CDZ Conservatism and why it's not dead

[GaryDog]

Again, I think this is semantics. What you call spirituality, science refers to as consciousness. Animals don't have it. We do. That's all.

FYI, Christians and other theists make the PRECISE argument you just made when I ask for proof of God. "Oh, but WE are proof!" Nonsense. We're just proof of carbon-based life forms evolving.

So you want to call our spirituality by another name? It's the word that bothers you? Let's take the theists out of the argument, I know you don't want to because that's really what your problem is... but let's focus on science. Where do you supposed our "consciousness" evolved from when you admit no other animal has it? Curious anomaly there, isn't it? Oh, I've heard the Atheist explanation of how our brains just happened to develop better... lucky us, right? But it just so happens this "fantasy" you think we have that something is greater than self, has been instrumental in making us who we are.

Regarding Poland before WWII: that's not at all an example of what I'm referring to. In general, cooperation among groups (free trade) is beneficial to all. That doesn't bar the door from war being necessary on occasion.

Poland is one example of billions I could give you. And no, free trade is certainly NOT beneficial to all in general... we're presently having a great debate about free trade and how America is getting screwed with their trade deals.

Again, I will point out that you've still not adequately answered the question of where this concept of universal "good" comes from. Even with cooperation and trade, we must rely on faith in our fellow man. That most will set aside self interest for the "greater good" and through this, we flourish and prosper. It's all rooted in spirit and human spiritual awareness.

Our consciousness evolved across several different hominid species and our version was the only one to survive. Read a science book, dude. It's not an anomaly. Animals have something resembling consciousness (especially other apes), but their brains haven't achieved our level of awareness. It's not a mystery.

There is no definition of "universal good." There never has been. There's a close approximation for most people (be nice to others) and it's not difficult to understand where it came from. I hurt myself, it hurts. I see other people hurt. Empathy. We TRY not to cause others pain, yet we still do. Some refer to "good" and think "blow myself up in the name of 'something bigger than me'". Others, like me, refer to "good" as being nice to other humans. You're creating this fictional universe to fit your theory of "spirituality."

 

[oldsoul]

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality does not come from religion.

Maybe your morality does not (not sure where it would come from), but most peoples' does trace it's roots back to a religion of some sort.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.


"Morality" evolved along with everything else in human culture, generally beginning with the onset of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. It was economically advantageous for us to form peaceful coexistence with lots of other people for the first time, ever. Before that, we fought with pretty much everyone who was not in our immediate tribal band.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.

I am not sure what book you refer to, but I imagine you are attempting to refer to the Christian Bible, of which you can take lots of things out of context and create what ever story you wish. That does not mean that what you say is the meaning of things is correct, or even plausibly interpreted as so.

Uh, okay, find the context in THIS:
1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Or this: Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Romans 1:27: "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

or

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord";

Or:

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."


It's filled with this crap. Are there uplifting, positive verses? Of course. But by and large this is just a document of the times, where violence reigned and men with privilege ruled over women and those less fortunate.

That's not morality. That's a flawed grouping of documents written by deeply flawed men.

Seriously? I've already done that for you on the 2 Timothy verse. I will not indulge you further until you find some semblance of intellectual honesty.

More to the point, however, is: Why do you HATE Christianity so much? Did your pastor/priest harm you in some way when you where a child? I mean really, why do you show zero tolerance for religion in any form? I understand you are an Atheist, but to condemn religion in the ways you do shows just how closed-minded you are.

 

[oldsoul]

Again, why do I have to keep repeating this? There is no Conservative ideology. There are ideologies which reside in a philosophy of Conservatism. The Republican party is a dysfunctional party at this time. It has nothing to do with Conservative philosophy. Indeed, it has much to do with partisan ideology.

I believe the Millennials hold the key to the future of Conservatism. I think someone is going to come along who can speak to the Millennials... maybe that's not Ted Cruz or Mike Lee... Maybe it's not Rand Paul or Marco Rubio... Maybe it's someone we don't even have on the radar at this time? I just know that many Millennials are core Conservatives at heart. They also seem to be more open-minded in terms of ideologies and willing to respect different viewpoints.

