CDZ Conservatism and why it's not dead

[GaryDog]

....When you actually begin to objectively try and define what conservatives believe in, you will find that it's difficult to pin down to a particular set of beliefs or ideology. That's because it's not an ideology, it's a philosophy. Ideological beliefs within conservative philosophy vary sharply.

The Republican party is fragmenting simply because the "conservative ideology" is fragmenting. Is there any doubt that the Tea Party, Neo-Cons and Goldwater conservatives (to mention a few) have different goals and ideologies yet they are claim to be conservatives.

In comparison, the Democrats are more homogenized, but only in comparison. It wasn't that long ago when they had "the Rainbow Coalition" and more closely resembled a monkey house on fire than a political party. The Republican party is falling apart simply because there are so many highly partisan albeit "conservative" agendas dividing them.

Again, why do I have to keep repeating this? There is no Conservative ideology. There are ideologies which reside in a philosophy of Conservatism. The Republican party is a dysfunctional party at this time. It has nothing to do with Conservative philosophy. Indeed, it has much to do with partisan ideology.

I believe the Millennials hold the key to the future of Conservatism. I think someone is going to come along who can speak to the Millennials... maybe that's not Ted Cruz or Mike Lee... Maybe it's not Rand Paul or Marco Rubio... Maybe it's someone we don't even have on the radar at this time? I just know that many Millennials are core Conservatives at heart. They also seem to be more open-minded in terms of ideologies and willing to respect different viewpoints.

But Conservatism has to get back to the basics of presenting itself as a philosophy which encompasses many ideologies.

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

 

[Votto]

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ” (Benjamin Franklin)

 

[Votto]

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well-administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

[candycorn]

Conservatism is much like a Betamax, 9/11 truthers a calendar from 1973, a 70 foot tall thermometer that measures temperatures up to 10,000 degrees, and a mystery book that doesn’t reveal who-done-it. These items exist in the world in some number and capacity. They are around. But does anyone care? Hardly. Is there a need for them? No. Are they still relevant? Perhaps…but only if they can agree on what their definition or purpose is and when it is no longer smart to be conservative

 

[oldsoul]

....When you actually begin to objectively try and define what conservatives believe in, you will find that it's difficult to pin down to a particular set of beliefs or ideology. That's because it's not an ideology, it's a philosophy. Ideological beliefs within conservative philosophy vary sharply.

The Republican party is fragmenting simply because the "conservative ideology" is fragmenting. Is there any doubt that the Tea Party, Neo-Cons and Goldwater conservatives (to mention a few) have different goals and ideologies yet they are claim to be conservatives.

In comparison, the Democrats are more homogenized, but only in comparison. It wasn't that long ago when they had "the Rainbow Coalition" and more closely resembled a monkey house on fire than a political party. The Republican party is falling apart simply because there are so many highly partisan albeit "conservative" agendas dividing them.

Again, why do I have to keep repeating this? There is no Conservative ideology. There are ideologies which reside in a philosophy of Conservatism. The Republican party is a dysfunctional party at this time. It has nothing to do with Conservative philosophy. Indeed, it has much to do with partisan ideology.

I believe the Millennials hold the key to the future of Conservatism. I think someone is going to come along who can speak to the Millennials... maybe that's not Ted Cruz or Mike Lee... Maybe it's not Rand Paul or Marco Rubio... Maybe it's someone we don't even have on the radar at this time? I just know that many Millennials are core Conservatives at heart. They also seem to be more open-minded in terms of ideologies and willing to respect different viewpoints.

But Conservatism has to get back to the basics of presenting itself as a philosophy which encompasses many ideologies.

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

 

[GaryDog]

The Republican party is fragmenting simply because the "conservative ideology" is fragmenting. Is there any doubt that the Tea Party, Neo-Cons and Goldwater conservatives (to mention a few) have different goals and ideologies yet they are claim to be conservatives.

In comparison, the Democrats are more homogenized, but only in comparison. It wasn't that long ago when they had "the Rainbow Coalition" and more closely resembled a monkey house on fire than a political party. The Republican party is falling apart simply because there are so many highly partisan albeit "conservative" agendas dividing them.

Again, why do I have to keep repeating this? There is no Conservative ideology. There are ideologies which reside in a philosophy of Conservatism. The Republican party is a dysfunctional party at this time. It has nothing to do with Conservative philosophy. Indeed, it has much to do with partisan ideology.

I believe the Millennials hold the key to the future of Conservatism. I think someone is going to come along who can speak to the Millennials... maybe that's not Ted Cruz or Mike Lee... Maybe it's not Rand Paul or Marco Rubio... Maybe it's someone we don't even have on the radar at this time? I just know that many Millennials are core Conservatives at heart. They also seem to be more open-minded in terms of ideologies and willing to respect different viewpoints.

