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: 1106

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yep! Humanism, as I just pointed out in a separate response, means caring about all of humanity, and by extension, all of society, as opposed to just caring about our own personal little in-group. So humanists (who are generally atheists, but not exclusively) are more likely to land on the left end of the political spectrum, the end which aims for social responsibility.
Well I have no idea how to find the latest responses, I only know they've been made and their content sent to my email. Anyway, this is in response to David Maxwell's latest point, that atheism is political because there are no tea party candidates/members who are atheist. Good point! Certainly this indicates something, if it doesn't prove anything. The idea that Christians ally themselves with the right is at first difficult to understand - don't they believe in helping others? And isn't the right - the further you go, the more so - about everyone being out for themselves? How can they let themselves get duped into supporting the party of big business and the banking sector? Which also begs the point - don't they believe in helping the poor? But they vote for the rich... The answer is that they are not out to help others, and the poor, but out to help themselves. What becomes more disturbing is that you find atheists who have to go EVEN FURTHER to the right, way past even what the Repubs are for, towards the Libertarian type tea partiers and anarchists because they refuse to see any virtue in bringing us along together as any semblance of a society. So while there is no necessary connection between atheism and politics, there is at least a common thread and a relationship worth exploring. And thanks again for this wonderfully provocative post, David!

Completely agree with wanderer....

Thanks Joel! And I wrote that terribly and in haste, but... glad you got the point. I think what I left out there was that these atheist Libertarians find themselves going even beyond the run-of-the-mill conservatives because they are not just looking for a philosophy which keeps a united front of the type the tea partiers do, when they unite against all the things David mentioned - anti-gov't, anti-secular (well, anti-anti-Christian anyways). So the tea party at least has a sense of common unity with each other and even with a good portion of what before was simply the further edges of conservative Christianity, aka the Republicans. But the Ayn Rand Libertarians unite under the flag of, well, Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy. They proudly bear the mantra of "greed is good", "selfishness is a virtue", etc., and instead of getting why they are reviled, they lash out by accusing the rest of us of acting like some unthinking mob. The funny twist is here - they say to us, if we don't like the conditions imposed on us at our place of business, we can simply leave and go somewhere else, but they don't apply that thinking to themselves when they feel imposed upon with taxes, i.e. social responsibilities. Private individuals and companies are supposed to be "free" to do what they see fit, but the people can't come together as a single organization to do what they want. This is the basic one-sidedness of Libertarianism. Too bad they don't get that its not some slippery slope to communism, but rather a balance between individual and social responsibilities, a balance which needs to be struck and struck well for a society to work as a society, not as a hodgepodge of unrelated and disorganized individuals, some with and, to those without, a big "go fuck yourselves".

It is unfair and immoral to try and force equality, which is impossible. Trying to fit people who identify and recognize the intellectual honesty of egoism and individual rights as religious or one-sided is just arbitrary lashing. An objectivist cannot be religious (which I am unsure if you, Wanderer, suggested, but many have). There is zero faith involved. Only reason. I do not speak for other people whose love for AR may overwhelm their reason. But I hold the principles of noncontradiction and causality as universal. This is a commitment to reality and the noncontradictory integration of perceptual evidence as the only path to knowledge. It cannot be religious. It cannot be one-sided, whatever that metaphor is meant to imply, other than having a 'closed' mind, which I think is stupid metaphor. Being right minded is where its at, not 'open' to just anything. I am not open to the idea of 2+2 equalling 17. I am not open to the idea of things burning and freezing at the same time or being all red and all blue simultaneously. I am not open to people taking my shit against my will.

 

A libertarian society is not a hodgepodge of disorganized people. They are organized around the right to your own life. Trade can still allow prosperity, just not at the point of a gun. Society could function better and without institutionalized immoral force of socialism.

 

The only reason to doubt knowledge is if there is the presence of contradictory information. Calling an objectivist, egoist or libertarian religious, closed-minded or mean does not address the issue of nonagression or immoral force that is necessary for any socialistic society. A socialistic society must first and foremost impinge on individual rights to redistribute wealth. Why would I not tell someone who wants my money and will take it against my will for others I do not wish to invest in, to fuck off? Because I have compassion for stangers? How do I know they deserve my money? I don't. And being appropriately judgemental, I am only willing to give my money to those that I believe deserve it, which is better done on a personal level. I won't willingly give money to a theif and a liar, but might to a hard-working person who is unfortunate. And I definately don't want the government or these people deciding themsleves where my money goes. I don't owe the starving child in Africa and I don't owe the 15th child of some 22 yo inner-city mommy. I am willing to pay for every single thing I use, but I am not willing to pay for other people to use these things. They can be built by those who are willing to pay for their use. Why am I an asshole, when all I want is to be free, not at the expense of anyone else? If someone agrees to work for a dollar and they get paid a dollar, they are not being exploited. You socialists are the ones with the aggression.

 

It is unfair and immoral to try and force equality, which is impossible.

No Socialist Forces anyone, it is done by free elections!

 

Trying to fit people who identify and recognize the intellectual honesty of egoism and individual rights as religious or one-sided is just arbitrary lashing.

 

You said it Egoism it just me! me! me! with you, all about individual rights, no responsibility.

 

There is zero faith involved. Only reason.

That assumes you are capable of reason, i have only seen idiocy.

 

This is a commitment to reality and the noncontradictory integration of perceptual evidence as the only path to knowledge.

Even when all the evidence says that when people work together in a socialistic way is the only way is the only way things ever get done (public and private corporations included!)

 

I am not open to people taking my shit against my will.

If you ever learn to give a damn about anyone you will be happy to give, no socialist takes by force, that would be communism. (and dont give me that lie about them being the same, they are as different as chalk and cheese)

 

A libertarian society is not a hodgepodge of disorganized people.

So they socialised then?

 

They are organized around the right to your own life.

So is a socialist society, you seem to be learning.

 

Trade can still allow prosperity, just not at the point of a gun.

Unfettered trade can also produce poverty for those who have no money. This is one thing i call immoral.

 

A socialistic society must first and foremost impinge on individual rights to redistribute wealth.

WRONG, A socialistic society consults its members and comes up with a consensus all (or most) can agree on. It makes no claim on individuals wealth. (That would be Communism)

 

I am willing to pay for every single thing I use, but I am not willing to pay for other people to use these things.

 

Seriously have you ever used the following : Public roads, Public transport, Public Libraries, The police force, The fire brigade, Public water supply, Public sewers, THE INTERNET, gps, Public utilities (gas, electricity), food quality standards? They are all based on socialist ideas. YOU PRACTICE SOCIALISM EVERY DAY. .... and yet you decry it??!!

 

I dare you. live for a week without socialism.

Want to go somewhere ? Pay someone to use a road.

Want to learn something ? Figure it out yourself. (no cheating and reading books, or going to school)

Victim of crime ? Dont go to the police, solve it yourself.

House on fire? Put it out yourself.

Thirsty? Risk drinking from a natural stream (and wonder if some dead animal is decomopsing upstream)

Hungry ? Buy your food from an unregulated seller, and wonder if he is giving you food poisioning.

Need to take a shit ? Just throw it out the window like your neighbours, after all its not like you want to take responsibility for public health standards, because that would be socialist!.

 

 

M.

 

 

 

Individual rights necessitates taking responsibility and not pawning it off on others. 

Your free elections is mob rule. The majority should have no say what an individual does, as long as it does not impinge on the rights of another. 

Private enterprise can do everything you so childishly challenged me to do without socialism. Your emotions are clear. But your arguments do not follow logically.

As I said, I would gladly pay for any service I use. It is immoral to force me to pay for yours. That's fine if you wish to give money to a failing school in another state; I only wish to pay for the things I use and the government uses altruism as a smoke-screen to get your money and you feel that you are doing good when you give your money to them. The truth is that it is a horrible scam that breeds corruption and a needy welfare state.

The right to my life is impinged upon by you socialistic society. Property rights are not enforced. Property rights are a key component of the right to life. And socialism does not respect this. It holds the group as a value. You are just upset. You aren't thinking critically.

All socialism must take money away from individuals by force or they are libertarian. Voluntary taxation, paid citizenship, fee for service....cannot exist in a socialistic society. That would make it a libertarian, individual rights kind of place. For wealth redistribution to exist, you must have involuntary taxes. This is force. If I don't pay, I go to jail. There is no room here for me to make my own moral decision. If I don't make what you see as the moral choice, which I consider infantile, they will take me to jail against my will. How is this freedom?

So you see people being poor as immoral. You mean that suffering makes you upset and overwhelms your ability to reason and brings you to the tragically erroneous conclusion that it is the fault of people who are not suffering. If you wish to help them, great. Do it. But do it yourself. Don't get your buddies together and force someone else to do it. I have no problem with philanthropy or charity. Helping people is good. Forcing other people to do it isn't.

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

A proper government offers freedom from coercion, not from the responsibility of self-sustenance. It protects people from thieves and killers, not from reality or the need to create one’s values from one’s own thoughts and labors.

Unfettered fair deals are not the cause of poverty. You are blaming a state of nature on the means of commerce. It makes no sense.

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

Aha! Blaming the victim, eh? And so blatantly. So it is a sick person's fault if they get sick? A child's fault for being born into poverty? A minority's fault for being discriminated against in the workplace? Etc. etc. Your lies have just been exposed. Want to help solve societal problems? Do it privately. As for the rest of us, go fuck yourselves. We're all out for ourselves in this cruel heartless world, right MT? I wonder if a cause of poverty is that people like MT just don't give a fuck. Societal problems aren't your problem, right? Well, if the rest of our society decides that we want to do something about it and take social responsibility, you'll have to excuse us if we ask you to shut the fuck up and either take it or go somewhere else.

My lies have been exposed? What lie? Specifically, how have I lied? That's rhetorical. I know I haven't lied.

Victim of what? Who caused the illness or poverty? Not me. Not my responsibility. Suffering exists and will exist as long as humans do. A society based on this suffering and the perceived need of these people cannot be as successful and one that rewards rational people acting in a nonviolent manner, without institutionalized violence.

If you wish to help people, great. I might, too. As I have said, I think helping people is a good thing. But institutionalizing their welfare doesn't help and is wrong to, by mob rule, force my cooperation with where you think my wealth should go. Not as for the rest of you, fuck off (unless you want to take my money), but you do it privately, too, just like anyone else would have too. You telling me to shut the fuck up and taking my money is not social responsibility, it is immoral force and institutionalized theft. 

 I bet you were/are a big fan of BLACKWATER.
Your lie, rhetorical as my point may have been, is that the poor are poor because of their actions, a point which you so conveniently decided to pass on responding to. Which is why talking to you is like talking to a fucking brick wall, you only respond in one direction, your own. As for the rest of your arguments, yeah, we all get it, its not your fault, so its not your problem. A society which tends to the needs of its people is not a society based on need. It is one based on mutual caring and compassion. Your straw man argument is that this means that we have to steal from the rich to pay for any absurdities which may cause a person to fall into misfortune, be it by random chance or by their own stupidity. This is a false conclusion. We may prevent money from going to those who would abuse the system while at the same time use that money to rescue the proverbial drowning child, or to put out a fire, or to educate the masses to be better equipped to "create value of their own". And so on!

Amen!

M.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service