[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/atheism/ - Atheism

The rejection of belief in the existence of deities

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 1442112984181.jpg (535.34 KB, 1285x1252, 1285:1252, Altkirch_16_Karl_Bauer_190….jpg)

a32b68 No.11185

What is the origin of atheists being overwhelmingly leftists? Was it because the early traditional governments were closely tied to religious institutions, so they viewed tradition as being irrational and superstitious? Is it because many atheists came from religious background and felt anger towards "tradition"?

t. Agnostic Atheist

4b7f31 No.11188

File: 1442114381514.gif (1.16 MB, 1274x955, 1274:955, Nietzsche.gif)

Leftist atheists still suffer from the legacy of Christian slave morality. When Christianity began it very much resembled what we call leftism, in fact leftism is rooted in Christianity. You know all that love thy neighbor, we're all equal, help the poor and oppressed, money is evil, hippie bullshit, etc is all found in the Bible and all rehashed by leftists.

For instance:

>"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

Pretty much the Marxist motto:

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Engels even admits to this:

>The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain.

So leftist atheists while figuring out there is no skywizard are still morally stuck to Christian slave morals. So the thing they cling to is "hey at least we accept gay marriage" like it makes much of a difference.


a32b68 No.11189

File: 1442118021728.png (35.75 KB, 200x276, 50:69, 200px-Anthony_Ludovici.png)

>>11185

Gah! How did I forget about all of this? Your entire point is always screamed at Christians on /pol/. Thanks for the reminder.

Reminds me of when they say "I would know to be nice and not to kill without Christianity," unaware of the Christian ethical environment they are raised in.

>Nietzsche

My fuckin' nigga.


169f76 No.11192

>>11185

> Was it because the early traditional governments were closely tied to religious institutions.

This.

Conservative try to conserve the staus quo. Leberals and Libertarians are more open to change.

On the other hand the protestant church in europe is pretty leftist.


ee5837 No.11197

>>11185

>the early traditional governments were closely tied to religious institutions, so they viewed tradition as being irrational and superstitious

>so

No, tradition is irrational and superstitious, independent of who used it. Just because that's how people did things doesn't mean it was the best way to do things. Especially when one of the reasons people do a lot of things is because it's just traditional.


478513 No.11198

>>11197

You can see traditions as a symbol for continuity of generations. You are passing the torch. It's not about what you do it's about that you do it. It's solidarity with your culture and people.

I can't see the harm if the customs are fun.


3face3 No.11199

>>11197

>>11198

Not to mention that the critique of tradition opened up the "dogma of progress" which resides with atheists. Not to say that criticism of traditional institutions and customs did not contain detailed points and arguments, but atheists also started exhibiting series of slogans and memes which were nothing more than appeal to novelty fallacies. That something was traditional became proof that it was wrong.


476b97 No.11200

>>>11185

Its been this way since Jefferson. Jefferson is cool in that he was a leftist that could write well, was a well-read intellectual, and was Atheist. He was madly devoted to decentralization, and anti-commerce. He also was a racist slave-owner who inherited an estate, but indebted himself with luxuirous living, and who only released 5 slaves out of hundreds in his lifetime (because they were his kids,) selling 130 others at death to cover his debts. It amazes me how he could be rational on religion, but suspend critical thinking and be as amoral even for his era in other respects.


478513 No.11202

>>11200

If you see slaves as goods then it's rational to treat them that way. It's the same a generals sometimes see their soldiers as pawns in a game.


a32b68 No.11203

>>11200

I was under the impression that he was a Deist?


4b7f31 No.11204

File: 1442186661092.jpg (48.4 KB, 547x397, 547:397, hot-end-on-3d-Printer.jpg)

>>11200

You're suspending critical thinking for morality though.

>>11202

Very much this.

