Conservative Does No Mean Christian.

[undertheice]

it's the liberals who hold anlalytical viewpoints, and the conservatives who embrace dogma.

delude yourself all you want, but both sides depend on dogma to influence their followers. the american political scene has become so polarized that it defies rational analysis. the side you take is merely a matter of which lie you think might land you closer to the end you desire. the liberal agenda promises a benevolent, controlling state. conservatives claim that greed can be overcome through the people's use of the marketplace. to a certain extent they are both lies, greed can never be totally abolished and the denizens of the bureaucracy can always be counted on to look after their own interests before the good of the people. which lie are you willing to place your bet on?

 

[PadawanBater]

The fact that you would even need specific examples proves my point.

Have you not read dozens of my posts? Examples of how I approach these issues are all over this forum.

If you want to talk examples, give one example of me, or anyone else, quoting the Bible. You love to accuse people of relying on religious dogma, give ONE example.

As I have stated and you are well aware, my views on gay marriage have nothing to do with religion. They have to do with my understanding of human sexuality, human behavior and the social, cultural and anthropological significance of the nuclear family.

Yet you can't actually back any of that up, it's all anecdotal evidence to support your position. It's all opinion, and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. You even went as far as dismissing the scientific data on this issue and claiming you don't need it to back up your beliefs. If that's not dogma, I'll admit I have no clue what dogma is...

The reason you don't believe any of your beliefs stem from religion is because you're blind to it. I can see it as clear as day because every time I ask you to prove otherwise you brush it off as "you should already know the examples" - just like you've done here. The examples are there, you're right. They show you rely on religious foundations for everything you believe in. It's very obvious. Again, if not, prove it. How hard is that?

Knowing you like I do, I am sure you are asking for examples because you intend on using these as straw men so you can sidetrack the conversation.

No, I intend to show that the only way you can justify such positions is with religion, which is why the GOP and "conservative" base hold them.

Once again, if you really need examples, you are proving my point for me.

Which is another thing... this "persecution complex" - "if I'm right everyone will say I'm wrong because they're wrong!" attitude stems RIGHT OUT of religion... very suspicious Rick...

 

[Rob Roy]

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster


This one time when I was a little kid I was eating Spaghetti O's (not the cheap store brand kind either mind you, the real ones that have little pieces of mystery meat in it) and I spilled some on my shirt. The stain revealed the shape of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to me. The next day after my mom had washed my shirt....the stain was gone! Proof that the flying Spaghetti monster had risen from the dead! Perhaps others have had similar religious experiences?

Anyhow, ever since I've been a pretty devout Pastafarian, but I can tolerate others beleiving in what they want, as long as they agree not to force it on people.

R'amen.

 

[RickWhite]

Yet you can't actually back any of that up, it's all anecdotal evidence to support your position. It's all opinion, and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. You even went as far as dismissing the scientific data on this issue and claiming you don't need it to back up your beliefs. If that's not dogma, I'll admit I have no clue what dogma is...

The reason you don't believe any of your beliefs stem from religion is because you're blind to it. I can see it as clear as day because every time I ask you to prove otherwise you brush it off as "you should already know the examples" - just like you've done here. The examples are there, you're right. They show you rely on religious foundations for everything you believe in. It's very obvious. Again, if not, prove it. How hard is that?



No, I intend to show that the only way you can justify such positions is with religion, which is why the GOP and "conservative" base hold them.



Which is another thing... this "persecution complex" - "if I'm right everyone will say I'm wrong because they're wrong!" attitude stems RIGHT OUT of religion... very suspicious Rick...

Your argument is pathetic. What you are saying is that I must prove that all of my views are correct in order to prove that they do not come from religious dogma.

Thinking people understand that it is difficult if not impossible to prove abstract political and social issues either way - especially when there are ethical and philosophical considerations. Can you prove that your ideas are correct - I don't think so.

However, if you read the post just above yours, the one written by undetheice, you will see a cohesive, well written response based on logical and sound reasoning. This should be all the proof necessary to prove my point.

