Ron Paul: Our Liberties Come From Our Creator

[sailingaway]

http://images.christianpost.com/middle/45566/ron-paul.jpg

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ron-paul-our-liberties-come-from-our-creator-50858/

[LibertyEagle]

:)

[FrankRep]

Brace yourself, the anti-Christians are gonna see this soon.

[t0rnado]

If an entity, in this case an imaginary creature, gives you the ability to do something, it's called a privilege not a right.

[pcosmar]

Good. . He just explained ending the war on drugs in a language they can understand.

He is basing his campaign on Principles. and that will blow the competition out of the water.

[Travlyr]

Brace yourself, the anti-Christians are gonna see this soon.

My thought too. Now, we are going to lose the non-Christian voters. :o

[FrankRep]

If an entity, in this case an imaginary creature, gives you the ability to do something, it's called a privilege not a right.
Has God ever changed his word? No...

God give rights.

Man-made Governments give/revoke privileges.

I'll choose God and keep my rights.

[FrankRep]

My thought too. Now, we are going to lose the non-Christian voters. :o
That's like losing the Wiccan-Republican vote. lol.

[ClayTrainor]

If an entity, in this case an imaginary creature, gives you the ability to do something, it's called a privilege not a right.

I think he's using the word creator in much the same way most of us non-christians would use the word nature.

[FrankRep]

I think he's using the word creator in much the same way most of us non-christians would use the word nature.

Nice try. Ron Paul is a Christian. When he says Creator, he means God.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

God give rights.

No... God grants privileges.

Why? Because if you create a robot that can rebel against you... that is evidence you love your robot because you did not create your robot to merely serve you as a slave. If you loved yourself you would create a robot to serve you.

This is why you render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and God what is God's. To maintain honor by giving thanks for receiving and benefiting from certain privileges or immunities.

You must have never read about eviction from a utopian garden, an outcast brother, a great flood, cities of fire and brimstone, or other plagues delivered upon man.

[ClayTrainor]

Nice try.

What do you think I'm trying to do?


Ron Paul is a Christian. When he says Creator, he means God. Do you think I'm trying to argue that Ron Paul isn't Christian? Explain to me, what you think my point was.

[Travlyr]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."

[ClayTrainor]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."

and if you exchange "their creator" with "Nature", it still has the same fundamental meaning, imo. :)

[FrankRep]

No... God grants privileges.

Government has NO authority to take God's gift of liberty away. That's why Big Government hates God.


Religious Roots of Liberty (http://mises.org/daily/3639)

Mises.org
August 26, 2009

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Government has NO authority to take God's gift of liberty away. That's why Big Government hates God.

I agree... but I don't think the SIZE of government has anything to do with it.

Government only creates robots to serve government. Government has no interest in robots that can rebel against government....

[Travlyr]

and if you exchange "their creator" with "Nature", it still has the same fundamental meaning, imo. :)
I agree; however, I also think Frank has made a good point.


Government has NO authority to take God's gift of liberty away. That's why Big Government hates God.

[Travlyr]

I agree... but I don't think the SIZE of government has anything to do with it.

Sure it does. Big government is expensive... small government is affordable.

[ClayTrainor]

I agree; however, I also think Frank has made a good point.
...

I agree... but I don't think the SIZE of government has anything to do with it.

:)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Sure it does. Big government is expensive... small government is affordable.

What about this part?


Government only creates robots to serve government. Government has no interest in robots that can rebel against government....

[Travlyr]

What about this part?
That part is only valid in a dishonest society.

[ClayTrainor]

Sure it does. Big government organized crime syndicates are expensive... small government organized crime syndicates are affordable.

fixed.. :)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That part is only valid in a dishonest society.

Do you think that could be a reason something like the 2nd Amendment exists?

Could it be in the profound wisdom of the founding generation they properly understood a government that creates robots only to serve government using force is not evidence of a government that loves it's robots?

[Travlyr]

fixed.. :)

I disagree. Government is not in itself a criminal organization. The criminal organization is the counterfeiting cabal. Honest money is good for society; cheating, lying, and stealing is not good.

[pcosmar]

Are some people arguing against Ron's attempt to sell the Idea of Liberty to Christian Conservatives?

cuz it seems like it.

[Travlyr]

Do you think that could be a reason something like the 2nd Amendment exists?

Could it be in the profound wisdom of the founding generation they properly understood a government that creates robots only to serve government using force is not evidence of a government that loves it's robots?

Exactly. Keep them honest. But again it is not the concept of government... it is the concept of power which comes from mixing dishonest use of money with law.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It sounds like if there is evidence government does not love it's robots the robots ought to do something about it...

[Meatwasp]

Good for Ron. That puts to rest that he is a non Christian. Should definitly help with the Christian vote.

[ClayTrainor]

I disagree. Government is no in itself a criminal organization. The criminal organization is the counterfeiting cabal.

Those counterfeiting cabals are outgrowths of the state...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is the Act of Congress that created the Federal Reserve System


Honest money is good for society, cheating, lying, and stealing is not good.

Agreed. That's why the state is inherently illegitimate. They are organizations completely founded upon the right to take property from others, under the threat of force. AKA stealing. :)

[Travlyr]

It sounds like if there is evidence government does not love it's robots the robots ought to do something about it...

Here is the way I see it.
If there is evidence that power does not love its robots, then the robots ought to demand honesty.

[Travlyr]

Those counterfeiting cabals are outgrowths of the state...

I disagree with this statement. But we are hijacking this thread. Let's take it somewhere else.

[ClayTrainor]

I disagree with this statement.

It's not really a matter of opinion.


But we are hijacking this thread. Let's take it somewhere else.

Go ahead and start a thread.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Here is the way I see it.
If there is evidence that power does not love its robots, then the robots ought to demand honesty.

And upon hearing the just demands of it's robots what should the robots do if government decides it prefers creating only robots that serve government using force if necessary as deemed by government?

[PaulConventionWV]

What do you think I'm trying to do?

Do you think I'm trying to argue that Ron Paul isn't Christian? Explain to me, what you think my point was.

Umm, I don't think he meant nature when he said Creator. That doesn't make any sense.

[sailingaway]

Brace yourself, the anti-Christians are gonna see this soon.

You got in JUST in time....:rolleyes:

Folks, I'm posting RON PAUL's views. I do understand some of you see it differently....

[ClayTrainor]

Umm, I don't think he meant nature when he said Creator. That doesn't make any sense.

I didn't say he meant nature. I said...


I think he's using the word creator in much the same way most of us non-christians would use the word nature.

In other words...


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."

and if you exchange "their creator" with "Nature", it still has the same fundamental meaning, imo. :)

[ClayTrainor]

You got in JUST in time....:rolleyes:

Folks, I'm posting RON PAUL's views. I do understand some of you see it differently....

I'm not anti-Christian, nor am I making a case against Christianity or Ron Pauls views. I'm simply pointing out how similar they are to mine on this subject, if you get past the semantics. He is using the word creator here, in the same way I, a non-Christian, would use the word nature.

Ron Paul: Our Liberties Come From Our Creator

Clay Trainor: Our Liberties Come From Nature

I really didn't think it would be such a contestable point. I was just making an observation.

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't say he meant nature. I said...



In other words...



and if you exchange "their creator" with "Nature", it still has the same fundamental meaning, imo. :)

So what exactly are you trying to say because it's still not clear to me?

EDIT: Ok, I get it. Just making an observation.

[ClayTrainor]

So what exactly are you trying to say because it's still not clear to me?

That, in the context of the OP, Ron Paul is using the word Creator to explain the origin of liberty in pretty much the exact same way I would use the term nature to explain the origin of liberty.

[sailingaway]

I didn't say he meant nature. I said...



In other words...



and if you exchange "their creator" with "Nature", it still has the same fundamental meaning, imo. :)

Ron does speak of 'natural law' and whether you consider it from God as Ron does, or just inherent in our nature as humans from other unexplained source (:p) we all understand what it means.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That, in the context of the OP, Ron Paul is using the word Creator to explain the origin of liberty in pretty much the exact same way I would use the term nature to explain the origin of liberty.

I do like the most excellent choice of verbaige contained in the DoI. It is such an eloquent way of subtly stating it...


the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle themOne final point just in case it is not clear that government only creates robots to serve government...

What does government create? CITIZENS...

What is the death penalty/graceful (pun intended) concept of a CITIZEN in REBELLION against government? TRAITOR/TREASON...

HEAVEN ON EARTH...

I rest my case!

[ClayTrainor]

Ron does speak of 'natural law' and whether you consider it from God as Ron does, or just inherent in our nature as humans from other unexplained source (:p) we all understand what it means.

Exactly. :)

[UtahApocalypse]

Brace yourself, the anti-Christians are gonna see this soon.

Nope, I am still here.

Again it instills to me what is great about Ron Paul. He has a belief other then mine.... but in turn NEVER would use force to try and change my belief our follow his. that I think is the real essence of freedom and liberty.

[ChaosControl]

Our liberties come from living, we have liberties because we live. They are intrinsic to being alive and are not given, only taken away.
But, if a being of some sort did create us, they are what gave us life, so I suppose you could say our liberties are given to us by a creator in the sense that life was given to us and it is life which grants one liberty.

[Todd]

What do you think I'm trying to do?

Do you think I'm trying to argue that Ron Paul isn't Christian? Explain to me, what you think my point was.


rationalize. ;)

[ClayTrainor]

rationalize. ;)

Rationalizing what exactly? :)

[COpatriot]

No one is perfect. Even the best candidate in this race believes in a fictitious character from a fantasy novel. This is common though.

[Theocrat]

http://images.christianpost.com/middle/45566/ron-paul.jpg

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ron-paul-our-liberties-come-from-our-creator-50858/

That is an excellent article. I hope Congressman Paul continues to appeal to Christian conservatives from that perspective. It will encourage them to consider the Scriptures more, and it will win him more Christian supporters, as well.

[Travlyr]

That is an excellent article. I hope Congressman Paul continues to appeal to Christian conservatives from that perspective. It will encourage them to consider the Scriptures more, and it will win him more Christian supporters, as well.

Absolutely. Plus it may get teachers in the church to promote a more honest society, as well.

[Sola_Fide]

I think that Ron Paul's campaign needs to make more inroads to the conservative/Reformed churches in this country. There is just a natural flow from our theology to the idea of Liberty. The founding generation who developed the idea of Liberty were Reformed Christians. View this comment:



Maria Pellio

I attend a very conservative, reformed church and most everyone who attends this church supports Ron Paul...

· Like · Reply · Saturday at 10:11p


My church too. :)

[Kelly.]

i dont believe in god, do i still get rights?

[Travlyr]

i dont believe in god, do i still get rights?

Only if you stand up for them. Rights are inherent, but you are responsible for defending yours.

[FrankRep]

i dont believe in god, do i still get rights?
What are rights? That's the first question.

[pcosmar]

i dont believe in god, do i still get rights?

It's OK,
He still believes in you.
;)

[Kelly.]

What are rights? That's the first question.

something that i have a right to do, ie free speech, that is what a right is.
something i dont need permission to do?

your turn

[Sola_Fide]

i dont believe in god, do i still get rights?

You have rights because you are made in the image of God. You're belief in Him is not dependent on that.

[Sola_Fide]

something that i have a right to do, ie free speech, that is what a right is.
something i dont need permission to do?

your turn

Hmmmm. That is kind of circular...

[FrankRep]

something that i have a right to do, ie free speech, that is what a right is.
something i dont need permission to do?

Who says people have rights? You can claim to have so-called "rights," it doesn't make it true. I can claim I have a "right" to healthcare or a "right" to be happy, but it doesn't make it true.

[Kelly.]

Who says people have rights? You can claim to have so-called "rights," it doesn't make it true. I can claim I have a "right" to healthcare or a "right" to be happy, but it doesn't make it true.

saying "god gave me these rights" doesnt make it true either.

[Matthew Zak]

I personally subscribe to the belief that we are only entitled to that which we obtain on our own: All of our personal liberties fall under this category because it is our prerogative to walk outside, smoke pot, carve shapes into our body, do water sports, dance at the jefferson memorial, or anything else that comes to us, and doesn't affect or harm anyone else.

I'm an atheist and it irks me a little bit that people will vote for or against a candidate based on religious beliefs, but as long as those beliefs never get in my way of excersizing my personal choice to be free, I'm perfectly cool with it.

[Travlyr]

Who says people have rights? You can claim to have so-called "rights," it doesn't make it true. I can claim I have a "right" to healthcare or a "right" to be happy, but it doesn't make it true.

It does make it true if you force the doctor to give you health care. You have whatever rights you are willing to defend. Of course the doctor may object and not treat you as well... that is his right.

[ClayTrainor]

In theory, there are basically 2 kinds of rights.

Negative Rights and Positive Rights. Negative rights require inaction in order to be fulfilled, while Positive rights require action to be fulfilled.

So something like A right to your life and body, is a negative right. It only requires that other people basically keep their hands off you. Something like a Right to Food or Health Care is a positive right, because it requires someone else to perform actions in order to grant you the right.

In order for a positive right to be enforced, negative rights need to be violated. In order for a negative right to be enforced, no positive rights need to be violated. Therefore Negative Rights > Positive Rights.

In regards to where rights come from? Well, they don't exist physically, they're principled conceptual constructs.

[FrankRep]

saying "god gave me these rights" doesnt make it true either.
If God gave you the Rights, Government can't legitimately take them away.

You have the higher moral power if the government violates your God given rights.

[Kelly.]

but if i dont believe in god, did he still give me my rights?

[Sola_Fide]

but if i dont believe in god, did he still give me my rights?

Uh. Yeah.

[doodle]

Looks like Ron Paul doesn't agree with Ayn Rand's view of liberties as she claimed Religion was evil and there was no Creator.

[FrankRep]

but if i dont believe in god, did he still give me my rights?
Knowing where your Rights come from is essential in preserving your Rights. If you deny God and deny his Higher Authority over Government and over man, you will have no legitimate argument to proof your Rights were violated. With no Higher Authority, no "Rights" can be given.

[FrankRep]

Looks like Ron Paul doesn't agree with Ayn Rand's view of liberties as she claimed Religion was evil and there was no Creator.

That's kinda obvious.

[Matthew Zak]

Knowing where your Rights come from is essential in preserving your Rights. If you deny God and deny his Higher Authority over Government and over man, you will have no legitimate argument to proof your Rights were violated. With no Higher Authority, no "Rights" can be given.

I know where my rights came from. I chose to have them. I manifest them in my reality. That's all I need.

[Kelly.]

Knowing where your Rights come from is essential in preserving your Rights. If you deny God and deny his Higher Authority over Government and over man, you will have no legitimate argument to proof your Rights were violated. With no Higher Authority, no "Rights" can be given.

i dont understand,
are you saying if i dont believe in god, i cant say my rights are above govt control?

[FrankRep]

I know where my rights came from. I chose to have them. I manifest them in my reality. That's all I need.
Is Healthcare a Right? What if I choose to make Healthcare a Right?

[FrankRep]

i dont understand,
are you saying if i dont believe in god, i cant say my rights are above govt control?
You will have no legitimate authority to say your "Rights" are being violated.

[Kelly.]

You will have no legitimate authority to say your "Rights" are being violated.

so i must believe in god if i want to stand up for my rights?

[jonhowe]

As an atheist I have zero complaints with this. Ron's a Christian, he thinks they come from "god".

