Why so many people are choosing not to endorse Ron Paul (from reddit)

Ron Paul's beliefs and positions.

He defines life as starting at conception,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Lies to maintain FUD regarding Abortion by claiming he "saw doctors throwing a live baby away to let it die"...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/03/say-anything-to-take-us-out-of-this-gloom/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/29/the_ron_paul_fetus_rescue_test.html
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/01/why-iowa-caucus-is-about-abortion

Denies evolution, "At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter ... I don't accept it as a theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q @ 2:45
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2007/12/22/ron-paul-backs-creationism-denies-evolution/

Does not believe in separation of church and state,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.html

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD8rJCbEVMg

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2613ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2613ih.pdf

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters,

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ron-paul-you-dont-deserve-fema-help-also-im-running-for-prez-video.php
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/14/ron-paul-%E2%80%98why-not%E2%80%99-abolish-fema-since-helping-victims-of-disaster-is-compounding-our-problems/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6YQYhk3GRE

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border,

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/ron-paul-announces-new-run-for-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ArUoyuDd74
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-05-25/ron-paul-defend-the-constitution-not-the-u-n-security-council/

Disband NATO,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm

End birthright citizenship,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/140490/ron-pauls-views-on-immigration-do-you-agree-or-disagree
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtDZZHrT8mY

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign,

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/anti-gay-hate-group-chair-is-now-ron-pauls-iowa-state-director/politics/2011/12/29/32460

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys,

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-House-votes-to-ban-lead-from-toys-1774056.php

He believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

He's against gay marriage,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

Will even legislate against gay marriage on a federal level and attempted to CRIMINALIZE efforts to overturn such a measure,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/274704/20111230/ron-paul-proposal-severely-curtail-supreme-court.htm

Has even made it a point to base his campaign on Religion and being against Gay Marriage,

http://imgur.com/11Q77

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal,

http://www.politicususa.com/en/ron-paul-sexual-harassment

Is against the popular vote,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html

Wants the estate tax repealed,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:

Believes that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control,

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website,

http://www.freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/RonPaulStormfront.jpg

Keeps their donations,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/

And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white-supremacist-founder-of-stormfront-says-his-followers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-campaign/

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,

http://www.vice.com/read/ron-paul-is-a-racist-leprechaun
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-denies-writing-coming-race-war-letter-he-signed/46622/

But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWXnI97DwE

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-573

However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5872

AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War,

(Archive.org Mirror) http://web.archive.org/web/20090604122724/http://www.theseminal.com/2007/12/30/ron-paul-lets-spend-240-million-on-commemorative-medals/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_Victory_Medal
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3417ih/html/BILLS-107hr3417ih.htm

But didn't bother to repeat his previous argument those times that such an act would be unconstitutional as he had with the Rosa Parks Medal.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/ron-paul-no-on-rosa-parks-yes-on.html

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

http://www.revolutionpac.com/advisory-board/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Faculty_and_administration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Criticisms

Is against Hate Crime laws,

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-02/ron-paul-collectivist-hate-crimes-bill-a-serious-threat-to-freedom-of-speech/

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/
http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2011/05/ron-pauls-position-against-civil-rights-act-of-1964-and-against-segregation-laws/

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/ron-paul-suggests-basic-freedoms-come-second-to-property-rights/

He also believes The Civil Rights Act destroyed Privacy,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

Despite always "voting against earmarks," he was only one of four House Repubs to request earmarks in 2011 for over $157mil. (And in FY 2010, was one of the leading House members in requesting earmarks for a total of $398mil.)

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1033&Itemid=68

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-not-civil-libertarian-last.html

Want more? Go here.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Ron_Paul

Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/

The only common factor in all that ignoring and downvoting is you and your snide, passive-aggressive and sarcastic comments in this thread. We're ignoring you. You haven't made any contributions to the discussion, just attacked individuals, or kinda implied a disapproval in some backhanded way. The only things you have said that were on topic show you are two steps behind, like in researching the context of Harris's remarks on nuclear attacks, for example. The best way to kill a stupid argument like that is to ignore it, and the best way to still show disapproval is to downvote.

Just because you say something in a thread doesn't mean people are obliged to engage with it. So take this opportunity to look back at your comments from the beginning and try and imagine why anyone would want to answer them. For starters, people don't like answering sarcasm, indirect criticism and personal insults. So if you want your comments to get some attention, start with that.>> ^marbles:

Herd mentality in action!
@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib
Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.