Also, you raised the question of stem cell research. Did you know there are entire committees dedicated to contemplating the ethical considerations of just this one issue. I for one do not object to this research on moral grounds - proof of my non-religious views. I do however, have a number of ethical concerns regarding how this would be conducted, as should any reasonable person.

Few would disagree that it would be unethical to create an industry in which humans are farmed for fetal stem cells. Can I '"prove" it is immoral to do so - no. But I feel it is so repugnant and so insulting to the basic notion of humanity that it should not be allowed. Furthermore, I would argue that such a precedent would demean and undermine how human life is perceived by the whole of society.

Now, you may not agree with this and you may not see it is scientific proof which of course it is not. But, one thing is certain; that I have proved beyond a doubt that my opinion in this matter is based on things other than religious dogma.

 

[undertheice]

i managed to miss this the first time through, so i'll answer it now since i've already broken my relative silence on abortion.

.....yet they are against abortion, which is clearly a religious issue. so which is it? are you against big government and for civil liberties, or are you in favor of our mores being dictated by the government?

this demand of yours that abortion be considered a religious issue is more telling of your own indoctrination into the importance of christianity than of the reality of the situation. my previous post clearly stated that my opposition to the practice is a simple matter of adhering to a morality that predates the christian dominance of the west and i certainly can't be the only one who feels that way. i don't doubt that my feelings on the matter are colored by having been raised within a predominantly christian society. we are all the products of the community in which we were raised, but that is not all of what we are. the pro-lifers within the conservative movement may very well use the accepted standards of religion to motivate their cause, but faith is not the sole reason for their opposition.

despite the attempts to sidestep the issue by classifying a fetus as "not quite human", there still remains the fact that we all believe that the unjustified taking of another life is wrong. we have gone to great pains to alleviate our guilt with studies to determine the differences between a fetus and a fully functional human being, but its humanity is self-evident and the crime remains. it is obvious to any rational person that a homicide has been committed, a person has killed another person. that the victim was totally dependent on its killer only compounds the guilt, there has been a breach of the responsibility implied by the act of conception.

as for whether government should dictate morality. can this even be avoided? our laws are based on the ethos of our society and, as long as governments exist, it will be their duty to enforce those laws. even if government should cease to exist, the very act of joining with a society demands that we relinquish complete animal freedom in favor of the security of numbers and it is then our neighbors who would enforce those laws that are based on a shared morality. there is no escaping the enforcement of morality by outside forces. it is only a matter of to what degree do we allow those forces to bend us to their will.

 

[ChChoda]

conservatives claim that greed can be overcome through the people's use of the marketplace.

Fundamentally wrong. The invisible hand is essentially a greedy hand. It's to be respected, as long as the rules are followed. Corruption, however, can be largely overcome by suppressing the size of government.

 

[undertheice]

Corruption, however, can be largely overcome by suppressing the size of government.

the corruption will remain, but its impact will be lessened by the simple act of reducing the pool of those capable of using that corruption to their own ends. a government of limited power will merely have a more difficult time infringing upon the rights of its citizens and the mob will be less able to use the force of government to bend the individual to its will.

 

[ChChoda]

the corruption will remain, but its impact will be lessened by the simple act of reducing the pool of those capable of using that corruption to their own ends. a government of limited power will merely have a more difficult time infringing upon the rights of its citizens and the mob will be less able to use the force of government to bend the individual to its will.

True. Bias is intrinsic to the human condition. Power is a fact of life. Combine the two, and we have now what we shall always have. A precarious purchase on self determination.

The Constitution (America) is merely a response to this "travesty". The best yet. That's what we conservatives believe. That's why we must align ourselves with a "team". The team who most supports the Constitution. The Republicans, as of now.

Long after you and I are dead and gone, teams will remain, and the winners will dictate much. Long after humans are extinct, but life persists, teams will remain. To call vigorous participation in the struggle between the "sides", engaging in a lie, is to ignore the obvious. But if one cares not for posterity, I can see your point. Struggle is irrelevant, right?