But Ron is also Ron, and he's not going to MAKE me agree with him on that.

If Ron was an atheist, I'd hope he wouldn't force christians to agree that god doesn't exist: this is America!

[Matthew Zak]

Is Healthcare a Right? What if I choose to make Healthcare a Right?

No it's obviously not a right. I'm not confused about privileges versus rights, or goods versus rights. My rights are the same as yours, only I happen to believe they came from me. You think yours came from god. That's the only place we disagree.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron has said that our rights come from nature before, too. Without qualifying it with mentioning God in any way.

He's simply selling liberty to Christian conservatives. No need to get upset by it.

[ClayTrainor]

Ron has said that our rights come from nature before, too. Without qualifying it with mentioning God in any way.

He's simply selling liberty to Christian conservatives. No need to get upset by it.

Exactly. :)

[jmdrake]

Ron has said that our rights come from nature before, too. Without qualifying it with mentioning God in any way.

He's simply selling liberty to Christian conservatives. No need to get upset by it.

Ron believes in God. So I don't think he's "simply selling liberty to Christian conservatives". I think he's selling liberty to fellow believers. That doesn't mean atheists aren't welcome also. But you're making it sound like Ron is being disingenuous and I think that's not true, nor even necessary to make your point.

[FrankRep]

so i must believe in god if i want to stand up for my rights?
You have no authority to grant yourself Rights and the Government has no authority to take your Rights away.

[Theocrat]

so i must believe in god if i want to stand up for my rights?

I like what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, when he said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Even Jefferson understood that it was self-evident that rights must begin with God.

If rights do not originate with God, then they must come from either men, or from impersonal nature. But those two alternatives present problems when we examine how we secure our rights as we live our lives. For instance, if rights came from human beings, then, ultimately, human beings have the final say so on what those rights are and how they are preserved or taken away (either by majority rule, or despotic rule).

Also, if rights came from nature, then what in nature tells us we have rights? Is it the cell which tells us that we have rights? Trees? Antelope? By its own essence, nature cannot tell us anything personal nor can it bestow anything personal such as rights to life, liberty, or property. Do you see the point?

As an "atheist," you have to rationally give an account for how rights can exist, if there is nothing above men and nature which has the authority to declare and bestow rights. That is why it's important that one believes in God in order to appeal to rights, especially rights in the sense of being inalienable. Otherwise, rights become as relative as men deciding what they are, or however the wind blows in nature.

[jmdrake]

You have no authority to grant yourself Rights and the Government has no authority to take your Rights away.

And yet the government takes away our rights all the time. And the power to do that is written in the constitution.

No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

So as long as you get "due process of law" you can be deprived of "life, liberty or property". Note how different this is from the DOI.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Note how broad the "pursuit of happiness" is. That would cover just about anything that a person might want to do that doesn't harm another. (Since the government is there to secure rights, if you are taking the Life or Liberty of another or unjustly interfering with their pursuit of happiness that would be the only time the government could step in).

[Guitarzan]

[QUOTE=Theocrat;3323996]

Also, if rights came from nature, then what in nature tells us we have rights? Is it the cell which tells us that we have rights? Trees? Antelope? By its own essence, nature cannot tell us anything personal nor can it bestow anything personal such as rights to life, liberty, or property. Do you see the point?

QUOTE]

Just as you ask the question of what in nature tells us that we have rights, I would have to ask you where God has told anyone about these rights.

[FrankRep]

And yet the government takes away our rights all the time. And the power to do that is written in the constitution.

You have the higher moral power if the government violates your God given rights. You can start Revolutions with that higher moral power.

That is powerful.

[swatmc]

I swear this is one of the few issues I completely disagree with Ron Paul and the movement amount.

How can Ron Paul believe in any god, much less the Christian interpretation of god?

I thought were were all about not having a centralized power in this country? But when it comes the whole universe, that is completely thrown out of the window in exchange for a celestial dictator?

So frustrating...


But I'm still supporting the good doctor for president, I just don't understand where he coming from as it seems to be the sole example of him NOT being consistent.

[jmdrake]

You have the higher moral power if the government violates your God given rights. You can start Revolutions with that higher moral power.

That is powerful.

Gay soldier says having picture of his boyfriend on his desk makes him happy. Your response is....? (After all the DOI says the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable God given right).

[jmdrake]

I swear this is one of the few issues I completely disagree with Ron Paul and the movement amount.

How can Ron Paul believe in any god, much less the Christian interpretation of god?

I thought were were all about not having a centralized power in this country? But when it comes the whole universe, that is completely thrown out of the window in exchange for a celestial dictator?

So frustrating...


But I'm still supporting the good doctor for president, I just don't understand where he coming from as it seems to be the sole example of him NOT being consistent.

So let me get this straight. You're all for freedom of choice, except for when someone choses to believe in God? And you think that makes you "pro liberty"? :confused: Sometimes I really wish some libertarian atheist would start a political movement so the schizophrenia here about the issue could end.

[Theocrat]

[QUOTE=Theocrat;3323996]

Also, if rights came from nature, then what in nature tells us we have rights? Is it the cell which tells us that we have rights? Trees? Antelope? By its own essence, nature cannot tell us anything personal nor can it bestow anything personal such as rights to life, liberty, or property. Do you see the point?

QUOTE]

Just as you ask the question of what in nature tells us that we have rights, I would have to ask you where God has told anyone about these rights.

Given that I'm a Christian, I think you would know my answer to your question of where God has told us about the rights to life, liberty, and property (among others). But, it's not about where I, as a Christian, believe rights come from. The onus right now is upon the "atheist" who appeals to nature as the source of rights to explain how nature gives us those rights as well as makes it known to us that we have rights indeed.

And given that "atheists" believe nature evolves, I would then ask if rights, too, evolve. Then could we not say that the rights we thought we had have now evolved into other rights (such as a right to healthcare), as humans change in society? But if rights evolve, how then could they be inalienable?

[Theocrat]

I swear this is one of the few issues I completely disagree with Ron Paul and the movement amount.

How can Ron Paul believe in any god, much less the Christian interpretation of god?

I thought were were all about not having a centralized power in this country? But when it comes the whole universe, that is completely thrown out of the window in exchange for a celestial dictator?

So frustrating...


But I'm still supporting the good doctor for president, I just don't understand where he coming from as it seems to be the sole example of him NOT being consistent.

Post #80 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?296812-Ron-Paul-Our-Liberties-Come-From-Our-Creator&p=3323996#post3323996). :)

[swatmc]

So let me get this straight. You're all for freedom of choice, except for when someone choses to believe in God? And you think that makes you "pro liberty"? :confused: Sometimes I really wish some libertarian atheist would start a political movement so the schizophrenia here about the issue could end.

I believe in freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion.

So much evil and ignorance is justified using religion and the whole concept of a god makes NO sense to me when it comes to liberty.

While we are on earth we disapprove of a dictator and the constitution suggest three separate branches of government.

But when it comes to the whole universe... we have a single unquestionable, dictator?

And yes a lot of people do good things in the name of religion, but why not just cut out the middle man and be good for the sake of being good?

[Esoteric]

My rights come from my creator - Aqua Buddha! Prove me wrong!

[swatmc]

When it comes to the argument of whether or not we need God in order to have our rights... I flat out disagree with that premise.

Mostly because the existence of a Christian god (Or muslim god or any other god for that matter) is one big MAYBE.

I don't trust my rights to a "maybe." To hell with that.

The Constitution is an IDEA. America is an IDEA. God is also an IDEA.

Ideas are artificial constructs that humans create for meaning/stability/etc.

So we must all fight for the ideas that we hold dear.

God has nothing to do with it.

The constitution becomes meaningless if people don't take the IDEA seriously. There is no big father figure that fights for us... we are on our own.

[Sola_Fide]

I believe in freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion.

So much evil and ignorance is justified using religion and the whole concept of a god makes NO sense to me when it comes to liberty.

While we are on earth we disapprove of a dictator and the constitution suggest three separate branches of government.

But when it comes to the whole universe... we have a single unquestionable, dictator?

And yes a lot of people do good things in the name of religion, but why not just cut out the middle man and be good for the sake of being good?


The religions of secular humanism, darwinism, and the other various forms of atheism have been responsible for more death, destruction, and misery than any other worldview. If you think atheism has such a great track record, then Id like to see you defend the Mao and Stalin regimes. They were intensely atheistic, man-centered regimes.

As far as God being the "single dictator"...well, that is fine. God owns the universe. He owns the earth. He owns all of His creation, including us. The entire reason that Christianity provides a solid philosophical bulwark against tyranny is precisely the fact that God owns this earth and all of us so that no one man can be a dictator.

The founding generation appealed specifically to the God of Scripture as the only philosophical defense against tyranny.

The Liberty movement was birthed in Christianity. The Christians of the founding generations started the Liberty movement which you are now in.

[Theocrat]

When it comes to the argument of whether or not we need God in order to have our rights... I flat out disagree with that premise.

Mostly because the existence of a Christian god (Or muslim god or any other god for that matter) is one big MAYBE.

I don't trust my rights to a "maybe." To hell with that.

The Constitution is an IDEA. America is an IDEA. God is also an IDEA.

Ideas are artificial constructs that humans create for meaning/stability/etc.

So we must all fight for the ideas that we hold dear.

God has nothing to do with it.

The constitution becomes meaningless if people don't take the IDEA seriously. There is no big father figure that fights for us... we are on our own.

How do you know you have rights?

[jmdrake]

I believe in freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion.

If you truly believe in freedom of religion then you will have no problem with Ron Paul believing in God even if that God is a "celestial dictator".



So much evil and ignorance is justified using religion and the whole concept of a god makes NO sense to me when it comes to liberty.


Communists per capita murdered more people than theists. And communists are atheists. The problem isn't religion. The problem is trying to force a belief system, any belief system, on others.



While we are on earth we disapprove of a dictator and the constitution suggest three separate branches of government.

But when it comes to the whole universe... we have a single unquestionable, dictator?


He (God) either exists or He doesn't. If He exists then the fact that you find His existence objectionable is irrelevant. Now, in my home my wife and I are the "unquestionable dictators". Yes I know. There are those who believe that 3 year olds should have the right to choose whether they are going to eat vegetables or just life on a diet of cake and ice cream. But I don't run my house that way. And the results I've seen of people that run their homes that way have not been pretty. We parents are the procreators of our children. That puts us on a different level from our progeny. By the same token the creator if He exists (and I and Ron Paul believe He does) is on a different level than His creation. I give my children a certain amount of choices, but their are limits. And frankly I could care less if you or anyone else thinks that makes me a bad parent. I know it doesn't. By the same token God, by giving us choices within limits, is a good God.

Or consider intelligent robots. There is a growing debate in some sectors over whether or not robots should be granted "rights". Should these machines we are creating be given rights equal to their creator? I don't think so. Atheist Isaac Asimov with his "three laws of robotics" didn't think so either.



And yes a lot of people do good things in the name of religion, but why not just cut out the middle man and be good for the sake of being good?

If that's what you want to do, fine. I'm not going to stop you. I just find it said that you can't be as respectful to the choice of those of us who believe in God as I am to your choice. That's just sad. And it's not pro liberty no matter how you try to dress it up.

[ClayTrainor]

http://micron.thehhp.net/images/i_like_where_this_thread_is_going.jpg

:p

[Sola_Fide]

Ron has said that our rights come from nature before, too. Without qualifying it with mentioning God in any way.

He's simply selling liberty to Christian conservatives. No need to get upset by it.

To me, I think it is important to correct the philosophical disconnects between Ron and his supporters. This post is an example I think of this disconnect.

Even when the Deistic or religiously liberal Founders appealed to "the laws of nature and nature's God", they still expressed that in terms of the Christian worldview.

To make it seem as if the idea of Liberty is something alien to Christianity is to not understand American history or theological movements at all. The Protestant Reformation, which gave rise to the French Huguenots, the Scottish Covenanters, the Puritans....these movements were the seedbeds for Liberty and Republican government in the West.

[Esoteric]

LOL @ Aquabuddah claiming "darwinism" is a "religion".

Darwinism is a term given to the theory of evolution by natural selection. It is not a religion. This theory is as much of a fact as the theory of gravity, or the theory of quantum mechanics. We have a common ancestor with modern primates, and further back, we have a common ancestor with all living organisms. Period. This has never been refuted. If there was one piece of evidence to the contrary, it could no longer be referred to as a scientific theory.

We are animals. Human life was not "planned for" and is not special. Embrace it. Yes, it's a bleek assertion, but it's likely true, and we must learn to live with it. Creationism is false. We have fossil records, DNA analysis, and carbon dating which all provides evidence that life has evolved, and that all living organisms share a common ancestor at some point in the past.

I highly doubt aquabuddah has a scientific background, as he seems extremely uninformed.

I'm not claiming that atheists are less violent than theists, just as you should not claim that theists are inherently less violent. That is irrelevant. Even if atheists were the most violent people, that does not make their philosophy less true. I'd like to point out atheism is, and should be regarded as the default position. Until any supernatural theory can provide a shred of evidence to prove it is worthy of my belief, I will remain an atheist. Why do you blindly accept the religion of your parents? I was forced to do this, and was raised as a christian. When I finally began to learn about the world, and apply critical thought in order to justify claims, I realized that all religions make assertions which have been proven false, and do not provide one piece of evidence which should lead any critically thinking human being to believe its claims. Thus, as they stand, all religions are false. Period.

You are also an atheist with regard to every other religion, present and past, that happens to not be your own (likely the religion of your parents). I just go one god further than you in my disbelief, and rightfully so.

[PaulConventionWV]

LOL @ Aquabuddah claiming "darwinism" is a "religion".

Darwinism is a term given to the theory of evolution by natural selection. It is not a religion. This theory is as much of a fact as the theory of gravity, or the theory of quantum mechanics. We have a common ancestor with modern primates, and further back, we have a common ancestor with all living organisms. Period. This has never been refuted. If there was one piece of evidence to the contrary, it could no longer be referred to as a scientific theory.

We are animals. Human life was not "planned for" and is not special. Embrace it. Yes, it's a bleek assertion, but it's likely true, and we must learn to live with it.

I highly doubt aquabuddah has a scientific background, as he seems extremely uninformed.

You are wrong. Evolution has no evidence to support it. I have been debating this for years, and no one has yet shown me any evidence that supports it. The mindless repetition of the phrase "it's a fact" doesn't count. It takes faith, and therefore, I treat it as religious. Also, it is atheistic because it is the attempt to justify the universe without a God. I know you will disagree, but without it, atheists simply would not be able to support their worldview. Now that they have the religion of evolution, they get to claim moral high ground and make fun of people who believe the Bible is much more reliable than Darwin. I find it despicable, and you should know better than to call anything a "fact" without first qualifying that statement. Evolution, for some reason, seems to be exempt from this qualification. I don't know why, but that's the way it seems to have been indoctrinated into us via the school systems. Once people realize the relationship between the school's teaching of evolution and big government, they start to lose a lot of faith in the theory of evolution.

So LOL @ you for that.

