Can A Conservative Be an Atheist?

Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
134 comments | Share | Flag

ok, let's talk...

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you listen to Mark Levin? If so, how would you say you align with him?

    Don't confuse Republicans with conservatives - few R's are truly conservative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The section you quoted is significant in that it says the unalienable Rights are endowed "by their Creator". If that more generic phrase is read to mean "by God", then the conclusion could be believers in a different god do not have these rights."

    Right. They were saying those rights exist fundamentally, that they're not granted by a benevolent gov't to the people. They didn't know how the universe was created. We still don't know, although we know a lot more than they did. That does not mean they accepted any particular story about who created us. They just "our creator".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "They were also initially completely with NSA and against Snowden's actions. on a current post of mine, we are vigorously discussing the validity of police checkpoints. who is for them? Conservatives"

    In this way they're the opposite of classical liberals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. People might say stealing feels so much better than earning something honestly b/c I get what I want faster and w/o working. The same person who says this might get more out of the learning process of work, not having to lie, and not having to worry about the victim seeking justice or revenge. When you add it all up, they'd rather not steal. But sometimes we're weak and we do something we know is not what we should do. We're conflicted. It's not as simple as we all seek to steal if it weren't for one factor alone (e.g. locks, police, gods, our values) keeping us honest.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Our founders didn't ascribe to a singular flavor of deity - rather that there was a supreme entity. You are free to derive your flavor of such as you feel right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I prefer Constitutional Libertarian. What the Constitution originally said (plus amendments), and nothing more. If it's not there, then it's either a state or local issue, and if not specified there, then you are free to do as you damn well please.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The section you quoted is significant in that it says the unalienable Rights are endowed "by their Creator". If that more generic phrase is read to mean "by God", then the conclusion could be believers in a different god do not have these rights. That would be a dangerous direction! I would even venture to say that atheists have a creator (nature), based in the material world.

    When analyzing the religious references in the founding documents, remember it was almost a century before Darwin, an era when religion was the default. Those documents are powerful because of they are rational (as you said) and succinct, and would remain so even after you extract the dialect and idiom of that century.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is not the individual's job to worry about species extinction through choosing to raise a child. Technology easily sees to that. As well, there are always children in the world in need of parents. so this evil argument is faith based not rationally based. Why is it stupid to want to have sex with someone you love? That argument also fails. If you wanted to say promiscuity is stupid, I might listen to that argument.
    Time is often part of consequences. Someone has unprotected sex and much later symptoms of an STD show up. The short term benefit had a large cost delivered much later.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
    When will the Judeo/Christian movement stop plagiarizing anything from everything? Every religion and culture has a creation myth, has a flood myth, they all have a god being that punishes and rewards, they all have a half-god child hero, they all have a belief that death is not an end but is transformative, they all have 'special' humans that are the only ones that can talk to the gods, they all believe that in turn for suffering on Earth will be rewarded after death, Easter and Christmas are the pagan solar equinoxes, Christmas trees are a Nordic pagan construct, the Ten Commandments are except for a couple common sense for a society - and now they want to be the source of nature's laws and liberty and the founding of this nation. On and on and on.

    There have been more humans murdered, tortured, and lives ruined in the name of religion than any other cause in history and every religion, especially the judeo/Christian one, has had their hands in the bloody mix.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Right there with you. Checkpoints are unconstitutional. A governmentally provided license is not an implied consent to search. And an overriding "good" of removing impaired drivers is not a sufficient reason to impair my liberty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A bit of historical revisionism is going on there. The Patriot Act was passed by both liberals and conservatives - with some of the most libertarian leaning conservatives voting no (Ron Paul and Butch Otter being the more libertarian of those opposing). You seem to forget that there was also very strong democratic support - and those that were opposed were so more because it was an R Pres, as they subsequently voted to reauthorize with a D Pres.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think I would have to say more libertarian. I believe in small government, and a capitalist society. The thing we have now isn't remotely what the principles of this country were founded on. I don't like what I'm seeing from so-called conservatives. I don't find that I identify with most of the rhetoric they spew. I just don't have that religious bent that they cling to so righteously. I don't see what it has to do with politics. I don't have a problem with people who have a faith in God, just don't cram it down my throat and tell me I'm going to hell without it. It shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with politics. That was the idea the founding fathers had. Don't combine the two.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think this is an excellent summation of the video. IT is getting a fair amount of attention on social media. Ultimately, I found the question to be a set up for your 5th point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So, Henry the VIII'th should have been quite rational in his actions, should he not? He had ultimate freedom and his property rights were unquestioned.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, and none of that is based on faith or religion, it is based on straight rationality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not so sure. You would need to factor in time as well as consequences. There are many who will trade short-term benefits for long-term consequences (and frankly, the probabilities of actually having the consequences imposed).

    I don't see homosexuality as "bad." It is stupid on an individual level, and evil on a societal level. Carnal pleasure at the individual level is not inherently good nor bad. So long as the participating individuals consent to the activity and do not "harm" one another or others, what they do is up to them. I find it stupid as the "plumbing" was meant to work in a certain way. There is nothing that a MM, FF coupling can do that a MF coupling cannot also do.

    However, as a societal norm, it is evil and suicidal. "Go forth and multiply," is not merely a benign blessing, it is a command for species survival. Any species must perpetuate itself, otherwise it will cease to exist. That, therefore, must be law number one. Societal homosexuality violates law number one, and thus is the ultimate evil, for it leads to species extinction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not this one! It goes against all of the laws of this country. All in the name of keeping people "safe". It's just a way to get people to comply, gradually, with rules which in effect take away our freedoms. Illegally. Sheeple getting used to being herded.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    no.
    I do think that man always has a choice to act virtuously and with reason. I also think the more freedom man has and the more his property rights are protected, the more rationally he acts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Conservatives were the biggest proponents of the Patriot Act. It received much of its criticism for privacy over-reach by the left, initially. While some Conservatives may regret the formation of Homeland Security, they were behind Bush all the way in the wake of 9-11. the ol "if you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about."
    as a unofficial litmus, let's take the opinion show "The Five" on FOX. When the Boston bombing happened, all of the conservative hosts were four square behind the declaring of national emergency and imprisoning individuals in their homes and going door to door.
    They were also initially completely with NSA and against Snowden's actions. on a current post of mine, we are vigorously discussing the validity of police checkpoints. who is for them? Conservatives.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo