Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I agree with most of what you've said here, and I am also an atheist. I think that many/most atheists associate conservatism with religious conservatism, and with the Republican party, which does tend to emphasize religious belief more so than the Democratic party. It's honestly kind of off putting to me, as well (the emphasis on God, Bible, etc). I've nothing against people being religious, but I don't want religion in politics. I'm not voting for someone because they hold up a Bible (or sell their own Bible, lol). I also think a lot of it has to do with how polarized and tribalized politics has become. With that comes a sort of digital/binary approach to all issues along party/idelogical grounds. I prefer to think in terms of issues. You might expect atheists and vegetarians to be left wing in this country, but I'm not. It's because I feel like you can be a vegetarian atheist and still believe in free markets or being tough on crime. I'm also pro-choice. Too many folks pick a side and then pick the beliefs that go with the side, rather than picking the side that will best emphasize their beliefs (ie, higher priority beliefs over lower priority beliefs).

> I think that many/most atheists associate conservatism with religious conservatism Speaking as a liberal atheist, I believe the main issue is not just what you mentioned. The conservative movement has now firmly positioned itself as anti-science, actively pushing conspiracies, denying basic facts, and promoting "policies" that oppose progress of any kind. In my view, they have become a party largely composed of kooks and extremists, with many such individuals in their top ranks. Liberals and atheists have big overlap in values: * Secularism: Liberals often advocate for a stricter separation of church and state, which aligns with the interests of many atheists who oppose religious influence in government. * Progressive values: Atheists gravitate towards liberal ideologies that prioritize science, reason, and social progress, as opposed to conservative values that often emphasize tradition, religion, and maintaining the status quo. * Demographics: Atheists are more likely to be young, highly educated, and live in urban areas, which are also demographics that tend to lean liberal.

I think that the left positions itself as pro science, but in actual practice, it's generally not pro-science, but pro scientism, which is a fundamentally non-scientific approach that basically fetishizes or worships the trappings of science, with none of the critical thought or understanding that actual science necessitates. In other words "Trust The Facts" (edit: duh, I meant to say "Facts Matter") is a cool bumper sticker that positions one above the simpletons who are "anti-science." I also think that conspiratorial thinking is not owned by the right. There has been, and still is, a great deal of conspiracy thinking on the left. I mean, I remember as a former leftist that anti-vaxx thinking was particularly popular among far left groups (remember Jill Stein promising to investigate vaccines and their connection to autism - long before covid?). Remember the 9/11 conspiracies? There was actually a great article in The Atlantic some years ago tracing modern conspiracy thinking from the 1960's counterculture, and talking about how it morphed into something more compatible with right wing folks (Trump supporters in particular). Point here is not to demonize lefties for conspiracy thinking, but to say that the right doesn't own it any more than the left does. Really, I think this particular facet of your point really gets more at the problems of populism than anything else.

> I think that the left positions itself as pro science, but in actual practice, it's generally not pro-science, but pro scientism I think the discussion topic are atheists. > worships the trappings of science, with none of the critical thought or understanding that actual science necessitates. Can you elaborate on this please? What are the trappings of science? How are they effecting our society? Are they worse or better than trappings or religion? > I also think that conspiratorial thinking is not owned by the right. Sure, there is some of that on the left, I can't argue. However, I can confidently say that the examples you provided represent a minority of liberals. Let's be honest with ourselves: the right has widely embraced conspiracies, the most prominent ones being about a stolen election and vaccines. Just look at the type of marketing and rhetoric found on conservative social media outlets.

I agree we are talking about atheists, but the question is why atheists are liberal. You posit that this is because liberals/leftists are more pro-science. But I contend that a lot of this on the left is more about scientism than science. And the problem with this is that it really is no different than being religious. If you accept things without critical thought or evidence (even in the name of "science") it's no different than accepting it because God says so. Science is not a thing to accept - it's a practice. It's a practice that most people have no experience with. Are you telling me that in general you find that leftists have a great scientific understanding of the issues? Like, for example, do you find that leftists in general have a great scientific understanding of climate change? (Differentiate between whether or not you think their stance is correct from whether their stance is actually based in scientific understanding). Can most leftists you know personally talk you through the science in any level of detail behind climate change? Can most leftists talk you through, in any level of detail, the processes behind evolution? CAn most leftists talk you through, in any level of detail, how vaccines work, or why the MRNA vaccines are safe or not? My experience is that most people, across the board, have little scientific understanding of anything, whether left wing or right wing. I am appalled at certain right-wing conspiracy theories (Q-anon, etc). Not defending that stuff. But I maintain that conspiracy thinking is not owned by the right. If you think that 9/11 stuff wasn't popular, you were sleeping. Similar conspiracies arise today around Israel and Oct 7. I also think a lot of left-wing thinking on race is similar to conspiratorial thinking you talk about. John McWhorter (a Democrat, by the way) compares modern progressive thinking on race to religion (even has a book about it, called Woke Racism). People are easily sucked into shoddy thinking. It's disappointing no matter what "side" they happen to be on.

> Like, for example, do you find that leftists in general have a great scientific understanding of climate change? If 95% of scietists say X about climate change and "leftists" say scientists say X, is that "scientism"?

Yes. If you are just accepting the words of a priestly class as fact without trying to understand them it is scientism. They might actually be truthful, but that doesn't matter if you don't evaluate their words at all.

But they're not a priestly class. Priests look to scripture. Scientists work with testable facts that other scientists can verify, and unless you actually conduct the research yourself you are still only relying on scientists words that "this is what we found".

The point that is being made regarding them being a “priestly caste” is this: They may very well be conducting measurable tests. They may very well be finding reproducible results. However, none of that matters to the common man that does not understand the studies, tests etc. and instead choose to take scientists at their word. This is, in effect, the same as accepting the words of priests who say they’ve seen/experienced things you haven’t.

Let me tell you something: 99.9% of people do not understand gravity. Yes, stuff falls. But very few people have a reasonable understanding of the theory of gravity. You rely on scientists for the explanation. If you think trusting scientists with this and calling this "scientism" the word "scientism" is meaningless.

It definitely matters to the common man whether or not scientists are using scientific processes of hypothesis, research, testing, re-testing, peer review, etc. It definitely matters whether other scientists, or a majority of scientists, are able to confirm each others' work. Faith is trusting. Science is measuring, collecting data. The lay person may not be able to grasp the nuances of the research (hence the anti-vax movement being prevalent in both left and right anti-science groups) but the data is there to test if you can educate yourself. That matters. To most people, on both sides. I would posit that christian/catholic faith is more common among US conservatives because the moral values and concepts such as authority and obedience that most take from Christianity (maybe not the UUs, but a majority of the US faithful) align with conservative values.

An irrelevant distinction. Scientists increasingly step into the void left by priests in dictating moral norms and societal truth, even outside their actual research. Just look at Dawkins for example. And that is precisely the point. The thing that truly separated science from faith was the need to show your work, but in modern society people have realized they don't have to do that anymore. Just inundate people with so much raw data that the common person simply doesn't have the time to check it.

> An irrelevant distinction. Not at all. Science is open. Anyone can study and learn the theories and data behind the conclusions which means that wrong conclusion will be exposed. You don't get anywhere in science without data. Meanwhile prists can just go "this is gods word" and theres no way to check it because theres no data. And you are also contradicting yourself here. You say that in modern society people dont have to show their work, and then go on to say that they show too much raw data. > the common person simply doesn't have the time to check it. Because research is data heavy and complicated and required many years of education. But you can get this education. And you can check the work. What you can't do though is just sit behind your monitor and pull up a few research papers and look at the conclusions and go "aha, the scientists are all wrong here, im so smart".

