PM

We live in an anti-Christian society? Let me see..We have Christians beating up Muslims and trampling on the 1st amendment rights in New York. We have parishes posting signs that Jesus wants war. We have priests having Harry Potter book burnings. If anything, out society is anti-Muslim, but I would say generally a good chunk of Christians are what is destroying society.

Just because a society is anti-Muslim as well does not make it pro-Christian. Furthermore, the Evangelical church's unfaithfulness to Scripture is the primary reason for the decline of Christianity in the West. From the 19th century until today, more and more Christians will not take a stand on Biblical authority and defend with all their hearts and minds. Today, conservative Christianity is more about a misplaced Americanism than it is about worshiping the one true God, the great I Am. However, there are signs that this is slowly changing for the good, such as yours truly.

Only 9% of Americans on any given Sunday attend an "Evangelical" church, and many of those go to churches like Rick Warren's that refuse to preach the whole counsel of God. That statistic is where you need to look to see what has happened to Christianity in our society.

YumYum

08-25-2010, 05:01 PM

Luke 11:23: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

Yes, Jesus told his followers that, but today we have a thousand different Christian denominations around the world, all claiming that their way is the right way.

The Apostle Paul says at 1st Corinthians 1:10 :"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

You see from this scripture that Christians are to be fitly united in the same mind and the same line of thought, with absolutely no divisions. This is a commandment from Paul, not a recommendation. Yet, Christians fight wars against each other because they believe their belief system is the correct way and only way to believe.

So, out of the 1,000 Christian denominations in the world, what Christian denomination is for Jesus, and which ones are against him?

The Bible says at Ephesians 4:5 that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;.."

Again, the question can be asked: What "one faith" is the true religion?

libertybrewcity

08-25-2010, 05:14 PM

Just because a society is anti-Muslim as well does not make it pro-Christian. Furthermore, the Evangelical church's unfaithfulness to Scripture is the primary reason for the decline of Christianity in the West. From the 19th century until today, more and more Christians will not take a stand on Biblical authority and defend with all their hearts and minds. Today, conservative Christianity is more about a misplaced Americanism than it is about worshiping the one true God, the great I Am. However, there are signs that this is slowly changing for the good, such as yours truly.

Only 9% of Americans on any given Sunday attend an "Evangelical" church, and many of those go to churches like Rick Warren's that refuse to preach the whole counsel of God. That statistic is where you need to look to see what has happened to Christianity in our society.

Christians are Christians. Even if Rick Warren doesn't teach the whole counsel of God, whatever that means, Christians still believe in God. I have had more than 14 years of private Catholic education from strict Catholicism to the more liberal Jesuit tradition.

I had a few friends that were Protestants and non-Catholic Christians. Their congregations were just as money-hungry as the Catholic ones I attended for years.

I respect the teachings if they are actually taught. Unfortunately, the people and churches have completely thrown that idea into the landfill and lit it on fire. In America, there is absolutely zero hope for Christianity. You either have extremist nut cases, abortions bombers, wealthy priests who have profited from their books and tv shows, and irreverent Christians who trample on the bible and ten commandments as they do the Constitution. Oh, and don't let me forget the Theocratic authoritarians and war mongering Christians. That is majority and it is here to stay. I have given up on religion long ago.

nate895

08-25-2010, 05:18 PM

Yes, Jesus told his followers that, but today we have a thousand different Christian denominations around the world, all claiming that their way is the right way.

The Apostle Paul says at 1st Corinthians 1:10 :"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

You see from this scripture that Christians are to be fitly united in the same mind and the same line of thought, with absolutely no divisions. This is a commandment from Paul, not a recommendation. Yet, Christians fight wars against each other because they believe their belief system is the correct way and only way to believe.

So, out of the 1,000 Christian denominations in the world, what Christian denomination is for Jesus, and which ones are against him?

The Bible says at Ephesians 4:5 that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism;.."

Again, the question can be asked: What "one faith" is the true religion?

First of all, Christ addresses the issue of people who do things in Christ's name but who do not follow exactly with the Apostles in Luke 9:49-50:

49 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

The "thousands of denominations" is a really old Roman Catholic canard as well. First, lots of them are liberal non-churches who are only nominal Christians (UCC, PC(USA), EPCUSA, etc.). Secondly, lots of the denominations are simply national divisions, such as the Presbyterian Church in America as opposed to the Free Church of Scotland or the Presbyterian Church in Australia. Also, within a country divisions within a broader denomination (such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as opposed to the Presbyterian Church in America) is because the liberal domination of the primary denomination in a country. In this country, the PC(USA) has become more and more liberal, causing Evangelicals to split with it over the course of almost a century now, and that continues to this day. In these cases, the denominations often have agreements that basically make them one denomination for all purposes besides church government.

In the end, there are only really around eight denominations, which all recognize each others' claims to being Christian and do not deny the others' Christianity: Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed/Low Church Anglican, Continental Reformed (arguably under the Presbyterian banner or visa versa), Lutheran, Anabaptist, Congregationalist, and broader Evangelical "non-denominational" churches. Outside of this, the divisions are either significant enough to deny the others' Christianity, or not worthy of being labeled a separate denomination.

nate895

08-25-2010, 05:25 PM

Christians are Christians. Even if Rick Warren doesn't teach the whole counsel of God, whatever that means, Christians still believe in God. I have had more than 14 years of private Catholic education from strict Catholicism to the more liberal Jesuit tradition.

I had a few friends that were Protestants and non-Catholic Christians. Their congregations were just as money-hungry as the Catholic ones I attended for years.

I respect the teachings if they are actually taught. Unfortunately, the people and churches have completely thrown that idea into the landfill and lit it on fire. In America, there is absolutely zero hope for Christianity. You either have extremist nut cases, abortions bombers, wealthy priests who have profited from their books and tv shows, and irreverent Christians who trample on the bible and ten commandments as they do the Constitution. Oh, and don't let me forget the Theocratic authoritarians and war mongering Christians. That is majority and it is here to stay. I have given up on religion long ago.

I really don't know how to answer this other than to say that you can't judge Christianity based on people whose primary motives are not the preaching of the Gospel and the living out of that belief. I do not believe Roman Catholics are Christians, and I do not believe that churches who are more worried about bigger, better buildings and higher tech gadgets to webcast their sermons in HD so people can stay at home in their PJ's and pretend they are going to church. That isn't Christianity. That's guilt assuaging with Jesus stamped on the front.

thehunter

08-25-2010, 05:41 PM

I think libertarians and conservatives should, of all groups in modern times, appreciate the fact that not everyone who names themselves as a member of a group (eg Christian) is, in fact, a true member of that group -- just look at a good number of Republicans who are not just big government, but huge government! A doctrine must instead be judged on its own merits and, in the case of Christianity, that doctrine openly acknowledges that every member is going to fall far short of the bar, which is why the redemption of the cross was necessary for salvation.

On the Catholic issue, I know that there are saved Catholics out there as I was once one (I have since converted); Alistair Begg, host of Truth for Life, is actually doing a series on his radio programme this week on the matter and does a wonderful job on tackling this issue. In summation, you can't be a good Catholic and a good Christian, but you can be a poor Catholic and a good Christian. The broadcasts are available here for any brethren or curious onlookers who are interested: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/truth-for-life/ (oh, and countering the view that all churches are money-hungry, they're free too!)

bunklocoempire

08-25-2010, 06:02 PM

Derailed of course, but anyway...

Your belief system is founded upon myths and plagiarized material. Based on what you've stated, it is obvious that you're only moral because you fear punishment from your imaginary buddy. There is no rational reason for you to believe in one bullshit religion over another, while there is a rational reason to favor libertarianism over communism.

Emphasis mine.

Um, no.

Libertarianism is faith based also. Some would say myth.

There is no rational reason for it -especially if we* insist we are animals rather than men -"evolved animal" or not.

*I'm NOT a monkey's uncle.

Can we look to science and nature to explain or prove property rights?

No.

Big fish eats little fish. Alpha male kills for mating right. Strong survive. Survival of the pack. Law of the jungle, etc..

I tell ya, nature is anti-liberty, and anti-individual -it hates individual freedom.:D

Bunkloco

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 06:05 PM

Can we look to science and nature to explain or prove property rights?

Um, yea, actually. But if by "we" you mean religious wackos then, no, I wouldn't expect them to crack open a science book much less know how to read one.

nate895

08-25-2010, 06:10 PM

Um, yea, actually. But if by "we" you mean religious wackos then, no, I wouldn't expect them to crack open a science book much less know how to read one.

"Hello, I am an ostrich. I dig my head in the sand and pretend Christianity and science hate each other even though modern science was developed solely by devout professing Christians in Western and Central Europe. Futhermore, despite the fact atheistic/pantheistic materialism held sway in Greek Philosophy for much of its history, and never developed science, I will claim that science supports their belief systems, and, furthermore, I will pretend that atheism came out of the so-called enlightenment by scientific research even though all these beliefs were held by atheists from the beginning of recorded philosophical history."

thehunter

08-25-2010, 06:17 PM

Um, yea, actually. But if by "we" you mean religious wackos then, no, I wouldn't expect them to crack open a science book much less know how to read one.

Okay, try me -- prove that nature upholds property rights. Be careful on the science though as many societies in the last 100 years have used the apparent authority of science to shove radical and dangerous government-sponsored programs through. Science is only man's observations of nature -- it is no more infallible than the average occupant of a voting booth!