 

[RickWhite]

Now I'm lost, I can't find anything about the Constitution in my Bible.

 

[undertheice]

True. Bias is intrinsic to the human condition. Power is a fact of life. Combine the two, and we have now what we shall always have. A precarious purchase on self determination.

The Constitution (America) is merely a response to this "travesty". The best yet. That's what we conservatives believe. That's why we must align ourselves with a "team". The team who most supports the Constitution. The Republicans, as of now.

i guess that's why i can never be a conservative. i just not a team player. the goal of a team is to win and a successful team eventually becomes the mob, pressing its agenda on the individual that refuses to conform. if your goal is the supremacy of the individual, joining a team is self-defeating. better to avoid the deceptions and betrayals of any herd and lead through example. better to be one, the best one possible, and define your goals through personal morality and success. the mob will always have its way until it willingly divides itself into its individual parts and this will never happen as long as the template for individual success is defined by a team. even the most devoted drone may eventually leave the hive when he sees the possibilities of individual potential. instead of grinding one's opponents into the dust, the cultivation of wisdom, patience and charity should be the aim of the proponents of individualism.

no political party will ever advocate the promotion of individualism, only the individual can do that. the republicans long ago betrayed the framework of the constitution, placing the party's success above the liberties that document offered. it was inevitable, it is the natural tendency of the powerful. abandoning them and starting anew is preferable to justifying their corruption by lending them support. better to begin again and form a party that seeks to relinquish power instead of gathering it and to act only when inaction is impossible.

 

[undertheice]

Now I'm lost, I can't find anything about the Constitution in my Bible.

look to the book of revelations.

 

[PadawanBater]

Your argument is pathetic. What you are saying is that I must prove that all of my views are correct in order to prove that they do not come from religious dogma.

Not at all. I'm saying it's only your opinion. You preach like it's all fact and act like it is. I ask you to cite sources all the time. You're a fundie, you do the same things they do and use the same exact tactics they use. I've been in this game for a long time, I know all of them. I can go through the checklist with every post you make. They only way a person could justify the kinds of positions and views you have is with religion. No logical rationale based on humanity or individuality or freedom or any of the other things you claim to support could come from it. It's kind of funny to me sometimes when you make such obvious statements about how you actually feel while not so subtly try to hide it... Anyone else paying attention see's exactly what's being said, even though you don't directly say it half the time..

Thinking people understand that it is difficult if not impossible to prove abstract political and social issues either way - especially when there are ethical and philosophical considerations. Can you prove that your ideas are correct - I don't think so.

But for some reason this doesn't apply to you?

However, if you read the post just above yours, the one written by undetheice, you will see a cohesive, well written response based on logical and sound reasoning. This should be all the proof necessary to prove my point.

kiss-ass

Also, you raised the question of stem cell research. Did you know there are entire committees dedicated to contemplating the ethical considerations of just this one issue. I for one do not object to this research on moral grounds - proof of my non-religious views. I do however, have a number of ethical concerns regarding how this would be conducted, as should any reasonable person.

Which would be? (or are you going to claim some reason as to not list them...)

Few would disagree that it would be unethical to create an industry in which humans are farmed for fetal stem cells. Can I '"prove" it is immoral to do so - no. But I feel it is so repugnant and so insulting to the basic notion of humanity that it should not be allowed. Furthermore, I would argue that such a precedent would demean and undermine how human life is perceived by the whole of society.

And where did you get this totally sci-fi idea that they would farm humans for their stem cells? lmao - that's the kind of stuff I point out to you, you don't understand the science behind it at all. Do you really think that's what they'd do? Go pick up people off the street and hold them against their will and farm them for their stem cells?... Or are you one of those people who thinks the government would clone you and use your clone to replace you and live your life while they use you for your stem cells?...

That isn't how it works... look into the science. That's all I can tell you man... It would benefit you.