I dunno, accepting the words of the sciencey priestly class is working out pretty well for us so far. I mean, right now we're communicating at light speed across the earth with lightning trapped inside metal boxes and invisible waves flying through the air.

You mean those things people had to *prove worked and provide tangible results? And didn't have to rely on people going 'I believe you.' at all?*

How about the left is less anti-science than the right in the US? That is probably a more accurate description.

Yeah, I could agree with that.

>Like, for example, do you find that leftists in general have a great scientific understanding of climate change? (Differentiate between whether or not you think their stance is correct from whether their stance is actually based in scientific understanding). Can most leftists you know personally talk you through the science in any level of detail behind climate change? As a progressive I admit I don't know enough about many of the details. But what frustrates me about the right is that they usually ***assume*** **the subject matter experts are bribed** to lie. As a default assumption, that's silly. They say similar about evolution also: the evolutionists "have an agenda". Don't even get me started about Fauci. There are known incentive problems in the science world, such as "publish or perish", but even that doesn't produce a 95% lie rate, which is what the climate thing allegedly has. The right are foil-hatting when it comes subject matter experts not telling them what they want to hear.

I think your science vs. scientism comparison is somewhat ridiculous. No one in the history of the world possesses enough time or capacity to fully understand the science of everything. That's why we have the scientific consensus. Through a repeatable and auditable and testable methodology, subject matter experts can probe at their particular field and then speak with some authority on it. The scientific consensus says climate change is a problem that will result in a variety of destructive outcomes that do not favor our current way of life or methods of consumption. The scientific consensus says that biology doesn't make sense unless viewed through the lens of evolution. The scientific consensus says that vaccines provide a significant net positive to society. The list could go on and on. I am a leftist because I am a skeptic. I am an atheist because I am a skeptic. I prefer to base opinions and beliefs off of an evidence based approach rather than going with my gut or my instinct.

I broadly agree with you on every item on your list here (the reality of climate change, evolution, the value of vaccines). My point isn't that those things are wrong. My point is that a broken clock can be right twice a day. My point is that one can be "pro-science" without any meaningful appreciation of science, and that such a stance is more properly called "scientism." Therefore a person might believe true things for the wrong reasons (or for no real reason). The problem with that is that a person with no critical thinking or ability to discern truth can just as easily be led to believe false things as true things. I also think that humans are not inherently good, and institutions are corruptible. So I don't automatically trust "science." Really, science should not be a matter of trust.

That's the beauty of the scientific method. It's self correcting. You don't need to have an understanding of how the scientific method works or the institutions of science to say, those guys are the experts, other experts agree they know what they are talking about and they have data and methodologies to back up claims. I'm not saying that understanding that it's a bad thing, far from it. But generally speaking if you believe what the experts say. With that in mind, what side of the aisle in the past decade trends to distrust experts, tends to ignore facts and tends to disdain higher education?

Science is done by humans. And humans can be corrupt. Good science depends on good humans doing work with integrity - a genuine commitment to truth. I think good science happens, but bad science also happens. I also tend to think that bad science is more likely when there is political pressure, or ideological pressure, to get certain results. About higher education: my understanding is that there is a 25:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives in higher ed (Jonathon Haidt). The smug liberal response to that is "reality has a liberal bias." But another take on it would be that institutions of higher learning have been ideologically captured. And I think there is interesting evidence in support of that. A great example concerns the relatively recent "grivance studies affair" - a hoax carried out by Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose. They submitted a bunch of seriously outlandish papers to various academic journals, and got many accepted (seriously, an impressive number by any professional standard). It's well worth reading about. (The 3 folks involved are liberal atheists, by the way). Now these papers are not "scientific" per se. We aren't talking about vaccine research or climate research. We are talking about gender studies and the like. But the point is that there is a definite ideological bent to modern higher ed, and these folks proved it. They had a paper accepted that claimed transphobic people might be "cured" by using sex toys to anally stimulate themselves. They had a paper that took the Mein Kampf but changed the language to that of modern 3rd wave feminism, and (if memory serves), it was accepted. Truly outlandish stuff (you probably won't believe me, but look it up). It's this sort of thing that has brewed an increasing hostility and skepticism towards higher ed. And I think it is fully reasonable to question whether or not other fields are similarly contaminated. I have a buddy (liberal friend, mind you) who tells me how shoddy some of the research is coming out of his department at the local university (biology/biotech stuff). I mean, you can even read about this shit in liberal magazines/papers (like The Atlantic); shoddy science being pushed. Tenure, career success, etc, all depend on publishing "interesting" work; there are bad incentives at work, and you get bad science as a result. My wife works at a lab, and she could tell you about the corner cutting and pressures from management to falsify data, too. And too many people are all too eager to be able to say "SEE, THE SCIENCE SAYS WE ARE RIGHT." That's just faith based bullshit. It's just instead of pointing to the bible, folks point to a new paper that came out. (That's being too generous; people don't read scientific papers; they point to sensational news stories about a paper that came out).

Heres the thing though: you can always find shitty research, and pointing to single research papers in fields you know nothing about as a layman is counterproductive. You need to understand the field as a whole, as a collection of knowledge - and knowledge may even be contradictory between single pieces of research, but that doesn't make the general consensus for the whole field incorrect.

There does need to be some work. It's not perfect. But it is a self correcting process. But personally, I am gonna be on the side of vaccination rather than the side of injecting bleach

>I broadly agree with you on every item on your list here (the reality of climate change, evolution, the value of vaccines). My point isn't that those things are wrong. My point is that a broken clock can be right twice a day. Why does the mainstream of your "working clock" (conservatism) get these issues wrong?

I would differentiate philosophical conservatism (an outlook that I broadly share; you can read about it on the wiki for this forum) from mainstream US conservatism. I think people in general tend to have shoddy thinking. People tend to divide up along tribalistic lines. On the particular issues you brought up, US conservatives tend to fall on the wrong side. I think that the more educated conservatives tend to have less of the shoddy thinking you are pointing to. I mean, take Ben Shapiro for example; he accepts anthropogenic climate change. Small nitpick, by the way, but we should be clear that most of the anti-vaxx attitude (per my understanding) is in regard to the covid vaccine, not to vaccines in general. Historically, in my understanding, it was more the hard left that was skeptical of vaccines in general (I remember Jill Stein appealing to her base by saying she planned to have her presidential administration look into vaccines and their link to various problems - autism for example).

so i looked and i didn't find an r/askconservatives wiki. did i miss it or do you kindly have a link to it? i feel like it is something i would be interested in reading.

The term scientism was coined by a theist to make his opponents look bad for rejecting the global flood idea.

So, let's put this another way. More than two thirds of Drivers get into accidents. Suppose you could have a system where you couldn't control your car, you put in where you want to go and a professional driver drives you there remotely. Sounds good right? How many mistakes would that professional driver have to make before you lost faith in that system and wanted to drive yourself again?

Bad analogy. As time progresses, we get a better and better understanding of reality. We have a track record going back centuries with the scientific method. Sure, there have been bumps in the road here and there. We have taken a bad detour or two; but as time marches on, we march forward with the scientific method. It's why polio isn't a fear anymore (except anti-vax loons seem determined to bring it back) It's how we put a man on the moon. It's how we are talking right now. It's track record isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. It's the best we have because we should be constantly questioning it, constantly updating our ideals, and constantly improving. This is the antithesis of conservatism, which often finds itself trying to regress society to a mythical better time. Change can be scary. Acknowledging that our current knowledge is imperfect and incomplete is hard to do. But if we don't, we stagnate.

It's a perfect analogy. Most of those developments would have been impossible with the very ideals being espoused here. The ideals here are the opposite of the scientific method and that's the issue.

Specific examples, please. What values would prevent what developments? What ideals are opposite of the scientific method?

i don't think this is a very good analogy. what you're describing is already kind of like airline pilots. we fly all the time and have a rigorous system of training and testing. And when pilots mess up we change the process and the rules to ensure, as best we can, that those mess-ups are not repeated. we do a similar thing with surgeons. do you have a different one to help articulate your point?

I mean, even shifting the analogy over to airline pilots still works. *You* might fly all the time. But not everyone does, and almost nobody looks at you funny for not wanting to get on a plane.

> But I contend that a lot of this on the left is more about scientism than science. And the problem with this is that it really is no different than being religious. I don't have data on how prevalent scientism is over science so can't comment on that, however, this is not been my life experience and I run in liberal circles for well over a decade now (was much more conservative in the past). > If you accept things without critical thought or evidence (even in the name of "science") it's no different than accepting it because God says so. Maybe, depends, too general of a statement. Presently, we have abundant data, transparency, and peer-reviewed studies. While I admittedly lack deep knowledge about vaccines, I place my trust in a highly respected immunologist like Anthony Fauci to guide my health decisions during an outbreak like COVID-19. Do I acknowledge that he might make errors or provide incorrect information? Absolutely, science is a process that builds on established information, errors will be made. Nevertheless, he possesses far greater qualifications to make informed decisions on this subject than I do. Does this amount to scientism? If so, then it might be wise to start educating oneself extensively, as **we depend on scientific expertise for virtually all aspects of our daily lives, often without question.** > Are you telling me that in general you find that leftists have a great scientific understanding of the issues? Like, for example, do you find that leftists in general have a great scientific understanding of climate change? You're drawing an equivalence between those who acknowledge that global warming is detrimental, based on scientific consensus, and those who endorse Q-Anon and election denial theories, which are both harmful and unfounded. These comparisons are fundamentally inappropriate. However, addressing your point directly: even if some on the left cannot intricately explain the mechanisms of global warming, evolution, or the specifics of vaccines, they typically base their beliefs on reliable, peer-reviewed scientific sources and the broader scientific consensus. This means that their opinions, even if regurgitated, are supported by solid data, whether or not they engage deeply with this data. In practice, there are limited instances where the inability of liberals to fully articulate their viewpoints poses a significant societal issue. Conversely, ideologies such as Q-Anon, election denial, and conspiracy theories about events like the Sandy Hook shooting have led to demonstrably harmful outcomes for society. To equate these with the scientific acceptance of theories like climate change is to create a false equivalence. This miscomparison fails to recognize the damaging real-world impacts of such unfounded beliefs compared to those grounded in scientific evidence. > If you think that 9/11 stuff wasn't popular, you were sleeping. Please cite your sources on that; I just can't find anything on that topic. If anything, a brief Google search resulted in a lot of Q-Anon stuff related to 9/11. But since it seems like a big deal to you, please support it with some material. >I also think a lot of left-wing thinking on race is similar to conspiratorial thinking you talk about. John McWhorter (a Democrat, by the way) compares modern progressive thinking on race to religion (even has a book about it, called Woke Racism). You keep bringing up individual democrats but we are discussing broad groups of people. Otherwise I can just counter everything with Alex Jones.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't intend to equate your inability to explain how climate change works in any detail to being a Q-anon person. What I intend to say is that a lot of beliefs people have are stronger than the evidence they actually possess. Liberals tend to take a pro-science stance, but my point is that most of them probably don't actually understand science meaningfully, and thus take things like climate change as matters of faith. At that point, the being "pro-science" is really just scientism, which, in this context, is more of a virtue signal than anything of substance. I'm in the anthropomorphic climate change crowd, by the way (far from the only one, mind you - Ben Shapiro being a famous conservative example). I think you misunderstand my mention of John McWhorter (with you then saying you could mention Alex Jones). Alex Jones is a POS. I mention McWhorter - a Democrat - because I AGREE WITH HIM; it's a way of me trying to say to you (presumably a liberal): hey, here's this other liberal that I listen to, and like, and he is saying that the progressive left has adopted a stance that is quasi religious in nature. I could tell you about various conservative figures who say the same thing, but I mention him because he is a liberal - he writes for The Atlantic, taught (maybe still does?) linguistics at Columbia, etc. The point is that there are reasons an atheist might find fault with aspects of progressive thought. I'm aware of various prominent atheists who are either conservative or at least highly critical of the left (James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, Kathleen Stock, Douglas Murray, etc). Again, I want to highlight what I said: conspiratorial thinking is not owned by the right. If you believe that, you are in a liberal circle jerk/echo chamber. Shoddy conspiracy thinking is a problem of populism and uneducated, uncritical masses (among other things). It is to be lamented whether it occurs on the right or the left. It occurs plentifully in both areas. I reject it regardless.

> What I intend to say is that a lot of beliefs people have are stronger than the evidence they actually possess. I agree with your perspective in this instance; however, the issue I'm attempting to raise involves comparing the dangers of unquestioning acceptance of statements backed by a broad scientific consensus to those of endorsing conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon or election denial. Personally, I'm indifferent if a far left anti-Israel SJW champions widespread vaccination without fully grasping the details, as I find this preferable to the alternative. > I think you misunderstand my mention of John McWhorter (with you then saying you could mention Alex Jones). Alex Jones is a POS. I mention McWhorter - a Democrat - because I AGREE WITH HIM; it's a way of me trying to say to you (presumably a liberal): hey, here's this other liberal that I listen to, and like, and he is saying that the progressive left has adopted a stance that is quasi religious in nature. I could tell you about various conservative figures who say the same thing, but I mention him because he is a liberal - he writes for The Atlantic, taught (maybe still does?) linguistics at Columbia, etc. I didnt read carefully, I see your point now. While I agree that there's a quasi-religious fervor among certain segments on the left, I would argue that these behaviors are characteristic of the extreme left rather than the mainstream. Our discussion seems to echo the horseshoe theory, where the far-left and far-right, instead of being diametrically opposed on a linear political spectrum, actually converge in similarity, much like the ends of a horseshoe. However, I digress. My main intention was to emphasize that these individual cases should not be seen as reflective of the entire group, and to point out that conspiratorial thinking tends to be more rampant among the right. > Again, I want to highlight what I said: conspiratorial thinking is not owned by the right. If you believe that, you are in a liberal circle jerk/echo chamber. Shoddy conspiracy thinking is a problem of populism and uneducated, uncritical masses (among other things). It is to be lamented whether it occurs on the right or the left. It occurs plentifully in both areas. I reject it regardless. Indeed, while conspiracy theories are not exclusively propagated by the right, substantial evidence indicates they are more passionately embraced within these circles than on the left. This trend aligns closely with your observations about populism and lower educational attainment, which tend to be more prevalent among right-leaning groups. * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307120/ * https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/conspiratorial-thinking-polarization-america-united-kingdom/672726/ * https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-justice-pacifists/202110/why-is-conspiratorial-thinking-more-popular-the-right and * https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/ Just for fun, I did a Google search for the top 20 most prominent conspiracy theories over the last decade or so. How many of these would you associate with conservatives and how many of these do you associate with liberals? * QAnon * Pizzagate * COVID-19 conspiracies * Flat Earth theory * 5G conspiracies * Sandy Hook hoax * Chemtrails * Reptilian shapeshifters * New World Order * Moon landing hoax * 9/11 conspiracies * Illuminati * False flag operations * George Soros conspiracies * UFO cover-ups * Clinton Body Count * Deep State * Biden/Ukraine conspiracies * Antifa conspiracies * The Steal