>> ^marbles:

Herd mentality in action!
@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib
Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.


Marbles, it's been quite a while since many critical thinking sifters and siftettes have ceased to take you seriously (re: conspiracy theories). The downvote is, at least in my case, a quick way of saying "your argument is bunk but I don't wish to waste my time on you". But if you feel better turning downvotes into a sign of your rightness, feel free, although you should probably pay royalties to your fellow TRUTH-teller shinybee, he's been using that pathetic line for a while now.

In reply to this comment by marbles:
Herd mentality in action!

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday" title="member since January 9th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#000000">dystopianfuturetoday @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Skeeve" title="member since May 3rd, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#6a8e23">Skeeve @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Zyrxil" title="member since June 29th, 2007" class="profilelink">Zyrxil @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Januari" title="member since June 30th, 2007" class="profilelink">Januari @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://issykitty.videosift.com" title="member since August 29th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#9966ff">Issykitty @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://douchebag.videosift.com" title="member since July 26th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">rottenseed @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/enoch" title="member since April 22nd, 2009" class="profilelink">enoch @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Boise_Lib" title="member since July 11th, 2009" class="profilelink">Boise_Lib

Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.


seriously?
and this made sense when you were typing?
did it ever occur to you...even for a second..that you were being an asshole?

>> ^marbles:

Herd mentality in action!
@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib
Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.


An odd number? Oh, thanks I missed one.

Herd mentality in action!

@dystopianfuturetoday @Skeeve @Zyrxil @Januari @Issykitty @hpqp @rottenseed @enoch @Boise_Lib

Good job guys. You made my point. 13 down votes and 0 rebuttals. No mind control here. Just free thinkers.

>> ^shuac:

This guy essentially figured out that fence-riding allows you to sell books to everyone! Hooray for ambivalence!


How about criticizing religious violence while advocating state violence, is that fence-riding?

Hedges is spot on here. Atheism has become the new state "religion". Religion at it's core is about mind control, and the new Atheist movement is no different.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'JOHN SHELBY, RELIGIONS, MIND CONTROL, SCARE' to 'JOHN SHELBY spong, RELIGIONS, MIND CONTROL, SCARE, bishop, episcopal' - edited by xxovercastxx

By "closest at hand", I didn't mean that you grabbed it right away. While you did spend years coming to Jesus, it's no coincidence that you did, IMO. You say that among religions, you were particularly prejudiced against Christianity for it's implausibility. This doesn't surprise since it was the one you were most familiar with, and so the one you had seen the most problems with, until you investigated the other ones, and found them even worse. As you have noted several times yourself, growing up in the West, you were also strongly prejudiced towards Christianity, since a large part of our cultural ethos and moral code stems directly from it, even for us atheists. So, if you were going to discover that one religion was the true one, it would almost certainly be a strain of Christianity as it's the one that fits your own culture's moral code the best. If you'd chosen Voodoo instead, then your careful search of religions would be something worth pointing to as evidence.

I was prejudiced against Christianity because I didn't believe Jesus was a real person. I had never actually seriously investigated it, and I was also remarkably ignorant of what Christianity was all about, to the point that it might strain credulity. So no, it wasn't due to familiarity, because there wasn't any. I was just naturally inclined to reject it because of that doubt about Jesus.

At the point at which I accepted it, I had already rejected religion altogether. I was no more inclined to accept Christianity than I was Voodoo or Scientology. I had my own view of God and I viewed any imposition on that view as being artificial and manmade. The *only* reason I accepted Christianity as being true, as being who God is, is because of special revelation. That is, that God had let me know certain things about His nature and plan before I investigated it, which the bible later uniquely confirmed. My experience as a Christian has also been confirming it to this day.

These definitions, especially the ones about Satan are really self-serving. You declare that you have the truth, and part of that truth is that anyone who disagrees with you is possessed by the devil, which of course your dissenters will deny. But you can counter that easily because your religion has also defined satanic possession as something you don't notice. Tight as a drum, and these definitions from nowhere but the religion's own book.

