Atheism and the Political Spectrum

Yes: I am an atheist (with respect to the “known” deities anyway) because my default position is to disbelieve anything if I have no evidence.

So I’d say that my atheism is a consequence of my mathematical/scientific training.

Politically I am a liberal though that doesn’t have much to do with atheism (e. g, if I saw the world differently I could easily be a economic conservative)

I don’t see how atheism is inherently “negative”. It carries implications that are baseless, for one. Such as “atheists are negative people”, or that since we “believe in the negative”, then the opposite is “the positive”, i.e. “there is a god”.

“Affirming what we do not believe”? That’s a strange way of wording it. That’s like claiming that religious folk affirm that they do not believe there isn’t a god. We believe there isn’t. There is also, I would argue, a subtle (but in its own way, significant) difference between “disbelief” and “believing there isn’t”.

Sorry to knock this off track, the wording of that just annoyed me. It’s like another subtle attempt at demonising atheism.

But to answer the question, I’m fairly liberal, and most atheists I know fall along those lines. I know atheists who believe homosexuality is “wrong”, for example, but they believe that attempting to restrict their rights to BE homosexual is even more wrong.

I don’t know that there is a causative relationship between atheism and liberalism, but there does seem to be a correlation. Libertarian conservatives (especially of the Randian variety) will no doubt disagree, as they tend to be the most obvious exceptions (which Karen already mentioned).

There is a distinct correlation between atheism and libertarian-style social policy ideals. I know very few atheists that are social policy conservatives. In fact, I’ve only ever really found one or two.

Many atheists I know are also economically conservative.

Many are liberal in the socialist authoritarian definition. But many are conservative, in the laizzes-faire / libertarian definition. I’d say it’s 50/50 there, or no strong correlation.

Hmm, perhaps it’s time for a mass visit of the Political Compass?

Broadly, it seems to me that atheists are either liberal or libertarian – meaning that there’s a variety of opinions about economic issues, but there seems to be a strong trend in favor of individual rights.

Whether this is a result of atheism itself or just the natural consequence of being a group whose rights tend to get ignored or infringed upon, I can’t say.

Most atheists I know, including myself, are social democrats. However, I do know a lot of atheist right-wing libertarians, who essentially believe any taxation is equivalent to unjust theft, and we should all be left to our own vices (this is from Canada).

Speaking from a worldwide viewpoint, there does seem to be a strong correlation between atheism and liberal politics. One possible cause is the connection of conservatism with “traditional” (aka religiosuperstitious) values.

However, since a key component of atheism is often testing things out rather than accepting conventional or codified wisdom, I’d imagine that most atheists don’t fit cleanly into any political definition.

No
How can anyone answer this question…except in their imagination or as some kind of guess work.
I think its absurd to think everyone must have some kind of affiliation to either a political or philosophical stand point.

I wonder if there is some kind of left over attachment by some Americans’ to the idea that all atheists are communists.

Ridiculous!

I am an Atheist, and a Democractic Socalist. I do not believe that there is nessisarily a correlation between atheism and political belief, however there are studies ( i dont remember where) that show that the smarter people, those with a Higher IQ, tend to be atheist more than those with a lower IQ.

I have not seen any correlation between IQ and Political affiliation, however it would be nice to see more studies on the subject.

Among the things religious conservatives have spoiled (the meaning of “Christian, anyone?” intellectual Christianity?) is the chance of genuine secular conservatives allying themselves with the Republican Party, except by holding their noses.

Mind you, as a radical leftist, I welcome that, but I have some conservative friends who are awfully perplexed.

There was a poll on this recently at the atheism.about.com blog.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/08/07/daily-poll-as-an-atheist-what-is-your-political-orientation.htm

Since spirituality and political leanings have a genetic basis, it stands to reason that perhaps there is some overlap between the two sets of genes.

Thus, it may be that the personality traits responsible for conservatism/liberalism are, at least in some part, responsible for levels of spirituality. This may explain why there are more religious conservatives than religious liberals, and more atheist liberals than atheist conservatives.

I know atheists that are Libertarian (basically middle-of-the-road), but that’s about as conservative as they get. Most of them are more left of center.

