What if a Democrat pushed hard on religion? - Page 2

If something is commonly understood, and someone wants to press it as not so, let them disprove it. Loads of surveys have shown the Republican Party is more religious.

I'm not going to sit here and twist myself into knots because a few of you want some mental masturbation.

You want to scream about religious right and how it wants to get into our pants and bedrooms in one thread and then deny they exist in another, have fun with your lunacy. I'm under no obligation to indulge you and noting that others don't have to as well isn't some sort of thought crime or non-fact.

Karl Marx notes that religion is the opium of the people and we note that as such, those who follow his policies tend to have a bit of a non-religious bent and you think this is absurd. We note that Communist Russia banished religion and well, we are just talking out our asses. Surveys of religion by party affiliation note the same trend in the states and again, we are really just full of shit.

Oh, but I won't go spend my whole day finding links for you to prove that which you already believe but want to suddenly dispute. Fuck off, I'm not your gopher. Get your sexual jollies some other way.

Nick

We're not talking about Religion, Nick.

We are talking about belief in God.

There is a significant intellectual difference.

Care to read a little more carefully?

Nick

You make no mention of specific liberal beliefs.

Just some vague reference to redistributive something or other, which doesn't really mean anything.

Are you trying, but failing, to say that liberals believe in a Utopian redistribution of wealth?

Are you trying, but failing, to say that liberals believe in class warfare?

(How class warfare relates to coveting another person's belongings isn't really clear)

Here, let me mock you and show what you are doing?

Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it.

There, now if you don't "prove it" to my satisfaction, then you are full of shit and I am thus right in anything I contend without proving anything.

That is the fallacy being committed here by you and others. If you want to prove something, then prove it. Don't just sit there and demand others prove something to YOUR satisfaction (especially since that is impossible knowing you have the opposite perspective) or else they are wrong, anti-science, full of shit, or your phrase de jour this week.

Nick

They were specific enough for me and anyone else reading.



It doesn't mean anything to you because you are getting off on seeing who will jump when you demand it.


If you can't comprehend, then tough shit.


It is to anyone with half a brain. I'm sorry you don't qualify.

Nick

No Nick.

I am not the person who claimed originally that he thinks that liberals are more atheistic than conservatives -- and that this was an assumption we could all agree upon. I have no idea how someone could come to that view at all. Most of the liberals I know believe in god. I know equal numbers of conservative atheists and liberal atheists. The only split (and it is subtle) I see between conservatives and liberals is the practice of organized religion. I know a few more non-practising believing liberals than I do conservatives. But the numbers aren't so significant;y different.

Regardless, intellectually your argument is dubious. If someone claims something, it is expected that they, themselves, back up that claim since it is easier to prove a positive than a negative. The weight of evidence falls on the person claiming something to be true rather than claiming something to be false. If you don't like this fact, then stop debating and cover your ears and start screaming whatever it is that you want to believe.

Really, Nick.

You have to try harder. Covet means to desire to the point of sin. Class warfare has historically been over essentials like food, or water, or living and working conditions. At no point did the labor rioters in the early 20th century demand to live in mansions or to have multiple estates scattered about the world. You are just wrong.

It is intriguing that you would complain about minor contribution (forced charity, lets say) you make towards the social welfare of other people, and yet for some reason you don't see a problem with the government spending more than half of your tax money on waging war. Doesn't it seem like the 'Do Not Kill' commandment might be a little more important than the metanalyzed 'do not steal' commandment?

You clearly have issues you need to work out...

Eh, I'm not sure what you people are arguing about here. Yes, Republicans are "more Christian" than Democrats. Here's the national exit poll from the 2004 presidential elections.

Protestants
Bush: 59
Kerry: 40

Catholics
Bush: 52
Kerry: 47

Jewish
Bush: 25
Kerry: 74

White evangelical born again
Bush: 78
Kerry: 21

Attends church weekly
Bush: 61
Kerry: 39

Never attends church
Bush: 36
Kerry: 62

(BTW, Republican party membership has dropped precipitously since 2004, so today I bet Democrats are close if not winning among many of the Christian categories. But that just reflects the fact that almost nobody is a Republican today.)