My view is not only based on the bible but also upon my experience. I first became aware of demon possession before I became a Christian. I had met several people who were possessed by spirits in the New Age/Occult movement. At the time, I didn't know it was harmful, so I would interact with them and they would tell me (lies) about the spiritual realm. I thought it was very fascinating but I found out later they were all liars and very evil. It was only when I became a Christian that I realized they were demons.

I don't think everyone who doesn't know Jesus is possessed. If not possessed, though, heavily influenced. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and does the will of the devil, whether they know it or not. The illusion is complex and intricate, traversing the centers of intellect, emotion, memory, and perception, and interweaving them; it is a complete world that you would never wake up from if it wasn't for Gods intervention. The devil is a better programmer than the machines in the Matrix.

Actually, it was a very different feeling from that. I didn't feel I was the target of any conspiracy. I had stumbled into one --my group of friends-- but I was ignorant of the conspiracy before I had my experience. After I had it, I realized that they were all part of something bigger than me that I could never understand, and that I was actually in their way, that my presence in their group was really cramping their style a lot, slowing things down, forcing them to get things done surreptitiously. I realized they weren't going to directly remove me for now, but I didn't know how long their patience would last. So I removed myself, and hoped they'd leave me alone. In hindsight, they were horrible friends to begin with, so it was no loss for me. Losing those friends was a very good move for me.

Whatever they were involved in, it sounds like it wasn't any good. I can get a sense for what you're saying, but without further detail it is hard to relate to it.

Again, you're claiming you are right, and everything untrue comes from Satan, and if I have any logical reason to doubt your story, you can give yourself permission to ignore my logic by saying it is from Satan and that's why it has the power to show the Truth is wrong. So, any Christian who believes a logical argument that conflicts with the dogma is, by definition, being fooled by Satan, and has a duty to doubt their own mind. Even better than the last one for mind control. It does away utterly with reliance on any faculty of the mind, except when their use results in dogmatic thoughts. Genius. Serious props to whoever came up with that. That's smart.

God is the one who said "Let us reason together". I accept that you have sincere reasons for believing what you do and rejecting my claims. If you gave me a logical argument which was superior to my understanding, I wouldn't throw it away as a Satanic lie. I would investigate it and attempt to reconcile it with my beliefs. If it showed my beliefs to be false, and there was no plausible refutation (or revelation), I would change my mind. The way that someone becomes deceived is not by logical arguments, it's by sin. They deceive themselves. You don't have to worry much about deception if you are staying in the will of God.

Like, if you say you believe God exists, I say fine. If you say you know God exists, I say prove it's not your imagination. If you say evolution is wrong, ordinarily I wouldn't care what you believe, except that if you're on school board and decide to replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, then I have to object because that causes harm to children who are going to think that they are real science, and on equal footing with/compatible with/superior to evolution.

Have you ever seriously investigated the theory of evolution? Specifically, macro evolution. It isn't science. Observational science is based on data that you can test or observe. Macro evolution has never been observed, nor is there any evidence for it. Micro evolution on the other hand is scientific fact. There are definitely variations within kinds. There is no evidence, however, of one species changing into another species. If you haven't ever seriously investigated this, you are going to be shocked at how weak the evidence actually is.

evolution is unproved and unprovable. we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

sir arthur keith
forward to origin of the species 100th anniversay 1959

You may be right. I may be right. I think it's more likely that I'm right, but that's neither here nor there. How do you know you're not seeing things that aren't there? My experience proves the human mind is capable of doing so and sustaining it. The bible could have been written by several such people. Maybe in that time and place, people who ranted about strange unconnected things were considered to be prophets, and once plugged into the God story, they went to town. I'm not saying it's true, just a possible theory.

There isn't anything I can say which will conclusively prove it to you. The reason being, because my testimony is reliant upon my judgement to validate it, and you don't trust my judgement. You are automatically predisposed to doubt everything I have to say, especially regarding supernatural claims. So asking me to prove it when you aren't going to believe anything I say about it is kind of silly. All I can say is that I have been around delusional people, and the mentally ill, very closely involved in fact, and I know what that looks like. I am as sharp as I ever have been, clear headed, open minded, and internally consistant. You may disagree with my views, but do you sense I am mentally unstable, paranoid, or unable to reason?

Also, the prophets in the bible weren't ranting about strange, unconnected things. The bible has an internal consistancy which is unparalled, even miraculous, considering that it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years in three different languages.

