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

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.

W,

First of all, I do not believe that a political decision should be allowed to influence anything other than who will and how they will protect our individual rights. To keep every individual free from coercion. Second, no, the moral thing is not to let people starve to death. Nor is it to force other people to help. As I have said before, philanthropy and charity, imo, would flourish even more than they do now. I can imagine an organization designed to help people like this, soliciting voluntary contributions perhaps, or starting a business whose profit is dedicated to starving people, with a logo and brand that consumers can be proud they have contributed to what they perceive as a good cause. And, why they are starving has no imapct whatsoever, imo, as to whether or not you force someone to help, as a rule of the land (institutionalized violence), but would certainly matter as to whether I make a decision to help them personally. This is partially why it should be left up to the individual to help or not, as they see fit. And as for mob rule, I think that if we are to elect officials to run the military, national guard, law courts and other valid extensions of retaliatory force, mob rule is the only fair way to go. If it is concerning other non-moral institutionalized violence, the mob should not have a say in where my money goes. The mob is only proper in deciding who and how our individual rights will be protected or what objective laws will be enforced. Park, any reason why you are addresssing me in the third person?

lol only because I was responding to Wanderer, not to you Michael.  

>And as for mob rule, I think that if we are to elect officials to run the military, national guard, law courts and other valid extensions of retaliatory force, mob rule is the only fair way to go. If it is concerning other non-moral institutionalized violence, the mob should not have a say in where my money goes.

 

Who decides what is of a moral nature and what is not?  If anything social support programs are of the utmost moral nature, not the military.  

 

I am really just tired of all polemical rhetoric on your behalf, Mike.  Enforcing laws is called "violent coercion," the democratic process is "mob" rule~ these notions of 'liberty' are meretricious, and I just don't have much stomach for the same thing over and over and over again without gaining any ground, or making any thoughtful progress. 

 

"with that said, I bid you adieu"

The individual decides what is moral for him or her, which is the only way personal choices can be made morally. The mob does not get to vote on individual choices, only to empower the institution that monopolizes retaliatiory force against those that would coerce another individual.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service