Why do liberals play at being humanist?

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:23:48 -0400

The liberal philosophy is one of secular humanism. They cite dawrinism as a main reason why they do not believe in a God. These same rational social darwinist neglect to understand what darwinism means for humanist. If we as humans are nothing more than the end result of a purely random purely amoral blind evolutionary process… then the very notion of being a humanist is utterly philosophically inconsistent. If human life is simply a glorious accident and all feelings of anything else like love for your family, patriotism, compassion for another human being… .if these are nothing more than chemical reactions taking place inside your body… then how do liberal humanist… aka social darwinist…. Aka.. Athiest.. (All one and the same) how do they reason that people… any people have rights? Why do these liberal humanist pretend to care about the poor, the sick, the defensless when any rational philosophically consistent liberal should understand thats its all just a bunch of chemical reactions and nothing really matters with this point of view. It is the only rational philosophically consistent view that an educated rational liberal can have. So why the play at humanism? It has been utterly debunked by Darwin while thiest still have no trouble believing in God. Explain your motivations and how they are philosophically consistent.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 9 at 2015 8:25 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:25:15 -0400

I am not sure why liberalism seems drawn to humanism SrA Art Siatkowsky.
I sense that modern liberals forget how social Darwinism was linked to eugenics in the 1930's when it was considered reasonable to advocate for abortion for colored and poor folks because it was supposed to benefit society. Society would "benefit" by a reduction in the sheer number of people in the "lower classes" of society and the cost of keeping them alive would be reduced.
Some liberal elites tend to think that they know best and that government top-down solutions are the best hope for relieving the plight of the impoverished in this nation and throughout the world - despite all the evidence of corruption to the contrary.

Response by SSG Michael Scott made Oct 9 at 2015 8:28 PM

SSG Michael Scott — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:28:38 -0400

Just like muslims have that word taqyuia, meaning to lie about something at all cost for the benefit for their so called beliefs. Liberals do the same things, lies.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Oct 9 at 2015 8:36 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:36:51 -0400

Why are conservatives drawn to atheist philosophers like Rand who openly repudiated Christian moral theology?

This is a bizarre question I'm it's framing. I've argued with Conservatives who are deeply rooted in Atheistic nihilism and pragmatism. I've also argued with Liberals whose ideology is deeply rooted in their faith.

In general though, Liberals oppose social control (extremists excluded) which is a selling point of the Moral Majority's culture war. Conservative ideology has become indistinguishable from faith, which makes it unappealing and a source of contention. Christianity has become increasingly viewed as a prop for power-hungry fascists.

They're only sort of wrong sadly.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 9 at 2015 8:43 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:43:59 -0400

Please substitute "leftism" for "liberalism". It's much more accurate. "Liberal" shares a common root with "liberty" and what you refer to as liberals have nothing to do with liberty. Indeed, they are the very opposite. Now, let's try it this way...

Why are leftist drawn to secular humanism? That's simple. Secular humanism is the only religion that is not based in morality. No behavior nor thought nor deed is intrinsically good or bad. All are relative. Thus, evil cannot be named and if it cannot be named, it cannot be condemned. How else can anyone justify the subjugation of individual freedom for the good of society?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 9:23 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:23:59 -0400

You made some very valid points about conflics in secular humanism. However be careful with lump generalizations, such as the idea that liberal humanists, social Darwinists and atheists are all the same. There are certainly people who are all 3, but probably more who are not.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 9:46 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:46:31 -0400

Just because we are an accident doesn't mean that it wasn't a happy accident. Just because people don't believe in God doesn't mean that they can't believe life is precious and that humans are inherently valuable.

One might ask the same of religious folks. If there's a glorious heaven awaiting us, why would we bother to protect life? Wouldn't getting to heaven sooner be better? Why would any religious person seek medical care or prevent any kind of taking of life, assuming that person is of the same religion...they're going to a better place, right?

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Oct 10 at 2015 12:31 AM

Cpl Tou Lee Yang — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 00:31:10 -0400

I consider myself an atheist because I really don't believe in "god". However, I also don't believe in Darwinism because I don't believe that in a few million years from now, if human is to survive that long, that we would evolve into something different. My belief is that we were put on Earth for a reason and if that reason is to flourish and rule the Earth than it is what it is, no one will ever know the truth.

To assert that "god" put us on this Earth is going a little overboard. No one has ever seen "god", not even Jesus while he was walking the Earth. The stories in the bible are merely hearsay, story written about the magical miracles performed by Jesus. These stories are not first hand account of the witness since most of the stories are written decades if not generation after the incidents by unknown author after the death of the eye witnesses.

