Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: New Blog For Non-Religious Conservatives

  1. #1

    Default New Blog For Non-Religious Conservatives

    http://secularright.org/wordpress/?page_id=2

    It has potential, but if all they're going to do is dissect religion I shall grow bored rather quickly.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Just found this earlier-http://atheistnexus.org/ Haven't looked into it much yet, but it may have potential. They seem to be less militant than the extremist types.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    [IMG]
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMoF6luCUAIm1vO.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://asset.zcache.com/assets/graphics/s.gif[/IMG]
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  4. #3

    Default

    Secular Right

    hmmn

    I don't see that really appealing to anyone except for those who are anti this or anti that, just an opinion. Who knows, whatever works for some doesn't work for others BUT hell it gives people another place to debate, learn and edumucate each other.
    Support Marijuana Legalization WORLDWIDE

  5. #4

    Default Religious Humanist Bloggers

    That blog is just for religious humanists with conservative views. The ironic thing is conservative views come from a Christian perspective, not a secular one.
    "And Joab said to Amasa, 'Art thou in health, my brother?' And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him. But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab's hand, so he smote him therewith in the fifth rib and shed out his bowels to the ground and struck him not again. And he died." - 2 Samuel 20:9-10

    "Obamacare saddles the American health care system with new spending and mandates which will raise the price and lower the quality of health care." - Dr. Ron Paul

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    The ironic thing is conservative views come from a Christian perspective, not a secular one.
    What a ridiculous notion. By that logic, there was no conservative philosophy until the rise of Christianity. History makes a mockery of that assertion.

    I would argue instead that many "christian beliefs" come from a conservative perspective, and that those "christian beliefs" are just a shabby attempt to justify a conservative philosophy through a fallacious appeal to supernatural authority.

    The golden rule existed long before jesus.

  7. #6

    Default Conservativism is a Product of the Christian Worldview

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanEdwards View Post
    What a ridiculous notion. By that logic, there was no conservative philosophy until the rise of Christianity. History makes a mockery of that assertion.

    I would argue instead that many "christian beliefs" come from a conservative perspective, and that those "christian beliefs" are just a shabby attempt to justify a conservative philosophy through a fallacious appeal to supernatural authority.

    The golden rule existed long before jesus.
    Actually, history makes it pretty clear that any society which embraced Christianity became virtuous and prosperous for a time. The deterioration of Christian beliefs came about when churches abdicated their authority to other competing beliefs, such as Islam, humanism, and others. There has never been a secular society which has been successful towards mankind nor utilizing conservative beliefs to advance a nation of people. The United States was heavily inculcated by a Christian outlook on life, liberty, and property, and this has been proven and documented numerous times on these forums alone.

    Your assertion that "the golden rule existed long before Jesus" contains a gleaming faulty assumption. Jesus Christ always existed because He is God, and He manifested Himself in human form to make an atonement for the sins of mankind. Christianity did not begin in 33 AD; it started in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of all creation. You need to get your facts straight.
    "And Joab said to Amasa, 'Art thou in health, my brother?' And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him. But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab's hand, so he smote him therewith in the fifth rib and shed out his bowels to the ground and struck him not again. And he died." - 2 Samuel 20:9-10

    "Obamacare saddles the American health care system with new spending and mandates which will raise the price and lower the quality of health care." - Dr. Ron Paul

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Christianity did not begin in 33 AD; it started in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of all creation. .
    And there's the fallacious appeal to supernatural authority yet again.

    There's no debate if you can't craft your arguments from logic.

    I can make a fallacious appeal to supernatural authority too:

    "The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the golden rule when his noodles inscribed the truth of his philosphy on the soul of man."

    Now what? There's nothing to debate. Just two jerks babbling at each other. You can't refute my assertion about a mythical spaghetti monster creator, because it rests not on facts, but on faith, and faith is impervious to reason.

  9. #8

    Default Justify Yourself

    Quote Originally Posted by SeanEdwards View Post
    And there's the fallacious appeal to supernatural authority yet again.

    There's no debate if you can't craft your arguments from logic.

    I can make a fallacious appeal to supernatural authority too:

    "The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the golden rule when his noodles inscribed the truth of his philosphy on the soul of man."

    Now what? There's nothing to debate. Just two jerks babbling at each other. You can't refute my assertion about a mythical spaghetti monster creator, because it rests not on facts, but on faith, and faith is impervious to reason.
    How is my statement fallacious, and on what objective grounds do you judge it to be so?

    My statements are based on logic, but you, as a materialist, have no absolute basis for relying on logic to begin with.

