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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
First, I'll preface my post by simply stating that I am not religious. I kind of stand somewhere between agnostic and atheist but I'm definitely not religious and haven't believed in God since I was about 5 or something.


originally posted by: 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 have wondered the same. The only semi-rational explanation I have ever been able to come up with for it is that it might be being done on purpose. To keep intelligent people away from the only viable political party that can possibly oppose the extreme left.

Simply put, if you try to argue with a liberal (or liberalism in general) you will immediately be lumped in with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson. And of course, anyone with a brain can see that these two are the worst possible spokespeople for a political movement that attempts to counter the left. This is like putting a couple of rabbits in a steel cage match with a pack of hungry wolves. It's a ridiculous cartoon and yet this is what we're stuck with. If you disagree with the left, you literally have no allies that are worth a damn. Again, I suggest this has (to at least some extent) been done on purpose to manipulate the public.


Do you believe in Evolution? Do you believe in man made Climate Change? If you are a religious Conservative, chances are that the answer to both of those questions is no. This is odd, because science has pretty much determined that these are real things. But again we will see how Conservative ideology utilizes ignorance to express their beliefs.


1. There is another possibility. The simple fact of the matter is that not everyone is interested in intellectualism. It's a lot easier to appeal to mass ignorance than it is to try to get people to accept reality (whatever that may be).


2. If you have ever really thought about the origins of religious, you might conclude (as I have) that it was all about control. Anyone who is not religious will probably tell you (if they're being honest) that atheism is not an easy path to walk. It seems simple enough. If you don't believe there's a god, you simply say so. But that leads you down a much darker path and into the unknown.

3. Religion (while it seems obviously false and cartoonish to many) allows it's adherents to live their lives without questioning things they really can't answer and without dwelling on the apparent pointlessness of life without a stated purpose. Having religious faith gives them hope and says that it is not all for nothing. That's a powerful thing. Regardless of whether or not you believe it, it's not without it's appeal when it comes to a relatively simple mechanism to keep large numbers of people from falling into despair and insanity contemplating the unknowable.

4. If you hang out in some of the places where atheism has a strong influence, you will always run into these depressing discussions about the pointlessness of existence in the absence of any obvious higher purpose. An ignorant animal lives it's entire life free from worry about such things. Again, pondering such deep and puzzling riddles is not for everyone.

5. Finally, we come to the real problem with atheism. The need to replace the religious deity with something. Because, as I have pointed out, you cannot simply remove a sense of purpose from the lives of millions of people without giving them something to believe in. And this is where it starts to get scary. As bad as religion can be, you start running into some pretty frightening people when you're dealing with such questions as "What is the meaning of life if there is no God?".

Such people will often conclude that doing away with traditional religion leaves them with absolute freedom to invent a religion of their own. Which starts to get damn scary when you start really listening to them and you discover what they are really saying. In the end, it all comes down to this. They believe that if they can eventually depose traditional religion, the brand of "faith" they can replace it with will be far more powerful and harder to argue with than some vague story about some invisible man in the sky.

They will base their new religion on things that seem concrete and impossible to argue with. Which will make it just as dangerous as traditional religion. Perhaps more. The worship of society. The worship of science. The worship of knowledge. All of these things sound great but are actually very troubling to contemplate.

Every day you see that a "new study" has been done and "the experts say" what they need to say in order to convince the masses that what they say is correct and proper and necessary. Whether these are truths or lies is not (for the moment) the point. The point is that there is a certain element in society that believes them without question. Simply because they trust the messenger and wouldn't dream of questioning them. That is dangerous. That is a religion. It's as bad as any other religion. These are people who would blindly follow their deity wherever it wanted them to go.

The point is the fundamental ignorance of the common man doesn't go away just because he changes his faith. Think about this. Every day, hundreds of millions of people get into their cars, turn the key and hit the gas. All of the mindlessly complicated crap that has to happen in order to make that simple thing possible is probably the furthest thing from their minds.....unless something goes wrong. And when that happens, they pick up the phone (Another mindlessly complicated device they don't understand but use every day) and call someone to come fix it. These are not people who are in denial of anything (generally). They are people who don't need to try to understand the complexities of things around them. They live their lives and everything seems fine. All of this crazy technology seems just fine to them.


To sum up here, I really WOULD like to be conservative, but this unilateral war the right pitches behind the (relatively) new idea of Religious Conservatism against intellectua is just absurd. I'm sorry, but as long as the right embraces ignorance I can't support these things. The right needs to grow up and join the 21st century. Wallowing in ignorance and attacking people smarter than you is just a waste of time. Just go get educated so that we can refocus the political debate to REAL political issues again, instead of this mock battles between facts and lies.


Here's a (slightly) provocative question for you. What if there is no real opposition to big government? What if it's all an elaborate illusion to keep those of us who would like to believe there is someone speaking for us from losing hope? What if we are simply stuck with this big government freight train that never stops no matter who seems to be running the show? What if the left versus the right is just a distraction to keep people bickering pointlessly among themselves?

edit on 2-6-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

An observation before I add to the discussion.

