How does the absence of a deity

[Freedom&Liberty]

That doesn't answer the question.

Why should anyone have faith that your religion can maintain an advanced civilization?

[BooRadley]

That doesn't answer the question.

Why should anyone have faith that your religion can maintain an advanced civilization?

First of all, this kind of thing is exactly why the GOP in general, and conservatives in particular, are having such a hard time right now. You've completely lost your grips on reality. My views on social issues do not constitute a religion. The inability of conservatives to have a sane and honest discussion about anything is really hurting them.

Secondly, there are only two choices: Us or you, and people are choosing us because you are crazy as fuck. For example, you think social security is a religion. That's why you guys can't build and maintain a lead in the US. You start every discussion like this, which is basically a loud announcement that you have no connection to reality.

Which, by the way, I really, really like.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Why can't you answer the question?

[BooRadley]

Why can't you answer the question?

I did. People have two choices: Choice A provides a plan to provide ongoing maintenance of social infrastructure. Choice B argues that the Earth is 8 thousand years old. People go to the polls to vote and decide between the two. Either go with the plan provided by Choice A, or go with the plan provided by Choice B (which is to ignore the question and ban teaching evolution -- while they can't explain how that will help anything, they're certain that it will). People make their choices.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Stating that the other side is stupid is not an answer.

Final chance -

Why should anyone have faith that your religion can maintain an advanced civilization?

[BooRadley]

Stating that the other side is stupid is not an answer.

Final chance -

Why should anyone have faith that your religion can maintain an advanced civilization?

BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE. The other side is too busy trying to prove that social safety nets are a "religion" and Biblical creation isn't.

[Freedom&Liberty]

That doesn't instill faith that liberals know how to maintain a civilization. If you can't do any better than that, I'm gonna need a smarter liberal or at least an honest one.

[jwreck]

Fact is that the religious right hurts conservatives credibility in much the same way the commies hurt the left. As fiscally conservative as I am there's no way I'm voting for some jackhole who's biggest concern is what gay people are doing. As soon as someone tells me that is their main issue they are done. You wanna go to church? Cool. You wanna offer to tell me about it? Fine. You wanna run my life based on what your preacher tells you? Then we got a problem. IMNSHO civilization has flourished in spite of religious fundamentalists, not because of them.

The reason atheists are so "militant" is that christianity has been the status quo for so long, that most people don't even question it. So any attempt to curtail its impact on our lives is considered "a blatant attack on religion". No the dumbasses have gone too far the other way I'll admit, but I recognize the cause for their anger.

[86Dùde]

No offense folks, but the original question doesn't make sense to me.

[antiquity]

That's because you keep trying to make religious law, and the US is not, has never been, and will never be a theocracy. Religion is a personal matter. If gay marriage is against your religion, then don't get gay married. If your religion requires you to pray, then pray. Stop trying to use the government to force other people to live by your religious law.

It is true that the US is not and will never be a theocracy. But most laws in the US as well as most countries are based back on their moral religious beliefs. You were born to late to change that fact.

[Freedom&Liberty]

No offense folks, but the original question doesn't make sense to me.

From a political perspective, even really dumb, completely unconstitutional liberal morals have a tendency to become law. School lunch checks are a good example. Conservative morals are pushed aside because of the first amendment. The main difference is that liberalism has no deity.

[86Dùde]

You know I like you FL but I think that mindset is kind of limiting. I don't think it's as simple as that. If we were talking about commies then this would be more accurate.

[antiquity]

A liberal Christian is pretty much an atheist.

Being a liberal or a conservative has nothing to do with being a atheist or not. Since 80% of Americans can relate to one degree or the other to being religious your claim is false as it is impossible to be a liberal Christan and an atheist at the same time.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Being a liberal or a conservative has nothing to do with being a atheist or not. Since 80% of Americans can relate to one degree or the other to being religious your claim is false as it is impossible to be a liberal Christan and an atheist at the same time.