    Let me ask you this: how do you prove the truth of your statement that "There's no debate if you can't craft your arguments from logic?" If it's proven from logic, then you're arguing in a circle. If it's proven by something other than logic, then you refute your statement itself.

    You're the only one making the claim that faith is impervious to reason. I do not believe that. It is my contention that reasoning itself is based on one's faith about the nature of the world he lives in. Can you even give a reason for reason itself?
    "And Joab said to Amasa, 'Art thou in health, my brother?' And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him. But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab's hand, so he smote him therewith in the fifth rib and shed out his bowels to the ground and struck him not again. And he died." - 2 Samuel 20:9-10

    "Obamacare saddles the American health care system with new spending and mandates which will raise the price and lower the quality of health care." - Dr. Ron Paul

  10. #9

    Default

    "You're the only one making the claim that faith is impervious to reason. I do not believe that."

    Whether you believe it or not, your a prime example of it.
    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
    Paul Revere - "The British are coming!"
    Ron Paul - The Bankers are coming!
    "Evil People win when Good People do nothing"

    "You're asking the poor people to bail out the rich. You're asking the innocent
    people to bail out the guilty. You're asking people to just totally defy the Constitution because there's
    no place in the Constitution that says that we can do these things."

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    How is my statement fallacious, and on what objective grounds do you judge it to be so?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

    relevant excerpt:

    Examples of appeals to authority....

    Referring to a sacred text. "If (the text) said it was so, it is so." Like in the previous example, such an appeal may be based upon the belief that the sacred text in question is inerrant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    My statements are based on logic, but you, as a materialist, have no absolute basis for relying on logic to begin with.
    Your statements are certainly not based on logic, as I've already indicated. They are based on revealed knowledge from a bunch of dead people. If that revealed knowledge that you believe in was passed down from mayan priests, instead of from christian priests, you'd be here arguing the moral correctness of human sacrifice and cannibalism. Your belief system is not based upon independent reasoning (using the mind god gave you ) but is instead based upon a non-rational belief that dead people had some special insight that we no longer have.

    You are correct though in pointing out that I have no absolute basis for relying on logic. But this is a necessary attribute of trusting to reason and logic as a tool to understand the world. My worldview must necessarily accept the possibility, however remote, that some observable fact may utterly destroy my entire concept of reality. This is the nature of scientific and rational thought. Nothing can be proved absolutely, only disproved.

    Your belief system implicitly denies the possibility that any observed fact can disprove your worldview. Thus your beliefs are not logical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Let me ask you this: how do you prove the truth of your statement that "There's no debate if you can't craft your arguments from logic?"
    Again you demonstrate your fundamental lack of understanding of scientific thought. Nothing can ever be proved. There is always the possibility of some exception somewhere in the universe, somewhere outside of our experience. Logical thought is based upon what is observable and falsifiable, and that inherently means that new observations can alter previous beliefs.

    So the challenge to you is to DISPROVE my hypothesis that there can be no debate between logic and faith. If you can disprove my claim, then I will consider abandoning that belief.

    Maybe there is some land of the smurfs on the other side of the universe where debates are conducted by one smurf asserting priveleged knowledge, and other smurfs asserting empirical evidence, but I'm unaware of the existence of such a place. In the world I live in, arguments are made based on empirical observed facts and logical deduction, not on the basis of appeals to authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    You're the only one making the claim that faith is impervious to reason. I do not believe that. It is my contention that reasoning itself is based on one's faith about the nature of the world he lives in. Can you even give a reason for reason itself?
    My worldview does not require an absolute faith in reason. I'm fully willing to abandon reason and adopt superstitious mumbo-jumbo just as soon as that superstitious mumbo-jumbo becomes a more effective tool for understanding the universe I live in. You're the one that seems hung up on absolutism. I'm quite content to exist with uncertainty.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Actually, history makes it pretty clear that any society which embraced Christianity became virtuous and prosperous for a time.


    Is that before or after they kill off all the nonbelievers, as your little storybook commands you do?
    Force always attracts men of low morality. Albert Einstein

    Government is essentially the negation of liberty. Ludwig von Mises

    The great non-sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. - Murray N. Rothbard

  13. #12

    Default

    Can't we go one day without fighting?
    Originally posted by revolutionman:
    "I don't like bob barr, the hair on his face is evil. I know thats dumb but there is just something i don't like about his moustache and eyebrows."


    Originally Posted by amy31416:
    "Quit insulting snakes and lizards by comparing them to our politicians."


    SAVE BUNCHIES!

  14. #13

    Default

    aren't non-religious conservatives just neocons?





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •