From: SlymDayspring | #047 i can't think of any situation where ron paul and obama's policies differ where ron paul ends up being the less religious one
How about... I dunno, ALL OF FOREIGN POLICY? Obama and everyone else: "we need to save those radicals from their crazy beliefs and stop them from hating us for being Christian"
-- _foolmo_ 'and out of the blue and completely unprovoked came foolmo and his insult' - Anagram
find me a quote of obama saying specifically that he believes we are fighting the war on terror solely because of his religious views and not because of other reasons plz
i'm not even gonna bother with the tax thing, that doesn't even make sense.
--
I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png
foolm0ron posted... From: SlymDayspring | #047 i can't think of any situation where ron paul and obama's policies differ where ron paul ends up being the less religious one How about... I dunno, ALL OF FOREIGN POLICY? Obama and everyone else: "we need to save those radicals from their crazy beliefs and stop them from hating us for being Christian"
make up your mind
either foreign policy has religion as an excuse (you know, real reasons being resources like oil) or as an actual premise, but not both
From: SlymDayspring | #054 solely because of his religious views and not because of other reasons plz
From: VincentLauw | #056 either foreign policy has religion as an excuse (you know, real reasons being resources like oil) or as an actual premise, but not both
...what? Do you guys really think this has to be black/white like that?
There are many rhetorics that war supporters use. One is that we need to stop them from obtaining weapons and harming us and our allies. Another is that we need to control oil. Another is that their beliefs are incompatible with ours of freedom and Christianity.
The ACTUAL reason they support the war is different, sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how they convince the public that this is the right thing to do, and they use all these reasons depending on their audience.
-- _foolmo_ 'It's easy to get yourself in trouble if you start quoting people who don't like you in your signature' - Mods
Seems to me that any person who believes in God should let that belief influence them. Or else you either don't believe, or you are actively doing what you think is not right.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: red sox 777 | #058 Seems to me that any person who believes in God should let that belief influence them. Or else you either don't believe, or you are actively doing what you think is not right.
Except that this nation is and always has been secular, so allowing your religion to influence political decisions is deplorable, even when Obama does it, yes.
--
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg "What about the lion from Lion King?" - SuperNiceDog
From: SlymDayspring | #047 i can't think of any situation where ron paul and obama's policies differ where ron paul ends up being the less religious one
which implies that the religiousness of a policy is continuous, that you can have one be less religious than the other, and then you switch it up and say it's all or nothing
I would assume you were trolling, but I know for a fact you're not smart enough to intentionally plant this kind of logical fallacy, especially when you're talking to Smuffin, someone you think is really dumb. It's a lot more likely that you're just really dumb.
-- _foolmo_ 'To be foolmo'd is to be better opinion'd.' - Blairville
Except that this nation is and always has been secular, so allowing your religion to influence political decisions is deplorable, even when Obama does it, yes.
Not at all. A person's religion must inform their own beliefs. This must influence their actions. How can you ask a person not to consider his own beliefs? Is that even possible?
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I've noticed that some left-wing people typically take "separation of church and state" to mean not allowing religion any influence on state. But that's not what it means, it runs both ways. State is not allowed to control or ban church, and church is not allowed to force itself upon those who don't want it.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
uh basically what i am saying is that if obama was an atheist he would still have the same foreign policy positions, because his religion is never his major/sole reasoning. wheras something like anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, not believing in evolution, etc are things where candidates religious beliefs are usually the sole reason. most atheist liberals (what smuffin was arguing about) feel the way I do.
--
I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png
From: SBell0105 | #045 Evolved Life Cereal or Created Life Cereal?
Life with Cinnamon actually
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?
From: Rad Link 5 | #062 I actually like Count Chocula, as juvenile as that sounds. It's so chocolaty and I love those little marshmallows.
I can dig Cheerios, too. Especially with banana slices.
You eat like an 8 year old.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?
wheras something like anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, not believing in evolution, etc are things where candidates religious beliefs are usually the sole reason.
I'm not religious and I support all of those things.
Your move.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: SmartMuffin | #067 wheras something like anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, not believing in evolution, etc are things where candidates religious beliefs are usually the sole reason.
I'm not religious and I support all of those things.
Your move.
wait what
... all of them?.... are you sure?
--
SegMlCassieIsAmazingjhsux~>[64T2jampXDpikaness is awesome!8forgaMike RSmurf is too!
I really can't understand people who don't believe in evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same way that the Earth is in orbit around the sun is a fact, it's easily testable and observable with very unsophisticated equipment. There are theories of evolution, such as natural selection, but those are separate from evolution at its core as, well, those are theories, not facts (though the scientific definition of theory is a lot closer to it than the vernacular use. Example, Gravity.)
I mean, evolution is simply this: Heritable change in a population over successive generations.
>_>. Well, good night.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
You do realize the difference between "major" and "sole", right? I really hope you do, because it's important in this case.
