This thread is a prime example of what Bill Maher is talking about...
Religious morons misquoting and misrepresenting the other side of the argument so they can convince themselves they are right.
...which question? This one:
...I can't answer this as I never said I would vote for Ron Paul.
Am I actually being attacked for something I DIDN'T say...? How logical is that?
I'm sure loco could edit a quote of mine to make it seem that I did (as McWay has done to suit his own ends) but I was pretty explicit with some of my exceptions.
Loco already pointed that out, during his conversation with Deicide, " So what? The Luke said that he'd vote for Ron Paul, and he gave the only reason why he would not vote for Ron Paul. His one reason had nothing to do with Ron Paul's Christian beliefs.
To answer the question I assume is implied here.
Yes... if Ron Paul truly is a devout religious believer (there's no way we can know for sure as Vladimir Putin and many others also claim such yet their actions are at odds with Christian beliefs), but if he is truly a believer, then yes... Yes he is a fool. Such an irrational belief would immediately demote him from any intellectual status... perhaps he is quasi-rational; high functioning in some areas, yet unable to think rationally in other areas.
Once again, if there's no way you can know for sure (and you CANNOT PRODUCE any actions of theirs that would betray their profession of faith), then you give them the benefit of the doubt. You haven't done that. Furthermore, that boneheaded statement of yours just proved what I've said from the start. You can't back your words, with regards to Obama, Paul, MLK, or anyone else.
The only reason you're suggesting that these men are atheists (at least, with King and Obama) is because of YOUR OWN PREJUDICIAL (but woefully lacking in fact) bent that religious people can't be intellectuals. That has been proven to be dead wrong, time and time and time again.
To top it all off, you said that the one issue you had with Paul was his economic policy, NOT his religious beliefs. Per your own twisted standards, the thought of perhaps voting for Paul should have VANISHED the second you learned that he was a Christian.
NONE of these men are atheists; NONE of them claim that there is no God or support positions or have taken actions that would suggest their lack of belief in a supernatural deity. Therefore, your proclaiming that they are atheists, to save your contorted logic and figuratively exposed behind, is not only false, it's just plain DUMB!
To clarify... yes, there are NO religious scientists.
Incorrect, once again, as I listed a handful of them earlier: Louis Pasteur, Kurt Wise, Robin Crossman, Ben Carson, Duane Gish, and that's merely the short list.
Quoting a list of ten; or twenty religious academics doesn't negate the validity of this statement.
The list is far longer; again, no one claimed that such is exhaustive. Once again, your pitiful takes get cut to ribbons; so, you're scrambling to make excuses.
Roughly a thousand Nobel Prizes have been awarded in the sciences (usually teams win)... maybe two or three of these scientists are religious. So the objection here is regarding the 0.01% who express some form of religious/spiritual belief.
That's fine by me... I'm happy to be only 99.9% right when my detractors are 99.9% wrong.
Last time I checked, winning a Nobel prize was NOT A REQUIREMENT to be an intellectual. There are plenty of intellectuals who don't win them. Basically, it goes like this. Your attempt to rationalize why you'd potentally vote for someone, who is a Christian, while struggling to claim that he's actually atheist, is perhaps the most feeble and foolish gesturing I've ever seen. The only thing that might trump that is your spineless, limp-wristed whining about people twisting your words, even though those words are in plain sight, in black-and-white, in full context, for all to see.