- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 11:38 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 8/31/26 at 11:38 am to FooManChoo
quote:
And don't quote the Bible
quote:
The Bible explains why
2
Posted on 8/31/26 at 11:51 am to VooDude
While it's certainly possible to navigate life without religion anchoring your morality, I don't think most people are capable of this.
As an atheist, I use to think America would become a better place without religion. What I've seen instead is people losing their minds without something to tether themselves to, so much so that people don't even understand basic realities like man/woman.
I liken it to bowling. Most people are crap at bowling and score better if they use gutter bumpers. That's religion. Sure, a few can bowl without them, do those fancy curve bowls. But for the average person, they're going to gutter often enough to use bumpers.
This country is a better place, without a doubt, with Christian ethics installed in an unofficial sense (not a Christian theocracy, but a strong Christian culture that has a strong effect on politics). Is there a better moral system? Very likely, but just because something works in theory doesn't mean it works in practice. And I'm tired of practicing without it.
As an atheist, I use to think America would become a better place without religion. What I've seen instead is people losing their minds without something to tether themselves to, so much so that people don't even understand basic realities like man/woman.
I liken it to bowling. Most people are crap at bowling and score better if they use gutter bumpers. That's religion. Sure, a few can bowl without them, do those fancy curve bowls. But for the average person, they're going to gutter often enough to use bumpers.
This country is a better place, without a doubt, with Christian ethics installed in an unofficial sense (not a Christian theocracy, but a strong Christian culture that has a strong effect on politics). Is there a better moral system? Very likely, but just because something works in theory doesn't mean it works in practice. And I'm tired of practicing without it.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 11:57 am to Azkiger
quote:
As an atheist, I use to think America would become a better place without religion. What I've seen instead is people losing their minds without something to tether themselves to, so much so that people don't even understand basic realities like man/woman.
Question about this - what is your internal justification or purpose for being a decent person?
I've been talking to an intern at work about this. He's around my age and has kids and is atheist. What is morality grounded in? He said cooperation is in the interest of the species and society. Society works better when people are nice to each other. I'm curious about other takes.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 11:58 am to Azkiger
quote:
As an atheist, I use to think America would become a better place without religion. What I've seen instead is people losing their minds without something to tether themselves to, so much so that people don't even understand basic realities like man/woman.
This seems/feels to be a conflation.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
And don't quote the Bible
quote:
The Bible explains why
You think that's a gotcha and that you're calling him out on having made an appeal to authority, but in context it's you who is making an inverse appeal to authority.
IF there is a Creative Being who is not just the source of matter, space, and time, but also the author of morality,
and
IF it is true that we are made in His image and likeness,
Then having the moral code written on our hearts is just a logical entailment of the first two premises. It need not be written in the Bible at all.
The first two premises can be arrived at by abductive reasoning, inference to best explanation, which is what you are trying to deny with your question. It's specifically framed to challenge the conclusion by bringing up what you think is an exception to the claims.
Neither of the premises nor the conclusion rests solely on the authority of the Bible, which is when your objection might be valid.
It's one thing to observe that when you have two sticks and you add another two sticks and then count them that you end up with four sticks, and from that you conclude that we live in a world of order with mathematical laws that always apply, and from that you conclude that there must be a Mind beyond ours that created those laws.
It's another to ask, "What does 2 + 2 =?" and get the answer "4," and when you ask, how do you know? the answer is, "God told me."
You are acting like this is a case of the latter when it's really the former. If he had just said exactly what he quoted, this would be clear.
Also (like pretty much all atheists do), you're riding right on the line—and sometimes crossing it—of actually arguing about epistemology rather than ontology.
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:37 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
You think that's a gotcha
No gotcha. Foo can't discuss these things honestly. I was just laughing about how blatant it was this time.
quote:
Then having the moral code written on our hearts is just a logical entailment of the first two premises.
This is a rhetorical crutch via framing, which is why it shouldn't be part of the discussion.
Similar dishonesty can frame the discussion in other ways, but I won't do that.
quote:
It's one thing to observe that when you have two sticks and you add another two sticks and then count them that you end up with four sticks, and from that you conclude that we live in a world of order with mathematical laws that always apply, and from that you conclude that there must be a Mind beyond ours that created those laws.
It's another to ask, "What does 2 + 2 =?" and get the answer "4," and when you ask, how do you know? the answer is, "God told me."
You are acting like this is a case of the latter when it's really the former.
In your metaphor, I'm arguing from the position of the former, using data from human history and society as the "2+2"
I'm not specifically claiming you're arguing the latter, either. It's a framing tool to prevent discussion about "2+2"
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This seems/feels to be a conflation.