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 06:23 PM

"Hello, I am an ostrich. I dig my head in the sand and pretend Christianity and science hate each other even though modern science was developed solely by devout professing Christians in Western and Central Europe. Futhermore, despite the fact atheistic/pantheistic materialism held sway in Greek Philosophy for much of its history, and never developed science, I will claim that science supports their belief systems, and, furthermore, I will pretend that atheism came out of the so-called enlightenment by scientific research even though all these beliefs were held by atheists from the beginning of recorded philosophical history."

Don't you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? lmao

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 06:31 PM

Okay, try me -- prove that nature upholds property rights. Be careful on the science though as many societies in the last 100 years have used the apparent authority of science to shove radical and dangerous government-sponsored programs through. Science is only man's observations of nature -- it is no more infallible than the average occupant of a voting booth!

Alright, let's start with acknowledging what property rights are - social rules/norms which regulate the relationship between members of a social group and their environment. The right to own, create, abandon, sell, bequeath, destroy, physical matter (among many other things) are the result of many different interconnecting rules (both formal and informal) which are part of a given society.

This is also true for many other animals, although clearly human beings have the most complex system of rules and norms (primarily because we have culture - the ability to pass down those norms/rules, which means they don't have to be hardwired and thus the rules/norms of a society can adapt as the circumstances demand; a fact which, I would argue, was essential to the rapid expansion of the human species across the world).

You don't have to be a scientist to understand that animals have their own rudimentary form of property rights, usually relating to territories controlled by individual animals (often predators) or kinship groups. Most social animals have rules. If you look at the social structure of chimpanzees, for example, they have very elaborate and important rules that govern the operation of their social groups.

A hunting/foraging ground is a well-known example of a system of property rights that has existed in many societies (probably the most prolific of property rights as humans were foragers for like 95% of our existence). Even in feudal times the peasants were forbidden from hunting or gathering firewood from the King's forest, etc. Many animals have similar "hunting ground" rules, although they are often a hard-wired, instinctual rule.

nate895

08-25-2010, 06:31 PM

Don't you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? lmao

Don't you believe that biologists come from bacteria, which came from electrified ooze, which in turn came from nothing, which exploded and became everything? LMAO

Two can play that game.

nate895

08-25-2010, 06:40 PM

Alright, let's start with acknowledging what property rights are - social rules/norms which regulate the relationship between members of a social group and their environment. The right to own, create, abandon, sell, bequeath, destroy, physical matter (among many other things) are the result of many different interconnecting rules (both formal and informal) which are part of a given society.

This is also true for many other animals, although clearly human beings have the most complex system of rules and norms (primarily because we have culture - the ability to pass down those norms/rules, which means they don't have to be hardwired and thus the rules/norms of a society can adapt as the circumstances demand; a fact which, I would argue, was essential to the rapid expansion of the human species across the world).

You don't have to be a scientist to understand that animals have their own rudimentary form of property rights, usually relating to territories controlled by individual animals (often predators) or kinship groups. Most social animals have rules. If you look at the social structure of chimpanzees, for example, they have very elaborate and important rules that govern the operation of their social groups.

A hunting/foraging ground is a well-known example of a system of property rights that has existed in many societies (probably the most prolific of property rights as humans were foragers for like 95% of our existence). Even in feudal times the peasants were forbidden from hunting or gathering firewood from the King's forest, etc. Many animals have similar "hunting ground" rules, although they are often a hard-wired, instinctual rule.

None of this provides a reason why property rights ought to be defended. Non-moral forces cannot be held to be infallible producers of decent morality. It is quite possible that even if property rights have developed through natural selection, that it is all one big cosmic accident. Your argument is what is called in philosophy the "is-ought problem." You cannot take what is and determine what ought to be in the material universe.

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 06:49 PM

Don't you believe that biologists come from bacteria, which came from electrified ooze, which in turn came from nothing, which exploded and became everything? LMAO

Two can play that game.

Well I'll actually answer your question because I don't hold embarrassingly retarded beliefs about the world. I don't know the origins of the universe, but I do know that the evidence compiled by the brightest minds in the field suggests that the scenario you posted in the most probable one.

You, on the other hand, claim to know for certain the age of the Earth (in the face of tons of evidence to the contrary) because you take the mythology of a bronze age nomadic desert tribe to be unquestionable truth.

There are a lot of reasons to find the general, scientific account of such issues to be likely true, whereas there are no reasons to think that your beliefs are anything but the result of a mountain of unfounded assumptions.

nate895

08-25-2010, 06:59 PM

Well I'll actually answer your question because I don't hold embarrassingly retarded beliefs about the world. I don't know the origins of the universe, but I do know that the evidence compiled by the brightest minds in the field suggests that the scenario you posted in the most probable one.

You, on the other hand, claim to know for certain the age of the Earth (in the face of tons of evidence to the contrary) because you take the mythology of a bronze age nomadic desert tribe to be unquestionable truth.

There are a lot of reasons to find the general, scientific account of such issues to be likely true, whereas there are no reasons to think that your beliefs are anything but the result of a mountain of unfounded assumptions.

Tell me, how does one experiment on the past? How could I perform a repeatable experiment to determine what happened 13.7 billion years ago?

I doubt (actually I know, because I tried for a long time to do this myself, and still do sometimes) you can even give me a consistent definition of science that: (1) provides for experimentation on the past; (2) excludes God and creationism without presupposing their non-existence or inconsequential nature; (3) includes evolution as a theory that can be directly, empirically tested repeatedly; (4) provides a firm rational, non-arbitrary basis for natural laws.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 07:01 PM

Don't you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? lmao

It's most likely about 10,000 years old.

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 07:03 PM

None of this provides a reason why property rights ought to be defended.

No shit sherlock; I wasn't being asked to provide reasons for why property rights ought to be defended.

In fact, that very phrase "property rights ought to be defended" is basically meaningless because property rights come in many different forms. There are an infinite number of possible property systems - and each is unique to the society in which it is implemented.

Non-moral forces cannot be held to be infallible producers of decent morality.

Haha, but the very definition of "decent morality" is defined by non-moral forces, which is why you're speaking in truisms. Only the psychologically needy are afraid of an uncertain universe. You ought to keep cling to your teddy-bear God since you'd clearly be a mess without him. "Oh no, values are subjective! I can't "prove" that something is "wrong" in some objective and universal sense by reference to God! How can I live? You mean I have to find my own meaning in life? I can't handle the responsibility of being a portion of the universe endowed, by chance, with consciousness! It's too overwhelming, I need a master!" :rolleyes: Grow up.

It is quite possible that even if property rights have developed through natural selection, that it is all one big cosmic accident. Your argument is what is called in philosophy the "is-ought problem." You cannot take what is and determine what ought to be in the material universe.

Actually I can, but in a subjective sense. I can argue that I prefer freedom, and therefore a property rights scheme which promotes and enables human liberation is something that I support.

But since you're clearly more concerned with finding a way of "objectively proving" the "infallibility" of the moral claims that you prefer, there's no acceptable philosophy except for the one that gives you the psychological satisfaction of sureness that your ego so desperately requires.

nate895

08-25-2010, 07:13 PM

Haha, but the very definition of "decent morality" is defined by non-moral forces, which is why you're speaking in truisms. Only the psychologically needy are afraid of an uncertain universe. You ought to keep cling to your teddy-bear God since you'd clearly be a mess without him. "Oh no, values are subjective! I can't "prove" that something is "wrong" in some objective and universal sense by reference to God! How can I live? You mean I have to find my own meaning in life? I can't handle the responsibility of being a portion of the universe endowed, by chance, with consciousness! It's too overwhelming, I need a master!" :rolleyes: Grow up.

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

Quite frankly, you are the one who needs to grow up out of your teenage rebellious years (something I haven't really experienced, and quite frankly cannot understand). There are some things you ought to be bloody afraid of, and a meaningless cold dark universe without a light to guide us is chief among them. To suggest that I should follow that scheme as a way to "grow up" is akin to saying that in order to "grow up" I ought to hop into a ship sailing in a storm near a rocky coast at night with no lighthouse and absolutely no source of light at all. That is absurd. Rational people have fears about what happens to them when they put themselves in dangerous situation; that's why rational atheists tend to be super authoritarian people who force some sort of religion on the people as an "opiate of the masses," because they rightfully understand that to live in a world devoid of the light of the Faith is not to live at all.

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 07:17 PM

Tell me, how does one experiment on the past? How could I perform a repeatable experiment to determine what happened 13.7 billion years ago?

It's just as meaningless to say "experiment on the past" as it is stupid to say that experiments conducted today have no relevance to an understanding of the past.

I doubt (actually I know, because I tried for a long time to do this myself, and still do sometimes) you can even give me a consistent definition of science that: (1) provides for experimentation on the past; (2) excludes God and creationism without presupposing their non-existence or inconsequential nature; (3) includes evolution as a theory that can be directly, empirically tested repeatedly; (4) provides a firm rational, non-arbitrary basis for natural laws.

I don't think a definition of science needs to include all of those things, especially number 4.

If you (an expert in the field) were in charge of investigating a train wreck, how would you go about constructing the most plausible theory of the way in which that wreck came about?

Would you draw from the hard sciences? Would you use the physical evidence at the scene of the crash? Would you read Revelations? Wait, I'm assuming that you have common sense.

The fact is, scientific theories in the realms of chemistry and physics are fairly credible, and combined with the physical evidence of our Earth's past, create a compelling theory as to the origins of the Earth and life.