Well, I’m somewhere at the intersection of libertarian, liberal, and centrist. I think I agree with what’s already been said here. Many atheists tend towards economic conservatism, even if they’re very left wing in other regards. Civil rights is probably up towards the top of the list of important issues.

“I think the best answer to this question is to say that both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were atheists.”

Ding, ding, ding…I think Friar Zero wins this round!

I would call myself a strong Capitalist, along the lines of Ayn Rand. And yes, I’m an atheist.

Many on this board would call me a Conservative, and I don’t deny that. I tend to vote Republican or Libertarian, though I despise their (Republicans, that is) ties to the religious right, and sanctimonious social policies.

I own guns and support the right to bear arms. I believe in low taxes and free markets. I believe in Julius Caesar’s motto, “Si vis pacem, para bellum.” (If you want peace, prepare for war). I support a strong military that’s not afraid to utterly crush our enemies (i.e., Islamic Theocracy).

I believe “marriage” is between man and woman – but only because that’s how the term has been defined for the entire history of humanity. No need to go about redefining age-old terms. I have nothing against homosexuals, and I support their right to have domestic partnerships and raise children, not be discriminated against, have health insurance, etc.. Just don’t call it marriage, because it’s not. Maybe I’m being a bit too strict with definitions here, but that’s my 1.5 cents worth.

Love the blog, BTW.

If George Will really is agnostic, at least there’s something he isn’t wrong about. Or, when it comes to power, religion takes a back seat to ambition (viz. Rove calling religious conservatives nuts).

Mind you, I also know lots of libertarian, Randian Misesian, etc atheists. Even one guy who sells Confederate flags. it’s just that the constellation called religious conservatism is probably losing mindshare from both ends, especially among people who have them (minds, not ends).

So my question is, are there any communist sympathizers in the house? Come on, don’t be shy! Raise those hands up high, comrades!

(Lenin4Ever raises his hand up high, glances around and realizes that he is the only one with his hand raised, and slowly lowers his hand in shame…)

Well, I’m still young so I expect my views will evolve as I gain life experience, but right now I think like ATL-Apostate on everything except gay marriage. I’m the president of my university’s Gay-Straight Alliance and and very pro-marriage equality. I don’t see allowing gay marriage as granting special rights, I see it as granting equal rights.

I think if everyone got along it would be wonderful, but that’s not how the world works, so I am very pro-military and I believe that once someone (or a group of people) have proven themselves to be destructive, you can’t be nice to them.

I think it’s unfair that there are different tax brackets. I don’t think the same $$ amount should be required of everyone but I think the same percent would be reasonable.

I’m not crazy about goverment programs.

I’m debating with myself about the death penalty, but I haven’t come up with a reason as to why it’s bad.

So as of now, I guess that makes me somewhat republican and I’m okay with that.

lol, that’s why I could never be president! I HATE spending money!

Democracy is not dead. Even in the US, where democracy has been given a serious beating recently, it is not dead, and I have every confidence that it will recover.

Our country will not return to what it was. Too many big changes are coming, and thankfully, most of them are completely out of our hands. This may be the end of an era for the U.S.

Our country will not return to what it was. Too many big changes are coming, and thankfully, most of them are completely out of our hands. This may be the end of an era for the U.S.

I agree, and I’m convinced that it is. Frankly, I don’t think our “global civilization” has much time left, but, even if we survive, I think America is finished as a world power – and it deserves to be. Start learning Chinese.

So my question is, are there any communist sympathizers in the house?

I am, actually, although I prefer to use the term “socialist”, because communism became synonymous with totalitarianism in the two best-known examples – China and the USSR. I’m rather enamored of the quasi-socialist countries – Europe in general, and the Scandinavian countries in particular. I’d probably include Canada in that list as well.

lol, that’s why I could never be president! I HATE spending money!

Amy, as Darryl pointed out, it takes a lot of money to run an empire. Republicans love to spend money – they just want to spend it on themselves and on programs and campaigns that that allow them to amass power. You say you don’t want to spend money on “government programs” (I assume you mean social welfare programs), but you’re in favor of military spending to defend us against people who have proven themselves to be “destructive”. You don’t really think that’s why we’re in Iraq?

