Why do liberals play at being humanist?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

If you dont understand the question dont call it trolling just get smarter.

SrA Art Siatkowsky - trolling man

Its easy when you cant understand a simple logical argument to call it trolling. Prove me wrong. I am challenging you.

SrA Art Siatkowsky - Airman; You say " Evolution is beautifully simplistic and utterly meaningless ...".

So What?

Then you say "... people in this view are simply accidental radomly evolved apes and nothing more.".

Again, so what?

If you are in downtown Las Vegas, blindfolded, and stagger around long enough you will eventually get to a bar. Does that mean that you can't get a drink just because you don't know how you got there?

You can't eat a peach pit, does that mean that you can't eat peaches?

I can't build a tank, does that mean that I can't drive one?

No one in the air force can fly, does that mean that they drive all of those "airplanes" along highways?

You can't make the sun rise, does that mean that you can't enjoy the dawn?

LTC Bink Romanick - Colonel; Quite frankly, I don't really care HOW we got here I'm just awestruck by the scenery.

I'm not all that concerned with WHY we're here because I'm having too much fun just being here.

Equally I'm not overly worried about where I'm going next because I figure that I don't have any real control over that and all I can do is do the best I can while I'm here (and bet on the fact that, if there is a God, then God doesn't deal from a stacked deck).

Good points and my point exactly. If you dont believe in a God and attribute all creation to a purely accidental process…. It is a glorious accident and you should do exactly as you said.. Enjoy it! Its those who come from the same starting point of the accidental creation then try to cry meaning and rights. They cry save the planet at all costs… its a nice notion but there can be no true outrage comming from them…because their reality… the law that exists beneath human made laws… that law is natural law and she doesnt care about anyone or anything we do. I agree that a consistent athiest would do exactly as you described… enjoy. Its when they start to act like things matter that I cry hypocrite…. Those who live the athiest life… enjoy and die I have no issues with. Its when they start acting like they are outraged about anything that I say your forgetting the world view you claim to believe.

SrA Art Siatkowsky - Airman; I'm not quite sure how you read anything (either pro or con) about "rights" into what I said.

Do I believe that people have "rights"? You're damn right I do.

Why do I believe that people have "rights" - because they are people. How they got to be people is irrelevant.

Do I believe that we should "save the planet"? - You're damn right I do.

Why do I believe that we should "save the planet" - because it is the only one around and there ain't no recycling depot at hand. (For that same reason I think that I should keep my own body healthy.)

Your contention (albeit implied) that we are nothing but a bunch of raging savages with no redeeming qualities - simply because YOU do not know how we got here - is one that every civilized person rejects.

Quite frankly, if you actually acted on the thesis you have been propounding, I suspect that you had a very short military career, and don't see much prospect of you not becoming a "guest of the state" for long.

If the only reason you are kind to others and refrain from rape and murder is because you fear eternal punishment, you aren't a good person. Just because one believes that man arose from nature, without divine intervention, doesn't mean that you can't still care about your fellow humans.

SrA Art Siatkowsky - Airman; Equally - either way, point is there is absolutely no logical way to take the belief that life was created by a "God" and twist it into some fairy tale religion.

Both "Atheism" and "Religion" begin with a BELIEF that is simply not provable except by first accepting that the BELIEF is a FACT.

However, when you say "But on point… liberals who claim darwin as the end all and reject the notion of a God have no place making human rights claims and need to take a look at the consistency of their own philosophical beliefs." you make a basic mistake. You seem to believe that HUMAN rights exist because "God" created them and not because the people claiming them are HUMAN (regardless of whether or not "God" had any hand in the matter at all).

Point is that if you do not believe in a God then there is no source to even make the claim that humans have rights because the only source of higher authority is natural law and mother nature is a mindless amoral force that isnt concerned about human life. Fact is its religion or nothingnesses and there is nothing inbetween. Dont claim the nothingnesses then pretend to believe in an authority that provides anyone any form of rights. If you dont believe in a God its your right buts it philosophically inconsistent to claim the nothingnesses and also claim that people… or anything else… .matters. They are two completely diffetent outlooks on reality and completely incompatible.

"The only source of rights is higher authority"...according to who? There are plenty of philosophical foundations for human rights that don't rely on the divine.

CPT(P) David Thorp - Lieutenant; Can you identify the time(s) in history when it was a "positive survival trait" to have bad eyesight and flat feet?

i said the process of evolution is a random amoral process....the very core that drives evolution is the random mutations. if the absolutely random mutation is actually beneficial to the animal it may alow the animal to have an advantage .....which is the natural selection part. if this one individual animal with this purely accidental mutation does derive some benefit from that random mutation it also has to have offespring and it also has to pass that random mutation to its offspring....but its entirely hit or miss. if a cat with a randomly mutated paw was able to catch birds better because of that mutation and this particular cat was living well but one day crossed the road and was hit by a car before it could pass that super paw mutation on to any offspring...then nature would have to wait again until that one favorable mutation occurs and maybe this time the cat would have kittens and maybe it might pass that favorable gene onto the kittens......point is it is utterly a hit or miss random association process. there is nothing guiding it and no law in nature that shows favoritism to humans. Steph J Gould once said in his 10 part series on evolution that if the clock was turned back and evolution were to occur again.....conscious life would never ever in a billion billion years evolved...its that much of a accident. the absolutely random accidental nature of the evolutionary process is what i am saying makes the notion of humansim obsolete. Religious liberals may make claims about human rights and humanitarian efforts but secular humanist are rendered obsolete by the very evolutionary process they cite as being their reason for not believing in a God. Athiest who are consistent have no issue with this and they simply live their lives not pretending to be outraged by this or that because it is all just a glorious mistake...but the secular humanist dont seem to have figured out what darwin means for their world view. if its all just chemicals....then nothing...not even all of humanity matters much to the universe. Natural law is mindless and amoral and if its your source for authority...unlike those who believe in a religion....then natural law is not at all concerned with human rights or the human race in general.

SSG Michael Scott - Staff; Considering that "Taqiya" (not "taqyula") is "a form of religious dissimulation allowing an individua to deny his faith or commit illegal or blasphemous acts, in fear or or at risk of significant persecution" .

To the Shi'a it is lawful where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur [from the dissimulation, lie, or act].

To the Sunni it is permitted to deny faith under duress or other permissible reasons as per Islamic law but this is viewed only as, at most, permitted (and is not mandatory).

You might want to consider that it is similar to the dispensation granted to Jews to "pass" as Christians under the Nazis or after the "Reconquesta". You might also consider it as very similar to the situation of Catholics "passing" as Protestants (and vice versa) depending on the mandatory state religion of the place they were living. You might also consider it very similar to a person of mixed race "passing" in the United States of America.

BTW, where are those "vast stockpiles of WMD" and the Iraqi nuclear program that we were told about and which were the stated reason for invading Iraq? Are you telling me that President Bush was a "liberal"?

muslims change it up as they go.

SSG Michael Scott - Staff; That's a very good example of "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is already made up.".

That's because those who advocate for "social Darwinism" neglect what Darwin himself said about mankind...our adaptation is the ability to work together.