YumYum

08-25-2010, 07:18 PM

First of all, Christ addresses the issue of people who do things in Christ's name but who do not follow exactly with the Apostles in Luke 9:49-50:

49 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

So, as long as I believe in Jesus and accept him as my Savior, I am allowed to form my own opinions and still be considered a Christian by those who do not share my views. For instance I do not believe that Jesus is equal to the Father, nor is he G-d, but the Son of G-d. Are you ok with that? I'm still considered a Christian in your eyes, are I not? I don't believe in a Hellfire, that Hell is not a fiery place of torment, but that Hell (Hades in Greek) is man's grave, or "the pit" and that people will be resurrected from "Hell". Even though I believe this, I still have Jesus favor and I am considered a "true" Christian in your eyes, correct?

My point is this: If we apply Luke 9:49-50, I can have my beliefs, and you can have yours, and we disagree on many fundamental issues, but as long as "we are for Christ", we are both true Christians, right?

The "thousands of denominations" is a really old Roman Catholic canard as well. First, lots of them are liberal non-churches who are only nominal Christians (UCC, PC(USA), EPCUSA, etc.).

Wait, you are judging here, and Jesus was emphatic when he said "Stop judging!"
Who are you to judge whether these different denominations are "liberal non-churches", or only "nominal Christians"? Maybe they don't believe as you do, but remember, Jesus said, if they "are not against you they are for you". We have to be careful not judge if we do not want lose G-d's favor.

Secondly, lots of the denominations are simply national divisions, such as the Presbyterian Church in America as opposed to the Free Church of Scotland or the Presbyterian Church in Australia. Also, within a country divisions within a broader denomination (such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as opposed to the Presbyterian Church in America) is because the liberal domination of the primary denomination in a country. In this country, the PC(USA) has become more and more liberal, causing Evangelicals to split with it over the course of almost a century now, and that continues to this day. In these cases, the denominations often have agreements that basically make them one denomination for all purposes besides church government.

So you are saying that these different denominations are all the same religion, they are just in different locations? You are saying that they are all fitly united in Christ "in the same mind and same line of thought"?

In the end, there are only really around eight denominations, which all recognize each others' claims to being Christian and do not deny the others' Christianity: Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed/Low Church Anglican, Continental Reformed (arguably under the Presbyterian banner or visa versa), Lutheran, Anabaptist, Congregationalist, and broader Evangelical "non-denominational" churches. Outside of this, the divisions are either significant enough to deny the others' Christianity, or not worthy of being labeled a separate denomination.

Religions recognizing each others' claims to be Christian does not mean they are united and in agreement. In fact, it is just the opposite. The Black Baptist go to their own church in the South because the white Baptist do not want any Blacks in their church. The Baptist Church is only one example, but the different Baptist churches are very divided in their beliefs, and yet they can't all be right. They are also not following Paul's admonition to be "fitly united in the mind and same line of thought".

What religion do you belong to? Do you consider your church to be the true church?

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 07:21 PM

Quite frankly, you are the one who needs to grow up out of your teenage rebellious years (something I haven't really experienced, and quite frankly cannot understand). There are some things you ought to be bloody afraid of, and a meaningless cold dark universe without a light to guide us is chief among them. To suggest that I should follow that scheme as a way to "grow up" is akin to saying that in order to "grow up" I ought to hop into a ship sailing in a storm near a rocky coast at night with no lighthouse and absolutely no source of light at all. That is absurd. Rational people have fears about what happens to them when they put themselves in dangerous situation; that's why rational atheists tend to be super authoritarian people who force some sort of religion on the people as an "opiate of the masses," because they rightfully understand that to live in a world devoid of the light of the Faith is not to live at all.

For all your gloom and doom, you haven't really explained what I'm supposed to be afraid of.

Fact is, you wouldn't know whether or not God exists, so that factual question really has no bearing on meaning in our lives. The real question is why you're afraid of not believing in God. I have my answer, as written above, so why don't you provide yours?

nate895

08-25-2010, 07:31 PM

It's just as meaningless to say "experiment on the past" as it is stupid to say that experiments conducted today have no relevance to an understanding of the past.

I don't think a definition of science needs to include all of those things, especially number 4.

If you (an expert in the field) were in charge of investigating a train wreck, how would you go about constructing the most plausible theory of the way in which that wreck came about?

Would you draw from the hard sciences? Would you use the physical evidence at the scene of the crash? Would you read Revelations? Wait, I'm assuming that you have common sense.

The fact is, scientific theories in the realms of chemistry and physics are fairly credible, and combined with the physical evidence of our Earth's past, create a compelling theory as to the origins of the Earth and life.

Number 4 is actually the most important, and is reflected in the rest of your response, once again suggesting that you do not actually think and act consistently on your presuppositions. A consistent universe (the uniformity of nature) has to be if science is to have any meaning at all. Otherwise, science is a fruitless exercise because it can change whenever.

As for investigating a train wreck, I never suggested science has no role to play, I'm simply saying it can only point to possibilities of how something occurred in a broad sense. Furthermore, eyewitness testimony being funneled into a forensic science can be used to determine finer details. If the witnesses said the train wreck occurred when the train was right next or near a lightning strike, science could then test to see if there were any signs of electrical surge throughout the train. If that is the case, then it is quite probable that the electrical surge caused something to go horribly wrong. However, science cannot prove on its own that an electrical surge caused it, but only suggest the possibility based on leftover evidence.

There are also differences between forensic (historical) sciences and operational sciences. Forensic sciences point to what possibly happened in the past based on (1) present day natural forces; and, (2) a philosophy of history. You cannot stare at rocks and conduct any number of experiments on them and come up with how old they are without making assumptions based on a non-empirical philosophy of history. The question is: which philosophy of history provides a rational basis for doing scientific research in the first place.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 07:34 PM

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 07:53 PM

Number 4 is actually the most important, and is reflected in the rest of your response, once again suggesting that you do not actually think and act consistently on your presuppositions. A consistent universe (the uniformity of nature) has to be if science is to have any meaning at all. Otherwise, science is a fruitless exercise because it can change whenever.

Science isn't fruitless because it works. It bears fruit, period. That's the point - not whether or not it can prove anything in particular with respect to the laws of nature that it uses.

As for investigating a train wreck, I never suggested science has no role to play, I'm simply saying it can only point to possibilities of how something occurred in a broad sense.

Nice try. It points to a lot more than mere "possibilities" - even some random bum could give his own retarded theory as to how the train crash happens, and these would be "possibilities." The difference is that an investigation which employees scientific knowledge leads to plausible theories which are more than mere possibilities. Do I really need to explain to you why the crash theories put forth by a team of experts in the fields of physics, forensics, engineering, etc, are more likely to be true than the theory put forth by a random bum? Or a theory gleamed from the pages of Revelations?

Furthermore, eyewitness testimony being funneled into a forensic science can be used to determine finer details. If the witnesses said the train wreck occurred when the train was right next or near a lightning strike, science could then test to see if there were any signs of electrical surge throughout the train. If that is the case, then it is quite probable that the electrical surge caused something to go horribly wrong. However, science cannot prove on its own that an electrical surge caused it, but only suggest the possibility based on leftover evidence.

Sure, but eye witnesses accounts are just another form of evidence like video tapes or audio recordings or a burnt-out train, and can be impeached just the same. An eyewitness account is only as strong as the credibility of the witness him or herself. One way to test the credibility of a witness is to compare their account with physical evidence, and the extent to which there are discrepancies it is reasonable to discount the account of the witness.

There are also differences between forensic (historical) sciences and operational sciences. Forensic sciences point to what possibly happened in the past based on (1) present day natural forces; and, (2) a philosophy of history. You cannot stare at rocks and conduct any number of experiments on them and come up with how old they are without making assumptions based on a non-empirical philosophy of history. The question is: which philosophy of history provides a rational basis for doing scientific research in the first place.

Clearly forensic science us intimately connected with "operational" science. I don't see any reason why operation sciences couldn't lead to methods which help determine the age of certain things.

An operational science might involve an experiment with trees, for example, by growing them while recording both their age and the number of rings they produce as measured by samples taken from their cores. This is an easy experiment to repeat, and leads to a pretty strong conclusion that the number of rings in a tree corresponds to the age of the tree. It doesn't seem to involve any "non-empirical philosophy of history" to conclude that the age of a tree with 42 rings is 42 years. That's simply the application of a general theory produced by experimentation and knowledge of the biology of trees as applied to a particular tree.

RedStripe

08-25-2010, 07:57 PM

Science actually proves that the world is too complex to have evolved simply by chance. DNA molecules are composed of so many sequences and so much specific information that the chances of it forming on it's own is about 1 in 10 trillion. It's much more realistic that an intelligent being created this complex universe.

No one argues that modern DNA molecules randomly sprang into existence, but nice try.

Please, tell us more about how "science" proves that an intelligent being created the universe.

I'm logging off for now, but please do continue.

bunklocoempire

08-25-2010, 08:04 PM

No shit sherlock; I wasn't being asked to provide reasons for why property rights ought to be defended.
In fact, that very phrase "property rights ought to be defended" is basically meaningless because property rights come in many different forms. There are an infinite number of possible property systems - and each is unique to the society in which it is implemented.

Haha, but the very definition of "decent morality" is defined by non-moral forces, which is why you're speaking in truisms. Only the psychologically needy are afraid of an uncertain universe. You ought to keep cling to your teddy-bear God since you'd clearly be a mess without him. "Oh no, values are subjective! I can't "prove" that something is "wrong" in some objective and universal sense by reference to God! How can I live? You mean I have to find my own meaning in life? I can't handle the responsibility of being a portion of the universe endowed, by chance, with consciousness! It's too overwhelming, I need a master!" :rolleyes: Grow up.

Actually I can, but in a subjective sense. I can argue that I prefer freedom, and therefore a property rights scheme which promotes and enables human liberation is something that I support.

