No, mine was an observation not historical fact of which I was not a witness.

Well said

Nope - you did not read carefully. I absolutely support Locke who is not part of the Scottish Enlightenment. I reject Hume and his followers because Hume rejects causation and induction.

Your a little weak on your philosophy, Paine, Jefferson and the founding fathers were all followers of Locke, but they were not followers of Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment.

I thought he was weak in yesterday's debate. He stumbled and mumbled. I am flummoxed why his numbers are so high.

Well said. I find it disappointing that some choose to argue that the Founders were not Christian men, when they most definitively were. And then they get so hung up on it that then they overlook the majesty and brilliance of those men in their conception of the Constitution. Moreso because instead of enshrining what they believed, they left that choice up to every single individual to make and enshrined protections of those very choices as the number one protected right of man. If Christians were such religious zealots bent on world domination through coercion, would they not have taken this singular opportunity to ensconce those very beliefs in the fabric of this nation's inception?

Yep, I just have to shake my head at the intolerance of some of the people here.

The 10 Commandments are not all "common sense" rules. See George Carlin's classic routine reducing them to two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8oo...

If you want common-sense guidance to ethical values, check out Rand's list of 7 virtues, http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/Vir.... Compare these to the traditional seven deadly sins. Significantly, pride occurs on both lists, though differently defined.

Ultimately there is the one golden rule variously stated: Treat others as you want to be treated; do unto others as you want done unto you; don't do to others what you don't want done to you; and the clearest formulation, Galt's Oath -- "I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for the sake of another [man] nor ask another to live for mine."

Interactions among individuals are thus by mutual consent for mutual benefit. No one may initiate force or fraud against another. Religion is fraud. Political power is force. Measure your candidates accordingly.

You just keep telling yourself that. And when you die and you find that your intellect survives, maybe stop and think for just a moment that maybe you told yourself those things because you wanted to believe them, but not because they were true.

You, too, need to bury your hatchet. You hate people who aren't atheists like yourself. You can't tolerate that anyone might think - let alone know - that there is more out there.

You don't have to agree with Dr. Carson. You don't have to agree with me. But you could make an effort to disagree politely. Tolerance starts with tolerance.

I'm also noticing that your posts mysteriously are all winding up with an extra thumbs up, even though no one has even responded to many of them. So tell me, who is upvoting your posts?

Speaking of personal attacks, I knew you'd show up ewv. And I never said db didn't use his brain, I said that this post was an example of not using one's brain because as I pointed out, db makes two outrageous statements in defaming Dr. Carson that he can not defend.

Yes, you like to think of yourself as a "pure" Objectivist and that you openly condemn anything and everything else without toleration. That's your decision. My comment was a response specifically to lrshultis. You aren't invited to comment on why I choose to do things. You claim to own your life, so do I. If you want me to have any respect for you owning your opinions, you'd better demonstrate that that goes both ways.

Point back.
Good way to put it. Accomplishments cannot come from something that does not exist.

I figured he would be one of those but-heads. IE; "i'm pro gun, BUT...". As I said in another comment, "when you have faith, anything is possible." And now we know how his faith is going to work,

Well that's quite an anti-Carson screed. So it sounds like you believe there are no boundaries reasonable to establish regarding abortion procedures or funding ? You are a Dr Gosnell supporter ?
I don't recall hearing Ben Carson mention his religious position even once in the debate last night.
I'm still deciding on which candidate is my first choice, but Ben Carson and his religiously grounded morality certainly is not my last choice.

Your distortion of history is typical christian

hear hear

Been there too.

You have to read your own posts before you start calling people "arrogant prig". And you just made my point. I really don't care what you do or do not believe. Rand was an atheist. She died. To you that should be the end of discussion. But you continue as if you have your own doubts and can't stand the possibility of being wrong. What arrogance.

It is just as rational an argument as your reference to a time when we had prayer in school. Hint: It is not a rational argument.

I wasn't aware you were representing anyone other than yourself (as you indicate in your first sentence) so I can only "reckon" you are.

and now he is moot on his earlier stance of gun control. He is all over the map.AS President, he would be a wild card. I do not trust that he would not raise taxes and take away more freedoms. Also he is green with no experience managing large groups of people.