Is Atheism a chiefly liberal or conservative philosophy?

I know this may seem like a bit of an odd question but I’ve been wondering about it for the past few days and for some reason I can’t escape the feeling that it (atheism) would be a rather ‘conservative’ point of view (that is, at least in title), and yet I’m constantly being called a liberal because of my social and political leanings. I'm just wondering what your views are on this.

 

PS: I’ll be gone for a few days but I will catch up with this thread when I return.

Views: 1469

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

10/10 for showing that you have absolutely no idea what socialism is.

M.

Care to back that up? At the core of socialism is economic wealth redistribution, ethical altruism and violation of individual rights, including property rights. And in order to enforce these, you must use true threat and execution of incarceration. Show me how this is not correct. It is you who has a, likely compassion and pity induced, misunderstanding of socialism if you think I don't know what it is.

Easy: Thats because you have described communism, not socialism.

 

Communism: forced econimic wealth distribution for everyone.

Socialism: you can be as rich as your talent will let you, but you dont get to exploit the poverty of others, and you are guaranteed a minimum standard of living.

 

Communism:Individual rights are dictated by the state.

Socialism: Individual rights are gained by free elections and lawmaking by "we the people".

 

Communism: All property is held by the state.

Socialism: You own your own property.

 

Communism, Socialism, Fascisim, Theocracies & Democracies, and republics all use the threat of incarceration to get their way.

 

Learn the vaast differences, and then rejoin the debate.

 

M.

 

ps, here is what socialism does for you :

http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/socialism-is-bad

 

M.

 

 

 

Communism yes, but also, all forms of socialism. Sure, we get to vote every once in a while, but only for who socialistically destroys our rights. It is the socialistic nature of our democracy that is wrong. The socialism within our once quasi-capitalistic states is the cause of our debt and malfunctional forced welfare state.

Actually I would argue that it is the excesses of unchecked capitalism that is destroying the usa. When the usa no longer (now) has a viable middle class and the gap between rich and poor is the greatest in the developed world, it points to exploititive capitalism as the culprit. 

 

M.

 

You speak of rights, but not of responsibilities, what of your responsibilities to your fellow citizen ? or dont you care that he cannot get 3 full meals a day because of an exploitative labor market ?

 

M.

I have only a responsibility to not violate another's individual rights. He does not have a right to the fruits of my labors. Profit does not entail exploitation without force or fraud. None of your definitions change that socialism as a political philosophy, puts the invalid rights of the group in front of the individual. And socialism always entails public ownership, which necessitates force. Your emotions are clear, but your arguments are nonsubstantial. You can't be as successful and your talents will let you with socialism, you must sacrifice partial ownership of your earnings. Oooh, guaranteed a minimum. For what, being born. No thanks. Hopefully my parents had the power to raise and educate me and provide shelter and insurance before they made me, and if I'm their 5th kid on welfare, no one else owes me shit. Welfare grows the lower class and taxes paralyze the middle and stop the rich from creating jobs and putting capital back in the market.

 

I have only a responsibility to not violate another's individual rights. He does not have a right to the fruits of my labors.

 

He does have the right to be adequately rewarded for his labor, as do you.

 

Profit does not entail exploitation without force or fraud.

Nice double negative, What i think you are trying to say is that profit can be made with no coercion, socialism agrees, because it is best for society when everyone wins.

 

None of your definitions change that socialism as a political philosophy, puts the invalid rights of the group in front of the individual.

 

Why are the rights of the group inherently invalid ? If you put the rights of the individual first you also have the reverse of the problems of communism. (which you incorrectly keep calling Socialism) where the right of the murderer and rapist to keep on offending are protected (or would you like society to step in there, and make a socialist decision?).

 

And socialism always entails public ownership, which necessitates force.

 

Always ? there is an absolutist statement which is completely biased and unverifiable. Socialism does not repeat NOT inherently entail public ownership of ANYTHING. The public (society)  may decide whether to nationalise or privatise something, but that iis their decision!

 

Your emotions are clear, but your arguments are nonsubstantial.

 

Ad hominem attack, breaks the rules of civilised debate. And my arguments are perfectlty logical, if only you could see them.

 

You can't be as successful and your talents will let you with socialism, you must sacrifice partial ownership of your earnings.

 

This is equally true under capitalism. You still have to pay your taxes, and buy at the market rate all that you need/desire.

 

Oooh, guaranteed a minimum. For what, being born. No thanks.

 

Yes, its called respect for your fellow man. If you want no minimum standards, just bring back slavery, its got a long and proud history in the usa.

 

Hopefully my parents had the power to raise and educate me and provide shelter and insurance before they made me, and if I'm their 5th kid on welfare, no one else owes me shit.

 

EPIC FAIL on the education ! FYI Not all parents are good parents, or have the money to educate you, besides if you really belive in user pays capitalism, ask you 5 year olds to pay their own way in school through child labor, after all, no one owes them shit either. (or would you prefer they belong to some type of socialist institution called a family that would look after them, to raise and educate them?)

 

Welfare grows the lower class and taxes paralyze the middle and stop the rich from creating jobs and putting capital back in the market.

 

Capitalism uses financial leverage to destroy the middle class and turn them into the lower class, the rich benefit from this and hoard money as protection from the lower classes they have created.

 

 

Enough for now, im at work!

 

M.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've thrown up my hands with MT, which is why I haven't bothered keeping up with this conversation. It just goes around and around, and its far too wearisome and frustrating to even bother. Same reasoning that led me to an atheist website - I came here so I didn't have to waste time bothering to argue against something so blatantly stupid. But you guys have fun trying to reason with the unreasonable! But if you could, is somebody up to organizing the arguments and counterarguments into a cohesive paper? A Socialism v. Libertarianism piece? I know its a lot of work, but could be a lot of fun, more fun than talking to a wall anyway.
Almost as pointless as arguing with a creationist!
Oh, now you people come out of the woodwork!

 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service