It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does Religious Conservatism Embrace Ignorance?

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Why do I need a consensus from other members as to where my political affiliations lie? Isn't that my business? " Sure it is but I have to ask ,just where do they lie ? You are claiming that one way is more correct while on the other hand saying you can't support it . Do you really need conservatives to embrace your doctrinal view of spirituality ?

"No, I am trying to point out that pure Libertarianism can be overly idealistic. The point is that true freedom isn't obtained through pure Libertarianism. For me, I like the Libertarian approach first, but if moneyed interests prove to be irresponsible without government oversight, then it may be necessary. " This is where a pure form of spirituality diverges and lands in the Anarchistic camp ,which is where I am .

"It's funny how you quoted this line from the OP: "Naturally, some of you will tell me that they don't have to be..." then go on to tell me EXACTLY that without addressing anything else in the OP." wow wow a second there champ . I did say you were brave in your post mostly because of all the ammunition you posted . To think that a member of ATS could come in and address all of it in one post is asking much . Not saying that there are no members of having the where with all to do so but for you to expect all of your minor and major points to be addressed in one comment is asking a bit much ,wouldn't you say ?




posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Why do I need a consensus from other members as to where my political affiliations lie? Isn't that my business? " Sure it is but I have to ask ,just where do they lie ? You are claiming that one way is more correct while on the other hand saying you can't support it . Do you really need conservatives to embrace your doctrinal view of spirituality ?


No, I'm saying that my political beliefs aren't cemented in stone and I'm willing to change my mind and opinion depending on the circumstances. I DO however try to maintain a default position of conservatism though.


"No, I am trying to point out that pure Libertarianism can be overly idealistic. The point is that true freedom isn't obtained through pure Libertarianism. For me, I like the Libertarian approach first, but if moneyed interests prove to be irresponsible without government oversight, then it may be necessary. " This is where a pure form of spirituality diverges and lands in the Anarchistic camp ,which is where I am .


I'm not sure what you mean here.


"It's funny how you quoted this line from the OP: "Naturally, some of you will tell me that they don't have to be..." then go on to tell me EXACTLY that without addressing anything else in the OP." wow wow a second there champ . I did say you were brave in your post mostly because of all the ammunition you posted . To think that a member of ATS could come in and address all of it in one post is asking much . Not saying that there are no members of having the where with all to do so but for you to expect all of your minor and major points to be addressed in one comment is asking a bit much ,wouldn't you say ?


I guess... Maybe... But it certainly IS good debating form to try to address each of your debate opponent's points. Like I'm not even sure the discussion between you and I is really about what I was talking about. The embracing of ignorance to promote political ideology. I even tried to specifically point out that I am not holding Christianity primarily responsible for it either as there are Christians on the left who don't do this.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



One more thing I have to post in response to your title . Who are you to claim others being ignorant about spiritual things while at the same time denying it .You may have a right to a opinion about the subject but to deny it and then judge others as being ignorant to it is very arrogant imo



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

But like I pointed out earlier, the Democratic party isn't godless either. It is majority Christian as well.


Yes, but the Dems are not using Religious Extreme as their political base.

I think the average Christian has slid more into the Spiritual realm of the positiveness of Jesus teaching - - not the Hell and Brimstone.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Annee

I think we need to do away with the parties all together. That would force people to actually look at the positions of politicians instead of blindly following them because of the letter next to their name.

Politics is no different than sports to the vast majority of people. They find a team they like and root for them passionately even when their quarterback blows the big game and loses horribly.


What is your solution?

If you do away with something - - you have to replace it with something.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I find value in the diversity of viewpoints even if I personally prefer the scientific method for my own exploration. But, i try not to delude myself that I am capable of doing much more than "pointing at the moon," even if I am capable of recognizing and applying patterns accurately and effectively.

Basically, all I am saying is a verbose explanation that I perceive the behavior you point out as inherent to our species, rather than any specific group. All of us feel that our ideology is the most accurate. Very few, if any, explore the implications of the lack of omniscience or a truly external frame of reference.

Our social structure is based on the interactions of our bias, rather than a collective exploration which accounts for our innate subjectivity and bias confirmation. I.E. We are more likely to focus on groups that disagree with our own bias as problematic rather than pursue methods that would facilitate cooperation between even the most conflicting systems of thought or belief. In this, both sides assign blame to the other, while we wait for the other side to start doing things "right."

Everyone wants everyone else to change, no one wants to change themselves (in this context.) Both would have the same result, everyone changing, but the former leads to entrenched positions while the latter attempts to fill in the trenches we have excavated for ourselves. The former is easier, as it is what we have done for centuries. The latter not only requires work, but an active effort to tread the new ground we have just filled in, while we try to avoid the landmines.

In the current "bias battlefield" that is our culture though, the individual who attempts this is more likely to get shot by either side than successfully build a bridge.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


That being said, I DO want to lean right politically. Believe it or not. It's just that mainstream conservative beliefs have become so ludicrous and dumb that I can't relate to it anymore. For one, why do I have to be religious to be a Conservative? Why do they HAVE to be linked? Naturally, some of you will tell me that they don't have to be, but all evidence shows that the modern conservative movement is intricately linked to religiousism, namely Christianity.


I think I've found your problem right here.

You hate religion so much that it's pushing you left and away from libertarianism. I've seen it in your posts even if you don't. When you think there might be even the slightest whiff of religion involved, you lose all pretense of objectivity.

For the record, you do not have to be religious to be Conservative. That you think the two are joined at the hip just shows how little you really understand Conservatives.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t



One more thing I have to post in response to your title . Who are you to claim others being ignorant about spiritual things while at the same time denying it .You may have a right to a opinion about the subject but to deny it and then judge others as being ignorant to it is very arrogant imo


This post makes it look like you didn't understand my point and the reason I wrote the thread. I'm not calling people ignorant for being spiritual. I'm calling them ignorant for adopting ignorant ideologies and political beliefs then hiding behind religion and made up history to defend their beliefs.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Why does Religious Conservatism Embrace Ignorance?


Duhcause we all am stupid.

Obviously.

(oooh look! A crayon!)




posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

This is why I think this is more a case of the underinformed or uninformed versus the informed rather than a religious argument or position. The informed understand that religion has no place in these discussions so they try to leave it out, the uninformed try to use it every chance they get not realizing that by doing so they expose their ignorance on whatever subject they are talking about.
edit on 29-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Are you Libertarian?

Do you support eliminating the Disability Act and the Fair Housing Act?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

I understand that, and I certainly DO want to recognize alternate viewpoints, but there IS such a thing as arguing from inaccuracies. Is an opinion built on a strawman a valid opinion that is worth considering? You see, I certainly DO welcome alternate viewpoints and am even willing to change my own if they can demonstrate that they are good viewpoints, but if you are going to build a foundation for your opinions on known lies, there should be no reason to take you seriously.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

This is why I think this is more a case of the underinformed or uninformed versus the informed rather than a religious argument or position. The informed understand that religion has no place in these discussions so they try to leave it out, the uninformed try to use it every chance they get not realizing that by doing so they expose their ignorance on whatever subject they are talking about.


Uninformed of what?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t


That being said, I DO want to lean right politically. Believe it or not. It's just that mainstream conservative beliefs have become so ludicrous and dumb that I can't relate to it anymore. For one, why do I have to be religious to be a Conservative? Why do they HAVE to be linked? Naturally, some of you will tell me that they don't have to be, but all evidence shows that the modern conservative movement is intricately linked to religiousism, namely Christianity.


I think I've found your problem right here.

You hate religion so much that it's pushing you left and away from libertarianism. I've seen it in your posts even if you don't. When you think there might be even the slightest whiff of religion involved, you lose all pretense of objectivity.


Have you read my responses in this thread yet? Because I'm actively trying NOT to blame this ideology on Christianity itself.


For the record, you do not have to be religious to be Conservative. That you think the two are joined at the hip just shows how little you really understand Conservatives.


I know. You even quoted the part of my OP where I admitted as such. My problem is that many Conservative viewpoints are mired in religious dogma, then when you remove the religious dogma there is no reason to be against them anymore. Gay rights including gay marriage, anti-drug laws, being pro-war against Muslims, installing Christianity as a state religion. Remove the religious angles from these arguments and they fall flat on their face.

There are very few Conservative viewpoints that don't follow that line of logic. Gun rights is one. Abortion may even be another. But just about all the others are argued using religion incorrectly in our government. That isn't Conservatism at all. It is a violation of our Constitution.
edit on 29-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Uninformed educationally. This whole topic is REALLY about our terrible education standards in this country, but I guess you could say it is singling out a certain political ideology for promoting and also fighting not to improve these terrible education standards.
edit on 29-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

Uninformed educationally. This whole topic is REALLY about our terrible education standards in this country, but I guess you could say it is singling out a certain political ideology for promoting and also fighting not to improve these terrible education standards.


You don't want to go to education with me. Education is the responsibility of the individual. All the tools are available to everyone in this country.

Blaming it on an underpaid, under financed government system, that do their best to provide the basics is ridiculous and just another excuse.

We are fortunate to have a public school system. Not every country does.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, why not attempt to create and practice a system of interaction that enables and encourages cooperation instead of spending the same time and resources "correcting" the errors?

It isn't just a matter of "recognizing alternative viewpoints," it's about taking the actual steps to design and participate in a system that allows for mutual exploration and progress.

In one course, effort is spent on winning the battle. In the other, it is spent on mutual progress. Which do you feel is more productive, given that it's just as likely they will convince you that you are "wrong?"



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central,[11] anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system
This based on elder-ship . First order of rank .



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



What is your solution?

If you do away with something - - you have to replace it with something.


Why do we have to replace the parties with something else? The system is open for anyone to run for any office as long as they meet the requirements of age, citizenship, etc. If a candidate did not have a letter next to their name to designate their party affiliation, it would force the voter to actually look in to the candidate's positions instead of voting for their favorite "team".

The purpose of the political parties is to consolidate power in to a central authority that pushes candidates towards certain special interests or issues.

We do not need anything to replace the parties.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

The school system is just ONE part of the problem, but it isn't the part that I was trying to highlight here. In fact, if we were to fix the problems highlighted in the OP, then it would be a LOT easier to fix the problems with our public school standards. I'm pointing out the embracing of ignorance by the right through using strawmans and other lies so that they don't have to update their thinking even though it has been proven wrong many times over.




top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join