[jmdrake]

http://micron.thehhp.net/images/i_like_where_this_thread_is_going.jpg

:p

Eh. It was headed that way as soon as the words "Creator" and "Ron Paul" were put in the title. ;)

Here's my view. I'll take a page from the atheist playbook. Say if I believed in the "flying spaghetti monster". As long as I didn't try to force my belief on someone else why would it matter? And why should it matter if my concept of how the FSM ruled his celestial pasta bowl didn't fit the "libertarian view" if again I'm not trying to force my belief on others? This isn't directed at you ClayTrainor. Just at the argument I've seen repeatedly that if someone is to be libertarian he must force God to be a libertarian also.

[Esoteric]

You are wrong. Evolution has no evidence to support it. I have been debating this for years, and no one has yet shown me any evidence that supports it. The mindless repetition of the phrase "it's a fact" doesn't count. It takes faith, and therefore, I treat it as religious. Also, it is atheistic because it is the attempt to justify the universe without a God. I know you will disagree, but without it, atheists simply would not be able to support their worldview. Now that they have the religion of evolution, they get to claim moral high ground and make fun of people who believe the Bible is much more reliable than Darwin. I find it despicable, and you should know better than to call anything a "fact" without first qualifying that statement. Evolution, for some reason, seems to be exempt from this qualification. I don't know why, but that's the way it seems to have been indoctrinated into us via the school systems. Once people realize the relationship between the school's teaching of evolution and big government, they start to lose a lot of faith in the theory of evolution.

So LOL @ you for that.

Have you seen the fossil records? Have you seen the genetic links between organisms - the fact that when we trace certain gene expression cross-species, it literally provides us with an evolutionary tree showing how far removed we are from every living organism? Have you seen that this DNA-based tree corroborates with previous models created through observation?

Until you have studied the subject, I'd suggest you refrain from making ludicrous claims like "evolution has no evidence to support it". This is as idiotic as saying "the theory of gravity has no evidence to support it". The only evidence we don't have is literally seeing evolution with our own eyes. OH - WAIT! We can see evolution by UN-natural selection when farmers selectively breed their livestock over a few generations, to the point where they are no longer able to even mate with the naturally occurring form of the same species.

[rich34]

To all you folks arguing against religion please stop. And don't give me the "I can say what I want" crap we're trying to win a flippin primary here and with voices like these the odds are going to be that much more steep. Like Ron, I'm all for your right to believe whatever you want, but guys lets be wise in this. The fact is if Ron can't cut into the social conservative vote he ain't going to win the republican nomination period! I'm not trying to come off condescending, but this is the truth of it. Ron has to play the game and it don't help when his supporters are undermining him, but giving their personal opinions on the matter when Ron actually does believe in the Creator and is trying to get their votes. It's not going to help him get their votes when you guys are arguing over this. Let it go, please, for LIBERTY!

[emazur]

Ron Paul could save us all from a shitstorm if he just said something like this instead:

"Our rights are not something to be given or taken away by government. Our rights come from our humanity, and whether you believe they originate from a creator or are natural-born rights, every human being has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he does not initiate aggression against another individual. The founding fathers intended a system that prevented the federal government from taking acts of aggression against the American people, and as such does not provide a system of "positive rights". Since laws like healthcare mandates require coercive taxation, aggression is initiated against any individual who does not wish to participate, and such laws are therefore alien to the Constitution and should be considered null & void"

Judge Nap often says that rights are natural born or come from our creator - I wish Ron Paul would also phrase it that way.

[sailingaway]

But Ron is Christian and in a GOP primary that is a good thing to be. Why would you want to undermine him with voters in an election? You know he would never impose his beliefs on anyone.

Judge Nap is not standing for an Iowa straw poll in two months.

[PaulConventionWV]

Have you seen the fossil records? Have you seen the genetic links between organisms - the fact that when we trace certain gene expression cross-species, it literally provides us with an evolutionary tree showing how far removed we are from every living organism? Have you seen that this DNA-based tree corroborates with previous models created through observation?

Until you have studied the subject, I'd suggest you refrain from making ludicrous claims like "evolution has no evidence to support it". This is as idiotic as saying "the theory of gravity has no evidence to support it". The only evidence we don't have is literally seeing evolution with our own eyes. OH - WAIT! We can see evolution by UN-natural selection when farmers selectively breed their livestock over a few generations, to the point where they are no longer able to even mate with the naturally occurring form of the same species.

More of the same. Believe me, I've had people preach to me about what evolution really was, and I haven't changed my view. That's not because I'm closed-minded but because people are so thick-headed they can't see the flaws in their own thinking. For starters:

Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection is a mechanism by which the gene pool remains "good" as God called it in genesis. The idea that natural selection can turn one kind of organism into another is ludicrous, not to mention the fact that there is no evidence to support it. The problem is that, as soon as you see the words "natural selection" you think "evolution." The two are not equal. Killing off the bad does not change the remaining gene pool.

The fossil record is not proof of anything. If you find some bones in the dirt, you can't prove that organism had any kids, let alone different ones. Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies with the "fossil record" such as bones in the wrong layers, trees standing up through several strata that are supposed to represent millions of years, etc. The fossils that have been used as evidence were either faked, manipulated, or artistically rendered with the bias of wanting to create something that looked like it fit the theory.

Also, yes, I know what genetic links between organisms are. I know how adaptation works. I know how gene pools shift. I know how mutations work, but none of this supports evolution.

Your "evolutionary tree" is made by creating a representation of the genetic evidence that will fit the theory of evolution. That's not how science works. You're supposed to make the theory fit the facts, not the other way around. The problem is that you assume evolution to be true, and therefore any facts become interpreted to the end of supporting evolution when, in fact, they can be interpreted in very different manners. And yet, the interpretations that support evolution are the only ones that get published and the only ones that you ever hear about. Interesting, huh?

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron Paul could save us all from a shitstorm if he just said something like this instead:

"Our rights are not something to be given or taken away by government. Our rights come from our humanity, and whether you believe they originate from a creator or are natural-born rights, every human being has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he does not initiate aggression against another individual. The founding fathers intended a system that prevented the federal government from taking acts of aggression against the American people, and as such does not provide a system of "positive rights". Since laws like healthcare mandates require coercive taxation, aggression is initiated against any individual who does not wish to participate, and such laws are therefore alien to the Constitution and should be considered null & void"

Judge Nap often says that rights are natural born or come from our creator - I wish Ron Paul would also phrase it that way.

Ron Paul is speaking what he really believes. It's not a show for anyone, and he's not going to compromise it so that you feel more comfortable listening to him.

[Maestro232]

No... God grants privileges.

Why? Because if you create a robot that can rebel against you... that is evidence you love your robot because you did not create your robot to merely serve you as a slave. If you loved yourself you would create a robot to serve you.

This is why you render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and God what is God's. To maintain honor by giving thanks for receiving and benefiting from certain privileges or immunities.

You must have never read about eviction from a utopian garden, an outcast brother, a great flood, cities of fire and brimstone, or other plagues delivered upon man.

How Arminian. God grants rights.

[Sola_Fide]

Our "humanity" is not a sufficient basis for rights. As an atheist has already declared in this thread, we are nothing but animals. In atheism, we are the same kinds of beings as other living things. We have brains just like apes and dogs and rats have brains. Being "human" and having rights conflicts with the atheistic view that we are animals, and random accidents at that.



Also, it is PLAINLY obvious that if man is the final authority for rights then rights can never be secure. Man has shown that he defines rights differently for different men, or he just declares certain classes of people "non-human".

The founding generation understood that the only firm basis for rights was the firm conviction in the people that these rights were gifts of God, and were to be abrogated only but by His wrath.

[Aldanga]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTBPdVpdMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTBPdVpdMc

[emazur]

But Ron is Christian and in a GOP primary that is a good thing to be. Why would you want to undermine him with voters in an election? You know he would never impose his beliefs on anyone.

Judge Nap is not standing for an Iowa straw poll in two months.

In the statement I made, all bases are covered and there was no one to offend and nothing to be undermined by. Our rights, whether you believe they come from a creator or are natural born, and inherent and cannot be rescinded. After hearing that, who's gonna think "Ron Paul said what?!? That's it, I'm voting for Romney in the primary!"? Nobody. But instead, with the way he phrases it now, we have to deal with shitstorms on this thread that spread to places like reddit and the general public that serve up a hefty portion of FUD that further entrenches the false left-right paradigm

[swatmc]

How do you know you have rights?

I don't have rights unless I personally fight them.

If the Christian god gives me these rights- and he doesn't exist- I don't have rights now do I?

[Esoteric]

I can tell you're not a scientist.

Science cannot "create evidence" to fit their theory. The scientific method is in inherently without bias. Science does not simply assume evolution is true, then find facts to fit their bias. If science was able to refute the theory of evolution, in any way, it would. The person who did it would likely become internationally heralded. The theory would then no longer be considered an accepted theory in the scientific community. That's how science works.

The vast amount of information in the fossil record supports the theory of evolution. The vast amount of evidence through genetic observation supports the theory of evolution. Carbon dating supports the theory of evolution.

You seem to also have a flawed understanding of what evolution is. You think that evolution asserts that one day, two monkeys gave birth to a human baby. This is false. Humans share a common ancestor with modern apes - a species which was neither human nor ape. We did not evolve from MODERN apes. We are their evolutionary cousins, as we are with all modern living organisms. We share our most recent common ancestor with modern chimpanzees, a claim WHICH THERE ARE FOSSILS TO SUPPORT. The evidence is right in front of you. I thought Ron Paul supporters were better than this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution


Nothing supports the idea of creation, and it can be proven false by simply observing the vast body of scientific evidence against it. That is why there is no "theory of creation" in science. There is no evidence to support it, and in fact, all evidence is to the contrary.

[sailingaway]

In the statement I made, all bases are covered and there was no one to offend and nothing to be undermined by. Our rights, whether you believe they come from a creator or are natural born, and inherent and cannot be rescinded. After hearing that, who's gonna think "Ron Paul said what?!? That's it, I'm voting for Romney in the primary!"? Nobody. But instead, with the way he phrases it now, we have to deal with shitstorms on this thread that spread to places like reddit and the general public that serve up a hefty portion of FUD that further entrenches the false left-right paradigm

No, the 'base' of affirmatively bonding with others of Christian beliefs was not covered.

[swatmc]

Response to jmdrake, I tried quoting what you said and it turned into a mess:


If god created us, that doesn't give him unquestionable authority over us. Especially if we are above the age of 18.

If you want to consider god to be a parent... that's fine, but there are such things as "bad parents" and god certainly qualifies as such considering his record for the past 2,000 years. The flooding alone makes him quite incompetent.

I have no problem with people who do heroin... but I can list why I think heroin is bad for someone.

I agree with religion not being the problem and the problem is when people force their belief on others.

Religion isn't the problem. An Irrational submission to authority is the problem. Any kind of man made dictatorship falls under that.

To me the Christian god has a lot more in common with Kim Jong Il then people realize.

I don't support communism or any kind of dictatorship.

I can't be respectful to any dictatorship, celestial or otherwise.

If god created us, that doesn't give him unquestionable authority over us. Especially if we are above the age of 18.

If you want to consider god to be a parent... that's fine, but there are such things as "bad parents" and god certainly qualifies as such considering his record for the past 2,000 years. The flooding alone makes him quite incompetent.

I can't help but think that believing in god is literally the antithesis of liberty.

[Ranger29860]

You are wrong. Evolution has no evidence to support it. I have been debating this for years, and no one has yet shown me any evidence that supports it. The mindless repetition of the phrase "it's a fact" doesn't count. It takes faith, and therefore, I treat it as religious. Also, it is atheistic because it is the attempt to justify the universe without a God. I know you will disagree, but without it, atheists simply would not be able to support their worldview. Now that they have the religion of evolution, they get to claim moral high ground and make fun of people who believe the Bible is much more reliable than Darwin. I find it despicable, and you should know better than to call anything a "fact" without first qualifying that statement. Evolution, for some reason, seems to be exempt from this qualification. I don't know why, but that's the way it seems to have been indoctrinated into us via the school systems. Once people realize the relationship between the school's teaching of evolution and big government, they start to lose a lot of faith in the theory of evolution.

So LOL @ you for that.

Ok i am sure i know where this is going but i'm gonna try anyway. What kind of evidence are you looking for? fossil record? Evolution of multicellular organisms? Chemical origin of the cell (not evolution by the way). Modern day evidence of species migration? Evidence in the last 100 years of macro/micro evolution (same thing just a time difference). DNA mapping showing common ancestry?

I am more than willing to show the evidence for evolution if you are willing to listen i can post here if you want or PM me if you want.

As for Ron's stance i could care less since we all know he will never allow personal stances and opinions seep into his politics.

[emazur]

No, the 'base' of affirmatively bonding with others of Christian beliefs was not covered.

Base 1: rights are natural born. Non-Christians satisfied.
Base 2: rights come from God, and Ron Paul is a Christian who also lives like one. There's your Christian bond. No pandering necessary.

[Esoteric]

Ok i am sure i know where this is going but i'm gonna try anyway. What kind of evidence are you looking for? fossil record? Evolution of multicellular organisms? Chemical origin of the cell (not evolution by the way). Modern day evidence of species migration? Evidence in the last 100 years of macro/micro evolution (same thing just a time difference). DNA mapping showing common ancestry?

I am more than willing to show the evidence for evolution if you are willing to listen i can post here if you want or PM me if you want.

As for Ron's stance i could care less since we all know he will never allow personal stances and opinions seep into his politics.

They are not willing to listen. They are in denial of the evidence, or are simply ignorant of evidence with no desire to seek it in fear of being proven wrong. They can't fathom the likelihood that we are simply animals, who will cease to exist when our brain ceases to function, and are special only in that we are the most intelligent animal - not because we have "souls" that will be judged when we die, allowing us to live eternally.

This is what gets me by. Think about it:

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?"

[swatmc]

The religions of secular humanism, darwinism, and the other various forms of atheism have been responsible for more death, destruction, and misery than any other worldview. If you think atheism has such a great track record, then Id like to see you defend the Mao and Stalin regimes. They were intensely atheistic, man-centered regimes.

As far as God being the "single dictator"...well, that is fine. God owns the universe. He owns the earth. He owns all of His creation, including us. The entire reason that Christianity provides a solid philosophical bulwark against tyranny is precisely the fact that God owns this earth and all of us so that no one man can be a dictator.

The founding generation appealed specifically to the God of Scripture as the only philosophical defense against tyranny.

The Liberty movement was birthed in Christianity. The Christians of the founding generations started the Liberty movement which you are now in.

Thomas Jefferson sounds like a non-believer to me.

Didn't he write his own bible without all the hocus pocus?

[sailingaway]

I think Ron should have the liberty of addressing his own faith his own way.

By the way, did you see the new Gallup poll saying 92% of Americans believe in God? http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/06/americans_belief_in_god_gallup/

[jmdrake]

I see you totally ignored my point about autonomous robots. So was Isaac Assimov wrong? Should 18 year old robots have the right to kill humans in "self defense"?

As for your silly insulting "heroin" response, that just shows the illogic of militant atheists. Has Ron Paul hurt you by his Christianity? Have I? Theists who have used government power to hurt others and atheists who use government power to hurt others do so for one simple reason they have government power. It's got nothing to do with their belief system. And some atheists who are not "communists" or part of a dictatorship have used government power to hurt others. If you don't understand that it's simply a case of power corrupting, and that a democratic system can be corrupt then you don't understand liberty. America was never meant to be a democracy and for good reason. Republics, even ones that are not "democratic", protect against tyranny. God's kingdom is a republic. Even He can't undo His own laws. That's why one member of the trinity God had to die to pay for man's sin.


