Are modern atheists suffocating atheism with liberalism?

For starters, I’m an agnostic (pretty close to atheist), I don’t really have any thoughts on whether a God exists or not. I do however, have some thoughts on how this…”battle” between Atheism and Religion seems to be shaping out. I have many friends who are both atheist and religious, but almost all of them believe what they believe because they have researched their beliefs (to one degree or another) and have a decently solid basis for it. Now, it’s a well-known fact that most people are religious because their parents were, and they grew up with religion. With atheists, it’s quite a different story. Let me get to the point…


It saddens me to say this, but it seems like more and more atheists, especially internet atheists, are simply “converting” to atheism either because they hate religion (most notably Christianity) or are attracted by a lifestyle where the only rules of morality are the ones they themselves create. Whether they actually believe what they say they do, (or rather, disbelieve), is an issue that is put on the backburner. I feel that many of modern atheists simply accept disbelief of God on the basis of simple arguments, all too willingly, motivated mostly by their desire to be “free” of religion and its “restraints”. This growing propensity seems to be bolstered by the fact that many atheists (especially those on the internet (i.e. r/atheism) will openly support religions like Satanism, if only to piss of Christians. As I wandered from one atheist internet forum to another, I didn’t see any intellectual threads talking about something of value, such as “Why I choose to believe/disbelieve.” Instead, I saw scores and scores of threads discussing such topics as “The War on Christmas” and “The ignorance of Christians” and of course, the textbook “THINK OF THE HOMOSEXUALS” (Boo fucking hoo).


This trend has grown to such a degree that, to many people, atheism doesn’t mean “disbelief in God” or “disbelief in religion” anymore, as it should, but more markedly, “anti-religion”. People have literally come to equate atheism with liberalism, where the only form of morality is the Golden Rule and anything that is related to religion in anyway is evil. People have come to believe that being an atheist is simply giving yourself a license to do whatever you want (similar to the video below)

Nothing could be farther from the truth. As I said before, I am an agnostic with atheistic tendencies. However, I do not condone drinking, drugs, fornication, cursing, or (and I don’t care if this offends anyone) the practice of homosexuality. I condemn these things on a scientific basis. Jared Taylor, one of the foremost advocates of the far-right community, and a staunch atheist himself, holds the same set of moral (or as I call them, efficient) values.

I sincerely believe that this growing delusion that atheism = liberalism, that atheism = license, or that atheism = freedom (from more than just religion) flies in the face of the facts. Again, more and more people seem to be becoming atheists simply because they downright despise religion or are attracted by the idea of a life without any rules, where they can be “chill” and “nice” to everyone. This growing fad has left the atheist community with a shortage of real intellectuals who seek truth rather than license, and leaves us instead with the rabid, seething masses of ignorance, such as the kind that breeds at r/atheism. “I WANT TO DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY BODY, BREAK THE CHAINS OF STUPID RELIGION, FREE THE SEXUALLY AND THE PHYSICALLY REPRESSED, DOWN WITH THE OLIGARCHY” This is not atheism, this is barbarism and primitive, devolved man, seeking to gratify base desires and drag down society with him and using atheism/relativism as a shield to deflect all criticism and attack opponents with impunity.

That being said, I feel that atheism is being abused in modern society, our community has become starved for real intellectuals and filled to the brim with neck-bearded anti-religious whack jobs seeking to gain a vantage point so that they can unload their vengeance upon society for “holding them back”. And frankly, I’m tired of it.


Views: 2494

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To be a religion, the follower must believe in a god....Liberalism is a philosophy as is conservatism....Therefor  neither are considered  a religion.....Kapish ?

Not exactly, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism aren't based on a belief in a supreme being. Now, if you want to argue that if there's no supreme being it's not a religion, that's a reductionist definition.

According to the definition of religion, it can include belief systems without a supreme being...but that is the default meaning/primary meaning.

The same definition though, interestingly, opens the door to atheism being a religion, a slippery slope.


an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

I don't think of a passionate hobby or activity, as a religion per se, other than in the way a person might be described as considering baseball to be his religion, to emphasize its importance to him, etc....but not technically a belief system in the traditional sense.

Saying you're starving (in common use, not in South Sudan, etc), is used similarely to convey that you missed lunch/are very hungry...but is not taken to mean that your body is breaking down muscle fibers, and so forth due to extended lack of nurtrition.

So the common use of the word religion is related to supernatural dieties typically.

Some Buddhists pray to Buddha for example, some rub his idols's belly for good luck, etc.

Technically, they don't HAVE set dogma though...and so forth.


When people say Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion, they are referring to the original Buddhism as preached by Gautama (also Zen). 

Buddhism, like other religions, expanded through accretion, by adopting aspects of local religions. For example, Tibetan Buddhism is far from atheistic. It's chock full of gods and demigods and demons of both sexes as well as saints.


BTW - The misinterpretation of thousands of pages about free trade implying its not free, fails to understand WHY there are thousands of pages.

Essentially, it is saying things along the lines of, in those pages, that a factory that is polluting the environment and abusing children is not allowed to be in the club.

Its a way of saying, hey, if we are going to trade WITH EACH OTHER, we don't want you to be using 6 year old slaves and be able to sell for less than it cost us...because that would mean no one would buy OUR stuff, because you'd undercut us.

So, we don't want AN AGREEMENT that gives YOU an advantage over US.

If you are a country, typically, you look out for YOUR country first.

American factories who pay adults who could work somewhere else if you don't pay them enough to keep them...get more money than 6 year old orphans/abandoned kids, etc...and the factory with esentially free labor is going to have lower overhead.

We can either pay Americans less, or, make others pay more.

