Atheist Nexus Logo

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: 1625

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What lie?

It is not immature to point out the obvious faults in institutionalized violence. Being a bully is immature and that is what the socialistic mob is, a big bully.

Michael!  You know I love the extreme, paralyzing rage that results in me when I read your posts!  The clenched fists, the gnashing of teeth~ the spittle flying from my lips as I furiously type a response, trying not to destroy my computer in the process.  I even love the bruises on my forehead from when I repeatedly bang it against my desk, trying in vain to achieve your point of view!

 

but seriously, good times man lol :-D

"It is not the absence of government enforced support from other people that makes someone poor. It is their behavior."

Just to make this point again, because I think it deserves special attention, everybody, this is what a Libertarian like MT believes. Poor people are poor because they have nothing of value to contribute to the society, and NEVER because other people have failed them or mistreated them or took advantage of them or abused their power, NEVER because the system was inadequate to address their needs, NEVER because they were victimized by others, or by bad luck, NEVER because they fell ill or received a debilitating injury, NEVER because their parents suffered in any similar or relevant way, and NEVER because there weren't enough people around them to give them a helping hand.

Let's not forget people, as soon as the job you have trained for is rendered obsolete and you have no marketable skills remaining, or as soon as you get injured and can't return to your workplace, or as soon as you get diagnosed with cancer and can't afford your insurance because you are out of work, or as soon as you become a refugee due to some natural catastrophe (think Katrina) or violent conflict, as soon as anything bad happens to you and you are down on your luck, you are labeled a drain on society and you need to be cut off like the cancer which may be destroying you from the inside. You are now a waste of a human being, a worthless, irredeemable piece of excrement, and the rest of us are perfectly in our right minds to kick you to the curb like the piece of trash you are. U-S-A! U-S-A!

In turn, you could also see that this advocation actually denies the right to life to those individuals.  Once they cannot contribute, even if temporary, they lose that right to sustain life, and they lose the gov'ts protection of that right.  The ONLY people it empowers is those who already empower themselves~ for everyone beneath them, it strips the right away.  It could be seen as an attempt to only empower the 'haves' and to continue the oppression of life and liberty of the 'have nots.'

On top of that, it also oppresses those individuals who do want to help~ it actually forces them to spend more if they wish to help.  If a family has crumbled to abject poverty, and there are no social assistance programs, the only assistance they will receive from friends and family is that which they can afford, not what the poor family needs.  Having a mandatory pool of contributors decreases the impact of such assistance on those who give, while adequately providing for those who need.

Excellent points, Park.

You don't have a moral right to life at the expense of someone else. Sure you have a legal right, but I am not in any disagreement with anybody about what the laws are, Park.

 

Personal liberty does not oppress anybody. Your so called oppression is fabricated as an excuse to validate your institutionalized violence, just like your so called exploitation. 

Michael, exploitation is definitional.  Its not a matter of perception, its a matter of what the word means.  maybe you'd just be better off arguing that its not wrong to exploit people.

Institutionalized violence?  So no police then?  Inaction can't be actionable?  You're a doctor of some sort, no?  How is it that field medics in our military can be compelled

(take an oath) to treat every injured person, whether taliban or US Army, and yet a doctor back here believes in the right to say "fuck it, let em' suffer." ???

Oh, thats right~ you live here, in the most prosperous nation on the planet~ far away from the realities of human suffering.  Let me remind you then.

Hope he had insurance, huh?

 

Thats cool too~ its not hard to find a job when you have no home, transportation, education, and you're 12.  I'm sure if he works hard, the market will accept him into its infinite bosom and he'll be prosperous~ and every other person just like him.

 

Nothing wrong here, huh?  People don't really need food to survive~ maybe they're both just anorexic~ either way, its not my fuckin' problem, right?

 

 

 

 

Human suffering is everyone's problem, and every human needs to contribute.  Just how my 3 year old doesn't want to pick up his toys at night, some people don't want to have to contribute.  

This is you, Michael, whining about how you don't want to have to contribute (which really implies the fact that you wouldn't, or you wouldn't be so upset about having to in the first place).

 

Well lucky for you, I'm here

 

Love ya, son.

It is definatley wrong to exploit people. But trading with them is not exploiting them. Hiring someone for a job is not exploiting them. Taking their money against their will is exploiting them. The suffering in the above pictures is not my problem. They are not my responsibility and there is no reason what so ever that I should be held accountable at the point of a gun by the mob. You may make it your responsibility to do something about it, but if that is what you want, you should do it yourself. Don't force me to do it.
Park, It's not a question of not wanting to contribute. I give plenty of money to worth while causes. You really are just being juvenile now. My point is that forcing the public to give to an organization of institutionalized violence to help the least fortunate of society is immoral and impractical. You guys are the one's whining about how you want other people to take responsibility to take of other's problems. I am fully willing and do take care of my problems and those I care about. I do not wish to hire people with guns to take care of people I don't care about, especially since it does not help them. It enables to disgusting failed welfare state that I interact with daily.

We humans are smarter, well, some of us are, than having to take money from some to give to others to solve the above problems you cry and whine about.

 

I compassionately take care of people daily, at the tax payers expense, that are demonstrations of our failed institutionalized welfare state. Enabling dependence on government doesn't work. The way to help these people is by respecting all of our individual rights and empowering those that will work to take care of themselves and their loved ones. Insurance can be affordable, but try and tell that to the countless patients of mine that purchase health insurance, if at all, only after cigarettes, tattoos, IPhones, shoes, gold teeth and who knows what else. We shouldn't just pay for these people to live like this.

Yes, waa waa, my child was born with autism and I can't afford the special services he needs to get him healthier and stronger, but I'm just a whiny little bitch, right? Fuck you, seriously fuck you Michael Tricoci. Not all of us are smoking, tattoo-getting. free-spenders and free-loaders. Some of us are real people with real fucking problems that you can't understand in your little fucking cocoon you've wrapped yourself in.
So, your personal situation and emotional investment in it seems to be the reason behind your political views. That's pretty much the way it goes with the mob. If we look at the situation as a whole and realize that it is not the responsibility of others to take care of you and yours, we can realize that it is moral and practical to have a government that only protects individual rights. We should encourage people to be financially secure and capable of taking care of other people they create, before they create them. I am not in a cocoon. I interact with many levels of society in a myriad of ways. I have been both poor and wealthy. And a large part of my job is to understand how different people representing different aspects of economics, politics, socioeconomic status, and culture relate to each other. And my performance is regularly evaluated by several different peer and superior clinical and administrative officials. And while I have compassion and empathy for those in pain, I can logically realize that we can minimize suffering by rewarding good and not need. But, I understand how you might feel better temporarily by blaming the successful businessman.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service