Response to jmdrake, I tried quoting what you said and it turned into a mess:


If god created us, that doesn't give him unquestionable authority over us. Especially if we are above the age of 18.

If you want to consider god to be a parent... that's fine, but there are such things as "bad parents" and god certainly qualifies as such considering his record for the past 2,000 years. The flooding alone makes him quite incompetent.

I have no problem with people who do heroin... but I can list why I think heroin is bad for someone.

I agree with religion not being the problem and the problem is when people force their belief on others.

Religion isn't the problem. An Irrational submission to authority is the problem. Any kind of man made dictatorship falls under that.

To me the Christian god has a lot more in common with Kim Jong Il then people realize.

I don't support communism or any kind of dictatorship.

I can't be respectful to any dictatorship, celestial or otherwise.

If god created us, that doesn't give him unquestionable authority over us. Especially if we are above the age of 18.

If you want to consider god to be a parent... that's fine, but there are such things as "bad parents" and god certainly qualifies as such considering his record for the past 2,000 years. The flooding alone makes him quite incompetent.

I can't help but think that believing in god is literally the antithesis of liberty.

[jmdrake]

I don't have rights unless I personally fight them.

If the Christian god gives me these rights- and he doesn't exist- I don't have rights now do I?

And if He does exist then you do have them as a free gift whether you acknowledge that or not.

[swatmc]

I see you totally ignored my point about autonomous robots. So was Isaac Assimov wrong? Should 18 year old robots have the right to kill humans in "self defense"?

Let's cross the robot killing humans in self defense bridge when we get to it.

Do you agree that it is the irrational submission to authority that is the main culprit against liberty?

[swatmc]

And if He does exist then you do have them as a free gift whether you acknowledge that or not.

If he exists, does god grant rights to all those killed in earthquakes, floods, and tsunamis?

[Esoteric]

I think Ron should have the liberty of addressing his own faith his own way.

By the way, did you see the new Gallup poll saying 92% of Americans believe in God? http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/06/americans_belief_in_god_gallup/

Take a look at polls among the scientific community. It's a complete flip-flop. 93% reject the existence of a personal god. 92% reject immortality. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html.

Even if 99.99% of people believed in a supernatural being, that does not make it more true. That is fallacious thinking. That would just tell me that 99.99% of people do not require evidence to form a belief, and may have blindly accepted the belief system of their parents because they were told to do so since they were young.

[nate895]

I can tell you're not a scientist.

Science cannot "create evidence" to fit their theory. The scientific method is in inherently without bias. Science does not assume evolution is true. If science was able to refute the theory of evolution, in any way, it would. The person who did it would likely become internationally heralded. The theory would then no longer be considered an accepted theory in the scientific community. That's how science works.

The vast amount of information in the fossil record supports the theory of evolution. The vast amount of evidence through genetic observation supports the theory of evolution. Carbon dating supports the theory of evolution.

You seem to also have a flawed understanding of what evolution is. You think that evolution asserts that one day, two monkeys gave birth to a human baby. This is false. Humans share a common ancestor with modern apes. We are evolutionary cousins, in that we share a common ancestor, a claim WHICH THERE ARE FOSSILS TO SUPPORT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution





Nothing supports any creation theory.

Here we have yet another evolutionist who assumes that all creationists are ignorant. Evolution and progessivism (two associated ideologies, actually) do this as a substitute for argument. See, what we have here, is the idea that scientific consensus means something and that scientists must use the scientific method in determining their "scientific" beliefs. This is entirely ignorant of human nature. Human beings generally want to be respected by their peers, and so if some belief gains ascendancy, particularly in groups seen as having authority, they will conform. That is how Darwinism became the unquestioned dogma (and it just that) of the scientific community. First, Darwin published his theory, and this was immediately taken up by the agnostics and the atheists as if it were the Gospel, and it really is to them. Then, over time, "evidence" for the theory piled up, including forgeries such as Haeckel's embryology and "Piltdown Man." Eventually, the anti-Darwinists were mostly forced to capitulate under the weight of the academic form of peer pressure.

Second, it commits the fallacy of reification, rising "science" to the level of personality. Science, meaning either knowledge in general or the study of the natural world in particular, cannot do anything. It just is. Science cannot prove anything. If you prove something, it becomes science. So, even assuming the scientific method could prove evolution, it would not be "science" that proved it, it would be scientists using the scientific method, which requires publishing their experiments so others can repeat that experiment and come up with the same results However, how can a method in existence for around 400 years prove that all life comes for a common ancestor that arose from pond scum billions of years ago? The very idea is preposterous to reason itself. You cannot conduct an experiment on past events. The very idea is ridiculous absent a time machine. And, if we were to submit our historical epistemology to science, how can anyone possibly prove that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C.? It just cannot be done. That leaves the entire idea that we can discover history absent historical records, which is what Darwinists are claiming by constructing an earth history on nothing but fossils, without any merit whatsoever. Darwinism does not even deserve a hearing, really. It just does not even have any rational basis for asserting its knowledge of history.

[Ranger29860]

Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection is a mechanism by which the gene pool remains "good" as God called it in genesis. The idea that natural selection can turn one kind of organism into another is ludicrous, not to mention the fact that there is no evidence to support it. The problem is that, as soon as you see the words "natural selection" you think "evolution." The two are not equal. Killing off the bad does not change the remaining gene pool.

Natural selection is one of the ways in which evolution takes place mutation being the other. I have no idea where you got remain "good" from please cite a source for that if possible i actually really want to read it.Please define "Kind" of organism. I see that term thrown out quite a lot in conversation but no where in science is "Kind" defined. If a dog cannot breed with another dog are they the same "Kind"?



The fossil record is not proof of anything. If you find some bones in the dirt, you can't prove that organism had any kids, let alone different ones. Furthermore, there are several inconsistencies with the "fossil record" such as bones in the wrong layers, trees standing up through several strata that are supposed to represent millions of years, etc. The fossils that have been used as evidence were either faked, manipulated, or artistically rendered with the bias of wanting to create something that looked like it fit the theory.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt on the fossil inconsistencies. I would rather have you cite it but i won't raise a fuss over it. But DNA evidence has reinforced the evolutionary tree in recent years. Also there are plenty of fossil records besides humans that show evolution. Whales are a major one. Lizards are another. And we are simply talking about animals. At the cellular level (virus, bacteria, mold) there is a abundance of evidence of biological evolution including the very first formation of multicellular organism's.



Also, yes, I know what genetic links between organisms are. I know how adaptation works. I know how gene pools shift. I know how mutations work, but none of this supports evolution.

Your "evolutionary tree" is made by creating a representation of the genetic evidence that will fit the theory of evolution. That's not how science works. You're supposed to make the theory fit the facts, not the other way around. The problem is that you assume evolution to be true, and therefore any facts become interpreted to the end of supporting evolution when, in fact, they can be interpreted in very different manners. And yet, the interpretations that support evolution are the only ones that get published and the only ones that you ever hear about. Interesting, huh?

No its not interesting its science. I am sorry if your view on what should be is not supported by evidence. If you feel so strongly about it please put forward a evidence supported theory on the diversity of life. All you arguments have been against evolution but no alternative theory.

[jmdrake]

If he exists, does god grant rights to all those killed in earthquakes, floods, and tsunamis?

He gave man the right to choose and man choose to give Satan temporary dominion over the earth when man sinned. John 12:31 called Satan the "prince of this world" and John 14:30 calls him the "prince of the power of the air". Jesus took control of the deed of the earth at the cross. But He has yet to fully repossess it.

[jmdrake]

Take a look at polls among the scientific community. It's a complete flip-flop. 93% reject the existence of a personal god. 92% reject immortality. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html.

Even if 99.99% of people believed in a supernatural being, that does not make it more true. That is fallacious thinking. That would just tell me that 99.99% of people do not require evidence to form a belief, and may have blindly accepted the belief system of their parents because they were told to do so since they were young.

Supposedly most scientists believe in man-made global warming. Do you?

[sailingaway]

Take a look at polls among the scientific community. It's almost a complete flip-flop. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html.

Even if 99.99% of people believed in a supernatural being, that does not make it more true. That is fallacious thinking. That would just tell me that 99.99% of people do not require evidence to form a belief, and may have blindly accepted the belief system of their parents because they were told to do so since they were young.

Esoteric, it doesn't matter what is true, it matters what Ron believes, that he is honest, and what voters believe. No one is going to evolve a campaign system discerning truth or untruth by the 2012 election.

I personally don't really care. My faith can accept the world whether God had us evolving or not. My son learned in fourth grade that we have 50% the same DNA as a banana. If the truth is we evolved from bananas, I find that intriguing, but I'm sure God had a reason to do it that way. :p

Honestly, atheists seem much less tolerant about differing beliefs than religious people do. Most religious people seem to see atheism just like any other religion they don't personally participate in -- and you are entitled to believe in it. Atheists are furiously frustrated if others don't believe their particular version, even if it changes from textbook to text book.

And yes, I am pulling your chain, to some extent, but I couldn't resist.

This topic, abortion and immigration..... always start spicy threads. You know, I only posted the OP as a campaign tool, so people could hand over Ron's beliefs when someone wants to know. OUR beliefs aren't what they care about.

[swatmc]

He gave man the right to choose and man choose to give Satan temporary dominion over the earth when man sinned. John 12:31 called Satan the "prince of this world" and John 14:30 calls him the "prince of the power of the air". Jesus took control of the deed of the earth at the cross. But He has yet to fully repossess it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Satan? The guy with the red pajamas and the pitch fork?

He exists? Really?

[Sola_Fide]

Paul told the crowd of his career as former obstetrician, delivering over 4,000 babies, and established himself as pro-life, stating, "As an OB doctor, let me tell you, life does begin at conception."

He said that being pro-life is an important part of being a libertarian.

:):):)

[jmdrake]

Esoteric, it doesn't matter what is true, it matters what Ron believes, that he is honest, and what voters believe. No one is going to evolve a campaign system discerning truth or untruth by the 2012 election.

I personally don't really care. My faith can accept the world whether God had us evolving or not. My son learned in fourth grade that we have 50% the same DNA as a banana. If the truth is we evolved from bananas, I find that intriguing, but I'm sure God had a reason to do it that way. :p

Honestly, atheists seem much less tolerant about differing beliefs than religious people do. Most religious people seem to see atheism just like any other religion they don't personally participate in -- and you are entitled to believe in it. Atheists are furiously frustrated if others don't believe their particular version, even if it changes from textbook to text book.

And yes, I am pulling your chain, to some extent, but I couldn't resist.

This topic, abortion and immigration..... always start spicy threads. You know, I only posted the OP as a campaign tool, so people could hand over Ron's beliefs when someone wants to know. OUR beliefs aren't what they care about.

+rep And we need to revive the RonPaulLibrary and post to actually help the campaign there. Forums are horrible for actually promoting Ron's views.

[OrigSEOH]

An Irrational submission to authority is the problem. Any kind of man made dictatorship falls under that.


The authority figure is atop all modern pyramid shaped organizational systems, for example government bureaucracies, banks, and oil companies. They are authorities in the matters of what they claim to represent. God-like.

Exodus 23:24

"Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images."

[Ranger29860]

Here we have yet another evolutionist who assumes that all creationists are ignorant. Evolution and progessivism (two associated ideologies, actually) do this as a substitute for argument. See, what we have here, is the idea that scientific consensus means something and that scientists must use the scientific method in determining their "scientific" beliefs. This is entirely ignorant of human nature. Human beings generally want to be respected by their peers, and so if some belief gains ascendancy, particularly in groups seen as having authority, they will conform. That is how Darwinism became the unquestioned dogma (and it just that) of the scientific community. First, Darwin published his theory, and this was immediately taken up by the agnostics and the atheists as if it were the Gospel, and it really is to them. Then, over time, "evidence" for the theory piled up, including forgeries such as Haeckel's embryology and "Piltdown Man." Eventually, the anti-Darwinists were mostly forced to capitulate under the weight of the academic form of peer pressure.

When evidence is proven false scientist rejoice in correcting the mistake as they did with falsified data. Being proven wrong in the scientific community is not a bad thing.



Second, it commits the fallacy of reification, rising "science" to the level of personality. Science, meaning either knowledge in general or the study of the natural world in particular, cannot do anything. It just is. Science cannot prove anything. If you prove something, it becomes science. So, even assuming the scientific method could prove evolution, it would not be "science" that proved it, it would be scientists using the scientific method, which requires publishing their experiments so others can repeat that experiment and come up with the same results However, how can a method in existence for around 400 years prove that all life comes for a common ancestor that arose from pond scum billions of years ago? The very idea is preposterous to reason itself. You cannot conduct an experiment on past events. The very idea is ridiculous absent a time machine. And, if we were to submit our historical epistemology to science, how can anyone possibly prove that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 B.C.? It just cannot be done. That leaves the entire idea that we can discover history absent historical records, which is what Darwinists are claiming by constructing an earth history on nothing but fossils, without any merit whatsoever. Darwinism does not even deserve a hearing, really. It just does not even have any rational basis for asserting its knowledge of history.

You claim that not all creationist are ignorant but then say something as stupid as we came from pond scum. Abiogenesis != Evolution. As for not conducting experiments on past events. If i want to test the likelihood of corn being a viable crop in Africa 1000 years ago i could dissect the bones of Africans from that period and determine the chemical composition. Then for comparison i can take the chemical composition of a much younger fossil that we know for a fact had corn as a mainstay in the diet and compare chemical composition. Then for good measure we have a control fossil that comes from a area where corn could not have been grown.
We know Ceaser crossed the Rubicon in 49B.C. because historical data shows that he did.

[Sola_Fide]

Esoteric, it doesn't matter what is true, it matters what Ron believes, that he is honest, and what voters believe. No one is going to evolve a campaign system discerning truth or untruth by the 2012 election.

I personally don't really care. My faith can accept the world whether God had us evolving or not. My son learned in fourth grade that we have 50% the same DNA as a banana. If the truth is we evolved from bananas, I find that intriguing, but I'm sure God had a reason to do it that way. :p

Honestly, atheists seem much less tolerant about differing beliefs than religious people do. Most religious people seem to see atheism just like any other religion they don't personally participate in -- and you are entitled to believe in it. Atheists are furiously frustrated if others don't believe their particular version, even if it changes from textbook to text book.

And yes, I am pulling your chain, to some extent, but I couldn't resist.

This topic, abortion and immigration..... always start spicy threads. You know, I only posted the OP as a campaign tool, so people could hand over Ron's beliefs when someone wants to know. OUR beliefs aren't what they care about.



Great post.

[emazur]

Our "humanity" is not a sufficient basis for rights.
If you can say that, I can just as easily say "religion" is not a sufficient basis for rights. In times past, the Bible was used as an excuse to legitimize slavery, for example. You'll just say, "But that is the wrong interpretation of the Bible and Christianity". Well, since man so commonly misinterprets the Bible and Christianity, it's logical to conclude that religion is not a sufficient basis for rights.


As an atheist has already declared in this thread, we are nothing but animals.

And as so many Christian conservatives so often declare, Muslims are nothing but animals and have no problem if Americans kill them indiscriminately. Hell, not just Muslims, pick the country, religion, and ethnicity of your choice: Vietnam, Iran, Cambodia, Iraq...