But Conservatism has to get back to the basics of presenting itself as a philosophy which encompasses many ideologies.

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality does not come from religion.

 

[oldsoul]

Again, why do I have to keep repeating this? There is no Conservative ideology. There are ideologies which reside in a philosophy of Conservatism. The Republican party is a dysfunctional party at this time. It has nothing to do with Conservative philosophy. Indeed, it has much to do with partisan ideology.

I believe the Millennials hold the key to the future of Conservatism. I think someone is going to come along who can speak to the Millennials... maybe that's not Ted Cruz or Mike Lee... Maybe it's not Rand Paul or Marco Rubio... Maybe it's someone we don't even have on the radar at this time? I just know that many Millennials are core Conservatives at heart. They also seem to be more open-minded in terms of ideologies and willing to respect different viewpoints.

But Conservatism has to get back to the basics of presenting itself as a philosophy which encompasses many ideologies.

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality does not come from religion.

Maybe your morality does not (not sure where it would come from), but most peoples' does trace it's roots back to a religion of some sort.

 

[Boss]

Morality does not come from religion.

You're right, it comes from spirituality. Still, most civilizations base their morality on religious beliefs.

The confusing thing in this argument, the thing that people often fail to understand, is that our founding principles are based on a Judeo-Christian belief that our rights our endowed by our Creator who made us all equal. Does that make us a "Christian nation"? No. Simply put, we cannot ever be a Theocracy.

You see, our founding principles say that you are endowed by your Creator with the right to believe whatever you choose, including not believing in a Creator who endowed you with that inalienable right.

 

[GaryDog]

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality does not come from religion.

Maybe your morality does not (not sure where it would come from), but most peoples' does trace it's roots back to a religion of some sort.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.


"Morality" evolved along with everything else in human culture, generally beginning with the onset of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. It was economically advantageous for us to form peaceful coexistence with lots of other people for the first time, ever. Before that, we fought with pretty much everyone who was not in our immediate tribal band.

 

[GaryDog]

Morality does not come from religion.

You're right, it comes from spirituality. .

Uh, whatever that means.

 

[oldsoul]

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality does not come from religion.

Maybe your morality does not (not sure where it would come from), but most peoples' does trace it's roots back to a religion of some sort.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.


"Morality" evolved along with everything else in human culture, generally beginning with the onset of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. It was economically advantageous for us to form peaceful coexistence with lots of other people for the first time, ever. Before that, we fought with pretty much everyone who was not in our immediate tribal band.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.

I am not sure what book you refer to, but I imagine you are attempting to refer to the Christian Bible, of which you can take lots of things out of context and create what ever story you wish. That does not mean that what you say is the meaning of things is correct, or even plausibly interpreted as so.

 

[Boss]

Uh, whatever that means.

Well, spirituality is the inherent human belief that there is something greater than self. Spirit is that which the physical cannot define. Humans have had this for all of their known existence as civilized creatures. Because we have spiritual awareness, we have been able to accomplish many great things. We even invented a word to describe this... Inspiration.

It is our spirituality which enabled us to trust and have faith in others, which in turn, allowed us to develop civilized societies. Through these civilizations we've developed an intricate system of morals which often vary depending on culture but all fundamentally rely on our spiritual trust in our fellow man. Without this, we would be like most animals in the jungle and the only type of morality we'd have would be "pack morality" like you see in packs of wolves.

 

[GaryDog]

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality does not come from religion.

Maybe your morality does not (not sure where it would come from), but most peoples' does trace it's roots back to a religion of some sort.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.


"Morality" evolved along with everything else in human culture, generally beginning with the onset of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. It was economically advantageous for us to form peaceful coexistence with lots of other people for the first time, ever. Before that, we fought with pretty much everyone who was not in our immediate tribal band.

If you're truly only moral thanks to the teachings of a book that promotes genocide, rape, slavery, infanticide, misogyny and conquest, I am truly frightened of you.

I am not sure what book you refer to, but I imagine you are attempting to refer to the Christian Bible, of which you can take lots of things out of context and create what ever story you wish. That does not mean that what you say is the meaning of things is correct, or even plausibly interpreted as so.

Uh, okay, find the context in THIS:
1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Or this: Psalm 137: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Romans 1:27: "In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

or

Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord";

Or:

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."


It's filled with this crap. Are there uplifting, positive verses? Of course. But by and large this is just a document of the times, where violence reigned and men with privilege ruled over women and those less fortunate.

That's not morality. That's a flawed grouping of documents written by deeply flawed men.

 

[GaryDog]

Uh, whatever that means.

Well, spirituality is the inherent human belief that there is something greater than self. Spirit is that which the physical cannot define. Humans have had this for all of their known existence as civilized creatures. Because we have spiritual awareness, we have been able to accomplish many great things. We even invented a word to describe this... Inspiration.

