Originally Posted by trumptman
Nothing is surprising on here anymore. We have wonderful parties that will argue what "well-accepted" means and challenge you to not just to prove it, but prove what you have proven meets the universal criteria of "well-accepted."
Yeah Nick, that certainly is a reasonable characterization of what "certain parties" have been up to.
Oh, wait, asking for some evidence that "most atheists are liberal" has nothing to do with anything you said. Well now that's downright odd.
When I was an undergrad, I took a course called "From Christianity to Marxism." As you have noted many traits can be assigned to the two religious ideologies and convincing arguments can be made in a multitude of directions. I would argue that one of the central tenets of most western religions is the belief that God is in control. The class I took, as we went through the sort of family tree of philosophy moved us from a God centered worldview to a human centered worldview. Does that mean that someone can't have a human centered worldview and still believe in a God? They can however I would label them at best an agnostic as opposed an atheist. I wouldn't label them as religious per se. I think Adda's point is that he knows loads of what I would consider to be agnostic people. They believe in a God, perhaps appeal to him (or her) on occasion, but mostly don't think this has any effect on our day to day lives.
So anyone with a personal faith that doesn't necessarily cede authority over all aspects of life to God is an "agnostic" at best. This is going to come as a shock to lots and lots and lots of people of faith.
Now back to the God centered view, God punishes, God rewards, gives, takes and so forth. If you believe all this to be true, then you don't need a central government rearranging society. Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc. do not need to be in control because God is in control. Do I believe, right or wrong, that this is likely to align more closely with a political ideology that is a bit more laissez faire economically and for a good percentage of the time socially as well. I do.
Uh... so the terminus of being a "liberal" is Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro etc, godless all, so there you go. So I guess that would make the end game of "conservatism" fascism? Perhaps you could discuss the relationship of fascist strong-men to God. Hmmmmm, I hear "Islamo-facist" bandied about a lot, and those dudes are all
about God being in charge of all things, so..... I have no idea what that means.
At any rate, you're describing a fairly fundamentalist view of faith. Again, and why I bother I have no idea, that is an extreme narrowing of the definition of that word. There are endless degrees of faith, and endless notions about how that sorts out, exactly, in day to day life.
The voting patterns back this view, but as you have seen here. People will simply dispute what religious is, or what belief of God means, etc. They don't prove their disputes. They think simply disputing is proof enough.
The voting pattern you keep hanging your hat on has nothing to do with my original question, or the dozen or so times I've reiterated it. Some people are amazingly disingenuous.
I do think this is why the political left has trouble convincing religious folks to vote for them.
They do? You mean the tiny percentage of Americans that self identify as "atheist" swung the last election? Oh, sorry, that's right, "religious" means "conservative", which is why it's so silly of me to question any of this. I mean, look, "conservative" equals
"religious", they are like totally the same thing! What the hell am I thinking, asking anyone to define any terms at all or provide any evidence? Ha ha! That's like completely insane!
It is sort of hard to say, God is in control, so please vote for me so I can have the federal government work in a neutral fashion that may or may not demonstrate that control but will advance society. It is also hard to convince religious people that the government needs to perfect society when many religious beliefs hold that the world itself and its injustice, suffering, imperfection are proof of the need for something eternal, external, etc. It is sort of like saying please remove the very thing that demonstrates the need for God, in the name of God.
I am bemused to learn that "liberals" have been running for office with the message "there is no God, we're all you've got." I am further bemused to learn that "conservatives" have been running for office with the message "God has this covered, so there's really no reason to vote for me or not, but what the hell".
Notice, I'm not even trying to cast a bad light on the parties who could be working toward a better society and still claiming a belief in God. The point is just that it doesn't seem to line up and connect as well. Nothing is absolute here
What I notice is that you have used Stalin as an example of how "liberalism" tends toward a society that doesn't need God, another thing "everybody" knows. It's not pejorative, or nuthin', of course, just an observation.
Your own exit poll numbers show that we are simply talking more about ratios and percents.
Those exit polls mean something, goaddamit, and since I can't be bothered to muster any evidence on my own, they'll just have to do!
Atheists have a human centered view. As such it is much more likely that they will believe we need a centrally planned society to perfect and correct the problems in our society.
Who says atheists are looking to perfect and correct the problems of society? Who says that those who do think the government is the best instrument for that? Does being an atheist preclude a sprit of volunteerism or compassion? Does being an atheist preclude the notion that change is best effected at the community level, by direct participation?
Wouldn't it be just as easy to argue that liberals are probably more
God-centric because they believe so strongly in comforting the weak, etc? The instrument by which one does God's will isn't really an argument for faith, one way or the other.
If God can't be in control, and we aren't going to leave it to fate, then man must be in control. That view lends itself to the left side of the political spectrum. Does that mean it is exclusive. No, but in terms of percents we can generally say yes that they will be there. Their own worldview dictates and lines up best with such views.
Again, you're talking as if Republicans are generally running on a platform of "God will provide, I'm just along for the ride."
Presumably, when conservatives run for office they have some
plan to "do stuff" beyond waiting for God to intervene. When the Republican candidates fulminate about kicking ass and starting some more wars, are those things that they believe "God is in charge of"? How about immigration reform?
In fact, why is it, exactly, that the only political issues that betray a Godless, human-centric view of the world are things like the minimum wage, environmental protections, or policies to help the poor?
Does God have a particular jones for that stuff, maybe laid it out in the Bible? But also remarked that when it came to waging war or purging voter rolls or keeping out Mexicans, we were free to go to town?