Republicans love to spend money – they just want to spend it on themselves and on programs and campaigns that that allow them to amass power. You say you don’t want to spend money on “government programs” (I assume you mean social welfare programs), but you’re in favor of military spending to defend us against people who have proven themselves to be “destructive”. You don’t really think that’s why we’re in Iraq?

Amen!

Consider also the trends in light of the knee-jerk propaganda of the hard Right: if we hollow out the middle class, and dismantle the social safety net, and if the rise of powerful markets in Asia continues, further driving down wages and inflating prices, where will the money come from to support even our bloated defense and security operations? What Americans will happily assent to seeing their taxes go to rich and influential corporations while they languish at home? An economy in shambles will not be functional.

Unrest at home; wars abroad–ring any bells for anyone? I’m old enough to remember recent history. We should be prepared for rough times ahead. Maybe some Deus Ex Machina will emerge at the 11th hour and we’ll dodge a bullet, but don’t bet on it.

Instead, let’s use what little credit and credibility we have left and try, against all odds, to reinvent ourselves one more time. Let’s restore a Constitutional Republic–of laws and not of men–and let’s become the world leaders in green technologies. Let’s get out front of everyone else on this and lead the way. All those poor Midwesterners thrown out of jobs by Globalism are going to need something to do. Let’s do something good for average people rather than for the rich and powerful–they’re doing just fine as I understand. Let’s admit that wholesale deregulation, privatization, and “trickle-down” economics is a failed ideology, and get real while we still can.

ATL-Apostate’s view on marriage is possibly the dumbest thing ever said on this blog, appealing to tradition is the true atheist’s nightmare. The idea that because something is old it is valid is the same thing religious apologists use to try and validate their own religion and stupid ideas. It is completely and utterly irrational. Marriage has changed greatly in the past, from one man-many women to one man-one woman, and hopefully to whomever-whomever they love.

If you want to see where I stand, I’d refer you to Darryl’s post. While I’d like a small government, at this point it’s virtually impossible, no president or congressperson or new policy will change that. I don’t think it’s possible with a country the size of the US to have a small government. The best we can do is make policy that will give people as much liberty as possible.

wt big government programs:

http://www.truemajority.org/csba/priorities.php

Starting with facts is often useful. It’s the Atheist Way.

Their Oreo demonstration is also good.

I usually label myself liberal-libertarian, and it seems that there are a lot of us in the skeptical community, at least more so than in the general population.

I think both major parties now are in favor of broad governmental intrusion in people’s lives, but simply favor different kids of intervention, for different goals. I think some level of government intervention and therefore taxation is necessary, but it could be *far* less than current levels. A federal government that protected the borders and interstate commerce, and make sure states didn’t violate the federal constitution could be a tenth the size of the current bureaucracy.

States could have social programs, single-payer healthcare, etc. That’s fine. They could have the high taxes to go along with it, and people could decide if it was a good tradeoff to live in those states.

The idea of prosecuting victimless crimes has always struck me as odd. If a person wants to smoke a joint, why throw them in jail? It’s just senseless. Also, see george carlin’s questions about why prostitution is illegal.

I think the free market works splendidly the vast majority of the time. The leftover cases often cost more to fix than the “damage” of the “market failure.” Economic externalities should be the taxable events in society.

@ryot:

TL-Apostate’s view on marriage is possibly the dumbest thing ever said on this blog,

The evidence is against you. Which makes your statement…?

What a thread this has turned out to be.

Just one comment:

I believe “marriage” is between man and woman – but only because that’s how the term has been defined for the entire history of humanity. No need to go about redefining age-old terms.

Linguists, who are the ones who compile your dictionaries, define words by how they are used. No more, no less.

So. The first recorded use of the word word “marriage” in English is from 1297. Yes, it’s based on an Old French word, which is in turn based on a Latin word, which is in turn probably based on a Proto Indo-European word, but still, the word “marriage” only dates back to the 13th century. So we’re not exactly dealing with “the entire history of humanity”.

As a concept, of course, marriage pre-dates recorded history, but even then, it’s meant different things at different times. Where would you place polygamy in “the entire history of humanity”? (I’m not an anthropologist, so that was a serious question.)

The evidence is against you. Which makes your statement…?

Which evidence specifically? I made sure to use the qualifier possibly, so you can’t really provide evidence against something that is not definite. I should say that’s possibly the dumbest opinion I’ve heard from someone who I’d imagine is an otherwise rational individual.

