Atheism is consistent with Conservatism

I made it clear in my opening statement that the subject of the debate was political conservatism, and in particular modern political conservatism. Pro claims that I have "stretched and broadened the definition of conservatism to the level that it can be consistent with almost everything." My whole point, of course, was that Conservatism is not an ideology determining conclusions, but rather a methodology embracing a number of principles, the primary principle being the principle of evolutionary change. Conservatism is therefore broadly compatible, and certainly compatible with atheism. In support of my contention I provided (1) examples of divergent conclusions on issues from modern conservatives, (2) an historical perspective in a referenced article that claimed Conservatism embraced diverse conclusions, (3) the most widely accepted definition of political conservative principles (by Kirk), and (4) the definition offered by Buckley. I later gave examples of political approaches that conservatism did not embrace, Liberalism and anything that did not include an unchanging standard of morality. Rather obviously, any political ideology that desires radical change is also inconsistent. I referenced Kirk's Ten Principles of Conservatism, but only discussed the first principle, because that is the only one that poses an apparent conflict with atheism. The other nine principles exclude many other political ideologies. My statement that "Atheists and Deists believe that morality is derived by reason from human nature. Therefore atheism is consistent with conservatism." was in the context of atheists and deists who are Conservatives. Neither atheists nor deists necessarily derive morality for human nature, but there is nothing in either atheism or deism that contradicts so doing. It is part of the beliefs of Deists like Jefferson, but it is not an essential part of all of deism. Con notes, "So perhaps your definition of conservatism is consistent with atheism and theism alike." Of course it is. That is the whole point of the debate. The key element discussed is how a transcendental morality can be derived without reference to God. There was never any doubt that transcendental morality can be derived by reference to unchanging scripture. And, of course, it is not "my" definition of Conservatism, it is the definition agreed to by multiple authoritative sources. Con states, "But you fail to see that Atheists (or Deists) do not necessarily share any belief about morality at all." That effectively concedes the debate. I agree that they do not necessarily share any belief about morality. If a belief was necessarily shared, then that necessary belief would have to be tested against the Conservative belief that some morality is enduring. But since atheists have no necessary moral beliefs, there is no conflict in some atheists believing that morality is derived from human nature. I have never claimed that there was any necessity in atheists deriving such a morality, I only claimed that so doing was consistent with atheism. It is consistent because in the derivation there is no reference to a god or gods. Con cites a Britannica article, and then claims the idea of human imperfectibility is inconsistent with atheism. The next few sentences of that article refute that claim. The article says, "A common way of distinguishing conservatism from both liberalism and radicalism is to say that conservatives deny the perfectibility of humanity. In other words, they deny the optimistic view that human beings can be morally improved through social and political change. Conservatives who are Christians sometimes express this point by saying that human beings are guilty of original sin. Skeptical conservatives merely observe that human history, under almost all imaginable social and political circumstances, has been filled with a great deal of evil." The article is using "skeptical" to mean "other than Christian" or "non-religious." In other words, atheists may be Conservatives and derive the concept of imperfectibility from the study of human history. The resolution is "Atheism is consistent with Conservatism." The reason it is consistent is that atheism does not imply moral beliefs, therefore an atheist may, without contradiction, derive morality from human nature. The derivation does not require a god to establish transcendental morality, so there is no conflict with disbelief in gods. Conservatism requires belief in transcendental morality, but does not require that it be derived from religious belief. Both my sources and Con's sources acknowledge that Conservatives may be atheists. There was never any claim that atheists must be Conservatives or that Conservatives must be atheists. The resolution was solely that they are consistent -- not in any necessary conflict from the definitions of either. An atheist may or may not be a Conservatives. A Conservative may or may not be an atheist. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed.