Yes
Are atheism and conservatism opposed forces?
No
This country was founded on a principle of Freedom of Religion...if that means for you no religion, then more power to ya. I personally don’t see an issue. By the way, welcome to FR - I see you have been a member since - today.
Yes
Are atheism and conservatism opposed forces?
No
You signed up today just to post this?
Conservativism is about the individual over the system, the individual reach out and achieve his best based on his own work not waiting for big brother let him. If that individual believes in God or not has no bearing in Conservative values. I know many, very Conservative atheists and I’m glad to have them on our side.
You wouldn’t be trolling, would you?
From the founder of Free Republic. Bold is mine. Perhaps this is the cause for the "anti-atheist/agnostic dialog" you refer to.
Welcome to FR.
"I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong."
Sad. Close, but pride got her.
God is perfect, got that right. Man is low and imperfect and fallen. And there's nothing we can do about it. But there's a remedy.
Are atheism and conservatism opposed forces?
I'd say not necessarily. Orthogonal, no necessary relation. Nor is Christianity necessarily allied with conservatism.
My Christianity informs my politics. I've tried to nuance it in a way that would likely confuse or piss off a lot my dear conservative evangelical co-religionists. See my FR personal page for details.
Ask yourself this: where do rights come from? (It may be self-evident.)
You can decide whether you are really a conservative if you truthfully answer that question.
Check out your electric bill once this monster kicks in (2012). You'll be praying to God for relief.
I believe that all atheists, conservative or not, are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” whether they believe it or not.
I am a constitutional conservative. My religion is nobody’s frickin’ business. If someone is worried about what goes on between me and my god then they need to get a life.
om heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
You view of the Creator is as good as anyone's
Welcome to Freerepublic!
This lifelong conservative and agnostic finds no conflict whatsoever.
I would agree that FR is Christian centric but in the many years I’ve visited and posted I’ve never felt unwelcome or been banned for paganism. The worst I’ve suffered for my agnosticism is a little well-meaning pity, maybe a prayer or two.
What brings you here and why do you ask?
I’m not an atheist, but I prefer to discuss my political views on non-religious, or at least religiously-neutral grounds. Conservative principles are grounded in logic, reason, and observation and analysis of the natural world, not just obedience to Scripture. Unfortunately, a lot of Christian conservatives pass up logical arguments and quote Scripture instead, which might be effective if they’re arguing with other Christians; however, trying to sway a non-believer by quoting Scripture is about as useful as banging one’s head against a wall.
“But, as a reader of FR and an atheist, I tend to see a lot of anti-atheist/agnostic dialog. Why? Am i just misguided? “
Do you believe you have inalienable right?
If so, who endowed you with them?
I don’t believe it is correct to call Ayn Rand a conservative, she is closer to being a libertarian. Conservatism in America today is firmly attached to the view that America’s traditional Judeo-Christian values should be maintained and strengthened. It would be difficult for an atheist to hold that position. Of course, anyone, atheist, agnostic, or of any other belief (or lack of belief) should be welcomed if they choose to ally themselves with Conservatism in the struggle to save Western Civilization.
Ayn Rand while producing great novels, was also by another measuring stick, simply a person. Not correct about everything. She like all of us exercised her authority to be wrong about things. This is one of them.
She probably could have been right about it, but someone needed to correct the logic flaws in her two reasons.
“Today I decided to be an atheist.” Branden then reports her as later explaining, “I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong.”
A key part of her flaw is that ‘man can never be that perfect.’ If she understood anything about Christianity, she would know that God would provide a way for once-perfect, now-fallen man, to be made perfect again (Jesus Christ). Man cannot be perfect on his own, but God has provided a way when we die and believe in Christ (glorification). God completes the work He began in us here.
Rand (at 13 anyway) could not come to grips with the fact that life isn’t what she wanted it to be. It isn’t that way for anyone, I suppose. Everyone wants to be something they are not. More power. More beautiful. More rich. Taller. More popular. Smarter. How about never wrong, or better put, always right? God?
We cannot be God. We can’t be perfect on our own. Some people, because of this fact, not being able to handle the truth God exists and He is perfect and holy, and thus unfair to all these lower men and women, says there is no God. The whole idea is just unfair there could be something higher or better above man.
I would caution Rand and others like her that it is not easy being God. It is not easy being perfect - although it is God’s nature to do so. But think of having infinite power, knowledge, foreknowledge, and the ability to suspend the natural laws you made yourself, and intervene at any point in time you want. Now add to that people - people that you originally made perfect, that went against the only thing you said they could not do, and they sinned and became imperfect, sinful beings, that passed this sin problem on to their offspring.
God could have wiped everyone out there right at that moment and He would have been totally in His power and authority to do so. He could stop every one of us from doing bad things, even before we did them and He’d have every right to do so.
It takes an almost infinite amount of patience to control infinite power and let people continue to screw things up. He made us people with free wills and some amounts of power to exercise those wills within limits. For the most part He lets us use those free wills the way we want, and that includes accepting Him or rejecting Him.
the second one, no proof of God therefore He doesn’t exist. She didn’t define what would be proof to her (but at 13 I won’t quibble). But the fact is you cannot state with certainty that just because there is no proof for something (or you don’t see the proof in front of you and you just don’t recognize it) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It could mean it hasn’t been found yet, or there hasn’t been a way to detect it found yet. To rule something out because of lack of evidence is not science. In fact this very chain of logic is what compels evolutionists to keep digging for the ‘missing link’.
In short, Rand’s premises for rejecting God are flawed just by reading them. I don’t know if anyone later in her life were able to address them with her or not. I hope someone was able to talk to her about it.