Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob of QF on August 9, 2008 at 7:37pm

Define "conservative".

I'm what you'd call a "hard" atheist with regards to the gods of modern religions-- all of'em.

But, I'm soft with regards to the generalized concept of "god".

I'm liberal with regards to regulating the behaviors of individuals-- if it doesn't actually harm someone else, I don't think it ought to be prohibited.

On the other hand, when it comes to my government? I'm conservative under the old meaning of the word-- before Reagon lead the Republicans into a would-be Theocracy.

I'm conservative with regards to government spending-- little is better than more.

I'm conservative with regards to taxation-- but I fully comprehend the need for it, and willingly comply-- so long as it's not religion that my taxes are supporting. (I'm against tax-free status of churches, for example).

I think there ought to be zero deficit spending allowed by law. If the government needs to borrow money to pay for a war-- it must sell that to the people, and and exception can be had. If they can't convince people to pay for it-- too bad. The only possible exception would be if we were actually invaded, for real, and things needed to move quickly.

I would much rather see "tax and spend" than "borrow and spend". With tax and spend, at least, they are spending what they raised in taxes!

I'm also conservative with regards to gun control: remove the reasons for gun violence, treat the disease, not the symptom.

I'm conservative with regards to national defense (in that I think we need a strong one)-- with the stipulation that it MUST be paid for without borrowing-- see above.

But, I don't think ANY religions ideas should be a model for government policy, except by pure coincidence. I.e. the "golden rule" "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a very, very good policy. It pre-dates Christianity, obviously, and can be found in one form or another in nearly all successful cultures.

Marriage? I'm very, very liberal: the ONLY consideration the national government ought to have, with regards to that, is protection of the children's interests. The states may want to get into inheritance issues as well.

But gender, the number of partners, all that? There is zero _secular_ justification for the way our current laws read. ALL of them are currently based on idiotic ideals taken directly from the bible. That should be abolished, post-haste. Aside from the children issue, it ought to be a strictly legal issue(s) and taken up by the partner(s) involved. Open ended? If they like. Strictly limited to a specific number of months/years/decades? Up to the partners involved. Rights and responsibilities of each partner ought to be spelled out, just like any other legal contract.

I suppose it ought to be limited to adults, obviously. But, that should be implicit in the "protect the interests of children" that I stipulated first.

So.

What am I? Liberal? Conservative? Libertarian?

Can you even class me as Atheist?

...

That's the problem with labels....they rarely fit real people....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Willa Cartwright on August 23, 2008 at 6:41pm

Are all atheists democrats? I don't about that.

I'm not an american citizern so republican and democrat are not labels that apply to me.

However, if I were to apply similar labels to myself, I'd be economically conservative and socially "liberal" - the word liberla used in the american politcal sence rather than a strict dictionary sense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forsaken on August 27, 2008 at 1:55pm

The short answer:

No, not all Atheists are Democrats... and yes, some of the people that are not Democratic Atheists are Conservative Atheists.

I, for one, am a Liberal Agnostic Atheist Independent. I love labeling myself. Hah! ;o)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forsaken on October 2, 2009 at 11:36am

To clarify, I find it to be intellectually dishonest and moreover, egotistical to say that you know with absolute certainty that there is no god, gods, or the like. Do I find that there is any compelling evidence to prove a god theory? No. Do I think that there is enough evidence to make a conclusion (either way) that is demonstrable? Not that I have seen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forsaken on October 2, 2009 at 12:29pm

Yeah it is an interesting exercise in semantics to communicate this idea successfully. I can certainly say that I have an absence of belief, but I cannot say that I have an active disbelief. For instance I don't go around saying, "There is no god." But when asked, "Do you believe in god?" My default response has to be, "I don't feel that there is evidence for that theory." So am I an Atheist? Am I an Agnostic? I really cannot say... because all I can really say is that I have an absence of belief... and not an active disbelief. Very weird idea to communicate, that's for sure! LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forsaken on October 2, 2009 at 12:38pm

I am sure that this subject has beaten to death here, but I am going to keep beating it beyond recognition:

Definitions of Agnostic:

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Definitions of Atheist:

1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

2. Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3] (from Wikipedia)

From my perspective, elements of both stances apply to what I think is the most intellectually honest stance. Hence my hybrid label of, Agnostic Atheist. I open to revisions to this stance though... hehehe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ruth Dickson on October 2, 2009 at 8:34pm

I tend to agree with Sam Harris when he says "atheism" shouldn't even be a word. As he pointed out, we don't have a word for people who don't believe in astrology or other odd constructs...like, would you call yourself an asantaist if you don't think there's really a jolly fat man who brings xmas presents? I'm sticking with 'post-theist' until something more descriptive comes along.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ruth Dickson on October 3, 2009 at 11:33am

I see it more as a social statement, Anne Marie. My hope is that the entire civilized world will eventually reach a second age of enlightenment and reason, discard the mythology of current religious belief, just as the old mythologies have been debunked, and we will enter the next era: post-theism. I figure many of us are already there, and my hope is that the idea will grow and spread and that we can eventually bring the term into general use as humanity evolves past the need for that GoodOldDad in the sky.

Permalink Reply by Forsaken on August 27, 2008 at 2:02pm

Also, actually there is one Atheist in The House of Representatives his name is Pete Stark, he came out when The Secular Coalition of America put out a request for anyone in the Federal Government to announce their lack of belief.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forsaken on August 27, 2008 at 2:57pm

It definitely has penetrated it... and I think it is really darned close to crumbling to bits. One Supreme Court Justice away... that's why we cannot let McCain into office...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by damian on August 27, 2008 at 4:51pm

I'm conservative. I do have alot to learn about politics, and have avoided it for a very long time. I agree with the self reliance aspect, less government programs, etc. Not relying on the government could be similar to not relying on religion. What do we do for the election? I know that i don't know enough about the process, but i'm willing to sign a petition, donate money, whatever. The secular voice needs to be heard now. There has to be something we could organize to make a small difference; just to get the ball rolling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Winkler on August 28, 2008 at 4:45am

What is a conservative? It seem like the terms Liberal and Conservative have lost much of their original meaning.

Does Republican equate to conservative anymore? To me, the Republican party is corruption, and more money for the rich irregardless of the cost to the country and everyone else.

Bush's gutting of FEMA compounded Katrina. The lack of controls on financial institutions and the result is another nail in the coffin for libertarianism.

The Democrats seem to be all that is left over. Unfortunately, with all of the Limbaugh pundits and every nondescript nut case classified as liberal, progressives are definition shopping.

The result is that conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism are dysfunctional terms.

Throwing money at a problem like Democrats are accused of doesn't work. Deregulation doesn't work. Letting industry regulate their mercury release doesn't work. Maybe we need to try something else?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page