Can a good conservative be an atheist ? (vanity for intresting discussion: wife)

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

Let me say first of all that I am a Christian with a strong faith in God. I grew up going to church with my grandpa. I accepted Jesus Christ into my life at a young age.

My wife was raised in a strict christian home. But I think that worked against her in some ways. I think certain people in her family turned her off on religion at points along the way. She is now an atheist. She is a great mom to our 16 month old twins. She is an awesome wife. I love her so much and I will never let it destroy our marriage. So I have been very open and tolerant of her views while praying for her like crazy at the same time.

She has been mostly apolitical and I guess she has been more intrested in recent months watching Fox News with me and listening to the radio. She is very much against abortion. She knows that Obama is a disaster for this country.

It came up in another thread. We have been watching Glenn Beck. and my wife likes him at times. But he really loses her when he goes off into a deep religious discussion. Here I am trying to get her to see and understand things that are going on, and religion comes up, and she sort of tunes out and changes the subject.

That got me thinking. I know this country was founded by men of faith. I know many of us conservatives are religious. But can't a person be a conservative, pro life and atheist ? and still love their country just as much as I do ? ... How many out there are like my wife ?

I tend to think so for sure. But at the same time. I don't want to remove our religious traditions either. They are very important. Our country needs them now more than ever. But I think people like my wife are important to our cause as well. Men and women in their 20s, not religious, but conservative on many issues and they don't even label or know they are conservative. So I guess the problem is.. We can't slip into a politically correct echo chamber, but at the same time we must carefully equate our christian traditions with religious freedom for all. Our rights come from God. and that includes the right not to be religious of course.

what do you say ?

[so_real]

The assumption that an athiest can have no moral guidance is flat wrong.

In my recollection you are the first atheist I've spoken to that laid claim to a moral compass to guide your actions. Many I have spoken to have relied upon what they deem something to the effect of "cold logical reasoning". It is interesting to me that you feel an innate sense of morality.

[Safrguns]

>>> Everything belongs to you that you are good enough to get. Everything does not belong to you that you let slip away.

Wow... so stealing something makes it yours? and if someone steals your wallet, it no longer belongs to you, but rather to the thief?

>>> The Left is not anti-religion, like many conservatives think. The Left loves religion. Its their claim to your life and your mind.

Yeah... and Up is down... right is left... east is west...
Anyone who advocates what you say here has either lost touch with reality, or is actively engaged in subversive deceit.

Tell me... what is it that makes you conservative?
How do you define conservatism?

[SaraJohnson]

Hukster is a good example of a “Christian” politician with a weak grip on ethics. Who would you name in comtemporary politics who is a strong atheist conservative leader? I can’t name one.

The problem with atheism is that it is a religion of opposites or antis. Why respect human life if it is not materially valuable? My respect of human life is based in the value of the human soul or spirit which comes from my belief structure. I don’t care if that life is economically and socailly valuable to society or to me. It belongs to God. It is valuable because God created it.

The same with the bill of rights. I don’t think the State has the ethical authority to give and take away individual rights as it serves their power or a group or the collective. These are freedoms assigned to the human spirit and may not be curtailed by humans unless they want a weak, warped and oppressed human population and society.

[Safrguns]

>>> I should have replied to the original poster

You did respond to the original poster... but that doesn’t really matter. Responding to a reply is fine too. It’s like lots of conversations all happening at once, most of which get started by replies to a comment such as yours. No need to apologize... welcome to FR!

>>> When we discuss the Conservative platform regarding “moral” issues, Conservative Atheists such as myself often maintain the same values but for different reasons.

The “reasons” you mention are all good points, and DO illustrate why it is possible for atheists and Christians to share moral values and/or principles. However, Christianity does not limit itself to the here and now... it deals with the eternity of the human soul. Morality apart from God necessitates nothing more than order in society.

The question that separates us is “Why does a moral compass exist in us to begin with?” Some would say it is because of our upbringing, or how we are taught. Others might say it is purely logical, and that the origin of our “moral compass” is ourselves. Such explanations are understandable and logical for those who have dismissed completely the existence of a creator... but for the Christian, our morality has it’s origins IN our creation.

Every aspect of our being including how our bodies work, how our mind thinks, and how or why emotions exist stems from design and the Creator’s control.

A common misconception among atheists about a creationist’s perspective on morality is that we are moral to avoid damnation... or that we practice good deeds and worship God to gain the promised reward of heaven in the hereafter.

The truth of the matter is that God installed morality and a basic knowledge of Him into our design. We are inherently moral with the free will to war against that morality and knowledge of God within us.

This is why I personally believe there is no such thing as a true atheist. In other words, deep down, we all KNOW there is a God, and that atheism originates from the individual convincing him/herself that He doesn’t exist... because acknowledging Him requires humility which is too painful for some.

[grumpa]

Give her this book: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler/Turek. Also check out Tough questions section of www.faithfacts.org.

[Pox]

Atheism is a cow mentality. I don’t believe you subscribe to that. A personal relationship with our Creator is the way.

That arrogant gibberish is what turns away young voters from the right. I have respect for others beliefs, but you have absolutely none for those who do not believe as you do.

[TequilaJinx]

I think everyone has an innate sense of morality. Religion, it seems, kind of owns the word "moral". I'm not surprised that most Atheists would choose to avoid the word, just as I'm not surprised that most believers would think us incapable of possessing it.

The problem with atheism is that it is a religion of opposites or antis.

Ohio, your assumption is completely off-base. Atheism isn't about anti-faith, it's the complete lack of it. I'm not against your faith, I don't argue about faith, it's something that I pretty much pay absolutely no attention to. It's pretty shallow to assume that we've got to have some sort of materialistic view of the world. Honestly, that's a religious perspective. You've chosen to avoid materialism in favor of the ephemeral, but that doesn't make us utilitarian.

[NYCslicker]

You’ve decided to make a jump to interject stealing and deceit into the conversation, instead of specifically speaking to the merits of the case I’ve outlined.

If you read through the progression of steps that I explained to arrive at the conclusions I’ve drawn, and you truly don’t understand how I arrived there, perhaps you’d like to explain where along my chain of reasoning you start to disagree, instead of taking the dialog to the level of stating I’ve lost touch with reality or am trying to deceive you.

I’m not going launch into a defense of my conservatism when you are not speaking to the merits of what I’ve taken the time to write thus far.

Your choice, you can tell me how what I’ve written is wrong if you choose. As far as I’m concerned it stands on its own merits until you specifically refute it.

[Safrguns]

>>> You’ve decided to make a jump to interject stealing and deceit into the conversation, instead of specifically speaking to the merits of the case I’ve outlined.

The fact that your freedom can be stolen by those with more power than you is a valid point which counters your notion that our freedom is completely within our own individual control.

>>> perhaps you’d like to explain where along my chain of reasoning you start to disagree, instead of taking the dialog to the level of stating I’ve lost touch with reality or am trying to deceive you.

You cannot make such blatantly false statements like “the left is not anti-religion”, and expect me to follow your reasoning beyond that point. If you really believe that socialistic/communist forms of government are not anti-religion, you should spend a little time in China to find out just how blessed you truly are here where God is openly acknowledged as our source of freedom. Ignorance of truth makes your reasoning moot.

>>> I’m not going launch into a defense of my conservatism when you are not speaking to the merits of what I’ve taken the time to write thus far.

At this point, I seriously doubt you know what it is, or understand it, or believe in it for that matter. There appears to be no common ground from which a relevant discussion can occur if you refuse to define your base.
Your smelling like a troll to me now.

[Safrguns]

>>> I’m not going launch into a defense of my conservatism when you are not speaking to the merits of what I’ve taken the time to write thus far.

I didn’t ask you to defend your conservatism.
I asked you to define it.
I’m looking for common ground here.

[Mariner]

"I see strict libertarian and strict atheist reasoning as becoming illogical on that point - the point, that is, of care for the defenseless and those unable to “help themselves.” "

I am neither atheist or (L)ibertarian.

I am (l)ibertarian and much closer to agnostic/deist.

As for the concept of government helping those who cannot help themselves and who have nobody close enough or able to help them...yes, I believe the govt, via taxation, must do so.

That said, I prefer any government help that occurs on that front occur at no higher level than State Govt.

I am an UNYIELDING STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST on the Constitution.

[FredZarguna]

I agree with you that the Free Exercise Clause has recently been dishonored by the court, especially when it comes to purely voluntary participation. It also really bothers me not a wit if you want to post your religious symbols or documents in public places -- provided that that option is accessible to everybody, including atheists.