If I was "in it" and deceiving myself then, I was in something and deceiving myself before. My beliefs about all supernatural things remain unchanged by my experience, that's to say, I still don't believe they exist.

I didn't either, so I understand your skepticism. Until you see for yourself that material reality is just a veil, you will never believe it. But when you do see it, it will change *everything*.

First, not claiming to have created anything doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did [edit] claim it and the records were lost. Two, hold the phone -- this rules out Christianity. Genesis states the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago, or something. You can argue that this is metaphorical (why?), but surely you can't say that world being flat, or the sun rotating around the Earth is a metaphor. These are things God would know and have no reason to misrepresent. Since it's God's word, everyone would just believe it. And why not? It makes just as much sense that the Earth is round and revolves around its axis.

There is no reason to include Gods who made no claim to create the Universe, which is most of them. If their claims are lost in antiquity, we can assume that such gods are powerless to keep such documents available. What we should expect to find, if God has revealed Himself, is an active presence in the world with many believers. This narrows it down to a few choices.

I don't argue that this is metaphorical, I agrue that it is literal. I believe in a young age for the Earth, and a literal six day creation.

[On re-reading the preceding argument and the context you made the claim, it is a stupid see-saw argument, so I'm taking it back.] Consider also there are tens of thousands of different strains of Christianity with conflicting ideas of the correct way to interpret the Bible and conduct ourselves. Can gays marry? Can women serve mass? Can priests marry? Can non-virgins marry? And so on. Only one of these sects can be right, and again, probably none of them are.

The disagreements are largely superficial. Nearly all the denominations agree on the fundementals, which is that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. There are true Christians in every denomination. The true church is the body of Christ, of which every believer is a member. In that sense, there is one church. We can also look at the early church for the model of what Christianity is supposed to look like. The number of denominations doesn't speak to its truth.

2. The method itself doesn't take into account why the religion has spread. The answer isn't in how true it is, but in the genius of the edicts it contains. For example, it says that Christians are obliged to go convert other people, and doing so will save their eternal souls from damnation. Anyone who is a Christian is therefore compelled to contribute to this uniquely Christian process. I can't count the number of times I've been invited to attend church or talk about God with a missionary. That's why Christianity is all over the world, whereas no other religion has that spread. Also, there are all sorts of compelling reasons for people to adopt Christianity. One is that Christians bring free hospitals and schools. This gives non-truth-based incentives to join. The sum of this argument is that Christianity has the best marketing, so would be expected to have the largest numbers. The better question is why Islam still has half the % of converts that Christianity does, even though it has no marketing system at all, and really a very poor public image internationally.

Yet, this doesn't take into account how the church began, which was when there was absolutely no benefit to being a Christian. In fact, it could often be a death sentence. The early church was heavily persecuted, especially at the outset, and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It was difficult to spread Christianity when you were constantly living in fear for your life. So, the church had quite an improbable beginning, and almost certainly should have been stamped out. Why do you suppose so many people were willing to go to their deaths for it? It couldn't be because they heard a good sermon. How about the disciples, who were direct witnesses to the truth of the resurrection? Would they die for something they knew to be a lie, when they could have recanted at any time?

3. This kinda follows from #1, but I want to make it explicit, as this, IMHO, is one of the strongest arguments I've ever come up with. I've never presented it nor seen it presented to a believer, so I'm keen for your reaction. It goes something like this: If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect. If the bible is his word, then it should be instantly apparent to anybody with language faculties that it's all absolutely true, what it means, and how to extrapolate further truths from it. But that's not what happens. Christians argue and fight over the correct interpretation of the bible, and others argue with Christians over whether it's God's word at all based on the many, many things that appear inconsistent to non-Christians. In this regard, it's obvious that it's not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. If it's not the word of God, then the whole religion based on it is bunk.

The issue there is the free will choices of the people involved. God created a perfect world, but man chose evil and ruined it. Gods word is perfect, but not everyone is willing to accept it, and those that do will often pick and choose the parts they like due to their own unrighteousness. We all have the same teacher, the Holy Spirit, but not everyone listens to Him, and that is the reason for the disagreements.

I didn't say people needed it. I said having a religion in a scary universe with other people with needs and desires that conflict with your own makes life a lot easier and more comfortable. Religion, in general, is probably the greatest social organizing force ever conceived of, and that's why religions are so attractive and conservatively followed in places with less beneficial social organization (i.e., places without democracy), and lower critical thinking skills (i.e. places with relatively poor education).

