Correlation between atheism and liberalism

Ain't America great!
Get back to the topic, please.

 

EXACTLY! Your 'modern' interpretation of a liberal is an idea that Ronald Reagan pushed to the forefront of American politics so he could get elected. It's an arbitrary word that Reagan used to describe his party rivals. Democrats are not liberals.

 

We have freedom of speech in this country.

 

Its more like with the Republican Party in power, have we gained freedom or lost it?

The Patriot Act.........

And dont get me wrong, I have no love for O-bum-ba as his marry band of Dumbocrates either.

 

The Constitution isn't sacred. It's not codified by divinity. It's stands on it's own merits. It is reasonable, skeptical of government control, and open to inquiry...everything that religion is not.

 

I don't see what Protestantism has to do with Mosaic law being that it doesn't follow any of it except the Ten Commandments. (10 out of over 500 commandments given to the Jews by God.) Protestantism is the farthest thing away from Mosaic law because it has no structure or authority figure besides the Lord Himself. Being accountable to no one except your views on religion and God is a prime example of the accusations against liberals and liberalism. And I would say that the Protestant Reformation led directly to the political paradigms we see today, because without the Reformation we wouldn't have had the Enlightenment.

 

We have lost freedom, in fact, Romney endorses the NDAA.

 

So as we can see with those in power today, the goal posts are forever moving as we have no ground to stand on. Enjoy the NDAA and all the joy that it brings.

 

My point here is that God gave us freedom, it is man who wishes to take it from us.

In fact, Christ compared slavery to sin. People continue in it even though they may hate themselves for it and wished they could stop.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)


In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.


The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

 

Yes, if you do not follow 'god's' way, you will be cast into a lake of fire for eternity. Yep thats freedom.

 

I'm confused here. My original post was about how the (lack of) command structure of Protestantism led to licentiousness, which is what you're accusing atheism and liberals of.

If anything such a lack of structure gives too much freedom. Because of original sin we cannot have the absolute freedom we had in the Garden. That is why a government is required according to Catholic and Protestant theologians.

 

Really. Lets look at the government that was set up by God for the Israeli nation. They had jugdes to settle disputes among the people..........................................................then they demanded a king so as to be like all the other nations. Samuel warned the people of this goal as God told them the abuses they would incur once their dream was realized. The people did not relent and so they wound up with Saul. The rest is history.

 

I think most people choose a political "side" based on social issues, which are far easier to understand than financial/economic issues. Socially conservative people vote republican and argue in favor of conservative fiscal policy even though few know much about economics. Those are the ones who I say "Got lucky." These are the conservatives who claim that conservative principles are "common sense" even though a (somewhat) formal education about economics is absolutely required to truly embrace conservative economic principles. Their idea of common sense is, "I'm right and it should be obvious to everyone."

Naturally, the more intelligent people are initially repelled by this vast and loud ignoramus branch of the conservative movement, and, since they neither hate, nor wish to limit the freedoms of people different from them, naturally become socially liberal. In the name of expedience, they also by and large adopt the liberal economic viewpoints as well. Remember, since so few people become educated about economics in our government-run school system, economic beliefs can basically be drawn from a hat. And indeed, the vast majority of people randomly pick the economic views which happen to be associated with their social views. This is how you have such a high number of liberal atheists.

If economics was taught in elementary school and up, as it should be, the number of conservative atheists would skyrocket. Liberal atheists just haven't learned about economics yet. And once they do, they will be pleased that the majority of idiots in the U.S. correctly identify with conservative economic policy, just by sheer coincidence.

Atheists, realize that it's very important to first get idiots to vote republican for some bs reasons, like religion or social issues; since we can count on the smart people to learn economics and vote republican even without bs wedge issues.

 

This nails it. If I didn't have to deal with people using their religion as the justification for one stupid policy after another, I wouldn't have to get so annoyed with religious people. If religious people recognized that their religion is their choice, and kept it personal or within their own social circles, we could all get along nicely. Unfortunately for some religious folks(not all), their firm belief in their religious stories ends up turning them into self-righteous arses who feel like they are doing the work of a fabricated God and agenda, and the opposition to them by sane individuals only convinces them of the need for their bogus laws even more.

