PDA

View Full Version : CNN: "Freedom requires religion" says Mitt Romney




RonPaulVolunteer
12-06-2007, 09:39 PM
I'm a believer, but this should piss a few non-believers off...

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone," the GOP contender said. - Romney


Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html

wgadget
12-06-2007, 09:42 PM
So the "Islamofascists" have freedom?

Bodhi
12-06-2007, 09:43 PM
That outta be a big turn off for a lot of people.

RonPaulVolunteer
12-06-2007, 09:45 PM
Let's hope so!

The beautiful thing about Ron Paul, is though he is a VERY full-on Christian, he refuses to use it as political leverage, he hardly ever talks about it unless asked, and most certainly does NOT believe "Freedom requires Religion".

Yuck! Romney, you're gone...
.
.

noztnac
12-06-2007, 09:45 PM
I'm a Christian but I don't like religion and politics to mix. That statement alone would be enough for me to not vote for him.

Danny Molina
12-06-2007, 09:47 PM
I guess I have no freedom.

scoot87
12-06-2007, 09:49 PM
Mixing religion and politics is like mixing diet coke and mentos. To be blunt, true Christianity isn't about a religion where you obey a set of rules to get into heaven, but it is a self-sacrificial personal relationship between you and Christ. Theres a huge difference. That is all.

RonPaulVolunteer
12-06-2007, 09:51 PM
Mixing religion and politics is like mixing diet coke and mentos. To be blunt, true Christianity isn't about a religion where you obey a set of rules to get into heaven, but it is a self-sacrificial personal relationship between you and Christ. Theres a huge difference. That is all.

:)
.
.

Midnight77
12-06-2007, 09:51 PM
Ouch. Way to go Romney. Another plea to the Religious right.

travismofo
12-06-2007, 09:52 PM
My religion is freedom

RonPaulMania
12-06-2007, 09:53 PM
He's actually correct. He saying you can't separate one's freedoms from God. If you don't admit that God exists and that all rights are given by God than freedom is consequently lost. It's in the Constitution and it's philosophically correct as well.

Suppose God didn't exist and we didn't have an immortal soul given dignity because immortal souls are a reflection of God, why should we have any more liberty than a dog? The founders believed this from a deistic perspective, and previous Church/State relationships from Europe understood this connection from a specific religion. The Constitution stopped a specific Church/State relationship, but it was never intended to be devoid of God as even the founders understand there is no freedom without God.

RonPaulMania
12-06-2007, 09:55 PM
Mixing religion and politics is like mixing diet coke and mentos. To be blunt, true Christianity isn't about a religion where you obey a set of rules to get into heaven, but it is a self-sacrificial personal relationship between you and Christ. Theres a huge difference. That is all.

I guess I missed that part of the Epistle of St. James that states that he who transgresses one part of the law transgresses them all, and the Matthew 7:21 connection where anyone who calls Christ Lord but doesn't do the Father's will cannot go to Heaven, and the John 3... you get the point...

You version of Christianity is not found in the Bibles, Patristic sources, or Church tradition which St. Paul tells us to hold fast.

Johncjackson
12-06-2007, 09:55 PM
So basically he is Joe Lieberman?

RonPaulVolunteer
12-06-2007, 09:56 PM
He's actually correct. He saying you can't separate one's freedoms from God. If you don't admit that God exists and that all rights are given by God than freedom is consequently lost. It's in the Constitution and it's philosophically correct as well.

Suppose God didn't exist and we didn't have an immortal soul given dignity because immortal souls are a reflection of God, why should we have any more liberty than a dog? The founders believed this from a deistic perspective, and previous Church/State relationships from Europe understood this connection from a specific religion. The Constitution stopped a specific Church/State relationship, but it was never intended to be devoid of God as even the founders understand there is no freedom without God.

I don't care right now if it is true or not. I started the post by saying I was a believer, so that should say something. But coming out and telling Americans this as a Presidential hopeful just lost him a lot of support.
.
.

RonPaulVolunteer
12-06-2007, 09:58 PM
I guess I missed that part of the Epistle of St. James that states that he who transgresses one part of the law transgresses them all, and the Matthew 7:21 connection where anyone who calls Christ Lord but doesn't do the Father's will cannot go to Heaven, and the John 3... you get the point...

You version of Christianity is not found in the Bibles, Patristic sources, or Church tradition which St. Paul tells us to hold fast.

Oh oh, we're being attacked...