I fear that your "strong" position against Christianity is not on a very good foundation.
You seem to have to rebuild after your challenged, much like your last religious thread, Racism in the Bible, which came shortly after being challenged In a thread about the mythical Jesus, and now this one after your political beliefs were challenged in a recent thread. Just an observation.


I have no idea what you mean by this. If you think that the people I argued with in this threads made me doubt my positions, you are mistaken. I would rewrite each of those threads in a heartbeat.


"Attacking people smarter than you"
Your need to be inteligent hinges on Christian conservatives being stupid.
Your need to paint something black so you can be white is your attempt to regain your footing. It's the same tactics that talk radio uses to keep the right on the right; Paint liberals as baphoons so conservatives look better.

Nothing is accomplished in this process, accept more division and more ignorance.


This thread isn't an attack against Christianity, but a subset of Christianity that has embraced willful and proven ignorance. I've already mentioned that the Left is majority Christian, but they don't have any problems accepting reality as it is proven by scientists and historians.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't think your OP was as bad as I was thinking it would be, some of it I agree with, you have to realize there are very conservative liberals, far more conservative than conservatives, they vote along party lines although they are devout Christians and Muslims.


Thanks. I really wasn't trying to be offensive to Christians here. You are one of the first in the thread to recognize that.


Conservatism means little these days, if you take a look back liberals and conservatives are totally different animals then they were when I was growing up.


Right, that was my point when I pointed out that Socialism is actually an older movement than this new version of Conservatism.


There are many social conservatives, and I think you are lumping to many into the same category.


I consider myself more of a social conservative or maybe a moderate. It's just that I feel alienated by popular conservatism.


Now we all can wallow in ignorance at times.


True, but if you are shown the errors of your ways, it is best to recognize your ignorance instead of doubling down on it and defending it.


I don't trust my government and worry about people that do.


I don't trust corporations OR the government. That's one of the problems too. Liberals are too trusting of the government and Conservatives are too trusting of corporations. There needs to be a balance.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
OK, here I will quibble a little. Conservatism isn't about age, it's about maintaining the status quo–that's what your definition says. And the status quo in the United States has never been socialism. The status quo in the US at the time of the New Deal *was* generally Christian social mores (as your link says, "It’s true that many Americans thought of their country as a “nation of Christians” from the start.") Even from the very beginning of our nation, people in the United States thought that political freedom was linked to the Christian religion (you can read Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America describing people sending missionaries out to the frontier to make sure everyone was Christian so that democracy would be safe.) That's *different* from the idea that the United States was in some way an *officially* a Christian nation, but from the status quo perspective, Christian religion + politics is much more "conservative" than socialism, which has *never* been mainstream in the United States.


But here's the thing. There was NEVER a time when we were a Christian nation. That isn't maintaining the status quo. That is changing it.


Just because something is *newer* doesn't mean it is Progressive. Progressivism is a specific ideology. Edmund Burke, who was one of the first conservatives, was also a classical liberal, which was a *newer* idea at the time. Burke was considered a conservative because he argued for the status quo against the Progressive ideology of the time (Reflections on the Revolution in France) not because he held old political views (which at the time would have been monarchy.) Or take Objectivism. It's very new, but definitely not Progressive.


Would Liberal be a better word then?


Yay. Liberals are more likely to oppose fracking, and nuclear power, which science has pretty much determined are good things. I'm not arguing with your point here (though I could) just point out that it is a bipartisan problem. Frankly, as much as I know you like talking about evolution, I think we can both agree that issues like fracking, nuclear power, and global warming are much more relevant to good governance.


I don't necessarily oppose fracking for earthquake reasons (that's a myth). I don't like all the nasty run off going into water reservoirs though, but fracking is linked to the oil companies. I want to do away with needing oil altogether, so I oppose fracking for those reasons. I don't mind nuclear power either, provided that the waste is handled properly.

In fact, both of those arguments comes down to proper waste disposal efforts, which the companies in charge tend to be notoriously bad with. This brings me to the point I made in the OP about companies showing that they can't be responsible with individual liberty and need to be governmentally regulated. Both fracking and nuclear power have the potential to seriously wreck the environment that they are placed in if mishandled. Yet companies don't always take that seriously enough and will cut corners to save costs.


So, according to your logic, a university that teaches creationism is teaching information and facts?


I think you'd be hard pressed to find a university that did that and was accredited. So it wouldn't REALLY be a university.


One of my friends was taught in community college that there was such a thing as news sources without any bias (and was willing to point them out, too.) Is that a fact?


Well that is likely untrue, but is close to impossible to prove and I would have to argue is closer to an opinion then. Of course, I'm not trying to suggest teachers are never wrong. I'm arguing about intellectual consensus here, not the opinions and ideas of a select few teachers. If a teacher teaches something outside the norm of accepted academia, you MAY want to verify what he is saying.


I actually don't think it's evolution/climate change/history that bugs conservatives as much as it is loose social mores and the perceived tendency of colleges to undermine religious belief. (I say perceived because you can check the demographics and see that's when people tend to drop out of church. I blame it more on the parents, not the college, but that's just me.)