But since you're clearly more concerned with finding a way of "objectively proving" the "infallibility" of the moral claims that you prefer, there's no acceptable philosophy except for the one that gives you the psychological satisfaction of sureness that your ego so desperately requires.

Emphasis mine.

Good job earlier with the monkey property rights society by the way. I give you a 10 for technical ability.

Given man's awesome record, what is your argument for man to buy into this human liberation property rights scheme?

Bunkloco

Brett85

08-25-2010, 08:05 PM

No one argues that modern DNA molecules randomly sprang into existence, but nice try.

Please, tell us more about how "science" proves that an intelligent being created the universe.

I'm logging off for now, but please do continue.

Nobody argues that it's virtually impossible for a DNA molecule to assemble by chance. There isn't anything to actually make it assemble. The fact that the earth has the exact perfect conditions for life to exist proves creation. If the earth was a few miles closer to the sun we would all fry. If the earth was a few miles farther away from the sun we would all freeze to death. God created the earth with the perfect conditions for life to exist.

thehunter

08-25-2010, 08:37 PM

thehunter

08-25-2010, 08:39 PM

Nobody argues that it's virtually impossible for a DNA molecule to assemble by chance. There isn't anything to actually make it assemble. The fact that the earth has the exact perfect conditions for life to exist proves creation. If the earth was a few miles closer to the sun we would all fry. If the earth was a few miles farther away from the sun we would all freeze to death. God created the earth with the perfect conditions for life to exist.

Oh, how I long for the day when programmers take a look at this whole theory on how DNA assembled itself...er, somehow! It'll keep WoW laughing into the sequel...

nate895

08-25-2010, 08:46 PM

Science isn't fruitless because it works. It bears fruit, period. That's the point - not whether or not it can prove anything in particular with respect to the laws of nature that it uses.

That still does not answer the question. I am debating about why science works, and you are saying "well, it works." That is like a prisoner who was sentenced to death by firing squad and was having the sentence carried out when, by some freak occurrence, he did not get by a single bullet intended on killing him, telling the reporter who asks "why did you survive" saying "well, I'm here, therefore I must have survived." That isn't answering the question, we are asking the why or how of what we know to have happened. I know proper science works; it is a non-answer to say "it works." I want to know why, given atheistic materialism, I should believe that.

Nice try. It points to a lot more than mere "possibilities" - even some random bum could give his own retarded theory as to how the train crash happens, and these would be "possibilities." The difference is that an investigation which employees scientific knowledge leads to plausible theories which are more than mere possibilities. Do I really need to explain to you why the crash theories put forth by a team of experts in the fields of physics, forensics, engineering, etc, are more likely to be true than the theory put forth by a random bum? Or a theory gleamed from the pages of Revelations?

I meant real possibilities, not some random guess. Science can only determine what are the actual possibilities, not which one of the possible causes is the real cause. We need something more than physical material for that, we need information, and information must come from a mind.

Sure, but eye witnesses accounts are just another form of evidence like video tapes or audio recordings or a burnt-out train, and can be impeached just the same. An eyewitness account is only as strong as the credibility of the witness him or herself.

Exactly.

One way to test the credibility of a witness is to compare their account with physical evidence, and the extent to which there are discrepancies it is reasonable to discount the account of the witness.

In some ways, true, in others, false. If an eyewitness says something demonstrably false based on the other evidence, such as saying that the train was derailed, when it clearly is still on the tracks, can demonstrate that the eyewitness is lying. However, there is no way to know for certain when exactly physical evidence got where it did. If the eyewitness to the wreck said he saw someone dump hot coffee on the engineer, who then knocked some button that caused something to go wrong, there could well be no way of knowing if that happened since it is very possible that there would be nothing left to prove that because the crash caused it to disappear.

Clearly forensic science us intimately connected with "operational" science. I don't see any reason why operation sciences couldn't lead to methods which help determine the age of certain things.

Depending on the time scales, it can. However, when we are talking about unobservable vast spans of thousands, millions, and billions of years, we cannot for at least thousands, millions, and billions more years because it would take that much time to take into account all the variables, correct for them, and determine which methods are even close to correct. Despite that, we can disprove certain methods already using available data. For example, we know that the rocks produced in the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 are, in fact, 30-years-old, yet when tested using radioactive dating methods, they produce dates ranging from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years old. Also, in that eruption, dozens, if not hundreds, of "annual" varves in different rock layers were created in a matter of hours.

An operational science might involve an experiment with trees, for example, by growing them while recording both their age and the number of rings they produce as measured by samples taken from their cores. This is an easy experiment to repeat, and leads to a pretty strong conclusion that the number of rings in a tree corresponds to the age of the tree. It doesn't seem to involve any "non-empirical philosophy of history" to conclude that the age of a tree with 42 rings is 42 years. That's simply the application of a general theory produced by experimentation and knowledge of the biology of trees as applied to a particular tree.

Yes, it does. Tree rings are known to be non-annual in many circumstances. The reason they are considered annual is because there is, generally, one "ring" for the rapid growing months and another for slower growing months where the tree is attempting to survive. However, it is possible for a climate to experience dramatic weather changes within a season to make many more tree rings in one year than what one would normally expect given "normal" conditions. It takes a dogmatic allegiance to a uniformitarian philosophy of history in order to assert that pretty much any dating method used to estimate large scales of time is accurate. I should note right here that tree rings are analogous to many dating types, particularly ice layer dating (which is basically tree ring dating in reverse).

nate895

08-25-2010, 08:48 PM

Oh, how I long for the day when programmers take a look at this whole theory on how DNA assembled itself...er, somehow! It'll keep WoW laughing into the sequel...

One information scientist (fancy name for programmer/code reader) already has:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890514615/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1578211034&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=15ZWW8XT4C5Y61870GP1

YumYum

08-25-2010, 08:59 PM

Oh, how I long for the day when programmers take a look at this whole theory on how DNA assembled itself...er, somehow! It'll keep WoW laughing into the sequel...

I studied biology in college and was blown away by the structure and mechanics of a living cell. The cell doesn't have a brain, and yet it does things that would lead one to believe that it has capabilities to think and make decisions. The cell can commit suicide, it can kill cells that are a threat to other cells, and the individual cell can group with other individual cells to form a collective, which improves their overall chance of survival. After learning all of the amazing functions that a "brainless" cell performs, I wouldn't be surprised if scientist can prove one day that DNA evolved, and was not "assembled".

reillym

08-25-2010, 08:59 PM

Nobody argues that it's virtually impossible for a DNA molecule to assemble by chance. There isn't anything to actually make it assemble. The fact that the earth has the exact perfect conditions for life to exist proves creation. If the earth was a few miles closer to the sun we would all fry. If the earth was a few miles farther away from the sun we would all freeze to death. God created the earth with the perfect conditions for life to exist.

Fail. Fail. Fail.

We exist here because of those conditions, which probably also exist elsewhere in the universe. Earth like planets are rare, but not non existent.

Get your science right before attacking it. You just look like a fool.

reillym

08-25-2010, 09:01 PM

Science actually proves that the world is too complex to have evolved simply by chance. DNA molecules are composed of so many sequences and so much specific information that the chances of it forming on it's own is about 1 in 10 trillion. It's much more realistic that an intelligent being created this complex universe.

:rolleyes:

It's really hard, so god must have did it! Fail.

The connections between our DNA and every other animal disagree with you. The vestigial information in our DNA that any COMPETENT designer would not put it disagrees with you. Human appendixes disagree with you. Logic disagrees with you. Fail.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 09:06 PM

Fail. Fail. Fail.

We exist here because of those conditions, which probably also exist elsewhere in the universe. Earth like planets are rare, but not non existent.

Get your science right before attacking it. You just look like a fool.

Life hasn't been found anywhere else in the universe, which proves my point. If the universe just came into being by itself there would be more than just one planet that contained life. The chances of just one planet having the conditions to contain life is virtually impossible without a creator.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 09:08 PM

nate895

08-25-2010, 09:10 PM

:rolleyes:

It's really hard, so god must have did it! Fail.

The connections between our DNA and every other animal disagree with you. The vestigial information in our DNA that any COMPETENT designer would not put it disagrees with you. Human appendixes disagree with you. Logic disagrees with you. Fail.

Your information is out of date with the latest in genetic and anatomical science. We are discovering everyday more and more "vestigial" organs actually have real uses in the body. "Vestigial" organs are more of a product of blind evolutionary dogma looking for "evidence" than they are about body parts not having purposes.

However, the primary point concerning DNA is that it is information. Here is the logical argument:

DNA is information expressed in a language code.
Information expressed in a language code must come from a mind.
Therefore, DNA must have come from a mind.

It doesn't prove God, but it does say that the existence of life as we know it on earth has come from some mind that preexisted our own, and not mindless natural processes.

klamath

08-25-2010, 09:14 PM

jmdrake

08-25-2010, 09:14 PM

Oh brother. Go support Huckabee or something.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Obvious guy says "Not possible because Huckabee, unlike Ron Paul, doesn't abide the Christian 'just war' theory"? :rolleyes: I wonder whats going to happen when some people finally realize that Ron Paul isn't as hostile to Christianity as they are. Aside from being openly Christian himself, and letting Christianity influence his thinking not just on abortion but also war, RP endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president. All are welcome here so I'm flabbergasted when I see folks trying to drive Christians off.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 09:17 PM

nate895

08-25-2010, 09:21 PM

A lot of arrogant answers when no man knows the real answer of what started life. It maybe a question man can never answer. When man can answer the question, where does the universe end he might be able to answer where life begins.

I did not say I could answer; I am saying that God condescended to deliver the message of how He created and who He is. When His chosen people are brought to His truth through the ordained methods of Evangelism, public proclaiming of the word, and Apologetics, they believe.

nate895

08-25-2010, 09:23 PM

Exactly. Many people here are more friendly to Muslims then they are to Christians.

Just remember why that is and do not let that effect you. Through my dozen years in public schools and near constant debates on the internet, I have come out a more Christian with the proper attitude towards God and His Truth. Cling to His words and these things all make sense, whatever the world happens to think of you and your beliefs.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 09:43 PM

Just remember why that is and do not let that effect you. Through my dozen years in public schools and near constant debates on the internet, I have come out a more Christian with the proper attitude towards God and His Truth. Cling to His words and these things all make sense, whatever the world happens to think of you and your beliefs.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:04 PM

It is amazing just how intolerant and disrespect of religious views people are.

Some of y'all act as bad towards Christians and their beliefs as neocons do towards Muslims.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:09 PM

It is amazing just how intolerant and disrespect of religious views people are.

Some of y'all act as bad towards Christians and their beliefs as neocons do towards Muslims.

many of us are old, and don't find mythology entertaining anymore.

jmdrake

08-25-2010, 10:12 PM

many of us are old, and don't find mythology entertaining anymore.

And this all helps Ron Paul or Gary Johnson get elected how exactly?

Brett85

08-25-2010, 10:12 PM

many of us are old, and don't find mythology entertaining anymore.

You say that even though Nate uses facts to prove his point. There's a lot of Christian scientists out there who defend intelligent design based on scientific principles.

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:13 PM

many of us are old, and don't find mythology entertaining anymore.

You don't have to believe something or find something entertaining to be respectful of other people's beliefs. But then I don't expect everyone to be a decent person who is capable of displaying maturity, most people are pretty immature and never grow out of their teens.

I don't believe in any religion either, but I do find them all fascinating. Even if I didn't enjoy learning about them, I'd still be respect of people's beliefs.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:14 PM

You don't have to believe something or find something entertaining to respectful of other people's beliefs. But then I don't expect everyone to be a decent person who is capable of displaying maturity, most people are pretty immature and never grow out of their teens.

would you have a serious conversation with someone who tells you he is doing something because Santa said it will get him presents?

Brett85

08-25-2010, 10:17 PM

would you have a serious conversation with someone who tells you he is doing something because Santa said it will get him presents?

There isn't any scientific proof or logic for why Santa would exist. Try again.

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:18 PM

would you have a serious conversation with someone who tells you he is doing something because Santa said it will get him presents?

I consider myself relatively open minded and respectful of varying views, so yes I would have a serious conversation with pretty much anyone about anything. Of course you don't need to be open minded about things to be respectful. You can believe someone's views foolish but you can keep it to yourself instead of being an ass about it and making fun of them.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:19 PM

There isn't any scientific proof or logic for why Santa would exist. Try again.

lol!

YumYum

08-25-2010, 10:19 PM

If by "electable" you mean that the person can be elected to public office, then I really don't care. It isn't about winning public office to me anymore; it is about confronting the anti-Christian society we live in today.

You admit that you do not care who wins public office, and that you have come on this forum to confront the "anti-Christian society". When you "confront" somebody, they will respond accordingly. Are you trying to change, or win the hearts and minds of the "anti-Christian society"? Why would you care what they think? Aren't you comfortable in your belief system?

I'm sorry, but Christians make no sense to me. I like Jesus, but his followers seem to misinterpret his message, which was about love.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:20 PM

I consider myself relatively open minded and respectful of varying views, so yes I would have a serious conversation with pretty much anyone about anything. Of course you don't need to be open minded about things to be respectful. You can believe someone's views foolish but you can keep it to yourself instead of being an ass about it and making fun of them.

making fun of people often helps them see that they are wrong. it's actually one of the most effective ways. when reasoning fails, trying humor is the best thing you can do.

when you make fun of someone, they will be offended only if there is some part of what you say that they figure out is true. that will encourage them to question their irrational beliefs.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 10:21 PM

lol!

You won't be laughing if you end up in hell, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. I don't want anybody to have to go there.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:21 PM

You won't be laughing if you end up in hell, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. I don't want anybody to have to go there.

rotfl!

FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:23 PM

making fun of people often helps them see that they are wrong. it's actually one of the most effective ways. when reasoning fails, trying humor is the best thing you can do.

when you make fun of someone, they will be offended only if there is some part of what you say that they figure out is truth. that will encourage them to question their irrational beliefs.

Or you could just piss them off and look like an ass. Real effective way of "teaching". And why the heck would you care about trying to "convert" someone away from their religious beliefs. Let people believe what they want to believe.

Of course this can be equally true of any religious person who tries to change someone who is unreceptive to changing their views and starts making fun of their beliefs as well.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:24 PM

Or you could just piss them off and look like an ass. Real effective way of "teaching". And why the heck would you care about trying to "convert" someone away from their religious beliefs. Let people believe what they want to believe.

why would you want to convert people to support freedom and Ron Paul? let them believe what they believe.

when you talk to people, don't ever give a suggestion or indication of what you believe. that might encourage them to consider your point of view. but that's wrong, you should let them believe what they believe.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 10:26 PM

rotfl!

FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YouTube - Medical Doctor has NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE - to HELL and BACK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-v1Fppjlvc)

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:27 PM

Traditional Conservative's posts get funnier every time. even when you thought he couldn't improve anymore!

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:27 PM

why would you want to convert people to support freedom and Ron Paul? let them believe what they believe.

when you talk to people, don't ever give a suggestion or indication of what you believe. that might encourage them to consider your point of view. but that's wrong, you should let them believe what they believe.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious belief doesn't affect you.

Besides I am not going to make fun of them and act all superior just because their political views differ from my own. I more just talk with them about politics, get them research for themselves, give some guidance and over time, they become more receptive. If I just run in and laugh and call them an idiot, they're going to just be turned off.

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:28 PM

Delete

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:29 PM

Which has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious belief doesn't affect you.

Besides I am not going to make fun of them and act all superior just because their political views differ from my own. I more just talk with them about politics, get them research for themselves, give some guidance and over time, they become more receptive. If I just run in and laugh and call them an idiot, they're going to just be turned off.

every form of irrationality affects you. people have justified heinous crimes with religion. of course it affects you. and even if they don't affect you, it's good to help people get rid of irrationality, because it's good for them. and it's not like you're forcing them, in the end they can believe whatever they want.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 10:29 PM

Traditional Conservative's posts get funnier every time. even when you thought he couldn't improve anymore!

The funny thing is that if you're right and I'm wrong, we'll never even know because we would just be blacked out as soon as we die. But if I'm right and you're wrong, you're going to be in a world of hurt. There's no need for you to take a chance on that.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 10:31 PM

It's funny that all of the people here who hate Christianity still defend Muslims every chance they get. Interesting.

jmdrake

08-25-2010, 10:31 PM

would you have a serious conversation with someone who tells you he is doing something because Santa said it will get him presents?

And you have the nerve to call other people trolls? You have the nerve to say other people hurt the Ron Paul movement? :rolleyes: Earth to LPG, Ron Paul holds the same basic beliefs that you are maligning. And in order to win the nomination in 2012 he or Gary Johnson or whoever will have to win over a significant portion of people who also share those beliefs. This whole thread started because someone was wondering how Gary Johnson would fair in the GOP primary with his stance on abortion. Well I can assure you if GJ adopted your anti Christian rhetoric he'd get his butt kicked. There is nothing he could do that would assure his defeat more than that.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:32 PM

The funny thing is that if you're right and I'm wrong, we'll never even know because we would just be blacked out as soon as we die. But if I'm right and you're wrong, you're going to be in a world of hurt. There's no need for you to take a chance on that.

you convinced me. i'd better do the right thing. if i don't, i will not only go to hell, but Santa won't get me presents this year! i'll be good from now on.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:35 PM

Lol. Of course you won't include Muslims in that, who use their religion to justify attacking America.

hell yes i include muslims. i like Christians in general a lot, because many of them don't take their religion seriously (what's the average number of Christians that marry as a virgin? lol!). but muslims are much more of a threat. i don't even consider Christians a threat.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 10:36 PM

you convinced me. i'd better do the right thing. if i don't, i will not only go to hell, but Santa won't get me presents this year! i'll be good from now on.

You do understand that there's actually historical proof for Christ's existence, death on the cross, and resurrection, don't you? You just make yourself look bad by bringing up Santa Claus.

jmdrake

08-25-2010, 10:37 PM

hell yes i include muslims. i like Christians in general a lot, because many of them don't take their religion seriously (what's the average number of Christians that marry as a virgin? lol!). but muslims are much more of a threat. i don't even consider Christians a threat.

Well Ron Paul isn't afraid of either. Maybe you're in the wrong movement.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:37 PM

You do understand that there's actually historical proof for Christ's existence, death on the cross, and resurrection, don't you? You just make yourself look bad by bringing up Santa Claus.

what about the presents?!?!?!? they're proof! and that evidence isn't even from history, i saw the evidence with my own eyes in my lifetime!

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:38 PM

every form of irrationality affects you. people have justified heinous crimes with religion. of course it affects you. and even if they don't affect you, it's good to help people get rid of irrationality, because it's good for them. and it's not like you're forcing them, in the end they can believe whatever they want.

If a crime is committed, deal with that. That isn't a reason to be disrespectful of an entire belief. It is like the people who bash all Muslims because of 9/11.

Just because you believe something is irrational doesn't mean it is acceptable for you to bash someone's faith. Bashing them helps nothing, it only hurts a relationship that may occur. You can influence someone better if you become friends with them anyway, if you really feel the need to influence them to be non-religious for some irrational reason of your own.

