In what may go down as the biggest mistake in US presidential campaign history Ron Paul lost a spectacular 60% of the Atheist Vote as a result of his making public his views on evolution and creationism, According to a poll conducted on this blog.Atheists knew for some time that Ron Paul was a christian, But because Atheists generally have their heads screwed on they looked past his invisible-sky-daddy fantasies and focused on his logical approach to government, The constitution and the economy.
But if there is anything Atheists have learned it's that if you find a christian, It's not long before you also find someone who denies reality, Reason, Evidence and logic. Anyone who claims to posses reason and faith posses neither.
Ron Paul could have easily answered the question in a way that kept Atheists on his side and made sure the christians wouldn't reject him as a heathen. he could have said; "well there is a lot of evidence for evolution, I believe that if it is true then god created it". This would have still lost him a few votes and I'm sure a few bloggers would have come down on him just as hard, But for him, A doctor, To say "I don't believe in evolution as a theory" exposes him as someone who is willing to deny evidence because of his religion.
It was good while it lasted Ron, But you blew it. As much as i liked Ron Paul he wasn't in the position to be throwing votes away and i suspect losing 60% of the Atheist vote is going to be quite damaging. I believed that out of all the candidates he was the Atheists candidate simply because of him being a defended of the constitution.
I saw the poll and wondered why there was no choice, "Ron Paul never had my vote in the first place." I disagree with him on every issue except Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThat poll and its results are flawed. It is not a representation of the Atheist voters at all. It represents less than 100 people who visit this blog on a regular or semi-regular basis. Most polls that have any weight are done with a few hundred to a few thousand people.
ReplyDeleteArgh D, you beat me to it. 41 votes seems like too little to constitute 60% of all atheists everywhere, also considering the fact that people that visit this blog are on your side in a sense.
ReplyDeleteThat and the fact you are assuming they are voting Atheists who are American. I bet at least 1 person who voted yes cannot or does not vote. So they do not count in the 'Atheist Vote.'
ReplyDeleteI believed that out of all the candidates he was the Atheists candidate simply because of him being a defended of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteHe isn't a defender of the Constitution. I don't think he has bothered to read it. He thinks it is 'replete with references to God.' You can't consider zero references replete, can you?
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
Yeah, Ron Paul does sound like something of a quack. He's always given me a sense of distrust in him.
ReplyDeleteObama '08! :)
retarded poll. I guess you never took a statistics course lol.
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHA
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? Do you know how statistics really work?
If you believe that evolution theory cannot be challenged scientifically, you are wrong! Evolution has recieved it's fair amount of criticism and believing in it blindly is just as bad as being a fundamentalist christian. Whatever the truth maybe, it's obvious that we cant say one way or the other for sure. So, well I dont care if people want to believe in something that gets them through their day. You want to believe god created everything? Sure, whatever floats your boat and keeps you peaceful. I dont give a shit and neither should you..
ReplyDeleteMartand, Evolution receives criticism from people who either have an agenda to push or people who don't know the first thing about the claims evolution makes or how it works. Every time these people open their mouths their arguments get torn to shreds by evolutionists.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteI have been studying the theory of evolution or 'neo-Darwinism' for a few years now. The theory provided by Darwin was never complete. It too has *evolved* over the years.
Darwin wasnt wrong about everything he said but he wasnt right about everything either. But it dosnt matter what one man's opinion was. The ultimate goal of all theories is to understand the world. The ultimate goal of the theory of evolution is to understand the living world. Evolution is a biological theory to explain biological facts. Since wrong and vague theories hamper our understanding of nature, one way to increase our understanding is to eliminate wrong and vague theories. Another way is to improve existing theories. I think it is possible to improve the theory of evolution by solving the problems posed by the critics and incorporating the solutions into the theory of evolution.
But is Neo Darwinism complete yet? No it's not. Creationism maybe ridiculous, but so is faith. One thing you should never stop doing is question.
You may read books by Michael Denton or Stanley Salthe. Who have discussed the theory in an educated manner and still being accessible to pop culture.
But even better is to get a girl, get high and rent a movie like 'The Big Lebowski' or something . And just take it eeeasy..
I am one of the strongest atheists you'll ever meet and the fact that Ron Paul is christian still won't stop me from voting for him in November. None of the other candidates even comes close to protecting personal freedom and stopping wasteful government spending. I don't agree with his religion or abortion viewpoints but I understand that the President of the United States needs to be a compromise of all voters desires.
ReplyDeleteI hope that one day in the future, likely when the YouTube/internet generation grows to an elderly age, we will see a presidential candidate similar to Ron Paul but also quite atheist, and these foolish 2000 year old mythologies can finally lay at rest in the history books.
I'm with Josh. Ron Paul is the only choice, for civil liberties, and economic freedom. No one else comes close. No atheist is going to win in our lifetime. His biology may be wrong, but his economic theory is dead on. He's not running for Biologist in Chief. Get pragmatic!
ReplyDeleteObama is just as bad making one month dedicated to a month of prayer. Some atheist group already contacted a judge about it.
ReplyDeletehaha a poll of 41 people, thats a sufficient amount with which to make a general assessment of all the athiest voters in the United States
ReplyDeleteI hope all of you accept Jesus as your personal savior before it's too late.
ReplyDeleteI'm a hardcore atheist, and I am hoping that he runs in the primaries for the Republican nomination. It makes the majority of atheists angry at me, but I agree with his position against abortion. This is because I believe in the Non-Aggression principle. Also, his view is that it would be ideal to eliminate state sponsored marriages all together. This puts gay and straight couples on equal ground being able to get married through private contracts. I hate his stance on immigration and that is a major nagging point with me. I believe that employers should be able to hire whoever they wish without government intruding. That being said, I will vote for him if he runs, because he is the closest to my positions. Also, The only way to get a libertarian type candidate elected is to push them through a major party. Ron Paul 2012!
ReplyDeleteP.S., his views on biology are irrelevant. They will not reflect his policies, and he IS an old man... Maybe someone never took time to explain these things to him properly. That being said, his economic views are the product of being well informed of economics. Maybe it was a ploy to get creationist voters? He really does need to stop that...
Dude, seriously? You polled 41 people on your personal website and declare he's lost 60% of atheist votes? Are you 14?
ReplyDelete