And I bet the only version of the Bible acceptable to you is the 1611 KJV too right?
.
.

wecandoit
12-06-2007, 09:59 PM
I think Mitt got that sort of backwards.

God (not religon) intends for all us us to be free. It's what our constitution is all about.

Johncjackson
12-06-2007, 09:59 PM
He's actually correct. He saying you can't separate one's freedoms from God. If you don't admit that God exists and that all rights are given by God than freedom is consequently lost. It's in the Constitution and it's philosophically correct as well.

Suppose God didn't exist and we didn't have an immortal soul given dignity because immortal souls are a reflection of God, why should we have any more liberty than a dog? The founders believed this from a deistic perspective, and previous Church/State relationships from Europe understood this connection from a specific religion. The Constitution stopped a specific Church/State relationship, but it was never intended to be devoid of God as even the founders understand there is no freedom without God.

False.

My very existance allows for my freedom. I am BORN with it. That is the only real implication- that we are born with rights. It doesnt matter if a "god" "made us." The fact that we are born and exist is enough.

Neither the State NOR a "god" grants inalienable rights. otherwise you are just substituting God for the State and not supportive of actual freedom IMHO.

RonPaulVolunteer
12-06-2007, 10:02 PM
Neither the State NOR a "god" grants inalienable rights. otherwise you are just substituting God for the State and not supportive of actual freedom IMHO.

Well Ron Paul himself disagrees with you on that one... But that's ok, I don't agree with everything he says, just most of it. That's enough for me.
.
.

newbitech
12-06-2007, 10:04 PM
For those who don't want to read the prophecy below, basically what happened is there was a law back in the old days that said once a slave has worked for 6 years, in the 7th year that slave must be set free. The leaders disobeyed the laws of the land and were struck down by their god. God said that since the leaders did not proclaim freedom for their country men, god will proclaim freedom for the leaders.

Freedom to fall by the sword, plague, and famine on the country. I wonder if god was being sarcastic about freedom?

Jeremiah 34:14-17 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

14 'Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you six years, you must let him go free.' [a] Your fathers, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me.

15 Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to his countrymen. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name.

16 But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again.

17 "Therefore, this is what the LORD says: You have not obeyed me; you have not proclaimed freedom for your fellow countrymen. So I now proclaim 'freedom' for you, declares the LORD -'freedom' to fall by the sword, plague and famine. I will make you abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth.

RonPaulMania
12-06-2007, 10:10 PM
Oh oh, we're being attacked...

And I bet the only version of the Bible acceptable to you is the 1611 KJV too right?
.
.

Nope, not attacked at all. There were just some statements there were less than informed posts that gave a perception not based in reality. You are the one who seems attacked with the ridiculous statements about the KJV, a Bible which I don't even like. I actually like the Vulgata.

You seem tense about this, why don't you let it slide instead of getting upset? I also don't think it hurt Romney at all unless he wins the Republican primary. Lastly, I recommend you read Dr. Paul's statement about Church/State and God/State that he wrote on Lew Rockwell a while back and just relax.

fluoridatedbrainsoup
12-06-2007, 10:12 PM
Romney is so full of shit his eyes are brown, to speak of freedom in such lofty terms when he won't even take preemptive nuclear strikes off the table.

Spirit of '76
12-06-2007, 10:15 PM
I'm a believer, but this should piss a few non-believers off...

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone," the GOP contender said. - Romney


Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html

Leonard Read made much the same argument in his excellent book Elements of Libertarian Leadership (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FElements-Libertarian-Leadership-Methods-Practice%2Fdp%2FB0007DE8L2%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks %26qid%3D1197001143%26sr%3D8-5&tag=thspof76-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325). He said that ultimately we cannot understand what it means to be free unless we are striving for the type of spiritual perfection that comes from understanding that Liberty comes from the Creator and not from man-made institutions.

RonPaulMania
12-06-2007, 10:20 PM
False.

My very existance allows for my freedom. I am BORN with it. That is the only real implication- that we are born with rights. It doesnt matter if a "god" "made us." The fact that we are born and exist is enough.

Actually your statement is false and unsupportable from both an historical and philosophical perspective. Care to tell me why you have those rights from birth? Based on what? You can't say, "I have rights because I do." That would be a premise that is not self-evident without a belief in God. Without it your statement is a truism that defies it's own existence because you are positing a causeless effect.



Neither the State NOR a "god" grants inalienable rights. otherwise you are just substituting God for the State and not supportive of actual freedom IMHO.

