Ron Paul v. Other Christian Politicians

[diggingforgold]

I think the better question is, "which candidate is least likely to allow their religious/scientific perspectives to influence the decisions they make as president?"

I want an individual in office who is most likely to follow the constitution, and least likely to allow their religious views to corrupt their duties, because I feel religion in government is VERY dangerous. And I'm saying that as one of them Christian nutjobs. ;)

[ericthetruff]

I agree all jokers except for Ron Paul, his problem however is that he is too honest and a majority of Americans are not ready for that type of reality check on a broken system. Lets be hones the executive and judicial code is extremely complex and there is no simple answer for the mess we all are in! WHEN WILL WE LEARN FROM OUR PAST MISTAKES ANS FINALLY WORK WITH EACHOTHER?!?!? I personally is sick of all the re-torical questions being asked to each candidate!

[TheAtheistSuperhero]

@Nikmarkwell

you obviously don't know your facts... Michelle Bachman has admitted in several interviews that she believes in Dominionism

[nikmarkwell]

This video is a fail. Michelle Bachmann isn't running to spread christianity. She's running to be president. Psycho

[jb4rp2012]

In Ron Paul's case, he will always be guided by the Constitution as his oath of office dictates. I can state that by his record. President Obama also believes in the man in the sky but ignores his oath.

[TheAtheistSuperhero]

@crapcannons I studied Natural Law and Positive Law in my philosophy of Law class, which leads to a circular argument. The question is where does morality come from? If you think it's universal and comes from nature or "god" then I can understand how a person can't let go of their beliefs, but i think morality comes from prudence, and prudence has just evolved like everything else in world which came from learning to restrain selfishness for abetter reward than you would gain from beingselfish

[CRAPCANNONS]

Anyone here know the difference between Natural Law and Positive Law?

Also, anyone here going to vote for Obama because they think he's a secret atheist?

[OmarThePug]

The guy is a medical doctor. A lot of Christians go to church and believe in Christ but they don't deny science or really take their religion too seriously. And sometimes they both believe in both evolution & creationism and don't really have the answers. And there are some parts of religion that people adapt while they discard other parts.

[TheAtheistSuperhero]

My take on Religion is very much this... people have the right to believe what they want, but there are some things that are just indisputable.

Gravity for example... what if someone started the church of anti-gravity, which believed that gravity didn't exist and it was all made up lies by the evil scientists to keep people from realizing that we can all fly

now if people wanted to believe that.. whatever, but when people start jumping off buildings and dying... we have to put our foot down.

[PwnFaust]

@TheAtheistSuperhero Issac Newton has the LAW of gravity, evolution is a theory. You test scientific theories, they are observable. Where is evolution observable. Have we kept records showing a animal evolve. And even fossil records fail to show "missing links". So untill we can watch an animal evolve or evolve ourselves it cannot be proven. Also jumping out of a building will result in death, disscussing diffrent beliefs will only make people think. I am sorry you don't want people to think.

[VideoGundamXYZ]

PLEASE BEGIN FROM EARLIER POST (5 posts away).

Another religious stance is that there is no higher power and the universe just "is".

From Ron Paul's philosophy on freedom/liberty, it is okay to believe in one or the other stance but that you cannot force your stance on someone else.

Consider this ... Ron Paul considers the plight of Israelis and Palestinians while many of the other over-the-top-pro-Christian GOP candidates only see the plight of Israel.

Which candidate is more humane ?

[VideoGundamXYZ]

In summary, one religious stance could be that you believe in a higher power (i.e. the "one"), the ultimate cause being above "existence" so responsible for all of "existence" (as the neo-Platonist's/etc would imply). Ancient philosophers, with our recent knowledge, would probably imply that the "one" would control the nature of quantum-level probability distributions (e.g. wave function of a particle); different wave function per universe ?

[VideoGundamXYZ]

Like the ancient Greek orator Isocrates who said words to the effect ...

Do you not not harm someone else because you fear the wrath of God or because God has given us a mind to realize that it is wrong to harm someone.

Also, this anthropomorphising of God (i.e. god having human-like characteristics) is a relgious (not philosophical) advent which, personally, is absurd.

[VideoGundamXYZ]

Thus, the ancient philsophers were like professors in the study of godly matters and those early Christian priests would have been like primary school teachers. Of course the early Christian priests had a philosophical basis conditioned from ancient Greek philosophy but the point is the importance of investigating your own philosophical stance while deciding your religious stance.

[VideoGundamXYZ]

Philosophy predates religion, e.g. the Pythagorean/Plato/Aristotle philosophical paths eventually morphing Christianity/Islam centuries later. Philosophy sets your mind free while religion can only address a portion of this freedom. The ancient Greek (and other) philosophers were philosophising/theorizing about the monad (i.e. the "one"), it's manifestations (i.e. descendent entities, say angels/lower-gods/animals/peop­le/etc.) and other interesting details centuries before start of Christianity.