No, it's a logical entailment of atheism.
It's just that atheists pretend that without an objective backdrop of reality/authority, with a creation story that goes like this—"Matter just always was, or it created itself, and then, it just swirled around randomly without purpose or agenda and finally assembled itself into the walking meat bag that we call human beings; we simply respond automatically to electrochemical impulses excited by external stimuli—that things like morality, individuality/personality, consciousness itself, choice/free will, and being able to trust anything that your randomly assembled brain tells you are possible.
They clearly aren't if that is our true ontology.
There are a few honest atheists who admit this and try (and fail) to get around it somehow. Most deny it or pretend it doesn't exist.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:41 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
No, it's a logical
Tying religion into this false premise
quote:
people don't even understand basic realities like man/woman.
is not logical
FWIW, my argument can explain this logically. It's not really relevant for the discussion, though.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In your metaphor, I'm arguing from the position of the former, using data from human history and society as the "2+2"
You're arguing an observation, but you're objecting to an answer that is easily observable as well, simply because he quoted the Bible to communicate that answer.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:43 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
but you're objecting to an answer that is easily observable as well, simply because he quoted the Bible to communicate that answer.
You can easily observe God inserting this into humans? How?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Sorry, but you're wrong.
You tell me, does the atheist creation story I posted conform to your own beliefs?
Because if it does, the logical entailment of that starting point is that you can't reliably trust any reality. ANY reality. Man/woman simply being one of the things you can't reliably trust.
If that's your starting point, you don't even exist at all. Not as a personal individual who makes choices and has independent thoughts, anyway. If that's the starting point then morality isn't even possible because no one is able to choose right or wrong in the first place. We all just—as Richard Dawkins (unironically says)—dance to the music of our DNA. No choice possible.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You can easily observe God inserting this into humans? How?
Because the alternative is what I just posted above, and that's clearly a giant crock.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:50 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Man/woman simply being one of the things you can't reliably trust.
There is no issue with what sex means
Gender is a social construct that can mean a lot of things.
None of this has anything to do with religion or atheism
Posted on 8/31/26 at 12:51 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Because the alternative is what I just posted above,
That's not supporting an "answer that is easily observable as well," as you posted earlier.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:11 pm to LSUbest
quote:The guy you responded to was talking about our lived experience in this life.
No, hell will have many "good people"
Why can’t y’all give an inch on this, ever.
I absolutely reject the idea that to be a decent, functioning society we need a heavy religious influence(at this point).
Most all of us even value and respect how religion carved out our western values. But y’all eventually lose us when you start talking like that post I quoted.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:13 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Why can’t y’all give an inch on this, ever.
Especially thinking about this discussion in context with Western culture/values.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:25 pm to CDawson
quote:I would assume through many many MANY years of trial and error.
Where do those values come from?
Over time, population growth, and survival needs, folks figured out what was in their best interest to survive.
At one point killing anyone sketchy or unknown to you was probably a good way of surviving. Over time that probably became less effective and actually detrimental.
Claiming at this point we need religion to properly weigh values is so farfetched to me.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The gatekeeping is exhausting. They act like we’re trying to join their after life club too, which I can’t comprehend.
Especially thinking about this discussion in context with Western culture/values.
It would seem incredibly easy to drop the “you’re going to hell idc how good you are” shite when we’re discussing what’s in the OP.
But no. They’re incapable. And relying on absolutely ridiculous reasons to get to that conclusion in the first place.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:32 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
I would assume through many many MANY years of trial and error.
Over time, population growth, and survival needs, folks figured out what was in their best interest to survive.
At one point killing anyone sketchy or unknown to you was probably a good way of surviving. Over time that probably became less effective and actually detrimental.
Correct. As we moved into society we learned quickly that certain behaviors caused societal friction. Society/government engaged in a long process of trial and error, which became amplified with the merging of religion and the state. Over time human society became so successful, with many religions, that religion became separated from being exclusively an arm of the state . It kept the socially-created morality, though.
We see this same pattern over and over again with societies of different epochs, different geography, etc. who never interacted with each other.
This is how we get Confucius around 500BC saying:
quote:
What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.
Then Jesus in about 32 AD saying
quote:
do to others what you would have them do to you
I don't think there is any evidence China had direct contact with the Levant by 32AD for these principles to be disseminated and coopted by Jesus. They both arose organically from 2 very different societies about 500 years apart.
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
I have never in my life read about religion, or anything else that would have me draw the conclusions we’ve both come to.
It just seems wildly obvious that’s how it happened.
It just seems wildly obvious that’s how it happened.
Page 15 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News