There are plenty of religious universities that teach all of those concepts.


Agreed, the anti-intellectualism on the right is horrible. But, let's be honest, there's a *lot* of stupidity in colleges and universities these days. Don't be reflexively pro-college. Be pro-knowledge. There are good colleges, and bad colleges, and some of the good colleges are politically biased to the right, and some of them are biased to the left.


Well that is why we have the accrediting system. If a university tries to teach something that isn't true, they may not be accredited or won't maintain their accreditation for long.


Both the left and right embrace ignorance. What you're doing is the smart thing: weeding out the junk and embracing the truth.


Thanks.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: texastig
You should use the words stupidity and ignorance for evolution and climate change. Because there's no evolution and humans are not causing climate change.


Thanks for proving my points in the OP for me. Well done!


College and school systems teach about evolution which isn't a fact. How can something come from nothing?


Lol. Ignorance at its finest. Why even engage in a debate if you aren't properly informed on what you are supposed to be debating? Evolution doesn't say that something comes from nothing.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: texastig

A very interesting question, and one that is hotly debated by groups of people who have little interest in being right or wrong. For example, "Brane Theory" postulates two "universes" pertebrating into one another, creating pocket universes, but these postulates are "turtles, all the way down," in their own way, aren't they?

Put another way, we know that speciation occurred with Finches on Galapagos (for example) but we don't quite understand how non-organic chemicals and matter became organic. It's just a question that begs an answer at this point. The only significant difference is an evolutionary biologist doesn't stop there and say "magic!" and crow that they have reached the pinnacle of truthiness in evolutionary biology.

But a Theist does.
edit on 2-6-2015 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Simply put, if you try to argue with a liberal (or liberalism in general) you will immediately be lumped in with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson. And of course, anyone with a brain can see that these two are the worst possible spokespeople for a political movement that attempts to counter the left. This is like putting a couple of rabbits in a steel cage match with a pack of hungry wolves. It's a ridiculous cartoon and yet this is what we're stuck with. If you disagree with the left, you literally have no allies that are worth a damn. Again, I suggest this has (to at least some extent) been done on purpose to manipulate the public.


It works in reverse too when you try to distance yourself from Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson and you are immediately labeled as a super Liberal.


1. There is another possibility. The simple fact of the matter is that not everyone is interested in intellectualism. It's a lot easier to appeal to mass ignorance than it is to try to get people to accept reality (whatever that may be).


I agree in concept. It certainly IS easier to just go along with what people are telling you and not critically think. Critical thinking is an acquired skill though. One that should be more thoroughly taught and enforced in school.


2. If you have ever really thought about the origins of religious, you might conclude (as I have) that it was all about control. Anyone who is not religious will probably tell you (if they're being honest) that atheism is not an easy path to walk. It seems simple enough. If you don't believe there's a god, you simply say so. But that leads you down a much darker path and into the unknown.


I've come to these conclusions, but I wasn't trying to attack religion with this thread here. I more wanted to point out a political movement that utilizes a religion to get its way. Though, considering the history of that religion, it isn't surprising it is being used that way (again). I just didn't want to really explore that angle for once. I've written and posted in plenty of threads that rail against Christianity and wanted to try something different here even though Christianity IS involved.


3. Religion (while it seems obviously false and cartoonish to many) allows it's adherents to live their lives without questioning things they really can't answer and without dwelling on the apparent pointlessness of life without a stated purpose. Having religious faith gives them hope and says that it is not all for nothing. That's a powerful thing. Regardless of whether or not you believe it, it's not without it's appeal when it comes to a relatively simple mechanism to keep large numbers of people from falling into despair and insanity contemplating the unknowable.


That's why I wasn't trying to attack the religious here. There are MANY Christians who CAN critically think and CAN accept reality as it is presented by scientists and historians.


4. If you hang out in some of the places where atheism has a strong influence, you will always run into these depressing discussions about the pointlessness of existence in the absence of any obvious higher purpose. An ignorant animal lives it's entire life free from worry about such things. Again, pondering such deep and puzzling riddles is not for everyone.


True.


5. Finally, we come to the real problem with atheism. The need to replace the religious deity with something. Because, as I have pointed out, you cannot simply remove a sense of purpose from the lives of millions of people without giving them something to believe in. And this is where it starts to get scary. As bad as religion can be, you start running into some pretty frightening people when you're dealing with such questions as "What is the meaning of life if there is no God?".


See that's a problem with the religious mentality and a holdover from having been religious at one point then not being religious. People who were atheists their whole lives don't have any problem with the meaning of life if there is no god.


Such people will often conclude that doing away with traditional religion leaves them with absolute freedom to invent a religion of their own. Which starts to get damn scary when you start really listening to them and you discover what they are really saying. In the end, it all comes down to this. They believe that if they can eventually depose traditional religion, the brand of "faith" they can replace it with will be far more powerful and harder to argue with than some vague story about some invisible man in the sky.


I'd say that is the origin of ALL religions.


They will base their new religion on things that seem concrete and impossible to argue with. Which will make it just as dangerous as traditional religion. Perhaps more. The worship of society. The worship of science. The worship of knowledge. All of these things sound great but are actually very troubling to contemplate.