From: SlymDayspring | #064 wheras something like anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, not believing in evolution, etc are things where candidates religious beliefs are usually the sole reason
Are you comparing these things to foreign policy? These are opinions and beliefs. Of course your beliefs are gonna be influenced by your beliefs.
Let's compare actual policies, such as the actual LEGALITY of abortion, gay marriage, etc. Does Ron Paul want to ban abortion? No. Does Ron Paul want to ban gay marriage? No. Does Ron Paul want to ban teaching Evolution or whatever in schools? No.
-- _foolmo_ 'Most people at least try to say something funny. See foolmo's post as an example.' - The Real Truth
SmartMuffin posted... wheras something like anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, not believing in evolution, etc are things where candidates religious beliefs are usually the sole reason.
I'm not religious and I support all of those things.
Your move.
I can see why someone might be against abortion without a religious reason, but the other two? Really?
I know you have your whole "marriage shouldn't even be a thing the government does" opinion, but under the assumption that that's not ending anytime soon, there are no good reasons to be against gay marriage.
And evolution is just a scientific fact. There is direct evidence of it, even over short timespans: look at any virus that's developed recently, for example. Evolution is just the result of an observation (mutations occur, which I don't think anyone really disputes), and the very reasonable assumption that certain traits will make an organism more or less likely to reproduce. That's it; after that a simple computer model will show you that evolution is a thing.
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
From: LordoftheMorons | #075 Not gonna believe that study until it gets replicated by another group!
That's what I say about Evolution
And by Evolution I don't mean the basic definition of evolution that everyone believes in (it IS compatible with Christianity, believe it or not). I mean Evolution as in the "fact" that life started off as the primordial ooze and just evolved from there to our current state.
-- _foolmo_ 'To be foolmo'd is to be better opinion'd.' - Blairville
And by Evolution I don't mean the basic definition of evolution that everyone believes in (it IS compatible with Christianity, believe it or not). I mean Evolution as in the "fact" that life started off as the primordial ooze and just evolved from there to our current state.
This.
Despite how leftists insist it is, "believing in evolution" is not a yes/no proposition. Now as I said, I have no idea what Ron Paul's specific views on this are, because it doesn't matter. Personally, I believe that evolution exists in the micro, but not necessarily in the macro. In other words, yes, I believe that individual species are more than capable of evolving via natural selection over a long period of time.
Where it gets trickier, and still has yet to be proven is that species can evolve to radically different other species. Keep in mind, the practical message from this is that humanity is no more unique and significant than a catfish. Whether it's "true" or not, I'm not prepared to have a society where that is the prevailing value system.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Can ANYONE explain to me Ron Paul's economic policy because I don't see how he wants his country to flourish if he basically shuts off all foreign policy in this day and age.
some people are so focused on integrity they'd rather have an honest but weak donkey instead of a horse pretending to be a unicorn.
I'm not religious and I support all of those things.
Your move.
I was not arguing that nobody felt that way not because of their religion. I feel like you are just picking arguments about everything that pisses you off, but I am trying to argue against your initial statements in this topic about how liberals aren't pissed off enough at obama for his religious beliefs influencing his politics. I explained to you how most of these liberals feel, why they feel that way, and why other politicians religious beliefs bother them more. How you feel does not matter to my argument, it is how elected politicians feel, and the vast majority of elected politicians do not use your reasoning.
I think I have explained myself as clearly as possible at this point, any other argument you are trying to pick I am not really interested in, so I am done here.
and foolmo, barack obama shares ron pauls positions on all of those. (and if you consider what he personally supports on the state level, ron paul comes out a lot worse)
--
I'm "kind of a big deal". http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png
From: foolm0ron | #076 I mean Evolution as in the "fact" that life started off as the primordial ooze and just evolved from there to our current state.
That's not evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution makes absolutely zero predictions about how life originated.
Personally, I believe that evolution exists in the micro, but not necessarily in the macro. In other words, yes, I believe that individual species are more than capable of evolving via natural selection over a long period of time.
And responding to SmartMuffin, there is only one difference between macro and micro evolution. The time span. Believing that a species can change over time is all that evolution really claims. We have actually found mountains of evidence that the species that currently exist arose from common ancestors, but I can't really explain that very well. I'm a physics student, not a biology one. I will point out that we predicted the evolutionary path leading to whales, then went out and found so many transitional fossils that it's entirely impossible to determine where one species ends and the other begins.
Of course, evolution on that scale takes millions of years, so I can't exactly point out a recent example to you or anything.
Where it gets trickier, and still has yet to be proven is that species can evolve to radically different other species.
Its been proven better than gravity has. I'm not really kiding about that, the theory of gravity has so many holes in it it isn't funny. But moving on...
Keep in mind, the practical message from this is that humanity is no more unique and significant than a catfish. Whether it's "true" or not, I'm not prepared to have a society where that is the prevailing value system.