But here's the thing: That's not what SDW said. He didn't say "religious Christians are more likely to vote for Republicans," he said "It's just that liberal beliefs often don't jive with devout Christian ones." Maybe it was just the wording, but it seemed to me and others to indicate that liberal policies themselves are inconsistent with Christianity itself. That is what I think is ludicrous. If there was ever a humanist liberal, if there was ever the antithesis of conservatism, it was Jesus.

USA TODAY/Gallup Poll results (Evolution)...

44% of American population still thinks evolution is false

66% think biblical idea of creationism is true

Looks like we're going to have a tight race...\

More specifically, I was responding to this from SDW:


which sort of jumped out of me, partly because of the odd pairing of "not supporting that contention" and "liberals have a hight percentage of atheism", which strikes me as classically unsupported "everybody knows" kind of thing.

Apparently Nick feels that asking for some sourcing for this notion beyond "why, it's as plain as the nose on your face" is some kind ridiculously contentious time waster, which is, um, interesting.

But I'm mostly struck by the immediate conflation of "atheist" with "not evangelical Christian". Some of our members may be startled to learn that there are a great many self-described "Christians" in America who are not biblical literalists, do not comb the ten commandments for thought crimes, support access to legal abortion, and have no problem with the Homosexuals Who Walk Among Us.

It's telling, I think, that certain segments of the right have gone so far down a road yoking political ideology to to fundamentalism that they no longer can allow for any deviance from the One True Way to amount to anything less than "atheism". It reminds me of some of the hard core Baptists I grew up with, who regarded "protestants" as not really being Christian at all.

Let's also bear in mind that there is a mighty spectrum of belief that can by no means be considered "atheism" that has nothing to do with Christianity.

So if the contention is "fewer liberals go to mega-churches in the midwest", sure. As far as "atheist", I'd still like to see some actual information.

Unless, Nick, and as I said before, we just get to declare whatever we want and get pissy if asked to support our contentions, and make it about the fatuous game playing of the people who want evidence? Because, man do I have some contentions for you.

Prove they are not representative or not as large as they are, whatever than means.



I'm not saying it's representative of the party on this one. I'm saying there are more liberal atheists than conservative atheists.


Totally agree. Some things may need to be supported, but I'm surprised at the reaction to my statement.


That's surprising to say the least. I am having trouble finding some good stats. But I really don't see why there is reason to question my assertion. Liberalism tends to rely not on God, but on human and material solutions. Conservatives also tend not to push the envelope of humanism and "progressivism." Liberals tend reject societal limits and taboos, conservatives often embrace them. Many a liberal has attacked organized religion, conservatives are proven to be more religious. I will look for some good numbers, but there is nothing to suggest the conventional wisdom is wrong. Keep my assertion in mind too: I'm saying there are more atheists that are liberals than there are atheists that are conservatives, politically speaking. Nothing more.





Bingo. I'd welcome some evidence proving that my assertion is wrong.


I don't agree with that in this case. I stated a pretty well accepted idea. If you think I'm wrong, I think you should disprove it. In the meantime though, I will look for some more data. When I feel like it.


Ding ding ding!
1. Link? Now that's an assertion I would like to see proven.

2. I see your point there, but I'm really talking about liberals' personal beliefs more than anything. Abortion. Gay rights. Humanism. Gender role reversal. All of these are utterly inconsistent with Christianity, though perfectly consistent with liberalism.

I think part of the issue is that bona fide atheists are so few and far between, despite what it may seem like to the beleaguered and oppressed Christians, that they're almost not worth counting. It may be true that 3% of Democrats are atheists and only 1% of Republicans, but with numbers so low, it's hard to get excited about it.

However, it is true that the more religious the Christian, the more likely they are to vote Republican. Those numbers are so frequently discussed that I think it's fair to call it a commonsense "everybody knows it" fact.

Everybody knows it. Asking for proof just means you're being a dick.


Yes, but you keep sliding from that to "more liberals aren't properly devout Christians", which is very different, yes?


Who decide which things "need to be supported" and which things are just common sensical obvious?



Beyond what you already believe. Which is a problem.


Or, liberals think God might need some help when it comes to how we organize our secular institutions, in order to increase the general well being, which God presumably likes.


Depending on how you define "humanism" and "progressivism", which is a problem.


.