Now, you may not agree with this and you may not see it is scientific proof which of course it is not. But, one thing is certain; that I have proved beyond a doubt that my opinion in this matter is based on things other than religious dogma.

Whatever man, I don't know why you feel the need to prove anything to me... I'm just a random guy on the internet.

And my argument the whole time was that "conservatives" are more religious than "liberals". I really don't understand how a rational mind could argue with that...

 

[ChChoda]

i guess that's why i can never be a conservative. i just not a team player. the goal of a team is to win and a successful team eventually becomes the mob, pressing its agenda on the individual that refuses to conform. if your goal is the supremacy of the individual, joining a team is self-defeating. better to avoid the deceptions and betrayals of any herd and lead through example. better to be one, the best one possible, and define your goals through personal morality and success. the mob will always have its way until it willingly divides itself into its individual parts and this will never happen as long as the template for individual success is defined by a team. even the most devoted drone may eventually leave the hive when he sees the possibilities of individual potential. instead of grinding one's opponents into the dust, the cultivation of wisdom, patience and charity should be the aim of the proponents of individualism.

no political party will ever advocate the promotion of individualism, only the individual can do that. the republicans long ago betrayed the framework of the constitution, placing the party's success above the liberties that document offered. it was inevitable, it is the natural tendency of the powerful. abandoning them and starting anew is preferable to justifying their corruption by lending them support. better to begin again and form a party that seeks to relinquish power instead of gathering it and to act only when inaction is impossible.

To disavow partisanship is to become a partisan. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't, if you will. Knowing this, I believe it far better to be a brother in arms supporting the tenets of individual liberty than to be the lone individual reliant on the benevolence of the masses in order to retain ones individualism. It was others struggles, after all, that allowed us to secure the right to be one. It is our struggles which can secure this blessing for posterity.

 

[RickWhite]

Not at all. I'm saying it's only your opinion. You preach like it's all fact and act like it is. I ask you to cite sources all the time. You're a fundie, you do the same things they do and use the same exact tactics they use. I've been in this game for a long time, I know all of them. I can go through the checklist with every post you make. They only way a person could justify the kinds of positions and views you have is with religion. No logical rationale based on humanity or individuality or freedom or any of the other things you claim to support could come from it. It's kind of funny to me sometimes when you make such obvious statements about how you actually feel while not so subtly try to hide it... Anyone else paying attention see's exactly what's being said, even though you don't directly say it half the time..

The point of the post is not to prove that all my views are correct. Asking someone to do so isn't reasonable in the first place. But that is why you do it - it is a cheep and childish way of arguing a point. You can't prove anything you believe now can you?

What myself and others have proven is that we do not approach issues simply with religious dogma - we have made this abundantly clear.


Which would be? (or are you going to claim some reason as to not list them...)

I have no desire to sidetrack this issue and begin discussing the ethical questions of stem cell research.

And where did you get this totally sci-fi idea that they would farm humans for their stem cells? lmao - that's the kind of stuff I point out to you, you don't understand the science behind it at all. Do you really think that's what they'd do? Go pick up people off the street and hold them against their will and farm them for their stem cells?... Or are you one of those people who thinks the government would clone you and use your clone to replace you and live your life while they use you for your stem cells?...

That isn't how it works... look into the science. That's all I can tell you man... It would benefit you.

My major in college was molecular biology. I myself cloned genes in class. In fact, I spliced genes from one organism into another - I think I know a thing or two about the science.

What they might do is create a market for fetal stem cells which might encourage women to become pregnant for the purpose of selling her aborted fetus. Evidently, this hasn't occurred to you.

Look, there is only one person in this thread that has consistently demonstrated an inability to address an issue with anything other than dogma and that is you. Moreover, despite myself and others demonstrating our analytical approach to a number of questions, you refuse to believe it is possible. You can't accept our analytical abilities because you know you don't have any.

Asking me to prove any one viewpoint is nothing but a feeble attempt at a straw man and given the many times as I have seen you do this, it is becoming clear that is all you have - a childish and unreasonable demand for "proof."

So, where is your proof? You can not prove your views any more than I can. If you can, by all means do so.

 

[ChChoda]

Now I'm lost, I can't find anything about the Constitution in my Bible.

I'm agnostic...don't believe in heaven or hell, so what does it really matter?

 

[jeffchr]

delude yourself all you want, but both sides depend on dogma to influence their followers. the american political scene has become so polarized that it defies rational analysis. the side you take is merely a matter of which lie you think might land you closer to the end you desire. the liberal agenda promises a benevolent, controlling state. conservatives claim that greed can be overcome through the people's use of the marketplace. to a certain extent they are both lies, greed can never be totally abolished and the denizens of the bureaucracy can always be counted on to look after their own interests before the good of the people. which lie are you willing to place your bet on?

that's pretty obvious - how about you?

 

[jeffchr]

i managed to miss this the first time through, so i'll answer it now since i've already broken my relative silence on abortion.
this demand of yours that abortion be considered a religious issue is more telling of your own indoctrination into the importance of christianity than of the reality of the situation.

it's not actually a demand. it is fact. take the religious right out of the argument, and the issue will never be legislated, one way or the other.

 

[PadawanBater]

My major in college was molecular biology. I myself cloned genes in class. In fact, I spliced genes from one organism into another - I think I know a thing or two about the science.

What they might do is create a market for fetal stem cells which might encourage women to become pregnant for the purpose of selling her aborted fetus. Evidently, this hasn't occurred to you.

Look, there is only one person in this thread that has consistently demonstrated an inability to address an issue with anything other than dogma and that is you. Moreover, despite myself and others demonstrating our analytical approach to a number of questions, you refuse to believe it is possible. You can't accept our analytical abilities because you know you don't have any.

Asking me to prove any one viewpoint is nothing but a feeble attempt at a straw man and given the many times as I have seen you do this, it is becoming clear that is all you have - a childish and unreasonable demand for "proof."

So, where is your proof? You can not prove your views any more than I can. If you can, by all means do so.

Everything I believe in has a basis in science. I can back up any belief I hold with data and observations. You're the one skirting the issue. This is about the majority of "conservatives" basing what they believe in on religious foundations. How could you possibly deny that?

I thought this was a "Christian Nation"...

 

[ink the world]

This is about the majority of "conservatives" basing what they believe in on religious foundations. How could you possibly deny that?

I thought this was a "Christian Nation"...

If it suits his political or religious beliefs it is a Christian nation, if it doesnt suit his needs it isnt.

That how conservatism works now, twist anything the way you want to to make it suit your needs and goals.

 

[RickWhite]

Everything I believe in has a basis in science. I can back up any belief I hold with data and observations. You're the one skirting the issue. This is about the majority of "conservatives" basing what they believe in on religious foundations. How could you possibly deny that?

I thought this was a "Christian Nation"...

No it doesn't. Only a fool believes that opinions having to do with politics and social issued can be proved. To believe this, one must be ignorant of the meaning of proof and the abstract nature of social issues and of life in general.

Your inability to see how easily Conservative thinking can occur outside of religion simply demonstrates your inability to think critically and to properly analyze any of life's issues.

You are big on repeating your self over and over regardless of how many times you have been shown to be wrong, which is several in this thread alone. Instead of defending my position from childish demands for the impossible, why don't you demonstrate what you are asking me to do. Why don't you prove that your opinions are right.

Really at this point, one must wonder if you have any self awareness at all. You seem not to be able to see that to anyone with any intelligence, you are coming off like a punk with a smart mouth and no ability to think.

So why don't you live up to your own childish, ignorant demands and scientifically prove your Liberal views are correct. I'm sure you will blow all of our minds being the first person in history to ever accomplish this feat.

Here is a good issue for you to weigh in on.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/305652-anti-discrimination-laws-just-2.html#post3829548