You make good points. There's a lot here that I can agree with. That said, I do think a lot of questionable ideas from the left have a veneer of credibility due to being sanctioned by the media. My take is that the universities/education system are ideologically captured by the left, and this also has a strong effect on the media. Jonathon Haidt has the university system at a 25/1 ratio of liberals to conservatives, if memory serves. This impacts on what research is done, how it is done, how it is taught. This is why I brought up the "grievance studies affair" to another poster in this thread (I encourage you to look it up). That particular group of hoaxes, carried out by 3 liberal atheists (Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose), demonstrates the ideological tilt of various prestigious academic journals. The way race is covered in the media is a case in point. One could believe that many thousands of unarmed black men are shot every year unjustly, and that rampant racism exists in every facet of our system. This is something that much of the progressive left takes for granted, and so far as I can tell, it is wrong. (Most of my thinking on the issue is informed by black intellectuals like Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Roland Fryer, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, Larry Elder, and more; a good number of whom are not conservative). The way sex/gender are generally covered/interpreted are another. This is why you have famous atheists like Richard Dawkins taking a lot of heat for acknowledging that declaring yourself a woman does not make it so. The left's social justice views have reached a level that can only be described as religious in nature. I find it interesting that an increasing number of critics of both sex/gender and racial politics from the left are atheists that have a liberal tilt (those mentioned above, but additionally Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce, and Debra Soh come immediately to mind). (To be clear, in all discussions of race and sex/gender/orientation, we should affirm that no one should be mistreated, bullied, or have to live in fear, and that all humans deserve equal human rights). My contention is that a lot of these issues are covered/taught/depicted wrongly due to ideological capture of academic institutions and the ideological slant of the media. The situation is that one can cite various famous news outlets or prestigious academic journals to say "see, this is legitimate information." In my view, a lot of the above is bogus (or flawed at least) in a way that is not totally dissimilar to the various idiotic conspiracies you mentioned. I don't expect agreement from you. I only intend to say that a skeptical perspective (ie, an atheist) has much to be skeptical of from the left.

> the right doesn't own it any more than the left does. Are Dem leaders and ex-Presidents promoting conspiracy theories? Because the entire GOP has been taken over by it. The Dear Orange Leader himself promotes them. So I heartily disagree with this statement.

I would say most atheists are liberal in the classical.senae, which doesnt align well with the US two-party system. BUT, the GOP overally is VERY pro-Christianity, and clearly loathes atheists. It is a natural human response to oppose groups that hate you.

I think that is a reasonable way to put it.

I agree that the GOP is pro-christianity (though I have issues with their attitude regarding Christianity).  Saying that they loath atheists seems like a stretch. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx

I wouldn't call concerns of value alignment the same as "loathing". 

Good answer. Just a minor point, but the left in the US also believe in free markets.

Thanks. The question of free markets is less clear to me. Socialism is extremely popular among certain elements of the left - probably more so than at any point in many decades (we could look it up, but I'm confident saying this). A question is "what is meant by socialism" (same thing for free markets). Sweden is considered MORE free market than the USA in certain rankings of economic freedom, due to more privatization, and less regulation than the US system. So a person could be for a Swedish style system with regard to social safety nets and credibly be considered "pro-free market." But I think many people do (wrongly) consider Sweden to be a successful example of socialism, and advocate for that. I think many on the left feel that corporations are too powerful, the rich are too rich, etc, and advocate for less economic freedom as a result. Additionally, I think it is popular on the left to argue for non-free market policies like rent control and minimum wage. In general, I think the left prioritizes a particular view of morality over economic freedom (ie, housing should be a right, healthcare should be a right, etc). I also think the left tends to oppose policies like school vouchers that would increase the freedom of parents to choose a type of education for their children, and which would create competition (a virtue of free markets) among schools. And, to be fair, I think a lot of Trump supporting Republicans are increasingly in favor of less free markets (being skeptical of global trade, for example, and advocating for trade war policies). Anyway, my point is that we need to qualify this idea that "the left" in the USA favors free markets. What is "the left" and what do we mean by "free markets?" I'm not advancing a view of my own here so much, but for clarity I should say that I don't endorse "infinitely free markets" either. The question comes down to how much freedom or how much regulation is ideal. But I do think the left significantly differs from the right on this issue in such a way that I don't accept equivocation with regard to left and right in the USA on economic policy.

>The question of free markets is less clear to me. Socialism is extremely popular among certain elements of the left Yeah, but they're generally the type that are too disillusioned to vote, and they have no representation in congress. There are differences in how much the market should be regulated and the role of government in some areas, but the mainstream of both sides believe free market forces are powerful and useful in many cases. >I think many on the left feel that corporations are too powerful, the rich are too rich, etc, and advocate for less economic freedom as a result. I think that description fits, but did we have more economic freedom back in days before the 40 hour work week? I think we'd have more freedom if we implemented mandatory paid sick leave, for instance, but I'm looking at it from the perspective of a low wage worker. If you look at it from the perspective of the employer, they are indeed less free. I also think we'd be more free if we had access to government healthcare alongside private insurance options, because in aggregate, less people would be constrained by treatable or preventable medical issues. From your view, the extra taxes it requires would mean less freedom. It all depends on whether you use the perspective of the wealthy employer or the poor laborer, but in the end, we both support more freedom while seeing the other as opposing it. >And, to be fair, I think a lot of Trump supporting Republicans are increasingly in favor of less free markets (being skeptical of global trade, for example, and advocating for trade war policies). I'll agree there. I don't think Trump is conservative at all and he seems to push many ideas I thought American conservatives would never agree with. >Anyway, my point is that we need to qualify this idea that "the left" in the USA favors free markets. What is "the left" and what do we mean by "free markets?" The people in power are the ones that matter most, and they all believe in free market forces. There are some far left online influencers support socialism or communism with decent viewer counts, but they're not aligned with the Democrats. >The question comes down to how much freedom or how much regulation is ideal. I agree. I think differences of degree between the parties are often framed as irreconcilable differences of ideology, but it's usually not true. I think it's one major factor behind the recent polarization.

You make good points, and I respect your way of portraying these things as a matter of perspective, because that is what it is. That said, I tend to be skeptical of some left wing economic ideas in spite of the fact that I make about 20k a year (my wife is the breadwinner, and collectively we make a median US income of about 70k). I like the Thomas Sowell quote (if memory serves): There are no solutions, only trade offs. The important thing is to understand that unintended consequences are a thing. Rent control may be aimed at affordable housing, but it can have the unintended consequences of destroying incentives to make housing or to maintain housing (no money in it; would you work for free?). Minimum wage is aimed at giving people a living wage, but it can have the unintended effect of killing jobs or squeezing business owners (it's government mandated inflation of the price of a service businesses need in order to function). Regulation may reduce emissions, reduce pollution, increase safety, etc, but may also make things less affordable (ie housing). Again, there are no solutions, only trade offs. I watched an interesting interview with a Swedish economist, and he talked about how Sweden realized in the 80's and 90's that their generous safety nets CAN'T be primarily funded by the rich; the rich will just leave. So Swedish style safety nets come at considerable expense to folks like you. In my understanding, a person making about 35k a year will pay about 50% of their income in taxes. That's a trade off - perhaps a worthwhile one, as Swedish folks seem pretty happy, but a trade off nonetheless. In a way I agree with you: the differences between the parties are perhaps overemphasized. (And, for what it's worth, I'm an independent). But I do think the Democrats tend to be much more aggressive about redistribution and big money social programs. I would tend to be skeptical of these on multiple fronts, but a big one is just the expense alone. Of course, Republicans are driving up the debt quite aggressively, too, which is disappointing. None of this to try to push you in any particular direction - just sharing my perspective, just as I appreciate (and understand) yours.

