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: 2842

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's per window or counter a per person cost.

It was a quick way to conceptualize the overall impact....and it was 185 seconds not 165.


If things are slow, they won't have a full crew.

If you look in back at a busy fast food place, yes, there will be more people in back making the fries, and not at the counter...but, at some, its the counter person making the fries, etc.

The average McDonalds does ~ 2.6 million per store per year in sales.

The average Chik-Filee for example is over 3 million per store in sales.

They do it with crew sizes of typically less than 6 per shift, and most of those 6 are doing transactions via drive-throughs wearing headsets, etc, and/or at the counters.

Some McDonalds now have 3 lane drive throughs to handle the volume.

The profit margin is high.  The most expensive part of a cup of soda for example is the cup itself...the water, CO2 and syrup and ice/refrigeration, are a small percentage of the total cost.

It might cost a dime to sell the large soda they get ~ $150 - 2.50 for.  Its almost pure profit.

My Dad had a store at one point (Not a franchise)...and I've run the numbers for him before...the profit on fast food is very very good.

So, overall, if costs go up, to make stuff, they cost it sells fro goes up in lock step.

The small increment in unit costs is absorbed.

So, sure, raising the cost of beef, raises the cost of the burger. Raising the cost of the gas or electricity raises the cost of cooking/thawing the burger.  Raising the wages of the workers raises the costs of preparing and serving the burger.

When the economy is bad, MORE people eat at McDonalds than at more expensive establishments...and shop at Walmart more than at Department stores.

But not that many people will decide that now that it costs $10 instead of $9 to eat out that they will go shopping, prepare and cook the food at home.

They go for fast food for the convenience.

If some business has a low enough profit margin that they close, their business doesn't disappear; it increases business at a another business down the block or down the road, who then has to hire more staff.

Unless, of course, they start using robots.

You're exactly right, TJ, it IS per window or counter person.  (And yes, 185 not 165.  My eyes suck.)

That ignores the added wage cost of the people actually making the hamburgers.

Tell you what. If you want a sensible number for how much the price of things at McDonald's will go up, then do this:  Find out what percentage of the cost of running a McDonalds is labor cost.  Double that percentage.  That's the added cost of doubling the minimum wage.  (OK, actually deduct some, much less than half of the increase, because the manager and assistant manager probably already make more than minimum wage, so their salaries won't double, and may not go up at all).  Find out the percentage of profit margin for a McDonald's.  (It's probably smaller than you think.)  You now have the numbers necessary to determine what the percentage hike on the cost of an order will have to be for the profit margin to stay the same.

Then recognize, if the price of McDonal'ds food to the consumer goes up, demand for it WILL go down.  That's basic economic theory.  If demand for the food goes down, so will demand for the labor to produce the food.  But you don't need to go that many removes to see what's going on here.  Just recognize that if the price of labor goes up, the demand for IT will go down...which means, more unemployment.

Now the Keynesian argument against this would be something along the lines of "paying people more will increase their demand for things" and it's certainly true that more money in the hands of people will increase demand, but that's countered by the fact that the prices of things will rise.  And you will have done nothing, after raising those prices, to ensure that individual employees will actually be more productive.  They won't add any more value than they did before.  So you've raised wages and prices, without having any added real wealth to show for it.

Original topic: Are modern atheists suffocating atheism with liberalism?

IMHO the discussion started off on the wrong foot by taking a stance of righteousness in the face of ignorance or incompetence. If there's one good reason to support political correctness, it's to counter people who only know how to push their ideas by using character assassination and demonization.

I think the topic itself has merit, but the execution of its discussion has (intentionally?) incurred wrath and noise that greatly obscures its merit.

In fact, most atheists are liberal, right? In practice, conservatives tout sticking to traditional ways (e.g. Christianity), and liberals appeal to try new approaches. This of course isn't true in all cases, but it's a useful generalization. Notice that my generalization is not worded to obviously diss one side or the other.

And then you have libertarians who ask both liberals and conservatives to leave the people be.


Unfortunately, there's very little agreement between people as to what "leaving the people be" actually means.

Some who espouse this nevertheless believe the government should butt into contracts between two consenting parties and dictate terms and make some possible agreements illegal.

Its sounds fair to me.

Political correctness in of itself has become what the prejudiced see as a violation of their right to free speech.

IE: I don't want to have to pretend that 'merica has people who are not members of my church.  I am a real 'merican, they are not...but they get all whiney if we don't pretend they are.


This is 'merica, say Merry Christmas or leave...but don't make ME pretend its not Christmas.

Damn butt-hurt lib-tards.

And so forth.


If people have actual free speech then they should be able to say hurtful things, even incorrect and possibly evil hurtful things.  When you limit their right to speak what little mind they may have all you do is increase their anger toward the protected group.  The latest idiocy at my sons school is "spread the word to end the word" and that word is "retarded".  Yeah, now saying something or someone is retarded is on the politically correct hit list.  Again, it's not well meaning conservatives, libertarians or anarchists trying to push this thought police garbage on our kids.  It is liberals.  Public money being spent to restrict the free speech of our children.  It should be unconstitutional and it is, well, retarded.  

Free speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you like without consequences. In work places, schools, and other situations of forced or necessary association and interaction it isn't unreasonable to enforce certain standards. 

You don't think a mentally-handicapped person should be able to attend school without being ridiculed with terms like "retarded"? Should words like "fatso," "tubby," "ugly," "skanky," "weirdo," and so forth be protected speech in elementary and high school? I'm pretty libertarian but I can see good reasons for the school administrators exercising some control in the case of certain vulnerable children. You don't?

To me, not having free speech means that, for example, I could be put in prison for simply expressing a forbidden thought through words or art. You can say anything out loud in America under almost any circumstance (there are a few, very few, exceptions such as incitement to riot). The same goes for artistic expression. Hell, nudie bar dancers hanging from a stripper pole in their birthday suits are protected by the First Amendment.

In the US, we have almost untrammeled freedom of speech. I don't view a school telling students they can't use words like "retard" or "retarded" as anything other than exercising basic and justified control over the atmosphere of the school.

I do view the college level as different, and I don't think college administrators should be telling their students what they can say and what they can't. College students are adults.

If I say "nigger" in some settings, I'll be subjected to social sanctions. I could be shunned or dressed down or subject to scorn or ridicule, because the others are equally free. That's both sides exercising their freedom. You call it political correctness, I call it free people being free.

Not quite right in your understanding of first amendment speech. The protection is invoked if but only if there is state action. Thus when the party who is curtailing the speech is not the government or sufficiently connected to the government the "speaker"lacks first amendment protection.

Where did I say otherwise?

In the US, we have almost untrammeled freedom of speech.

Only when the trammeler is the gov...and i aint trying to be picayune but have observed how widely misunderstood our constitutional right of speech is...


© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service