Also, it is PLAINLY obvious that if man is the final authority for rights then rights can never be secure. Man has shown that he defines rights differently for different men, or he just declares certain classes of people "non-human".

No disagreement here. But just because I believe rights are natural born and inherent from our humanity, doesn't mean I want man to be the "final authority for rights". It means that since we are all men and we all have to live together on this planet, you have the right to be left alone by others if you don't initiate aggression, and so do I. If you can acknowledge that, then I will acknowledge that while Christianity can and will be twisted to control people to take away and ignore the rights of others, it can also be used as a philosophy that teaches respect for others' rights, with Paul, Woods, and Napolitano being good examples.

[sailingaway]

If you can say that, I can just as easily say "religion" is not a sufficient basis for rights. In times past, the Bible was used as an excuse to legitimize slavery, for example. You'll just say, "But that is the wrong interpretation of the Bible and Christianity". Well, since man so commonly misinterprets the Bible and Christianity, it's logical to conclude that religion is not a sufficient basis for rights.


And as so many Christian conservatives so often declare, Muslims are nothing but animals and have no problem if Americans kill them indiscriminately. Hell, not just Muslims, pick the country, religion, and ethnicity of your choice: Vietnam, Iran, Cambodia, Iraq...



No disagreement here. But just because I believe rights are natural born and inherent from our humanity, doesn't mean I want man to be the "final authority for rights". It means that since we are all men and we all have to live together on this planet, you have the right to be left alone by others if you don't initiate aggression, and so do I. If you can acknowledge that, then I will acknowledge that while Christianity can and will be twisted to control people to take away and ignore the rights of others, it can also be used as a philosophy that teaches respect for others' rights, with Paul, Woods, and Napolitano being good examples.

There is a truth whether we see it or not. And Muslims are people with souls and their own view of God. I think of Thomas Aquinas and what he said about there being a light and people being in a box with holes in the lid, trying to discern the nature of the light from the fragments they and those right around them see coming through the holes in the lid. I don't disparage anyone else's viewpoint. But I am entitled to believe in my own, and Ron is entitled to believe in his.

[BlackTerrel]

I think he's using the word creator in much the same way most of us non-christians would use the word nature.

Yeah when he said creator he actually meant single celled pod to monkey to human.... obviously.

[Esoteric]

Supposedly most scientists believe in man-made global warming. Do you?

No, they don't, and I don't, and I am a clinical scientist working on my ph.d. Scientists believe that the earth has cyclical warming and cooling phases, as this is what an overwhelming amount of evidence suggests. I do believe that humans can contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer, because there is evidence to support this. I think most agree that this is not the cause of global warming, however.

[Ranger29860]

single celled pod

WTF is that?

[Esoteric]

WTF is that?

ignorance. yes, i'm claiming ignorance - not to hide behind, but because arguments against evolution are simply ignorant to facts. The vast body of evidence that supports evolution is at our disposal. Anyone who has reviewed the evidence cannot logically deduce that life came about in any other way.

WE did NOT evolve from modern monkeys. This is common misconception about the theory of evolution. WE SHARE a COMMON ANCESTOR, which existed MILLIONS of years ago, which was NEITHER APE NOR HUMAN.

[Sola_Fide]

Thomas Jefferson sounds like a non-believer to me.

Didn't he write his own bible without all the hocus pocus?

If you think the concept of liberty only goes back to Thomas Jefferson, then I just have to marvel at how the secular state-school system has dumbed you down and brainwashed you.

The Founders were late-comers to the ideas of liberty and frankly they watered down the more strident positions of liberty by some of the early Christians in the colonies. The early Christians were passionately opposed to tyranny. The Founding Fathers were only speaking what the people were saying (and watering it down, might I add).

[ClayTrainor]

Yeah when he said creator he actually meant single celled pod to monkey to human.... obviously.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y252/Legato46/LJ%20Icons/facepalm-epic.jpg

[YumYum]

George Carlin makes a valid point: we don't have rights; we have privileges. He starts discussing "rights" at 4:20.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

[jmdrake]

No, they don't, and I don't, and I am a clinical scientist working on my ph.d. Scientists believe that the earth has cyclical warming and cooling phases, as this is what an overwhelming amount of evidence suggests. I do believe that humans can contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer, because there is evidence to support this. I think most agree that this is not the cause of global warming, however.

And the link to the scientific poll that you have that proves that most scientists don't think man caused global warming is.......where exactly?

[Vessol]

I support Ron Paul and others saying this.

Whether or not you believe in a deity or not does not matter. I'd much rather have people believe that their natural rights come from God. This is considering the fact that most Americans think rights come from the State. I'd say that is a great improvement, whether you disagree or not. Right?

I'm trying to build bridges here people.

To the people like Theocrat, tOrnado, and others; stop trying to burn bridges, please.

[sailingaway]

I support Ron Paul and others saying this.

Whether or not you believe in a deity or not does not matter. I'd much rather have people believe that their natural rights come from God. This is considering the fact that most Americans think rights come from the State. I'd say that is a great improvement, whether you disagree or not. Right?

[/U][/B]

Agreed

[LibertyEagle]

+rep And we need to revive the RonPaulLibrary and post to actually help the campaign there. Forums are horrible for actually promoting Ron's views.

Yeah, that would be great. I was hoping the guy who did it before would get a second wind, but I guess he's not.

[Esoteric]

Great post.

I tolerate religious arguments as you and I tolerate statist arguments. I reject them. I do not tolerate them. This is not a strong metaphor, however, as statism is a rather subjective belief, and evolution is a more objective belief.

The disconnect comes because people are afraid of being wrong. Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when it should be celebrated. I have learned to embrace being proven wrong, because it furthers my awareness. Evolution is in direct conflict with creationism, and thus, creationists fear that they are incorrect, because the implications are hard for them to fathom (that life likely has no inherent meaning, as human life was not planned for and is no more special than the life of any other animal).


I support Ron Paul and others saying this.

Whether or not you believe in a deity or not does not matter. I'd much rather have people believe that their natural rights come from God. This is considering the fact that most Americans think rights come from the State. I'd say that is a great improvement, whether you disagree or not. Right?

I accept this argument.

[swatmc]

If you think the concept of liberty only goes back to Thomas Jefferson, then I just have to marvel at how the secular state-school system has dumbed you down and brainwashed you.

The Founders were late-comers to the ideas of liberty and frankly they watered down the more strident positions of liberty by some of the early Christians in the colonies. The early Christians were passionately opposed to tyranny. The Founding Fathers were only speaking what the people were saying (and watering it down, might I add).

::blinks::

Did I say that the concept of liberty only goes back to Thomas Jefferson?

I am the brainwashed one for NOT believing in god?

Really?

[jmdrake]

I tolerate religious arguments as you and I tolerate statist arguments. I reject them. I do not tolerate them. This is not a strong metaphor, however, as statism is a rather subjective belief, and evolution is a more objective belief.

The disconnect comes because people are afraid of being wrong. Being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when it should be celebrated. I have learned to embrace being proven wrong, because it furthers my awareness. Evolution is in direct conflict with creationism, and thus, creationists fear that they are incorrect, because the implications are hard for them to fathom (that life likely has no inherent meaning, as human life was not planned for and is no more special than the life of any other animal).



I accept this argument.

I'm still waiting for the link to the scientific poll that shows most scientists reject man made global warming. I actually hope you can prove me wrong on that because I can use it in my next debate with someone who supports Al Gore's BS. :) But alas I think you just made that up. :(

[PaulConventionWV]

I can tell you're not a scientist.

Science cannot "create evidence" to fit their theory. The scientific method is in inherently without bias. Science does not simply assume evolution is true, then find facts to fit their bias. If science was able to refute the theory of evolution, in any way, it would. The person who did it would likely become internationally heralded. The theory would then no longer be considered an accepted theory in the scientific community. That's how science works.

The vast amount of information in the fossil record supports the theory of evolution. The vast amount of evidence through genetic observation supports the theory of evolution. Carbon dating supports the theory of evolution.

You seem to also have a flawed understanding of what evolution is. You think that evolution asserts that one day, two monkeys gave birth to a human baby. This is false. Humans share a common ancestor with modern apes - a species which was neither human nor ape. We did not evolve from MODERN apes. We are their evolutionary cousins, as we are with all modern living organisms. We share our most recent common ancestor with modern chimpanzees, a claim WHICH THERE ARE FOSSILS TO SUPPORT. The evidence is right in front of you. I thought Ron Paul supporters were better than this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution


Nothing supports the idea of creation, and it can be proven false by simply observing the vast body of scientific evidence against it. That is why there is no "theory of creation" in science. There is no evidence to support it, and in fact, all evidence is to the contrary.

I never said science did any of these things. I said scientists (specifically scientists who are evolutionists) do this. Big. Difference.

[Esoteric]

I'm still waiting for the link to the scientific poll that shows most scientists reject man made global warming. I actually hope you can prove me wrong on that because I can use it in my next debate with someone who supports Al Gore's BS. :) But alas I think you just made that up. :(

Hm.. most do agree that human activity is a "significant factor" in the current warming trend. 82% in one poll. I stand somewhat corrected. Scientists do not admit that humans are solely responsible for global warming. There is a consensus that we are also amidst a natural warming trend.

[PaulConventionWV]

Response to jmdrake, I tried quoting what you said and it turned into a mess:


If god created us, that doesn't give him unquestionable authority over us. Especially if we are above the age of 18.

If you want to consider god to be a parent... that's fine, but there are such things as "bad parents" and god certainly qualifies as such considering his record for the past 2,000 years. The flooding alone makes him quite incompetent.

I have no problem with people who do heroin... but I can list why I think heroin is bad for someone.

I agree with religion not being the problem and the problem is when people force their belief on others.

Religion isn't the problem. An Irrational submission to authority is the problem. Any kind of man made dictatorship falls under that.

To me the Christian god has a lot more in common with Kim Jong Il then people realize.

I don't support communism or any kind of dictatorship.

I can't be respectful to any dictatorship, celestial or otherwise.

If god created us, that doesn't give him unquestionable authority over us. Especially if we are above the age of 18.

If you want to consider god to be a parent... that's fine, but there are such things as "bad parents" and god certainly qualifies as such considering his record for the past 2,000 years. The flooding alone makes him quite incompetent.

I can't help but think that believing in god is literally the antithesis of liberty.

If God doesn't have unquestionable authority over us because He created us, then you don't have property rights. It's the same thing. If you create a pot from clay, don't you expect to have unquestionable authority over that pot? In your post, you assume that all of us are equal, including God. God is an all-knowing, perfect Being. God cannot be compared to human beings because He is God. If that doesn't make sense to you, then nothing will.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ok i am sure i know where this is going but i'm gonna try anyway. What kind of evidence are you looking for? fossil record? Evolution of multicellular organisms? Chemical origin of the cell (not evolution by the way). Modern day evidence of species migration? Evidence in the last 100 years of macro/micro evolution (same thing just a time difference). DNA mapping showing common ancestry?

I am more than willing to show the evidence for evolution if you are willing to listen i can post here if you want or PM me if you want.

As for Ron's stance i could care less since we all know he will never allow personal stances and opinions seep into his politics.

Micro/macro evolution are NOT the same thing. It is not scientific to say that genetic changes will extrapolate into something bigger than you can see. You are assuming there are no limits. However, these limits are very observable. You may be able to breed pigs to get bigger, but you will never get one the size of Texas. It has to end somewhere. The limits to the genetic changes are built into the genetic code. So no, micro and macro evolution are not the same thing.

[Esoteric]

I never said science did any of these things. I said scientists (specifically scientists who are evolutionists) do this. Big. Difference.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that 95-99% of scientists are "evolutionists". A gallup poll found that 95% of scientists (including those outside of biology) accept the theory of evolution. Hence, you are inferring that science does these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

[Ranger29860]

If God doesn't have unquestionable authority over us because He created us, then you don't have property rights. It's the same thing. If you create a pot from clay, don't you expect to have unquestionable authority over that pot? In your post, you assume that all of us are equal, including God. God is an all-knowing, perfect Being. God cannot be compared to human beings because He is God. If that doesn't make sense to you, then nothing will.

If you assume god has ownership over his creation then he dictates privileges not rights. As for ownership if two parents make a child does the parents have unquestionable authority over the child even after they leave the house and are over 18?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

When evidence is proven false scientist rejoice in correcting the mistake as they did with falsified data. Being proven wrong in the scientific community is not a bad thing.

What does it say about science when you openly admit you are willing to believe in something that may turn out to be false?

For all your criticisms against believing in celestial dictators you openly admit you are willing to believe in something that could turn out to be false. I imagine some of these beliefs that could turn out to be false could be used against people in criminal cases advocating a death penalty. Sorry we murdered you... it's not our fault, the data was wrong...

All evidence is derived from human observation which is fallible. Let's just take your chemical composition example. Obviously chemical composition evidence didn't just magically print itself. Someone had an idea which was formed into a theory. This person (or group of people) started thinking of ways they could test their theory in three dimensions. Maybe this person never achieved their goal. Maybe their ideas, theory, and tests inspired someone else to utilize newer technology to try newer, better tests in three dimensions at a later time. At some point the tests started achieving consistent results. Someone then offers up testimony to the theory, tests, results, and methodology. At this point the testimony is just evidence of a theory. As other people duplicate the tests and results using identical methodology the theory takes on the properties of a scientific fact because of corroborating evidence to the theory. A scientific fact is always subject to new evidence. Even if there hasn't been new evidence for 1000 years it doesn't empirically mean new evidence is impossible, it just means new evidence is highly unlikely. Unless of course you have some evidence to corroborate a theory that new evidence is impossible? That is some evidence I would be interested in...

Something like carbon dating doesn't become instantaneously accurate. Carbon dating will be more accurate 100 years from now because a comparison will be able to be made from known tests, results, and methodology today to a test 100 years from now that should show a result of 100 years.

Since science and religion are both based on belief without empirical evidence new evidence is impossible I do not think science has any moral high ground.

When the evidence is controversial I am more sympathetic to the coalition builders who recognize more than their own position. If a statement like the right to human action comes from God, nature, natures Creator, humanity, or mere existence in which all of these theories lead to self ownership or the importance of the individual (and this next question isn't solely directed in response to the post I quoted, it is an open question to everyone who insists on statements that only represent one side of the liberty coalition)...

What is so evil about fostering good will and using verbiage that represents more than one party of a coalition?

[sailingaway]

Uh, no Esoteric, there was a time when scientists thought flies were 'created' by putting flour in a sack under a rock. There was a time when scientists thought man couldn't go faster than 30 miles an hour and live. Newton's law of gravity foreclosed Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein thought there was a lambda factor unknown to modify his expanding universe equation (later found to be zero but kept in the equation with a lambda = zero notation, out of respect.)

Science evolves. Scientists are humans at a particular place in time along the continuum of knowledge, thinking, many of them, that the facts they know are the only facts to know.

There was a time in my teens when I was certain there was no God, but I somewhere along the way I decided it was possible I didn't know everything, might not even be capable of knowing everything, and once I let doubt creep in, I was a goner. From my point of view, you are still in the 'certainty' stage, but I know you see things in reverse. I'm ok with that. It's ok with me for different people to adamantly believe different things. Tolerance means letting it be so.

Other people here have their religious beliefs, and you may reject them for yourself, of course. But everyone thinks they are right, just as right as you think you are. And I have no problem with any of it.