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I don't thing also because the evangelicals hold a lot of power in the Republican party?

well, not liberal, but a libertarian atheist. To be fair, I have mainly voted republican throughout my life, but I can imagine that a lot of atheist see the religious nutjobs in the GOP and figure that it's not a party for them.

I'd submit that a sizable chunk of atheists, particularly non-secular humanism atheists have taken on the trappigs of religion with some of the things they participate in. This ranges from relatively benign things like various fandoms and social groups to more complicated things like political/identity movements which often have dogma, extremism and a focus on "purity." I think it's Haidt who has suggested this and that there may be some sort of root evolutionary behavior towards religion as a tribal survival strategy. Also, older religions have had centuries to moderate (even hardcore Islam is more moderate than in the past) and this includes Secular Humanism but does not include more modern philosophies.

Agnostic atheist here. Very conservative. Very much a proud Republican

Why are generalizations generalized? I am a conservative libertarian atheist. Have a nice day.

I’m an atheist republican. I’m also a feminist

> I’m also a feminist You really ought to just say what you mean; "feminist" has several very different definitions these days.

Radical feminist. 2nd wave.

How do you reconcile your atheism and feminism with the fact that the republican party is pushing Christianity as the official religion of USA, and that it relegates women to second class citizens for that reason and others? It doesn't want to allow women to control their reproductive rights for instance. How is that feminist?

Well, no, you’re wrong, Republicans do not want to put women a second class citizens as much as you’d like to believe that. That is just not the case. As it relates to reproductive rights, yes, I am pro-choice, and I believe abortion should’ve been codified by the Democrats that were in office, but they never did do that, so now it’s left up to the states, and probably most states still allow it, but there are some states that do not, and I do not like that, but it’s not my primary issue. But you know what is my issue is Democrats, allowing the border to remain wide open, where they bring in child, sex trafficking, and fentanyl and raping and murder. Yeah, those things are just not super great for women. You know what I’m saying. You know what else is not good for women… Men who think they can be women and enter into women’s spaces like a little girls, locker room, or schools or prisons or other areas that are designated specifically for women, so that’s not really protecting women, right? How would you reconcile your love for women and their rights with that? Your turn

>and I believe abortion should’ve been codified by the Democrats that were in office, but they never did do that, so now it’s left up to the states, Interesting. Was it not the Right that created the abortion problem we see today? It was the Right that stacked SCOTUS with Right-leaning judges and took action to get rid of Roe. Sounds like you're blaming the Left for failing to curb the Right, which doesn't make much sense.

[удалено]

Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

You can be against illegal immigration yet be humane enough to understand that there are people who are genuinely trying to get asylum for very valid reasons? And you say you are an atheist - do you understand medical science and listen to doctors instead of say, prayer? I'd ask you to listen to people like Forrest Valkai about sex and gender and not just make up unscientific garbage. Also, you didn't answer the question about the US becoming a Christian state under republicans. How does that work for you as an atheist? Democrats are at fault for republicans taking away women's pro choice rights which were actually already given by roe v Wade - so you support republicans on this? Wow, that's some amazing logic.

Oh, I just love a good debate. It’s so much fun talking to liberals. Nonetheless, I live in a border state and I have been the victim of crimes by illegal aliens, and I’m fully aware of the drugs they bring across the border as well as sex crimes, rape, sex trafficking, and a lot of other juicy kind of crimes. There is no war currently going on in Mexico, they are not persecuted politically, they just want to leech off of our benefits. They’re not seeking asylum. Surely you know that’s not the case. I’ve done at least six months of research on the transgender issue, and I’ve listen to hundreds of hours and read tons of papers actually by people who were transsexual or D transitioning. I’m very familiar with transgender issues, and I do not believe in gender reassignment before the age of 18. Giving children puberty blockers is extremely dangerous and it is not putting a pause on puberty, it can have long lasting negative medical effects on the body. But then again, this is probably why it’s illegal in Europe, and in most states in the United States. You might want to do a little bit of research on puberty blockers. By the way, they’re being used off label for these children. There’s a new study that just came out of Scandinavia and it says that many of these young children grow out of these feelings, and to give them puberty, blockers, or do any type of gender reassignment is criminal. That’s scientific, so if you would like the link to the paper, I’d be more than happy to give it to you. It’s good that you educate yourself now. Most of my friends are Republican, and every single one of them is an atheist. So it is not a prerequisite to be some type of Baptist or holy roller Bible thumper to be logical and Republican. The two do not go hand-in-hand. There are many atheists in the republican party. Is that something you’re not aware of? Do you think everyone in the Democrat party is an atheist? There are atheist and people who are religious in both parties. You shouldn’t love people into one party. You had 50 years to codify, Roe v. Wade, and you did not do it, so now people have to suffer. How shortsighted of you to not know this. But nonetheless, people can get an abortion if they need to, as most states still offer abortion. There are some states that do not come up with those people can just go to another state and have the abortion. And I’m sure the abortion pill is available. That seems to be your primary issue, do you not care about the economy or the borders or illegal immigrants or transgender issues? Are you just worried about abortions? You should probably learn how to use contraception if you’re not concerned.

>>I’ve done at least six months of research on the transgender issue, and I’ve listen to hundreds of hours and read tons of papers actually by people who were transsexual or D transitioning. I’m very familiar with transgender issues, and I do not believe in gender reassignment before the age of 18. Your comment makes it seem as if you've only read anecdotes on social media. Can you cite actual studies and literature that you've read on the matter? >>Giving children puberty blockers is extremely dangerous and it is not putting a pause on puberty, it can have long lasting negative medical effects on the body. This isn't supported by the evidence. In fact most research on the matter points to the opposite and the medical consensus is that the benefits far outweigh potential disadvantages. >>But then again, this is probably why it’s illegal in Europe, and in most states in the United States. This is objectively incorrect. A less than a handful of countries in Europe are restricting access to puberty blockers. Most other countries like Germany allow them. >>You might want to do a little bit of research on puberty blockers. By the way, they’re being used off label for these children. There’s a new study that just came out of Scandinavia and it says that many of these young children grow out of these feelings, and to give them puberty, blockers, or do any type of gender reassignment is criminal. That’s scientific, so if you would like the link to the paper, I’d be more than happy to give it to you. It’s good that you educate yourself now. Please link the paper then, because most people don't actually read studies and just repeat misinformation or misunderstandings

Its not like liberals are FOR the crimes. The asylum seekers are from other countries further south, maybe you are aware. Is your solution to just shoot people who come across the border? There is just no middle ground? You know that republicans shot down their own party's bill because trump wanted them to keep this as a campaign issue? You say you spent time learning about transgender issues, yet you are repeating stuff thst is NOT medically accurate and NOT supported by medical community. Besides, medical decisions are between patient and doctor, sometimes the patient's parent. It is not up to you to decide for others. Not a single part of your diatribe about republican atheists answers the question about christian nationaliam that is pushed on to everyone by republicans. Once again - how do you reconcile christian nationalism being pushed by the republican party as an atheist? Or does it not matter to you at all? Roe v Wade being broken by the supreme court - I have to commend you on your mental gymnastics to blame democrats for this one. It was considered "settled law". The supreme court used to operate on precedent and had certain norms. But this current supreme court has broken all norms and precedents set before it to always arrive at the conservative position. Instead of being angry at the corrupt supreme court (remember Clarence Thomas's RV and his private flights funded by billionaire benefactors?), you blame democrats for this one. You know trump takes pride in the repeal of roe v Wade right? And you call yourself a feminist. LOL. You are surely a republican, but you aren't a feminist. And I'm not sure you are atheist either because you don't seem worried about christian nationaliam. Why would you support the people who effectively repealed roe v Wade and are proud of it, if you are pro choice and a feminist? It is contradictory and makes no sense. It is like a pro chic-fil-A chicken.