Newer religions just take the information of the day and incorporate it into reality. Sure it will be tough to displace the newer ones intellectually, but give it a few hundred years and their concepts will become outdated as well.


Every day you see that a "new study" has been done and "the experts say" what they need to say in order to convince the masses that what they say is correct and proper and necessary. Whether these are truths or lies is not (for the moment) the point. The point is that there is a certain element in society that believes them without question. Simply because they trust the messenger and wouldn't dream of questioning them. That is dangerous. That is a religion. It's as bad as any other religion. These are people who would blindly follow their deity wherever it wanted them to go.


Here is the difference here. Science is backed up by peer review. Anyone is able to review the work and see if it is true or not. You DON'T have to take the scientist's word for it. Sure many do, but you don't have to.


The point is the fundamental ignorance of the common man doesn't go away just because he changes his faith. Think about this. Every day, hundreds of millions of people get into their cars, turn the key and hit the gas. All of the mindlessly complicated crap that has to happen in order to make that simple thing possible is probably the furthest thing from their minds.....unless something goes wrong. And when that happens, they pick up the phone (Another mindlessly complicated device they don't understand but use every day) and call someone to come fix it. These are not people who are in denial of anything (generally). They are people who don't need to try to understand the complexities of things around them. They live their lives and everything seems fine. All of this crazy technology seems just fine to them.


This is why I want critical thinking to be more thoroughly taught in schools. Kids don't grow up and are suddenly critical thinkers. They have to nurture that skill with proper education. Sure not, everyone is going to be an amazing thinker, but basic critical thinking isn't that hard and can easily vet out many of the silliest fallacies.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: texastig

originally posted by: intrptr
The ignorance comes from just believing that the Christian God is the one true god, implying all others are false. Its hammered into every Churchian. There is no proof of this, just believe it, just profess it, and just convince others to do the same.


Jesus said in John 14:6 that He is the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father without Him. Either Jesus was lying or He's telling the truth. And by His character I believe He's telling the truth.

To say there is no proof is fallacious. You haven't even looked at the data. Jesus is real like any other historical person. There's more manuscripts for the New Testament than any other ancient works.

I was raised in the church. "Manuscripts" are proof of nothing.

Bible Hub



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
It is amazing to me how people call other people ignorant in their own ignorance. Left wing ideals are so foreign to me that they may as well be from some other planet. Yet, I have no need to bash, ridicule, or name call them because I am confident in what it is I believe. You cannot sway me so you are no threat to me. As a Christian conservative I stand strong in the face of all opposition and accusation. And this gets under the skin of those who try to pry the confidence from us.

The person who has the need to name call, accuse, and label with catch words or "dog whistles" is the one who is not sure in themselves. It isn't enough to believe as they wish, but there is the need to conform those who don't to their side, to convince them of the errors of their ways. It's frustrating, I can see that, and I see the shaky ground that it stands on, never really being sure of anything.

Rather than point out all of the wrongs of those who do not believe as you do, would it not be better to put forth the ideals and things that you believe and let people decide for themselves? I think so. For instance. I will tell you mine.

I believe in God who created everything and His Son Jesus. I believe people have the right to acknowledge God or deny God and this decision is for each person. I believe in a smaller government and a freer people who gain wealth through hard word, applied learning, and a desire to be the very best they can be. I believe in less taxation except for defense and infrastructure without the need for extravagant welfare societies that give allegiance to the state. I believe in the right to life from conception to old age. I believe in the right to one's own pursuit of happiness and to decide one's own destiny. I believe in the concept of what it means to be an American as set forth by the founders of the nation. These are some of my ideals.

Left people, liberals, others. Try not to label me or slam me, or name call me. I invite you to state your ideals as they are which you take confidence in and stand on with your life.





edit on 2-6-2015 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Jesus is historical. Read Tacitus book on first century Rome. He speaks of a man named Jesus. You really should put down your bias for a time and do some actual research about Jesus. Don't use the bible. If you then come to the conclusion he never existed at least you will have said you took an unbiased view. reply to: boymonkey74



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: MoreCowbell
Jesus is historical. Read Tacitus book on first century Rome. He speaks of a man named Jesus. You really should put down your bias for a time and do some actual research about Jesus. Don't use the bible. If you then come to the conclusion he never existed at least you will have said you took an unbiased view. reply to: boymonkey74



Sure, if you like to go that road, please provide reference to your claims.

But before you even start, don't you think this might have been done over and over to the same results?? The one you will not acknowledge due to YOUR BIAS)
edit on 2-6-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MoreCowbell

Oh I have and Jesus is a common name for the time also show me any manuscript written while Jesus lived.
I believed in Jesus when I was a child but after researching Christianity and other religions I came to the conclusion that they are man made not from God and the roman empire became the roman catholic church.
Oh and also do a search on ATS there are a few very good threads about Jesus not having any real evidence...but that shouldn't matter you have faith...
edit on 2-6-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent


But here's the thing. There was NEVER a time when we were a Christian nation. That isn't maintaining the status quo. That is changing it.


