Conservative Atheists

Comment

Comment by Chris Z on March 13, 2011 at 1:02am

Oops.  Adam's => Adams's

Comment by Chris Z on March 13, 2011 at 12:42am

@Ron, LOL, yeah.  I very much agree.  Sometimes I write to fine tune my thoughts.  It took me a long while, as you can see, to boil my thoughts down.

 

Plus, while I wrote it for other conservative atheists to read, I also had in mind that the other parties I mentioned would try to tear it apart.  Whenever that happens, whenever I think of people pulling my argument apart, I tend to become very detailed in threading my deductive reasoning together.

 

It sucks, but it's great for writing physics papers, hahaha.  You have my respect and gratitude for such valuable feedback.

 

As a masters student in physics, and soon a Ph.D. student, you can see the current drawbacks.  But I've also served in the military.  I really appreciate straight talk with minimal tact.  Thanks.

Comment by Chris Z on March 12, 2011 at 9:32pm

Regarding John Adam's sentiment along the lines of "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," I find it difficult, as a Conservative Atheist, to say that I still don't fit this bill.

As atheists ourselves, we know many among us are moral; moreover, many of us live lives which are morally enviable as compared to how many theists live their lives. So why exactly, as secularists, atheists, agnostics, nontheists, etc., do we overwhelmingly proclaim that we are not religious? I think this creates a problem, yet this is a linguistic area of opportunity for us to seize upon.

Many of us agree that, in "the blind faith" / "lack of reason" sense of the word, being "religious" is something we are not. In a similar manner, while we are not supernaturally or metaphysically "spiritual", we still are "spiritual" in the natural sense of the word. Specifically, we tentatively place our faith with falsifiable hypotheses regarding the reality of the natural universe. Moreover, as these falsifiable hypotheses and models withstand and bare trial after trial of testing without being falsified (failing), they are relegated to the status of theories. In the event that a theory becomes subsumed by a broader theory, our faith (being lead by the reason behind the broader theory) is placed tentatively with the direction of this broader (more general, more encompassing) theory.

However, just as the "spiritual" may be used in the sense of naturally spiritual (as opposed to supernaturally or metaphysically spiritual), in a similar vein, the word "religious" may be used in the sense of adherence to a universal set of human standards and morals. On an aside, pages can be written on the values that stem from adhering to the scientific process as described above, open-humility to name one.

So while many Atheists et al., as well as "spiritual but not religious" people, distance themselves from saying they are "not" religious, I'm not sure it is correct for all of us to say such a thing in the broadest sense. Furthermore, in that saying such (that we are not religious) as Americans, we remove from ourselves a powerful argument of defense against those who view us as a people not of kin of our Founders' intention.
As Atheists, it is worthwhile for us to consider just how often, and with whom amongst, we speak of ourselves as "definitely" not religious, particularly in the public arena (media, etc.).

In addition, yes, it doesn't help that we as conservative atheists are marginalized by conservative theists (the conservative majority) who hardly if ever bother to recognize our existence (the premise of our group). That's a big problem and one that merits a lot of focus and discussion. Also, however, there are many leftist Atheists who neither share our views of our Constitution nor The American Dream. Leftist atheists in general are types that use ethical relativism to justify their own immorality. These are the atheists, not us, which hold predominant visibility in the minds of people of faith in our country, particularly our fellow-conservative theists. Moreover, it is the fanaticism of the leftism of the leftist atheist with which the conservative theist "mentally blends" as a fanaticism systemic of atheism as well. It would be interesting to ask conservative theists, "does atheism causes totalitarianism or leftism causes it?" Perhaps many think that both cause each other. Anyway, how it happens is room for discussion and is of less significance to my point. My point is that this too, leftist atheists, are a huge problem for us conservative atheists, and in general, future representation for atheists et al. in America.

Also, in my opinion, there is more reason to believe that a conservative theist, one that has been knowledgeably seasoned over time of our kind (Pro-American conservative atheism) as a "religious" and moral people, would be more trusting of us to govern our country than leftist, democrat, etc., atheists. It is really safe to say leftist, democrat theists wouldn't trust conservative anything to run the show.

It is then incumbent upon us to recognize the distinctions of the use of the word "religious" if it comes up while speaking among liberal (not leftist), moderate, and other conservative atheists. The consequence of an atheists et al. telling liberals that we're definitely religious aren't as significant right now as telling a conservative theist that we're definitely not religious.