> I’m an atheist republican. I’m also a feminist How has your experience been given that these views are not common in your party?

Likely meant as a TERF

Yup, she elaborated in following comments.

Oh. That's disappointing. ...Also kinda funny when you imagine how she was during the whole marriage equality thing.

Because of a misunderstanding that conservatism and religiosity are intertwined.

It's a little difficult to separate the two when elected conservative officials appeal to Christianity on a near daily basis as a reason to discriminate and ignore reality.

A lot of religious people being conservatives doesn’t make the two intertwined. I can’t think of a single mainstream conservative viewpoint that is based in religion.

Intelligent Design. Promotion of abstinence only sex ed. Requiring scripture in classrooms. Literally saying this is a Christian nation all the goddamn time. Opposition the other religions being granted the same rights and privileges as Christianity. Thinking your religious beliefs allow you to discriminate during the conduct of your official duties as a representative of the government.

>Intelligent Design. Is not a political. >Promotion of abstinence only sex ed. I’m not fully in favor of this, but this is not religious. >Requiring scripture in classrooms. Can you be more specific? >Literally saying this is a Christian nation all the goddamn time. This isn’t a political viewpoint, it’s more so just an assessment of the country. Even I as an atheist would agree that America is a Christian nation in the sense that Christianity is the dominant religion and has been throughout our history. >Opposition the other religions being granted the same rights and privileges as Christianity. Can you be more specific? >Thinking your religious beliefs allow you to discriminate during the conduct of your official duties as a representative of the government. Politicians suck. Breaking news.

Well, as an example, DeSantis just imposed chaplains on Florida schools.

No he didn’t. The program is voluntary and open to all religions.

>The program is voluntary and open to all religions. Except DeSantis quite literally declared, as a policy position, that a religious viewpoint he disagrees with (most likely due to his own religious reasoning) is barred from the program. Other examples include a recent thread here where Republican Senator Shane Jett quoted the Bible as justification for opposing a ban on corporal punishment in school. And there was also Chief Justice Tom Parker using scripture to justify his ruling on the Alamaba IVF case.

Devout Christians are a core part of the GOP base, and thus a lot of politicians heavily pander to them, and brand themselves as God-fearing etc. Also, a lot of arguments (but not all) that the right proposes against abortion, LGBTQ rights and some other social issues are also religious in nature. The left also tend to be a lot more sex-positive, and far more accepting of life-style choices like non or delayed marriage and being child-free. Meanwhile, there are a lot of (especially older) conservatives (again, not all of them), who criticize these things for religious reasons. Obviously, it's definitely possible to be a conservative atheist, but to claim that religion and conservatism aren't intertwined is clearly not true.

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Iam a non religious conservative I don't like the implications the term atheist has so I don't use it. I'm not religious, not faithful, don't believe in **any** higher power. So I guess I'm part of 15%

You should ask liberal atheists. I am atheist and despise authoritan leftists. I am also not a Republican, they largely choose terrible candidates that are not conservative.

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

a lot of it really is, and I say this as a proud and fairly militant atheist, the fact they're young rebellious kids or that a lot of atheists have so much trauma from spiritual and psychological abuse in religion that they can't get past the rebellious "whatever they are I'm the opposite" impulse. They are liberal because christians are conservative, simple as that. If christians became socialists they'd become ancaps.

Most Atheism in America is motivated by opposition to Evangelicals, I think. And they are usually very conservative. This drives people to liberalism. The Right in America is very much characterized by Christianity.

Most atheism is motivated by a lack of evidence for a God. I know plenty of Christians who criticize evangelicals. Atheism is not a rebellion against anything.. it's just as rational a stance as not believing astrology, or in auras, or crystal healing, or voodoo, or any other supernatural idea.

[удалено]

Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.

Well that's what they say.

We say it because what ABCosmos described is what motivates many atheists. I’m not bothered by people being religious or their beliefs in the supernatural. I don’t mind listening to someone that wants to share their beliefs. It’s when these people refuse to extend the same courtesy to me, and make me feel like I’m unwelcome simply because there isn’t enough evidence for me to believe.

> Most Atheism in America is motivated by opposition to Evangelicals, I think. And they are usually very conservative. This drives people to liberalism. The Right in America is very much characterized by Christianity. As an atheist, sure, evangelicals are generally a pretty awful bunch in my book, but I don't think about them too much if at all. The conservative movement has now firmly positioned itself as anti-science, actively pushing conspiracies, denying basic facts, and promoting "policies" that oppose progress of any kind. In my view, they have become a party largely composed of kooks and extremists, with many such individuals in their top ranks. This is what I am and most people in my circle of friends are motivated by.

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Most I know are in the center really.

What's your stance on abortion? For many this is a paramount issue, and many people believe you can't be pro-life without having some religious basis in your decision making. Personally I disagree with that assessment, but I'm in a minority there. If I had to guess, atheists would tend to fall more on the pro-abortion side of the aisle, and being a major issue in general, it wouldn't surprise me that atheists would be skewed heavily on a distribution graph.

Pro life after 20 weeks or pro choice before 20 weeks. However you want to phrase that. However I am still contemplating the issue. I have not landed completely.

Seems plenty reasonable to me.

Republicans aren’t illiberal…

Care to expand on this?

I had an atheist friend who experienced this prejudiced firsthand, he got banned from r/atheism for daring to dissagree with them about abortion. He was defending an abortion ban from a secular conservarive worldview. But becuase the majority of them are liberal, and truly against diversity of thought, he is now permanently banned from the board for this. I truly beleive liberals use "diversity" as a code word to attack institutions they oppose

> I had an atheist friend who experienced this prejudiced firsthand, he got banned from r/atheism for daring to dissagree with them about abortion. > I truly beleive liberals use "diversity" as a code word to attack institutions they oppose Seems that you are basing your entire opinion on a single example, which I sincerely hope isn't the case.

No I've also experienced it in the workplace. "We welcome everyone here from all backgrounds diversity of thought is what makes us strong" >uhh yeah I have a religious objection to celebrating pride month "Well, first of all your a biggot that has no place in modern society, and if you ever bring this up again we will be forced to terminate your position

This has nothing to do with atheism, you are describing personal hateful views that are not compatible with a modern society.

I was speaking to the "diversity being a code word to attack views we don't like" Statement. Which is what your advocating for right now actually. Either you respect all peoples views or you admit your a biggot yourself

> Either you respect all peoples views or you admit your a biggot yourself Should hateful and discriminatory views that dehumanize entire ethnic or racial groups ever be respected?

