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: 1778

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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".


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.

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?

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.
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.
Communism yes, but also, all forms of socialism. Sure, we get to vote every once in a while, but only for who socialistically destroys our rights. It is the socialistic nature of our democracy that is wrong. The socialism within our once quasi-capitalistic states is the cause of our debt and malfunctional forced welfare state.
I have only a responsibility to not violate another's individual rights. He does not have a right to the fruits of my labors. Profit does not entail exploitation without force or fraud. None of your definitions change that socialism as a political philosophy, puts the invalid rights of the group in front of the individual. And socialism always entails public ownership, which necessitates force. Your emotions are clear, but your arguments are nonsubstantial. You can't be as successful and your talents will let you with socialism, you must sacrifice partial ownership of your earnings. Oooh, guaranteed a minimum. For what, being born. No thanks. Hopefully my parents had the power to raise and educate me and provide shelter and insurance before they made me, and if I'm their 5th kid on welfare, no one else owes me shit. Welfare grows the lower class and taxes paralyze the middle and stop the rich from creating jobs and putting capital back in the market.
I've thrown up my hands with MT, which is why I haven't bothered keeping up with this conversation. It just goes around and around, and its far too wearisome and frustrating to even bother. Same reasoning that led me to an atheist website - I came here so I didn't have to waste time bothering to argue against something so blatantly stupid. But you guys have fun trying to reason with the unreasonable! But if you could, is somebody up to organizing the arguments and counterarguments into a cohesive paper? A Socialism v. Libertarianism piece? I know its a lot of work, but could be a lot of fun, more fun than talking to a wall anyway.
Almost as pointless as arguing with a creationist!
Well let's just get right down to brass tax then, why don't we? Park, I'd be glad to help out in this regard, and perhaps JD and anyone else of like mind can throw our weight behind this thing. Eventually we'll have something we can just throw up here on Nexus as our standing argument. Maybe we need (yes, yet another!) group to get started here? Let's get organized! What do you say?


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service