That's Communism repackaged as libertarianism. Humanity does not have self-evident rights without a principle from which they derive them. You believe you can have an effect without a cause which again is illogical. You only see color from light, and all rights of man must come from something other than man, given by man, to give him a dignity above other empirical life.

The cause of life does not grant liberty unless you grant similar liberties to all other forms of life and therefore you've never eaten because that would be cannibalizing other forms of life that should have liberty. Grass doesn't have rights, neither do cows. That's why we eat them and control their lives.

Your stance leaves you in a precarious position. Do you just drink water and milk?

scoot87
12-06-2007, 10:21 PM
I guess I missed that part of the Epistle of St. James that states that he who transgresses one part of the law transgresses them all, and the Matthew 7:21 connection where anyone who calls Christ Lord but doesn't do the Father's will cannot go to Heaven, and the John 3... you get the point...

You version of Christianity is not found in the Bibles, Patristic sources, or Church tradition which St. Paul tells us to hold fast.

And these quotations from the bible do not contradict the relationship aspect. Concerning doing the Father's will is to say that this in this self-sacrificing relationship, we must submit our life to the will of the Father. The part of transgressing one part of the law then you transgress all makes the point about religiosity and how we arent able to abide by all the rules of the Old Testament but are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. So there is not contradiction, but your examples prove that in order to get to Heaven, we must have a relationship that strives to abide by the will of God or else it isnt a true relationship and that religion by doing good works does not work but only by accepting Christ.

noxagol
12-06-2007, 10:29 PM
Rights come from ownership, not god. If you own things, you have rights over it, and the right is to dictate what happens to it. If someone does something to or on your property that you do not approve, they owe you compensation. And property is very open ended, not just land and stuff. Your body and thoughts are property as well.

Spirit of '76
12-06-2007, 10:32 PM
Rights come from ownership, not god.

I'm glad to know that Ron Paul disagrees with you when he says, "Our rights come from our Creator." :)

I am not "property". I am a human being.

noxagol
12-06-2007, 10:36 PM
I'm glad to know that Ron Paul disagrees with you when he says, "Our rights come from our Creator." :)

I am not "property". I am a human being.

You are arguing semantics to make yourself feel better.

InRonWeTrust
12-06-2007, 10:43 PM
I'm a believer, but this should piss a few non-believers off...

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone," the GOP contender said. - Romney


Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html


As an athiest, I say fuck you, Mitt.

driller80545
12-06-2007, 10:47 PM
Is he speaking of the freedom the puritans enjoyed?

driller80545
12-06-2007, 10:53 PM
god has nothing to do with rights. if anything, the church historically has attempted again and again to harness freedoms. and the neo cons are doing it again, in the ruse of family values. my rights are mine because i not only demand them, but i also grant you the same. as far as the cow that got eaten having no rights, i guess neither did the guy the grizzly enjoyed for supper. ha

peruvianRP
12-06-2007, 10:58 PM
My freedom of religion is my freedom from religion.

Spirit of '76
12-06-2007, 10:59 PM
You are arguing semantics to make yourself feel better.

...says the guy who describes people as "property". :rolleyes:

driller80545
12-06-2007, 11:02 PM
to have rights you must demand them. and then you must defend them. and that is why i am trying to assist Dr. Paul in his election.

bootstrap
12-06-2007, 11:24 PM
He's actually correct. He saying you can't separate one's freedoms from God. If you don't admit that God exists and that all rights are given by God than freedom is consequently lost. It's in the Constitution and it's philosophically correct as well.

Suppose God didn't exist and we didn't have an immortal soul given dignity because immortal souls are a reflection of God, why should we have any more liberty than a dog? The founders believed this from a deistic perspective, and previous Church/State relationships from Europe understood this connection from a specific religion. The Constitution stopped a specific Church/State relationship, but it was never intended to be devoid of God as even the founders understand there is no freedom without God.

Sadly, I have found no other person who has thought about these kinds of philosophical issues to understand them. Freedom does not the existence of God, or any kind of "super-authoritarian", and freedom certainly does not require religion (a type of social organization). Unfortunately, to treat this topic thoroughly, I'd have to write 100 pages. But here is a stream of consciousness explanation that hopefully helps someone grapple with this issue.

This discussion presumes a few mostly-uncontraversial ideas that I will not justify for lack of time and space: volition (which I like to call "self-determinism") and causality (that actions have consequences).