It is our spirituality which enabled us to trust and have faith in others, which in turn, allowed us to develop civilized societies. Through these civilizations we've developed an intricate system of morals which often vary depending on culture but all fundamentally rely on our spiritual trust in our fellow man. Without this, we would be like most animals in the jungle and the only type of morality we'd have would be "pack morality" like you see in packs of wolves.

Meh. Sounds like difference in terms to me. I don't believe in "faith". We believe based on evidence, and evidence suggests that being good to people makes it easier to conduct commerce with them, defend your village with them, etc. Spirituality is just a word that sounds less political and lightning-roddish than "religion" but depends on the same themes of fantasy.

 

[Boss]

Meh. Sounds like difference in terms to me. I don't believe in "faith". We believe based on evidence, and evidence suggests that being good to people makes it easier to conduct commerce with them, defend your village with them, etc. Spirituality is just a word that sounds less political and lightning-roddish than "religion" but depends on the same themes of fantasy.

But why does it? And what IS "good"? What is good for me might be bad for you and visa versa. So where is this concept of universal "good" found? And where is your evidence that an intrinsic human behavior that has existed for all of the species known presence, is a "fantasy"? I understand you don't believe in "God" or whatever, but that doesn't mean you've proven something is a fantasy.

 

[GaryDog]

Meh. Sounds like difference in terms to me. I don't believe in "faith". We believe based on evidence, and evidence suggests that being good to people makes it easier to conduct commerce with them, defend your village with them, etc. Spirituality is just a word that sounds less political and lightning-roddish than "religion" but depends on the same themes of fantasy.

But why does it? And what IS "good"? What is good for me might be bad for you and visa versa. So where is this concept of universal "good" found? And where is your evidence that an intrinsic human behavior that has existed for all of the species known presence, is a "fantasy"? I understand you don't believe in "God" or whatever, but that doesn't mean you've proven something is a fantasy.

Why does it? Because millennia of doing so has proven it's beneficial to both parties to cooperate. Good essentially means treating others as you'd like to be treated, which was parroted by Jesus in the bible (but existed LONG before him if he indeed even existed).

Spirituality is basically another term for consciousness, or self-awareness. It's a mental capacity. There is no evidence of "spirituality", or some guiding force outside of our own brains.

 

[Votto]

The Republican party is fragmenting simply because the "conservative ideology" is fragmenting. Is there any doubt that the Tea Party, Neo-Cons and Goldwater conservatives (to mention a few) have different goals and ideologies yet they are claim to be conservatives.

In comparison, the Democrats are more homogenized, but only in comparison. It wasn't that long ago when they had "the Rainbow Coalition" and more closely resembled a monkey house on fire than a political party. The Republican party is falling apart simply because there are so many highly partisan albeit "conservative" agendas dividing them.

Again, why do I have to keep repeating this? There is no Conservative ideology. There are ideologies which reside in a philosophy of Conservatism. The Republican party is a dysfunctional party at this time. It has nothing to do with Conservative philosophy. Indeed, it has much to do with partisan ideology.

I believe the Millennials hold the key to the future of Conservatism. I think someone is going to come along who can speak to the Millennials... maybe that's not Ted Cruz or Mike Lee... Maybe it's not Rand Paul or Marco Rubio... Maybe it's someone we don't even have on the radar at this time? I just know that many Millennials are core Conservatives at heart. They also seem to be more open-minded in terms of ideologies and willing to respect different viewpoints.

But Conservatism has to get back to the basics of presenting itself as a philosophy which encompasses many ideologies.

Conservatism has to role to play in the federal government. Politicians like Ted Cruz are simply an eye sore to the establishment.

Conservatism is about limited government, something that is foreign to the US federal government. Both are natural enemies of each other.

If conservatism is to play a role in the future of America, then it will probably come about by the Article V movement designed to take back power from the US federal government through states amending the Constitution. Any thing less and it will fail.

I often wonder though, can society be trusted with increased freedom and personal responsibility? Looking at the morality of the culture today, it may not be capable.

We are taught that democracy fixes everything, but looking at how democracy has been used in places like the Middle East to only elect terrorist regimes, democracy is the last thing you want for an immoral or amoral society.

If confronted with a society of convicts, the only thing that will do to maintain a civil society is to build a wall around them and hire a warden. We grow closer to that every day I'm afraid.

This is why leftists focus on destroying the moral fabric of society. They know that the more immoral people become, the more likely the freedoms of those people will have to be taken away in order to maintain order.

Very true. John Adams knew this and warned of it. See the fifth quote in my signature. 'Nuff said...
To be clear though, we do not live in a democracy, that would be lunacy at this scale, we live in a democratic republic. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction.

The constitution was not made for only religious people. Come on. Otherwise the 1st Amendment's establishment clause is meaningless.