Or, liberals tend to reject some societal limits and taboos that some conservatives embrace. Also, there is a problem in defining "societal limits and taboos" as "stuff conservatives don't like", since "society" includes the very people doing the "rejecting". Also, there is a problem with conflating "belief in God" with "societal limits and taboos".


You're offering more unsupported contention as evidence for your original unsupported contention.

"Many a liberal has attacked organized religion" is so vague as to be meaningless, and "conservatives are proven to be more religious" is just a more emphatic restatement of your original contention.


In my mind, at the moment. Problem.


No, that's not your original assertion.


Don't you feel the slightest bit queasy, having denigrated the idea that evidence is necessary to support your contention, immediately turning around and 'welcoming" evidence that you're wrong? Generally, when you make an assertion, the burden of proof is on you, right?


Well, in the circles I travel in, it's a "pretty well accepted idea" that conservatives aren't very bright and tend to be racists. Prove I'm wrong.



Oh dear.


And we're back to not noticing any difference between "atheism" and a particular brand of "Christianity". Problem.

BRussell pointed to the exit polls that show "how someone could come to that view at all."

As should be noted, in case you or others are too dense to realize this, you disagree with SDW's contention because you contend something different.

Please make note of that. You did not prove SDW's claim wrong. You did not cite something contrary to it. You did not SUPPORT YOUR OWN CONTENTION.


You see the point and perhaps can apply it to yourself.

SDW claims liberals are disproportionately atheists. You contend the atheists are equally spread between parties. You ask him to support his claim. You give yourself a free pass and then pile on shit about how rational and intellectual you are while giving yourself this pass.


Actually, you do. Let me give this the ncie hardeeharhar treatment and then complain you are intellectually dubious if you don't spend the rest of the day researching what I want and then turn around and tell you that you are full of shit anyway.


Prove where the point of sin is at.


Prove it. It is your contention, prove it.


Strawman. THey don't have to demand a mansion to demand something that is not an essential. Also prove that their demands were only essentials and they would die working say a 9 hour day instead of an 8 hour day.


False dilemma, and prove that government expenditures are "minor."


Let me see if I understand you correctly. I'm now an asshole for not ascribing the commandment "Do not kill" to only one side of the political spectrum. Are you claiming that having more atheists or even an equal number of atheists means rejection of all religious tenets? Otherwise what the hell sort of point are you putting out there?


You clearly need to stop watching People's Court and thinking you can reason because of this.


BRussell, first thank you very much for the stats. They are much appreciated. I'm sorry if I sound like I am being an ass to you but, prove it.

You think Jesus was the antithesis of conservatism and that he a humanist liberal. SDW states the opposite of this and is told prove it or else he is intellectually dubious, etc. You state you believe the opposite, and of course political biases being what they are on here, your reply is well reasoned, "supported" and logical without any real support, citations, or anything else.

I'm sure people can question your support when you do post it or claim it isn't good enough, etc. and because of that, I really don't expect you to waste all your time trying to convince someone to change their mind against their will.

The real issue is we have a few parties on the forums who, when you decide you aren't going to argue them into changing their mind declare themselves to have proven something in the vacuum, that they have some sort of intellectual high ground and that the other party is stupid, unreasonable, etc.

Nick

What, that Republican party ID has dropped like a rock? That's another one that I would put in the "everybody knows it" category. Here's one from Pew that shows Democrats at 50% and Repubs at 30%, here's another from Rasmussen that shows Republicans are at a 30%, which is in third place in party ID, behind Democrats with 36 and independents at 33%. (The Rasmussen poll doesn't include leaners like the Pew survey above.)

I'm on your side on the "Republicans are more Christian" thing, but this is where I disagree with you.

On abortion: Christianity, per se, has nothing at all to say about abortion. Some churches, in particular the Catholic church and evangelical churches, are opposed to abortion, but there's nothing whatsoever about it anywhere in the Bible, let alone from Jesus, and most churches are not anti-abortion (with the exception of the two mentioned above).

On homosexuality: The Old Testament probably considers homosexuality a sin (though a lot of it is debatable), but it considers a ton of things that people do with regularity today to be sins. Paul in the New Testament also, but again, no Jesus. And you may be forgetting about a lot of churches, especially mainline protestant. The church I attend, a Presbyterian church, has performed gay unions, and a number of other churches in my (pretty conservative) neighborhood are quite outspoken about being pro-gay-rights, including Methodist, Episcopalian, and UCC/congregationalist. It's really only the evangelical/non-traditional churches that are anti-gay.

Humanism? Maybe you mean secular humanism, because if there's anything that Christianity is, or is supposed to be, it's humanistic.

I don't really know what you're referring to with gender role reversal and Christianity. AFAIK, that's not a big deal with any church, unless you mean the Catholic church with its male-only priests.

With all respect, I think you're stereotyping "Christianity" as "evangelical Christianity" and forgetting about the huge mainstay of mainline protestant churches, not to mention black protestant churches.

My thought here is that we've been pounded with the "Godless liberal" meme for so long it gets bandied about without much consideration, and that's always dangerous, particularly when the it involves one group defining another in what by their lights are pejorative terms.

For instance, doesn't it seem at least possible that there are more atheist libertarians than either liberals or conservatives? In the country I live in, at least, there is a species of hard-nosed type that has no use for comforting stories of any type, and these people tend most decidedly not to be "liberal".

Political independents? Seems like a likely reservoir of atheists, no? "Independent thinkers", and all that?

Or how about your average dog-eat-dog business type? Liberal? Christian? Every-man-for- himself pragmatist?

And how do we plumb the truth of what is a both a very personal and very public matter? I mean that "church attendance", in some parts of the country, is a vital part of ones bona fides and doesn't necessarily correlate with "faith". Ask the small town real estate developer if being an "atheist" is a smart business move, personal belief notwithstanding.

Compare that to "liberal" communities, where the style of ones legitmate "faith" may have broader possibilities. Are Buddhists, goddess worshipers, new age smorgasbord types, activist community churches or the merely quietly devout "atheists"? How about agnostics?

And what are we to make with that stalwart of Democratic Party support, the African American community, church goes that they are?

I completely reject this crude division of the country into "Christians", by which we mean a very specific kind of politically conservative Christian, and "atheists", which is simply a technique to impoverish the conversation about what faith means.

In effect, SDW is offering up a tautology: "Faith" means conservative values, therefore "liberal" means "lack of faith". That's preposterous.

Apparently you and nick have exempt yourselves from the need to produce affirmative evidence of your assertions. I'll also refuse, on this point, because I don't even think people take this idea seriously (besides a few on this board). Who would use a scalpel as birth control instead of pills or latex? Besides the extreme emotional baggage that comes along with abortions. Its beyond absurd.


I agree. Bush Sr said he doesn't represent atheists, doesn't consider us patriots, nor even citizens. Atheists are in cold company with a man like that; presumably with his kin as well. and, as an atheist, i find more of my thought process in harmony with democratic principles than republican ones.


wiki Nearest I could find on stats for atheists. Agnostics, atheists and those without religion make up 15% of the population. The closest % was Baptists, at 17%. Doesn't speak to their party affiliation.

No it isn't and your entire post is proof of why this is true.


Different to you and not good enough for you which is really the proof of what I stated. Evidence was presented that showed many more members of most religions voted Republican. So then you start in with "well that just means there are religious people who are Democratic and not in an organized religion, but this just doesn't happen to be true on the Republican side." Well prove it. Did SDW ever make the contention that they weren't "properly devout?" That is yours, so prove they are religious but not affiliated or not properly devout and yet still liberal in their political ideology.

Do it or else you are "intellectually dubious."


If you think they aren't obvious and state so, then support that contention. Don't believe that by demanding proof, you have proven something.


Can you prove that?

I mean to you it might be common sense, but I don't believe that. In challenging your contention, I must be right until you support it.


It always will be a problem with you. Thanks for the proof again, that even word definitions are in dispute when you don't care to be convinced against your own will. Thanks for the proof again that not being willing to engage in this is not any sort of stupidity, actually quite the opposite.


Is there really a problem with conflating the two? Can you prove it? If you can't then do I win by default?


Sez you, and of course you will always say this because it is pointless to prove something to you to the point of changing your mind when you don't care to do so.


Can you prove it is vague and meaningless? Is it only vague and meaningless to you? Can you prove that liberals have not attacked or spoken badly of organized religion?