YumYum

08-25-2010, 10:39 PM

You say that even though Nate uses facts to prove his point. There's a lot of Christian scientists out there who defend intelligent design based on scientific principles.

Not exactly. I went to a debate at a University that held the Skepticon convention that was sponsored by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They held a debate that included a panel of atheist scientists and scientists who were Christians. I was neutral, and I really was wanting to see the Christians perform well because I am not an atheist. The arguments that the atheist gave were very well presented with facts, while the Christians would always resort to "Well, there has to be a G-d, because there is no other explanation". One Christian gave an interesting argument citing examples of recent experiments in Quantum Theory, which have proven Einstein to be correct. But overall, the atheist presented their case much more logically, and their evidence was based on more scientific principles than what the Christians had to offer, much to my dismay.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:42 PM

Well Ron Paul isn't afraid of either. Maybe you're in the wrong movement.

just so you know why i lately took the practice of not ever responding to you? you're the most sanctimonious and boring poster ever.

Brett85

08-25-2010, 10:42 PM

what about the presents?!?!?!? they're proof! and that evidence isn't even from history, i saw the evidence with my own eyes in my lifetime!

Do you realize that Ron Paul is actually a Christian and believes in creationism? Does that make him irrational in your eyes?

Brett85

08-25-2010, 10:44 PM

Not exactly. I went to a debate at a University that held the Skepticon convention that was sponsored by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They held a debate that included a panel of atheist scientists and scientists who were Christians. I was neutral, and I really was wanting to see the Christians perform well because I am not an atheist. The arguments that the atheist gave were very well presented with facts, while the Christians would always resort to "Well, there has to be a G-d, because there is no other explanation". One Christian gave an interesting argument citing examples of recent experiments in Quantum Theory, which have proven Einstein to be correct. But overall, the atheist presented their case much more logically, and their evidence was based on more scientific principles than what the Christians had to offer, much to my dismay.

Look up a guy named Ken Ham. He's one of the best.

jmdrake

08-25-2010, 10:45 PM

just so you know why i lately took the practice of not ever responding to you? you're the most sanctimonious and boring poster ever.

And you are an illogical troll. You worry about Ron Paul being hurt politically by "conspiracy theorists" and yet you attack the largest voting block in the GOP? That's just stupid. You love to ask for others to be banned. Eventually the hammer will fall on you.

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:46 PM

But overall, the atheist presented their case much more logically, and their evidence was based on more scientific principles than what the Christians had to offer, much to my dismay.

I don't really think that religion could ever win that kind debate in the sense that they cannot have science on their side, unless their opposition was just bad. Ultimately it is about "faith" and such, so it is beyond the realm of science. Not something you can prove or provide a valid testable Theory from.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:48 PM

And you are an illogical troll. You worry about Ron Paul being hurt politically by "conspiracy theorists" and yet you attack the largest voting block in the GOP? That's just stupid. You love to ask for others to be banned. Eventually the hammer will fall on you.

so i made four of five posts making a little fun or religion in an obscure thread on the internet. yep, i just destroyed Ron Paul and Gary Johnson's election chances. sorry, but for some weird reason i don't regret it.

jmdrake

08-25-2010, 10:50 PM

so i made four of five posts making a little fun or religion in an obscure thread on the internet. yep, i just destroyed Ron Paul and Gary Johnson's election chances. sorry, but for some weird reason i don't regret it.

And yet some post in some obscure thread about a conspiracy theory is the end of the world? Your hypocrisy is showing.

YumYum

08-25-2010, 10:50 PM

Look up a guy named Ken Ham. He's one of the best.

I will do, thanks.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:51 PM

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:52 PM

And yet some post in some obscure thread about a conspiracy theory is the end of the world? Your hypocrisy is showing.

please stop jmdrake. i'm about to cry. *tear*

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:52 PM

fixed if for you.

No hope for some people apparently, I'm not going to bother any more since you're unreceptive to being tolerant or respectful of others.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:55 PM

No hope for some people apparently, I'm not going to bother any more since you're unreceptive to being tolerant or respectful of others.

many of my idols weren't either! you gotta catch up on Mark Twain! he wrote great funny things about religion! (i don't write good stuff, but i just want to point out that great people had the trait you're criticizing and made great use of it)

ChaosControl

08-25-2010, 10:56 PM

many of my idols weren't either! you gotta catch up on Mark Twain! he wrote great funny things about religion! (i don't write good stuff, but i just want to point out that great people had the trait you're criticizing and made great use of it)

I like some of his novels, but I wouldn't like that trait of his.
Everyone has flaws though, so it is no surprise to learn of this flaw of his.

Not that poking a little fun is bad as long as it is in a playful manner and not a disrespectful one.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 10:58 PM

I like some of his novels, but I wouldn't like that trait of his.
Everyone has flaws though, so it is no surprise to learn of this flaw of his.

Not that poking a little fun is bad as long as it is in a playful manner and not a disrespectful one.

well, except i don't call it a flaw at all.

YumYum

08-25-2010, 11:03 PM

I don't really think that religion could ever win that kind debate in the sense that they cannot have science on their side, unless their opposition was just bad. Ultimately it is about "faith" and such, so it is beyond the realm of science. Not something you can prove or provide a valid testable Theory from.

Yes, but you have probably heard it said "Extraordinary claims have to be supported by extraordinary evidence". The claims made by atheist (that there is no G-d), and the claims made by Christians (there is most definitely a G-d) are extraordinary.

Too bad science and religion cannot work together in solving life's mysteries.

low preference guy

08-25-2010, 11:05 PM

No hope for some people apparently, I'm not going to bother any more since you're unreceptive to being tolerant or respectful of others.

i'm just calling it like it is. what you call faith is actually brain washing.

KurtBoyer25L

08-25-2010, 11:19 PM

Sentient life can be the standard of value and morality. Johnson is simply challenging the false premise that if a 8-month fetus is a sentient human being, a 2-week mass of fertilized tissue must also be a sentient human being. Good for him. Also, being personally pro-life (and wishing to end federal funding of abortion out of respect for other taxpayers who feel the same way) is not necessarily a desire to use the government's initiation of force to stop other people from having abortions. Both positions are defensible but there is a difference between them.

jmdrake

08-26-2010, 05:03 AM

Should Gary Johnson be the "torchbearer" for the liberty movement in 2012 and lose worse than Ron Paul in 2008 through a combination of his "middle of the road" stance on abortion, and anti-Christians in the movement being douches, don't say I didn't warn you.

YumYum

08-26-2010, 06:25 AM

and anti-Christians in the movement being douches, don't say I didn't warn you.

What constitutes a person to be defined as "anti-Christian"?

If someone does not want to become a Christian after being given a thorough witness, doesn't that constitute them as a "goat" in Jesus eyes, thus making them also an "anti-Christian", and liable for "the gates of Hell"? According to Jesus, those who reject his message are the "enemy" and would be "anti-Christian". That would make all non-Christians on this forum who do not want to become Christian "anti-Christian" or "douches".

My point is: According to Jesus you "are either for us or against us."

jmdrake

08-26-2010, 06:30 AM

If someone does not want to become a Christian after being given a thorough witness, doesn't that constitute them as a "goat" in Jesus eyes, thus making them also an "anti-Christian", and liable for "the gates of Hell"? According to Jesus, those who reject his message are the "enemy" and would be "anti-Christian". That would make all non-Christians on this forum who do not want to become Christian "anti-Christian" or "douches".

Nice way to misinterpret what I said. :rolleyes: You don't have to be a douche to be an anti-Christian. I'm not a Muslim but you don't see me wantonly attacking Muslims. And even if I did, that would scarcely hurt Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in the 2012 primaries. Ron Paul is Christian and a big part of his strategy is attracting Christians with a consistent message that includes the Christian "unjust war" theory. That might win some votes. Saying "You people are crazy because you believe in Santa Clause" isn't going to win votes.

YumYum

08-26-2010, 06:44 AM

Nice way to misinterpret what I said. :rolleyes: You don't have to be a douche to be an anti-Christian. In fact you can be a non Christian without being an anti-Christian.

That is not what the Bible teaches and you know that. I'm not defending those that attack Christianity, but nate himself said he doesn't care who is elected, all he wants to do is confront those on this forum who are "anti-Christian", which, according to the Bible, would be anybody who doesn't accept Christ.

nate is here on this forum to preach/teach and recruit. He himself said he doesn't care about politics or who gets elected, which includes Ron Paul. Does that bother you?

Ron Paul wants to win over to his side atheist/agnostics as much as he wants to win over more Christians.

When Christians come on this forum telling people the way it is, they will meet opposition to their proselytizing. They are just as guilty in turning away potential Ron Paul supporters as the "anti-Christians".

jmdrake

08-26-2010, 07:04 AM

That is not what the Bible teaches and you know that. I'm not defending those that attack Christianity, but nate himself said he doesn't care who is elected, all he wants to do is confront those on this forum who are "anti-Christian", which, according to the Bible, would be anybody who doesn't accept Christ.

The Bible teaches that all anti-Christians are douches? I revised my earlier comment because I knew you are going to take the "not for Me - against me" text out of context, but even still that doesn't mean someone has to be a douche. I suppose using the "Not for = against" logic I am "anti-Muslim" but I don't go around ridiculing and attacking Islam now do I?

nate is here on this forum to preach/teach and recruit. He himself said he doesn't care about politics or who gets elected, which includes Ron Paul. Does that bother you?

I've never heard nate say that, but for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it. Is nate a continual douche is his recruiting tactics? I've seen atheists here respectfully make their case without being douches. Further more, simply going by the numbers in the republican primary, there is more to be lost than to be gained from LFG's antics than from nate's "recruiting".