But Conservatism has to get back to the basics of presenting itself as a philosophy which encompasses many ideologies.

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality also comes from other sources as well.

As human beings, we tend to look up the perceived authority figures and give their opinions sway in developing our morality. That includes parents, teachers, pastors, peers, and the state, etc.

For example, before slavery was made illegal the consensus was that it was not ideal but it was OK. However, being outlawed for over a century the thought of slavery is absurdly immoral.

Abortion is much the same. Before Roe vs Wade the consensus was that it was immoral. However, after decades of being legal the consensus is that it is not ideal, but that is it OK.

So as we see, human beings are lemmings and controlled largely by the state. So you could say that most if not all our morality is legislated. In fact, what law is devoid of morality?

Of all your examples, not one gets to the root of where the morality has it's roots. Where did the authority figures get their morality from?
Legislation containing morality is much different from legislating morality. To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says one must hold the door for the elderly or frail, yet most people see it as the right thing to do. If there where no law saying it was wrong to steal, would most people not still see it as wrong?

 

[Votto]

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality also comes from other sources as well.

As human beings, we tend to look up the perceived authority figures and give their opinions sway in developing our morality. That includes parents, teachers, pastors, peers, and the state, etc.

For example, before slavery was made illegal the consensus was that it was not ideal but it was OK. However, being outlawed for over a century the thought of slavery is absurdly immoral.

Abortion is much the same. Before Roe vs Wade the consensus was that it was immoral. However, after decades of being legal the consensus is that it is not ideal, but that is it OK.

So as we see, human beings are lemmings and controlled largely by the state. So you could say that most if not all our morality is legislated. In fact, what law is devoid of morality?

Of all your examples, not one gets to the root of where the morality has it's roots. Where did the authority figures get their morality from?
Legislation containing morality is much different from legislating morality. To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says one must hold the door for the elderly or frail, yet most people see it as the right thing to do. If there where no law saying it was wrong to steal, would most people not still see it as wrong?

Ultimately, morality comes from God, the ultimate authority figure. We have an inner voice that dictates the Golden Rule to us.

Of course, we all violate it at some point. That is the odd thing about it, hence we have all experienced guilt as a result.

 

[oldsoul]

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality also comes from other sources as well.

As human beings, we tend to look up the perceived authority figures and give their opinions sway in developing our morality. That includes parents, teachers, pastors, peers, and the state, etc.

For example, before slavery was made illegal the consensus was that it was not ideal but it was OK. However, being outlawed for over a century the thought of slavery is absurdly immoral.

Abortion is much the same. Before Roe vs Wade the consensus was that it was immoral. However, after decades of being legal the consensus is that it is not ideal, but that is it OK.

So as we see, human beings are lemmings and controlled largely by the state. So you could say that most if not all our morality is legislated. In fact, what law is devoid of morality?

Of all your examples, not one gets to the root of where the morality has it's roots. Where did the authority figures get their morality from?
Legislation containing morality is much different from legislating morality. To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says one must hold the door for the elderly or frail, yet most people see it as the right thing to do. If there where no law saying it was wrong to steal, would most people not still see it as wrong?

Ultimately, morality comes from God, the ultimate authority figure. We have an inner voice that dictates the Golden Rule to us.

Of course, we all violate it at some point. That is the odd thing about it, hence we have all experienced guilt as a result.

And now we have come full circle. That was exactly my point, just worded differently.

 

[Boss]

Our consciousness evolved across several different hominid species and our version was the only one to survive. Read a science book, dude. It's not an anomaly. Animals have something resembling consciousness (especially other apes), but their brains haven't achieved our level of awareness. It's not a mystery.

There is no definition of "universal good." There never has been. There's a close approximation for most people (be nice to others) and it's not difficult to understand where it came from. I hurt myself, it hurts. I see other people hurt. Empathy. We TRY not to cause others pain, yet we still do. Some refer to "good" and think "blow myself up in the name of 'something bigger than me'". Others, like me, refer to "good" as being nice to other humans. You're creating this fictional universe to fit your theory of "spirituality."

