Christianity and Conservatism

Can someone be conservative, if he isn't religious (agnostic)?

Other urls found in this thread:

logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Can someone be a human being if he shares his wife?

What the fuck do you think, bellend?

Yep. I am.

why would you want to be?
being degenerate/liberal would maximize pleasure for yourself, and that sort of hedonism/utilitarianism would be the only objective measure of 'good' in an atheistic worldview.

Depends on what you mean by conservative.

Like, not having sex before marriage is clearly a Christian thing, but a person could be non-religious and still be of the opinion that social cohesion and monogamy is better than the alternative.

No

>Can someone be conservative, if he isn't religious (agnostic)?

Christianity = anti conservatism.

because being liberal you get less pleasure. In a Christian world view the only objective measure of good is how much you pray.

yes.

op is a fag


troll thread btw.

yes

fuck off christfags

It's literally "meh" for atheists. Depends how they feel about it in the moment

They have no stable or long-lasting principles

Cute meme.

It's true unfortunately

No, it isn't.

>because being liberal you get less pleasure
how so?
they're liberated from the social norms that hinder some people's ability to achieve worldly pleasure.
>fuck before marriage
>murder their unborn child if they don't feel like taking care of it
>pretend to be male, woman, or manwoman and every made-up thing inbetween
>engage in sodomy

Yes, it is.

Yes. Christians off all colors became very tolerant to the animals trying to hunt them down, commies or mudslimes.

The whole "help the refugees" thisng and "feed the Africa" is very much a Christian thing.

I probably want to preserve/conserve more of the old tradition including Christian and pre-Christian, than a bunch of bleed-hearts.

No it isn't you smug kike.

Yes it is you dumb shit

he's right, you know.
atheists have nothing to ground morality in.

the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

>atheists have nothing to ground morality in.

Neither have you.

Why do you think "Muh bible says so" is any different from "this philosophical treatise on ethics says so" ?

epistemology vs ontology, my friend.
christians at least have the concept of something to objectively ground morality in. provable or not.

>christians at least have the concept of something to objectively ground morality in

This is just a trick of words.

All morality boils down to a single given axiom, doesn't matter if it's God, or if it's Reason.

But you religious cucks think it's somehow different when it's God, which is isn't at all, it's just another axiom.

Yes! who cares if someone believes in a god or not?

the basis of the reasoning for believing in moral absolutes in an atheistic worldview is intuition, and intuition varies from person to person.

granted: that IS basically the exact same thing being done when some theologian interprets texts that have moral prescriptions alleged to be revealed from God.

but the difference is, in christianity, you have a lawgiver for the moral laws, in an atheistic worldview that decides to hold to moral realism, moral absolutes just are because my feelings say so.

that's weak, warrantless, and everything you people attack the typical christian for.

take out "because my feelings say so"
i had a cogent point being made but that addition completely fucked it.

Couldn't have put it better myself

We assimilate our axioms. Atheists are perpetually fidgeting around which one they really want to believe in at a given time

It's all the same to them

Yes. Im a Thatcherite and as agnostic atheist as you can be.
The two dont even overlap.
One is a political system for fairness and the spread of wealth ONCE the money has been made
The other is an imaginary friend of a sun struck kike.

yes

Quite. All that's required of conservatism, at bottom, is adherence to law and order. Sprinkle in some strict adherence to traditions and customs and you're golden. "God" is an afterthought and has been since Nietzsche and Freud.

>moral absolutes just are because my feelings say so.

This is a strawman, and you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

If ethics is based on reason, and reasoning, then moral absolutes are based on reason, no emotions.

Are you going to tell me that deontological ethics are based on emotions?

Stop making a fool out of yourself you fucking ignorant moron, and go read a book.

thats not true for most of us.People dont need a all powerful force to keep them in line with their morals.some people need that feeling of importance that Christianity gives and some dont. making such broad statements isn't right.

>If ethics is based on reason
They aren't. They're based on fee-fees. You can't have moral absolutes in a meaningless universe. Hence the entire point that without God there is no morality. Go read a book.

>If ethics is based on reason

Ethics cannot come from reason

Yahtzee!

You can't have a coherent and fixed set of morals in the absence of an absolute authority

hahaha shit.
yeah i knew you were going to grab that part, i wish i could edit my shitposts, or at least learn to proofread them before i hit post.

have you read any of russ shafer-landau's work on the topic?
what books have you read?