Ron Paul wants to win over to his side atheist/agnostics as much as he wants to win over more Christians.

Ron Paul wants to win. And if he won over every atheist/agnostic, but lost 3/4ths of the Christian/other people of faith vote he would lose by a landslide. If nate was being a douche like anti Christians in this thread were being douches that would still be a problem, but numerically a lesser one.

When Christians come on this forum telling people the way it is, they will meet opposition to their proselytizing. They are just as guilty in turning away potential Ron Paul supporters as the "anti-Christians".

Again you ignore the numbers. Again you ignore the difference between simply stating your case and being a jerk about it. I know you are prejudice against Christians and especially proselytizing ones because of your own personal bad experience. But if you will think about this from both a logical and political perspective you should be able to see what I'm talking about. There is a difference between stating your case (Saying "The scientific evidence shows such and such") and being a douche (Saying "All you people are stupid because you believe such and such"). In your heart you know I'm right.

Slutter McGee

08-26-2010, 07:19 AM

Obvious guy says "Not possible because Huckabee, unlike Ron Paul, doesn't abide the Christian 'just war' theory"? :rolleyes: I wonder whats going to happen when some people finally realize that Ron Paul isn't as hostile to Christianity as they are. Aside from being openly Christian himself, and letting Christianity influence his thinking not just on abortion but also war, RP endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president. All are welcome here so I'm flabbergasted when I see folks trying to drive Christians off.

Im not trying to drive Christians off. But events in this world, negative events, are the creation of our own doing, or random events of nature. The idea that God is punishing or rewarding our country, rather than an individual....or is not compatible with most New Testament Theology.

And I would argue that a God who punishes an entire country because of the actions of some people in that country...is not compatible with liberty.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

YumYum

08-26-2010, 07:47 AM

The Bible teaches that all anti-Christians are douches?

I never said that. You called them "douches". They didn't have douche in the Bible times.

I revised my earlier comment because I knew you are going to take the "not for Me - against me" text out of context, but even still that doesn't mean someone has to be a douche. I suppose using the "Not for = against" logic I am "anti-Muslim" but I don't go around ridiculing and attacking Islam now do I?
I've never heard nate say that, but for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it.

Please read carefully. He said it right here:

Yes, all people who are not Christian are anti-Christian. If you do not bow the knee to Christ, you are necessarily in rebellion against Him. That does not mean that non-Christians necessarily go around insulting Christians all time, just that they have a fundamentally anti-Biblical, anti-God, and anti-Christ worldview that will express itself when confronted with the Gospel.

He also said:

If by "electable" you mean that the person can be elected to public office, then I really don't care. It isn't about winning public office to me anymore; it is about confronting the anti-Christian society we live in today.

Heathen translation: "I'm here to stir up shit!"

Is nate a continual douche is his recruiting tactics?

I don't call people on this forum a "douche". That is a childish name used on the cartoon "South Park". Douche is a liquid that is inserted inside a woman with a douche-stick to clean out all the bad stuff.

I've seen atheists here respectfully make their case without being douches. Further more, simply going by the numbers in the republican primary, there is more to be lost than to be gained from LFG's antics than from nate's "recruiting".

I've seen Christians on this forum respectfully make their case also without putting non-Christian members on this forum on a guilt trip. But Ron Paul did not authorize you to be a judge in deciding who is more important to be won over to his side. In fact, if you look at what he has said lately about the mosque, he has done more to turn Christians away by defending the Muslim's property rights than any antics by LPG.

Ron Paul wants to win. And if he won over every atheist/agnostic, but lost 3/4ths of the Christian/other people of faith vote he would lose by a landslide. If nate was being a douche like anti Christians in this thread were being douches that would still be a problem, but numerically a lesser one.Again you ignore the numbers. Again you ignore the difference between simply stating your case and being a jerk about it.

I know he wants to win, but he will not sacrifice his principles to win. Not every Christian who comes on this forum just "states their case". They condemn non-Christians for not accepting Christ and for protecting a woman's right to choose. They condemn homosexuals. That is more than just "stating their case."

I know you are prejudice against Christians and especially proselytizing ones because of your own personal bad experience.

Not exactly. I am not prejudiced against Christians. I enjoy reading the peaceful discussions between Christians in the religion forum, but my disdain for having religion shoved down my throat comes from having religion shoved down my throat. That would leave a bad taste in anybody's mouth.

But if you will think about this from both a logical and political perspective you should be able to see what I'm talking about. There is a difference between stating your case (Saying "The scientific evidence shows such and such") and being a douche (Saying "All you people are stupid because you believe such and such"). In your heart you know I'm right.

It works both ways. Christians should be respectful of non-Christians by not condemning them and judging them as nate has done, and non-Christians should refrain from insulting Christians as LPG has done.

fisharmor

08-26-2010, 07:51 AM

In the end, there are only really around eight denominations, which all recognize each others' claims to being Christian and do not deny the others' Christianity: Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed/Low Church Anglican, Continental Reformed (arguably under the Presbyterian banner or visa versa), Lutheran, Anabaptist, Congregationalist, and broader Evangelical "non-denominational" churches.

So, hold on a second... I'm in that list, and I take serious issue with your omission of both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I also take issue with your doctrine that in order to qualify as Christian, one must belong to an essentially unionist denomination.
Paul's admonition to be without division is itself a call for division. A denomination can't say that it stands for doctrine X when it allows contradictory doctrine Y to exist within it. If you believe in Scriptural inerrancy and sufficiency then you have to look outside the one passage as well, like at 2 John 9-11, and realize that Scripture at least frowns on ecumenism if it doesn't outright condemn it.

Would you read Revelations?

Listen... when someone shows up and starts throwing around "Revelations" [sic], it sounds to us the same as it would to you if some pro-Palin burger flipper showed up and started trying to argue against science using quantum theory. Revelation (it is not plural) is an advanced topic which is never even studied by most Christians, and to decry the whole faith based on your infantile understanding of it comes off to us the same way much of what you've been making fun of us for here sounds to you.

would you have a serious conversation with someone who tells you he is doing something because Santa said it will get him presents?

Actually, I would ask questions before heaping derision on him. I would ask things like: who is the Santa you are referring to? How will he give you presents? Why will he give you presents for doing the thing you are doing? Anything less is, quite frankly, incredibly unscientific.

people have justified heinous crimes with religion.

Yeah.... you wanna stack up the numbers on cold blooded murder and see who wins between atheism and religion?

It's funny that all of the people here who hate Christianity still defend Muslims every chance they get. Interesting.

Well, I am Christian, and I defend Muslims every chance I get. But I do not defend Islam.

because many of them don't take their religion seriously (what's the average number of Christians that marry as a virgin? lol!).

Actually, a Biblical metaphor which is still used to this day is that of the Church being the bride of Christ. As the Church is comprised of sinners, the metaphor is often extended to state that Christ has actually married a whore. The question at that point is not whether it is right to marry a whore: the question is whether or not the woman will remain a whore after the marriage.

Not exactly. I went to a debate at a University that held the Skepticon convention that was sponsored by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... It was held at Skepticon and was sponsored by FSM, and we're supposed to believe for one second that they didn't cherry-pick the debaters?

Look up a guy named Ken Ham. He's one of the best.

True, but he also suffers from speaking to his audience. Whenever I hear him on an occasional podcast, I can find chinks in his armor pretty easily. He might have really good rebuttals, but I'm never right in front of him.

Oh, and regarding the long-forsaken OT: Not one person I know from church would ever vote for Gary Johnson, based on his abortion stance. That's only like 50% of the people I know, but of the other 50%, 5% are libertarians who would vote for him, 20% or so are convinced Democrats, and the remainder don't vote.
He can't win, not even a primary.

Fredom101

08-26-2010, 08:20 AM

Abortion is a huge issue but the fact that he's not against the war on drugs or the income tax, issues that actually effect you, is no big deal?

jmdrake

08-26-2010, 08:30 AM

I never said that. You called them "douches". They didn't have douche in the Bible times.

They had the syntactic equivalent. :rolleyes:

Please read carefully. He said it right here:

Yes, all people who are not Christian are anti-Christian. If you do not bow the knee to Christ, you are necessarily in rebellion against Him. That does not mean that non-Christians necessarily go around insulting Christians all time, just that they have a fundamentally anti-Biblical, anti-God, and anti-Christ worldview that will express itself when confronted with the Gospel.

Now you're just lying or being purposefully ridiculous. I already withdrew then "anti Christian" claim. I'm strictly talking about people being jerks and attacking others. For you to hang on the "anti Christian" argument at this point is just you being intellectually dishonest and you know it.

He also said:

If by "electable" you mean that the person can be elected to public office, then I really don't care. It isn't about winning public office to me anymore; it is about confronting the anti-Christian society we live in today.

Heathen translation: "I'm here to stir up shit!"

More intellectual dishonesty from you. What I said was:

I've never heard nate say that, but for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it.

Now there is a difference between confronting someone and saying "You're stupid because you don't believe the same way I do" as LPG was doing.

I don't call people on this forum a "douche". That is a childish name used on the cartoon "South Park". Douche is a liquid that is inserted inside a woman with a douche-stick to clean out all the bad stuff.

Fine. Nate wasn't being a jerk. Nate wasn't being needlessly antagonistic. Nate wasn't being a YumYum. ;) Whatever you want to call it, in this thread Nate wasn't doing it. Do I agree with everything Nate does? No. And maybe you'll dig up some quote where Nate was acting like LPG and others have been in this thread. But your trying to equate someone stating a position with people running attacking others for their belief system is just silly and you know it.