I've read all kinds of science books, none of them state that human spirituality is a fantasy. Please point me to the peer-reviewed science paper which proves this conclusion.

When I see apes burying their dead with ceremonial rituals I'll believe they have spiritual consciousness. I do think it's fascinating that you believe our superior conscience manifest a creation of total fantasy and even though it's nonsense, was essential to the species to the point it has remained through all our species history with clear evidence it is beneficial. That's a pretty damn smart feat to dream up a fantasy and have it become fundamental to your own survival.

I see that you are struggling to rationalize the concept of what is "good" so we can now agree that there is no universal "good" and it's subjective. The same exact thing can be said for "nice" and how we define that. You're having trouble wrapping your mind around these concepts of humanity because it's ingrained into your DNA as a human being. It all comes from our universal human spiritual awareness.

It's so natural to you that you believe it's a totally natural thing for us to "treat each other nice" but it is not natural behavior in the animal kingdom. Elsewhere, the laws of the jungle apply. Survival of the fittest. Leader of the pack. It is totally a byproduct of our spirituality that we developed the trust in our fellow man that we can work together for the common good.

 

[Votto]

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality also comes from other sources as well.

As human beings, we tend to look up the perceived authority figures and give their opinions sway in developing our morality. That includes parents, teachers, pastors, peers, and the state, etc.

For example, before slavery was made illegal the consensus was that it was not ideal but it was OK. However, being outlawed for over a century the thought of slavery is absurdly immoral.

Abortion is much the same. Before Roe vs Wade the consensus was that it was immoral. However, after decades of being legal the consensus is that it is not ideal, but that is it OK.

So as we see, human beings are lemmings and controlled largely by the state. So you could say that most if not all our morality is legislated. In fact, what law is devoid of morality?

Of all your examples, not one gets to the root of where the morality has it's roots. Where did the authority figures get their morality from?
Legislation containing morality is much different from legislating morality. To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says one must hold the door for the elderly or frail, yet most people see it as the right thing to do. If there where no law saying it was wrong to steal, would most people not still see it as wrong?

Ultimately, morality comes from God, the ultimate authority figure. We have an inner voice that dictates the Golden Rule to us.

Of course, we all violate it at some point. That is the odd thing about it, hence we have all experienced guilt as a result.

And now we have come full circle. That was exactly my point, just worded differently.

It is troubling how we bypass this inner voice. For example, to kill one must devalue the targeted life. These mental gymnastics are necessary for trying to stay somewhat sane.

The Nazi regime referred to Jews as vermin, the slaves in the US were glorified monkeys, today non-Muslims are infidels, and the unborn are a fetus, etc. Once we stop considering something human, they are fair game to abuse as we like.

Just remove our humanity and we are free to treat others as cattle, whether it be to use them as slaves as beasts of burden, or slaughter them for food.

 

[Boss]

Our consciousness evolved across several different hominid species and our version was the only one to survive.

This is actually not true when it comes to human spirituality. While there is some small amount of evidence some European neanderthals practiced spiritual rituals, it is believed they were mimicking their homo sapien counterparts at the end of their existence. No other hominid species exhibited spirituality. If anything, this proves that our spiritual awareness was essential in our survival as a species.

 

[oldsoul]

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality also comes from other sources as well.

As human beings, we tend to look up the perceived authority figures and give their opinions sway in developing our morality. That includes parents, teachers, pastors, peers, and the state, etc.

For example, before slavery was made illegal the consensus was that it was not ideal but it was OK. However, being outlawed for over a century the thought of slavery is absurdly immoral.

Abortion is much the same. Before Roe vs Wade the consensus was that it was immoral. However, after decades of being legal the consensus is that it is not ideal, but that is it OK.

So as we see, human beings are lemmings and controlled largely by the state. So you could say that most if not all our morality is legislated. In fact, what law is devoid of morality?

Of all your examples, not one gets to the root of where the morality has it's roots. Where did the authority figures get their morality from?
Legislation containing morality is much different from legislating morality. To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says one must hold the door for the elderly or frail, yet most people see it as the right thing to do. If there where no law saying it was wrong to steal, would most people not still see it as wrong?

Ultimately, morality comes from God, the ultimate authority figure. We have an inner voice that dictates the Golden Rule to us.

Of course, we all violate it at some point. That is the odd thing about it, hence we have all experienced guilt as a result.

And now we have come full circle. That was exactly my point, just worded differently.

It is troubling how we bypass this inner voice. For example, to kill one must devalue the targeted life. These mental gymnastics are necessary for trying to stay somewhat sane.

The Nazi regime referred to Jews as vermin, the slaves in the US were glorified monkeys, today non-Muslims are infidels, and the unborn are a fetus, etc. Once we stop considering something human, they are fair game to abuse as we like.

Just remove our humanity and we are free to treat others as cattle, whether it be to use them as slaves as beasts of burden, or slaughter them for food.

True, and that is why I have such trouble with people using the words "worker", and "labor" when referring to people who do work. It de-humanizes them. I find it interesting that the first use of these terms, that I am aware of, in "modern times" was in the former Soviet Union, and now they have become mainstream here in our country.
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with the words themselves, just the context they are often used in. I am not a "worker", but I am a person who does work. I am not "labor", but I am a part of the labor force. Maybe it's semantics, but it bothers me when people take the humanity out of the equation.

 

[Boss]

True, and that is why I have such trouble with people using the words "worker", and "labor" when referring to people who do work. It de-humanizes them. I find it interesting that the first use of these terms, that I am aware of, in "modern times" was in the former Soviet Union, and now they have become mainstream here in our country.
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with the words themselves, just the context they are often used in. I am not a "worker", but I am a person who does work. I am not "labor", but I am a part of the labor force. Maybe it's semantics, but it bothers me when people take the humanity out of the equation.

You're absolutely right, it's part of the Marxist rhetoric and propaganda. It bugs the piss out of me too... I love it when one of them drones on about "the poor workers" ...I always ask why these people choose to continue being workers if that's so bad? Become a BOSS!!

 

[oldsoul]

Become a BOSS!!

I love it!!!

 

[Votto]

Morality also comes from other sources as well.

As human beings, we tend to look up the perceived authority figures and give their opinions sway in developing our morality. That includes parents, teachers, pastors, peers, and the state, etc.

For example, before slavery was made illegal the consensus was that it was not ideal but it was OK. However, being outlawed for over a century the thought of slavery is absurdly immoral.

Abortion is much the same. Before Roe vs Wade the consensus was that it was immoral. However, after decades of being legal the consensus is that it is not ideal, but that is it OK.

So as we see, human beings are lemmings and controlled largely by the state. So you could say that most if not all our morality is legislated. In fact, what law is devoid of morality?

Of all your examples, not one gets to the root of where the morality has it's roots. Where did the authority figures get their morality from?
Legislation containing morality is much different from legislating morality. To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says one must hold the door for the elderly or frail, yet most people see it as the right thing to do. If there where no law saying it was wrong to steal, would most people not still see it as wrong?

Ultimately, morality comes from God, the ultimate authority figure. We have an inner voice that dictates the Golden Rule to us.

Of course, we all violate it at some point. That is the odd thing about it, hence we have all experienced guilt as a result.

And now we have come full circle. That was exactly my point, just worded differently.

It is troubling how we bypass this inner voice. For example, to kill one must devalue the targeted life. These mental gymnastics are necessary for trying to stay somewhat sane.

The Nazi regime referred to Jews as vermin, the slaves in the US were glorified monkeys, today non-Muslims are infidels, and the unborn are a fetus, etc. Once we stop considering something human, they are fair game to abuse as we like.

Just remove our humanity and we are free to treat others as cattle, whether it be to use them as slaves as beasts of burden, or slaughter them for food.