See, I don't get this. Every species is unique, and we've established importance pretty well through our takeover of the entire world. And do you really think that people who believe that humans aren't all that special are bad people? Do their actions offend you? Because if not, then I fail to see why you'd fear such a society.
Anyways, I keep runing into your posts when I have to leave fairly shortly. I'll get back to you later today.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
VincentLauw posted... Can ANYONE explain to me Ron Paul's economic policy because I don't see how he wants his country to flourish if he basically shuts off all foreign policy in this day and age.
As I understand it, the central claim in this whole "Austrian school" stuff he believes in is that math and experiments (natural or otherwise) have no place in economics.
Seems pretty silly to me.
-- No I'm not a damn furry. Looney Tunes are different. - Guiga I wanted Sonic/Shadow romance at that time, not sex. - MWE
Keep in mind, the practical message from this is that humanity is no more unique and significant than a catfish. Whether it's "true" or not, I'm not prepared to have a society where that is the prevailing value system
im pretty sure if this was the prevailing value system it would change literally nothing. people would still only think about sex and money regardless of if they thought we were poofed into existence or evolved into it
Also, IF you believe there is any religious component whatsoever to our current wars, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who will end them.
I think it'd be hard to argue that there's any real religious component. "They're declaring a holy war on us" was used as an excuse to justify two wars and clamp down on civil liberties, but I suspect they would've used whatever worked.
SmartMuffin posted... From: SBell0105 | #029 Stupid people shouldn't be allowed in government, I thought you were against stupidity in government. There's nothing "stupid" about believing that life didn't spontaneously begin for no reason whatsoever.
Um...sorry to tell you this but creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. In fact believing in both is becoming more common among Christians every year.
-- (Maniac64 at work) Guns don't kill people, Kinder eggs do. I saw it in a post on GameFAQs. ~FAHtastic
It's more like, creationists can say that God created fundamental laws and/or particles, and then the universe did the rest of the work the way science would describe.
pjbasis posted... It's more like, creationists can say that God created fundamental laws and/or particles, and then the universe did the rest of the work the way science would describe.
Yep, that's a basic summary of my beliefs regarding creation and the way the universe operates.
-- (Maniac64 at work) Guns don't kill people, Kinder eggs do. I saw it in a post on GameFAQs. ~FAHtastic
From: JeffreyRaze | #081 That's not evolution. That's abiogenesis. Evolution makes absolutely zero predictions about how life originated.
You've gotta be really dense to think that people actually distinguish these two. When people talk about "believing in Evolution", it's 100% about Abiogenesis.
Stop arguing semantics to hide the faults in your logic.
-- _foolmo_ 'and out of the blue and completely unprovoked came foolmo and his insult' - Anagram
He's not dense, he's just trying to spread the truth about the words. Just because people are commonly wrong, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to correct them.
If people are commonly talking about abiogenesis, then that's what they should talk about!
Everyone knows that when people talk about Evolution in this context, it's about Abiogenesis. There is no ambiguity unless you want to argue semantics.
Even if it IS wrong and we need to teach people the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis... that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
-- _foolmo_ 'Oh please, if foolmo made that analogy you'd think it was picture perfect' - Biolizard28
Got bored halfway through but the reason someone's stance on evolution is relevant to their ability to be the president is that the type of people who reject evolution are the type of people who are strongly set in their ways once they're established and the type to ignore evidence when it contradicts their thoughts.
You generally want an open minded individual who absorbs evidence as they go as a president. The potential for disaster is especially high when you consider how many of Ron Paul's policies are unorthodox-- with a guy like that you want someone to be able to realize they're wrong in a hurry otherwise a bunch of weird crap happens and we stay the course for 4 years instead of 4 months because the president is too stubborn to realize it's not working.
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
Abiogenesis is an entirely different topic than evolution though. Like, there is zero overlap whatsoever. Evolution can't take place if there are no organisms to evolve. And in this case, semantics has proven time and again to be extremely important. Do you really think there would be that many people opposed to the concept of evolution if they actually knew that evolution =/= abiogenesis?
I do understand what you're trying to say, but if there's one thing I've learned it's that it is more or less impossible to debate with someone until you get them to clearly define what views they actually have. Otherwise you get people running about in circles accomplishing nothing.
And once again, the theory that life started off simple and branched off over the course of the history of the planet is far better supported by evidence than the theory of gravity is, as the theory of gravity breaks down all over the place. When someone sets out the hypothesis that one animal evolved through this path, most of the time we can go out and find the damn fossils that were along the way.
But I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about this for too long. I mean...
From: foolm0ron | #074 Yeah and nothing can go faster than the speed of light, right? LOL GG science noobs
First you thought Newton's equations modeled motion best, now you believe relativity does? Flail more science!
Yesh.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn