Imagine the values of progressive non-believers for a moment

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManOnFire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

ManOnFire

Guest
As Doestoyevsky said, “If God does not exist, then all acts are permissible.”

Please open your mind to contribute some thoughts and values that you imagine to be held by progressive non-believers:

-If the world is becoming overpopulated with carbon burners, then the promotion of selfishness, hedonism, narcissism, early sex, birth control, materialism, trying homosexual acts, the poverty of single motherhood, escalating costs of living, “correct” progressive thinking and intolerance of traditional thinking, etc. will all combine to “help save the planet” from overpopulation.

What else did I miss?
 
ManOnFire said:
As Doestoyevsky said, “If God does not exist, then all acts are permissible.”

Please open your mind to contribute some thoughts and values that you imagine to be held by progressive non-believers:

-If the world is becoming overpopulated with carbon burners, then the promotion of selfishness, hedonism, narcissism, early sex, birth control, materialism, trying homosexual acts, the poverty of single motherhood, escalating costs of living, “correct” progressive thinking and intolerance of traditional thinking, etc. will all combine to “help save the planet” from overpopulation.

What else did I miss?
Click to expand...
The last line in your OP. Short of permanent sterilization, no birth control method is 100% effective. Just check with the CDC.

Peace,
Ed
 
I honestly can’t tell if you’re serious or if you’re making fun of ridiculous stereotypes held by ignorant religious people.
 
ngill09 said:
I honestly can’t tell if you’re serious or if you’re making fun of ridiculous stereotypes held by ignorant religious people.
Click to expand...
Opening your mind to merely consider that my philosophical laundry list would be an effective means to reduce overpopulation in a godless world is quite the opposite of ignorance.
 
ManOnFire said:
Opening your mind to merely consider that my philosophical laundry list would be an effective means to reduce overpopulation in a godless world is quite the opposite of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t know if you’re just terrible at thinking or what, but none of those things are real solutions to having excessive carbon dioxide or out-of-control populations except for birth control.

And you would do well to recall that throughout history Godly men have permitted themselves to do every heinous act imaginable.
 
Well I don’t know if you’re just terrible at thinking or what, but none of those things are real solutions to having excessive carbon dioxide or out-of-control populations except for birth control.
Click to expand...
This looks like it has potential to be a good discussion if the OP were able to express his thoughts more clearly. I think he’s trying to say is that certain groups would try to justify various items he’s listed in order to reduce the human population, because they feel humans are bad for the environment. Without God, they wouldn’t have a real source of morality with which to condemn these actions. (ManOnFire, please correct me if I’m wrong) He’s obviously correct regarding birth control and intolerance of traditional thought, and probably to some extent about materialism and the like as well. With regards to homosexuality, I’ve heard environmentalism used as a sort of last-ditch argument to excuse it in a debate, but I’ve never heard of it being encouraged for the sake of environmentalism.
 
Once there was a meeting of monks in Scetis, and they discussed the case of a guilty brother but Pior said nothing.

Afterwards he got up and went out, took a sack, filled it with sand, and carried it on his shoulders. He put a little sand in a basket and carried it in front of him.

The monks asked him, “What are you doing?” He answered, “The sack with a lot of sand is my sins; they are many, so I put them on my back and then I shall not weep for them. The basket with a little sand is the sins of our brother and they are in front of me, and I see them and judge them. This is not right. I ought to have my own sins in front of me, and think about them, and ask God to forgive me.”

When the monks heard this, they said, “This is the true way of salvation”
  • De vitis Patrum, Sive Verba Seniorum, Liber V
 
edwest2 said:
The last line in your OP. Short of permanent sterilization, no birth control method is 100% effective.
Click to expand...
I was about to suggest that abstinence is 100% effective. Then I remembered where I was posting! :o
 
ngill09 said:
Well I don’t know if you’re just terrible at thinking or what, but none of those things are real solutions to having excessive carbon dioxide or out-of-control populations except for birth control.

And you would do well to recall that throughout history Godly men have permitted themselves to do every heinous act imaginable.
Click to expand...
The more that people have casual sex, the more likely they are to use birth control. The more materialistic, the less likely they are to use birth control to avoid the expense of having kids. The more likely people are to experiment with alternative lifestyles, the more likely they are to need birth control. The more people love themselves over loving others, the more likely they will not be married, which all the research shows leads to more poverty. See a pattern here?

People are sinners. History’s worst dictators were functioning atheists who killed millions of people.

The crux is of the matter is Traditional Thought. Once one can open one’s mind to think differently, such as if there’s no fear of God, then an open minded non-believer would logically ask "Why not (the laundry list in the OP)?’ I hardly think that opening one’s mind for mere consideration is terrible thinking.
 
Trigonometric said:
This looks like it has potential to be a good discussion if the OP were able to express his thoughts more clearly. I think he’s trying to say is that certain groups would try to justify various items he’s listed in order to reduce the human population, because they feel humans are bad for the environment. Without God, they wouldn’t have a real source of morality with which to condemn these actions. (ManOnFire, please correct me if I’m wrong) He’s obviously correct regarding birth control and intolerance of traditional thought, and probably to some extent about materialism and the like as well. With regards to homosexuality, I’ve heard environmentalism used as a sort of last-ditch argument to excuse it in a debate, but I’ve never heard of it being encouraged for the sake of environmentalism.
Click to expand...
Non-believing progressives believe we can’t “have” the lilly white suburbs anymore because the population would keep growing in this sacrificial love-of-others society where love-of-others marriages created large families and a booming population. The baby boomers proved it. So, the non-believing progressives have been trying to institute a love-of-self badass hedonistic society because it will force those in the middle onto foolproof birth control, and many of those who don’t will become dependent on innocent taxpayers for support. They know that either, 1. Taxpayers will eventually run out of money to support the growing number of dependents, where we must then have a heavy handed communist government like China that will force people to behave, or 2., society will go Libertarian, where one is free to act as liberal and free as one wishes, but raising taxes on innocent taxpayers will not be an option since it’s simply enslaving one group to pay for the expensive lifestyles of the other group. Raising taxes on innocent people hasn’t reversed the current trend of growing dependency, is the opposite of justice regarding people’s free will choices, and it will eventually bankrupt the economy. Adopting a conservative lifestyle would keep more people out of dependency, but progressive non-believers see no reason to return to this lifestyle knowing that it will boom the population in the name of a God for which they say there is no proof, when becoming an agnostic hedonist who only lives once will decrease the population. As I said in my previous post, get people out of Traditional Thinking, and it becomes clearer to see this different point of view. Think about it. It makes sense.
 
ngill09 said:
Well I don’t know if you’re just terrible at thinking or what, but none of those things are real solutions to having excessive carbon dioxide or out-of-control populations except for birth control.

And you would do well to recall that throughout history Godly men have permitted themselves to do every heinous act imaginable.
Click to expand...
Godly men have permitted themselves to do every heinous act imaginable.
Click to expand...
That is an oxymoron.
 
ManOnFire said:
As Doestoyevsky said, “If God does not exist, then all acts are permissible.”

Please open your mind to contribute some thoughts and values that you imagine to be held by progressive non-believers:

-If the world is becoming overpopulated with carbon burners, then the promotion of selfishness, hedonism, narcissism, early sex, birth control, materialism, trying homosexual acts, the poverty of single motherhood, escalating costs of living, “correct” progressive thinking and intolerance of traditional thinking, etc. will all combine to “help save the planet” from overpopulation.

What else did I miss?
Click to expand...
Well, we don’t have to imagine much of it because a lot it is forced down our throats, in large part because post-modern liberalism can’t win on an even playing field.

The only thing “missing” is that the modern progressivsm as you refer to it is it’s own worst enemy. It is built on a foundation of lies, cover-ups, intolerance and personal selfishness.

Even as we speak, forces are in motion that will ultimately lead to the demise of post-modern liberalism.

If one looks at enough issues and situations, it’s not hard to see that conservatism is always the fall-back position when modern progressivism fails.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Well, we don’t have to imagine much of it because a lot it is forced down our throats, in large part because post-modern liberalism can’t win on an even playing field.

The only thing “missing” is that the modern progressivsm as you refer to it is it’s own worst enemy. It is built on a foundation of lies, cover-ups, intolerance and personal selfishness.

Even as we speak, forces are in motion that will ultimately lead to the demise of post-modern liberalism.

If one looks at enough issues and situations, it’s not hard to see that conservatism is always the fall-back position when modern progressivism fails.
Click to expand...
I think many heads of the academic institutions, media, and politics are non-believers, some of whom give the appearance of being somewhat religious to seem mainstream. The hard core non-believers think that religious institutions are deceiving people, so why shouldn’t they do the same by forcing it down the public’s throats? Especially if they believe God doesn’t exist. All the more reason not to feel guilty for the deception. They know the media has more influence over public opinion than religious institutions.

I agree that modern progressivism is based on personal selfishness and intolerance of the conservative values that create family love but also grows the population of carbon burners. Love-of-self has grown the numbers of single parents who are dependent on taxpayers for support. After having higher taxes forcibly extracted to pay for other people’s free will, the liberal media then instructs us to “pay it forward” and “give charitably.” Yes, “It takes a village” to help raise all those kids where growing numbers of young men impregate women, then leave innocent taxpayers to support them. The kids learn that this is what they will do when they grow up, and the cycle of dependency grows more voters, and the movement gets more power, disguised as help. Extracting more taxes has done nothing to slow selfish free will choices that have created more victims of liberal behaviors over the decades.

The irony of progressive non-believers is: Why do they care about Charity if they believe God doesn’t exist? Do they feel guilty for creating so many dependent victims of liberal behaviors? Do they figure that unfairly increased taxes are mostly a way to punish conservative rule-following goody-goodies? If they believe God doesn’t exist, and there are too many people on the planet, why not try to limit the number of benefits for children to 2 children per married uterus and 1 child per unmarried uterus? It would push birth control and reduce poverty.

As much as it would be a compromise in my values in order to achieve a middle ground, I would rather (return to) the lilly (white) suburbs in ALL neighborhoods with a maximum child quota than continue with this soulless post-modern progressive selfishness experiment. Love ALL people, tolerate religion, and carry on.
 
ManOnFire said:
As Doestoyevsky said, “If God does not exist, then all acts are permissible.”

Please open your mind to contribute some thoughts and values that you imagine to be held by progressive non-believers:

-If the world is becoming overpopulated with carbon burners, then the promotion of selfishness, hedonism, narcissism, early sex, birth control, materialism, trying homosexual acts, the poverty of single motherhood, escalating costs of living, “correct” progressive thinking and intolerance of traditional thinking, etc. will all combine to “help save the planet” from overpopulation.

What else did I miss?
Click to expand...
Hey, I’ve got a good idea. It’s a little far-fetched, but bear me out -

How about instead of just imagining the thoughts and values of a non-believer, you talk to one? That way you can actually learn their thoughts and values, instead of pretending to know them.
 
8FootManchild said:
Hey, I’ve got a good idea. It’s a little far-fetched, but bear me out -

How about instead of just imagining the thoughts and values of a non-believer, you talk to one? That way you can actually learn their thoughts and values, instead of pretending to know them.
Click to expand...
Because an N=1 or 5 or 10 would not be statistically significant. Besides, what’s to stop the answers from being Activist in nature? Why the liberal slant in the unelected media if they’re not trying to push a liberal agenda?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top