[Sola_Fide]

If you assume god has ownership over his creation then he dictates privileges not rights. As for ownership if two parents make a child does the parents have unquestionable authority over the child even after they leave the house and are over 18?

We have rights and responsibilities. Rights because we are made in the image of God and responsibilities because we are stewards of His creation and commanded to take dominion over it.

[Ranger29860]

Micro/macro evolution are NOT the same thing. It is not scientific to say that genetic changes will extrapolate into something bigger than you can see. You are assuming there are no limits. However, these limits are very observable. You may be able to breed pigs to get bigger, but you will never get one the size of Texas. It has to end somewhere. The limits to the genetic changes are built into the genetic code. So no, micro and macro evolution are not the same thing.


I assume no such thing. When a species evolves it does it at a stable rate in order for it to be able to function. A fish will never turn into a human in one pass because what would the human breed with? The creature could not survive. Micro evolution is the small changes occurring within a species that allow the species to continue to interbreed while macro evolution is the collection of these small changes that results in a species that can not interbreed with relatives that are to far gone from the original genetic pool. This can be witnessed in a few modern day animals dogs are a great example since some species of dogs are so far removed from there wolf ancestry that they can no longer breed with certain other species. A horse and a donkey are close enough genetically that they can breed under certain conditions. So the distance from a female horse to a male donkey is considered a micro transition while the difference between a Male horse and a female donkey would be considered a macro transition since the ability to reproduce is not longer available.

As for genetic information available. The most dense organism when it comes to genetic information is the amoeba size of creature != genetic information.

[swatmc]

If God doesn't have unquestionable authority over us because He created us, then you don't have property rights. It's the same thing. If you create a pot from clay, don't you expect to have unquestionable authority over that pot? In your post, you assume that all of us are equal, including God. God is an all-knowing, perfect Being. God cannot be compared to human beings because He is God. If that doesn't make sense to you, then nothing will.

It makes perfect sense... your argument is just wrong because it's predicated on the belief that god created us and that he is an all-knowing perfect being.

The people who originally claimed that there was such a being lived in the middle east during the bronze age, right?

Are you saying that these people knew more about the universe then modern day scientists?

[Ranger29860]

What does it say about science when you openly admit you are willing to believe in something that may turn out to be false?


I am bnot willing to belive in anything when there is no evidence supporting it. I am willing to say i made a mistake when it comes to interpretting data. Anything can be false when other evidecne comes to light. I am willing to change my view of a theory when this happens. It does not mean i belive in something that could be false. It mean i believe in something that is suported by evidence and if evidence no longer supports it i will then move onto the next theory the evidecne supports.




For all your criticisms against believing in celestial dictators you openly admit you are willing to believe in something that could turn out to be false. I imagine some of these beliefs that could turn out to be false could be used against people in criminal cases advocating a death penalty. Sorry we murdered you... it's not our fault, the data was wrong...


I do not support the death penalty due to my interpretation of the evidence when it comes to the validity of forensics. So this does not apply to me.




All evidence is derived from human observation which is fallible. Let's just take your chemical composition example. Obviously chemical composition evidence didn't just magically print itself. Someone had an idea which was formed into a theory. This person (or group of people) started thinking of ways they could test their theory in three dimensions. Maybe this person never achieved their goal. Maybe their ideas, theory, and tests inspired someone else to utilize newer technology to try newer, better tests in three dimensions at a later time. At some point the tests started achieving consistent results. Someone then offers up testimony to the theory, tests, results, and methodology. At this point the testimony is just evidence of a theory. As other people duplicate the tests and results using identical methodology the theory takes on the properties of a scientific fact because of corroborating evidence to the theory. A scientific fact is always subject to new evidence. Even if there hasn't been new evidence for 1000 years it doesn't empirically mean new evidence is impossible, it just means new evidence is highly unlikely. Unless of course you have some evidence to corroborate a theory that new evidence is impossible? That is some evidence I would be interested in...



Then by all means present new evidence that can be tested. I support this even if you have some off the wall idea if you can support it by evidence that can be verified then are understanding of the world is expanded. My view on the world is not dictated by a preset set of beliefs i am willing to change my view if the evidecne is presented.



Something like carbon dating doesn't become instantaneously accurate. Carbon dating will be more accurate 100 years from now because a comparison will be able to be made from known tests, results, and methodology today to a test 100 years from now that should show a result of 100 years.


First off most dating methods are not based on carbon. Second from I read there it seems like you do not know how radiometric dating works. Carbon dating 100 years from now will be no more accurate than carbon dating today since it is based on the "constant" decay rates of certain isotopes not on the average results based off of it. The only way carbon dating or any other form of dating will change is if the onstant decay rates change.



Since science and religion are both based on belief without empirical evidence new evidence is impossible I do not think science has any moral high ground.


Science is able to prove through experiment's and evidence that can be observed and tested its theory's. Religion to my knowledge has no equivalent ability.



When the evidence is controversial I am more sympathetic to the coalition builders who recognize more than their own position. If a statement like the right to human action comes from God, nature, natures Creator, humanity, or mere existence in which all of these theories lead to self ownership or the importance of the individual (and this next question isn't solely directed in response to the post I quoted, it is an open question to everyone who insists on statements that only represent one side of the liberty coalition)...

What is so evil about fostering good will and using verbiage that represents more than one party of a coalition?

I actually have no problem with Ron's position here because 1. he will never use religious justification for an action in the government. 2. He was stating his personal belief, as long as his belief does not restrict my personal frredoms i could care less.

[PaulConventionWV]

Natural selection is one of the ways in which evolution takes place mutation being the other. I have no idea where you got remain "good" from please cite a source for that if possible i actually really want to read it.Please define "Kind" of organism. I see that term thrown out quite a lot in conversation but no where in science is "Kind" defined. If a dog cannot breed with another dog are they the same "Kind"?



I will give you the benefit of the doubt on the fossil inconsistencies. I would rather have you cite it but i won't raise a fuss over it. But DNA evidence has reinforced the evolutionary tree in recent years. Also there are plenty of fossil records besides humans that show evolution. Whales are a major one. Lizards are another. And we are simply talking about animals. At the cellular level (virus, bacteria, mold) there is a abundance of evidence of biological evolution including the very first formation of multicellular organism's.



No its not interesting its science. I am sorry if your view on what should be is not supported by evidence. If you feel so strongly about it please put forward a evidence supported theory on the diversity of life. All you arguments have been against evolution but no alternative theory.

I propose that God created the heavens and the earth, and that His glory is displayed in all creation. If this were true, I predict I would find evidence of a global flood, such as that in the Bible. As evidence, I have the grand canyon which shows no signs of slow erosion, we find petrified trees standing up through several layers of rock that are supposed to represent millions of years. We even find that the oldest reef, the oldest desert, and the oldest tree, are all about 4200-4400 years old, or right after the worldwide flood. This is confirmed. If God created the heavens and the earth, I propose He would have created several "kinds" of animals. The definition is not important for me to know. All that is important to know is that God knows what they were and created them with a limited range of variability built in, which would result in different variations of the same kind of animal. We see that it is true. I would also predict that His creation would be compatible with its own and every species would be able to survive together and adapt from environment to environment through genetic drift. We see that it is so.

I would predict that we would see evidence of intelligence, such as meaning, order, and design. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that it takes intelligence to create order. Anything else left to its own would simply fall apart and decay. Furthermore, I would predict that there would be a system to read and interpret DNA in cells. After all base pairs are meaningless like letters on a page, unless they are arranged in a certain way and someone has the know-how to understand that arrangement. We see that reproduction depends on a series of machines that are responsible for interpreting the DNA (translation) to make specific proteins. The proteins can "read" the DNA, further proof of intelligence. I would also expect that, since we live in a fallen, imperfect world, that we would see mistakes in the genetic code or copying process (transcription of DNA base pairs) called mutations. We see that it is so. This results in deformities and sub-optimal functioning and occasionally allows for adaptation, but always results in a detriment to the species to survive outside of the specific environment that the mutation helped it adapt to. Moreover, I would expect that these mutations always result in a net loss of meaningful information. We see that it is so.

I would expect that our planet is special and that we are special among the animal kingdom because God has a purpose for our lives. I see we are special and that God states why in His book, the Holy Bible. I would also expect that the conditions be right for life, such as the right orbit around the sun at exactly the right distance to sustain life, and I see that it is so. Furthermore, I would expect life only to rise out of other life, which is clearly observable. No atheist has ever given a good explanation for this one.

So there you have it. There is always more to learn, and it is never too late to learn the truth. Start now, and you will never regret it.

[Sola_Fide]

If you can say that, I can just as easily say "religion" is not a sufficient basis for rights. In times past, the Bible was used as an excuse to legitimize slavery, for example. You'll just say, "But that is the wrong interpretation of the Bible and Christianity". Well, since man so commonly misinterprets the Bible and Christianity, it's logical to conclude that religion is not a sufficient basis for rights.

I didn't say "religion" was the sufficient basis for rights, I said the God of the Scripture is. The Bible is used to attempt to legitimize all kinds of things, (like socialism in this day and age) but in these instances, it is usually the case that people read-in what they want the Bible to say instead of letting the Scriptures speak for themselves.

If you give 10 people each a Bible and tell them to go into different rooms, and the 10 people come out with 10 different interpretations, where is the variable there? In the Bible, or in the people? Again, the God of Scripture provides the adequate basis for rights, not any man's opinion.



And as so many Christian conservatives so often declare, Muslims are nothing but animals and have no problem if Americans kill them indiscriminately. Hell, not just Muslims, pick the country, religion, and ethnicity of your choice: Vietnam, Iran, Cambodia, Iraq...

Hmmm. Is there a mainstream Christian philosopher that you can cite that says "Muslims are nothing but animals"? You finding a Christian who advocates something so bizarre does not strike me as a very likely prospect, but hey...go ahead and try.:)

But anyway, from an atheist viewpoint, there is no non-arbitrary reason to not declare a certain kind or class of people as non-humans or "not fully developed". Aboriginies were hunted like animals and their skulls were collected in the Smithsonian because Darwinists had declared that they were not fully human. Mao declared enemies of the State as not deserving of the same rights as others. Hitler declared Jews, gypsies, and Christians to be less than dogs and worthy of death. Why is ANY of these positions wrong from an atheistic perspective? Atheism provides no philosophic prevention of tyranny.



No disagreement here. But just because I believe rights are natural born and inherent from our humanity, doesn't mean I want man to be the "final authority for rights". It means that since we are all men and we all have to live together on this planet, you have the right to be left alone by others if you don't initiate aggression, and so do I. If you can acknowledge that, then I will acknowledge that while Christianity can and will be twisted to control people to take away and ignore the rights of others, it can also be used as a philosophy that teaches respect for others' rights, with Paul, Woods, and Napolitano being good examples.

If there is no authority above man, then man is the final authority on this earth. The question is not "authority vs. no authority", its always "which authority". Either "God is God" or "the State is god".

[Ranger29860]

I propose that God created the heavens and the earth, and that His glory is displayed in all creation. If this were true, I predict I would find evidence of a global flood, such as that in the Bible. As evidence, I have the grand canyon which shows no signs of slow erosion, we find petrified trees standing up through several layers of rock that are supposed to represent millions of years. We even find that the oldest reef, the oldest desert, and the oldest tree, are all about 4200-4400 years old, or right after the worldwide flood. This is confirmed. If God created the heavens and the earth, I propose He would have created several "kinds" of animals. The definition is not important for me to know. All that is important to know is that God knows what they were and created them with a limited range of variability built in, which would result in different variations of the same kind of animal. We see that it is true. I would also predict that His creation would be compatible with its own and every species would be able to survive together and adapt from environment to environment through genetic drift. We see that it is so.

I would predict that we would see evidence of intelligence, such as meaning, order, and design. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that it takes intelligence to create order. Anything else left to its own would simply fall apart and decay. Furthermore, I would predict that there would be a system to read and interpret DNA in cells. After all base pairs are meaningless like letters on a page, unless they are arranged in a certain way and someone has the know-how to understand that arrangement. We see that reproduction depends on a series of machines that are responsible for interpreting the DNA (translation) to make specific proteins. The proteins can "read" the DNA, further proof of intelligence. I would also expect that, since we live in a fallen, imperfect world, that we would see mistakes in the genetic code or copying process (transcription of DNA base pairs) called mutations. We see that it is so. This results in deformities and sub-optimal functioning and occasionally allows for adaptation, but always results in a detriment to the species to survive outside of the specific environment that the mutation helped it adapt to. Moreover, I would expect that these mutations always result in a net loss of meaningful information. We see that it is so.

I would expect that our planet is special and that we are special among the animal kingdom because God has a purpose for our lives. I see we are special and that God states why in His book, the Holy Bible. I would also expect that the conditions be right for life, such as the right orbit around the sun at exactly the right distance to sustain life, and I see that it is so. Furthermore, I would expect life only to rise out of other life, which is clearly observable. No atheist has ever given a good explanation for this one.

So there you have it. There is always more to learn, and it is never too late to learn the truth. Start now, and you will never regret it.

With the exception of the last sentence (which i don't think u intend to include in your hypothesis) i would consider this a decent starting point for a research paper. It is written as a overview of the objectives of what you hope to prove. The thing is you MUST cite some sources in this case such as the grand canyon bit. Show me the math to support it.Again with the trees please cite a source for that. Also where is the testable data being presented. There is no way to confirm anything you said there in regards to the second paragraph. You make a good amount of claims on observation but do not show how you made those observations or where you got the idea from to begin with a simple statement of

"We see that it is so. This results in deformities and sub-optimal functioning and occasionally allows for adaptation, but always results in a detriment to the species to survive outside of the specific environment that the mutation helped it adapt to. Moreover, I would expect that these mutations always result in a net loss of meaningful information. We see that it is so. "

Please cite where you see that it is so.

"I would expect that our planet is special and that we are special among the animal kingdom because God has a purpose for our lives. I see we are special and that God states why in His book, the Holy Bible. I would also expect that the conditions be right for life, such as the right orbit around the sun at exactly the right distance to sustain life, and I see that it is so. Furthermore, I would expect life only to rise out of other life, which is clearly observable. No atheist has ever given a good explanation for this one."

This is a subjective idea that can be applied to any religion or belief system. IF you are to claim that "Your GOD" states in the holy bible that is so. Then you must then show why "Your GOD" is the one that does this and not the other gods of the world.

As for the orbit thing you do realize we are in anything but a perfect orbit? Also we could be almost as far out as mars and still be a habitable planet?

Here is a wonderful diagram done up at Penn state. Just remember the planets are enlarged so you can see them :P.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l12_p4.html

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that 95-99% of scientists are "evolutionists". A gallup poll found that 95% of scientists (including those outside of biology) accept the theory of evolution. Hence, you are inferring that science does these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

No, evolutionists do not make up the whole of science simply because there is a majority of them. Majorities are meaningless. I would say a majority of people in this nation do not support Ron Paul. This does not make the majority right. And just because they are "experts" it does not make them immune to being corrupt, like humans tend to do (I don't think you will argue with this). No human being, no matter what he or she believes or how many can make up the whole of science. Scientists are not the same thing as science.

[PaulConventionWV]

If you assume god has ownership over his creation then he dictates privileges not rights. As for ownership if two parents make a child does the parents have unquestionable authority over the child even after they leave the house and are over 18?

