Ron Paul - Help Wanted

POSTED BY: SevenPercent
UPDATED: Friday, August 31, 2007 20:14
VIEWED: 12322
PAGE 5 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:25 PM

Done - actually that thread is referencing an even older one that's below the archive threshold, cause I know I was discussing him before he even thought of running.

-F

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I didn't make this list?

i know... well, you can always criticize evolution, that rubs people the wrong way.(or if you really want to tip the boat, become a Creationist). that.. and find a way to squeeze something about freemasonry or the NWO into every post, then youre sure to make the list next time

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:18 AM

LOL... I just read this post Antimason and I had to respond quick. I think I did do a fair job of critisizing Evolution, or at least questioning the rediculous belief that Evolution is somehow more valid than a belief in God (or vice versa) since both take a leap of faith, or bringing up the question of why couldn't both have happened hand in hand. I was there for all of that.

I'm also no fan of Illuminated Freemasonry or the inevitable New World Order either, but what are you going to do?

I'm kind of disappointed I didn't make this list. Maybe I'm better at standing on the brink of insanity without coming off as a complete wack job than I give myself credit for.

To those who enquired, I do plan on responding to other posts and offering my thoughts on Ron Paul when time permits.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 1, 2007 4:47 PM

Seven,

I support Ron Paul. I consider myself a left libertarian, concerned about social and environmental issues, but wanting to use govt solutions as a last resort.

Govt is force. Force is expedient, but oppressive. Freedom loving folks look for alternatives to force, which sometimes are more complicated and less convenient and less effective. But in the long run, these less oppressive alternatives allow for the technological and creative growth that underlies economic supremacy. Our country's forefathers had the prescience to institute the least oppressive govt there was, at the expense of the comforts in Europe--which resulted in the long run in our developing the technologies and arts that resulted in our being a superpower today.

Think Firefly. Life in the outer planets is dangerous and onerous compared to living on a comfortable Alliance controlled central planet. But some people prefer freedom to comfort and security.

This is the "heart" of the libertarian philosophy. The libertarian utopia isn't going to be better, not right away. In fact, it would be harsher. But libertarians believe it is right to be free, and in the long run, freedom does and will yield concrete economic and social benefits over force.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

FREDGIBLET

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
...or bringing up the question of why couldn't both have happened hand in hand.

It's called theistic evolution, it's the belief that most people who accept evolution have, the only people who have a problem with it are people like Dawkins who have a problem with religion itself.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 1, 2007 7:49 PM

I don't have a problem with religion, but I do have a problem with people who try to equate a 'belief' in evolution with a belief in religion - trying to say they are equally questions of faith. It's actually demeaning to the religious concept. In religion, faith is the idea of believing in something regardless of it's provability or evidence. 'Believing' in evolution (or any theory of science) is of a completely different character than believing in a god. It seems like mudding this distinction is a clear goal of the ID movement. Why?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREDGIBLET

Friday, June 1, 2007 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
It seems like mudding this distinction is a clear goal of the ID movement. Why?

The goal of the ID movement is to replace science with religion (specifically fundamentalist Christianity), particularly in schools. They can't do this legitimately because teaching religion violates the First Amendment and because evolution is founded on good science and is pretty damn solid. So without any legitimate means to attack evolution they go about it by spreading misinformation (to the point of blatantly lying quite frequently), and attempting to muddy the issue.

Muddying the issue makes it easier to convince people that they are being persecuted or unjustly ignored when neither is true. They attempt to paint science as something that is believed in the religious sense because then it makes scientists the bad guys since they are too wrapped up in their religious belief in science to accept ID, when the reality is that ID fails as science and isn't needed, so no reputable scientists want to waste their time on it. Painting acceptance of evolution as a religious belief was a tactic that has been tried before (not sure if they're still using it) in an attempt to get evolution removed from schools for being religious, which is patently absurd.

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 1, 2007 10:35 PM

i disagree Fred- we dont want to replace science with religion. we want science to stick with what it can prove. IMHO, you cannot prove that man ever came from a primordial stew millions of years ago. thats my objection.. i agree 100% with microevolution, its not debatable.. but macro evolution and abiogenesis have not been proven sufficiently for the claims being made by scientists. thats my only objection, when science leaves proven theory and extends into stating hypothesis as fact.

also, i dont believe teaching Creation violates the first amendment.. i believe it protects our right to teach it. government cannot endorse any particular belief, but it cannot prohibit the excercise either.. and up until the scopes trial, the bible was allowed in schools, and existed along side proven science JUST fine. as AMericans, we will never preserve our constitutional republic if we continue to publicaly deny the theology which was an essential backdrop to our founding.

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 1, 2007 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Painting acceptance of evolution as a religious belief was a tactic that has been tried before (not sure if they're still using it) in an attempt to get evolution removed from schools for being religious, which is patently absurd.

what is a religious belief? its a worldview! what is evolution? its a worldview! its a view of mans origins, therefore it is incredibly significant to ones mindset, and how the world is viewed. the founders were certainly of the opinion that you could not protect liberties without the belief in a transcendant Creator which endows every man with inalienable rights. i would argue that the atheistic evolution view, or the secular concept of the world, is detrimental to the security of our republics ideals, and is fair game to scrutinize as a worldview

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 1, 2007 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
what is a religious belief? its a worldview! what is evolution? its a worldview!...

This is the kind of equivocation I'm talking about. Sure, they're both worldviews. They're also both words. But they're fundamentally different words. The element of faith celebrated in christianity and most other religions makes them distinctly different from science where the goal is to understand things, as much as possible, without faith.

Even if you take up the metaphysical point that any trust in your own perceptions requires a kind of faith, you're still talking about something completely different from religious faith. It's always seemed to me that that's what separates religion from science. The faith of religious belief is something above and beyond what can be proven with science. Why would you want to cheapen it by saying it's no different than faith in a theory.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE