I have enough reasons to not vote for Ron Paul

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Yes, Madness from your perspective all who believe that evolution is just a theory aren't intellectually honest people who are suitable for a presidency position. Well, let's think for a moment.......

-Ron Paul is a doctor who has probably had more biology in his lifetime then you will ever see in your days of browsing ATS and reading the evolution vs. creation threads here.

-The head of the human genome project to map our human genome now does not believe in evolution simply as a result of being a doctor.
www.cnn.com...

-I personally believe it is simply just as intellectually absurd to not believe in a beginning creator as something cannot come from nothing, and I'll tell you what there is a whole lot of matter in the universe to just have popped out nowhere. I also think it is absurd to ignore the beauty of how everything so miraculously works together in the universe to create life.

I believe that God has orchestrated events from the beginning. I personally do not know if I believe in species to species evolution at the moment because I don't have enough evidence either way to make the call. I believe that God gave us free will and the ability to choose him or not. As a result of this choice I believe God will never just shove himself in our face and provide definitive proof of His existence. I think this argument will go on for all existence.

So, personally I see you Madness as just as intellectually crazy as you see Dr. Paul. From my personal perspective you are the one who is not being intellectually honest. I know you view me and Dr. Paul in that exact same way. Dr. Paul and Dr. Collins are two other extremely intelligent people who seem to disagree with your viewpoint on evolution. I believe they personally have enough philosophical and physical evidence to believe what they believe in this day and age. That may change in the future as scientists learn more about our origins.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Bugman82]

well, they're both found in the bible...
hell, same as it's said to be an "abomination" for a man to have long hair in the bible..

basically, there isn't really a logical reason to be disgusted by homosexuality.

i thought ron paul was a candidate that supported "freedom"
what about the freedom to do what you want with another consenting adult?

Ron Paul supports freedom, as do I. But I am still entitled to an opinion of weather or not I think it is disgusting, or am I? I never said make it illegal and dont think it should be, but I am not going to support it.

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Yes, Madness from your perspective all who believe that evolution is just a theory aren't intellectually honest people who are suitable for a presidency position. Well, let's think for a moment.......

yep, you're damn right it's not intellectually honest.

-Ron Paul is a doctor who has probably had more biology in his lifetime then you will ever see in your days of browsing ATS and reading the evolution vs. creation threads here.

so?
this doesn't amount to anything. the arguments don't require a lifetime of study, they're quite simple. sure, once you get down to specifics, you need it... but there you just need to look at scientific journals
clearly, all this shows is that ron paul is WILLINGLY denying reality instead of doing so out of ignorance

-The head of the human genome project to map our human genome now does not believe in evolution simply as a result of being a doctor.
www.cnn.com...

argument from authority.
if you want to go with authority, i can whip out more scientists believing in evolution named steve than you can whip out by any name.
also, the head of the "open source" human genome project doesn't

-I personally believe it is simply just as intellectually absurd to not believe in a beginning creator as something cannot come from nothing,

well, clearly you don't understand that evolution has nothing to do with this...
you also don't understand physics
law of conservation of matter and energy: matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed
matter and energy have always existed logically follows

nobody is actually advocating a "something from nothing" argument...
so you've fit in your second logical fallacy, the strawman

and I'll tell you what there is a whole lot of matter in the universe to just have popped out nowhere.

same strawman..

I also think it is absurd to ignore the beauty of how everything so miraculously works together in the universe to create life.

it doesn't really... there are 8-9 planets in this solar system, 1 has life
it isn't working by some miracle, it's working by tenacity and probability. take billions of stars each with 4-9 planets... you're going to eventually get life.

I believe that God has orchestrated events from the beginning.

yes, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this belief... which means it is a belief that flies in the face of reality, as there is evidence to support alternative, SCIENTIFIC ideas.

I personally do not know if I believe in species to species evolution at the moment because I don't have enough evidence either way to make the call.

well, there's plenty out there. just do some digging in the stacks of books

I believe that God gave us free will and the ability to choose him or not.

free will?
an omniscient being cannot bestow free will...
but that's something for a FST thread...

As a result of this choice I believe God will never just shove himself in our face and provide definitive proof of His existence. I think this argument will go on for all existence.

which is really sad...
the evidence is all on one side, yet the other side just refuses to budge because they've been indoctrinated to believe that belief without evidence and not shaking that belief is far more virtuous than belief from evidence.

So, personally I see you Madness as just as intellectually crazy as you see Dr. Paul. From my personal perspective you are the one who is not being intellectually honest.

yes, but you have absolutely nothing to back up your argument that i'm intellectually dishonest. all you can say is that i'm wrong because i don't agree with what you believe. i can say that you deny specific facets of accepted scientific knowledge that has been proven and not falsified.

