Tea Party or God Party?

[itshappening]

The Big spending neocons desperately want Bush evangelicalism which served them so well to make a come back, probably under the Huckster or Palin

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Of course. "The Tea Party" is not Christian as a single unit, so it would be stupid to adopt that point of view. However, individual Tea Party members shouldn't have to keep quiet about the fact that their political views and their religious views happen to mesh nicely. It's a fine line. The Tea Party is not doing a good job of staying on it.

Agree completely. And the problem that we are having right now is those few people who are coming out and saying "you can't believe in Liberty, rights, the Constitution or even have morals if you are not a believer in my specific religious sect." It does nothing but divide, and the logical disconnect between this position and "liberty" is hard to understand. This has been a big issue in a local meet-up recently. For some reason this is becoming a wedge all of a sudden, and suspicion starts with the neo-conservatives... They used it in the past, and they are trying it now.

 

[Theocrat]

Worldviews Conflict Over Liberty

Agree completely. And the problem that we are having right now is those few people who are coming out and saying "you can't believe in Liberty, rights, the Constitution or even have morals if you are not a believer in my specific religious sect." It does nothing but divide, and the logical disconnect between this position and "liberty" is hard to understand. This has been a big issue in a local meet-up recently. For some reason this is becoming a wedge all of a sudden, and suspicion starts with the neo-conservatives... They used it in the past, and they are trying it now.

Philosophically speaking, there can be no basis for liberty if there is no God. Given the materialistic assumptions which many of you have on this forum, you can't even believe in the metaphysical existence in something like the concept of liberty.

So, I don't even understand how, rationally, a person who denies God's existence can 1) believe in liberty, (let alone define it objectively), and 2) argue that it is a universal good goal for all of mankind. When anti-theistic Tea Party proponents appeal to liberty as the chiefest goal, they are working from a different worldview than their own. That is always going to be the pervading conflict of the nonbeliever.

The logical, and dare I say, American position is if liberty exists, then it must come from God. If there is no God, then it leaves man (or impersonal nature) to decide what liberty is and who gets it. That is a basic philosophy of those on the left side of the political spectrum who always call for big government. Sadly, those of you who reject God in the Tea Party Movement are in company with them, in terms of a common philosophical worldview.

So, it's not we Christians who have a problem with liberty in this movement. It is non-Christians who will not rationally come to terms with their own set of beliefs and assumptions about the world, in general, and politics, in particular.

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Jesus said that? What verse? And mandatory in what sense?

So I, an atheist, have to teach a church goer about Christian tithing/taxing?? Fucking priceless! Maybe it's because I read the bible that I am now an atheist, I suggest you do the same. Maybe then you'll realize what kind of bullshit nonsense you're signing up for.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Philosophically speaking, there can be no basis for liberty if there is no God.

Case in point...

That is a basic philosophy of those on the left side of the political spectrum who always call for big government. Sadly, those of you who reject God in the Tea Party Movement are in company with them, in terms of a common philosophical worldview.

Ok, so:

- Democrats are all "godless".
- Anyone who is "godless" should go ahead and switch to being Democrats, and vote appropriately. (Or is this just your denomination? Do Catholics count? How about Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? etc.)

 

[nate895]

Again, your argument does not rest on logic, but the understanding of your own theological beliefs. Which is fine. I have no problem with it.

All I want is for one of you religious folk to admit that faith in God is not a prerequisite to liberty, and that as such, it would be politically stupid for the tea-party to adopt this point of view.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I don't think you know what logic is.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Exactly!

So, I don't even understand how, rationally, a person who denies God's existence can 1) believe in liberty, (let alone define it objectively), and 2) argue that it is a universal good goal for all of mankind. When anti-theistic Tea Party proponents appeal to liberty as the chiefest goal, they are working from a different worldview than their own. That is always going to be the pervading conflict of the nonbeliever.

Exactly.


From an atheistic worldview, on what non-arbitrary basis is Liberty a worthy goal? If everything is conventional and there are no truths that apply universally, why can't a person like Stalin work for the anti-thesis of Liberty and not be equally justified? Why is tyranny not as worthy a goal as Liberty?

Let's hear an atheist non-arbitrarily answer that. It can't be done

 

[nate895]

So I, an atheist, have to teach a church goer about Christian tithing/taxing?? Fucking priceless! Maybe it's because I read the bible that I am now an atheist, I suggest you do the same. Maybe then you'll realize what kind of bullshit nonsense you're signing up for.

Do you actually think you know anything about the Bible if you say Jesus said to give 10% to the church? That's not even in the Bible, so either you never read the Bible and getting your bogus beliefs from some atheistic or generic "Bible contradictions" website, or you just making stuff up. I don't which source is worse.

 

[Theocrat]

What I'm Getting At

Case in point...



Ok, so:

- Democrats are all "godless".
- Anyone who is "godless" should go ahead and switch to being Democrats, and vote appropriately. (Or is this just your denomination? Do Catholics count? How about Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? etc.)

No, I would not say that all Democrats are godless; I would say the Democratic platform of which they affirm is godless because it's principles contradict the revelation of liberty which God has established (as the Creator and the Giver of our rights).

My contention is that anyone who denies God's existence is, in principle by reason of his philosophy, already acting in accord with the policies of those on the political Left. Sure, anti-theistic libertarians may reject certain ideas from the Left, but they have no objective basis for doing so. Like the Leftists, their ideas are just as arbitrary and inconsistent because they do not found themselves on the absolute authority of the sovereign Lord.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

From an atheistic worldview, on what non-arbitrary basis is Liberty a worthy goal?

Evolution.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Evolution.

What is the non-arbitrary basis?


Why should we evolve toward Liberty and not toward Tyranny?



Secondly, why can't a person go against "evolution" and work for Statism if that is what he thinks is right?

 

[Theocrat]

One-Word Nonsense

Evolution.

That explains nothing, and it's actually a logical fallacy of reification. Evolution is not a personal being, so it's impossible for it to tell us anything about the "goodness" of liberty or the "evilness" of tyranny. As you well know, evolution is a term used to describe a natural process of how life might have come to exist. The limits of its parameters is the natural world, for evolution seeks to tell us what is the case, not what ought to be the case. Therefore, it cannot explain what liberty is.

 

[nate895]

Evolution.

It's newer, therefore it's correct.

That isn't illogical, and arbitrary at all now is it.

Remember, Christians are the illogical ones with no facts. Just keep repeating that to yourself, since your repetition of it seems to be all you have.

 

[erowe1]

I'm getting a real laugh at the bible thumpers in this thread. Doesn't your boy JC always talk about the evils of money and how you should give it away? He even says it's manditory that you give 10% away to the church/government.

If you suckers actually read that fairy tale, you would realize how anti-capitalist JC and his spooky sky-man father really are.

Jesus said that? What verse? And mandatory in what sense?

So I, an atheist, have to teach a church goer about Christian tithing/taxing?? Fucking priceless! Maybe it's because I read the bible that I am now an atheist, I suggest you do the same. Maybe then you'll realize what kind of bullshit nonsense you're signing up for.

Perhaps I was too subtle, so I'll be more blunt this time. Jesus never said anything remotely supportive of anything you claimed he did. Feel free to waste as much time as you would like searching in vain for evidence that he did.

And if you do bother doing that, and you decide to come back here with some reference to something you think you can twist into what you said, please don't neglect to include in your response the answer to the other part of my question, "mandatory in what sense?".

 

[wizardwatson]

I'm getting a real laugh at the bible thumpers in this thread. Doesn't your boy JC always talk about the evils of money and how you should give it away? He even says it's manditory that you give 10% away to the church/government.

If you suckers actually read that fairy tale, you would realize how anti-capitalist JC and his spooky sky-man father really are.

If Jesus were reading this thread, he'd probably be getting a laugh at you right now.

And when he met you in heaven he'd probably be like, "dude, atheism's one thing but douchiness is quite another."

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's newer, therefore it's correct.

That isn't illogical, and arbitrary at all now is it.

Remember, Christians are the illogical ones with no facts. Just keep repeating that to yourself, since your repetition of it seems to be all you have.

Originally posted by Theocrat That explains nothing, and it's actually a logical fallacy of reification. Evolution is not a personal being, so it's impossible for it to tell us anything about the "goodness" of liberty or the "evilness" of tyranny. As you well know, evolution is a term used to describe a natural process of how life might have come to exist. The limits of its parameters is the natural world, for evolution seeks to tell us what is the case, not what ought to be the case. Therefore, it cannot explain what liberty is.

Exactly.


Not only is it completely arbitrary, you cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case. It is a logical fallacy.


If evolution is the standard that we should use for morality, then one should argue for tyranny, not against it...since we as humans have shown that we are very good at tyranny and bad at liberty.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Bump.

It only took 3 idiot illogical Christians to end this debate?


Man

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Bump.

It only took 3 idiot illogical Christians to end this debate?


Man

Maybe because everyone is tired of debating this nonsense. You do not represent all Christians. As a matter of fact, you represent a small minority of them. You really need to go debate some philosophical atheists if you want to have fun and endless, fruitless debate. Not everyone enjoys philosophy.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Maybe because everyone is tired of debating this nonsense. You do not represent all Christians. As a matter of fact, you represent a small minority of them. You really need to go debate some philosophical atheists if you want to have fun and endless, fruitless debate. Not everyone enjoys philosophy.

*shrugs*

I don't think it's nonsense bro...

 

[nate895]

Maybe because everyone is tired of debating this nonsense. You do not represent all Christians. As a matter of fact, you represent a small minority of them. You really need to go debate some philosophical atheists if you want to have fun and endless, fruitless debate. Not everyone enjoys philosophy.

You know, these "philosophical atheists" hardly exist. Most of the public representatives of atheism are well outside their field of expertise (a demonstrable fact from their numerous errors in popular works) when discussing philosophical issues. As much as a third of philosophy departments are conservative Christians, when they were almost non-existent in the 1960's. The wave in scholarship is in favor of conservative Christianity, not against it. That's why the atheists are so desperate for popular support.