Atheist does not mean liberal - 99% in this site do not see it that way



When I joined ThinkAtheist (I think it was a bit over a year ago) I was ecstatic to find a site which gathers people around a common topic - their atheism. However, I have come to be a bit disappointed on some little things - namely, the off-topics and the way of dismissing conservative opinions.


I've seen great discussions about the existence of God, and/or religion (which I believe should be the core of the site); but I've also seen several people post completely off-topic subjects with comments like "these stupid, religious conservatives believe x and y", etc etc. Now, I am not a "topic nazi" and of course anyone can post whatever they want, but I just want to make clear that there are a LOT of atheist conservatives out there. Therefore, last I checked being an atheist is not equal to being liberal... which is compounded by the dismissive attitude with which liberal atheists regard opinions against their own.


Case in point: AGW. When someone respectfully points out that saying "the science is settled" on this matter is akin to saying "God exists, na na na na na, I can't hear you" on the discussion about God, they get furious, and point at conspiracies by the "big money" and "concentrated power groups". Erm... no, there is no "conspiracy"; there is doubt that we can actually predict climate (and the latest news about current "predictive models" not taking into account this or that, kinda prove my point). And yes, there ARE peer-reviewed texts which state this same thing.


Also, what's with "tea-baggers"? There are of course religious nutjobs who say they represent the Tea Party; but there are liberal religious nutjobs as well. So when one is asking for lower taxes and spend cuts (instead of continuing to burden the economy with more taxes) to kick-start the economy, and as a result one is labelled with a sexual epithet, is not very nice.


To summarize: I am all for having a good old discussion, and sometimes I do not shy away from an argument... but I would like to ask you that, even if the opposing view that you have is often held by religious people, it is NOT automatically wrong (especially when they have nothing to do with religion), and that view, whichever it is, should be a priori respected...



Views: 1095

Comment by Unseen on August 31, 2011 at 1:10pm

"because THEY did have rights." For some reason it's impossible to edit comments sometimes.

Comment by Unseen on August 31, 2011 at 1:22pm

@Kasu   Since, in m view, rights are either legislated or imaginary, rights are bestowed via legislation. There can be no "consistency" in terms of the use of the word "rights" as long as some people continue to believe the fantasy that humans have inherent rights, which leaves the problem of where those rights come from, assuming that there is no God to give them to us.

Comment by Robert Karp on August 31, 2011 at 1:41pm

@Unseen, brother it wasn't my quote so I'm not wrong, just an enjoyable view on "rights" from the godfather himself I decided to share.

Comment by Ed on August 31, 2011 at 9:35pm



 I am gonna go out on a limb here and surmise you have never lived in the "boondocks." Being in a very rural environment requires certain essential equipment. Flashlight - to see what the hell the ruckus is all about. Gun - to dispatch varmint if the dog is off duty. Gun - to hold any "perps" at bay. Gun - to eat squirrel, turkey, deer, wild hog, etc. Generator - power outages happen several times a year. 

Comment by Ed on August 31, 2011 at 9:51pm


I'm not jealous of people who are receiving government assistance. It's the abuse by the millions who are using loopholes or fraud to bilk the system.

Your scenario of a welfare recipient doing unfunded research is laughable. I appreciate the levity.

Another closet nudist,



Comment by Arcus on September 1, 2011 at 1:59am

"It's the abuse by the millions"

Firstly, I wouldn't say there is abuse by millions without proper support for such an argument.

But my main bone to pick lies with the lack of thinking it through. Let's say we defund these lazy poor people and let them starve. I have no ideological issue in people dying in front of the bread box, refusing to make themselves a sandwich. They will most likely go one out of three routes: Crime, gainful employment, starve to death. As it is exceedingly difficult to starve oneself to death I doubt poor people will be dying in droves. As they are unqualified for employment and unfit for pretty much everything I don't see too many being able to go that route. Which leaves crime. The good thing about crime is that it's almost as easy as receiving a welfare check and everyone's qualified.

Essentially, what you are promoting is a system when some recently defunded and hungry person breaks into your house while you're away, steals your stuff (including your guns), and drives up your home insurance rate (presuming you have it). Another possibility is that they come back for seconds and hold you up with your own guns while ransacking your place,

Comment by Unseen on September 1, 2011 at 11:59am

@Arcus   The points you raise are why I started the discussion over whether Socialism is inevitable whether we like it or not.

Comment by Arcus on September 1, 2011 at 1:36pm

@Unseen: In a very, very long run a highly modified/modernized version will force itself through. However, I doubt it will resemble what we currently thing about it (or have though about it). For it to work then we would first have to ensure 20 years of basic education and genuine compassion for the plight of others, along with a strong sense of personal discipline. Otherwise it will end up being destroyed by a free-rider problem.

Whenever I meet up with my life long friends it's always a fight over who gets to buy the first round, and the person with the most bragging rights since last time gets the honors. I call it applied socialism. ;)

Comment by Unseen on September 1, 2011 at 1:52pm

@Arcus   I don't think 20 years of "basic education (K through Masters Degree?) is required for someone to do road construction or paint murals or help build and/or maintain government properties (e.g., new lodges for possibly new national parks).

Comment by Arcus on September 1, 2011 at 2:02pm

@Unseen: There's a saying that if your job can be done by machines, it probably soon will be. Road construction in let's say 250 years (if there's such a thing as the current concept of roads at the time) might not be done by humans, but by operators. 150 years ago Marx expected the secondary economy working class to be the most prevalent for all future, and it took only 100 years for him to be completely wrong.

If there is to be a sort of socialism I expect it to be closer to the concept of Rawlesian economics/distributive justice.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service