In modern times, humans are born into a world already populated by billions of other humans. Humans need shelter, clothing, water and food to survive (and various other things to enjoy life, but that's mostly side-issue to this topic). However, the quantity of naturally occurring caves (for shelter), clean water (to drink), and wild animals-and-plants (for food) is grossly insufficient to support life for billions of humans. Therefore, to survive in the modern world, humans must take actions that produce (which means "create") shelter, clothing, drink, food.

When a human takes these actions, the person is the *cause* of his own survival. In other words, a human literally causes his own existence (in the future). If a person does not have freedom (to chose his own actions), a person has no way to cause his own continued existence (and in that case, is utterly dependent upon the actions of others).

This is a brief description of the fundamental nature of every honest modern human --- to identify and enact actions that cause the existence of self. True, exceptions are possible. The existence of gravely disabled person can be extended [until his recovery] by other productive humans. And the existence of a human can be extended by unethical means - by taking goods produced by other humans (by means of fraud, theft, taxation, etc). However, notice that this cannot work unless some humans did produce goods.

I see now how impossible it is to compress this into a few paragraphs. So I'll just leave it at the above to help anyone interested get on the right track.

driller80545
12-06-2007, 11:34 PM
I don't know, bootstrap, but what comes to first to my mind is "what about serfs, or the people in a socialist society". they are forced to create (causation) but certainly are not showered in freedom or personal liberty. I think that I will still maintain that rights exist when they are demanded and defended, otherwise they are not included in man's business of survival.

user
12-06-2007, 11:48 PM
Romney's next speech: "Freedom is slavery..."

InRonWeTrust
12-06-2007, 11:50 PM
My freedom of religion is my freedom from religion.

WORD.

RonPaulMania
12-07-2007, 12:44 AM
Rights come from ownership, not god. If you own things, you have rights over it, and the right is to dictate what happens to it. If someone does something to or on your property that you do not approve, they owe you compensation. And property is very open ended, not just land and stuff. Your body and thoughts are property as well.

Do you actually really believe that? What do you own at birth? What do you own at 10 years old? Do you believe you should be free and have rights at 10 years old? Yet you own nothing. You legally don't own your body under the age of reason as it falls squarely on your parents to guide you.

I feel like I'm arguing against my little brother sometimes. Gratuitous arguments without collaborating teleology is no argument.

Where do you guys come up with such pop philosophy? Seriously, I have no idea where you people come up with this stuff but I'm very interested because it makes no sense.

driller80545
12-07-2007, 12:47 AM
And what do you believe? Are rights god given, earned, or demanded like respect?

Duckman
12-07-2007, 12:54 AM
People once believed that kings were allowed to rule absolutely by divine right. That antiquated thinking was removed by the Enlightenment, which spawned the Constitution.

Unfortunately there is still antiquated thinking with regards to rights. They exist because they are from god, since without the invisible being, we'd have no reason to respect anyone. We could kill and enslave as we please, without regard for civilization.

I don't want to disrespect anyone's religion, but I define a right as something you cannot take away from me because it is mine alone. I believe it is a very rational concept to say that this is what defines a right, and for the good of civilization we will respect the concept of rights. No god required.

RonPaulMania
12-07-2007, 12:56 AM
Sadly, I have found no other person who has thought about these kinds of philosophical issues to understand them.

Socrates, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, De Cartes are no ones? There were some wonderful thinkers who thought of the existence of life. The question is do you understand teleology, philosophy, and ethics/morality and how did you arrive at your line of thought?


Freedom does not the existence of God, or any kind of "super-authoritarian", and freedom certainly does not require religion (a type of social organization).

You don't need 100 pages. You just need to come up with causation of principles. Give me 1 principle of causation. You haven't given one as you will see.



This discussion presumes a few mostly-uncontraversial ideas that I will not justify for lack of time and space: volition (which I like to call "self-determinism") and causality (that actions have consequences).

I deny your definition of causality, and your definition of volition is inexact.


When a human takes these actions, the person is the *cause* of his own survival. In other words, a human literally causes his own existence (in the future). If a person does not have freedom (to chose his own actions), a person has no way to cause his own continued existence (and in that case, is utterly dependent upon the actions of others).

You are confusing existence with coercion. If I'm coerced into exile from a city I don't stop existing. We do not cause our existence, our parents do, we only cause our subsistence of life. We can't create ourselves.

I want one principle of causation of rights outside of our soul given by God. Show me why animals have the same rights as we do if you really believe what you do.

God exists, it's not just a belief, it's a fact and can be proven logically. What God you believe in is a matter of faith, not logic. Irrespective of faith in this equation if you take God out of our existence we have no more rights than an animal.

RonPaulMania
12-07-2007, 12:57 AM
My freedom of religion is my freedom from religion.

And will end in your freedom from liberty and truth.

RonPaulMania
12-07-2007, 12:59 AM
And what do you believe? Are rights god given, earned, or demanded like respect?

Rights are given by God because we have an immortal soul. None of that is an article of faith but are logical beings which can be concluded by inductive logic and finally by deductive logic. Without both things present we are no different than animals.

RonPaulMania
12-07-2007, 01:03 AM
I don't want to disrespect anyone's religion, but I define a right as something you cannot take away from me because it is mine alone. I believe it is a very rational concept to say that this is what defines a right, and for the good of civilization we will respect the concept of rights. No god required.

What if someone took your rights and turned you into the collectivity of the masses. On what grounds can you show your rights? You don't see how we are losing rights in this country because of the very concept of what you are espousing: a Godless moral society of liberty. This is nothing more than anarchy.

You can't define something by self-existence unless that law is self-existent (e.g. the sun is in the sky). It is not self-existent you have rights of and by yourself just because you exist. Plants exist, do they have rights? What gives you rights and not plants?

Let's start simple because this isn't going anywhere with logical rationalizations.

Duckman
12-07-2007, 01:12 AM
What if someone took your rights and turned you into the collectivity of the masses. On what grounds can you show your rights? You don't see how we are losing rights in this country because of the very concept of what you are espousing: a Godless moral society of liberty. This is nothing more than anarchy.

If someone tries to force me to collectivism, will he stop if I assert that my right to resist comes from god? I doubt he cares. I argue that it regardless of philosophy, is de facto true that you only have those rights that everyone will mutually agree you have OR that you need to take through self-defense.


You can't define something by self-existence unless that law is self-existent (e.g. the sun is in the sky). It is not self-existent you have rights of and by yourself just because you exist. Plants exist, do they have rights? What gives you rights and not plants?

Plants can neither assert their rights nor take them through self-defense.

driller80545
12-07-2007, 01:18 AM
So without god you have no rights. animals have no rights. do all the gods provide their worshipers with rights or is it only your idea of god that provides his people with rights and makes them better that the other life forms on this planet. since god is an idea, are rights only an idea also?
i still profess that you only have rights if you demand them from the powers that be. this is why people die for liberty. this is why oppressed peoples have no rights. they don't demand them and are not willing to die defending them. they aren't granted by god, but earned by standing up and defending them.
had the people of iraq believed strongly enough that sadaam hussein stole their rights, they would have destroyed him saving us a lot of trouble for example.

undergroundrr
12-07-2007, 08:06 AM
http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/automotivator6.jpg

Romney is simply paraphrasing George Bush I, who asserted that atheists should not be recognized as US citizens.

Freedom requires religion? Before meeting so many excellent theists who are supporting Ron Paul, I had become convinced that freedom precludes religion.

Romney's sentiment is reprehensible and evil. Thank you to the faithful who prove Romney wrong - who prove that it is possible, indeed necessary, to practice your faith without disrespecting and infringing upon those of us who eschew faith.

Marshall
12-07-2007, 08:22 AM
He's actually correct. He saying you can't separate one's freedoms from God. If you don't admit that God exists and that all rights are given by God than freedom is consequently lost. It's in the Constitution and it's philosophically correct as well.

Suppose God didn't exist and we didn't have an immortal soul given dignity because immortal souls are a reflection of God, why should we have any more liberty than a dog? The founders believed this from a deistic perspective, and previous Church/State relationships from Europe understood this connection from a specific religion. The Constitution stopped a specific Church/State relationship, but it was never intended to be devoid of God as even the founders understand there is no freedom without God.

How about because human beings are self-aware? I'm not sure if thats a fair trade off for not being able to lick my own junk, but I wasn't given a choice in that matter.

noxagol
12-07-2007, 08:32 AM
Do you actually really believe that? What do you own at birth? What do you own at 10 years old? Do you believe you should be free and have rights at 10 years old? Yet you own nothing. You legally don't own your body under the age of reason as it falls squarely on your parents to guide you.

I feel like I'm arguing against my little brother sometimes. Gratuitous arguments without collaborating teleology is no argument.