The parents did not create the child. They simply activated the built-in mechanism that results in a child. Do you want to know where this built-in mechanism comes from?

[Ranger29860]

No, evolutionists do not make up the whole of science simply because there is a majority of them. Majorities are meaningless. I would say a majority of people in this nation do not support Ron Paul. This does not make the majority right. And just because they are "experts" it does not make them immune to being corrupt, like humans tend to do (I don't think you will argue with this). No human being, no matter what he or she believes or how many can make up the whole of science. Scientists are not the same thing as science.


Your right but the great thing about science is you can go read the articles yourself. Most major scientific papers cost around $30 each and i have found a few of them worth the price. Their is plenty of verifiable evidence to show evolution happens. The reason so many scientist accept the theory of evolution is that most scientific field have had findings within that field that support the hypothesis. Not to mention a good bit of our modern day medical understanding of virus's and bacteria would not be possible if virus's and bacteria din't behave in a way that is consistent with evolution.

[Ranger29860]

The parents did not create the child. They simply activated the built-in mechanism that results in a child. Do you want to know where this built-in mechanism comes from?

I am assuming your gonna say GOD :P. please prove it.

[Carehn]

creator, existence, being, it makes no difference to me what people like to call my nature. A cat has claws and men have rights. Whats the point of all the? Let the G-Ron use the language that works best for the crowed. hes not fibbing, just word selection.

[Carehn]

No, evolutionists do not make up the whole of science simply because there is a majority of them. Majorities are meaningless. I would say a majority of people in this nation do not support Ron Paul. This does not make the majority right. And just because they are "experts" it does not make them immune to being corrupt, like humans tend to do (I don't think you will argue with this). No human being, no matter what he or she believes or how many can make up the whole of science. Scientists are not the same thing as science.

Im leaning evolutionist myself but ya all got to kind of admit this is an epic ''checkmate'' post right here.

[PaulConventionWV]

It makes perfect sense... your argument is just wrong because it's predicated on the belief that god created us and that he is an all-knowing perfect being.

The people who originally claimed that there was such a being lived in the middle east during the bronze age, right?

Are you saying that these people knew more about the universe then modern day scientists?

And your belief is predicated on the idea that He is NOT. Do you see where we have the divide? It is all because we have different starting points. However, if you acknowledge that God is superior to human beings, then you will begin to see that my worldview more accurately predicts and represents reality.

And no, it did not begin in the bronze age, you idiot.

[Ranger29860]

Im leaning evolutionist myself but ya all got to kind of admit this is an epic ''checkmate'' post right here.

He is simply calling out appeal to majority fallacy. Which is to easy to do if that was the only argument put forward. But it wasn't he simply responded to the easiest hit there.

I do not ask people to believe something just because the majority of experts say it, i ask people to read it themselves and form there own opinions.We do not believe in Ron Paul because the majority doesn't even if they did that would not be the reason. We believe because the majority of people who support him have looked at and verified the evidence of what he is claiming and have found it to be true. The same reasoning should be applied to science. But what happens is people default to authority and don't confirm themselves. I am willing to bet PCWV you have never picked up or paid for and read a legitement scientific paper on any concept based on evolution.

[PaulConventionWV]

With the exception of the last sentence (which i don't think u intend to include in your hypothesis) i would consider this a decent starting point for a research paper. It is written as a overview of the objectives of what you hope to prove. The thing is you MUST cite some sources in this case such as the grand canyon bit. Show me the math to support it.Again with the trees please cite a source for that. Also where is the testable data being presented. There is no way to confirm anything you said there in regards to the second paragraph. You make a good amount of claims on observation but do not show how you made those observations or where you got the idea from to begin with a simple statement of

"We see that it is so. This results in deformities and sub-optimal functioning and occasionally allows for adaptation, but always results in a detriment to the species to survive outside of the specific environment that the mutation helped it adapt to. Moreover, I would expect that these mutations always result in a net loss of meaningful information. We see that it is so. "

Please cite where you see that it is so.

"I would expect that our planet is special and that we are special among the animal kingdom because God has a purpose for our lives. I see we are special and that God states why in His book, the Holy Bible. I would also expect that the conditions be right for life, such as the right orbit around the sun at exactly the right distance to sustain life, and I see that it is so. Furthermore, I would expect life only to rise out of other life, which is clearly observable. No atheist has ever given a good explanation for this one."

This is a subjective idea that can be applied to any religion or belief system. IF you are to claim that "Your GOD" states in the holy bible that is so. Then you must then show why "Your GOD" is the one that does this and not the other gods of the world.

As for the orbit thing you do realize we are in anything but a perfect orbit? Also we could be almost as far out as mars and still be a habitable planet?

Here is a wonderful diagram done up at Penn state. Just remember the planets are enlarged so you can see them :P.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l12_p4.html

Who determines what a perfect orbit is?

As for the sources, I'll get back to you on that. I'm not feeling very well right now.

[Ranger29860]

And your belief is predicated on the idea that He is NOT. Do you see where we have the divide? It is all because we have different starting points. However, if you acknowledge that God is superior to human beings, then you will begin to see that my worldview more accurately predicts and represents reality.

And no, it did not begin in the bronze age, you idiot.


First off the onus of proof is on those who make the claim the default position of Atheism is proof before belief. I do not claim a god because i see no evidence of it. So if you are going to claim one and say that i am wrong i demand evidence. If you were to claim one and not claim i was wrong then go ahead it doesn't affect me.

As for calling someone an idiot that is unneeded it is much more effective to prove someone wrong with facts than just getting angry.

[PaulConventionWV]

He is simply calling out appeal to majority fallacy. Which is to easy to do if that was the only argument put forward. But it wasn't he simply responded to the easiest hit there.

I do not ask people to believe something just because the majority of experts say it, i ask people to read it themselves and form there own opinions.We do not believe in Ron Paul because the majority doesn't even if they did that would not be the reason. We believe because the majority of people who support him have looked at and verified the evidence of what he is claiming and have found it to be true. The same reasoning should be applied to science. But what happens is people default to authority and don't confirm themselves. I am willing to bet PCWV you have never picked up or paid for and read a legitement scientific paper on any concept based on evolution.

Actually, that was the ONLY hit. It was a complete fallacy, and I completely debunked it.

[Ranger29860]

Who determines what a perfect orbit is?

As for the sources, I'll get back to you on that. I'm not feeling very well right now.

If we go by the idea that the orbit is Perfect(which is subjective i will give you that) if liquid water remains for the entire orbit. Then many planets in different solar systems have planets in a perfect orbit. You claimed a perfect orbit so i am simply trying to define it as best as possible. If you have another definition of it by all means share it. But with as many galaxies and solar systems in this universe the chances that we are the only ones in any definition of a perfect orbit are low. doesn't mean they have life though.


*edit*
i noticed after i posted that i didn't actually answer the question. I was assuming you were referring to perfect as never changing and at a constant rate. So i was assuming a perfect circle. Witch we of course are not in.

[swatmc]

And your belief is predicated on the idea that He is NOT. Do you see where we have the divide? It is all because we have different starting points. However, if you acknowledge that God is superior to human beings, then you will begin to see that my worldview more accurately predicts and represents reality.

And no, it did not begin in the bronze age, you idiot.

Do me a favor.

I challenge you to form an argument AGAINST the idea that Kim Jong Il is a divine leader.

Also, when was the origin of the concept of the christian god if not the bronze age?

[jmdrake]

Do me a favor.

I challenge you to form an argument AGAINST the idea that Kim Jong Il is a divine leader.

Also, when was the origin of the concept of the christian god if not the bronze age?

I challenge you to explain why atheist Isaac Assimov is wrong to say that sentient robots should not have the same rights as their creators.

[Ranger29860]

I challenge you to explain why atheist Isaac Assimov is wrong to say that sentient robots should not have the same rights as their creators.

red hearing much?

*edit*
I'll bite anyway.

Atheism is not a belief system nor does it have a centralized authority figure. Atheism is a position of non belief unless evidence supports it. So the opinion of Isaac Assimov has no bearing on my position as an atheist since his opinion is not an atheistic one but a personal/philosophic one.

My personal stance on sentient robots would be that they should have rights.

[swatmc]

I challenge you to explain why atheist Isaac Assimov is wrong to say that sentient robots should not have the same rights as their creators.

When robots do in fact exist in the same way as the Terminator or I Robot, we will have to fight them because they will try and take over. Robots will become another form of authority to be resisted, like human dictators, made up religious dictators (god) or any other form.

That answer your question?

Now can you answer any of the questions I've asked?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

First off most dating methods are not based on carbon. Second from I read there it seems like you do not know how radiometric dating works. Carbon dating 100 years from now will be no more accurate than carbon dating today since it is based on the "constant" decay rates of certain isotopes not on the average results based off of it. The only way carbon dating or any other form of dating will change is if the onstant decay rates change.

I have no clue how radiometric dating works. My only point is "constant" decay rates are derived from human observation using tools of human innovation. If 100 years from now the same tools used today do not yield a result of 100 years performing an identical test with identical methodology then the decay is not "constant" or the tools being used to measure are not accurate. It may very well be new evidence to refute the existing theory and understand of radiometric dating is already highly unlikely. But that doesn't negate the point new evidence is impossible. Unless of course you have evidence that new evidence is impossible.


Science is able to prove through experiment's and evidence that can be observed and tested its theory's. Religion to my knowledge has no equivalent ability.

Science is able to prove through evidence is a fallacy. In science, any assumption of certainty is always based on the existing evidence. Evidence is testimony based on human observation. In the case of science it is testimony about consistent tests, results, and methodology. In science subsequent testimony of consistent tests, results, and methodology (or scientific evidence) is corroborating or refuting.

Whereas it is inaccurate to say science proves it is entirely accurate to say science creates a conclusion presumption. Any different conclusion must overcome the presumption and must be rebutted through consistent tests, results, and methodology to support a dissenting conclusion.

I agree religion often has a weaker standard for evidence. But religion has resorted to science when a test can be performed (ie archeological discovery). I agree religion can be it's own worst enemy claiming weak evidence is infallible. For instance third party heresay is not valid testimony. Ironically even the New Testament attributes Jesus with articulating this very point. One can only testify to first hand knowledge. For instance Luke can testify to anything he has first hand knowledge of. If Luke observed what Luke believes is Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead it is valid for Luke to testify he heard Jesus say "Lazarus come out" and it is valid for Luke to testify he observed Lazarus walk out. It is invalid for Luke to testify Jesus raised Lazarus because Luke does not have first hand knowledge Jesus raised Lazarus or any first hand knowledge about raising the dead. Only Jesus would have first hand knowledge of raising dead people and only Jesus could testify he raised Lazarus. It is valid to criticize the methodology of Luke's testimony. In a deposition, procedural integrity is routinely observed. Was the deposition of Luke recorded by Luke's own hand? If it was not recorded by Luke's own hand what is the methodology used to record Luke's testimony?

So I get your point... but where is the vast repository of testimony Lazarus was not risen? We are talking about a society that allegedly tortured and eventually murdered Jesus on a cross. An alleged torture or crusifixion that was no small or ordinary event like any of the other countless cusifixions previous. It is self evident if you desire to murder someone discrediting them is in your best interests. Especially if there is testimony people of power in the society in question attempted to discredit Jesus on multiple occasions. Where is the vast repository of testimony from anyone in this society of people who condoned the torture and subsequent murder of Jesus discrediting any of the deeds people testified Jesus performed? Jews have allegedly and painstakenly preserved the Torah and their religious texts through centuries simultaneously denying Jesus. Where is the trial edition of the Torah with a transcript of the exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus where Jesus was discredited? Silence is asquiescence!



I actually have no problem with Ron's position here because 1. he will never use religious justification for an action in the government. 2. He was stating his personal belief, as long as his belief does not restrict my personal frredoms i could care less.

If using God, nature, or human existence (or some other combination of words) states the importance of self or personal freedom in a way that encourages consensus among the liberty coalition... I am all for it!

[Ranger29860]

I have no clue how radiometric dating works. My only point is "constant" decay rates are derived from human observation using tools of human innovation. If 100 years from now the same tools used today do not yield a result of 100 years performing an identical test with identical methodology then the decay is not "constant" or the tools being used to measure are not accurate. It may very well be new evidence to refute the existing theory and understand of radiometric dating is already highly unlikely. But that doesn't negate the point new evidence is impossible. Unless of course you have evidence that new evidence is impossible.

That is why i said i can only be changed if constant decay rates change which can happen if the initial observation of decay rates is changed. The only problem when it comes to the likelihood of this being wrong is that we have modern day uses for those numbers like nuclear reactions. If the numbers where wrong there would have already been serious consequences.

As for the discretiting of Jesus ( i know i am about to open a whole can of worms on this) Historically Jesus is not that prominent in the first place. Why would the Romans want to discredit a person who did not exist as far we can tell? Many of the things in the bible have no real evidence to back up there claims. Everything from the Jews as slaves in Egypt to the census requiring people to come to the place of birth have had no evidence to support (as far as i can find.)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

That is why i said i can only be changed if constant decay rates change which can happen if the initial observation of decay rates is changed. The only problem when it comes to the likelihood of this being wrong is that we have modern day uses for those numbers like nuclear reactions. If the numbers where wrong there would have already been serious consequences.

Fair enough. I can accept building upon theories that are implemented in daily uses is ongoing evidence which is extremely unlikely to be refuted.



As for the discretiting of Jesus ( i know i am about to open a whole can of worms on this) Historically Jesus is not that prominent in the first place. Why would the Romans want to discredit a person who did not exist as far we can tell? Many of the things in the bible have no real evidence to back up there claims. Everything from the Jews as slaves in Egypt to the census requiring people to come to the place of birth have had no evidence to support (as far as i can find.)

Fair enough. I will pass on elaborating because 1) we both know this debate would completely derail this thread 2) it can be openly discussed if we want to continue this discussion in another thread 3) you specifically responded in dissent to a point I asserted.

[PaulConventionWV]

If we go by the idea that the orbit is Perfect(which is subjective i will give you that) if liquid water remains for the entire orbit. Then many planets in different solar systems have planets in a perfect orbit. You claimed a perfect orbit so i am simply trying to define it as best as possible. If you have another definition of it by all means share it. But with as many galaxies and solar systems in this universe the chances that we are the only ones in any definition of a perfect orbit are low. doesn't mean they have life though.


*edit*
i noticed after i posted that i didn't actually answer the question. I was assuming you were referring to perfect as never changing and at a constant rate. So i was assuming a perfect circle. Witch we of course are not in.

Sorry, I meant perfect orbit as in sustainable to life. Even a little bit off and this is not possible. We are the only planet we know of that has such a finely tuned mechanism that can sustain life. The orbit around the sun is just one aspect.

[PaulConventionWV]

Do me a favor.

I challenge you to form an argument AGAINST the idea that Kim Jong Il is a divine leader.

Also, when was the origin of the concept of the christian god if not the bronze age?

He's human. That was easy.

[swatmc]

He's human. That was easy.

What about Jesus? Was he a human as well?

[PaulConventionWV]

What about Jesus? Was he a human as well?

No. He had a human body. He was God in the flesh.

[swatmc]

No. He had a human body. He was God in the flesh.

So if Jesus came back to earth, would you approve of him being the leader of the entire world?

[PaulConventionWV]

So if Jesus came back to earth, would you approve of him being the leader of the entire world?

It's like explaining things to an 8 year old...

