Did Julius Caesar perform supernatural miracles?
Do you believe he was a deity?

Is it a matter of faith to believe Julius Caesar existed and was who history (and he) said he was?

Just remember - that when you vote for "the lesser of 2 evils", you're still voting FOR evil.

Hello again barwick11,
If it cannot be tested and repeated it is still a matter of faith. Faith is not empirical. https://www.google.com/search?q=empirica...

The witnesses of miracles and the authors of the Good Book cannot be cross examined and their miracles cannot be re-created. The debate has been held many times by many great minds.

There are many contemporary debates available on youtube. I have searched for incontrovertible evidence, but the arguments rage on.

As far as the senses go... there are many things we cannot discern with our five senses, yet believe, because we can extrapolate and produce mathematical formulas that are based on metaphysical realities that can be tested. They, at least, have verifiable foundations from which to extrapolate and mathematical laws which are repeatable (axioms) upon which to base the theories.

The debate about the metaphysical existence of a creator has been had many times on this board and a plethora of others. I doubt we will finally prove it one way or the other here and we are drifting from the threads primary subject. I suggest you investigate the debates from threads of the past, but I doubt they will cast doubt on your beliefs and that is no concern or source of consternation to me, but I see no advantage to our continued effort here. We are all free to believe what we wish.

This topic traditionally is a common avenue of philosophic exploration and deserves its own thread. I have nothing more to add at this time. If you desire to continue exploring this subject I suggest you start a new thread and present your evidence. Many here may once again desire to provide input. There are also many new members...

Respectfully,
O.A.

Presume for a moment there may be things you cannot immediately discern with the 5 senses.

If you can get past that, there's ample scientific and philosophical evidence that "sure makes it seem like" there's a creator.

Hello barwick11,

You pose some interesting inquiries philosophers have been dealing with since the beginning. Many would suggest the answer to your question is “The Law of Causality.” Somewhere in this vast universe all things possible are likely to occur, (including all that you can observe) naturally by the random combination of elements and conditions. We are just lucky enough to be here and to be amazed by the wonder which we observe. This amazement is thought to be the reason man has always wondered and tried to answer the big questions--- Who are we? Where did we come from? And why are we here? Many men not being able to comprehend or believe that all of this has occurred randomly, naturally, have created/proposed many answers and hypothesis. This includes all religious creator beliefs preferred by some and scientific theories like evolution preferred by others.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresults/...


The objectivist position is that since there is no empirical evidence for the creator/ prime mover, it is arbitrary and thus of no concern. It is not in the doctrine. Atheism is the official doctrine until evidence to the contrary can be ascertained.

I do not have the answer. This question is unanswerable, which is why the debate has raged on since the beginning… why science is at odds with creationists. IMHO St. Thomas Aquinas has made the best case for a creator, but even his dialectic argument leaves one with less than empirical evidence.


Respectfully,
O.A.

In a close contest between a Republican and a Democrat, a vote for the Libertarian is a vote for the Democrat. The cynical side of my brain says that the LP's only hopes to become a major party would be if the Obama team succeeds in wiping out the Republicans or if the Republicans destroy themselves.

Unfortunately, in today's elections you almost always are faced with the choice between the lesser of two weevils (my pardon to "Master and Commander"). I still register Republican, but mostly so I can vote against the establishment candidate in the primaries as most of them are corrupted by the system.

When present, I always take a hard look at the independents and Libertarians, even though in my state they're pretty rare.

I will NEVER vote for a Democrat, however. The problem is that they don't get any funding for re-election from the Party coffers unless they vote the Party line - which includes more government handouts, more taxes, more infringement on rights, more costly rules for business, etc.

If your rights don't come form God, who created all things, then where in the world would they come from? A 3rd party in the middle somewhere?

Yep.... pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it in fewer words.

Best bet: learn all you can stand about as many 'sides' you can find, then let your MIND be in charge of your eventual choice.

And don't be afraid to change your mind, view, opinion or direction if new data become available to you. There's an old saying about how so many people, when they're young, follow Liberal (Progressive, whatever) directions and become more and more Conservative as they get older (wiser and more experienced?)...

