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

Hello,

 

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...

 

Peace.

Views: 925

Tags: AGW, atheism, atheist, conservative, liberal, teabaggers

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.

Comment by Unseen on September 1, 2011 at 8:31pm

Luckily, I make a lot of my living from writing and photography, where machines are just tools with a human at the helm. At the same time, at least with photography, everybody has a camera today and so a lot of the photography work that used to be out there for professional photographers is now done (not as well) by amateurs using their cell phone cameras. Writing will fare better.

 

What will daily life be like in a world where there is no work to do? I'll be gone. Good riddance, world!

Comment by xntubes on September 8, 2011 at 11:20pm

A good article for atheists who are not excited by the left-liberal bias in humanist organisations today.


Secular humanists on the real planet of the apes
By Michael Lind

"For all the variations, the common theory of human nature underlying contemporary secular humanism seems to be cosmopolitan utilitarianism, the conviction that human beings, if liberated from superstition by science, would behave less like selfish, scheming social apes and more like self-sacrificing social insects, giving their all for the good of the 7 billion members of the global human hive. “Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of human ideals…” says Humanist Manifesto III. “Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.”

The secular humanist movement avoids the difficult question of the coexistence of in-group altruism and inter-group rivalries by imagining, with John Lennon, that conflicts would vanish if only people stopped being religious and patriotic…

Unfortunately for Humanist Lennonism, evolutionary biology does not provide much hope for the sort of altruistic personal commitment to planetary solidarity that secular humanists want to encourage. Humanist Manifesto III claims that the joy in Stakhanovite that enlightened human beings liberated from religion are expected to feel—an “ought”—can be derived from an “is”—biological fact. “Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.”

But social animals are not altruists. Nor are they strict individualists. They are nepotists. As a rule social animals, like wolves, deer, humans and chimps, show favoritism to their relatives and friends and allies, with little or no concern for members of their own species with whom they have no close connection. Abrahamic monotheism insists on the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God. Darwinism insists at best on the distant cousinhood of humanity.

Among humans, nepotistic solidarity can be transferred, with difficulty, to political units larger than the extended family. But national patriotism is much harder to promote than city-state patriotism, and global patriotism may be a bridge too far.

The illogical leap from the acceptance of evolutionary science to the call for world government and world taxation is typical of the intellectual legerdemain practiced by secular humanists. They assert scientific naturalism leads to the currently fashionable attitudes of North Atlantic left-liberals, but they never provide any convincing arguments for the thesis that if you believe in Darwin, you must follow Dewey…"

Comment by Unseen on September 8, 2011 at 11:28pm

I find the liberal idea that ultimately no interests conflict naive and only possible in a world of homogeneity. A world which will never exist and which should never exist. I'm also a little discouraged by the fact that, as anti-intellectual as the FOX News conservatives are, there is actually more exercising of free speech on FOX than on PBS. On FOX, people are allowed to say outrageous things. PBS shows tend to be a bore to anyone who believes in spirited debate.

Comment by Tex in the City on September 9, 2011 at 12:04am

I am not looking to jump into the argument with Kasu and Unseen, I just want to state for the OP that I am a conservative/libertarian, and a fairly strong atheist.  I, too, get frustrated with the idea that atheist = liberal.  It's something I see all over, not just here on TA.

Comment

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

Join Think Atheist

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Blog Posts

Dead man's Switch

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 11:29pm 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service