I've seen Christians on this forum respectfully make their case also without putting non-Christian members on this forum on a guilt trip. But Ron Paul did not authorize you to be a judge in deciding who is more important to be won over to his side. In fact, if you look at what he has said lately about the mosque, he has done more to turn Christians away by defending the Muslim's property rights than any antics by LPG.

I never said who was "more important". :rolleyes: I said do the numbers. And further Ron Paul didn't attack Christians in general by defending the Mosque. Many Christians who are of the liberal persuasion might be drawn TO Ron Paul for his position on the mosque. I doubt you'll find any drawn to Ron Paul by LPG's antics. Besides, LPG runs around complaining about truthers "driving people away from Paul". So he should take a little of his own medicine.

I know he wants to win, but he will not sacrifice his principles to win. Not every Christian who comes on this forum just "states their case". They condemn non-Christians for not accepting Christ and for protecting a woman's right to choose. They condemn homosexuals. That is more than just "stating their case."

You're missing the point. I don't know if this is on purpose, or if you are just trolling. (I know you troll whether you admit it or not). Taking a position of not blanketly attacking Christians is NOT sacrificing principle. In THIS thread Nate merely stated his case. He stated that he felt Biblical principles were a firm foundation as opposed to "shifting sand". There was no "Gary Johnson is stupid for not believing as I do". Furthermore that's the same foundation that Ron Paul bases is "just war" theory on.

Speaking of homosexuality and abortion, do you realize that Ron Paul supports the rights of states to have laws banning gay sex? Sure he's against those laws personally, but he supports the rights of the states to have them. On abortion he's for a total ban himself which he thinks should be done through the states. What Ron Paul would actually do as president lines actually lines up quite well with social conservatism, even though Dr. Paul promotes it through a "small government" lens. I'm not sure if everybody here railing against "Christians" really understands Ron Paul's principles or the legislation he has already introduced to advance them. Sometime you need to sit down and read the "We the people act".

Not exactly. I am not prejudiced against Christians. I enjoy reading the peaceful discussions between Christians in the religion forum, but my disdain for having religion shoved down my throat comes from having religion shoved down my throat. That would leave a bad taste in anybody's mouth.

Sorry, but I've read enough from you not to buy that. Your definition of "shoving religion down someone's throat" includes someone silently and peacefully standing on a sidewalk holding out Christian literature for anyone who might come by and take it. If that's "shoving religion down someone's throat" than everyone who cold called, door knocked or did any actual grassroots campaigning for Ron Paul, Rand Paul or Peter Schiff is guilty of shoving politics up someone's colon.

It works both ways. Christians should be respectful of non-Christians by not condemning them and judging them as nate has done, and non-Christians should refrain from insulting Christians as LPG has done.

Nate didn't do it in this thread.

EvilEngineer

08-26-2010, 08:37 AM

Congratulations... you all have demonstrated why there will never be ANY progress for or against abortion.

jmdrake

08-26-2010, 08:50 AM

Im not trying to drive Christians off. But events in this world, negative events, are the creation of our own doing, or random events of nature. The idea that God is punishing or rewarding our country, rather than an individual....or is not compatible with most New Testament Theology.

And I would argue that a God who punishes an entire country because of the actions of some people in that country...is not compatible with liberty.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Matthew 23:37 - 39
37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'[d]"

Matthew 24

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

If Jesus could pronounce woe on Jerusalem it's not theologically incompatible for someone else to think woe might be pronounced on the U.S. Nor is that position "incompatible with liberty". Many people believe that one of the reasons America remains one of the most religious Christian countries on earth is because of religious liberty. Countries where one religion was favored over the other have tended to become a-religious in modern times. Christianity does fine in the "free marketplace of idea". But now there is a growing socio-political-cultural "war on religion." Ron Paul talked about it here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

YumYum

08-26-2010, 09:06 AM

Matthew 23:37 - 39
37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'[d]"

Matthew 24

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

If Jesus could pronounce woe on Jerusalem it's not theologically incompatible for someone else to think woe might be pronounced on the U.S. Nor is that position "incompatible with liberty". Many people believe that one of the reasons America remains one of the most religious Christian countries on earth is because of religious liberty. Countries where one religion was favored over the other have tended to become a-religious in modern times. Christianity does fine in the "free marketplace of idea". But now there is a growing socio-political-cultural "war on religion." Ron Paul talked about it here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The Bible makes it very clear that the entire world and its governments are under the control of Satan. Do you really think that G-d favors Satan's government of the U.S. over the non-Christian governments?

It says at Daniel 2:44: "And in the days of those Kings the G-d of heaven will set up a Kingdom (government) that will never be brought to ruin. And the Kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these other kingdoms, and it itself will stand until times indefinite."

You can see that G-d is going to wipe out all the governments off the Earth, including the United States, and then His government will rule forever.

Satan told Jesus when he was tempting him at Luke 4:6 "and the Devil said to him: 'I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it."

Satan is "the ruler of this world", including the United States according to the Bible.

jmdrake

08-26-2010, 09:13 AM

The Bible makes it very clear that the entire world and its governments are under the control of Satan. Do you really think that G-d favors Satan's government of the U.S. over the non-Christian governments?

It says at Daniel 2:44: "And in the days of those Kings the G-d of heaven will set up a Kingdom (government) that will never be brought to ruin. And the Kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these other kingdoms, and it itself will stand until times indefinite."

You can see that G-d is going to wipe out all the governments off the Earth, including the United States, and then His government will rule forever.

Satan told Jesus when he was tempting him at Luke 4:6 "and the Devil said to him: 'I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it."

Satan is "the ruler of this world", including the United States according to the Bible.

And you believe Satan? :rolleyes:

Here is God speaking through Daniel to king Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 4:32
And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Jeremiah prophesying about Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 28:14

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I will put an iron yoke on the necks of all these nations to make them serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they will serve him. I will even give him control over the wild animals.'"

Next?

YumYum

08-26-2010, 09:35 AM

And you believe Satan? :rolleyes:

What? Do you think he was lying to Jesus? If so, Jesus would have rebuked him and he would have told Satan that he wasn't the ruler of all the Kingdoms of the Earth. He made a serious offer here to Jesus. This was his first shot at trying to tempt Jesus, and you think that Satan would blow it by telling a bold face lie?

Here is God speaking through Daniel to king Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 4:32
And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Right, and G-d took away Nebuchadnezzar's power for seven years and then gave it back, and He has done the same with Satan: G-d has given Satan the power to rule all the governments of the Earth and He hasn't taken that power back. Satan is still ruling this Earth and all its governments, including the United States according to the Bible.

Jeremiah prophesying about Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 28:14

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I will put an iron yoke on the necks of all these nations to make them serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they will serve him. I will even give him control over the wild animals.'"

Next?

Again, G-d gives to whomever He chooses to be in power. Ever studied Gog of Magog in the book of Ezekiel where G-d puts hooks in the nose of Gog (Satan) and forces him to do whatever He purposes?

Whose Kingdom are you for? The Kingdom or government of the United States that the Bible makes clear is currently under the authority of Satan, or G-d's Kingdom which will wipe out all the governments of the Earth and then rule the Earth for a thousand years?

jmdrake

08-26-2010, 09:58 AM

What? Do you think he was lying to Jesus? If so, Jesus would have rebuked him and he would have told Satan that he wasn't the ruler of all the Kingdoms of the Earth. He made a serious offer here to Jesus. This was his first shot at trying to tempt Jesus, and you think that Satan would blow it by telling a bold face lie?

No. That was Satan's third attempt to tempt Jesus. The first Satan told Jesus "If you are the Son of God then turn these stones into bread". Jesus did not say "Satan you're a liar. I am the Son of God so shut up". He responded with scripture. "Man shall not live by bread alone".

The second temptation Satan told Jesus "If you are the Son of God, through yourself off the temple". This time Satan selectively misquoted scripture. "He shall give His angels charge over thee to keep you from dashing your foot against a stone". Satan left out the part "to keep thee in all thy ways". That's important. Ps 91:11 was not meant that to justify attempting suicide just to see if God will stop you. Jesus ignored Satan's misquote and just replied with scripture. "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

In this third temptation Jesus merely followed the same pattern. He didn't dispute whether Satan was telling the truth or not but merely met him with scripture. But at the end he forced Satan to "get behind" Him. Satan wouldn't have had to do that if he was really in control of everything. God has given Satan some limited leeway, but it's only enough rope for Satan to be able to hang himself.

Right, and G-d took away Nebuchadnezzar's power for seven years and then gave it back, and He has done the same with Satan: G-d has given Satan the power to rule all the governments of the Earth and He hasn't taken that power back. Satan is still ruling this Earth and all its governments, including the United States according to the Bible.

No. It's according to your misinterpretation of the Bible. You're misquoting the Bible just like Satan misquoted the Bible when he was tempting Jesus. Nowhere in anything you posted are the words "God has given Satan the power to rule all the governments of the Earth".

Again, G-d gives to whomever He chooses to be in power. Ever studied Gog of Magog in the book of Ezekiel where G-d puts hooks in the nose of Gog (Satan) and forces him to do whatever He purposes?

And your proof that Gog is Satan is......? There isn't a single mainstream religious tradition that equates Gog with being Satan himself. Further Eze 38 says that Gog will attack Israel, not that Gog will be "ruler of all the earth".

Whose Kingdom are you for? The Kingdom or government of the United States that the Bible makes clear is currently under the authority of Satan, or G-d's Kingdom which will wipe out all the governments of the Earth and then rule the Earth for a thousand years?

False choice fallacy.