As human being, we were raised by our parents. And through our parents and through our own experience we learn empathy and humility. This form of knowledge is the foundation of who we are. Two child of different race are not born racist. I had and still have friends who are black, white, spanish, and asian. I was not taught or raised in a racist household unlike some people. My son and daughter plays with friends of different color everyday in our neighborhood.

To imply that an ethic group do not have rights or to even consider that a particular race are superior is a result of their upbringing. I believe we treat everyone the way we want to be treated regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexuality. Laws in the United States are created to ensure that this should be the foundation of a civilized society. Without law respecting other people, we will have anarchy and survival of the fittest would be the defining factor in the evolution of human being as it was during the early history of humanity.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 10 at 2015 1:21 AM

COL Ted Mc — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 01:21:14 -0400

SrA Art Siatkowsky - Airman; Since a "Social Darwinist" and an "Atheist" are NOT the same thing your argument falls apart at the definition stage.

I am reluctant to actually attempt to characterize the "logic" you use but I do feel it has a lot in common with "We shouldn't eat peaches because the seed from which peach trees grow contain cyanide.".

FYI, a true "Social Darwinist" takes the position that the poor should be allowed to starve since they aren't able to feed themselves. This is true REGARDLESS of whether the "Social Darwinist" believes in "God" or not.

PS - Atheism existed long before Darwin.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Oct 10 at 2015 2:04 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 02:04:48 -0400

thats like me asking why do republicans pretend to be human. All you're really doing is trolling.

Response by CPT(P) David Thorp made Oct 10 at 2015 2:13 AM

CPT(P) David Thorp — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 02:13:16 -0400

If you understood Darwinism then you would know that there is nothing random about natural selection, in fact it is quite the opposite. Mutation is random, not natural selection. Natural selection drives evolution.

Kind of negates your whole argument.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Oct 10 at 2015 11:39 AM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:39:36 -0400

Why don't you grind your political axe elsewhere?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2015 2:02 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 14:02:16 -0400

Thebpriblem with your philosophy is assuming all liberals are Atheist and mixing that up with Scientology. And insinuating that by knowing emotions are caused by chemical reactions inside the body means that they don't matter. You can love your fellow man and still see the importance in not being an asshole while simultaneously understanding that its a chemical reaction. "Because science" doesn't negate the validity and importance of our human emotions, just explains it. Also I know several Christian Liberals... I am a pagan and I find myself agreeing more with liberal arguments than conservative ones (though let me be clearer I don't affiliate myself as either. I'm an independent mind who knows what I want to see in my leadership and I know where I stand on most issues.)

Your problem is, as LCDR Mucahey put it: generalization and grouping of masses of people. It is a label but that doesnt mean that label is strictly defined to one stereotype that you have set in your mind.

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Oct 17 at 2015 12:52 AM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 00:52:22 -0400

This was posted as a reaction to seeing the liberal biased media attack Dr Ben Carson on his religious views. It's annoying to see humanist cite evolution in an attempt to discredit religious belief when if these same humanist actually understood evolution they would have no recourse as rational intelligent beings but to abandon their humanist beliefs. They obviously don't understand the implications of evolution for humanist or they are not rational intelligent beings. If all reality is just the end result of a purely random accidental process there is no reason for liberal humanist to get righteously outraged about anything. ( was going to say no need to get their panties all bunched up but they already pulled some of my posts because of some angry liberal who couldn't find an argument to counter this and did' the stomp her feet on the ground and cried till it was removed' play)

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Oct 17 at 2015 4:15 AM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 04:15:36 -0400

Ha another one blocked me because they can't handle the truth of their own philosophical beliefs...it's simple logic people...it's not personal.

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Oct 17 at 2015 4:41 AM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Sat, 17 Oct 2015 04:41:30 -0400

So if your going to reply then block me from replying I can assume you have realized that I'm not falling for the misdirection and personal attacks and I guess it means that you do not have an actual counter to the logical argument stated and the very real implications it has for secular humanist, etc anyone who cites darwinism as their sole source of origin. It's not rocket science and it's not personal it's simply stating a logical conclusion derived from an argument about the random amoral nature of human origins (from a humanist point of view ) and how that same random amoral origin basically makes being a secular humanist a not so rational choice.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Mar 9 at 2016 8:08 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:08:51 -0500

Dude...way to jump to some conclusions there...keep going and you can probably generalize enough to conclude that the Earth is flat. Stop spouting generalizations and go talk to some of these so called 'liberals'. You might learn something.