And slavery does make economic sense hence why slavery happened. If slaves weren't more cost effective than paid labor no one would've bothered going to African warlords to buy the people he captured in his conquests. Now that the cost of basic necessities are so low it makes more sense to keep people as wage slaves while the richest 10% own 90% of the wealth. They no longer have to put money into housing and keeping us, we're very expendable and we keep coming back because we have no other option for living except innawoods. We're still in a slave system, it just has extra steps and a bit more freedom (a lot more relative to outright slavery but very little compared to how free we could be). Until society becomes obsolete with technological advances eliminating our dependence on each other we'll be masters or slaves one way or another. Now if artificial intelligence does become cognizant like we are or in its own way and we use it like a slave or wage slave we're re-establishing slavery but with machines. And the reason why such an idea is so uncomfortable is because we're still forcing (in the case of outright slavery) or tricking (in the case of wage slavery) beings with their own "free will" to work for us instead of having automated or semi-automated systems that were designed for the task do what they do.


476b97 No.11210

>>11203

Technically, but I think of him as an Atheist at heart when I see quotes like:

>"Question boldy even the existence of God."

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10730-4-religion-your-reason-is-now-mature-enough-to-examine

>>11204

Okay, I just don't share Jefferson's limited views on egalitarianism. I agree we are still in a slave system with extra steps, and would like to have been born a later century where the robots replaced the need for blue collar work.


4cde35 No.11211

>>11204

>if artificial intelligence does become cognizant

It's not?


048205 No.11214

File: 1442246011999.png (760.07 KB, 1045x1024, 1045:1024, 1437152790371.png)

>>11203

He was, but that was a more intellectual position than it might seem today. I'd say that while he wasn't an atheist he was irreligious. It's important to remember the scientific landscape of his time. This was pre darwin, pre relativity, pre quantum mechanics, and before cosmology was an actual science and not just ponderings. The universe seemed very well ordered and there didn't seem to be a natural explanation for how it ended up that way.

However, he and the other great enlightenment intellectuals of his time realized the absurdity of supernatural miracles and revelation. As well as the very shaky historical foundation of Christianity and other world religions.

Enter deism. If God cared at one point, he doesn't anymore. About as close as you could get to outright atheism without being shunned at the time.

Even today, take a peek into /christian/ while they're talking about the enlightenment. They hate it, because it was the beginning of the end of christianity's cultural and intellectual domination of the west.

I'm willing to bet that if it were me in that period, having about the same education level, I'd be a deist or "modernist" too.


478513 No.11215

>>11210

> and would like to have been born a later century where the robots replaced the need for blue collar work.

Most people will get get minimum wage. Just enough to keep them quiet and law-abiding. Basicly a neet-nation.

I don't know if it's a good basis when you are worthless for the system.


476b97 No.11216

>>11215

Yeah, it would be hard to suddenly redistribute that wealth. Automation hasn't helped inequality much yet, and if they could, our leaders would kill the unions and still ship the jobs to China.

Our society still follows the Christian principles in the Parable of the Harsh Master, of robbing the slave of his one coin, and giving it to the slave who has ten, (and then killing the former.) Hippy communes have always been detested for laziness, because they don't enter the rat race and slave for their masters like everyone else, and it doesn't matter whether they are self-sufficient or mind their own business. In our era, the Occupy movement was crushed, and the people who would have been homeless anyway, had their communities scattered again so the wealthy working in downtown wouldn't have to pay attention to the eyesore when they pass the city park.


ee5837 No.11222

>>11198

It's not necessarily harmful, and many traditions are good. Many traditions are bad, too. "It's traditional" isn't an argument to keep doing something. If a tradition is good, make the case it's good. If it's bad, drop it. I don't give a fuck about how it's been done or about culture. If they don't respect my choice to ignore traditions, then they shouldn't have run the risk of having descendants who didn't care and not reproduced.

>>11199

Every group has their idiots. Like I said, I don't care if something's traditional, just whether it's good, worthwhile, useful, etc. If people gather together on the same day every year to party and blow off steam, that's a good (although not really that significant) thing. If they abuse children because that's the traditional way to raise them, they can fuck off.


df2ed6 No.11263

>>11185

Leftism is based in equality, an all powerful god, a creator, a king is extremely hierarchical

That said, the jacobins/sons of liberty were leftist (as the left/right dichotomy came from the French Revolution). This is why many right wingers are atheist, the left of old is the right of today. Religion is a more monarchist tool. Marx called the enlightenment "bourgeois rationalism".