I know you view me and Dr. Paul in that exact same way. Dr. Paul and Dr. Collins are two other extremely intelligent people who seem to disagree with your viewpoint on evolution.

again, argument from authority. you could put as many names on a list of people that disagree as you want, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans until you get some damn evidence to support the position.

I believe they personally have enough philosophical and physical evidence to believe what they believe in this day and age.

really? because they don't seem to be sharing it with the rest of us... and the times they do, all the evidence is shown to be as solid as a house of cards

and notice you keep saying "i believe"
but you cannot substantiate said beliefs.
that's why i see this as intellectually dishonest. i can substantiate my beliefs, you cannot.

That may change in the future as scientists learn more about our origins.

yeah... you know, we keep getting all these fossils that evolutionary theory has predicted... like the fish/tetrapod transitional form (why is it that they say we have no transitional fossils?)
so... science is heavily leaning towards evolution.

Originally posted by bakednutz
Ron Paul supports freedom, as do I.

yet he supports a standing army...
what did george washington have to say about that one?
ah..yes, i remember.
a standing army isn't the friend of freedom...

But I am still entitled to an opinion of weather or not I think it is disgusting, or am I?

sure, you can hold as many opinions that have no base in logic as you want, but you cannot push them on the populace

I never said make it illegal and dont think it should be, but I am not going to support it.

yet ron paul has no problems with a law that makes it illegal to be open about who you are with people you're fighting and dying for...

OK...

Madness knows full well how I feel about Evolution and Creation, BUT...

The real issue I see here is how much business the Government has in my personal business, to include the bedroom of consenting adults... ZERO, ZIP NADA, (0)

Also why does anyone care what RP believes as far as creation goes? Did the President just assume some incredible amount of power and can dictate what we are suppose to believe?

Frankly as long as they follow the policy I vote them in on, I don't care if they believe in the Reptilian Race....

It may be hard to believe, but one of the BIG problems I have with Huckabee is his constant talk about Christianity... I am a Christian, does that mean I can run the country? Hardly...

RP is a non issue unless he goes independent and splits the Conservative base, thereby ensuring a Democratic President. (Thank you Ross)

Semper

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


So, let me get this straight......correct me if I'm wrong here please Madness.

You're saying scientists don't advocate the viewpoint at all that matter, in the beginning, came from nothing?

BUT, there has to be a beginning somewhere. You can rattle off string theories and big bang theories and black hole theories and so forth but there is an unanswered question of where it all began. It had to begin somewhere at some point in time with something as facilitator. Matter for the big bang theory had to exist before the bang in some form or another. With string theory there has to be an observer. I can go on and on but you get the diluted hint ......... will scientists simply not answer this question in a straightforward way and ignore it?

I mean if evolutionary theory is so true and there is so much evidence that weighs in against a creator how can scientists have no explanation for the beginning considering that every theory out there that scientists have today involves some kind of particle, membrane, plasma bubble, black hole, or whatever. Scientists can't even account for the beginning (the most important thing in all history) and you're saying we are being intellectually dishonest to believe in a creator?

Seriously Madness, please give us the numerous links of theories that scientists have a shred of proof for that will tell us where the beginning came from. Where the particles came from. Where the plasma or black holes came from. Where existence itself came from. It would certainly add to the argument against a creator. It would definitely be an interesting read. We are waiting with open ears and open minds. So, please show us where existence came from.........

Originally posted by Bugman82
So, let me get this straight......correct me if I'm wrong here please Madness.

You're saying scientists don't advocate the viewpoint at all that matter, in the beginning, came from nothing?

exactly.

BUT, there has to be a beginning somewhere. You can rattle off string theories and big bang theories and black hole theories and so forth but there is an unanswered question of where it all began. It had to begin somewhere at some point in time with something as facilitator. Matter for the big bang theory had to exist before the bang in some form or another. With string theory there has to be an observer. I can go on and on but you get the diluted hint ......... will scientists simply not answer this question in a straightforward way and ignore it?

the matter and energy that exists in this universe has ALWAYS EXISTED that's the point. there is no starting point.
your idea that there's a "creator" only creates an infinite regress because said creator needs an infinitely more complex creator

I mean if evolutionary theory is so true and there is so much evidence that weighs in against a creator how can scientists have no explanation for the beginning considering that every theory out there that scientists have today involves some kind of particle, membrane, plasma bubble, black hole, or whatever.

what do cosmological and astrophysical theories have to do with biology?

Scientists can't even account for the beginning (the most important thing in all history) and you're saying we are being intellectually dishonest to believe in a creator?

but you can't account for the beginning either. your answer is just as valid as me saying that we were all created by a flying spaghetti monster.