Some, not all... :) Enjoy the journey!

First off, thank you guys for all of your comments and suggestions! I am doing my own research on the matter, but the ideas presented here give me good questions I can ask myself regarding my political involvement in the future.

I think that, while everyone has their own spin on the issue, the three main sides are these: vote for the candidate that best represents your values, vote for the candidate who is the lesser of two evils (considering the system), or do not vote at all. I am extremely torn between all of these. I actually campaigned for the GOP in the 2012 elections in my township, and I was highly motivated in electing republican candidates, even though I didn't fully agree with them on everything. However, as the GOP is looking more and more like the left (forgetting commendable individuals like Paul, Cruz, Walker, etc), I am becoming more reluctant to join them. Libertarians are the most similar to my beliefs, but I know they won't win any major elections in my area or across the country any time soon, so I think it's somewhat of a waste. I presently am beginning to value standing with my principles far more than compromising with a somewhat-ok candidate who isn't a full socialist. However, that provides a justifiable argument for the third stance: should I just shrug? If I compromise or continue to hold on to some small minority party, even if I know nothing will change, am I just like Dagny or Rearden, working hopelessly in a society becoming increasingly unfit for their existence? I don't know if we are there yet, but it sure seems like it's close, if we aren't already. I am tempted to just follow the way of Galt and shrug. My only concern is that, since I cannot just completely walk away from society like Galt did, my life will essentially be in the hands of everyone else, as well as my future children's lives. Am I willing to accept that, purely on a basis of principle? I don't know how this country is going to change, but I believe it still can, and I passionately want to change it. It's a struggle that will probably stay with me for the rest of my life, and I probably will never fully know which way is best.

I certainly do not know which political path to take, but I will do my damnedest starting now to figure it out the best I can. The world the majority of you took part in shaping (whether supporting it or fighting against it) is the world I have to grow up in, and it's the world I need to reshape for my posterity in one way or another.

" But why would moves in the direction of liberty scare voters? "
It's not the direction but the rate. People fear any radical change. We'd rather see gov't spending held constant in nominal values while we experience the normal 2-6% inflation than see it cut in half over a three years. We'd rather see a phased-in change than to see in one year clinics appear at Wal-Mart with low-cost DIY test options next to shelves where you can buy cocaine or blood pressure pills without asking anyone for permission. I believe people can handle that freedom, but it needs to come over a decade or more.

I don't care what atheists want.

Churches should not have to pay for government-issued contraceptives. Neither should atheists be forced to subsidize any government services provided to churches, such as police and fire protection, national defense, and access to the courts. Churches are no more entitled to a free ride than are any other voluntary organizations.

DD... why should you join any party at all? If you find one that resonates with your ethics, morals and beliefs, by all means, if you care to, join them so you can support them, proselytize or enhance and improve them to your heart's desire!

And you won't be able to influence any primary elections but those of your chosen party.

Falk's First Law: "The Whole World is a Tradeoff." And that's certainly an example of one kind of tradeoff.

Google "Nolan Chart" and take the 'quiz' from several sites and see if your 'score' or mapped location on the grid feels comfortable to you... and maybe research one or more of the 'parties' whose names come closest to your dot on the chart.

Me? http://www.plusaf.com/aboutme/mypolitics... ...

But as an atheist, too (free-market capitalist atheist, by self-identification,) I can't support the anti-free-market controllers of the Liberal/Democrat side, nor can I base my moral decisions or ethics on anyone's bible or preacher, so the Conservative/Republicans are out, too.

I perceive even the Pauls... Ron and Rand and their ilk... as having too-deep roots in "the bible tells me what's right and wrong," (imnsho), and I certainly can't support the Ultimate Power and Control Freaks of Green, Socialist, etc., parties.

In most cases, I've had to go into the voting booth to select the "Lesser of Two Weevils" in nearly every election, and I turn 69 next month and I've voted in damned near every election I've been eligible to vote in.

I'd suggest you look for a party congruent with your beliefs IF you can find one, and if you can't just 'register' as Independent or "other" or whatever and vote ad hoc for the CANDIDATE whose views map closest to yours (or better yet, whose ACTIONS demonstrate congruence with your ethics, morals, etc.

