RE: Atheists; what do you base your morals on?
March 19, 2013 at 10:19 pm
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2013 at 10:32 pm by jstrodel.)
small means "proud, unspiritual, small minded". An example of a small person would be someone who believes that paying $150 dollars to go to the opera makes you a cultured person. That is a small person.
The enlightenment was a lot more complicated than that. Go read more about it.
Another way to say this is that liberals don't really believe anything. They enjoy the pleasure of believing, the experience of belief, but they believe (or teach) for the sake of the thing. I basically agree with what Chomsky and Marx say about liberals, that they are complacent, that they apologize for evils in the world, that lack a serious moral fiber.
When assessing the openness of conservatism as a movement, you must differentiate between intellectuals and common conservatism. Conservatives, unlike liberals, do not worship method and do not insist that all be brought through authoritarian means to participate in their social experiments. There are plenty of conservatives who defy the caricature you present, which seems to be aimed at old grandmothers going to church than a serious conservative intellectuals like Russell Kirk or William F Buckley, who are familiar enough with the opposing side
I would not exactly call myself a conservative, I admire some aspects of the conservative moment, and other aspects I dislike. At heart I identify more with the monastic's than any capitalistic pseudo-synthesis of Christianity and modernity. To dislike liberals does not automatically make you a conservative, in some ways I am much further to the left than most liberals are, as much as I detest their pathetic psuedo-morality, their pride and their presumption to be spiritual leaders while saddling millions with debt and being taught as doctrine their pet projects based on the psuedo-philosophy of American political discourse.
(March 19, 2013 at 2:28 pm)Darkstar Wrote:(March 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm)jstrodel Wrote: John Wesley was against slavery, he wasn't influenced by the enlightenment, he was against slavery. So were many others.
Yep, unlike the authors of the bible, i.e. god, as you believe.
(March 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm)jstrodel Wrote: The enlightenment to a great degree was a product of the parent Christian civilization anyways (Descartes, Locke, Bacon, Newton, etc)What do you mean by this? That the enlightenment came from a primrily Christian culture? It certainly wasn't in tune with the values of that culture.
Age of Enlightenment
wikipedia Wrote:The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries, which began first in Europe and later in the American colonies. Its purpose was to reform the way of thinking using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thoughts, skepticism and intellectual interchange and completely opposed any kind of superstition, intolerance and some abuses of power by the church and the state.
The enlightenment was a lot more complicated than that. Go read more about it.
(March 19, 2013 at 3:47 pm)whateverist Wrote: I think the idea behind being a "liberal" is that we are promiscuous in our thinking. That means our thinking can range far and wide. We lack loyalty to core beliefs. We just get on the track of the truth and follow it like a bloodhound.
It is conservatives who have erected fences around their cherished beliefs who restrain thinking to tried and true pathways on the private property of their core beliefs. So as I have clearly .. ahem .. proven, it is the conservative who is small, small, small.
So it isn't really about the size (unless of course we are talking about that certain part of a man's body) but rather about faithfulness. The faithless liberal follows the truth where it leads him, heedless of past loyalites. Not so the conservative who will remain faithful always to the truth as he would have it no matter the evidence. Liberals are sluts for the truth. We prostitute ourselves for evidence. You on the other hand won't give evidence a second look for fear of antagonizing a jealous god. You tout this as a virtue but to us it just looks like you are god-whipped.
Another way to say this is that liberals don't really believe anything. They enjoy the pleasure of believing, the experience of belief, but they believe (or teach) for the sake of the thing. I basically agree with what Chomsky and Marx say about liberals, that they are complacent, that they apologize for evils in the world, that lack a serious moral fiber.
When assessing the openness of conservatism as a movement, you must differentiate between intellectuals and common conservatism. Conservatives, unlike liberals, do not worship method and do not insist that all be brought through authoritarian means to participate in their social experiments. There are plenty of conservatives who defy the caricature you present, which seems to be aimed at old grandmothers going to church than a serious conservative intellectuals like Russell Kirk or William F Buckley, who are familiar enough with the opposing side
I would not exactly call myself a conservative, I admire some aspects of the conservative moment, and other aspects I dislike. At heart I identify more with the monastic's than any capitalistic pseudo-synthesis of Christianity and modernity. To dislike liberals does not automatically make you a conservative, in some ways I am much further to the left than most liberals are, as much as I detest their pathetic psuedo-morality, their pride and their presumption to be spiritual leaders while saddling millions with debt and being taught as doctrine their pet projects based on the psuedo-philosophy of American political discourse.
