5
5
0
The liberal philosophy is one of secular humanism. They cite dawrinism as a main reason why they do not believe in a God. These same rational social darwinist neglect to understand what darwinism means for humanist. If we as humans are nothing more than the end result of a purely random purely amoral blind evolutionary process… then the very notion of being a humanist is utterly philosophically inconsistent. If human life is simply a glorious accident and all feelings of anything else like love for your family, patriotism, compassion for another human being… .if these are nothing more than chemical reactions taking place inside your body… then how do liberal humanist… aka social darwinist…. Aka.. Athiest.. (All one and the same) how do they reason that people… any people have rights? Why do these liberal humanist pretend to care about the poor, the sick, the defensless when any rational philosophically consistent liberal should understand thats its all just a bunch of chemical reactions and nothing really matters with this point of view. It is the only rational philosophically consistent view that an educated rational liberal can have. So why the play at humanism? It has been utterly debunked by Darwin while thiest still have no trouble believing in God. Explain your motivations and how they are philosophically consistent.
Politics
Liberal
Philosophy
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 16
10
10
0
You made some very valid points about conflics in secular humanism. However be careful with lump generalizations, such as the idea that liberal humanists, social Darwinists and atheists are all the same. There are certainly people who are all 3, but probably more who are not.
(10)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SrA Art Siatkowsky while I get what you're saying I know a heck of a lot of liberals who are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
I'd also argue that evolution doesn't have to contradict religion. In fact that's something that's always bothered me. If you can believe in a God who can create everything, why can't you believe that he created an earth with a history? Why can't science be the mechanism he used to do his work? I'm not arguing with you on this, just a general question. I've never understood the people that say religion and science can't go hand in hand.
I'd also argue that evolution doesn't have to contradict religion. In fact that's something that's always bothered me. If you can believe in a God who can create everything, why can't you believe that he created an earth with a history? Why can't science be the mechanism he used to do his work? I'm not arguing with you on this, just a general question. I've never understood the people that say religion and science can't go hand in hand.
(2)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
I agree it doesnt have to contradict religion but to the liberal humanist, social darwinist, and athiest it does. Im not arguing against evolution im arguing that the liberal philosophy utilizes evolution as its argument against a God and religion. My point is that in utilizing this line of thinking they are overlooking the consequences to their own claims at humanism. Darwin didnt trump God but he most certainly utterly and completely destroyed any notion of humanism that exists without a God.
(0)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
Also there are jewish, christian, and muslim liberals but I do not think their core beliefs agree with the academic liberal, the liberal democrats that booed God at their national convention , the social darwinist who are running the modern liberal democratic party. I know many who claim to be liberal democrats but dont understand the philosophy that is behind their political party and the reason why that political party has issues with our constitution is that the founding fathers very intentionally based our source for human rights to be from the creator. The people behind the modern liberal party do not believe in a ceator and in their eyes the Constitution is based upon a lie and thus worthless. If find it a difficult fit to be a theist and to support and vote into power people who think theism is irrational and that the notion of human rights being bestowed by God is foolish.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Roughly 1 in 20 Americans are Atheist or Agnostic, about 66 million people voted for Obama (61 million for Romney) in 2012... it should be easy to discern that most people who vote Democrat are not Atheist or Agnostic. About half the Atheists I know are extremely Libertarian, they tend to vote Republican.
I am socially libertarian and a democratic socialist. The people conservatives call liberal democrats, I call moderates. I am most definitely not a social darwinist, or a secular humanist, and the Democratic party is far to conservative for my liking. If it were up to me everyone would have first rate health care and everyone would pitch in to pay for it. If it were up to me there would be no such thing as an illegal drug as long as there were accurate warning labels on the bottles. If it were up to me, all income/profit would be taxed at the same rates. Inheritance tax would be leveraged on everything over 10 million per person and it would be 90%. If it were up to me corporate profits would be taxed the same as people are taxed. If it were up to me corporate political speech would be extremely limited. If it were up to me government would start up non-profit manufacturing in depressed areas of the country to put free solar panels on every roof in America. If it were up to I'd nationalize the Fed, and offer people loans at 1% interest until inflation began to be a problem.
I am socially libertarian and a democratic socialist. The people conservatives call liberal democrats, I call moderates. I am most definitely not a social darwinist, or a secular humanist, and the Democratic party is far to conservative for my liking. If it were up to me everyone would have first rate health care and everyone would pitch in to pay for it. If it were up to me there would be no such thing as an illegal drug as long as there were accurate warning labels on the bottles. If it were up to me, all income/profit would be taxed at the same rates. Inheritance tax would be leveraged on everything over 10 million per person and it would be 90%. If it were up to me corporate profits would be taxed the same as people are taxed. If it were up to me corporate political speech would be extremely limited. If it were up to me government would start up non-profit manufacturing in depressed areas of the country to put free solar panels on every roof in America. If it were up to I'd nationalize the Fed, and offer people loans at 1% interest until inflation began to be a problem.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Why are conservatives drawn to atheist philosophers like Rand who openly repudiated Christian moral theology?
This is a bizarre question I'm it's framing. I've argued with Conservatives who are deeply rooted in Atheistic nihilism and pragmatism. I've also argued with Liberals whose ideology is deeply rooted in their faith.
In general though, Liberals oppose social control (extremists excluded) which is a selling point of the Moral Majority's culture war. Conservative ideology has become indistinguishable from faith, which makes it unappealing and a source of contention. Christianity has become increasingly viewed as a prop for power-hungry fascists.
They're only sort of wrong sadly.
This is a bizarre question I'm it's framing. I've argued with Conservatives who are deeply rooted in Atheistic nihilism and pragmatism. I've also argued with Liberals whose ideology is deeply rooted in their faith.
In general though, Liberals oppose social control (extremists excluded) which is a selling point of the Moral Majority's culture war. Conservative ideology has become indistinguishable from faith, which makes it unappealing and a source of contention. Christianity has become increasingly viewed as a prop for power-hungry fascists.
They're only sort of wrong sadly.
(8)
(0)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
Good response and I say that conservative philosophy that embraces free markets and capitalism allows for both athiestic philosophies and thiestic. Ayn Rand and her athiestic philosophy understands that capitalism mimicks natural law. Those who succeed…. By any means necessary… succeed. Natural law favors the winners no matter the methods they use to attain that position… communist also understand this which is why it was nothing for them to slaughter so many of their own countrymen.
Freedom also allows for thiest views… compassion and charity are not virtues if they are forced by the government. The right to keep what you earn or give some of what you earn to another are protected by conservative philosophy and not so by leftist philosophy. Its the lefts disdain for religion while claiming humanitarianism that prompted this post. The secular humanist philosophy that is so critical of christianity and other religions is a ridiculously inconsistent philosophy that has no room to criticize others after a careful self examination.
Freedom also allows for thiest views… compassion and charity are not virtues if they are forced by the government. The right to keep what you earn or give some of what you earn to another are protected by conservative philosophy and not so by leftist philosophy. Its the lefts disdain for religion while claiming humanitarianism that prompted this post. The secular humanist philosophy that is so critical of christianity and other religions is a ridiculously inconsistent philosophy that has no room to criticize others after a careful self examination.
(0)
(0)
7
6
1
thats like me asking why do republicans pretend to be human. All you're really doing is trolling.
(7)
(1)
(0)
(1)
SrA Art Siatkowsky
Its easy when you cant understand a simple logical argument to call it trolling. Prove me wrong. I am challenging you.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google