True, and that is why I have such trouble with people using the words "worker", and "labor" when referring to people who do work. It de-humanizes them. I find it interesting that the first use of these terms, that I am aware of, in "modern times" was in the former Soviet Union, and now they have become mainstream here in our country.
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with the words themselves, just the context they are often used in. I am not a "worker", but I am a person who does work. I am not "labor", but I am a part of the labor force. Maybe it's semantics, but it bothers me when people take the humanity out of the equation.

For the atheist, none of us are really human. We are only glorified animals.

That is why atheists tend to be collectivists and herd us around like cattle. Their focus is on sacrificing segments of humanity for the common good.

 

[GaryDog]

Our consciousness evolved across several different hominid species and our version was the only one to survive.

This is actually not true when it comes to human spirituality. While there is some small amount of evidence some European neanderthals practiced spiritual rituals, it is believed they were mimicking their homo sapien counterparts at the end of their existence. No other hominid species exhibited spirituality. If anything, this proves that our spiritual awareness was essential in our survival as a species.

That's a lot of hypothetical nonsense. Again, science can't test something as nebulous as "spirituality". Neanderthals were self-aware, but "spirituality" is nonsense.

 

[GaryDog]

True, and that is why I have such trouble with people using the words "worker", and "labor" when referring to people who do work. It de-humanizes them. I find it interesting that the first use of these terms, that I am aware of, in "modern times" was in the former Soviet Union, and now they have become mainstream here in our country.
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with the words themselves, just the context they are often used in. I am not a "worker", but I am a person who does work. I am not "labor", but I am a part of the labor force. Maybe it's semantics, but it bothers me when people take the humanity out of the equation.

You're absolutely right, it's part of the Marxist rhetoric and propaganda. It bugs the piss out of me too... I love it when one of them drones on about "the poor workers" ...I always ask why these people choose to continue being workers if that's so bad? Become a BOSS!!

Right, everyone just become a boss. Hell, we don't need workers!

I didn't think you could say something more absurdly ignorant and wistful than you already have, but you surprised me.

 

[GaryDog]

Of all your examples, not one gets to the root of where the morality has it's roots. Where did the authority figures get their morality from?
Legislation containing morality is much different from legislating morality. To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says one must hold the door for the elderly or frail, yet most people see it as the right thing to do. If there where no law saying it was wrong to steal, would most people not still see it as wrong?

Ultimately, morality comes from God, the ultimate authority figure. We have an inner voice that dictates the Golden Rule to us.

Of course, we all violate it at some point. That is the odd thing about it, hence we have all experienced guilt as a result.

And now we have come full circle. That was exactly my point, just worded differently.

It is troubling how we bypass this inner voice. For example, to kill one must devalue the targeted life. These mental gymnastics are necessary for trying to stay somewhat sane.

The Nazi regime referred to Jews as vermin, the slaves in the US were glorified monkeys, today non-Muslims are infidels, and the unborn are a fetus, etc. Once we stop considering something human, they are fair game to abuse as we like.

Just remove our humanity and we are free to treat others as cattle, whether it be to use them as slaves as beasts of burden, or slaughter them for food.

True, and that is why I have such trouble with people using the words "worker", and "labor" when referring to people who do work. It de-humanizes them. I find it interesting that the first use of these terms, that I am aware of, in "modern times" was in the former Soviet Union, and now they have become mainstream here in our country.
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with the words themselves, just the context they are often used in. I am not a "worker", but I am a person who does work. I am not "labor", but I am a part of the labor force. Maybe it's semantics, but it bothers me when people take the humanity out of the equation.

For the atheist, none of us are really human. We are only glorified animals.

That is why atheists tend to be collectivists and herd us around like cattle. Their focus is on sacrificing segments of humanity for the common good.

No, for the atheist, we're all humans. We're also all animals. That's scientific fact.

99.9% of those in prison in the U.S. are atheists, even though non-religious represent 20% of the general population. I guess that proves the theists are more "moral", right?

 

[GaryDog]

Morality does not come from religion.

Maybe your morality does not (not sure where it would come from), but most peoples' does trace it's roots back to a religion of some sort.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.