I tend to think of myself as "spiritual" in the natural sense, as well as, "religious" in the sense of adhering to a universal set of human standards, ethics, and morals. So in this sense, as a moral conservative Atheist, I still fit the bill as a great American of our Founding Fathers' intent. Now to all conservative radio talk show hosts and others who use this argument about atheists not capable of upholding our great country, it's values, our Constitution, etc. because "all atheists et al.l" are amoral and non-religious, go pound sand.

Final Notes:
Of course, there is also the need to be clear with the theist about what we mean by religious. They might use this to their advantage to say that we're religious in the sense that we "believe" in there being no god, whereas we're really just accepting the lack of evidences of god as an indicators that all that is supernatural does not exist. But I've assumed in my writing that all of the readers are already familiar with how those arguments go.

More can be said about our fears of theists vs. leftists. While I've talked mainly about the problems with leftism here, there is more that could be said regarding hard core theism as well. I just don't see it in our time right now in America. In particular, most (not all) people of faith don't really subscribe to all of the details of their sacred texts. If they did that would be another story. But most, albeit in exchange for turning reality on its head, simply follow the parts about love etc. Most are fine and dandy, even great people; just don't let them brainwash your kids with their fairy-tails.

Comment by Chris Z on March 3, 2011 at 5:09pm

Yes, more politicians need to bring up the topic up of our outrageous trade deficits with these other countries.

 

I agree that a large number of "people" are sexually irresponsible and they don't care to change their ways.  Reclaiming the ideal is always an option; but for many of these people, they've perverted sexual ideals as pious, eccentric, and superfluous.  However, these ideals will never change from generation to generation because they stem from the reality of our physical condition as human beings.

 

You can't have sex without risking pregnancy.  Therefore couples ought not have sexual intercourse with one another if they are not also mutually willing to pledge a lifelong commitment to a close and monogamous relationship with one another.

 

You don't have to have sexual intercourse with another person in order to determine whether you love them enough to marry them.

 

These things will never change so long as our species survives.

 

There's still a lot of people that stick to these ideals.  Out of these people, a large many have probably dropped the ball with these ideals once or twice along the way, but they learned from their mistakes and reaffirmed, restrengthened, or even finally understood the real reasons for upholding such ideals.

 

Then there are a large number of people that just don't want to face up to the consequences of our physical condition.  They would rather deny the cold hard facts of our reality in the long term, for short term gains.  In the long run, as evidence also from your example, this doesn't work out well for all parties involved, especially the children.

 

 

Comment by Tonya Wynn on March 3, 2011 at 12:14pm

My dad is a family doctor who has turned a small cottage into his physics lab.  He got two woman pregnant accidentally, so marrid them... he blames the woman and the two children for his %$!$!!! 'mistake'.

Comment by Tonya Wynn on March 3, 2011 at 12:12pm

Chris, I thik Conservatism DOES go well with the pro-life movement because most pro-lifers (not you, I hope) believe in God and that sex is wrong, especially out of wedlock, that women belong to men.  While there may be a few men who are responsible with their sexuality, few are!  You few have made the idealist mistake that others will be, or are, as responsible as you, and man up to getting a woman pregnant (or giving her a venereal disease) by marrying her or, at least, supporting that baby/child!  This is not the case.  The jerk shoulda worn a condom or, at least, pulled out!! He didn't and fw do! Few people are responsible. A woman has to care for that chld for 18 or more years and the man RUNS like a coward!!

Comment by Tonya Wynn on March 3, 2011 at 11:57am

Chris, glad to read that you agree with a tariff on Chinese imports (Trump's plan).  Never heard of Allen West even though I listen to Boortz and Hannidy and conserative radio alot.  Will look him up. One thing I dislike about most conservative politicians is their dislike if protectionism.  A little protectionism is needed in the U.S.

Comment by Chris Z on February 27, 2011 at 6:12pm

Welcome here new members!

Comment by Chris Z on February 25, 2011 at 3:20am

An update on the number of members who have joined the Conservative Atheist Facebook Group:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=48625003215

The group now has 227 members as of 02/25/2011.

It has approximately doubled from the roughly 110 members 8 months ago, 06/13/2010.

Comment by Chris Z on February 23, 2011 at 12:23am

A Place on the Right for a Few Godless Conservatives

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page