3 of 13
3
Robert Price & Chris Mooney - Must Atheists Also Be Liberals?
Posted: 04 July 2010 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
rg21 - 04 July 2010 04:53 AM

And when liberals can’t win arguments, they call names, make ad hominem insults, declare the arguments they can’t confront nonexistent, declare the dissenter a non person, beat their breasts, and declare victory. After all, might makes right.

“Liberals” of the past:  Abolitionists, Equal Rights, Civil Rights, Women’s rights, and the list goes on and on.  The very same excuses against Gay rights are basically the same excuses found concerning interracial marriages.  The law against Blacks and Whites marrying was repealed in 1966.  However, when one does their research, some of the very same arguments against gay marriages were made then against interracial marriages.  There is no ad hominem there.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 04:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
rg21 - 03 July 2010 11:21 AM

It is immoral because it is loathsome, filthy, degrading, and unhealthy, and elicits instinctive repugnance…


`
You seem to be conflating ‘distaste’ with morality.  They are very different things.  Are you not aware of this?

Also,  if someone were to feel similarly about your personal/romantic life, would their ‘repugnance’ be a valid platform for making moral judgements about you?

 

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
rg21 - 03 July 2010 06:21 PM

as opposed to conceit, pathologically malcontented personality, partisan agenda, a desire for attention or for regaining the youthful delusion of importance and destiny, self serving perverted desires, or the unresolved impulse to “get back at” your father.


`
Good grief, do yourself and everyone else a favour and pick up a psychology textbook sometime (one that was written in the last 25yrs, that is). 

There are qualified professionals who know far more about the subject than you do.  Reach out to them :)


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  85
Joined  2009-05-28

Homosexual behavior is both immoral and repugnant as well as loathsome (not “icky’). Why should I have to defend either my or society’s abhorrence of it? Why is this even a question? Because liberals inherently believe their ideas and preferences are superior to those of established society or anyone else and they are going to enforce them come Hell or high water. Stop shoving this down our throats!
Strange, isn’t it, the people on this blog aren’t concerned to defend any other doctrine or aspect of liberalism other than homosexual legitimization. There’s a lesson in motivation.
  Incest and polygamy, contemptibly immoral though they are, are not quite as loathsome as homosexuality. But does anyone here believe their practitioners or pederasts could not elicit liberal support if they could become as big an asset to the radical left as homosexuals have been and promise to continue being? I suspect the pederasts have watched their close kin carefully and are prepared to follow their path.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 05:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  85
Joined  2009-05-28

“Good grief, do yourself and everyone else a favour and pick up a psychology textbook sometime (one that was written in the last 25yrs, that is).

There are qualified professionals who know far more about the subject than you do.  Reach out to them smile


Let me guess. They will say that liberals are intelligent and virtuous and well adjusted and responsible for all the good and progress in the world. If it doesn’t seem that way to me, it is my attitude at fault. Conservatives have an “authoritarian personality” oops, over 25 years old. I’m sure there is a more snide and sophisticated terminology now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 06:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2010-07-04