Seriously Madness, please give us the numerous links of theories that scientists have a shred of proof for that will tell us where the beginning came from. Where the particles came from. Where the plasma or black holes came from. Where existence itself came from. It would certainly add to the argument against a creator. It would definitely be an interesting read. We are waiting with open ears and open minds. So, please show us where existence came from.........

...there isn't an argument against a creator
why do i say this?
well, to argue against something, there has to be a set of evidence, proof, and logic for the position you're arguing against.

also, you're asking me to do a whole host of things completely unrelated to evolutionary theory...
particles: always existed. first law of thermodynamics, you can't create or destroy matter or energy
plasma and black holes? well, both are matter...
existence... show me why existence couldn't simply have always existed?

show me the evidence for a creator. (though i'd suggest that we go over to O&C if you want to debate this further)

[edit on 1/23/08 by madnessinmysoul]

Wow, I must regress. After reading Heronumber0's and his most respected foes arguments concerning evolution/creation I have much learning to go out and do if I want to argue anything in this area. My advice to everyone in this thread is to look at Heronumber0 and Melatonins exchanges on creation/evolution. Quite an eye opener and nearly an art.

reply to post by semperfortis


I think it will be more evenly distributed. People are crossing party and platform lines to support RP, we're seeing it already.

On a positive note, I attended my county republican committee meeting last night... out of 142 republicans at the meeting, 52 of them cast their vote for Ron Paul, putting him in first place by a landslide. Second place was won with 35 votes.

Now, whether that will translate to votes on Feb 5th remains to be seen, but apparently our efforts in our county are paying off. I even got my picture in the paper.

So, while you have every right to base your presidential choice on non-relevant issues, perhaps if you step back and look at what really matters and who is for or against what, you may find your perspective and your candidate support shifting.

Who else is against the North American Union?

I'll tell you who else: no one.

It's time to do a little digging and find out what is happening to our country behind closed doors and not subject to scrutiny or accountability to the American People.

When we, as RP supporters, say we want to "take our country back," that is EXACTLY what we mean.

North American Union; NAFTA superhighway... look it up.

Now Axe!!!!

We were getting along so nicely, there was no need for this...

So, while you have every right to base your presidential choice on non-relevant issues

Perhaps you consider my issues as not relevant, but that in no ways makes it so...

I will venture to say that I am as politically active and more so as anyone on ATS, and I am here to tell you RP does not stand a snowballs chance in Hades of getting the Republican Nomination. Now that in and of itself renders his stance non-relevant.

I have issues I am concerned about, of course I do and some of those issues directly contradict RP's voting record. So even if I could ignore his obvious problems, I would still never vote for someone whose voting record is what I consider to be unhealthy for the country.

We simply have differing views as to what is best for America. It really is as simple as that. I fought in the Marines and fight today on the streets to ensure that we can have those differing viewpoints. Doesn't make me right and you wrong, also doesn't make you right and me wrong, just means we differ.

Agreeing to disagree is at times a wonderful expression of liberty my friend, we should enjoy it. You are enjoyable to debate when you stick to the facts and don't make unsubstantiated statements about the person you are debating. The relevancy of my beliefs for example....

So how about it?

Agree to disagree?

Heck I'm still supporting Romney and he has to really pick up some ground to make any headway over the Mainstream Media Darling McCain.

( I swear I'll vote Democrat before I'll cast a vote for that RINO) ((Except Hillary of course and if it is Hillary and McCain, I'll stay home that day))

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


I apologize my friend. My post was, perhaps, misleading. That particular comment was not directed at you; rather the OP who says that RP's position on the Theory of Evolution would bar him from casting a vote for RP... and that is an irrelevant issue.

The only part that was in response to your post was concerning Thompson's support base.

You recently invited me to the debate forums; would you be interested in a debate where you defend Ronmey's positions/record, while I defend Paul's?

I'd love to debate you, but in open threads there is too much interference, as was the case in our last significant engagement.

To discuss without static in the background would be beneficial to all, I think.

I apologize as well for misunderstanding ...

Yes, that debate would be a lot of fun and lively as well....

Have to wait until I finish my match with TheVagabond though...

After that, I'll let him know. He is the MOD for debates...

We can do a quick debate and have fun with it and as you say, no interruptions...

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Sounds good! I'll be looking forward to that... just let me know when you're finished and let's have a couple of days from then to formally prepare... should be good times!

I see you don't watch too much TV either.. LOL

We could probably have a fast debate that would slip in under the time between tournaments as we both apparently would rather be here than staring at the television...

I'll let you know...

Semper

reply to post by The Axeman


the NAU...

