"Dear Lord, I am a good person and an Atheist . . ."

[Mling]

I know many atheists that are 'pro life'. If you're after a well known atheist, then Christopher Hitchens can be referenced and has been seen in more recent years to be identify closer with the Republican party than any other (though to characterise him as adhering to party would be a grave error).

I don't personally know any anti-homosexual rights atheists - but then why I? There's effectively no reason to disregard homosexual rights as an atheist. There is certainly no supernatural reason.

Your assertion though that there is only the "permissive liberal democrat" atheist is complete nonsense. I've debated with Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Libertarian and Conservative atheists not referencing their subtle differences and adherence to subsets of the above mentioned political ideologies.

The school I teach at has at least significant minority--maybe even a majority-- of students who are secularly conservative. Not exactly atheist, but rather they just don't think about such things very much. But they're hardcore, Obama-hating, "I'll vote for whoever let's me keep my guns," conservatives.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd like to see a pro life, anti-gay rights, republican conservative atheist, that holds that believing in God is not based on ignorance but academic pursuit as well

If you are asking that atheists can hold views normally associated with conservatives, I count to an extent. Like some republican conservatives, I favor a government that is very small, bound by the Constitution, has a free market economy, free enterprise, minimalistic in taxes, no coercive redistribution of wealth, and so on.

Since pro-life views and anti-gay rights views usually stem from specifically Biblical views about morality, it should not be surprising to find few of such atheists. However, pro-life atheists do exist based on their own secular ethical views.

Libertarians for Life Homepage

I had dinner once with the founder of the organization. She's an atheist.

I don't personally know of any atheists who are against gay rights, but some atheists are critical of homosexuality. Ayn Rand, regardless of her excellent views in other areas, was dubious about the morality of homosexual relations.

Wikipedia:
In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then added that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."

However, I'm not sure why you'd want to see a conservative atheist agree that religious people can form their views for scholarly reasons. I would think you'd be more impressed if a liberal atheist were to do this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JustMeSee]

Never mind. I don't belong in this thread.

 

[Hespera]

I know many atheists that are 'pro life'. If you're after a well known atheist, then Christopher Hitchens can be referenced and has been seen in more recent years to be identify closer with the Republican party than any other (though to characterise him as adhering to party would be a grave error).

I don't personally know any anti-homosexual rights atheists - but then why I? There's effectively no reason to disregard homosexual rights as an atheist. There is certainly no supernatural reason.

Your assertion though that there is only the "permissive liberal democrat" atheist is complete nonsense. I've debated with Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Libertarian and Conservative atheists not referencing their subtle differences and adherence to subsets of the above mentioned political ideologies.

Atheist here who is very strongly pro life.

Like the christians have some sort of monopoly on liking babies and thinking they should be protected???

 

[hollyda]

Atheist here who is very strongly pro life.

Like the christians have some sort of monopoly on liking babies and thinking they should be protected???

This also implies all Christians vote pro-life, and I know that's not the case.

 

[Mling]

Atheist here who is very strongly pro life.

Like the christians have some sort of monopoly on liking babies and thinking they should be protected???

Hee, exactly. I'm atheist, and while I'm ultimately on the "abortion is ok" side, I have a lot of qualms about it, starting from the premise that I think a fetus is a person. You reeeaally don't need to believe in a god, to believe that.

 

[hollyda]

Hee, exactly. I'm atheist, and while I'm ultimately on the "abortion is ok" side, I have a lot of qualms about it, starting from the premise that I think a fetus is a person. You reeeaally don't need to believe in a god, to believe that.

Seconded. I am morally opposed to abortion, but I don't think my opposition should be grounds for legislation. I'm not and have never been pregnant, I don't intend to get pregnant, I don't want to get pregnant, but if it were to happen I would not terminate the pregnancy. But I also know outlawing abortion will not in any circumstance, ever, ever, ever make abortion disappear, and in fact likely lead to more back-alley abortions that would in turn likely lead to a spike in death by infection. Since I am morally pro-life, I'd rather that not happen.

But then I can look at things logically.

 

[Tergle]

If you are asking that atheists can hold views normally associated with conservatives, I count to an extent. Like some republican conservatives, I favor a government that is very small, bound by the Constitution, has a free market economy, free enterprise, minimalistic in taxes, no coercive redistribution of wealth, and so on.