Reread what I said. Sure, there was never a time where the US of A was like "our official religious is Christianity." But the status quo is (was?) for most of the population to either be Christian or agree with broadly conservative Christian social mores. That's not the case now, but it was.


Would Liberal be a better word then?


Not necessarily. Check out Objectivism: very new, in the grand scheme of things, neither liberal or progressive. (Ayn Rand ring any bells? Objectivism is her philosophy.) Besides which, "liberal" is pretty meaningless today. I'd consider myself a classical liberal, and I'd give Democrats and lefties fits with my worldview.



I don't necessarily oppose fracking for earthquake reasons (that's a myth). I don't like all the nasty run off going into water reservoirs though, but fracking is linked to the oil companies. I want to do away with needing oil altogether, so I oppose fracking for those reasons. I don't mind nuclear power either, provided that the waste is handled properly.

In fact, both of those arguments comes down to proper waste disposal efforts, which the companies in charge tend to be notoriously bad with. This brings me to the point I made in the OP about companies showing that they can't be responsible with individual liberty and need to be governmentally regulated. Both fracking and nuclear power have the potential to seriously wreck the environment that they are placed in if mishandled. Yet companies don't always take that seriously enough and will cut corners to save costs.


Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen you go for these myths, just pointing out that religious conservatism is *not* by any means the only ideology out there to embrace ignorance. Both parties/sides feed off of it for power.



I think you'd be hard pressed to find a university that did that and was accredited. So it wouldn't REALLY be a university.


Nope, wouldn't be hard pressed at all. Look at Bob Jones or Pensacola Christian College. I think they're supposed to be good schools, too, when it comes to some of their programs, or at least the quality of the students they produce.



Well that is likely untrue, but is close to impossible to prove and I would have to argue is closer to an opinion then. Of course, I'm not trying to suggest teachers are never wrong. I'm arguing about intellectual consensus here, not the opinions and ideas of a select few teachers. If a teacher teaches something outside the norm of accepted academia, you MAY want to verify what he is saying.


There's not "intellectual consensus" in academia on a lot of things: that's why we have academic freedom, academic debates, panel discussions, books, scholarly papers, etc. etc. (Although I'm pretty certain there's intellectual consensus that there's no such thing as an unbiased publication
) My point here is that some colleges deserve criticism, and saying that they're happy fluffy places where people are educated in a proper and unbiased fashion isn't always true. Frankly, I'm a little disturbed by this idea of "accepted academia" you're putting out: the whole idea of academia is to drive education by refusing to simply accept norms.



There are plenty of religious universities that teach all of those concepts.


Yup. But not all conservatives send their kids to them. And even that doesn't guarantee that the kids will turn out how the parents want them to turn out. Anyway, higher ed is supposedly more liberal than America as a whole, which I think explains why people feel like their kids are being indoctrinated into liberal ideas...because in a way they are, just as one would be indoctrinated into conservative ideas if they went to a conservative school. Personally, I think that raving about leftist bias is largely pointless (so what?) but I can understand why conservatives would act anti-academic: because universities are perceived (correctly, probably) as largely liberal institutions.



Well that is why we have the accrediting system. If a university tries to teach something that isn't true, they may not be accredited or won't maintain their accreditation for long.


First off, universities don't teach things, teachers do. Secondly, the accrediting agency doesn't have omniscience, which is useful if you're trying to figure out if what people are teaching is false, or if people are teaching false things. But just because a university teaches factual information doesn't mean that they're any good. Universities should teach people to learn and to think, not just to recite facts. And most schools don't prepare their students to embrace the fullness of life. People have a lot of technical education these days, but how many people that you talk to have any education in literature, music, political theory, economics or art? Chances are unless they're studying that subject, they don't even a basic working knowledge of it. That's not an education, that's preparation for life inside a cubical pressing the same buttons day after day after day.



Thanks.


Welcome



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Reread what I said. Sure, there was never a time where the US of A was like "our official religious is Christianity." But the status quo is (was?) for most of the population to either be Christian or agree with broadly conservative Christian social mores. That's not the case now, but it was.


There is a difference between being a Christian nation and a nation of Christians. We are the second and up until the latter 1930's and early 1940's most of America understood that as true.


Not necessarily. Check out Objectivism: very new, in the grand scheme of things, neither liberal or progressive. (Ayn Rand ring any bells? Objectivism is her philosophy.) Besides which, "liberal" is pretty meaningless today. I'd consider myself a classical liberal, and I'd give Democrats and lefties fits with my worldview.


Ayn Rand is more of an old school conservative though. Small government, no religion, let the market decide policy, etc. She's more Libertarian than any Libertarian figurehead today, that's for sure. Though I can see your point in that Libertarianism started out as a Liberal ideology (hence why the word "Liberal" shows up in it).

I don't think pure Libertarianism will ever work, nor do I think pure Socialism will ever work. Like I said, I prefer a balance of the two, with a slight bias towards smaller government. This is because competition truly does increase efficiency and the government has no one to compete against; hence why everything it touches becomes bloated with unnecessary bureaucracy. Though I also recognize that at times this bureaucracy is necessary.


Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen you go for these myths, just pointing out that religious conservatism is *not* by any means the only ideology out there to embrace ignorance. Both parties/sides feed off of it for power.


Naturally, both parties are guilty of it to suit their needs, but inarguably the right does it FAR more than the left.


Nope, wouldn't be hard pressed at all. Look at Bob Jones or Pensacola Christian College. I think they're supposed to be good schools, too, when it comes to some of their programs, or at least the quality of the students they produce.


Honestly, I hadn't heard of PCC until today. I had to wiki them to see if what you said is true. It should be noted that PCC was only accredited recently back in 2011 (by a Christian accreditation group nonetheless) and had been starkly opposed to accreditation until the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools extended them a candidacy for accreditation. So to me that reads that the college knew it was peddling bull# and wasn't going to accredit because they knew that the accrediting agency would tell them to change their course material and it wasn't until an accreditation agency that agreed with them extended accreditation that they changed their tune.

PCC

BJU has a similar history, though they've fared better with post graduate careers for the students than PCC. It should be noted that they don't teach very many sciences that conflict with YEC, so the debate probably doesn't come up in their lectures. BJU was accredited by the same people who accredited PCC.

BJU

Though interesting none the less. Hopefully science minded students graduating from such universities go onto proper post-grad schools or don't get work in an evolutionary science field like Genetics. Though I wonder how BJU reconciles teaching astronomy and defining a light-year...


There's not "intellectual consensus" in academia on a lot of things: that's why we have academic freedom, academic debates, panel discussions, books, scholarly papers, etc. etc. (Although I'm pretty certain there's intellectual consensus that there's no such thing as an unbiased publication
) My point here is that some colleges deserve criticism, and saying that they're happy fluffy places where people are educated in a proper and unbiased fashion isn't always true. Frankly, I'm a little disturbed by this idea of "accepted academia" you're putting out: the whole idea of academia is to drive education by refusing to simply accept norms.


There is a difference between questioning the norms and flat out ignoring evidence that the norms are correct.


Yup. But not all conservatives send their kids to them. And even that doesn't guarantee that the kids will turn out how the parents want them to turn out. Anyway, higher ed is supposedly more liberal than America as a whole, which I think explains why people feel like their kids are being indoctrinated into liberal ideas...because in a way they are, just as one would be indoctrinated into conservative ideas if they went to a conservative school. Personally, I think that raving about leftist bias is largely pointless (so what?) but I can understand why conservatives would act anti-academic: because universities are perceived (correctly, probably) as largely liberal institutions.


I think you just highlighted a point, rather indirectly, that I didn't mention in the OP. Parents desiring that their children think as they exactly as they do. Conservative parents MUST have conservative children. Liberal parents MUST have liberal children. That is ridiculous and too controlling. Just educate the children and let them come to their own ideas about how the government should be ran.


First off, universities don't teach things, teachers do. Secondly, the accrediting agency doesn't have omniscience, which is useful if you're trying to figure out if what people are teaching is false, or if people are teaching false things. But just because a university teaches factual information doesn't mean that they're any good. Universities should teach people to learn and to think, not just to recite facts. And most schools don't prepare their students to embrace the fullness of life. People have a lot of technical education these days, but how many people that you talk to have any education in literature, music, political theory, economics or art? Chances are unless they're studying that subject, they don't even a basic working knowledge of it. That's not an education, that's preparation for life inside a cubical pressing the same buttons day after day after day.


Right. I agree, schools should teach critical thinking. Largely I think that universities do it MUCH better than grade schools, but the problem is that grade schools are so TERRIBLE at teaching critical thinking, that the universities may have to fall back on rote memorization because that's all the students know.

I agree with you about the arts. I certainly became more rounded as a person as I started to more thoroughly study music (which opened my eyes to other arts as well). Though I'd say that university is a little late to introduce the children to the arts and expect them to be as easily enthralled with it as they may have been when younger. Not that it doesn't happen (it happened to me when I was 27), it just isn't as likely.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fromabove
It is amazing to me how people call other people ignorant in their own ignorance. Left wing ideals are so foreign to me that they may as well be from some other planet. Yet, I have no need to bash, ridicule, or name call them because I am confident in what it is I believe. You cannot sway me so you are no threat to me. As a Christian conservative I stand strong in the face of all opposition and accusation. And this gets under the skin of those who try to pry the confidence from us.


Standing opposed to facts just makes you stubborn, not conservative.


The person who has the need to name call, accuse, and label with catch words or "dog whistles" is the one who is not sure in themselves. It isn't enough to believe as they wish, but there is the need to conform those who don't to their side, to convince them of the errors of their ways. It's frustrating, I can see that, and I see the shaky ground that it stands on, never really being sure of anything.


This is bland philosophy along the lines of stuff similar to "the bully is just acting out because of problems at home", like that is the ONLY motivation for someone to do what they do. For reference, I am FIRM ground with my beliefs. Though it should also be noted that I haven't directly called anyone in this thread "ignorant", but if what I described in the OP rings true to you, then you may want to reexamine things.