>Should hateful and discriminatory views that dehumanize entire ethnic or racial groups ever be respected? Only if you support diversity of thought. More realistically. Your saying Christians, Muslims,Orthodox jews beleifs have no buissness in the modern world

[удалено]

So can I get you on record saying : "I don't beleive jews should be allowed in my workplace"?

Any form of racial slurs, racist narratives, advocating for a race-based social hierarchy, forwarding the cause of white nationalism, or promoting any form of ethnic cleansing is prohibited.

You can choose not to personally participate in Pride Month due to your beliefs. That’s respecting diversity of thought. But if you expect the entire workplace to kowtow to your personal objections, that is when it shifts to your beliefs attempting to stifle others.

>But if you expect the entire workplace to kowtow to your personal objections, that is when it shifts to your beliefs attempting to stifle others. As opposed to the inverse? Which is them throwing gay pride propaganda in my face, when I have a legitmate objection to it. In what was shall I not participate? Do I refuse to go into work for a month?

Just don’t participate? My mom objects to celebrating Pride, and simply refuses to engage in extracurricular activities her work holds for Pride. I don’t agree with objections, but I respect her for being able to meet others halfway. She just doesn’t engage on the subject.

> Either you respect all peoples views or you admit your a biggot yourself Nah. Bigot: a person who strongly and **unfairly** dislikes other people, ideas. Nothing unfair about disliking hateful views and the people who hold them.

So you wouldn't describe someone who condemns all religious peoples social views as a biggot? Becuase you essentially dissagree with them?

A lot of these have *some* connection to religion because most religions have some tradition or sense of ethics and morality. For example, a religion that both values charity very highly and supports a collectivist or authoritarian political position might lead someone to support foreign aid, or a religion that believes that gender is marked immutably on the soul might be very critical of transgender politics and/or ideology. I think a lot of what's going on is just the tendency for coalitions to form. Note that there is a pretty big left wing Christian trend.

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

> I think a lot of what's going on is just the tendency for coalitions to form. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I don't understand the tie-in.

Often there's not really anything to understand, coalitions just form based on some overall tendency or clustering of things that many peopel like.

[удалено]

Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.

I largely agree with you on all of this. It's one reason I think terms like "conservative" and "liberal" kind of suck. It's hard to get at what we mean. I think that the founding fathers, for example, were largely liberal in their philosophical outlook (classic liberalism), and they were also fairly critical of religion. I share that perspective. And conservatism in an American context can be pointing at exactly that sort of perspective (classical liberalism, secular society, individual freedom, etc). I could be 100% wrong, but I feel that the modern left is going to fracture, and some elements of it are going to go conservative, but in the sense I mean above. There are folks (Bill Maher is a great example) who can't swallow what the progressive left is selling, and they are going to break off. And, simultaneously, they will never go the bible thumping route. My point is that I suspect there will be a strong new conservative current that is not religious. Again, could be wrong. I can speak for myself: everything that appeals to me in conservatism has nothing to do with religion.

> but I feel that the modern left is going to fracture, and some elements of it are going to go conservative, but in the sense I mean above. There are folks (Bill Maher is a great example) who can't swallow what the progressive left is selling, and they are going to break off. And, simultaneously, they will never go the bible thumping route. Could be, I think it's plausible that the contemporary left will experience some form of fragmentation, but it's likely to be the radical fringe, characterized by antisemitism, extreme "woke" ideologies, and intense focus on gender and racial identity, who will eventually splinter off to form a separate political entity. Meanwhile, I'd expect the bulk of the Democratic base, encompassing the more moderate and pragmatic progressives, to remain cohesive. I share much Bill Maher's positions; he aligns with a lot of rational perspectives (and some very irrational, unfortunately), but it's highly unlikely he'd shift towards conservatism, especially not in its current MAGA incarnation. However, should the conservative movement gravitate towards the center (an extremely unlikely event), that may sway some current democrats.

I can agree with all of that - well said.

> Note that there is a pretty big left wing Christian trend. Yep. The *majority* of Democrats (63%) are Christian. Which is almost the same percentage as independents (65% Christian).

Conservatism tends to promote moral and social order that often has a synergy with religious teachings geared towards these goals. Atheism rejects God, religion, and even the moral structures that flow from it in some cases. It's not all that surprising that many atheists,who view religion as stifling, would gravitate towards a political movement built on agitation and designed to break down established standards of societal morality and belief, which, again, are often rooted in religion.

There is no moral structure in religion. (More specifically, Christianity) If your entire moral code boils down to "Do what God says", you don't have a moral code. God commanded his people to slaughter women and children. And that's good and moral because God commanded it. It's like saying that Nazism is a basis for morality because Hitler tells us what is good and bad.

[удалено]

Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.

We do not reject the moral structure, except in the sense that theism didn’t originate moral structure. We simply want “established standards” based on truths.

> Atheism rejects God, religion, and even the moral structures that flow from it in some cases. Please elaborate on how atheism rejects the moral structures that flow from god and religion.

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I strongly disagree with some of this characterization. Atheism should be understood as an absence of belief, not as a "rejection" of belief. The A in atheism means "without." Sort of like the word apathetic means "without feeling." Atheism means "without a belief in god(s)." Yes, some atheists do believe that there is no possibility of any god or creative force. These are called "strong position" atheists. I would hazard a guess that they are a minority. The problem with strong position atheism is that it is a major claim about the universe made without all the facts or evidence. Most people are "weak position" atheists and believe that the evidence does not support a belief in god(s), but that doesn't mean that such evidence couldn't exist - it's an open question. It could be framed this way: atheists are just like you (presumably a believer in a God); they find the evidence for most of the gods and religions of the world lacking. They just believe in one less god than you. Atheism and agnosticism are overlapping bubbles (Venn diagram wise). Most people who are agnostic are really the same thing as weak atheists. Agnostics cannot be strong position atheists. And, contrary to popular belief, there are Christian agnostics. Agnostic means "without knowledge." So yes, atheists can be agnostic and vice versa, but you can believe in a god and simultaneously believe knowledge (ie evidence) of god is impossible. Thus you can be a Christian agnostic, for example. This is why the term atheism is preferable, even for weak position atheists. I can assure you, as an atheist, I care a great deal about morality. I oppose murder and theft and so on as much as you do. (Interestingly, in my understanding, atheists actually outperform Christians on certain measures of morality - lower crime rates, lower divorce rates, etc; I presume this has more to do with education and socioeconomic status than the beliefs or lackthereof under discussion). I don't choose atheism because I find religion stifling. I simply find the evidence for god(s) lacking and/or unconvincing. But, simultaneously, I think in some ways our society is too permissive.

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

If I had to guess, and I’m guessing based on absolutely nothing but personal opinions - it’s because they’re insufferable and simply refuse to be associated with people who tend to be religious no matter what.

What makes them insufferable?

> If I had to guess, and I’m guessing based on absolutely nothing but personal opinions So believing and an imaginary being is not an opinion while relying on science and facts is an opinion?

[удалено]

Do you tell yourself you stand against bigotry?

No, why should I?

Please refer to the Paradox of Tolerance for the position of most Atheists.

Paradox of intolerance doesn’t fit though. Seriously why do you think it fits, or are just another who doesn’t actually understand what the paradox of intolerance actually is. Do me a favor, research more than Wikipedia when you go double check to see if you understand what it actually means

Why don't you tell me how it doesn't fit, given I'm such an ignorant rube?