1: there isn't actually any evidence to show that it exists. there are various partnerships, but nothing that would be anything like the existence of the EU

2: i support the EU and think that the system is quite good for europe, i think a similar system might actually be good for the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

actually... this gets me on to another thing i don't like about ron paul:
he wants to withdraw the USA from the UN.
there isn't any logical justification for it whatsoever

1: there isn't actually any evidence to show that it exists.

Actually...I don't know if you remember, but the EU started with the same premise: Trade agreements, more open borders, more commercial exchanges and whatnot. That's how they start.







Pretty convincing stuff.

i think a similar system might actually be good for the USA

Well...you do realize you are implicitly saying you support the erosion of the national sovereignty of the USA, as well as voiding the constitution entirely; something the country is founded on.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by vegno]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by vegno]

Originally posted by The Axeman
First of all, religious ideas/beliefs should have no bearing on political contests. Period.

If his personal religious beliefs are a problem for you, then I think you have the problem, not RP. Religious bigotry/discrimination can be perpetrated even by atheists.

I'm going to have to actually... *sob*... *gasp*... agree with Madness. Well, and you, too, for that matter. No it shouldn't have any bearing on it but it does. An individual's vote is very personal. If you want to pick your candidate based on their hairstyle then that is your right.

Madness might sound like a bigot for saying that but I'm a bigot, too. I'd be very hesitant to vote for someone who was a Muslim, atheist, or a member of the Raelian movement (thought I'd throw that one in). One of the most important things to a person is their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs so it is natural to make a final decision based on that if they so choose.

On the flip side, it would be election suicide for a U.S. presidential candidate to admit to not being a Christian. A non Christian can moan at that but that is the way it is. And even some who claim to be one come under speculation like Obama. Their religious beliefs are often a hot topic among political pundits. Whether we like it or not, religion does play a huge part in the public perspective, the candidate's chances, and the individual's vote.

The Founding Fathers agreed that there was some kind of God but that no other religion should be above any other and that no one religion should be the national religion. I love Mitt Romney and love his speech in Arlington, Texas in December in the Bush library concerning his religion.

America was founded on religious freedom wanted by the Fathers; Jefferson was one exception and several men like George Washington showed some resentment toward him. Especially after Common Sense.





[edit on 5-2-2008 by SteveAndrew]

reply to post by AshleyD


One danger, Ashley, is confusing what a person professes and what that person actually does. Take GWB for example. He's always promoted himself as a Christian and surrounded himself with Christian leaders. But have his actions been thsoe of a Christian? Lying to the American people and Congress. Prosecuting two wars (so far) under false pretences. Allowing prisoners to be held and tortured. Running roughshod over the Constitution after swearing an oath before God to 'uphold and protect' same. To name a few.

So in the end, despite his promoting himself as a Christian, is he really? Or like the Islamic radicals is he just wrapping himself in the cloth of Christianity for political gain?

Look at the Westboro Baptist nazis. They are certain that they are the Christians' Christians. Are they? Are their actions and doctrines in the least wise consistent with Jesus' teachings?

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing, Ashley.

reply to post by jtma508


I agree and alluded to that above. Many don't seem to be Bible believing Christians but claim to be one in order to garner votes. Yes, I abhor Fred Phelps. *shudder* Most Christians are repulsed by his methods. Anyone can claim anything but their actions will be revealed. The example you used of George Bush is an excellent one and I've talked about it on other threads. We're not allowed to judge the salvation of others but much of what he does makes my head spin. He seems to be going against what the Bible says and doing what the Bible warns not to do. If he was eligible to run for the presidency in 2008, he would not have my vote.

It's a tricky situation that calls for discernment. Even then a candidate can still pull the wool over one's eyes. One needs to be especially careful of a politician's claims because, let's face it, politicians aren't known for their honesty.

Not sure if this is remotely true so someone please correct or validate this if you have the information. I read this on another website but no source was provided: At an atheist convention, the group was caught on tape saying they needed to claim they were Christians in order to get elected so they could get "inside" to push their agenda. Sorry I don't have more to go on. It was a comment on another forum so we know that isn't always reliable.

Hillary is another example. She claims to be a Christian but I've never seen anything from her that would make me think so. Again, we're not allowed to judge her but it does make one wonder. Is Obama a Muslim or Christian? Both sides put forth their claims and their suspicions on his claims. It is typically a good idea to see what they have been doing in their lower offices to see if they back up their claims with works and deeds.

But in the end, it might not be wise but a person's vote is a person's vote. They can base it on gender, skin color, religion, hairstyle, smile, what kind of car they drive or... *gasp* politics.

reply to post by AshleyD


I agree with your assessments. And it is because, in the end, we cannot truly know, I believe it is more important that we judge a candidate not for what s/he has said or whether they profess a certain theological leaning, but instead for what they have done. What they have demonstrated, over time, that defines who they are. And then compare that to the fundamentals of whatever theological foundation you feel is important.