You get religion out of politics, and I bet you'd find the favorability ratings for religion would skyrocket. It's one thing to be tolerant and respectful of people's fairy tale beliefs, but quite another to tolerate them when they are being obnoxious about it and trying to impose their stories on those who don't even believe in them.

 

Atheists believe in evolution and not only the evolution of species but also of societies , politics and in general everything.
Looking evolution as the driving force behind change the average atheist see no reason to conserve because change is inevitable as it is scary and challenging and terrible and exciting . Atheists can take the heat of all this while other people can not.

 

Don't sweat it. They are being manipulated for the greater good. I can handle gays not being able to get married if the Christers are at least voting to maintain our economic freedoms. Call me crazy, but I'm not going to let the liberals destroy our way of life with their anti-capitalist BS just so gays can get married. I don't see how they can be stopped anyway. Walk down an aisle and have a friend pronounce you husband and husband. BINGO. You're married. Who cares if the oppressive governments don't recognize it? You'll know it's true, in your heart.

So stop trying to ruin our society by mixing social and economic policy. You can get married, I just told you how. Now it's okay to vote republican.

 

In evolution, those traits which tend to aid in survival are passed along to future generations, while those inhibiting survival tend not to be passed down.

Think about how capitalism has survived and communism, by and large, has not. No atheist should want to change things for the sake of change itself. Study economics and start the first day believing that this is the most important subject you will ever learn.

 

Yes and no , the mechanism is a bit more complex like individuals with higher survival rates are more probable to spread their genes .

Economics are not the most important subject and i doubt it is even important. What we have today is not capitalism for the simple fact that in capitalism whenever you buy something you own it and this is not the case in Europe! i can expand but this isn't a thread about economics.
Communism has not be defeated it just proven to be incompatible with the current state of affairs .

Atheists do not change things we are only expecting things to change so we do nothing to prevent change this is what conservatives do.

 

This is just a thinly disguised agenda driven post. Highly educated enonomists come down on both sides of the spectrum in their economic positions. You are revealing yourself as one of those that have simply chosen a side and doesn't acknowledge the complexities that cause economic professionals to come to differing conclusions.

 

State and federal governments not recognizing your marriage is not an inconsequential thing like you seem to think it is. It has nothing to do with the emotional validity of the marriage, sure, but everything to do with the way your state and federal government treat you when it comes to marriage related financial and property rights, not to mention the other laws governing custody, visitation, power-of-attorney, and others I may have missed. If it's such a trivial thing, you should support government getting out of the marriage businesses altogether, a position that also gets us to equality without having to take the chance that your support of same-sex marriage rights would lose you some points with those who disagree with that idea.

I also don't support the conservative and Republican position of unfettered business laws. I don't trust corporate entities, especially the big ones. The government is the only thing big enough to keep them in line. Now, I know what you or others may say next, that the government is in bed with big business, and you're right. That's why we have to stop THAT, not the power of the government altogether.

 

Not necessarily..

 

It's never OK to vote Republican.

Better to vote Libertarian if you want sound economic policy combined with personal freedoms such as gay marriage.

The two big choices are obviously not enough.

 

Economics is not important to you because, apparently, someone else bought and paid for the computer you are typing on.

If you paid for it yourself, economics would be important to you.

 

I wasn't trying to disguise it at all. My agenda is to get people to learn about economics so they will see that the majority of liberal policies are based on bs. I have yet to see a liberal argument that implies an understanding of the concept of "scarcity." Feel free to post one yourself, or to C&P one from one of the highly educated liberal economists. I am confident that the number of liberals goes way down as economic education goes up.

Did you see what that guy above you posted? He said he doubts economics is important at all! LOL That's the only way you get a 50/50 split on election day... to leave people so horrifically uneducated and apathetic to what really matters.