Liberal Christians have a set of beliefs that makes them closer to Atheist than Christian.

[jwreck]

Liberal Christians have a set of beliefs that makes them closer to Atheist than Christian.

Statements like this just make you look both ridiculous and extreme.

[Freedom&Liberty]

You know I like you FL but I think that mindset is kind of limiting. I don't think it's as simple as that. If we were talking about commies then this would be more accurate.

We're dealing with an ideology that will remove rights and freedoms to further it's moral cause. We are pretty much dealing with commies.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Statements like this just make you look both ridiculous and extreme.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/T...ristianity.htm

[BooRadley]

Fact is that the religious right hurts conservatives credibility in much the same way the commies hurt the left. As fiscally conservative as I am there's no way I'm voting for some jackhole who's biggest concern is what gay people are doing. As soon as someone tells me that is their main issue they are done. You wanna go to church? Cool. You wanna offer to tell me about it? Fine. You wanna run my life based on what your preacher tells you? Then we got a problem. IMNSHO civilization has flourished in spite of religious fundamentalists, not because of them.

The reason atheists are so "militant" is that christianity has been the status quo for so long, that most people don't even question it. So any attempt to curtail its impact on our lives is considered "a blatant attack on religion". No the dumbasses have gone too far the other way I'll admit, but I recognize the cause for their anger.

I don't agree with jwreck on much, but I do feel his pain. There is only one real solution being offered, and it's the liberal one. For me, I agree with much of it, so I'm covered. For someone like jwreck, where he probably doesn't agree with much of what the liberals put forth, he's just kind of left hanging because no one is honestly promoting a more conservative plan for American future. The GOP keeps floating people who think if we just ban gays and make kids pray in school, everything will be peachy, and no further planning is needed.

As far as militant atheism, it's only in politics. One of my two best friends wholly believes in a literal interpretation of Biblical Creation. Not a problem for me at all. I don't argue or call her names or anything . . . but that's because she's not trying to force me to think the same thing (of course, she's very liberal). The Republicans/religious right, don't get that "freedom" is "the freedom to follow your faith", not "the freedom to force everyone else to follow your faith".

And some of them, such as F&L, keep confusing the liberal ideas for maintaining our civilization with "religion". It's not religion. It's not that someone said, "Thou must invest in education," and we do based on that. It's that we think that investment in education is a solid long-term bet for maintaining the USA as a wealthy industrial power. The other side just screams about how much prayin' them thar kids is doin' in them thar skoolz.

[Archaix]

The problem with F&L -clearly demonstrated by threads like this- is that he takes things he doesn't like and puts them all in the same mental place. He doesn't like fascists, socialists, communists, liberals, totalitarians, big government/regulation, Europe and non-Christians (and a good deal more besides), so to his mind they're all somehow connected. In this day and age, he doesn't have to consider the validity of these links. All he has to do is google 'fascist big government' and he'll find something on it, written by someone only fractionally more articulate/intelligent than he is.

[9ball8]

We're dealing with an ideology that will remove rights and freedoms to further it's moral cause. We are pretty much dealing with commies.

Communists were the failed experiment of the left, which abused both religion and politics. One symptom of this was the wholesale murder of "enemies of the state". IOW, there is no moral cause, because morality is both relative and subordinate to the communist state. In similar vein corporations tend to operate in a moral vacuum, unless morality benefits the corporation. Perhaps you have a problem with moral relativism, not liberalism. The two are different.
OTOH, test your implication that absence of liberalism allows good morals (christian or other type) to flourish. It doesn't work, either. If that were so, then slavery would never have taken hold in the time span when it was most common. Your premise is too easily contradicted by this and many other historic examples.
Best to have a state that recognizes the benefit of good morals, actively debates what those morals are, and actively debates if/when those morals should be codified into law. To restrict itself to the moral code of any one religion (including christianity & athiesm) would limit the state's ability to respond to the needs of its' citizens.