2a5dfc No.11264

What about Libertarians?They are often unreligious. What's their reasoning.


0317c3 No.11265

>>11264

In pretty much all of human history until the advent of secularism in Europe, states and their rulers have legitimized themselves by some kind of connection to a supernatural entity. Call it Mandate Of Heaven, Divine Rights of Kings or direct dencent from a godly being.


2a5dfc No.11275

>>11265

But that's not a reason to be non-religious.

At least not a strong one.


2c5c58 No.11282

>>11275

If nothing else shitty monarchs are great motivators. If some assclown that can't govern his way out of a wet paper bag says "I am your king because some god wants me to be king" then undermining the belief in that god will take away that king's justification, and undermining belief in religion in general will prevent any other assclown trying the same trick with a different god.

Of course political expedience isn't necessarily the same as truth, but sometimes the two can overlap if they're not paying attention.


b76b66 No.11291

>atheists beginning to wonder why there's so much overlap with SJWs

You've almost hit self-awareness guys!


2c5c58 No.11292

>>11291

Take your Große Lüge elsewhere.


167b11 No.11293

File: 1442727150879.jpg (10.93 KB, 259x194, 259:194, takingthebait.jpg)

>>11291

Anita prefers religion, Dawkins and Hitchens have been called racist for criticizing muslims, and OP has speaking more in regards to classical liberalism. Try again.


8c8305 No.11296

>>11293

>Dawkins and Hitchens have been called racist for criticizing muslims

Don't forget about about Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Douglas Murray


987c27 No.11314

Fuck you OP, there are a lot more SJW religious fags than atheist ones. Including the best one, Anita sarflesian


df2ed6 No.11395

>>11296

bill maher is a fucking faggot


4b7f31 No.11397

>>11395

lol, triggered sjwcuck


df2ed6 No.11442

>>11397

>hating liberal autists is SJW

>if you are not with us, you are with the turrerists


df2ed6 No.11443

>>11188

Nice fucking digits

im a leftist and believe we must create the übermensch, also marxists are nihlists not christian moralists


476b97 No.11598

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

I don't understand how Republican nominee Ben Carson can be a retired neurosurgeon, and still be a 7th Day Adventist. But even if he weren't religious, I couldn't support any Republican that doesn't accept progressive taxation. They all platform on flat rate taxation which mostly benefits the rich.


4108b2 No.12522

File: 1447440191164.jpg (45.37 KB, 433x561, 433:561, ayn-rand3.jpg)


df2ed6 No.12565

File: 1447609734794.jpg (35.01 KB, 400x537, 400:537, image.jpg)

>>12522

>ayn rand

>mfw


e094b9 No.12567

>>11197

But do you know what are the best ways to do things in replacement of the old ways? You may end up making things worse, if you think the old way was just arbitrary


476b97 No.12573

>>12567

We are far from reaching the pinacle of society in all of history to come. Progressivism in theory is supposed to change society for the better, not just change it. But in the absensce of information on whether change will improve society or not, I would rather take chances, experiment, be wrong and able to learn from it, than to remain the same for another century.


1182dd No.12574

>>11185

>atheists being overwhelmingly leftists

With the sort of insanity going on the American political left I doubt that this will continue for much longer.

Skeptics don't do well in systems with sloppy thinking.


9e7853 No.12577

>>12574

I don't think people are going to just up and abandon all their politics over SJWs. It's going to end up being a bunch of people you'd swear are liberals if they went over their beliefs but they'd swear up and down that they aren't associated with that crap.

Which is probably for the best. Better to have loyalty to the issues than to a party.


27e972 No.12598

>>12577

this tbh. Even though SJWs are annoy the Christian right is still there and waiting, and they have more real political power, even though Hilary plays the women card there isn't any leftist equivalent of Ben Carison craziness

on the left in america, at least not in power




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]