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: 1718

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"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!

[sigh] oh, here we go again.  I'll try a new method here.


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

~I think we need to agree on what constitutes "individual rights" first before this is addressed.

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. 

~thats why there is a constitution that protects the interests of the individual against the will of the many.

Private enterprise can do everything you so childishly challenged me to do without socialism.

~Private enterprise operates for profit. 'socialism' as you call it, operates in the interest of the people.  It is exactly the altruistic nature of social programs that make them necessary, for a private enterprise operates in its own interest, not that of the people.

As I said, I would gladly pay for any service I use. It is immoral to force me to pay for yours.

~Taxation is fundamental to the contract of 'citizenship and residency' in these United States.  If you don't like it, why don't you end the contract and leave?

government uses altruism as a smoke-screen to get your money...

The truth is that it is a horrible scam that breeds corruption and a needy welfare state.

~so, after being called illogical, let me break this down for a second...  The government is using altruism as a smoke screen to get our money.. and then give it to other people who don't have money.  and somehow thats a scam?  I'm pretty sure that would fall under the realm of 'altruistic.'  That goes without saying the obvious societal ramifications of having no programs...

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.

~seeing as how BOTH of those rights are perpetuated BY the government, and are not a natural, sustainable state of order, I'm not sure you have a point.  Also, the right to property is INDEPENDENT from the right to life~ but again, both of those are PROVIDED by the government in its contract (the constitution) not despite it.

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.

~ you made your decision when you decided that you wished to remain a citizen of the United States.  Jailing occurs when an individual purposefully doesn't pay their taxes, which constitutes a breach in the contract with the government.  You are breaking a rule, you lose those freedoms that are provided.  Again, if you don't agree, leave the country and there will be no problem.  Emigration, btw, is not regulated.

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?

~you choose to live here, you choose to pay.  I don't understand why libertarians can't understand this simple fucking point.  There is nothing stopping you from leaving and 'finding freedom' somewhere else, so if you don't like this, leave.  Your definition of 'freedom' apparently means you can rip off and scam whoever you want, because by not paying you're (implicitly) agreed share, you rip off EVERYONE; but as I said before, if you no longer AGREE to the terms and conditions of citizenship or residence, feel free to do something about it and LEAVE.

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.

~its UNNECESSARY suffering that ruins lives and hurts communities.  You argue against this viewpoint~ so are you advocating that there is a benefit to it?  Should human suffering be sustained? if not, why?  Or are you merely the type of person who says "yeah, someone should go save that drowning person~ oh, no, but not me, this suit is designer."

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.

~ yes, because the ONLY threat to liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness is physical violence from others.  Right. *rolls eyes*

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.

~lol no, YOU make no sense.  Fair means(: Adverb 1. Without cheating or trying to achieve UNJUST ADVANTAGE )that the trade is of EQUAL value, not that both parties consent to it.  If you and I agree to trade two objects of grossly uneven values, it is not a FAIR trade but a consensual one.  This is an obvious misnomer, and you are smart enough to see that.  I AM blaming a state of nature on the means of commerce, because that state of commerce is intended to distribute wealth amongst the people who have it, securing power to those who already have it, and stripping it little by little from everyone else.  

What concerns me is the total lack of empathy with others or acceptance of life having a social context, much as you would expect from a psychopath.

We live with and for others, not just for your self.

Picard.  Hands down.  In fact, I have a pic of him relating to this discussion


Picard was awesome... but Janeway was a badass chick. Advantage Janeway!
 That is so true!! Esp when EVERYONE knows its Picard!!

And no, MT, nobody said anything about equality. You are right there, equality is impossible, and it would be moronic to assume that this is what anyone is arguing for. A more fair and just society? Yes. A more level (i.e. fair) playing field? Yes. So is it unfair to ask for a fair society, or unfair to ask for an unfair society? Duh.


Also, no MT, I did not insinuate at all that Objectivists were religious. As usual you are barking up the wrong tree.


I’m trying to figure out a way of reinforcing your point further with regards to “duped into supporting the party of big business and the banking sector” because it’s something that’s been stuck in my craw for a long time (yes I should have that looked at), as it was also the original intent for why I even asked the question in the first place.

Personally I’ve been working in the public service sector for much of my life and one thing I’ve become disturbed in noticing is the various businesses toting the Catholic Fish symbol, either in their advertisements or business cards. This, whether you’re aware of it, is much more that a statement of religious ideology, as it’s also a poorly subliminal assertion of social solidarity. A sort of religious lightning rod.

Of course this is nothing more than a simple rehashing (or modern day retooling) of the old Jewish method of displaying a hechsher for various foods or businesses that sell Jewish foods – only in this case the Christian symbol extends far into the services and business market. In any case it’s also a calling card for potential politicization. Businesses who tote the Christian symbol will receive the interests of Christian households as well as be more likely to employ Christian employees; Christian (branded) politicians will take note of this and vie to work more in the interest of said businesses. With more and more businesses springing up displaying support for Christian “values” it’s no surprise that it would produce “Christian (Tea Party) Politicians” (like John Boehner). In fact it’s easy money.

Personally I’ve long thought that American Christian Political Ideologies were (and are) based on ignorance and social apathy and having seen what’s going on here in Wisconsin between Governor Scott Walker (a Christian) and the teachers union I can certainly see that my views may not be exactly unfounded, especially when you consider that his actions have also attracted the interest (and support) of Sarah Palin (tea party figurehead).

As a side note (and topic for a potential future question) is the issue of a potential future atheist society in America should the Tea Party machine win in any foreseeable future elections? It’s not an issue of whether they win or not, but let’s just say that even idiots smashing their heads on a wall will eventually have their day in court, and who’s the biggest bunch of idiots (them for their actions or us for not believing it could happen). Hey, H.L. Mencken said "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”.

And if you think America isn’t that stupid just remember this fact, Holocaust denial is a viable academic option for academic thesis’s in American colleges that teach world history, primarily because of issues of belief, so why not this?

Yes there is a relationship between atheism and politics. Just as there is a relationship between atheism and armpits. They exist. The one exists. The other exists. They often exist in proximity. Your armpit may connect to your right hand or your left hand. Makes no difference to your atheism.

Atheism is a-theism; without belief in gods. That is all it is. Note that atheism is also abaggage; without baggage, be that baggage politics, economics, culinary choices, sexual preferences, or singing ability.

I suppose you (whoever) could start up Political Atheism but I sure wouldn't join, and in fact, would be tempted to fight you and ridicule you (you Political Atheists, not anyone here in particular) at every opportunity.

Call me sentimental, but I think politics is detrimental to societal well being, and could be lumped together with racism, national chauvanism, religion, mysogeny, unfettered capitalism, ethnic cleansing etc. in a list of humanity's to-do-away-with list.



Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service