"Morality" evolved along with everything else in human culture, generally beginning with the onset of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. It was economically advantageous for us to form peaceful coexistence with lots of other people for the first time, ever. Before that, we fought with pretty much everyone who was not in our immediate tribal band.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.

I am not sure what book you refer to, but I imagine you are attempting to refer to the Christian Bible, of which you can take lots of things out of context and create what ever story you wish. That does not mean that what you say is the meaning of things is correct, or even plausibly interpreted as so.

Uh, okay, find the context in THIS:
1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Or this: Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Romans 1:27: "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

or

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord";

Or:

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."


It's filled with this crap. Are there uplifting, positive verses? Of course. But by and large this is just a document of the times, where violence reigned and men with privilege ruled over women and those less fortunate.

That's not morality. That's a flawed grouping of documents written by deeply flawed men.

Seriously? I've already done that for you on the 2 Timothy verse. I will not indulge you further until you find some semblance of intellectual honesty.

More to the point, however, is: Why do you HATE Christianity so much? Did your pastor/priest harm you in some way when you where a child? I mean really, why do you show zero tolerance for religion in any form? I understand you are an Atheist, but to condemn religion in the ways you do shows just how closed-minded you are.

*sigh* Why do religious people always play this canard when someone dares to question their fairy tale?

I don't "hate" Christianity. I believe it's based on a myth. Just like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and several thousand other theist beliefs.

What's your opinion on Scientology? Do you think it's real? Do you think the teachings are grounded in truth? How about Buddhism? No? Why not? Did a buddhist or a scientologist harm you?

Well there you go, that's how I feel about all religions that disregard fact and science for myth. We're both atheists. I just go one god further than you.


As a Christian, you believe the bible is the divine word of god. I apologize if me repeating "god's words" back to you offends you so. Maybe you should go base your life off of another silly book if these words are so distressing to you.

 

[Boss]

Our consciousness evolved across several different hominid species and our version was the only one to survive.

This is actually not true when it comes to human spirituality. While there is some small amount of evidence some European neanderthals practiced spiritual rituals, it is believed they were mimicking their homo sapien counterparts at the end of their existence. No other hominid species exhibited spirituality. If anything, this proves that our spiritual awareness was essential in our survival as a species.

That's a lot of hypothetical nonsense. Again, science can't test something as nebulous as "spirituality". Neanderthals were self-aware, but "spirituality" is nonsense.

Well science is the study of physical nature and spirituality is spiritual nature, so it's inadequate to test or evaluate it. That doesn't change observational facts. Some scientists have a problem with quantum theory because it can't be tested by physical science, it requires quantum physics. The multiverse theory... can't be tested. It doesn't mean we dismiss all things science can't test as nonsense.

Human behavior is an observable science. We find in our species a behavioral attribute that has persisted for as long as we have evidence of our species being civilized. Even Darwin would be forced to admit this has to be fundamental or it wouldn't have been carried on.

So we have a fundamental behavior in a species and you want to contend it is baseless and imaginary... to me, that is even MORE incredible. We somehow dreamed up a behavior that is fundamental to our species... and it functions!

 

[GaryDog]

Our consciousness evolved across several different hominid species and our version was the only one to survive.

This is actually not true when it comes to human spirituality. While there is some small amount of evidence some European neanderthals practiced spiritual rituals, it is believed they were mimicking their homo sapien counterparts at the end of their existence. No other hominid species exhibited spirituality. If anything, this proves that our spiritual awareness was essential in our survival as a species.

That's a lot of hypothetical nonsense. Again, science can't test something as nebulous as "spirituality". Neanderthals were self-aware, but "spirituality" is nonsense.

Well science is the study of physical nature and spirituality is spiritual nature, so it's inadequate to test or evaluate it. That doesn't change observational facts. Some scientists have a problem with quantum theory because it can't be tested by physical science, it requires quantum physics. The multiverse theory... can't be tested. It doesn't mean we dismiss all things science can't test as nonsense.

