I know this may seem like a bit of an odd question but I’ve been wondering about it for the past few days and for some reason I can’t escape the feeling that it (atheism) would be a rather ‘conservative’ point of view (that is, at least in title), and yet I’m constantly being called a liberal because of my social and political leanings. I'm just wondering what your views are on this.
PS: I’ll be gone for a few days but I will catch up with this thread when I return.
Hey Joel, good to see someone in here who's not old as shit (I'm talking to you, JohnD!) and might be taking an interest in these things. I hesitate to address the first issue you mention because anger at the gov't is complex at best~ mind you, the government has little opportunity to create jobs other than through stimulating federal infrastructure projects or through grants~ its the private sector that hasn't been creating jobs because of uncertain markets. That can be discussed more in depth if its wished.
Just a reminder, scientists talk about 'climate' change~ and while a cluster of extreme weather is unusual, it doesn't constitute 'climate' change~ its more likely pareidoilia, our minds willingness to see patterns in randomness.
2+2=4 is pretty simple too. That doesn't make it any less true. And while I doubt that you go around doing evil. Your vote likely is to endorse the physical coercion of others. Which is immoral. So, you say I am lame, simple and a prick. Brilliant.
You are the one name calling like a child. Asshole? Come on. I am simply stating the truth that forcing others to give up their means of life so that other's can be provided for is fundamentally evil. A willful violation of another's rights is wrong.
If we strip our concepts to include only essentials, and no arbitrary attributes, then all of philosophy becomes easier to understand, including ethics. So, I would, in fact say that while our implicit ethics is the same, I am able to explicitly articulate its nature in a less complex and less contradictory fashion.
So, you think it is good to violate individual rights as a means to life. That is immoral any way you look at it. We can do better.
Your road analogy is arbitrary. Having rules and regulations is different than not having control over your own means of life.
You are evil in as much as you endorse physical coercion as a way of life. This is not hyperbole. We need not extra arbitrary complexity to see and face the truth of it.
You can call me what you like, sure. But the difference is I am calling you evil in as much as you advocate immoral force, literally. And you are calling me an asshole, metaphorically to mean, well, I'm not sure exactly, that you don't like me, that you think i am not compassionate, that your feelings are hurt, that I am selfish, that you think I'm mean to the suffering poor by not supporting them willingly.......
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong. ...H. L. Mencken,
In a society as complex as is modern society, to believe that any simplistic solution to complex problems can be found is beyond wishful thinking – it's delusional. The application of simple fixes to complex problems is like stabbing a watch with and ice pick and hoping it will keep better time.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. ~Albert Einstein
Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. ~Confucius
The greatest truths are the simplest: so likewise are the greatest men.
~Augustus William Hare and Julius Charles Hare