Don't you feel queasy dismissing everyones statements, not with links, not with studies, not with evidence but with your own assertions and worlds like "I think that is too vague."


Prove you are right. In fact prove it so thoroughly that I won't dispute a single point of what you say. Prove it until I can't dismiss it in any fashion with words like "vague" or "I think that depends on what you think (blank) means" or other such snappy facts like "I think you are confusing, conflating, etc. those two points" while offering nothing to prove that.

Spend time on it until I simply care not to argue it anymore. If you don't then you are anti-intellectual, anti-science, stupid, irrational, unreasonable, a liar, and simply full of shit.

Nick

Honestly, I was a bit surprised that people were arguing against the idea that there's a correlation between religiosity in the US and Republican voting. I thought that was pretty well-accepted. In fact I remember hearing that (but don't feel like looking it up now ), in recent elections up until 2006, one of the best predictors of voting was church attendance.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that Christianity is somehow deeply theologically opposed to contemporary American liberalism. I've made my case above in my response to SDW, but let me add one more thing: Even if you just look at the Catholic church, which tends to have the clearest, most unified positions on things, and is often considered very conservative in their beliefs, it's very much of a mixed bag. It's true that they're against abortion (+1 for Republicans) and gay rights (+2 for Repubs). But they're also against the death penalty (+1 for Dems), the Iraq war (+2 for Dems), and in favor of many traditionally liberal social justice issues (anti-poverty programs and the like). Abortion tends to suck up all the attention, but if you look at a range of issues, on balance, I'm not sure why Catholicism is considered closer to Republicans.

Don't waste your time, addabox.

Fundamentally it isn't my responsibility to prove SDW wrong. We should not be expected to accept someone else's contentions off hand unless we disprove them. It doesn't work that way because the onus of proof is on affirmative knowledge. In this case, SDW mistakenly assumes that he can fall back on claim on a common knowledge 'fact'. This is by far the lowest point any argument can go. I have only claimed that it is hard to know whether this is the case and that my feelings are that they are more equitible. While I could go on to find proof of this, I can take the the fact that SDW hasn't found any polls that I won't either.





It is the dictionary definition. It is a stupid word. You used it first. Where do you define the point of sin?



I can give you a list of reference if you are really inquiring...



False placing of goal post. Covet is the word you used. Coveting belongings implies desiring the physical goods of another person to the point of sin (w/caveat). Your implication here is that class warfare is the coveting of another person's goods, which it isn't by your own example.


I think you misunderstand what I wrote. Re-read it.


I didn't use the term asshole. You did, but it is fitting. It's good that you recognize it though -- it's a first step towards not being one. I really don't know what you are on about.


I can reason because that faculty was either evolved or divinely granted in the human species.

Sigh. I wanted to have a actual discussion about SDW's contention that atheism is a predominately liberal phenomena.

You either want to argue about something else entirely, or play tedious games.

In my book, a contention like "most atheists are liberal" would seem to require some evidence beyond "everybody knows". Asking that an affirmative contention be buttressed with evidence isn't really very outlandish, and your rejoinder that "no you prove your skepticism" is just childish.

The back and forth about "I get to say what I want without evidence and you should have to prove all of your assertions except when I do except when I don't bwhahaha I win" is merely irritating, or would be if I though you had anything invested in this beyond being a dick.

Just to take a small bite, telling SDW that "liberals attack organized religion all the time" is too vague to mean anything is pretty much self evident: which liberals? What constitutes "an attack"? Isn't "organized religion" a pretty broad phrase? All of it? Not "non-organized religion"? I responded to this specifically because there's a little game abroad in the land wherein saying anything negative about the relationship between some evangelicals and the Republican Party constitutes "attacking organized religion".

But you have seized on that as "making unsupported claims so I can too so there", which a person who was arguing in good faith wouldn't do.

I wish that maybe you could tell the difference between a truth claim that relies on statistics, i.e. "most atheists are liberals", and a statement that hinges on what words mean, i.e. "vague".

Asking me to "prove" a statement" is "vague" suggests that you're not taking what you are saying very seriously, in effect just yelling "Nyah, nyah, nyah", so I don't see why I should pay any attention.

Yeah, I sort of forgot. Didn't take long to get the news, though.