Where do you guys come up with such pop philosophy? Seriously, I have no idea where you people come up with this stuff but I'm very interested because it makes no sense.


Do you actually really believe that?

Yes. And it is the most empirical way of going about where rights come from.


What do you own at birth?

You own yourself. You own yourself beginning at conception. This is why abortion is murder. Someone is damaging your property, your body and through this your life, against your will.


What do you own at 10 years old?

Well, you still own your body. You own anything that you have created or were given up to this point. I owned a Nintendo system that I worked for my parents doing extra things around the house to earn money for. It was mine, and no one could take it away from me. At 17, my parents threatened to take my car away and my keys and I told them that if they did that I would call the police and have them arrested for theft. That stuff was mine, I worked the job that gave me the money and I payed for that car on my own. They could not take it from me.


Do you believe you should be free and have rights at 10 years old?

Absolutely. You have the right to say no to things. For instance, I believe a child has the right to refuse medical treatment even against the will of their parents. It is the child's life and body, they have the final say. [/quote]


Yet you own nothing.

You own a lot more than you think.


I feel like I'm arguing against my little brother sometimes. Gratuitous arguments without collaborating teleology is no argument.

And I feel like I am arguing against a close minded church goer, go figure. You didn't even delve into the idea further than face value. Guess what, most religious people I know do treat themselves like property and have owners aside from themselves, and that owner would be God. You should think out and examine statements more than just at face value, and without preconceived notions and emotion.


Where do you guys come up with such pop philosophy? Seriously, I have no idea where you people come up with this stuff but I'm very interested because it makes no sense.

It doesn't make any sense because you have already made your mind up on this subject and you didn't bother to think it through more than just reading the sentence and using preconceived notions and your own close mindedness to come to the conclusion that it makes no sense.

noxagol
12-07-2007, 08:35 AM
...says the guy who describes people as "property". :rolleyes:

And yet you treat yourself as property by giving yourself to God. If you are not property, how can you "give" yourself to something else?

And, the religious slave holders of the south back in the day would disagree with you on people being property. They in fact used the bible as justification for why they could own another person, going back to Noah's three sons.

FunkBuddha
12-07-2007, 08:42 AM
Anyone who won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon gets no respect from me.

There are plenty of good reasons not to support him. If it were between him or Huckafacist, I'd take him any day.

nexalacer
12-07-2007, 08:53 AM
When talking about ownership of ones body, it is important to remember that ownership implies control. If you wish to argue that you don't own (i.e. control) your own body, it is a self-denotating argument, unless you wish to argue that someone outside of yourself is controlling your vocal cords in order to make the sound. If that's your argument, I'll recommend you to the nearest psych ward and call this "debate" over.

And parents never own you as they can't control you. They can tell you what to do, but you can (and probably did!) ignore their commands quite easily. They can't physically control your body in any way, shape, or form, therefore they cannot, by definition, own you.

Really, the only rights we can logically deduce from self-ownership are property rights. You own your body, so you own all the fruits of the labor of your body.

From property rights, we can deduce a moral code that is far superior to any moral code found in a holy book because it is universal and consistent. While there is an extensive proof of this moral code that I won't go into here, basically, any moral rule that denies property rights contradicts itself, and is, thus, an invalid moral rule.

All of this stems from nature and does not require any supernatural force to come to being, thus the idea that freedom comes from religion is unnecessary.

If you wish to debate this with me, please answer one question before we move on:

What is your definition of a god, or God, or the gods?

Thanks!

undergroundrr
12-07-2007, 09:05 AM
Very good, nexalacer. Pretty much what John Locke said, which later inspired the founders to write things like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. America was born from challenges to religious doctrine.

noxagol
12-07-2007, 09:09 AM
When talking about ownership of ones body, it is important to remember that ownership implies control. If you wish to argue that you don't own (i.e. control) your own body, it is a self-denotating argument, unless you wish to argue that someone outside of yourself is controlling your vocal cords in order to make the sound. If that's your argument, I'll recommend you to the nearest psych ward and call this "debate" over.

And parents never own you as they can't control you. They can tell you what to do, but you can (and probably did!) ignore their commands quite easily. They can't physically control your body in any way, shape, or form, therefore they cannot, by definition, own you.

Really, the only rights we can logically deduce from self-ownership are property rights. You own your body, so you own all the fruits of the labor of your body.

From property rights, we can deduce a moral code that is far superior to any moral code found in a holy book because it is universal and consistent. While there is an extensive proof of this moral code that I won't go into here, basically, any moral rule that denies property rights contradicts itself, and is, thus, an invalid moral rule.

