VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:54:16 11/16/01 Fri
Author: Tom
Subject: Re: Defense of conservatives
In reply to: Jamey Lee West 's message, "Re: Defense of conservatives" on 09:23:47 11/16/01 Fri

>
>You have a point, to a point. It is true that I
>usually dismiss Rush Limbaugh, unless he says
>something I agree with, which is rare. The only
>problem with your statement is that social
>conservatives are more doctrinaire, meaning that your
>ideas about morality are easier, since they come from
>a rigid well spelled out base. That is a two edged
>sword, however, in that you are less adaptive to
>seeing things differently. There is no book of
>liberalism in the U.S., but there definitely is The
>Bible, The Pope and The Southern Methodist Church, who
>dictate actions.

Not every conservative is a Christian, and not every Christian is a conservative. You confuse the issue when you mix and match those terms.

Everyone believes in a set of moral absolutes from which their political beliefs flow. Whether or not these absolutes come from a belief in a god is irrelevant.

>If there ever were presented
>scientific proof that evolution did not exist,
>liberals would join with conservatives in dismissing
>it. The contrary is not true. That is certain, since
>ALL scientific evidence points to the fact that Homo
>sapiens did evolve from a root species just as the
>other four species of great apes, (chimpanzees,
>bonobos, organgutans and gorillas)did.

Books have been written about why this is untrue. Scientists have altered their theory of evolution to explain the lack of physical evidence supporting the evolution theory (Punctuated equilibrium).

In any event, this is not a political issue. My original point concerned political conservatives, not religion or science.

>Like Ronnie
>said, "Why can't it be both?" That is there is a
>God(dess) with a Plan and She(he) did it through the
>natural process that is consistent with scientific
>fact.

Many (maybe even most) religious people believe this. I personally believe it is possible.

>I think that it is sheer arogance and
>anthropocentrism (and misogyny) to feel that He
>created Man in His Image.

The vast majority of people, whether or not they believe God created humans in his own image, consider humans to be more important than animals. (You might be an exception to this, which is fine.) Is an athiest being arrogant when he eats a hamburger? If so, then your argument cuts against all of the 95% of people that disagree with you, rather than conservatives. Unless you consider anyone who is not a vegan to be conservative.

>I think, if there is a
>creator, he created all sentient beings out of love,
>and furthermore this creator is not a self-centered
>meddling egotist, but is probably off in some far-off
>solar system creating life elsewhere, and letting us
>take care of ourselves.

It's fine that you believe that. However, why is it so strange to believe that, if there is a creator, he cares enough about his creation to stay involved in it? Also, you are putting limits on this creator by saying he is in some far off solar system. If he is powerful enough to create life, why would you believe he is limited by space and time?


>It is true that I believe
>what I do because I love animals and nature, and you
>are probably a conservative Christian because you have
>a deep down contempt for animals and nature. In that
>sense I agree with you.

Are you saying that you can tell that I am probably a conservative Christian because I have a deep down contempt for animals and nature? Or are you saying that the reason I am a conservative Christian is probably because I have a deep down contempt for animals and nature? There is no basis for either of these positions. If you think there is, please let me know.

It is true that I, like most people, believe humans are more important than animals. If you consider this to be "contempt" for animals, that's your opinion. However, the vast majority of people agree with me, so your argument does not cut only against conservatives.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-4
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.