Jesus is God in the flesh. God is never away from Earth or any other place. He is omnipresent. Do you know what that means? And yes, I would, because He is perfect and omnipotent (do you know what that means?)

[Ranger29860]

Sorry, I meant perfect orbit as in sustainable to life. Even a little bit off and this is not possible. We are the only planet we know of that has such a finely tuned mechanism that can sustain life. The orbit around the sun is just one aspect.

The majority of the planets surface is uninhabitable to human life. Now as for life itself besides human have you ever heard of extremophiles (sp?)? they are organism's that can live in conditions that would roast or freeze most life that we know. A little bit off is a subjective measurement like i said before we can be as far out as mars and still support life are as close as Venus. As for only planet their is some truth to that since we have only viewed a VERY small section of this part of the Galaxy in search for habital planets. Andromeda is on a collision course with us in 5 billion years how is that going to be finely tuned then?

[Ranger29860]

It's like explaining things to an 8 year old...

Jesus is God in the flesh. God is never away from Earth or any other place. He is omnipresent. Do you know what that means? And yes, I would, because He is perfect and omnipotent (do you know what that means?)

The thing is the North Koreans believe the same about there dear leader. Why is there view wrong but yours not?

[swatmc]

It's like explaining things to an 8 year old...

Jesus is God in the flesh. God is never away from Earth or any other place. He is omnipresent. Do you know what that means? And yes, I would, because He is perfect and omnipotent (do you know what that means?)

To each his own, but I believe that NOBODY is perfect and no person is, or has ever been, omnipresent.

Also, I think the same part of your brain that WISHES for Jesus to be an unquestionable authority figure is the same part of the brain that North Koreans have in their worship of Kim Jong Il as an unquestionable authority figure. It's childish, wishful thinking, and frankly dangerous.

You are a grown up, trying to tell me that Jesus has magical powers.

And I'm the 8 year old?

Also, in spite of his magical powers, does your approval of Jesus being king of the world DIRECTLY contract the principals of liberty and limited government?

[reillym]

It's like explaining things to an 8 year old...

Jesus is God in the flesh. God is never away from Earth or any other place. He is omnipresent. Do you know what that means? And yes, I would, because He is perfect and omnipotent (do you know what that means?)

Wait, so this jesus guy is like santa? I don't understand the difference...

[FrankRep]

Wait, so this jesus guy is like santa? I don't understand the difference...

Do you really want to go down the road of mocking Christianity?

[jmdrake]

When robots do in fact exist in the same way as the Terminator or I Robot, we will have to fight them because they will try and take over. Robots will become another form of authority to be resisted, like human dictators, made up religious dictators (god) or any other form.

That answer your question?


Not really. A robot programmed to have Isaac Assimov fail safes in it would never rebel. Would you be against such fail safes because they are a creator not granting free will? And since you believe God is made up, why do you care what might happen if He turned out to be real?



Now can you answer any of the questions I've asked?

I already answered all of the questions you directed to me. Do you have any new ones?

[BlackTerrel]

It's like explaining things to an 8 year old...

Jesus is God in the flesh. God is never away from Earth or any other place. He is omnipresent. Do you know what that means? And yes, I would, because He is perfect and omnipotent (do you know what that means?)

This.

Explaining God to humans would be like explaining humans to a mosquito.

[swatmc]

Not really. A robot programmed to have Isaac Assimov fail safes in it would never rebel. Would you be against such fail safes because they are a creator not granting free will? And since you believe God is made up, why do you care what might happen if He turned out to be real?



I already answered all of the questions you directed to me. Do you have any new ones?

Do you believe that shepherds during the bronze age knew more about the universe than modern day scientists? Why or why not?

Again, please create an argument that discredits the divinity of Kim Jong Il.

Why out of the 10,000 religions and gods in history, do you choose christianity as the correct one? Were you born into christianity and do you find it extremely convenient that you happen to be born in the correct religion?

If Jesus comes back, should he be king of the world, and does that directly contradict the concept of limited government and liberty?

Are the basic tenants of christianity profoundly immoral because it believes in vicarious redemption?

[swatmc]

This.

Explaining God to humans would be like explaining humans to a mosquito.

So many people claim to know god, speak for god, know what god wants us to eat, and specifically know the sexual positions that god prefers. (among many other things)

Are these people intelligent, insane, or liars?

[Vessol]

This.

Explaining God to humans would be like explaining humans to a mosquito.

So are you saying that we suck God's blood?

Well..actually that makes sense considering Jesus is God and in communion you drink his trans-mutated blood.

[swatmc]

Do you really want to go down the road of mocking Christianity?

I openly go down the road of mocking christianity (and all other religions).

What happens now?

[LibertyEagle]

I openly go down the road of mocking christianity (and all other religions).

What happens now?

How very collectivist of you.

[heavenlyboy34]

How very collectivist of you.
qft.

[jazzloversinc]

the little atheists just can't STAND it that Ron Paul is a Christian. lol.

[swatmc]

How very collectivist of you.

How does that make me a collectivist?

[swatmc]

the little atheists just can't STAND it that Ron Paul is a Christian. lol.

I don't mind it. Nobody is perfect.

[swatmc]

So I guess I'm waiting another 2 days for a response? That's cool.

[FrankRep]

How does that make me a collectivist?
You lumped all the religions together. That is collectivist.

[swatmc]

You lumped all the religions together. That is collectivist.

Religion is a form of ignorance and you don't need religion to be a good person. Also it's against liberty because each religion claims that their leader is the "only" god.

Also, any christian who is actually a christian believes that jesus christ is the king of the world and should be worshiped by all people.

Isn't that more collectivist than my point of view?

[FrankRep]

Religion is a form of ignorance and you don't need religion to be a good person. Also it's against liberty because each religion claims that their leader is the "only" god.

Also, any christian who is actually a christian believes that jesus christ is the king of the world and should be worshiped by all people.

Isn't that more collectivist than my point of view?

Thanks for your Opinion, I guess.

[Sola_Fide]

Religion is a form of ignorance and you don't need religion to be a good person. Also it's against liberty because each religion claims that their leader is the "only" god.

Also, any christian who is actually a christian believes that jesus christ is the king of the world and should be worshiped by all people.

Isn't that more collectivist than my point of view?


What is the atheist standard of "good"? Chairman Mao truly believed that 30+ million people needed to die for the good of his country. Why was he wrong?

[swatmc]

Thanks for your Opinion, I guess.

Kim Jong Il is not divine in any way, shape, or form. He should not be irrationally loved/worshiped by anyone in North Korea.

Is that an opinion or just common sense?

[swatmc]

What is the atheist standard of "good"? Chairman Mao truly believed that 30+ million people needed to die for the good of his country. Why was he wrong?

The common sense argument of "good" is "treat others like you want to be treated."

The golden rule exists in many forms.

Chairman Mao was evil because he violated the golden rule.

[Sola_Fide]

The common sense argument of "good" is "treat others like you want to be treated."

The golden rule exists in many forms.

Chairman Mao was evil because he violated the golden rule.

Excuse me. Why is it wrong to violate the golden rule?

[swatmc]

Excuse me. Why is it wrong to violate the golden rule?

Because it's common sense.

Or because Jesus was the illegitimate child of the son of the creator of the universe, and he is the source of all morality.

You decide which makes more sense.

[Sola_Fide]

Because it's common sense.

Or because Jesus was the illegitimate child of the son of the creator of the universe, and he is the source of all morality.

You decide which makes more sense.



In the atheist universe, why is it wrong to violate common sense?

I'll wait for your answer.

[swatmc]

In the atheist universe, why is it wrong to violate common sense?

I'll wait for your answer.

It's wrong to violate common sense because according to you, me, and any one else in a free society, it would be immoral.

[FrankRep]

It's wrong to violate common sense because according to you, me, and any one else in a free society, it would be immoral.
What defines what is "moral"?

[swatmc]

What defines what is "moral"?

Treat others like you want to be treated.

Do we need a magical father figure, who may or may not exist, to tell us this?

[Sola_Fide]

It's wrong to violate common sense because according to you, me, and any one else in a free society, it would be immoral.

Why is it wrong to violate what someone else thinks is common or moral?

[swatmc]

Why is it wrong to violate what someone else thinks is common or moral?

Are they treating others like they want to be treated?

If not, they are immoral.

[Sola_Fide]

Are they treating others like they want to be treated?

If not, they are immoral.

In the atheist universe, why is it wrong to be "immoral"?

[swatmc]

In the atheist universe, why is it wrong to be "immoral"?

Because you're violating the golden rule.

Morality is not complicated.

The Universe is complicated. I mean only a few hundred years ago people though that the "universe" consisted only of our own galaxy. But in reality there are hundred of millions of galaxies. Sheppards in the desert during the bronze age did NOT know this.

If there was in fact a god, my morality would not change.

If there was NOT a god, would your morality change?

[FrankRep]

What defines what is "moral"?

Treat others like you want to be treated.

Do we need a magical father figure, who may or may not exist, to tell us this?

Why is that moral? That's just your opinion.

[swatmc]

Why is that moral? That's just your opinion.

Our morality comes from god.

Is that a fact or an opinion?

[Sola_Fide]

In the atheist universe, why is it wrong to be "immoral"?

Swatmtc, I'll take an answer to my question anytime, thanks.

[swatmc]

Swatmtc, I'll take an answer to my question anytime, thanks.

And i keep telling you.

Immorality is when you violate the golden rule of "treat others like you want to be treated."

Now answer this question:

If there was in fact a god, my morality would not change.

If there was NOT a god, would your morality change?

[FrankRep]

What defines what is "moral"?

Treat others like you want to be treated.
Do we need a magical father figure, who may or may not exist, to tell us this?

Why is that moral? That's just your opinion.

Our morality comes from god.
Is that a fact or an opinion?

God's Law: The Gold Standard of Morality

[ClayTrainor]

Because you're violating the golden rule.

Morality is not complicated.

The Universe is complicated. I mean only a few hundred years ago people though that the "universe" consisted only of our own galaxy. But in reality there are hundred of millions of galaxies. Sheppards in the desert during the bronze age did NOT know this.

If there was in fact a god, my morality would not change.

Well said.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." - Jesus Christ

Even if Jesus never said it, it would still be true. It is not okay to treat other peopel in ways you would not like to be treated. This, plus self-ownership, are the basic principles of morality and they can be logically established regardless of whether or not you believe in a supernatural overlord.

[swatmc]

God's Law: The Gold Standard of Morality

If god doesn't exist, and even the most passionate of religious folk MUST admit this is at least a possibility, does that mean there is no morality without god?

[Sola_Fide]

And i keep telling you.

Immorality is when you violate the golden rule of "treat others like you want to be treated."

Now answer this question:

If there was in fact a god, my morality would not change.

If there was NOT a god, would your morality change?


I keep asking you: WHY IS IT WRONG TO DO SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE THINKS IS IMMORAL?

[Sola_Fide]

You keep telling me things are "immoral"? Why is it wrong to do something someone else thinks is immoral?

[swatmc]

I keep asking you: WHY IS IT WRONG TO DO SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE THINKS IS IMMORAL?

Because you are violating the golden rule of "treat others like you want to be treated."

[FrankRep]

If god doesn't exist, and even the most passionate of religious folk MUST admit this is at least a possibility, does that mean there is no morality without god?
What is morality without God?
Some people will think murder, rape, and theft are fine according to their personal morality.

[Sola_Fide]

Because you are violating the golden rule of "treat others like you want to be treated."

Why is it wrong to violate the golden rule?

[FrankRep]

Because you are violating the golden rule of "treat others like you want to be treated."
Who created that rule? Why should I follow it?

[ClayTrainor]

Why is it wrong to violate the golden rule?

Because Jesus Said so? lol

It's wrong to violate the golden rule, because you wouldn't want people violating it against you.

[swatmc]

What is morality without God?
Some people will think murder, rape, and theft are fine according to their personal morality.

So the only thing keeping you from being immoral is punishment from the christian god?

[swatmc]

Who created that rule? Why should I follow it?

Again, because according to you, me, and others in a free society, it would be immoral.

Edit:

*immoral to ignore that rule.

[Sola_Fide]

It's wrong to violate the golden rule, because you wouldn't want people violating it against you.

Can't you see your silly circular argument? I'm asking you why violating the golden rule is wrong, and you are answering me by just asserting that golden rule is right.

Why is it wrong to have a morality that does not accept the golden rule?

Chairman Mao had a morality that did not accept the golden rule. Why was he wrong?

[swatmc]

Can't you see your silly circular argument? I'm asking you why violating the golden rule is wrong, and you are answering me by just asserting that golden rule is right.

Why is it wrong to have a morality that does not accept the golden rule?

Are you trying to make me say that morality is meaningless without god?

[PaulConventionWV]

The thing is the North Koreans believe the same about there dear leader. Why is there view wrong but yours not?

Because the Bible warns of false prophets. We know that only Jesus can claim to be God. All men are imperfect and can only convince people that they are God through some sort of manipulation or brain-washing.

[Ranger29860]

What is morality without God?
Some people will think murder, rape, and theft are fine according to their personal morality.

Some people think murder, rape, and theft are fine with god so what is your point?

[AZKing]

You keep telling me things are "immoral"? Why is it wrong to do something someone else thinks is immoral?

I dunno, ask the overwhelming majority of Christian prisoners.

Why are Christians so overrepresented in prisons? Why do Christians have the highest divorce rate?

Where did they get their morals from? God, right?

[PaulConventionWV]

Because you're violating the golden rule.

Morality is not complicated.

The Universe is complicated. I mean only a few hundred years ago people though that the "universe" consisted only of our own galaxy. But in reality there are hundred of millions of galaxies. Sheppards in the desert during the bronze age did NOT know this.

If there was in fact a god, my morality would not change.

If there was NOT a god, would your morality change?

The "golden rule" comes from the Bible. Outside of an absolute moral authority, the "golden rule" has no power or legitimacy except in the minds of those who wish to accept it. However, if someone does not want to follow the golden rule, you can't fault them for it because they simply believe differently than you and you have no objective basis for your morality against theirs.

[Sola_Fide]

Chairman Mao did not have a morality that followed the golden rule.

Why was his morality, which he felt very strongly in, wrong?

In the atheist universe, why is one conception of morality more valid than another one?

[Dr.3D]

Are you trying to make me say that morality is meaningless without god?

I believe he is just trying to understand where your moral compass gets it's bearings.

[Sola_Fide]

I dunno, ask the overwhelming majority of Christian prisoners.

Why are Christians so overrepresented in prisons? Why do Christians have the highest divorce rate?

Where did they get their morals from? God, right?

So the answer to my question is......what?


I asked: In the atheist view, why is it wrong to do something that someone thinks is immoral?

What is your answer?

[swatmc]

The "golden rule" comes from the Bible. Outside of an absolute moral authority, the "golden rule" has no power or legitimacy except in the minds of those who wish to accept it. However, if someone does not want to follow the golden rule, you can't fault them for it because they simply believe differently than you and you have no objective basis for your morality against theirs.

The golden rule does not come from the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule#Ancient_Babylon

How did all these other societies outside of christianity come to the same conclusion and follow the golden rule?

[swatmc]

I believe he is just trying to understand where your moral compass gets it's bearings.

My moral compass comes from my own view of common sense and my interaction with my fellow human.

That is enough for me to NOT steal, cheat, rape, or kill.

Isn't that enough?