People come to Christianity for all sorts of reasons, but the number one reason is because of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as Christianity without Him. I became a Christianity for none of the reasons you have mentioned, in fact I seem to defy all of the stereotypes. I will also say that being a Christianity is lot harder than not. Following the precepts that Christ gave us is living contrary to the ways humans naturally behave, and to the desires of the flesh. As far as education goes, Christianity has a rich intellectual tradition, and people from all walks of life call themselves followers of Christ. You're also ignoring the places where Christianity makes life a lot more difficult for people:



In contrast, in times and places where people on a large scale are well off and have a tradition of critical thinking, the benefits of having a religion as the system of governance are less apparent, and the flaws in this system come out. It becomes more common for such nations to question the authority of the church, and so separate religion from governance. The West has done so, and is leading the world. Turkey is the only officially secular Muslim nation in the world and has clearly put itself in a field apart from the rest, all because it unburdened itself of religious governance when an imposed basic social organization structure was no longer required.

Then how might you explain the United States, where 70 percent of people here call themselves Christian, 90 percent believe in some kind of God, and almost 50 percent believe in a literal six day creation?

You're right, and you may not know how right you are. Modern scientific investigation, as away of life, comes almost entirely from the Christian tradition. It once was in the culture of Christianity to investigate and try to understand the universe in every detail. The thought was that understanding the universe better was to approach understanding of God's true nature -- a logical conclusion since it was accepted that God created the universe, and understanding the nature of something is to reveal the nature of its creator (and due to our natural curiosity, learning things makes us feel better). The sciences had several branches. Natural science was the branch dealing with the non-transcendent aspects of the universe. The transcendent ones were left to theologists and philosophers, who were also considered scientists, as they had to rigorously and logically prove things as well, but without objective evidence. This was fine, and everyone thought knowledge of the world was advancing as it should until natural science, by its own procedures, started discovering natural facts that seemed inconsistent with the Bible.

This isn't entirely true. For instance, Uniforitarian Geology was largely accepted, not on the basis of facts, but on deliberate lies that Charles Lyell told in his book, such as the erosion rate of Niagra Falls. Evolution was largely accepted not because of facts but because the public was swayed by the "missing links" piltdown man and nebraska man, both of which later turned out to be frauds.

That's when people who wanted truth had to decide what their truth consisted of: either God and canon, or observable objective facts. Natural science was cleaved off from the church and took the name "science" with it. Since then, religion and science have both done their part giving people the comfort of knowledge. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is immutable and all-encompassing prefer religion. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is verifiable and useful prefer science.

The dichotomy you offer here is amusing; Christianity is both verifiable and useful. I'll quote the bible:

Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

Finally getting around to this older comment of yours.

M: The first reason is that it's very common among holders of all sorts of mystical beliefs to have gained the belief following such an experience, and to have attributed the belief to whichever mystical force is closest at hand, in your case, Jesus.

SB: Even then I had no religion or belief system. From there, I explored many of the worlds belief systems and philosophies, religions and traditions, for many years, before being led to Christianity. To note, at the time, out of all the religions, I considered Christianity to be one of the least plausible. Again, because it had been uniquely confirmed to me, there was no way to deny it. The evidence was as plain as my reflection in the mirror.

By "closest at hand", I didn't mean that you grabbed it right away. While you did spend years coming to Jesus, it's no coincidence that you did, IMO. You say that among religions, you were particularly prejudiced against Christianity for it's implausibility. This doesn't surprise since it was the one you were most familiar with, and so the one you had seen the most problems with, until you investigated the other ones, and found them even worse. As you have noted several times yourself, growing up in the West, you were also strongly prejudiced towards Christianity, since a large part of our cultural ethos and moral code stems directly from it, even for us atheists. So, if you were going to discover that one religion was the true one, it would almost certainly be a strain of Christianity as it's the one that fits your own culture's moral code the best. If you'd chosen Voodoo instead, then your careful search of religions would be something worth pointing to as evidence.

[God] is the only source of truth, and anyone in contact with Him has access to that truth. The second and lesser power is that of Satan. He is the source of all lies, and anyone in contact with him is deluded and in bondage. Satan is the ruler of the world system, and in general, the people who are enslaved to him are not aware of it. He can only really enslave someone who is ignorant of the truth.