All of this stems from nature and does not require any supernatural force to come to being, thus the idea that freedom comes from religion is unnecessary.

If you wish to debate this with me, please answer one question before we move on:

What is your definition of a god, or God, or the gods?

Thanks!

Yes, which is what I said, and I thank you.

Spirit of '76
12-07-2007, 10:51 AM
And yet you treat yourself as property by giving yourself to God. If you are not property, how can you "give" yourself to something else?

On can certainly devote oneself to something or someone. That doesn't necessarily mean that humans are merely economic units.

That's ultimately the same kind of utilitarian mindset employed by marxists, and I reject it outright. The only difference is that for you, the "property" can be privately-owned, while for marxists even human "property" is communal.

But I am not "property"; I am a man.

Spirit of '76
12-07-2007, 10:56 AM
I suppose we can agree to disagree, but I'll side with Ron Paul on this one.

"We get our rights from our Creator as individuals."

-- Ron Paul

"I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."

-- Ron Paul

nexalacer
12-07-2007, 10:08 PM
I'll be quite clear, I'm not agreeing to disagree. There is no disagreement in this issue. There is truth or falsehood. Based on logic and empiricism, I am quite convinced that my point of view is the truth. However, if using the same methodology (logic and empiricism) you can prove to me that our rights come from your god, then have at it as I'd be happy to be proven wrong as I want to make sure that might beliefs are based on rational truth.

But the important first step for this proof is a definition of "God." Provide this along with your proof.

Otherwise, you're wrong. :D

ancible
12-07-2007, 10:51 PM
I am an atheist, but also aim to be as much a realist as my limited view of universal goings-on will allow.

So here is my thought (given in a calm and neutral tone, paulites!): We as humans have potential freedom because we can wield power to fight for it.

This is possible because of the spread of information. If one is not free but unaware of that fact, nothing can be done to correct it, short of realizing the state of things. I would also make the statement that it is impossible to be free when you think you are not.

So for my personal view, I think that the state of being "free" (as people who follow the path of God are not absolutely free; i.e. Mother Theresa would not be free of guilt at hurting a child for no reason and deliberately. And atheists do not think that they have total control of the, say, laws of physics in this instant [forget the future, sci-fi fans!]) is conditional on the understanding of the meaning of such and so probably this debate (argument?) is not worth getting upset about.

Ron Paul 2008!

OptionsTrader
12-08-2007, 01:01 AM
"Freedom requires religion" says Mitt Romney
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html

That's funny, one of his sexy in a dress competitors says "Freedom Is About Authority"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A9629582 60

user
12-08-2007, 01:14 AM
That's funny, one of his sexy in a dress competitors says "Freedom Is About Authority"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A9629582 60
So there you have it. Submit to their authority or their religion? I think we're all glad there's a better choice.

bootstrap
12-08-2007, 01:16 AM
Socrates, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, De Cartes are no ones? There were some wonderful thinkers who thought of the existence of life. The question is do you understand teleology, philosophy, and ethics/morality and how did you arrive at your line of thought?
That's very funny! Just because I never read what those people said, does not somehow make them "nobody". What a quaint conclusion.

How did I arrive at my thoughts? By observing existence, continuously for decades, then making inferences from those observations, then continuing to watch for observations (and/or other inferences) that [tend to] support or refute those inferences. In case you are wondering, one inference I am certain is true, is that nobody ever learns anything by reading --- ever. We may read words that express ideas we then decide to make observations to support or otherwise, but the learning comes *only* from the observations, not from any claim ever written or spoken by any person.


You don't need 100 pages. You just need to come up with causation of principles. Give me 1 principle of causation. You haven't given one as you will see.One must first decide the status of whatever claim they make. Some people claim only one legitimate claim exists for everything, namely "the dictate of some super-authority". Obviously I don't agree that is a legitimate claim for anything. I am trying to understand what "causation of principles" means, so far without much success.


I deny your definition of causality, and your definition of volition is inexact.I did not define causality. Where did I do that? I have described the nature of causality in a rather long paper I wrote, but nowhere in this thread. That paper also describes the nature of human "volition", but the tidbit you read is far too short to be anywhere near complete or rigorous. However, I will say that my way of thinking about all such abstract topics is very different from how most people conventionally think about them. So naturally it can be difficult to grapple with a massively shortened mention intended merely to point in a certain direction.


You are confusing existence with coercion. If I'm coerced into exile from a city I don't stop existing. We do not cause our existence, our parents do, we only cause our subsistence of life. We can't create ourselves.
You did not create yourself as an infant. However, you (or someone) has caused your existence as you are today. Without those causes, you would have perished, which is to say, you would not exist (as a human, though the atoms in your body would still exist, albeit dispersed from any singular solid form). Also note a couple minor details: every atom in your body at birth is "long gone" - was expelled by your body years ago. Therefore, the substance produced by your parents is long gone. Furthermore, your consciousness or "intellect" is a product of your own observations and mental processes (volitional and otherwise) that happened long after you were born. The original blob of quivvering nerve cells that you developed from is not very important after decades (certainly not as compared to everything that happened after birth).


I want one principle of causation of rights outside of our soul given by God. Show me why animals have the same rights as we do if you really believe what you do.I do not claim animals have the same rights as humans, though certain non-human animals might (for example, an alien race of intelligent, productive, volitional animals that produce what they need to survive). Not sure what gave you the impression animals have "individual rights" or "political freedom" in the same sense as humans. They do not understand volition, they do not understand causation in the same sense as humans, they do not produce what they consume to exist (and don't know how).

To answer your question about "rights" realistically or rationally, it is necessary to understand that "abstractions do not exist" in the normal sense --- in the sense that rocks, plants, animals, planets and stars exist. An abstraction is a mental unit, not an existential one. Of course, you can introspect and identify that every abstraction exists "in your head", and in that sense it is real and does exist. But as an external existent, not. That's why organizations (corporations, governments, etc) are called "fictional entities" in the law (or used to be).

Therefore, you cannot expect to find an abstraction such as "individual rights" in the same was as you might find a rock or animal or planet. Any attempt to deify an abstraction in such a way will always lead to intellectual self-destruction.

Therefore, the best an entity capable of abstract thought can do is to identify a certain "configuration" or "process" that has interesting or important characteristics --- and identify that configuration or process with an abstraction (like "individual rights" or "political freedom"). What I tried to find a super brief way to describe (rather poorly, I admit) is the causal relationship that I believe best identifies the abstractions related to "individual rights" and "political freedom". After considering the issue for many years, I came to realize that the causal relationships in self-sustaining productive human activity is key to understanding the abstractions "individual rights" and "political freedom". Without this kind of understanding, these abstractions have no more legitimacy than any stupid [religious] assertion (all of which equal zero).


God exists, it's not just a belief, it's a fact and can be proven logically. What God you believe in is a matter of faith, not logic. Irrespective of faith in this equation if you take God out of our existence we have no more rights than an animal.God most certainly does not exist. In fact, anyone who seriously believes god exists is insane. I will accept that a person can be sane and yet consider the existence of some kind of god as a possibility, but that is different. To believe *anything* (gods or anything whatsoever) "on faith" is total, overt, complete, utter, unmitigated, drooling insanity. Go back and read what I said about the nature of "abstractions". Just because you and other humans can jam an abstraction into your head and label it with the letters "god" --- does not make something pop into existence [supposedly before the universe existed]. To make *any* legitimate claim about any kind of "god" in any normal sense of the term that I've ever heard (except maybe "god = nature") requires observations and rigorously consistent inference from those observations. Though many people have attempted to do so, I have never heard any that are consistent and sensible (all require fantastic unsubstantiated claims and assumptions).

Incidentally, the notion that anything can be proven "logically" is a very twisted notion (though it might be possible for this to be true given a very clear-headed background and understanding of what that might mean and involve). In the end, "logic" proves nothing --- and "observations" prove everything. Of course that expression is also over-simplified, though at least it puts the emphasis in the right place (on observation). But sure, we typically need *many* observations to understand anything non-trivial (or abstract), and we need to consistently observe the multitude of relationships between the many (thousands or millions) of related observations (and already formed inferences). Then, it is much better to say we "identify" something about reality - which actually just means we have *observed* something about the nature of [something in] reality. 99.999% of the time you hear anyone say something is "logically proved", you are hearing from someone who has no clue about careful, honest, rigorous thought processes. I know you will not "agree" with anything I say (whatever that might mean), but perhaps you can gain a sense of a different kind of mental functioning, or perhaps some idea might point in an interesting direction. Sorry I don't have time or space to go into detail - and I certainly have no "authorities" to reference, since I do not learn anything from "authority" (human or otherwise).