My Mom Won't Vote for Ron Paul because...
- Thread starter SUP3RNOVA
- Start date
Why are people such morons? Bottom line there is nothing for any country outside of it's own borders to deal with! The middle East is a great example of colonial tyranny and imperialist destruction of a group of sovereign nations on behalf of Zionist pig interest... Anyone too blind to see that is nothing more than a worm and a puppet.
If she voted for Bush in 2000, why would she not vote for Ron Paul now? Bush ran on a similar, humble foreign policy in 2000.
I'll take a stab at that:
Perhaps it's because over the last 12 years, Especially in the time following 9/11, the powers that be have exerted more and more control over the mainstream media to a point where they now feed them their very desires?
:eek7:
First I'd like to clarify that I am in fact an agnostic atheist (if you think you're just an "agnostic", I have some news for you). To claim you 100% know for sure one way or the other is absurd.
Edit: NOPE, nevermind.
But as others have said, everyone should just believe whatever they want, because at the end of the day we all die and none of it fucking matters anyway.
Edit: NOPE, nevermind.
But as others have said, everyone should just believe whatever they want, because at the end of the day we all die and none of it fucking matters anyway.
As opposed to an invisible force which created the planet and all its creatures in 7 days? You can not know what happened at the start of the universe and there is still so much science has left to find out. Yes, earth does have an ecosystem but how do you know it's "extremely efficient", when there could be better planets out there? You know, in the millions of stars that are left to explore.
Did I miss some religious revelation that meant no Christians were impacted by the 2008 boom? I'm sure no one of faith invested stupidly or played a part in the collapse. Neither atheists, agnostics or religious people have any powers to see into the future so your statement is irrelevant. And no, you don't need to be religious to commit terrible crimes, I'm sure it acts as a helpful justification however.
true atheism does not make a claim. Atheism is literally means "without god" or "without religion". It does not claim "there is no god."
The only absurd stance is agnosticism. Believing something is unknowable is unscientific and just plain asinine.
Either believe in a flying spaghetti monster or don't. Anything in between is child's play.
Well not going to get too into this as it really is not that important to me but....
Creationist and Fundamentalists are a sub set of Christians. Seriously dude you can not be unaware that there are different types of Christians hell they have probably killed each other over religious disagreements as much as other non Christians religions over the last few hundred years. Ireland is a perfect example of how Christians kill each other.
Americans can not even all agree on what the constitution means and it was only written 200+ years ago and in English of course all the Christians are not going to agree what the Bible says when it was written thousands of years and a more than a few translations ago.
Most Christians even in the US look at the stories in the Bible as a series of lessons to be learned on how to live your life, not as word for word literal truth. The problem is just like any other extremists no matter the subject the literal word for word crazies are the ones that make the most noise.
Okay, I will try to spell it out.
You can be a theist or an atheist, and you can be gnostic or agnostic.
Agnostic theist - I believe God exists, but I don't think we can really know for sure.
Gnostic theist - I believe God exists and I know he does!
Agnostic atheist - I don't believe God exists, but I don't think we can really know for sure.
Gnostic atheist - I don't believe God exists and I know he doesn't.
It would seem that being gnostic in either regard is ridiculous. The point is, you either believe in God or you don't, and whether or not you're agnostic is a different matter. You can't just be "agnostic".
Edit: Okay, I guess you could be "agnostic" in the sense that you don't think anything at all is knowable. It just shouldn't be claimed as a religious view.
you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism really is.
atheism makes no positive claim as to the presence of some diety.
I'm thinking it's more a matter of the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. Some atheists do make a positive claim, but as I said before I think they're just as silly as theists.
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strong = I believe there is no god
Weak = I don't believe in god
Now that I'm writing it down and thinking about it again, this whole agnosticism/weak-strong atheism seems like a big confusing mess. Perhaps agnosticism really is a standalone religious view. I don't even know.
Approach it from a christian angle. Every other candidate in the race has glaring personality flaws that conflict with any understanding of Christianity. They also have proven track records of being dishonest.
So why would a Christian vote for a proven liar just because their rhetoric happens to sound good?
At least with RP there is a level of consistency. If your mother really wants war in the middle east she can just donate to Israel and Al Qaeda directly.
*except maybe huntsman but you can go Mormon on him.
So why would a Christian vote for a proven liar just because their rhetoric happens to sound good?
At least with RP there is a level of consistency. If your mother really wants war in the middle east she can just donate to Israel and Al Qaeda directly.
*except maybe huntsman but you can go Mormon on him.
Try this:
WE SHOULD WANT IRAN TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
If Iran had nuclear weapons that region would be much more stable because nuclear armed countries do not attack each other. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Pakistan and India hate each other and would have already gone to war if both hadn't developed nuclear weapons - now that relationship is much more stable.
If Iran and Israel hate each other so much, nuclear weapons would be the perfect solution to bring stability to the region. Instability comes from an imbalance in power.
The real problem is our government does not want stability in the region because that would necessitate a decrease in defense spending and nobody in the Pentagon wants that. But the American people should want that because it's bankrupting our government.
WE SHOULD WANT IRAN TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
If Iran had nuclear weapons that region would be much more stable because nuclear armed countries do not attack each other. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Pakistan and India hate each other and would have already gone to war if both hadn't developed nuclear weapons - now that relationship is much more stable.
If Iran and Israel hate each other so much, nuclear weapons would be the perfect solution to bring stability to the region. Instability comes from an imbalance in power.
The real problem is our government does not want stability in the region because that would necessitate a decrease in defense spending and nobody in the Pentagon wants that. But the American people should want that because it's bankrupting our government.
You're committing the Straw Man fallacy by suggesting there is a single entity called Christianity, with a single set of beliefs, and then proceeding to attack it. That's total nonsense. When you say Christian teachings, which teachings do you mean, exactly?
For example:
1. Catholics believe the Pope is God's representative on earth, and will take his interpretation of the bible over the words written in it.
2. Fundamentalists believe in the literal word of the Bible above all else
3. Eastern Orthodox follow a group of patriarchs who they believe to be equivalent to the apostles.
And that's just 3 of however many dozen Churches there are. All of those Church members would describe themselves as Christian, all have slightly different beliefs. Some believe in evolution, some don't. The Church of England, for example, has a made a public statement accepting evolution, and saying that ID shouldn't be taught as science.
Even if you describe Christians as "people who follow the Bible", which Bible? It was originally written in ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and has been interpreted, translated and adapted for modern use into hundreds of different versions.