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: 1740

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I would say neither. The only reason that it's widely considered progressive (I don't like to use "liberal" as the opposite of conservative) is because the conservative establishment has for so long been linked with religious dogma. Not so much nowadays with the advent of Ayn Rand-ism and libertarianism, but theism is still a powerful force on the right.

atheism is NOT a philosophy. its a word to describe those that demand evidence and logical argument.

living in reality is not a philosophy....its just existentially living in reality without any need for "belief in things not seen".



Agreed. Another concept I have been toying with would be limiting the pure profits of corporations, which I know has been attempted through increased taxation on net gains~ by allowing an entity such as Exxon to keep only 10% of their net profit and mandating the rest be reinvested in communities, workers, or immediate reinvestment programs we could limit the "pooling" of money that happens in these lax systems.  The thing that really pisses me off is people having sympathy for these "animals"; a business is an entity in and of itself~ it strives to grow (profit) and adapts to its environment~ yet these people want to coddle them, I suspect most often because they are the ones who would want to benefit.  Commerce has, so far, been a natural human tendency.  Markets will arise everywhere, regardless of the limitations~ the best that can be done is to responsibly regulate them to make sure they A. don't grow out of control and B. that they don't start suffocating the things that are really important, the people.

As far as I can tell, atheism does not affect a person's political choices.  However, I feel that liberals are more willing to give us rights (ie true separation of church and state) than conservatives.  I have often had a hard time seeing how inheriting a $5 million a year trust fund constitutes "merit".  But accident of birth is considered merit by some.
look at jesus~ he was born of god and inherited the kingdom of heaven, that dick.  Makes perfect sense in that context lol

The liberals tend to advocate intellectual freedom, while demanding economic controls. The conservatives (though they endorse many economic controls) tend to advocate economic freedom, while demanding governmental controls in all the crucial intellectual and moral realms. Each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises… neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.

-Ayn Rand

We should have separation of church and state as well as separation of the economy and state.


Non-quantifiable aspects like time, effort, skill and so on go into making something. And non-quantifiable aspects like taste/preference, need, want and means and so on go into buying something. The buyer and the seller agree, vis a vis the market, what the value of the final product is. There is no solid objective price or value for anything. The normative value placed on things by humans as they need them and the market changes continuously. You couldn't predict the value or price of a bottle of water in 5 years or an ounce of gold to save your life and neither could an economist. I already explained this a different way with the cola and gasoline. One man's treasure is, or can be, another man's trash. In the end, a value is a means to happiness and if my happiness in no way depends on diapers, then they have no value to me. However many people there are with a need and wish to buy diapers and how willing they are to pay for them and how many the producers produce all set the price. This is how come a bottle of sunscreen in a grocery store in Ohio is 3 bucks and the same one at a hotel in Fort Lauderdale is 17 dollars. I bought it, because my long run on the coast in the hot sun and the protection from burning is worth 20 bucks to me, while I would never pay that here in Ohio. 

When was the last time someone was forced to buy something? Or forced to get a certain job. Life can be hard, especially if you are born without means. But having little is not the same as being forced to buy something or forced to work. 

You talk about common sense as if it is true. Look around, what is commonly understood is extremely poor. Common sense, imo, is retarded. How about basic economics, supply and demand. The market sets price, value and worth. Didn't you take basic econ?

wow Michael, its really not that hard.

For example

Time to harvest one tree (needed for production of coffee table) 1 hr x Wage of workers 2($15/hr)

Cost to transport raw lumber to mill $5

time to shape wood 2 hrs x Wage of saw operator ($10/hr)

Cost to transport materials for assembly $5

Time to assemble into table 3 hrs x Wage of worker ($15/hr)

Cost to transport assembled table to retail outlet $5

total intrinsic cost of coffee table $110

That was hard, wasn't it?

Point is, everything is quantifiable nowadays.  Human lives can be assigned a cost, and so can risk~ insurance companies do it with millions of people and make billions of dollars of profit.


"The market sets price, value and worth. Didn't you take basic econ?"

um, yeah, I'm pretty sure thats the absurdity I'm arguing against.  Not that it doesn't happen, but that its not the way it should be done.  Its a wonder how I can find people on here who reject the god hypothesis but would put the fate of hundreds of millions into the "invisible hand" of the "market."


[edited for grammar]

Not hard, no, but completely insufficient. You think that it is fair to have a government that requires all coffee tables to be sold at $110? Two nearly identical things can have different values depending on where they are. No government or government endorsed and backed organizations should be able to set prices by force. What it really comes down to is that you think it is OK and fair to rob someone to take care of someone else. And you create this false definition of exploitation to make OK what a good portion of your brain knows is wrong.

Where, at any point, have I said ANYTHING about government making all prices equal?  Two things can have varying prices depending on production (ie it costs more to transport one nearly identical item to that location, thus raising its cost) but you apparently haven't been thinking about anything I've been saying~ not surprising, because I know people of certain persuasions merely wait to throw out Ayne Rand quotes~ but jeez, Michael, I was expecting more.

  This whole conversation started from my assertion that, by definition, selling something for a profit is exploitation (gaining unfairly from the work of another).  So far you've done nothing but repeatedly explain the same thing over and over~ but the truth of the matter is that intrinsic value is the cornerstone to the modern market, especially in the retail sector.  Your precious subjective values come into play when profit is involved, because this system is build to produce profit for those who sell, not equity or well being for all individuals.  My argument is that, because there is an intrinsic value that can be placed on the production of something (It is done ALL the time when determining the base price of a product, something typically called "wholesale") that profit should be extremely limited so that ALL people have equal access to goods and services, not only the ones who are willing to pay that much at that time.


Good day, Sir!


Your childish emotional outburst, notwithstanding, I did not mean every coffee table that way, but fixed pricing. And you are suggesting that goods should not go to the highest bidder. During a trade, one person making profit does not preclude the other from doing the same. If it was not worth it to buy something, no one would. And you are still in denial that the things that go into making a product are subjective. Two companies spending the exact same wages and fixed production costs will have different products and you think we should pay the same for both? You want to change the laws of nature, so that some people don't feel pain. You are concerned with suffering, need, class warfare and wealth redistribution and how unfair it is that some will prosper and some will not. So you wish to give decision making power to corrupt government officials. And you need to oppress people to do this. You are focussed on pity and will allow physical coercion to try and alleviate it. You must force equality (which is impossible). That is all socialism is. And you are quite socialistic.
Care to back that up? At the core of socialism is economic wealth redistribution, ethical altruism and violation of individual rights, including property rights. And in order to enforce these, you must use true threat and execution of incarceration. Show me how this is not correct. It is you who has a, likely compassion and pity induced, misunderstanding of socialism if you think I don't know what it is.


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