You must be a person that values freedom. Liberalism offers only a form of slavery and bondage.

Since pro-life views and anti-gay rights views usually stem from specifically Biblical views about morality, it should not be surprising to find few of such atheists. However, pro-life atheists do exist based on their own secular ethical views.

I am a solid Bible-believing Christian, and my views on homosexuality and abortion are squarely based on darwinian scientific views. Both choice driven actions are to be rejected based on reason.

Libertarians for Life Homepage

I had dinner once with the founder of the organization. She's an atheist.

These Tea Party people that have barged into the GOP seem to be libertarians and anti-abortion on demand. I have dinner with many of them often. Unfortunately.

I don't personally know of any atheists who are against gay rights, but some atheists are critical of homosexuality.

That just defies logic.

Ayn Rand, regardless of her excellent views in other areas, was dubious about the morality of homosexual relations.

Wikipedia:
In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then added that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."

A broken clock and all . . .

However, I'm not sure why you'd want to see a conservative atheist agree that religious people can form their views for scholarly reasons. I would think you'd be more impressed if a liberal atheist were to do this.

Liberal atheist, when seriously contemplated, should be an oxymoron. Although I must be honest and reiterate that atheism just does not impress me from any style of adherant (well maybe Hitchens), I would like to see honesty creep into the glut of "new atheist" authors and see just a little nod to the fine Christian scholars and academics that make up the impressive orthodox Evangelical leadership.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Pro choice Christian here. I know that not every situation involves a person or people getting sound advice, deliberating,etc but I like to think that people should be allowed to choose. CHOICE after all in this involves keeping the fetus to term. And it sounds harsh but I worry about the ever increasing toll rising human population is having.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am a solid Bible-believing Christian, and my views on homosexuality and abortion are squarely based on darwinian scientific views. Both choice driven actions are to be rejected based on reason.

Okay, hold on. What "darwinian scientific" views? And how are you linking those views to morality?

That just defies logic.

One can be against something on moral grounds while recognizing that the government has no place to coercively interfere. There's nothing that "defies logic" in this. It simply defies your particular political expectations.

Liberal atheist, when seriously contemplated, should be an oxymoron.

Atheism does not imply a particular politics or morality. Atheism isn't a specific philosophy. When properly contemplated, liberal atheist is no oxymoron.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Atheism does not imply a particular politics or morality. Atheism isn't a specific philosophy. When properly contemplated, liberal atheist is no oxymoron.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I smell a strong case of "people who I know are wrong should have the decency to believe the things that I know they are wrong about" here.

 

[Tergle]

Pro choice Christian here. I know that not every situation involves a person or people getting sound advice, deliberating,etc but I like to think that people should be allowed to choose. CHOICE after all in this involves keeping the fetus to term. And it sounds harsh but I worry about the ever increasing toll rising human population is having.

Without accusing OR implying that the above disqualifies S-O-T-W for being a Christian . . . and I realize that many "Christians" vote for Pro-Life politicians.

I'd like any atheist here, pagan, or whatever (as a good person) . . . AND/OR SonOfTheWest, to find any New Testament support for the position stated in S-O-T-W's reply above.

 

[Jase]

Without accusing OR implying that the above disqualifies S-O-T-W for being a Christian . . . and I realize that many "Christians" vote for Pro-Life politicians.

I'd like any atheist here, pagan, or whatever (as a good person) . . . AND/OR SonOfTheWest, to find any New Testament support for the position stated in S-O-T-W's reply above.

Why would you expect to find that in the Bible? The Bible authors didn't know other continents existed, let alone that there would eventually be over 6 billion humans, 90% of which live in poverty.

You think Jesus would support humans spewing out more and more children that they can't feed, take care, or keep from dying of starvation and disease?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Without accusing OR implying that the above disqualifies S-O-T-W for being a Christian . . . and I realize that many "Christians" vote for Pro-Life politicians.

I'd like any atheist here, pagan, or whatever (as a good person) . . . AND/OR SonOfTheWest, to find any New Testament support for the position stated in S-O-T-W's reply above.

I'd like to see you provide NT support for television, because evidently, if the Bible doesn't specifically support it, then it must be wrong.