These definitions, especially the ones about Satan are really self-serving. You declare that you have the truth, and part of that truth is that anyone who disagrees with you is possessed by the devil, which of course your dissenters will deny. But you can counter that easily because your religion has also defined satanic possession as something you don't notice. Tight as a drum, and these definitions from nowhere but the religion's own book.

I think it's a natural thought to have, that your life might be something like the Truman show, and everyone else is in on the conspiracy. A belief like that puts you in the very center of the Universe, and from there you could weave together any story you could imagine.

Actually, it was a very different feeling from that. I didn't feel I was the target of any conspiracy. I had stumbled into one --my group of friends-- but I was ignorant of the conspiracy before I had my experience. After I had it, I realized that they were all part of something bigger than me that I could never understand, and that I was actually in their way, that my presence in their group was really cramping their style a lot, slowing things down, forcing them to get things done surreptitiously. I realized they weren't going to directly remove me for now, but I didn't know how long their patience would last. So I removed myself, and hoped they'd leave me alone. In hindsight, they were horrible friends to begin with, so it was no loss for me. Losing those friends was a very good move for me.

The thing is, what I know now is, that everyone who falls into these traps has a little help. That you don't just fall into the abyss, you get pushed in. Satan fuels these types of experiences supernaturally. He can cause people to give you responses or engage you in dialogues which confirm the lies that he has planted and therefore reap a harvert of delusion. He will even give you these kinds of experience in order to debunk them later with the ultimate goal of getting you to doubt the real thing:

Again, you're claiming you are right, and everything untrue comes from Satan, and if I have any logical reason to doubt your story, you can give yourself permission to ignore my logic by saying it is from Satan and that's why it has the power to show the Truth is wrong. So, any Christian who believes a logical argument that conflicts with the dogma is, by definition, being fooled by Satan, and has a duty to doubt their own mind. Even better than the last one for mind control. It does away utterly with reliance on any faculty of the mind, except when their use results in dogmatic thoughts. Genius. Serious props to whoever came up with that. That's smart.

I admit some things I believe may seem counter-intuitive to you, but as you have admitted, our intuitions about what is correct are not always reliable. Quantum physics is a good example of this truth.

I have no problem with counter-intuitive things. I love them. That's why I'm do drawn to quantum physics. I really try hard to wrap my mind around how some of those things can be so, but I really can't. I trust it's so only because experimental evidence bears it out. The only claims of anybody's that I have problems with are A) highly improbable ones only where following such a belief will somehow result in an undesirable outcome; and B) internally self-contradicting or otherwise demonstrably impossible ones.

Like, if you say you believe God exists, I say fine. If you say you know God exists, I say prove it's not your imagination. If you say evolution is wrong, ordinarily I wouldn't care what you believe, except that if you're on school board and decide to replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, then I have to object because that causes harm to children who are going to think that they are real science, and on equal footing with/compatible with/superior to evolution.

It seems to me that you're still very much interpreting reality through your experience. You make the leap that since you were able to fool yourself to such an extent, and that your experience had the character of the supernatural, that everyone who has a supernatural experience is undergoing a similar process. Yet, this is a classic example of confirmation bias. How do you know that you're still not seeing things according to an unconscious paradigm you haven't yet questioned?

You may be right. I may be right. I think it's more likely that I'm right, but that's neither here nor there. How do you know you're not seeing things that aren't there? My experience proves the human mind is capable of doing so and sustaining it. The bible could have been written by several such people. Maybe in that time and place, people who ranted about strange unconnected things were considered to be prophets, and once plugged into the God story, they went to town. I'm not saying it's true, just a possible theory.

As far as truth, it is by nature, exclusive. There is no true for me, or true for you. Someone is right and someone is wrong. This world was either created with intention, or it manifested itself out of sheer happenstance. There either is a God or there isn't.

Excellent to hear. I agree with everything here and might refer back to this several times when I get to your other comment about the nature of God.

You believe you were just deceiving yourself. What I am telling you is that you had supernatural help, and that you're still in it.

If I was "in it" and deceiving myself then, I was in something and deceiving myself before. My beliefs about all supernatural things remain unchanged by my experience, that's to say, I still don't believe they exist.