[VideoGundamXYZ]

Personally, I often come back to the thought exercise "philosophy versus religion".

You need "good" philosophy to have "good" religion, but philosophy does not need religion. Bachmann et al are pro-Israel and anti-Palestine. But it is inferred from the teachings of her saviour, Jesus Christ, that we should be friends with people. Bachman et al case is a case of "bad" philosophy leading to a warping of "good" religion.

[mit26chell]

Ron Paul is a religious fundamentalist, privately. However, he would never sign legislation that forces a religion or morality from the presidency, which is partially why I support him.

[TheAtheistSuperhero]

@forliberty888

Now this is where you are wrong... Winning an argument is not about who has the best delivery... it's about who has the most conclusive evidence.

under your rationality... I should believe in the tooth fairy as long as some delivers their argument in a charismatic way and I should disregard the fact that there is absolute no evidence of fairies because the delivery for the belief in the tooth fairy was really really swell

[ForLiberty888]

@TheAtheistSuperhero, you a nice guy (since you support RP :), but your immature infantilism is fully on display when you want to cram human society into a scientific argument. It is the same like Keyensian economists try to apply science to stock market and fail 85% of the time. By pushing your "the most conclusive evidence" you deny simple folks the freedom to ignore you. You seem to prefer educated elite who would agree with YOUR "evidence" to rule the society & be the model for children.

[ForLiberty888]

@TheAtheistSuperhero, to conclude my verbose rumbling, I see the priority as follows. It is more important to defend the best FRAMEWORK of equal opportunity and freedom of action THAN to fight for truth, evidence, faith, equal outcome while limiting freedom of OTHERS in the process. RON PAUL 2012. Do not forget to vote in GOP primaries.

[TheAtheistSuperhero]

@forliberty888

For it to be okay that our president doesn't have to accept evolution has a fact and the presidency is the most respect job in our country....

what message does that send to our children? that its okay to deny science facts and that it's okay to believe made up nonsense?

Isn't that kind of telling kids that lying and being delusional is acceptable?

[TheAtheistSuperhero]

@Forliberty888

I see your point. But, I don't feel secure at night when I know that there are people running around in the world that believe there is some magic man in the sky that is going to come back one day and bring armageddon on earth. Even with limited power, it's scary to think there are people who can reject evolution. Religious people are delusional. That delusion is contagious, especially if someone has a position of authority, limited or not, it influences people.

[ForLiberty888]

@TheAtheistSuperhero, sadly you, as a believer, falls into the same pit of absurdity as most religious people do. You feel "insecure" with religious ideas, they feel insecure with atheists. Both fight each other and want to limit or eliminate each other. People like Ron Paul want to let you express your ideas freely and win your argument based on your own delivery. But we want to give the SAME opportunity to religious people and agnostics to spread their message with the same passion.

[TheAtheistSuperhero]

People who don't understand evolution, it's because they have been taught some absurd version of evolution by some religious fanatic in their life. Either their parents, family, teachers, friends...

Im not basing my argument on Bill Maher... But, he does pose a good question should the criteria to become lawmakers and elected political leaders be that they know, understand and accept evolution.

[ForLiberty888]

@TheAtheistSuperhero, "should the criteria to become lawmakers and elected political leaders be that they know, understand and accept evolution."

Sorry, for people who understand basic principles of liberty this is not a question. Each person selects what he/she likes. The better question is how to limit the government and democracy so the majority or special interests do not abuse the rest. With small budget government it does not really important who is the president - socialist or neo-con.

[ForLiberty888]

Many people in USA do not really understand what evolution means. They think it is a purposeful adaptation to changing environment. But that is actually the result of evolution, not evolution in itself. 99.99% of all DNA mutation in a cell results in its death, the cell that survived is not guaranteed to be better. If a rhino has an advantage today to attract mates with particular horn, tomorrow, those females may go for a longer tail.

[TheAtheistSuperhero]

That's a good point. I think Carl Sagan summed it up best. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, however, a lack of evidence is not evidence to suggest non existence. So, really it all depends on how you define god, and think most atheist just don't believe in a personal god. But, their could be some advanced forms of aliens that have technologies that we would consider god-like

[ForLiberty888]

Atheists, you should not confuse faith with knowledge. As soon as an atheist claims that he/she knows (instead of believes) there is no god, he/she actually deviates from scientific method of thinking. That is the same mistake religious people make. Atheism and religion are both "faiths" in contrast to agnostics, who either do not care or skeptical of "hidden."

Also if you base your argument based on Bill Maher, you need a better education. Pick up any book of Ludwig von Mises, free on Internet.

[slstokes007]

I think Bill Maher and Ron Paul are both right. Bill Maher thinks it is a valid question and under today's government it is, because the president (and government) has so much power that a president can influence so much of our lives based on their beliefs. Ron Paul wants to limit the amount of power government has over us. If he is successful, then he is right and that question is irrelevant. I believe he is very religious but would never push his beliefs on anyone else.