>moral absolutes are based on reason
what did you mean by this? moral absolutes are absolute because reason says so?
wouldn't that be subjective?

my morals are based on truth.
my conscience is my absolute authority

if you need to read a book to achieve morals then they are weak.

>Hence the entire point that without God there is no morality.

Right. I guess that's why all the atheists are currently out murdering people then.

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting Christcuck.

Your conscience is your feels. Your feel are variable, unstable and incoherent

You're amoral sociopaths. But you've been trained to fear the punishment that you would get if you go out of line

Even psychopaths understand this basic instinctual morality

No empathy needed to realise you're in trouble if you don't listen and get caught by the state

my conscience is not variable.it will act the same for every situation.my feels need not be involved.

post yfw pisslam gets destroyed by God

toplel, this is some stellar b8 m8

so you think without god you would have no morals? sounds sociopathic

Redpilled Nigger/Jew/fag/feminist hating diehard conservative atheist reporting.

We exist

I'm not even kidding. There is no moral obligation to allow yourself to empathise with anyone

You can just do what you want and there's nothing objectively bad about it

Put yourself to the test in real, similar situations. Get out of your thought experiments and you'll see you'll come to feel differently every time you'd encounter a given moral quandary

Obviously.

i have you idiot.i react to things based on what the situation calls for according to what i know is right and wrong

>I'm not even kidding. There is no moral obligation to allow yourself to empathise with anyone
>You can just do what you want and there's nothing objectively bad about it

The fact that you actually believe this is true, makes you the sociopath user.

What is right and what is wrong? Share that knowledge with us

that is for every individual person to decide for themselves

Whatever it makes me. It logically follows from an atheistic worldview

If I've committed any error in my reasoning, point it out so we can see

hedonism is an empty and meaningless pleasure, im not religious but the conservative value of community and the nuclear family are the true path to happiness

So I'm completely entitled to decide what's right and what's wrong?

Death to all you papist scum. The right to overthrow an unjust ruler is a right only we can claim. Long have we fought to rid ourselves of the papist dictator and we shall destroy this evil as we will destroy the religion of 'peace'. Jews can stay, thanks for all the money bros!

yes as long as you dont push it onto others.

Is it wrong to push it unto others?

yes

I am agnostic, but I don't feel you are real christian.Your faith should be supported by your spirit and your spirit should be supported by your faith.If you are worthless if faith is taken away from you, you are worthless even if you have it.

Objectively wrong?

Of course.

See: John Derbyshire, Theodore Dalrymple, etc.

We're all evil without our faith in God. But we do have worth

everything you do pushes something onto others because we are social animals. if a big portion of the population becomes obese, that affects me by reducing the possible pool of mates. if people all decide to withdraw into being vidya loving neets, any sense of community and the fulfillment i get from it are gone.

the government needs to step in and promote pro-social behavior.

I'm an atheist (don't tell my wife that) but also still attend church and promote the Christian religion as part of western culture

I also understand if I live in an all "athiest" society it would be a socialist dump and an all Islamic country I would be committing a crime for being an athiest

Fuck off, retard. That verse means that anybody can be Christian, not everybody is exactly the same.

Riddle me this, faggot: Why did Pentecost happen if Christianity means everybody is supposed to be exactly the same?

>We're all evil without our faith in God
I am not.

But you are, just look at your flag.

>the government needs to step in and promote pro-social behavior.

Government needs to protect your Right to Pursue Happiness

No one could pursue happiness while living in total depravity

Being conservative and atheist is the ultimate red pill. at some point the atheists will rise up and exterminate their parasitic religious peons, after theyre used to make a utopia

Even in such depressed country I am not.What is your point?

You're still hopelessly sinful and depraved without God, regardless of how much you'd try to redefine morality to suit you

Cuckstians will betray their people for Jewsus.

>dindu veneration
>jew slave morality
>ignore rampant homosexuality in clergy
>ignore rampant paedophilia in the clergy
>be a good goy
>basically communists

There's nothing to conserve if you aren't religious. Atheist "conservatives" are really just small government anti-regulation types, and in the realm of political science we call that liberal capitalism.

Maybe, but conservatism is based on tradition and religion had always been a really important part of european tradition

Pic related is the most based conservative movement of all of spanish history(they went downhill really fast after the spanish civil war though), catholicism was a really important part of carlism

there are natural non-religious reasons to support conservative social policies - the nuclear family is the foundation of a successful and happy life and the more diverse a community is the more dysfunctional it is

Yeah well there are all kinds of (((studies))) that show a kid can be raised by fags or 2 moms and 3 dads or whatever it might be and still turn out ok, so I don't think that idea of non-religious social conservatism has much of a leg to stand on in the current year.

obviously the gay couples that raise kids will be invested in them, as they have to jump through a million hoops to get a kid in the first place.

i dont really care about gay marriage, i care about pushing the idea of homosex and trannies onto impressionable kids and ruining their lives.

I don't believe one can be right wing or conservative anything and be a half decent Christian. Governments are put here by God. He is always in control of everything. Dark shit might have certain leashes but bow your head and believe in Christ and they can't touch you. Everything about the right wing from gay marriage on down is an ABOMINATION AND THEN THEY THROW UP ALL SORTS OF ZIONIST SATANIC GARBAGE! TURN AWAY! You KNOW in your heart of hearts that Trump and Christ are OXYMORON!

>my morality is to blindly follow a book wrote by kike sandniggers a few thousands years ago

Do you really need the Bible to know that murdering people is wrong ?

>I believe morality is purely subjective

Define morality

I thought murder was subjectively wrong

Why would you enforce this subjective belief on people frog?

The definition of good and evil

Murder is objectively wrong because it harms society as a whole. I don't need a two thousand years old kike's book to know that

From which perspective ?

So there are certain moral values which are objective

But your dick is not able to get hard

An absolute perspective (God) - objective morality
A relative perspective (humans) - subjective morality

Appealing to an imaginary absolute doesn't negate this same fallacy when it comes to theists;

in other words, you can claim to have an objective independent moral arbiter, but if you can't produce them, you have as many independent moral arbiters as atheists.
This is only 'tu qouqe' for reasoning, but if you're trying to claim that one is better than the other, then you have to show that theyre not on equal footing.

Atheism is better than theism because there is no good evidence for gods. Thats a good reason to not believe in them.

Can someone be gay if they're not a conservative christian? Would male prostitutes make any money if they didn't exist?

americans and christians cant be conservative
only euro passive, cultural christians can be con.man fyck smartphones shits ha4d to type on

Morality is what you perceive as right or wrong.
I believe morality is an evolutionary / cultural trait and therefore it's more-or-less objective.

Then I guess it cannot be objective for an atheist by your definition.
As an atheist, I think that there is a moral objectivity when it's from the perspective of the society as a whole.
See what I said above

>in other words, you can claim to have an objective independent moral arbiter, but if you can't produce them, you have as many independent moral arbiters as atheists.

Only God can be an absolute moral arbiter. Everything moral is dependent upon the subject (subjective) if you assume God doesn't exist

>This is only 'tu qouqe' for reasoning, but if you're trying to claim that one is better than the other, then you have to show that theyre not on equal footing.

One is absolute morality. The other is subjective and relative to the person

>Atheism is better than theism because there is no good evidence for gods. Thats a good reason to not believe in them.

That's a rational reason to suspend your belief. But it's just as irrational to believe that gives you knowledge of God's absence

logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

knowledge is something that is demonstrable as true.
If you can't show it,you don't know it.

Information is only AS USEFUL as the ACCURACY of the PREDICTIONS IT PROVIDES.

You can't produce god, therefore you are ceding you have absolutely no morality, under your definition.

I think you're better than that, and have more faith in humans.

You ARE capable of being moral and knowing what morality is, any social species can develop empathy.

I have more faith in your being moral than you do, since you can't produce god to back up your otherwise facile argument (without one to produce)

>there is a moral objectivity
>from the perspective

>of society as a whole.

There is no human society as a whole. And the multitude of ones that concretely exist have been at many stages in history and pre-history designed according to different morals

You can't escape relativism that way. Unless you imagine there's this perfect ideal human society towards which we all should aspire to

Then you have the possibility of absolute secular morality

But it's completely as speculative as God

but at least we can agree that the god we are talking about is
Evidently
(things that are both FACTS regardless of belief, AND point toward a true conclusion)
in this case, is not true.

I anticipate a disagreement, so I repeat.
Facts exclusively concordant with a true conclusion; this god does not have such evidence that other theory's cannot account for.