I don't, and cannot, accept your premise that our laws are based on the Decalogue: they simply aren't. Our legal system is based on the English Common Law, which was based in Saxon Law, which was based in Roman Law. Roman Law -- and before it, Greek Law and ethos -- were not influenced in the least by an obscure and insignificant tribe of Jews in the backwaters of the civilized world. Israel was not an important part of ancient history, in law, ethics, language, philosophy, science, or engineering.

Jesus' ethical system has had far more influence on the West than the Ten Commandments, certainly more than the Torah.

But even much of that is honored more in the breach than in actuality: no judge would tell you to give a man your shirt if he's won your cloak, and no criminal system in the West has ever subscribed to the notion that assault should be passively accepted or encouraged -- as in say, turning the other cheek.

I'm happy that faith is important in your life. But that doesn't mean it's had the same importance in the life of the Nation. It hasn't. Revisionist history cannot change the actual words and intentions of the Founders, and cherry picking occasional religious references doesn't prove that they intended to establish a generic theocracy. They wanted religious passions OUT of politics. That message is clear, and it has been so since the beginning.

[NYCslicker]

Check your demographics on churchgoers in this country. I think you might be surprised how the democrat and republican distribution breaks down. I know I was.

You misquoted me. I didn’t say the left is not anti-religion. I said the left loves religion. And it does. Check the numbers. It also loves religion as a way to get its agenda across, and as a way to make conservatives and those on the right feel guilty. Just look at what happening in the dialog right now, just go to drudge and you can see it. Look at the arguments being made for those items the left wants. The left is not saying do it because its good for communism. They are saying do it because you need to not be such a hater, and “isn’t that what Christianity teaches?”, etc.

I’m not talking about communist forms of government, I’m talking about socialism in the midst of our mixed economy.

Again, with the “smelling like a troll” comment, you debase your own argument. I’m under no obligation to prove my conservative credentials. I’ll just stick to arguing in the realm of ideas. If you want to make personal attacks, that’s your affair.

[NYCslicker]

Ok. I hope you find common ground with the ideas I’ve expressed. What I’ve explained is happening and its a weakness that the Right should address.

[Clemenza]

African Americans are the most religious (churchgoing) demographic in the nation. If you look at white Americans on their own, you will see that they are not as “religious” as many think, and that religious devotion is a highly regional, rather than national, phenomenon.

[tallyhoe]

Yea she was on Hannity with her New Book defending Christianity and she told Hannity she was an Atheist!!! I really like SE Cupp!!!!!

[tallyhoe]

I think she is smart and attractive!!!! Like Sarah Palin!

[Persevero]

“The only way to square this problem and still believe in God is, apply one set of rules to the universe, and another set of rules to your emotional and spiritual thinking about the universe.”

I’ll disagree there, because I don’t believe matter is eternal. I believe God is eternal. So, Jesus is Lord of atoms, and the universe, and every blade of grass. He has set everything up, and has systems in place, such as the water cycle and gravity and DNA and every other thing we can think of. These are His ordinary means.

Any thing that occurs outside the regular systems God has in place is called a “miracle.” “Miracles” include such things as raising the dead, creating the universe out of nothing, or ascending into heaven on a chariot of fire.

If gas suddenly appeared in my empty tank, that would be a “miracle.” If I prayed for help and God sent along the CHP, or I was strengthened enough to walk to the nearest pay phone and got ahold of a friend, or a taxi came by and I flagged it down, that would be God using ordinary means.

I don’t believe getting emotional will ever fill my tank, and I don’t think any orthodox Christian would say so, either. Nor does the Bible teach that we should rely upon our emotions - actually it warns us to rely on God alone, not upon ourselves. Emotionalism is not promoted or prescribed.

[NYCslicker]

But emotionalism is the only way to account for believing in miracles, because there is no rational explanation.

[Persevero]

“But emotionalism is the only way to account for believing in miracles, because there is no rational explanation.”

It depends on what you mean by “rational explanation.”

If they means “I couldn’t do it,” well, right.

But the point is, miracles are supernatural events. Not lab experiments. Not repeatable by us. We can’t do them.

Witness creation. Where did it come from? Whatever building blocks you believe started things off, where did they come from?

If you think matter is eternal, is that rational? If not, where did it come from? If you go back far enough, something irrational happened. . .