Well, of course, I think not. I think many have accepted the religious notion of self-sacrifice as good and humans/selfishness/self-interest being a sin/bad.
The belief in evolution makes ME want even humans to be strong, fit, healthy, the best they can be. Evolution makes me hate the Liberal idea of supporting, even encouraging weakness and unhealthiness and lack of intelligence and being sub-par.
One atheist Liberal tried to tell me that, in nature, there were some animal groups that supported the weak (forgot the word she used). But, I think the Meer cat is a great example for her: they do help to raise eachother's young, but if a young meer cat overbreeds in a time of little food, the queen meer cat kills the younger one's kittens. Their are many example similar.
If our individuals keep getting weaker and weaker, the stronger will be forced to carry more and more weight. Don't the stronger deserve to be happy and free?
I'm reading Richard Dawkins' The Ancients' Tale about evolution now...he says that evolution isn't about the advancement of a species, but about the advancement or evolution of the individual in the species. An individual may develop qa useful mutation and that individual reproduces evolved, more adaptable offspring.
I'm glad you've asked that question, TD.
Her's what I nposted not long ago . . .
I try to talk to atheists and I get jumped for not being a screaming liberal.
I try to talk to patriots and I get jumped for not being a screaming born-again Christian.
I try to talk to bikers and I get jumped for not being a screaming conservative.
With all the screaming going on, I can't help but wonder . . . what kind of a participatory democracy can we have when the world is embracing retribalization? And not only on the cultural, geopolitical, and religious fronts, but even down to the individual? As great as the internet is at giving everybody a voice, it seems we predominately only want to hear people who agree with our own previously held opinions.
How can we see new horizons if we only look in the mirror?
So, as someone who values freedom of the road and freedom of thought, and who believes Earth's best chance of having a locale where those ideals might be achieved it the U S of A, I ask . . . AM I THE ONLY ONE???
This is an absurd question. One might as well ask, "Must atheists wear neckties?"
Liberalism (a political stance) and atheism (a rejection of religious belief) really have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Similarly, religious belief and conservatism have nothing to do with each other. One is a political attitude, the other a religion.
Anyone ever hear about separation of church and state?
The only (tenuous) relationship that in fact exists is that, historically, the liberal political establishment in this country has attempted to get more votes by reaching out to fringe groups like environmentalists, gays, racial minorities and so on. The conservative side, not be outdone, reached out in a similar way to fundamentalists and other highly religious groups to try and cultivate their support.
Neither party really incorporates the beliefs of the minority elements into their philosophy, but they each give lip service to the desires of the smaller groups, and add their demands to the respective political agendas, in order to continue to draw the resultant votes that are generated.
It's all a rather poorly concealed game of coalition-building for political gain.
A better question, and one that I think has a much higher degree of causative correlation, would be: "Must atheists be intelligent?"