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."

You don't undertake such actions, and for that I am thankful.


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.

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. 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.

I do think this is why the political left has trouble convincing religious folks to vote for them. 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.

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. Your own exit poll numbers show that we are simply talking more about ratios and percents.

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. 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.

Nick

There are conservative atheists, take your pick... \

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.



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.


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 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.


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!


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".


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.


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!


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.



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?

Indeed. US politics are pretty simple. Democrat strategists: the educated elite who are optimistic and think these people can understand reason, Republican strategists: the educated elite who realize most of the US population is in another intellectual dark age and, therefore, use it to their advantage.

Sadly, if this were a court of law, you would be right. Instead it is a discussion forum and demanding "proof" of everything all the time is not really appropriate considering the venue. If you can't take the man at his word, then fine. When you substitute your own contention since you don't believe his, then you had better apply your own criteria to yourself or else you are more full of shit than him.

SDW, I believe X.

Hardee, I don't believe X, I think based off what I have experienced it is Y.

You haven't disproven X. You also haven't proven Y. Considering you believe that when you state Y that you should also support everything you state, the hypocrisy is doubled.


You tell me. You were the one putting it on a sliding scale and declaring that part of the scale was not a sin, and it only became a sin after the "point" which you then never defined.

I simply said "covet," you gave the covet conditional status saying it isn't coveting until a point that you left undefined.

Let me remind you what you stated.

Covet means to desire to the point of sin.

You don't desire to declare all coveting wrong, when in fact the word covet has within the definition wanting it in a wrong or inappropriate way. You don't covet to a point and have it be wrong. Coveting itself is wrong.


Of course you can. Then I can do as you and others do on here and declare your references invalid for a plethora of reasons like bias, false analogy, etc.


Let me help you with that.

to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.

Wrongfully, as in taken without compensation. Inordinately, as in not within proper or reasonable limits. When a state grabs the property of others entirely or even in the previous 70-80%+ top rates associate with the left in the past, it is certainly inordinate. Finally without due regard to for the rights of the others. It is simply the majority grabbing what they can from who they can. It is nothing more than justified mob rule. Obama with his "quiet riot" is more of the same shit on a different day. It is legalized, and organized extortion.

That said, you still have not proven your historical assertion about the nature of class warfare. Class warfare has historically been understood to be much more than demanding essentials. It very often deals with access to the means of production and who owns or controls it. It is very often cited as an argument for nationalizing industry.


I understood. You don't like your own criteria applied to you.


Yes, but like most faculties, it wasn't distributed evenly. You are at the shallow end of the gene pool with regard to this trait.

Nick

Sorry, but sadly you are the one who desires to play the silly games. Marxism, and other redistributive ideologies are at their core, philosophies grounded in materialism which precludes a spiritual God. It is why he argued it is the opium of the masses because the rewards in heaven preclude many of them from seeking their equatable share of the good here on earth.

You talk about what SDW said and what constitutes good faith. Anyone who can, in good faith, argue against the central tenets and in opposition to the actual foundations of their own belief system in hopes of proving someone citing them as wrong, is not acting in good faith.

To put it bluntly, atheism is foundational to material philosophy which is also foundational to any ideology in which equalization and redistribution to achieve it occurs. Materialism is incompatible with almost all religions. You really may think you are making some sort of small proof demand, but in reality you are arguing against the very definitions of your own words to make some stupid, cute point.

Nick

I'm finding Nick's posts increasingly disturbing as of late.

That sounds like an interesting class. I think there's something to it, but I wouldn't make Marxism the foil of religion. In my view of history, it was the Reformation and Lutheranism in the 16th century that started things by challenging the authority of the church, and then the Enlightenment of the 18th century that really brought humanism into respectability. Part of what happened is that religion was demoted from its prior role as being one and the same with the governmental authority, to now being separated from the state. And of course, our country was created during the Enlightenment.

It sounds like this is what you're saying:

religion = God rules, so authoritarian governments do not (e.g., liberal democracies)
atheism = man rules, so you end up with evil totalitarian regimes (e.g., communism)

But, in my view:

religion + state = religious authoritarianism (e.g., Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages, modern Islamic totalitarianism)
religion separated from state = liberal democracy (e.g., the Enlightenment, USA)

Democratic politicians want EU socialism. I'm not convinced, however, that many voters do. This is why the Democratic politian are so fucking out of touch.