First, you can rule out all the gods who make no creation claims. Two, you can rule out the creation claims that contradict the basic evidence.

First, not claiming to have created anything doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did [edit] claim it and the records were lost. Two, hold the phone -- this rules out Christianity. Genesis states the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago, or something. You can argue that this is metaphorical (why?), but surely you can't say that world being flat, or the sun rotating around the Earth is a metaphor. These are things God would know and have no reason to misrepresent. Since it's God's word, everyone would just believe it. And why not? It makes just as much sense that the Earth is round and revolves around its axis.

I thought about weighting the probabilities for each religion, but discarded it as unwieldy and unnecessary. There are so many mutually exclusive strains even within a single religion that we are still left with tons of them to choose from.

Your evidence about what the most influential/largest religion is is valid (in the "indication" sense of "evidence") for Christianity's being true, and for it being the only reasonable candidate for being true, but is not conclusive. My counterarguments are several:

1. If having the largest relative numbers is evidence of the probable truth of something, then even larger numbers is stronger evidence that it's probably not true. Around 2 billion people are Christian, so around 5 billion are not. By this method, while it's most probable Christianity is right, it's more probable that none of the religions is right. [On re-reading the preceding argument and the context you made the claim, it is a stupid see-saw argument, so I'm taking it back.] Consider also there are tens of thousands of different strains of Christianity with conflicting ideas of the correct way to interpret the Bible and conduct ourselves. Can gays marry? Can women serve mass? Can priests marry? Can non-virgins marry? And so on. Only one of these sects can be right, and again, probably none of them are.

2. The method itself doesn't take into account why the religion has spread. The answer isn't in how true it is, but in the genius of the edicts it contains. For example, it says that Christians are obliged to go convert other people, and doing so will save their eternal souls from damnation. Anyone who is a Christian is therefore compelled to contribute to this uniquely Christian process. I can't count the number of times I've been invited to attend church or talk about God with a missionary. That's why Christianity is all over the world, whereas no other religion has that spread. Also, there are all sorts of compelling reasons for people to adopt Christianity. One is that Christians bring free hospitals and schools. This gives non-truth-based incentives to join. The sum of this argument is that Christianity has the best marketing, so would be expected to have the largest numbers. The better question is why Islam still has half the % of converts that Christianity does, even though it has no marketing system at all, and really a very poor public image internationally.

3. This kinda follows from #1, but I want to make it explicit, as this, IMHO, is one of the strongest arguments I've ever come up with. I've never presented it nor seen it presented to a believer, so I'm keen for your reaction. It goes something like this: If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect. If the bible is his word, then it should be instantly apparent to anybody with language faculties that it's all absolutely true, what it means, and how to extrapolate further truths from it. But that's not what happens. Christians argue and fight over the correct interpretation of the bible, and others argue with Christians over whether it's God's word at all based on the many, many things that appear inconsistent to non-Christians. In this regard, it's obvious that it's not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. If it's not the word of God, then the whole religion based on it is bunk.

I agree to some extent about psychological motivations but reject the premise as a whole that people need religion to live in a scary Universe. Most atheists aren't aware of the vast intellectual and philosophical traditions of Christianity, or how self-critical it can be. Even Paul said that if Jesus is not resurrected that we are all fools. We're not just a bunch of ignoramouses who drank the kool-aid and are waiting for the UFO to arrive.

I didn't say people needed it. I said having a religion in a scary universe with other people with needs and desires that conflict with your own makes life a lot easier and more comfortable. Religion, in general, is probably the greatest social organizing force ever conceived of, and that's why religions are so attractive and conservatively followed in places with less beneficial social organization (i.e., places without democracy), and lower critical thinking skills (i.e. places with relatively poor education).

In contrast, in times and places where people on a large scale are well off and have a tradition of critical thinking, the benefits of having a religion as the system of governance are less apparent, and the flaws in this system come out. It becomes more common for such nations to question the authority of the church, and so separate religion from governance. The West has done so, and is leading the world. Turkey is the only officially secular Muslim nation in the world and has clearly put itself in a field apart from the rest, all because it unburdened itself of religious governance when an imposed basic social organization structure was no longer required.

It's funny but science functions in the same way for atheists as you say a god does for theists.