Rather than point out all of the wrongs of those who do not believe as you do, would it not be better to put forth the ideals and things that you believe and let people decide for themselves? I think so. For instance. I will tell you mine.


I do that all the time on these boards. This is a different way to approach the argument.


I believe in God who created everything and His Son Jesus. I believe people have the right to acknowledge God or deny God and this decision is for each person. I believe in a smaller government and a freer people who gain wealth through hard word, applied learning, and a desire to be the very best they can be. I believe in less taxation except for defense and infrastructure without the need for extravagant welfare societies that give allegiance to the state. I believe in the right to life from conception to old age. I believe in the right to one's own pursuit of happiness and to decide one's own destiny. I believe in the concept of what it means to be an American as set forth by the founders of the nation. These are some of my ideals.


Those are GREAT conservative ideals, but none of them are religious Conservative ideals, which is what my OP was about. So this thread may not be talking about you.


Left people, liberals, others. Try not to label me or slam me, or name call me. I invite you to state your ideals as they are which you take confidence in and stand on with your life.


I did. I put them in the OP.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hey, you never replied to my post on page 5. I was curious to see your response.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t


First, Sorry. I was just shotgun responding to everyone who responded to me since last week and must have missed this reply.


Krazy Krazy Krazy... I think you're confusing a few things, so I'll delightfully explain
But first I'll agree on one thing. The only technical "conservatives" in America are the Amish, Mennonites, & some Native American Tribes (though many of them also teach newer technologies, languages, etc). Everyone else is progressive to different extents, including the American right wing. Otherwise they'd cling to old gun technologies, old home appliances, would hand make their clothing, etc. Now for the misunderstandings:


I was kind of alluding to this indirectly in the OP. Progressive ideas eventually become conservative ideas as generations age and these political ideologies become older and newer ones pop up to replace them in "newness"


1. You're confusing Christian fundamentalism with the American Christian right wing. They're not the same. In fact, most Christian nations in Europe & Latin America follow something called the "Social Gospel" or its offshoot, "Christian Socialism". They work to put Christianity and the Prophet Jesus' teachings into practice through policies and social norms. In fact, If I'm not mistaken, Germany's Leader Angela Merkel's party is called the Christian Democratic Party lol And they're "conservative" in Germany, though they'd be "progressives" in America. Even the Muslim Arab countries use something called "Arab Socialism".


I wouldn't say that I am "confusing" the two, more like trying to suggest that the American Christian right wing uses Christian fundamentalism to further its goals by appealing to them FIRST then other conservatives a distant second. This achieves the effect of alienating conservatives that aren't necessarily Christian or even fundamentalist.


2. America is the capitalism capital of the world. If you want to learn more about political policies & Christianity, you'd do much better learning about them in other countries. Because everything taught here is going to be from a right wing & capitalist point of view.


This isn't supposed to be an anti-religion thread. I'm trying to point out how the right, by hiding behind Christianity to further its ideology, is promoting ignorance.


People here don't talk about it, but the Cold War was really about the former Empires from the Imperialism period fighting off rebellions from their former subjects. The major communist (left wing) powers aided the colored people of Africa, East Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America against the capitalist central bankers (right wing) from the West. So communism and its offshoot "socialism" will always be demonized in America, because America was always against it. In fact, if you look at our military interventions in Latin America during the Cold War, you'll see that we always funded right wing militant groups which always attacked the left wing communism/socialism groups. Just look into "The School of the Americas". So even though nearly all people in Latin America are Christians, you're seeing two vastly different political interpretations of Christianity.

Hope this helps.


Our country hasn't always been anti-Socialist. Sure a large part of the anti-Socialist atmosphere came from the Red Scares where we (unjustly) hunted Communists in this country, but in the 1930's Socialism was quite popular in America. That's what the New Deal was all about. Socialism.

And again, this thread isn't about Christianity, but American politics. What I'm trying to suggest here is that Christianity is merely a tool of the people in charge of the right wing to get as many Christians as possible on their side by using an appeal to religion fallacy. This despite the fact that capitalistic Christianity is pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what Jesus preached. Your example of Socialist Christianity is probably closer to what Jesus would have wanted (though I'm sure that has its flaws too that makes it not exactly Christian in nature).



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t


First, Sorry. I was just shotgun responding to everyone who responded to me since last week and must have missed this reply.


Krazy Krazy Krazy... I think you're confusing a few things, so I'll delightfully explain
But first I'll agree on one thing. The only technical "conservatives" in America are the Amish, Mennonites, & some Native American Tribes (though many of them also teach newer technologies, languages, etc). Everyone else is progressive to different extents, including the American right wing. Otherwise they'd cling to old gun technologies, old home appliances, would hand make their clothing, etc. Now for the misunderstandings:


I was kind of alluding to this indirectly in the OP. Progressive ideas eventually become conservative ideas as generations age and these political ideologies become older and newer ones pop up to replace them in "newness"


1. You're confusing Christian fundamentalism with the American Christian right wing. They're not the same. In fact, most Christian nations in Europe & Latin America follow something called the "Social Gospel" or its offshoot, "Christian Socialism". They work to put Christianity and the Prophet Jesus' teachings into practice through policies and social norms. In fact, If I'm not mistaken, Germany's Leader Angela Merkel's party is called the Christian Democratic Party lol And they're "conservative" in Germany, though they'd be "progressives" in America. Even the Muslim Arab countries use something called "Arab Socialism".