One other personal suggestion from me, though... If ANY candidate, party or supporter comes across as "our group is consistently right, ethical, moral, etc., and 'that other group is the opposite,' " run from them.

Objective as I can possibly be, BOTH of the 'major parties' do NOT have a lock on ethics, morals or Critical Thinking, and many of the smaller parties are even worse.

Good luck with your research and choice, if it comes down to it.
plusaf.com

IMO, abortion is murder. I support tax exemptions for churches. Why should churches pay for government-issue contraceptives for instance?
I have a gay son who I love but I could not be present--yuck!--should he and his partner decide to have a gay marriage. I tolerate gays as long as they don't try to get my face. Recall a founding father saying something like "If it does not hurt me, I don't care."
I was a half-grown kid on a bike when my first sexual feelings were sparked by so-called men's magazines with illustrations of Nazis tormenting half-naked women in chains. Those magazines were set apart on a rotating rack right beside the one for comic books. Perhaps you remember that crap..
I did not need such crap messing with my head at so young an age. Such material needs to be kept behind the counter or not in a store at all. Hey, pornographer! Leave them kids alone!

Then you have a much higher tolerance for intrusive government than I do. I'm 70 and would not look forward to spending my remaining years in a society dominated by the "values" espoused by the Constitution Party.

I could live with that. I'm 67 and have seen and done a lot. I was very much a liberal during the Vietnam War, even after I got drafted into the Marines of all branches.
I got born again during the mid-70s and the Jimmy Carter experience had me voting for Reagan and rethinking values. Never been much of a saint, though.

For me, issue #1 is to get the big spenders out of office, regardless of party label. And I live in California, which imposes two major practical constraints. (1) The Democrats are by far the stronger major party here. Thus if there is any possibility of a reform candidate getting a major party nomination it would be in the Republican party. (In a conservative state I would say the opposite.) And (2), California's weird new election system (which effectively abolishes primaries and replaces them with a free-for-all in the spring, followed by a runoff between the top two in the fall) means that there often won't be a good choice in the "general" (fall) election at all.

In these circumstances, I register independent (so both parties will try to persuade me) and try to vote strategically in each race, meaning I pick the non-big-spender candidate with the best chance to win. (Thus I would usually vote for a Tea Party Republican where there is one running -- mostly because in California he's never going to enact his social agenda anyway. But any Republican that enjoys the support of his party machine probably doesn't merit a vote. And forget any Democrat.)

But there are several races this time where none of the candidates is worth voting for. And that's a shame. I would support an effort to give our state primaries again.

I visited the site, and according to its platform, the Constitution Party thinks abortion should not be legal under any circumstances, supports tax exemptions for churches, opposes legal recognition of gay marriages and civil unions, and affirms the "rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior.”

Indeed!

To quote Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed: Obama is a grocery clerk, a fraud, and a salesman used to sell you something on TV.

Libertarian, good idea. But why would moves in the direction of liberty scare voters?

I sincerely hope this is a joke. Obama has done more to undermine personal rights in 6 years than all the other presidents combined.

Choosing a party, and voting, requires faith that the people counting the votes will do it fairly and also report the results accurately.

Either that, or you accept that your vote probably doesn't actually count, but you desire to send a message to those in power about which candidates you prefer. On this latter basis, I'll probably be voting for the Libertarian candidate for governor this fall.

Is there anyone who chooses to vote on the former basis? I read so many complaints about how corrupt Obama and other government representatives are, that I would find it surprising if many thought that these same corrupt people would be honorable in tallying votes and stepping down if they lost..

As mainstream politicians go, I think President Obama is a good person/leader. He'll only be president for two more years, so even if I didn't support him, it wouldn't stop me from supporting other Democrats.

I would love for some perfect storm of forces to come and allow a libertarian to be elected president or maybe several members of Congress and undo the two-party duopoly. It takes some perfect storm of forces where people reject the two parties, and it takes a moderate libertarian willing to move in the direction of liberty slowly enough not to scare voters.