If Giuliani gets the nom, he will win easily. He will get New York, the red states, and possibly even California. Why? Because liberal voters mostly aren't that keen on EU socialism, and because he's very un-republican. Done. I have no argument here.

Honestly, I think Democratic politicians suffer from the same delusional misjudgings that celebrities do. They think that supporting "free lunch" programs will make them popular, and as their careers are entirely based on popularity, there you have the answer. The reality of the situation, however, is that you have a large body of voters who will vote on social issues ahead of fiscal issues, and thus will support the democrats as simply an alternative from some of the Christian-revisionist bullshit coming from the other party. And, of course, the same goes for many republican voters, vice versa. Fiscal issues matter, and EU socialism is not hot.

Is anyone else still really angry that liberals get blamed, 40 years later, for the great society debacle and that all pundits whether sitting on air or in front of a computer screen with a big gulp in their lap think that this is the only thing that the party of the liberals can do to get people to vote for them?

Noted.

"Marxism and other redistributive ideologies"? So that would be Soviet Union and the Democratic Party?

And since atheism was part of the statism of communist Russia it follows that it is "foundational" to contemporary liberalism?

And because I'm not calling you "comrade" and cackling over the Democrats plans to nationalize all industry and leave God in the dust I'm not arguing in good faith and arguing against my own defintions? I'm guessing because I "know full well" that my peoples are godless, and I'm just fucking around? Isn't that SDW's line?

Also, where, again, does Jesus, or God, talk about private property and freedom from regulation and non-progressive tax structures and laissez faire capitalism? How did that get to be so intrinsically a part of "faith"?

Well sir, don't you beat all. Wait, did I say "don't you beat all"? I meant terrifying.

Seems like this happens a lot, doesn't it? A lot of reasonable sounding rhetoric, and all of a sudden it's time for LIBERALS ARE GODLESS STALINISTS. From my perspective it would be much better if we just started with that, because it would save time.

Whether you agree or not, I made my point. I made it with more than "I think X." You've spent the entire thread dismissing everything, even when based on philosophical viewpoints, on history, on voting patter, on well just about everything. Meanwhile you still think anyone who doesn't side with you is "terrifying" etc.

All you've done is dismiss in this whole thread. Even when you counter that you think it is Y instead of X, you've never offered one iota of proof for anything you've said.

As I noted and the beginning and was stupid enough to spend my time showing, you can't convince a person against their will. Nothing will amount to proof for you because you don't really want to discuss, you want to dispute and nothing more. Now that the pattern is well established, people will know how full of shit you are in the future.

Nick

Yes except for your view would pretty much ignore the entire 20th century.

Nick

No, now that's being a dick.


Not intentionally, no. Perhaps that is how it read. If I did that I was just making a case for why the original assertion is true.


Me.


Alrighty then



Black is white. White is black.



Not unless you're obsessed with semantics, it's not.


I'll agree I'm being general. That's why I said "tend." Obviously there will a number of exceptions.


Oh come on. It's really not that unsupported. It's at least anecdotally supportable. All one has to do is peruse this board for a while. I'm sure you've seen liberals attack facets or organized religion. Do you ever see a conservative trying to have "God" removed from the Pledge? Anecdtoal? Yes. Invalid? No.



1. Why? Can you show me something in the way of evidence? I'll be glad to be proven wrong on this one.

2. What was it then? That's really all I was trying to say. Perhaps I wasn't clear.


We've already discussed that. And no, I'm feeling fine, thanks. I really fail to see what you are up in arms about with this. I pointed out a "piece" of conventional wisdom, as either you or someone else put it. That piece of conventional wisdom is supportable anecdotally, and with facts showing that churchgoers are more likely to vote Republican (as those who ID themselves as "religious").
Now here come adda and company, with no evidence to the contrary whatsoever. What reason is there to think my assertion is wrong?



Dick.


So all assertions...every single one... must be proven then. Gotcha.


I don't follow. I am also not referencing any "brand" of Christianity. I am speaking about Christian principles in general. I recognize that there are a number of Christians who differ in their views, and who accept such notions.