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: 1369

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Its interesting that over the last two days NPR's ATC (might have well just typed it out: All Things Considered) was doing a story covering the "psychopath" test that prisons are using, often to the end result of keeping prisoners locked up longer because no one will sign off on their release if they are deemed a "psychopath" by this test.  The principles of the test do describe the libertarian philosophy to a 'T', and I think it was interesting that the developer of the test (who is worried that it is being used incorrectly in some cases) brought up that environment plays a huge part in whether someone offends.  The libertarian philosophy could very easily be used to justify committing a crime against others in a 'desperate' situation~ "I gotta look out for myself first, and survival for me is number one"~ That philosophy, coupled with a desperate or impoverished environment (likely to be the result of de-regulation and a 'free' market) is often what leads to violent crimes, and in this case, the offending individuals being locked up indefinitely.

 

tl;dr  Michael, if you were poor, you'd likely be in prison for a long time lol

  [JohnD's libertarian zombies]

[edited for grammar]

Oh thank you Park, this speaks right to my point. Exactly where I was going with this. How is a philosophy which abdicates all responsibility to others when you have power but refuses to empower you when you don't work? It means that when you have power, you are further empowered by the protections it offers you against those without from having any claim on anything you may have, justly or ill-gotten. But if you have nothing, and you are down on your luck and desperate, you are SOL. But I would argue instead, Park, that the philosophy MT is espousing specifically says it is immoral to use any force whatsoever, apparently evenb legal force, to take that which belongs to another. I.e., you can't even resort to violence, you must simply lay down and take it up the ass. This goes against even man's most basic nature, and a philosophy which does that asks the impossible. Of course, if you are rich, this philosophy works out great - noone can touch your shit, even in the most desparate situations, and you are free to become as fabulously wealthy as you can with no restrictions or limitations placed upon how rich or powerful you may wish to become, relative to others or in absolute terms.
Retaliatory force is just fine. If you are without something, you are not SOL, necessarily. No one can legally push you down. Nonaggression. But that does not mean we have to help you or that we should force others to help, with the threat of incarceration if they don't. You are the aggressor.
A government that respects only individual rights is not anarchy.
So you really think, Park, that you have a fundamental right to my shit? Ridiculous.

This just in from someone close to me~ "maybe the rich should have all the power, because they are obviously smart enough to make the money, and everyone else isn't."

 

I've been told this idea is brilliant

 

Damn man everybody doesn't have to bash the rich. Jesus Christ Lucifer, the only thing they did was accumulate more wealth than others. All rich people should not be vilified, for the sake of being wealthy. Heck, most wealthy people are self made and deserve every penny they worked hard for, but inherited wealth is a different story. As for the idea that we should allow people with money to rule us because they are wealthy, is a no no even though it seems like that is what's happening already in our society, unfortunately.

This was after she spent a couple hours reflecting on a documentary she watched about the rich~ she then proceeded to ask me where the laws in the us come from, and to confirm that bejamin franklin wrote the constitution~ when I told her how ridiculous her idea was, she proceeded to tell me that i'm just immature and anti-intellectual, and that I'm not smart enough to get her ideas.

 

Yeah.

Yeah, I realize that now lol.  Seems like arrogance isn't limited to libertarians lmao, but from where it seemed her thoughts were leading, she was going in that direction anyways.
Personally I would tolerate a lot for someone who applies just the right moving pressure to the back during hugging and such things. Good call.
Ok MT, quick question. Suppose you had the political power to make this choice - to do something to prevent some segment of the society from starving to death (let's take food stamps as perhaps an appropriate remedy), or to simply let them die. According to your philosophy then, the moral thing to do is to take no action and let them die, correct? And let's also assume that you know nothing about this segment of society, so you have no idea what the reasons are for them starving, so you don't make the judgment call based on whether you think they are justly or unjustly starving. If this makes a difference, explain why.
Or maybe he could explain the difference between "mob rule" and a democratic republic, because it seems as though he doesn't like the idea of people voting on laws.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service