I wouldn't say that I am "confusing" the two, more like trying to suggest that the American Christian right wing uses Christian fundamentalism to further its goals by appealing to them FIRST then other conservatives a distant second. This achieves the effect of alienating conservatives that aren't necessarily Christian or even fundamentalist.


2. America is the capitalism capital of the world. If you want to learn more about political policies & Christianity, you'd do much better learning about them in other countries. Because everything taught here is going to be from a right wing & capitalist point of view.


This isn't supposed to be an anti-religion thread. I'm trying to point out how the right, by hiding behind Christianity to further its ideology, is promoting ignorance.


People here don't talk about it, but the Cold War was really about the former Empires from the Imperialism period fighting off rebellions from their former subjects. The major communist (left wing) powers aided the colored people of Africa, East Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America against the capitalist central bankers (right wing) from the West. So communism and its offshoot "socialism" will always be demonized in America, because America was always against it. In fact, if you look at our military interventions in Latin America during the Cold War, you'll see that we always funded right wing militant groups which always attacked the left wing communism/socialism groups. Just look into "The School of the Americas". So even though nearly all people in Latin America are Christians, you're seeing two vastly different political interpretations of Christianity.

Hope this helps.


Our country hasn't always been anti-Socialist. Sure a large part of the anti-Socialist atmosphere came from the Red Scares where we (unjustly) hunted Communists in this country, but in the 1930's Socialism was quite popular in America. That's what the New Deal was all about. Socialism.

And again, this thread isn't about Christianity, but American politics. What I'm trying to suggest here is that Christianity is merely a tool of the people in charge of the right wing to get as many Christians as possible on their side by using an appeal to religion fallacy. This despite the fact that capitalistic Christianity is pretty much the exact OPPOSITE of what Jesus preached. Your example of Socialist Christianity is probably closer to what Jesus would have wanted (though I'm sure that has its flaws too that makes it not exactly Christian in nature).


Thanks for the reply lol.

I know you didn't mean the thread as an anti-Christian thread. But I was pointing out that it's not "hiding behind Christianity" that's the problem, it's the far right wing's interpretation of Christianity that causes the issues you mentioned in the OP. So I pointed out Christian Socialism as a way to show that the majority of Christians globally aren't against social progress, science, environmental issues, etc. In fact, Brazil has perhaps the world's best ethanol industry & is a huge proponent of renewable energies, and it's a Catholic "Christian Socialist" country.

I could've also used Dr. & Reverend MLK as an example, since his group (The Southern Christian Leadership Conference) was at the forefront for social progress. But I didn't think that would drive home the point as well. I just wanted to show that it's not religious conservatism that's the problem, it's the interpretation of religious conservatism that creates problems. If the majority of the American Christian base decided to adopt the social gospel approach, the far right wing would have to change tactics.

And you're right that they use religion as a tool. But every culture does that to an extent. Leaders will use whatever resonates with the masses to rally them, be it religion, ideology, or a celebrity (which is the entire point of endorsement deals).



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Thanks for the reply lol.

I know you didn't mean the thread as an anti-Christian thread. But I was pointing out that it's not "hiding behind Christianity" that's the problem, it's the far right wing's interpretation of Christianity that causes the issues you mentioned in the OP. So I pointed out Christian Socialism as a way to show that the majority of Christians globally aren't against social progress, science, environmental issues, etc. In fact, Brazil has perhaps the world's best ethanol industry & is a huge proponent of renewable energies, and it's a Catholic "Christian Socialist" country.


I agree with this and have even eluded to it when I pointed out how the majority of the left in America is also Christian but doesn't believe as the right does.


I could've also used Dr. & Reverend MLK as an example, since his group (The Southern Christian Leadership Conference) was at the forefront for social progress. But I didn't think that would drive home the point as well. I just wanted to show that it's not religious conservatism that's the problem, it's the interpretation of religious conservatism that creates problems. If the majority of the American Christian base decided to adopt the social gospel approach, the far right wing would have to change tactics.


The far right would have to adopt different tactics if the right just stopped embracing ignorance really. It doesn't have to be Socialist Christianity to do it either.


And you're right that they use religion as a tool. But every culture does that to an extent. Leaders will use whatever resonates with the masses to rally them, be it religion, ideology, or a celebrity (which is the entire point of endorsement deals).


This is why I'm calling attention to it. So that people can recognize it for what it is and, hopefully, react appropriately.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I don't know...the FSM doesn't seem all that scary to me.

From the atheists that I've encountered, they don't get drug down with discussions about the pointlessness of life. Life ends, and it's lights out. The end. Moving on.

I think you need to meet some other atheists that aren't so militant. I don't care for those kinds of people...they always are waving their anti-belief in everyone's face.

Don't believe in anything? Great! Then you don't have anything to to talk about, right? Oh...*sigh*....



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join