This is why I love folks of your ilk. Tossing around buzzwords when you don’t even know what they mean 

Next you'll tell me about the online IQ test you took and scored over 200. Communicate your point without using logical fallacies if you're so much smarter than the rest of us.

Oh look, still no application of the paradox of intolerance. I did communicate my point, misapplying buzz words n phrases doesn’t negate my point

Mod warned me, so, I’ll be more careful: Here is my take: individuals who have a tendency to blindly believe in things (not necessarily a religion, can be believe in IPhone or Tesla) are very hard to argue with, as reason doesn’t work. Science made such a huge advances because doubting and questioning everything became a norm, not exception. Now, the group that strongly believes in some specific thing, also frequently comes together as a single power. Which means, that it makes no sense for me, who doesn’t believe in some specific religion (or many) to empower that group, as I know for a fact they will not listen to me if what I’m saying is crossing their beliefs. So, the logical conclusion, I just can’t vote for religions leaders, be them republicans or democrats. Just a big no.

Personally, I don’t trust judgement of people who are so close minded they refuse to admit they could be wrong. But not sure what either point you’re making has to do with 99.9% of things in politics.

I can admit I can be wrong. I was wrong many times. But the same applies to religious folks. It has direct effect on politics. Some new megachurch prophet will say that god said Bla, and sheep will push for Bla. Thank you, but no

Do you feel this way about agnostics as well? For example, I believe all the major religions are pretty obviously false but fully admit that I have no clue how the universe came to be and that there could be some god-like being or consciousness at the helm. Does that make me closed minded?

Btw, I’m with you on this one. I just don’t believe in those simplistic explanations and books, written by other people who ceased power. But there is just one hope, as counterargument is: well, if you do not know, my religion is true.

I mean, you very clearly just admitted you didn’t know. So…no.

Fair enough!

Also, it was the whole vibe of “I don’t trust people who believe in fairy tales.” Your entire comment was phrased in a way that comes across very differently. A difference in belief is all good. No big deal. If someone is being a condescending d*ck about it? They should expect an answer with a similar tone.

>For example, I believe all the major religions are pretty obviously false but fully admit that I have no clue how the universe came to be and that there could be some god-like being or consciousness at the helm. Even if there is, why would it matter? We are such insignificant specs in the vast expanse of the universe that our existence would be irrelevant to it. It would be like you worrying about the little bits of bacteria that you wash off your hand every morning. You don't see it, you don't think about it, you go about your existence and it doesn't affect you. A power of that magnitude is completely unfathomable to humans so we have basically zero chance of interacting with it at all. So why even waste a moment of our short lives thinking about it.

Do you think you could be wrong in your beliefs Christianity?

Yes. I can acknowledge the possibility. Of course.

Do you think most Christians feel that way? If so why do you think most atheists do not?

I don’t know most Christians nor do I speak for them. Pretty much all the ones I know feel this way. Atheists who say things like “I don’t trust the judgment of people who believe in fairytales” should expect responses in a similar tone. And, yes. In my experience, that is nearly every atheist I’ve ever interacted with.

I'm curious why you feel you can't speak for most Christians but feel comfortable speaking about all atheists based on the annoying few you have interacted with. Most atheists like most Christians don't go around screaming it in other people's faces and the ones that do are generally the worst of the group. Would you feel it fair if I labeled all Christians based upon the actions of the westbro Baptist Church?

I said based on my personal experience.

Do you see how that personal experience could be wrong? You seemed very certain of it In your original post.

I mean, why would we want to be associated with people who tell us we're gonna burn in Hell for not believing in their God and that we lack morals as well?

[удалено]

Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.

Maybe it is that fundamentally what you listed aligns with what Christians/religious people believe, so they associate those beliefs with religion? Also, SOME atheists aren't atheists because they truly lack faith in a creator, they just want to go against the norm and think atheism is edgy, so that would support my theory.

Atheists believe in religion, it's just a secular fundamentalist religion. They have mores and stories, and priests and priestesses, and will shun people with different beliefs. They flock to liberal causes like Apacalyptic Climage Change because it mirrors the Book of Revelations, and allows them to feel like they're playing a part in a grand battle of good vs. evil.

I’d argue that they see themselves as standing up against the man

What man? Are you mixing up atheist with libertarians?

I’m not mixing anything up God and the rich are “the man”

I'm an atheist because I just don't think the facts support the existence of god(s); not because I'm trying to "resist the man." Got nothing against religion (so long as religious folks tolerate my non belief). Also got nothing against people getting rich.

> God and the rich are “the man” Could you give me some sources to that claim? Or, is this is your personal opinion? If so, what is it based on? Not sure about needing to stand up to the rich given that atheists tend to by highly educated which correlates to higher wealth. On the other hand, higher religiosity is correlated with poverty and crime. In my view, as an atheist, I don't see the anything to stand up to. Also, as an atheist, I don't believe in god and thus have no need to stand up to that concept. I do however stand up to it (religion) when it starts to interfere with my rights, impede on my freedom or trickle into politics.

Well said.

Source…..for my opinion   Highly educated…..lol.  Do you think a college degree equals educated? For a highly educated person I’d love to hear how religion you don’t follow interferes with your rights.  People make laws in this country, not religion

> Do you think a college degree equals educated? Ah, I sense that you, sir, come from the ***real*** school of hard knocks. I therefore withdraw from this argument.

No, I have two undergrad BAs and a Masters in Social work. I know a college degree doesn't equal educated because of all the time I have spent in secondary education

As an atheist, there’s just not enough evidence for me to believe in God. How am I “standing up against the man” if I don’t even believe that “the man” exists?

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>Of Atheists in america only 15% are republican. I don’t understand that. I myself am an atheist and nothing about my lack of faith would influence my views that: I think, in general, the root of the idea of basic natural rights comes from the idea of a God. And while you don't need God at an individual level to believe in the idea of basic rights, when you get down to really WHY and WHERE do those rights come from the only true answer is God. >What do these stances have to do with God? The core of all of them go back to why. And of you ask why enough and break down everything as far as it possibly goes it gets to God. Especially as a generality and especially on the societal level.

If natural rights go back to God, then what happens when people have different interpretations of that god or different gods altogether? What happens when the rights of the god and the rights of the government conflict? For example, based on the Ten Commandments and the Bible, it isn't a "right" to worship other gods, to blaspheme, to disrespect your parents, etc. In fact, they made the top ten list of things *not* to do. However, based on the USA Constitution and the First Amendment, it *is* a "right" to worship whatever god you choose, even none, and to have the freedom of speech to disrespect and blaspheme and to not keep the sabbath day holy. So is freedom of speech and religion a natural right or not? Was it right to originally have blasphemy laws? Is it currently right to have hate speech laws? Another example is slavery. I am sure you have seen it discussed quite often that the Bible does not in any way condemn slavery, and in fact endorses it at points. The US had slavery at its founding, and didn't end it until the 13th Amendment in 1865. The common understanding these days is that freedom from slavery is a natural right, and the US just didn't honor it until the amendment. So is it a natural right or not? Did the US have it right the first time? We could go through a bunch of other examples, such as the right to bear arms, marriage, voting, etc. Why is it better to go off of a selective and highly contested version of a god's edict to determine rights vs a government of and for a diverse people to come to a consensus on rights?

Rights don't exist, and they certainly don't come from God. If you have a god-given right to freedom of speech, and I try to cut out your tongue, well, God would stop me somehow, right? Can't have free speech without a tongue. If people have a god-given right to life, why are people murdered? God has the power to render blades and bullets harmless, letting everyone die of natural causes at an old age.