True the constitution was not made solely for a religious people. However, as Mr. Franklin observed, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
So, while the constitution is not only for a virtuous people, it can only be sustained by a virtuous people. In other words, virtue (or morality) cannot be legislated, it MUST come from elsewhere (i.e. religion).

Morality also comes from other sources as well.

As human beings, we tend to look up the perceived authority figures and give their opinions sway in developing our morality. That includes parents, teachers, pastors, peers, and the state, etc.

For example, before slavery was made illegal the consensus was that it was not ideal but it was OK. However, being outlawed for over a century the thought of slavery is absurdly immoral.

Abortion is much the same. Before Roe vs Wade the consensus was that it was immoral. However, after decades of being legal the consensus is that it is not ideal, but that is it OK.

So as we see, human beings are lemmings and controlled largely by the state. So you could say that most if not all our morality is legislated. In fact, what law is devoid of morality?

 

[Boss]

Why does it? Because millennia of doing so has proven it's beneficial to both parties to cooperate.

Except, that's not true. The people of Poland cooperated in disarming and were then summarily slaughtered by Hitler. Cooperation doesn't equal benefit. And you're still not clearly defining WHY.

Good essentially means treating others as you'd like to be treated, which was parroted by Jesus in the bible (but existed LONG before him if he indeed even existed).

Spirituality is basically another term for consciousness, or self-awareness. It's a mental capacity. There is no evidence of "spirituality", or some guiding force outside of our own brains.

And you've still failed at pointing out this source of universal "good" or what it is. I haven't argued for the teachings of Jesus, we're talking about human spirituality... and yes, indeed it has existed long before Jesus. It predates history... it existed in the oldest human civilizations we've ever unearthed.

There IS evidence of it... WE are evidence of it. Just that fact that you can contemplate these questions is evidence of it. You are intrinsically aware the spirit exists you just choose to reject it as superficial. The thing is, it can't be superficial or it wouldn't have persisted as a behavioral aspect in our species for all of our existence.

 

[GaryDog]

Why does it? Because millennia of doing so has proven it's beneficial to both parties to cooperate.

Except, that's not true. The people of Poland cooperated in disarming and were then summarily slaughtered by Hitler. Cooperation doesn't equal benefit. And you're still not clearly defining WHY.

Good essentially means treating others as you'd like to be treated, which was parroted by Jesus in the bible (but existed LONG before him if he indeed even existed).

Spirituality is basically another term for consciousness, or self-awareness. It's a mental capacity. There is no evidence of "spirituality", or some guiding force outside of our own brains.

And you've still failed at pointing out this source of universal "good" or what it is. I haven't argued for the teachings of Jesus, we're talking about human spirituality... and yes, indeed it has existed long before Jesus. It predates history... it existed in the oldest human civilizations we've ever unearthed.

There IS evidence of it... WE are evidence of it. Just that fact that you can contemplate these questions is evidence of it. You are intrinsically aware the spirit exists you just choose to reject it as superficial. The thing is, it can't be superficial or it wouldn't have persisted as a behavioral aspect in our species for all of our existence.

Again, I think this is semantics. What you call spirituality, science refers to as consciousness. Animals don't have it. We do. That's all.

FYI, Christians and other theists make the PRECISE argument you just made when I ask for proof of God. "Oh, but WE are proof!" Nonsense. We're just proof of carbon-based life forms evolving.

Regarding Poland before WWII: that's not at all an example of what I'm referring to. In general, cooperation among groups (free trade) is beneficial to all. That doesn't bar the door from war being necessary on occasion.

 

[Boss]

Again, I think this is semantics. What you call spirituality, science refers to as consciousness. Animals don't have it. We do. That's all.

FYI, Christians and other theists make the PRECISE argument you just made when I ask for proof of God. "Oh, but WE are proof!" Nonsense. We're just proof of carbon-based life forms evolving.

So you want to call our spirituality by another name? It's the word that bothers you? Let's take the theists out of the argument, I know you don't want to because that's really what your problem is... but let's focus on science. Where do you supposed our "consciousness" evolved from when you admit no other animal has it? Curious anomaly there, isn't it? Oh, I've heard the Atheist explanation of how our brains just happened to develop better... lucky us, right? But it just so happens this "fantasy" you think we have that something is greater than self, has been instrumental in making us who we are.

Regarding Poland before WWII: that's not at all an example of what I'm referring to. In general, cooperation among groups (free trade) is beneficial to all. That doesn't bar the door from war being necessary on occasion.

Poland is one example of billions I could give you. And no, free trade is certainly NOT beneficial to all in general... we're presently having a great debate about free trade and how America is getting screwed with their trade deals.

Again, I will point out that you've still not adequately answered the question of where this concept of universal "good" comes from. Even with cooperation and trade, we must rely on faith in our fellow man. That most will set aside self interest for the "greater good" and through this, we flourish and prosper. It's all rooted in spirit and human spiritual awareness.