 

[Tergle]

I'd like to see you provide NT support for television, because evidently, if the Bible doesn't specifically support it, then it must be wrong.

Seriously?

You are comparing TV to a D&C abortion to rid oneself of having to have a baby?

And now that I think about it, TV could easily fit the "spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth" commission.

But abortion?

"Suffer the little children to come unto me."

Even you atheists have to admit that without killing them, the fetus becomes a little child in a few years. It never was going to be anything else but a human being.

There is no logic, righteousness, or holiness to justifying abortion.

 

[Tergle]

Why would you expect to find that in the Bible? The Bible authors didn't know other continents existed, let alone that there would eventually be over 6 billion humans, 90% of which live in poverty.

"The poor you will have with you . . ."

Your descendants will be like the stars in heaven?

I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,

- Gen 26:4

And Genesis 22:17:

I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.

There's your billions answer.

And, the Christians lived in Roman Judea. You know, Romans, that went to other continents to get slaves and animals from other continents. I'm betting they heard them talking.

You think Jesus would support humans spewing out more and more children that they can't feed, take care, or keep from dying of starvation and disease?

So, you really think the mythological person in the Gospels called Jesus (the atheist version) or the real one recorded in the New Testament, would support abortion to kill off the future offspring of people for convenience sake? As a means of population control? Seriously????

 

[CaliforniaSun]

It seems the Jesus (Christian one, not the atheist one) of the OT didn't have any problems dashing babies heads against rocks. Seriously.

"The poor you will have with you . . ."

Your descendants will be like the stars in heaven?



There's your billions answer.

And, the Christians lived in Roman Judea. You know, Romans, that went to other continents to get slaves and animals from other continents. I'm betting they heard them talking.



So, you really think the mythological person in the Gospels called Jesus (the atheist version) or the real one recorded in the New Testament, would support abortion to kill off the future offspring of people for convenience sake? As a means of population control? Seriously????

 

[zairsmith]

Why would you expect to find that in the Bible? The Bible authors didn't know other continents existed, let alone that there would eventually be over 6 billion humans, 90% of which live in poverty.

You think Jesus would support humans spewing out more and more children that they can't feed, take care, or keep from dying of starvation and disease?

This statement is truly contrary to God's word...its not people spewing out babies its selfish acts of those human beings who can help others...the problem is people forget that God gives them their wealth and so its not theirs its Gods but man refuses to share because they think they accumulated wealth on their own...remember nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:30-37. The same prideful spirit that was in Nebuchadnezzar is in most of the wealthy people today...if we all came together in the world and helped one another in love as Christ states we should do...there would be no need to feel like a child is a financial burden. By the way, I have two children and is still financially poor but to my amazement, God allows give me what I need to take care of them and both my parents are deceased and I have little to no help from anyone in my family or my fiancee family. Its just us and God...

PRAISE THE PRECIOUS NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! IF HE CAN DO THIS WORK IN MY LIFE WITH MY YOUNG CHILDREN THEN HE CAN DO IT FOR ALL.

 

[zairsmith]

It seems the Jesus (Christian one, not the atheist one) of the OT didn't have any problems dashing babies heads against rocks. Seriously.

What bible did you get this from? DID NOT JESUS SAY HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN LET HIM CAST THE FIRST STONE protecting the adulterous woman...how could He "dash" babies heads on rocks when he didn't even condemn a woman who deserved condemnation...also it is the same Jesus who tells us unless we be like little children we can not enter into heaven.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Seriously?

You are comparing TV to a D&C abortion to rid oneself of having to have a baby?

No, I'm comparing the Bible not supporting abortion to the Bible not supporting TV. Without trying to crowbar statements into the concept, it talks about neither. If you assume that the Bible not supporting something means that it is wrong, then TV is as wrong as abortion.

And now that I think about it, TV could easily fit the "spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth" commission.

And abortion could easily fit into the killing of children in the Bible, or God directly causing miscarriages. Of course, it's also important to recognise that if God created humanity, then he built into us a natural abortion mechanism that has led to millions of miscarriages.

"Suffer the little children to come unto me."

Foetuses are not children.

There is no logic, righteousness, or holiness to justifying abortion.

So you say.