You're right, and you may not know how right you are. Modern scientific investigation, as away of life, comes almost entirely from the Christian tradition. It once was in the culture of Christianity to investigate and try to understand the universe in every detail. The thought was that understanding the universe better was to approach understanding of God's true nature -- a logical conclusion since it was accepted that God created the universe, and understanding the nature of something is to reveal the nature of its creator (and due to our natural curiosity, learning things makes us feel better). The sciences had several branches. Natural science was the branch dealing with the non-transcendent aspects of the universe. The transcendent ones were left to theologists and philosophers, who were also considered scientists, as they had to rigorously and logically prove things as well, but without objective evidence. This was fine, and everyone thought knowledge of the world was advancing as it should until natural science, by its own procedures, started discovering natural facts that seemed inconsistent with the Bible.

That's when people who wanted truth had to decide what their truth consisted of: either God and canon, or observable objective facts. Natural science was cleaved off from the church and took the name "science" with it. Since then, religion and science have both done their part giving people the comfort of knowledge. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is immutable and all-encompassing prefer religion. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is verifiable and useful prefer science.

>> ^marbles:

He's mischaracterizing George Orwell's views on technology.
http://revieworld.info/?p=3
George Orwell gives no evidence anywhere against his aversion to technology that he has discussed in his novel. On the contrary, his opinion is presumably neutral throughout the narration of 1984. However, his imaginations (not everything is his imagination!) portend not a very socially desirable use of technology. It is not even neutral technology. The telescreen is best being used as a propaganda machine. The microphones are used to pry upon personal conversations. There are other sophisticated gadgets to put an end to individual freedom. Since Oceania is always on war against some state or the other, such a society will make a feverish innovation in technologies.


That's an interesting read, thanks for that. I'm always looking for new perspectives on 1984; I've read it so many times.

Anyone else notice that in 1984, there is no mention of religion? Apparently that form of mind control is obsolete
Now let's all drink some victory gin and kill some proles.

It's amusing that you're trying to dismiss me like I was bothering you, when in fact you are the one who started this conversation. So you're an ex-christian, huh? Surely you know this verse:

2 Peter 2:22

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning

It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."

You're much worse than any backslider. You're saying you left Christianity because you observed hypocrisy amongst Christians? What a joke that is. You left Christianity because you love the things of the world more than you love God.

You should fear God, and only a fool wouldn't, but I don't think you're a fool. You know He is real, but you suppress the truth because you don't want to stop living the way you do. You have been brainwashed, by the enemy, to think little of God and much of yourself. Jesus Christ ransomed you with His blood, paid the price for your sins with His life..but sold yourself back into slavery for empty pleasures. Now you mock God, when you're the one at fault, when you're the real hypocrite.

Galatians 6:7

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Save your breath pal. I don't need or want to hear any sermons from you. Been there done that, chose to stop when I wised up and figured out that brain washing, mind control, and fanatical cults are not for me. Believe me, I don't fear you nor do I fear your imaginary god. If I did, then I'd be just like you wouldn't I?

Oh, and by the way I don't need any clues. Your brethren have clued me in on what kind of hypocrites they are time and time again. Every "Christian" I know, or have ever known is a back sliding hypocrite. They judge others while secretly behind closed doors they do the same things they just got through condemning others for in the public eye. Now please go pester someone else. This conversation is over.

There's a GURPS advantage called Sanitized Metabolism, which reads:

"You are totally clean. Your native intestinal enzymes and symbiotic bacteria eliminate your body odor and make efficient use of food and drink, leaving minimal, sanitized waste products. You never suffer from bad breath, excessive perspiration or unsightly skin problems."

Always wished I could put that on my RL character sheet.


That said, there's a strict hierarchy of super powers:

Level 1, God:
Omnipotence
Batman

Level 2, Cosmic:
'Omnipotence'
'Reality' Manipulation
Time Manipulation

Level 3, Rule the World:
Mind Control
'Luck' Manipulation
Kill Anyone
Speed
Magic
Genius
Hyper-Technology

Level 4, Super:
'Luck'
Invulnerability
Healing Factor
Insubstantiality
Invisibility
Teleportation
Telekinesis
etc.

Level 5, Overrated:
Ninja
Flight
Eye Beams
Strength
etc.

Level 6, Worthless:
Aquaman


I spend a lot of time thinking about this.