While I am still trying hard to make the transition to the new Point of Inquiry Podcast, episodes like this one make it difficult.
My opinion is that the discussion on the topic of the left and right is not a useful or helpful discussion, especially the way it took place in this episode.
You really need to define liberal and conservative clearly, as no single person is one or the other in all aspects.
To define what I mean by democrat and liberal or republican and conservative in this post, I will use the history of elected presidents in America, using the average of the president’s ideology based on the record.
If one is examining the usual two party system in America, as well as the historical past, one would have to conclude honestly that both parties are horrible.
The democrats are moving more to the right and are continuing to take part in the aspects that one previously would have identified as a Republican policy, such as support for big business, war, the rich, and many more.
The current Republican party tends to block science, favor the corporation, cut taxes for the rich, destroy the financial standing of America to help a few high status people, stop social programs, reduce personal freedoms under the tactic of scaring people, and privatize everything.
While I find the history of America’s presidency to be troubling, I find Liberal Presidents to be the lesser of two very bad choices.  However, this is becoming the same bad choice as each year passes.
My criticism about the current conservative party, on record, the Bush Presidency, is it made profit at the expense of others at all cost, had bad policies, engaged in two illegal wars, and broke the law at every turn as its main objectives. 
Defending the Republican Bush strategy can be done if logic is applied.  For example, a person can state that Bush programs helped make tons of money for a person’s business and allowed special no bid contracts for a big company that one owns.
While I can disagree about the merits of the party values, I cannot argue with a person who is stating real facts that make sense about why a person can support the policies.  If one gets rich and had job opportunities, these can make a person find such policies supportive.  Did Price get great tax benefits?
While I find Price to be amazingly knowledgeable about the specific aspects of religion, the logic and reason he utilized for politics seemed to be absent.
For example, Price defended Conservative policy on the following claims:
1.  Conservatives keep war as a needed option, where a liberal president would make peace at all costs which would cause a disaster or words to the same effect.
(I cannot think of any case where this slippery slope was a reality.  Obama is continuing the wars with lots of spending.  Also, I am not aware of any left wing extremist that became the president or even had a chance of winning.  I am unaware of any left wing radical that has a TV show or a high media profile that would be equivalent to Rush and Glen Beck)
2.  Conservatives are a more sensible approach or words to this effect based on the fact that Liberals would be bad because of what they are capable of believing and doing. 
(I again cannot think of a liberal president who Bankrupted the country, tried to break federal law by limiting the constitution, used the Supreme Court as a platform to decide a presidential election, engaged in a war without logical explanations and did so illegally, well…you get the idea.  If you are going to support your claims with facts, you cannot say that conservative ideology is good because the potential left wing radical would be far more destructive.  This is among other things presenting a world view that there are only two possible outcomes, a Republican where we are using war to survive, and a liberal view where peace will cause the American empire to fail.  Again, look at the Bush presidency and see if the war was helpful except for private industry and weapons manufacturers and then look at Obama, who is not going to focus on peace and cost America its empire.  Instead, Obama has a few more right wing policies than Bush on some privacy issues, war goals, and more, which is actually not appreciated by many Americans)
3.  Abortion is morally wrong. 
(I cannot answer the question of this issue because it is not an objective aspect.  Morality is subjective.  If morality is paired with a religious value, then the idea that abortion is wrong is an opinion, which is as right as a person’s belief that it is acceptable in some cases, since no one that I am aware of is actually what is known as pro-abortion, instead, people are prochoice, a secular position, since it comprises of choosing a subjective personal value.  It is interesting to note which issue of potential murder excites the public.  Abortion is serious and murder, but why is not an equal or even a close to equal concern from the same people directed at the deaths caused by alcohol, which is the right of a large company to sell products which are abused so much that thousands of people die from the drug every year, including freeway accidents, where people may not have even used the substance and were just hit by a drinker.  How about the right for a company to deny medical coverage for a person who needs it and that person then dies?  I understand that Price ultimately is pro-choice)  Continued…....

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 06:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2010-07-04

Continued———

4. The Republican party does not really cut medical funding and deny the legitimate use for science.  (Again, Price suggests left wing radicals would find many numerous ways to destroy science and many other things, and would make the Supreme Court so left wing that it would “?,” but the evidence that we have is Bush, who censored science, limited stem cell research, and created a state funded prayer based initiative.  He also stacked a very right winged Supreme Court.  Obama has so far ended the limits on stem cells and has not actively censored scientists on climate and CDC disease results.  Obama also appointed two moderate justices, they may be a bit liberal, but they are not left wing radicals, comparable to Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia who are very right winged.

Dr. Price, I am sure that many of your fans who find your knowledge of religion extremely impressive would love to have you take some time and modify and repair some of your political conclusions using the logic they have long expected and have appreciated.

Thanks,

The Doctor

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 07:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  85
Joined  2009-05-28

Doctor is confusing political parties and ideological positions. Many Republicans are not conservatives and I can see very little justification for calling George W. Bush a conservative. Nobody is a perfect conservative but conservatives include people like the late William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, Robert Bork, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, George Will, and yes, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (whom I adore because of her utter contempt for liberal moral pretensions) and many many others: intellectuals, economists, theologians, plus some popular culture ideological celebrities and masses of basically decent ordinary people. Liberals are the twisted, raving radical scum I knew all too well in the 60’s, the unrepentant SDSers and former rioters, thugs and vandals, dope users and libertines and their soulless, gutless, moral imbecile main stream “useful idiot” enablers. These are ingrates who hate the society that bore and nurtured them and gave them privileges, comfort, and liberty. Conservatives are not perfect and never have been, but they are the ones who have done most to bring us material security and affluence and they are the ones who defend cultural practices that enhance beauty, progress, trust, character, love, safety, and opportunities for progress in every direction. In my life time I have seen liberals turn civilization into a stinking cesspool and I hate them for it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 07:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  27
Joined  2010-07-04
rg21 - 04 July 2010 05:13 PM

Homosexual behavior is both immoral and repugnant as well as loathsome (not “icky’). Why should I have to defend either my or society’s abhorrence of it? Why is this even a question? Because liberals inherently believe their ideas and preferences are superior to those of established society or anyone else and they are going to enforce them come Hell or high water. Stop shoving this down our throats!
Strange, isn’t it, the people on this blog aren’t concerned to defend any other doctrine or aspect of liberalism other than homosexual legitimization. There’s a lesson in motivation.
  Incest and polygamy, contemptibly immoral though they are, are not quite as loathsome as homosexuality. But does anyone here believe their practitioners or pederasts could not elicit liberal support if they could become as big an asset to the radical left as homosexuals have been and promise to continue being? I suspect the pederasts have watched their close kin carefully and are prepared to follow their path.

I’m sorry, but do you think this is an argument?  You’ve made assertions without even attempting to rationalize them.  Perhaps this is how you’re used to presenting arguments, and, if so, this is very telling.  For instance, you make three statements:
1) Homosexual behavior is immoral
2) Homosexual behavior is repugnant
3) Homosexual behavior is loathsome

and you have the audacity to add:
I don’t have to defend my argument because
QED.

To properly convey your point, your statements should read “homosexual behavior is immoral because [well-stated reason]”.

Why is homosexuality worse than incest or polygamy?  What’s wrong with incest and polygamy?  Do you expect me to just take your word for it?  Do you actually think the argument, “many people find behavior X loathsome, and thus it is immoral” works one whit toward defending anything?  Allow me to demonstrate:

Pederasty is morally repugnant because children cannot be consenting partners in a sexual relationship either legally or mentally.  Frequently, the nature of the pederast-child relationship is one where the child’s explicit trust in the adult as an authority figure or guardian is exploited.  In any case, the young victims often experience mental and physical trauma as a result of such abuse, and are more likely to engage in pedophiliac behavior, themselves.  Since it is wrong to inflict trauma on somebody, especially if you are a guardian or authority figure over that individual and they are additionally incapable of mentally consenting to the attentions, pederasty must be wrong.

Some people may agree with your view (that homosexuality is immoral, repugnant, and loathsome), but if you ever expect to argue your case before a critical audience like this one, you must present a well-formed argument.  Until you learn to provide arguments instead of ill-informed opinions, you won’t get very far on this board.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
rg21 - 04 July 2010 05:13 PM

Homosexual behavior is both immoral and repugnant as well as loathsome (not “icky’). Why should I have to defend either my or society’s abhorrence of it? Why is this even a question? Because liberals inherently believe their ideas and preferences are superior to those of established society or anyone else and they are going to enforce them come Hell or high water. Stop shoving this down our throats!
Strange, isn’t it, the people on this blog aren’t concerned to defend any other doctrine or aspect of liberalism other than homosexual legitimization. There’s a lesson in motivation.
  Incest and polygamy, contemptibly immoral though they are, are not quite as loathsome as homosexuality. But does anyone here believe their practitioners or pederasts could not elicit liberal support if they could become as big an asset to the radical left as homosexuals have been and promise to continue being? I suspect the pederasts have watched their close kin carefully and are prepared to follow their path.

You sound like a Xian.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2010 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
rg21 - 04 July 2010 05:13 PM

Homosexual behavior is both immoral and repugnant as well as loathsome (not “icky’). Why should I have to defend either my or society’s abhorrence of it?