Human behavior is an observable science. We find in our species a behavioral attribute that has persisted for as long as we have evidence of our species being civilized. Even Darwin would be forced to admit this has to be fundamental or it wouldn't have been carried on.

So we have a fundamental behavior in a species and you want to contend it is baseless and imaginary... to me, that is even MORE incredible. We somehow dreamed up a behavior that is fundamental to our species... and it functions!

I don't find human behavior to be baseless and imaginary. I find your description of spirituality to be unsupported. And I'm right. "Spirituality" is a lazy conclusion that ends the discussion and relies on the mystical, or fantastic (just like theism ends the discussion of the origins of the universe with "god did it" and robs us of further inquiry).

Studies of human behavior are very much scientific, and ongoing. There's nothing "mystical" about it.

 

[Boss]

True, and that is why I have such trouble with people using the words "worker", and "labor" when referring to people who do work. It de-humanizes them. I find it interesting that the first use of these terms, that I am aware of, in "modern times" was in the former Soviet Union, and now they have become mainstream here in our country.
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with the words themselves, just the context they are often used in. I am not a "worker", but I am a person who does work. I am not "labor", but I am a part of the labor force. Maybe it's semantics, but it bothers me when people take the humanity out of the equation.

You're absolutely right, it's part of the Marxist rhetoric and propaganda. It bugs the piss out of me too... I love it when one of them drones on about "the poor workers" ...I always ask why these people choose to continue being workers if that's so bad? Become a BOSS!!

Right, everyone just become a boss. Hell, we don't need workers!

I didn't think you could say something more absurdly ignorant and wistful than you already have, but you surprised me.

Well I didn't say everybody just become a boss. Obviously, some people are content being workers. But if you're not content, if being a worker is such a terrible thing for you... be a boss! You live in a free country where you have the liberty to do that. Start your own business, be your own boss.

You see... here's the deal.... all of this progressive bullshit you yammer is old stuff... it comes from many years ago in the hopeless days of feudalism and dictatorships under kings and lords of Europe and Asia, long before anything resembling America existed. In those systems, you were (and still are) born into your class and that's where you remained for your entire life. If you happened to be born into the class of "worker" that's just what you were. There was nothing you could do about it, you just had to live with that. So along comes Marx and he proposes a "better life" for the "worker" and everyone cheered. It never worked, but they've kept re-inventing it over and over. Hundreds of millions have died trying to make it work, but that doesn't seem to matter.

Meanwhile, some truly great men devised a system predicated on the principle that men are endowed with the inalienable right to govern themselves and they don't need a king or ruler, they don't need to be divided into class, they can be free and be their own boss. It worked brilliantly! It has lifted more people from poverty and created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man.

 

[Boss]

I don't find human behavior to be baseless and imaginary. I find your description of spirituality to be unsupported. And I'm right. "Spirituality" is a lazy conclusion that ends the discussion and relies on the mystical, or fantastic (just like theism ends the discussion of the origins of the universe with "god did it" and robs us of further inquiry).

Studies of human behavior are very much scientific, and ongoing. There's nothing "mystical" about it.

I never said "god did it" and so we shouldn't inquire further. Where did that come from?

It's not a lazy conclusion because it's observational fact. The oldest human civilization ever unearthed shows evidence of ritual ceremonial burial using red ocher. There is no pragmatic physical purpose for ritual ceremonies or red ocher. It is evidence of spiritual belief. It's not a lazy conclusion, it's the only rational one.

There is absolutely nothing about human spirituality that precludes physical science. The man who mapped the human genome was a Christian. Sir Isaac Newton was educated in a religious university and actually spent part of his life writing what would eventually become the foundation of the Protestant Church. He is considered the greatest scientific mind of all time.

Indeed, it is a very UN-scientific viewpoint to dismiss possibilities you cannot disprove. So it is YOU who is drawing the "lazy" conclusion. When you have adopted a conclusion you have adopted a faith and stopped practicing science. That's truth whether you throw up your hands and say "god did it" or if you proclaim "god doesn't exist!"