Guess which Americans prefer?

So, free trade means we can trade with them freely, not "anything goes", but instead it levels the playing field.

Now, if you think the 6 year olds, if able to comprehend this stuff, would be AGAINST getting more money for their work, I would bet against you.

If you think the quality of life for the 6 year olds would not be improved by getting paid, I would also disagree with you.

If you think American's would have a better quality of life if they had to work for free like the 6 year olds do, etc, I would also bet against you.

You SAY for example that raising the minimum wage caused unemployment, but, the facts say otherwise, and, pundits who CLAIMED it would cause an overal loss in jobs were actually wrong.

There are statistics that look at these things, and conservatives who were brainwashed to assume that raising the minimum wage was a bad thing, cherry pick some examples that support their world view.

The overhwhelming consensus of the evidence, which includes the negative cherry picked, and the positive as well, shows that, overall, society adjusts and people are better off.

Gasoline prices are an analogous example.  When gas started to APPROACH a dollar a gallon, people were freaking out...and ran out to buy small cars.

After a while, they got used to gas costing more, and bought larger cars again.

If you pay the single mom flipping burgers $15 and hour instead of $7.50, you are ~ doubling the labor costs.

The average McDonalds for example makes sales at the rate of 1 transaction every 185 seconds per server or drive up window.

If we take ~ $7.50 per hour, that's ~ 12.5 cents per minute, or ~ 0.2 cents per second.

So, 0.2 cents/second X 185 seconds = ~ 38 cents per order of added cost.

If they charge an extra 38 cents for the order, that's total, the burger, the fries, the soda, etc, all combined, come to an extra 38 cents.

How much business will be lost because ALL the restaurants, etc, now charge an extra 38 cents for the entire transaction?

The people BUYING the food have doubled their salary, and, might be able to AFFORD the extra 38 cents.

The guy SELLING the food might have the ability to attact a higher caliber of worker, and might improve his efficiency or retention rate, and have a lower turnover rate/lower training costs.

The time per transaction might go down, further reducing the cost per transaction, and so forth.

So, sure, Mickey D's won't eat the cost, the meal will be more expensive, by a few cents, to cover the added costs.

The people buying it have more money though, and can better afford it.

Its not going to hurt business much, because the added costs will be for their competitors too, so its not like only THEIR costs went up...and the pool of potential customers goes up if the population has more disposable income.

So, in practice, states that increased the minimum wage did NOT suffer as a result...because its a self leveling phenomenon.

I hope you're not hoping for a meaningful reply from Scott. His mind is full of slogans and bumper stickers and "facts" (factoids) he most likely picked up from anarchist and conservative echo chambers.

If he actually cited any source (I'm not even saying "facts") I totally missed it. He just sits down at the keyboard and erupts, apparently not even looking for support using Google, which means he knows or suspects it's not there.

If he does search, he'll skip anything not supportive, probably not even count it as existing for that reason in fact, and search until he finds a source TO cherry pick.

It will be analogous to the propaganzied conservatives who ignore thousands of studies that show that global climate change is happening, and what proportion of it is from people, and what proportion is from el ninos, and other influences, and focus on one or two that seem to support their discussing one aspect in isolation, with a convenient big oil interpretation to make sure they have "data".

Or do his dismissive routine of saying he fell asleep or had to take a dump instead, as if that gets him off the hook intellectually (It might in his world though, who knows..)


MEH! You are all libtards who are picking on him because that's what BIG-LIBERALISM bullies people who disagree and it insults people who are trying to have a calm rational discussion. He's given us so much real believable information that asking for sources and evidence is tantamount to just dismissing him like sneaky debaters do. Well you libtards just wait...after your bleeding hearts have left you bleed to non-libtards will have to pick up the broken we always do. Penn and Teller are right now in fact planning for that very thing and will probably become the next chancelors of the New-Atheist-Non-Libtard-Pseudo-Agro-Neo-Anarchist society of freedom from libtard-asshatry. It'll be a tough job...but I know those two can lead with a non-religious and non-religious-like-ideology...backed up by 90% of the population with anarchism for the most part and some not-exactly-anarchism for a few things which so obviously shouldn't be anarchist it's just common sense and need not be said. The reign of libtardocracy is coming to an end...prepare all for the great reckoning.


Asking him to stop his brain-farting and produce actual verifiable evidence.

He can't do it. Trying to make him do it is just cruel. Cruel beyond words.

Play nice.

Davis - That was brilliant.


The average McDonalds for example makes sales at the rate of 1 transaction every 185 seconds per server or drive up window.

If we take ~ $7.50 per hour, that's ~ 12.5 cents per minute, or ~ 0.2 cents per second.

So, 0.2 cents/second X 185 seconds = ~ 38 cents per order of added cost.

If they charge an extra 38 cents for the order, that's total, the burger, the fries, the soda, etc, all combined, come to an extra 38 cents.

This is faulty, because you quoted a statistic for how often a McDonalds restaurant makes a sale, then figured out how much ONE EMPLOYEE makes at that McDonalds and said that would be the extra cost of doubling the minimum wage on that order.  McDonalds generally has multiple people working at it, running an assembly line and using economies of scale to be fast.  Your 165 seconds would be multiplied by as many as a dozen people.  38 cents could suddenly be $4.56 added on to the average order.

You then went on to say that if every restaurant out there had to raise its prices that much (or however much it would be, once you did the analysis correctly) McDonalds wouldn't suffer because all their competition would have to do the same thing too, but that's not true either.  People might start to eat at home more often, doing the labor themselves rather than (indirectly) paying a group of people 15 dollars an hour to serve as cook, packager and cashier.


© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service