`
Hey, as long as you don’t actively do anything to try to prevent things like same-sex marriage (and base your ‘argument’ on your loathing), then abhor away! :)

I feel similarly about Rush Limbaugh and wouldn’t my loathing to be restricted either :) 

And all of the people who would find your personal/romantic life to be despicable and vomit-inducing (and trust me, they’re out there) should be free to continue their abhorrence as well :)

*starting a round of ‘Kumbaya’*


`

[ Edited: 04 July 2010 09:36 PM by Axegrrl ]
 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2010 03:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  85
Joined  2009-05-28

Matters of morals, mores, and values are fundamentally different from science. People here seem to have trouble grasping that. Sexual perversion, murder, deceit, harming other people, torturing animals, destroying wilderness - these are morally wrong by arbitrary cultural agreement. Their relationship to material empirical facts is complex, indirect, and often contradictory. Always or nearly always it is impossible to see or trace them all.
    The status quo, logically, is not required to defend itself. The burden of proof is on the radical change advocate, like the person making a paranormal claim. The revulsion against homosexuality is natural. The taboo is or was established and effectively universal. You accursed radicals are demanding the line between normal and deviant, approved and taboo, be moved to accommodate homosexuals and homosexuals only. Why? The id argument and a reward for support for the Democratic Party are not good enough answers. The claim that traditional values have no simple overt obvious scientific basis in no answer at all. It is a diversion.
    The consent distinction for pederasty is for teenagers something of a legal fiction, a legal fiction I’m willing to buy, but disingenuous for an argument as presented here by homosexual advocates. Even if we were to grant you that one, it still leaves you bound by consistency to support incest, polygamy, coprophilia, necrophilia, vampirism, and God knows what other Hellish abominations.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2010 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  27
Joined  2010-07-04

Let me get this straight: you’re saying the status quo has no obligation to justify its position because it’s the status quo?  The status quo is often wrong, and if it appears to be depriving rights from an arbitrary swathe of the population, we need to see that this is undone.  It doesn’t matter if this group is cultural, financial, or sexual in nature, or what your personal hang-ups about the group may be; in an open and free society, we can reasonably expect to be open and free.  If you want to live in a reactionary society dominated by ancient taboos, superstitions, and prejudices, you’re welcome to move to wherever such values are appreciated.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2010 09:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

I would like to share my experiences within the Atheist/Secular internet sites.  I tend to be Fiscally Conservative and Socially liberal.  In other words, my whole outlook socially and politically is based on individual freedoms and fiscal responsibility.  I am registered on a number of Atheist sites and when I mention my political opinions, I am taken to task.  I do not vote for Social Conservative positions and have not been a Republican since 1988.  I am as close to Capitalism as I can find in a candidate.  Corruption took over the GOP and allowed a terrible corruption with regard to corporations.  Allowing Enron to function was the last straw for me.  Without money making corporations that bring jobs to all of us, we will have to put up with government control over our incomes.  I personally believe that allowing Bush to pay the Christian Churches out of Federal funds, was the turning point in bringing the Christians into the voting booth.  It triggered a corruption based on any laws broken in the name of Jesus Christ were justified. 

We must train the next generation into knowing right from wrong before we allow them to vote.  I learned from Rand to never take anything from anyone that I did not earn.  It is easier to work for something rather than vote for someone who promises handouts.  I am very unpopular on many internet sites.

The only solution to my problems will work only when the separation of church and state is set in cement.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2010 11:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2008-10-07
Sandy Price - 05 July 2010 09:14 AM

I would like to share my experiences within the Atheist/Secular internet sites.  I tend to be Fiscally Conservative and Socially liberal.  In other words, my whole outlook socially and politically is based on individual freedoms and fiscal responsibility.  I am registered on a number of Atheist sites and when I mention my political opinions, I am taken to task.

How so?  I mentioned earlier that I tend towards economic moderate/conservative and social liberalism, and I’ve never been “taken to task” for my position on economics (being socially liberal gets plenty of attacks from social conservatives, though).  Although, maybe I’m underestimating the degree to which you are economically conservative - I can imagine that some rich people want absolutely minimal taxes, and I can imagine that it starts arguments.  Personally, I’m more of the opinion that some of the money that people “earn” isn’t as directly earned by themselves as they believe it is - it’s “earned” because they live in a society that has lots of social programs that increase the wealth of the entire society, including things like: free public education, libraries, roads, police, military, government funded research, etc.  That’s why I think people who claim that every penny they “earn” is 100% theirs and taxes are the equivalent of government-based theft are full of it.  No rich person in America would’ve been 1/10th as rich if they had been born in Jamaica - and I think that shows just how much those rich people benefit from their surrounding society, even though they try to deny it and act as if they are an island.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 13
3