Do you not think it’s an appeal to tradition? Because I assure you that if you look up “appeal to tradition” that exact argument is given as an example in at least a couple of sources. As is the argument that God must be real because the idea has been around so long.

Or do you not think marriage has meant different things at different times? Because I’m fairly certain it has, just look at the old testament of the bible versus modern marriage. It’s changed in even more ways than that, instead of marrying to move up in class people do it for love, instead of strengthening the bloodline people now marry just because they feel like it after an all-night bender in Vegas. A daughter is no longer property to be married off for the right sum and men are not required to offer livestock to her father.

@ryot: I misspoke. My bad.I should have said the probabilities are against you.

It is possible that we could all turn brilliant some day. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Not unless there’s a hell of a spread,

Rev., don’t be coy; answer ryot’s question: “Which evidence specifically?”

@Lenin4ever,
I sympathize with communism and communists. So, that makes two, I guess. I’m waiting for a book by Lenin, that I ordered from Amazon – it wasn’t in stock at any damn, imperialist-capitalist bookstores. Should be in today’s mail. However, I’m not a communist, myself…as I keep having to tell my wife.

Rejecting the stupid notion of god has certainly made me more socially liberal. It hasn’t had much impact on my other politics except that the same skeptical attitude is now applied to politicians. This has turned me toward 3rd parties outside the duopoly of Dims/Repugnants.

This discussion has made me wonder if there’s a link between antitheism and the political spectrum. I’m getting a bit of a vibe that antitheism is associated with a general pessimism about human nature. “Friendly atheism” seems more optimistic about what humans are able to achieve.

@Darryl: You’ve heard of the small sample size problem. There’s also the way too huge sample size problem.

I’m not sure any of us can claim not to have said the stupidest thing evar, even in this discussion.

Wrt socialism being a horrible failure, I’ll say 3 things: (a) I never was old left, but I’m still building up a pretty good bunch of anti-tightass allies, and (b) run-amok corporate capitalism sure has been a smashing success in America, hasn’t it?

Most of my nation (England) are religiously disinterested. Some are atheist and some are raised to believe in a some sort of jolly nice God who is vaguely out there doing godly stuff. There are very evangelical or die hard religionists. At least in my experience.

The political climate is not that far removed from the American Democratic party. Both main British parties (Conservative and Labour) vie for a middle ground that is neither right wing nor left wing. Traditionally the Tories have attracted the right wing parts of society while Labour has appealed to the left wing.

There are some small differences but essentially the extreme political parties are supported by extreme views. The BNP attracts far right win, racists, the Greens attract people concerned with environmental issues above, say, economic realities. The Liberal democrats attract people that the Tories and Labour have managed to alienate in some way.

I’m generalising, of course, but a secular nation has a wide range of political ideas beyond the religious stereotypes. One of the politicians who I personally have a lot of respect for is Tony Benn. He’s now retired but he’s always been outspokenly Christian. Despite that 😉 he comes across as a caring and eminently reasonable man who I would have been happy to vote for.

Contrast my current MP, David Willetts, who I have no idea what his religious views are although I think he is vaguely Christian. I find the Conservative politician to be changeable and reactionary and I find myself distrusting everything that he says.

In England we vote for an MP rather than a party. The party with the most MPs elects a leader and holds power. MPs serve a constituency of more or less equal population with other MPs. At least in theory.

Yeah, but Darryl – those people have political and theological opinions with which neither you nor I would agree, and envision a society (insofar as they’re capable) in which I would not want to live, and I suspect you wouldn’t want to either.

And their “Don’t fuck with me” attitude can be manipulated and used against them – again, Iraq.

It doesn’t take that many people with guns to threaten a regime.

I often wonder what would have happened if the Japanese-American citizens who were rounded up for internment in World War II had a) been armed, and b) used them against the obvious example of government out to destroy your civil liberties.

Most likely, the government would have just used it as a demonstration that these people really did need to be rounded up after all, and the rest of society would have agreed.

This is not an isolated incident. McCarthy, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act… so far, Americans, their precious Second Amendment and their “don’t fuck with me” attitude have a pretty low success rate when it comes to fighting tyrrany at home.