Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

I am confused why there are so many Atheist Right-Wingers in America. I understand, (but definitly do not agree with it) in other nations. But American Republicans have made it clear that they think Christianity is best and Atheism will only be slightly tolerated if it can get them more "Christian values" codified into law. Why do some atheists fall down the Alt-Right/Mainstream right rabbit hole?

Because... people can have different opinions even within the same vaguely defined classification.

My personal theory is modern liberalism includes the principles of secularism along with religious tolerance towards members of different denominations. Thus, particularly vehement anti-theists become dissatisfied with liberalism and adopt more intolerant political beliefs, which can have a conservative bent.

It's sort of like Randian Objectivism, but whereas her philosophy included atheism and anti-theism as a logical progression from her ultraconservative attitudes, this is atheists developing conservative attitudes because of their anti-theistic philosophy.

So if you wrote a book on that would it be called Shrugged Atlas, Deggurhs Salta, or Shrug Atlassed?

How about The Head Fountain?

Edited by ClancyGardener on Jun 17th 2021 at 6:24:30 AM

Should I understand that?

@Backset: I understand that. But Republicans in America have made it very clear they won't tolerate Atheism or that they hate it and brand Atheist or non-theists as "God Haters" and go on and on about Christian persecution because they heard "Happy Holidays" one time.

It's like Trans people being republican, much of that side in power thinks LGBT or Atheist hatred is a necessary part of the party.

That happens when someone considers other issues much more important than their own Freedom of Religion.

And Santa is not punishing evil because he believes in positive reinforcement.

Edited by Oculto on Jun 19th 2021 at 2:36:03 PM

I guess so. But I don't understand how Caitlin Jenner can support the Republican Party when the vast majority of it has declared they hate her: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/oi41xt/woman_who_tried_to_run_in_the_lef_party_is_chased/

On the other hand after 2016-2021 I have no sympathy left for Right Wing sexual minorities who think Republicans will support them. The majority of the party has declared that if you are LGBTQ you aren't "one of the good ones" because there aren't any "good ones". You wanted to support them, then you should have to deal with what you helped get mainstream appeal.

@Wildcard: I wonder, how would they be so indoctrinated with such blind spots? I'd like to know, too.

I don't know whether they're really so many. My guess is poll data likely would show most American atheists lean left of center. However, there is a Vocal Minority to be sure. Various explanations could be given for that, and none will fit them all since people are diverse in their beliefs' causes. One though may be that for some, the common atheist view of bucking authority turns against left-wing positions, not the right. There's a left-wing establishment too, after all. If an atheist is somehow at odds with them, it can lead them into more right-wing politics. Of course, broadly as said above there's no necessary connection between left-wing politics and being an atheist. Unlike what so many theists think, atheism's not an entire worldview. It can align with many different positions, politics included.

Back in the 2000s, the nu-atheist community was full of obvious racists who knew they couldn't get away with saying they hated Middle-Eastern people, but could get away with saying they hated Muslims (especially after 9/11).

The short and simple answer is that racists and bigots will always make up a certain percentage of every community.

So they have a selective bias against Muslims, when the new atheists have also criticized Christianity a lot.

So I'm here, after criticizing God for the new abhorrent Texas abortion law.

Has there ever been a time where you felt angry at Him for any injustices in the world?

I don't get angry at fictional characters.

I get angry at people using the bible as an excuse to be raging cunts and then act self-righteous about it.

I get angry at fictional characters all the time (looking at you Kai-Leng) but not with god.

Not really, it's hard to get angry at a fictional character for injustice committed by fanfolk of that character who selectively choose bits and pieces to support. Now, the fanfolk, those people almost perpetually manage to find new ways to disappoint me in the depths to which they stoop.

Strictly speaking, a belief in God along with a distaste for It is maltheism, not atheism. As others in this thread have already stated, it's hard to personally hate someone who you think/know isn't real. There are some people who aren't religious and dislike the very idea of religion — that's what the "Anti-theist" part of the thread title refers to. But that's not the same as disliking God as a person.

One interesting facet of religion — particularly the Holy Trinity of Judaism/Christianity/Islam — is the Problem of Evil, or why an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good entity would allow the existence of evil. To my mind, the only solution to this paradox that still allows for a God in the meaningful sense of the term is that God has no sense of morality. Thus, there's no point in getting mad at God for creating evil/allowing for evil to exist, because evil doesn't exist.

On the one hand, this is consistent with the nature of God — why should we presume that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence would even have a comprehensible psychology, much less a sense of morality, and if the creator of the universe doesn't have morals, then why would they even exist in the first place? On the other hand, most people are averse to having such a nihilistic worldview — even atheists/anti-theists have moral values, and in fact, many (myself included) object to religion on moral grounds.

I was at a service yesterday for the first time in a long time and I remembered one of the things that made me an atheist: the constant thanking of God for things that, real or not, he had no hand in.

Also realized that the Abrahamic god (no, autocorrect, not Abrahami clone, Abrahamic god) could be considered the universe's biggest deadbeat dad.

Sounds like the deistic view, which has God be a clockmaker. Just made the nuts and bolts and left everything rolling.

I think that's one of the most charitable interpretations of God, in that it avoids the moral conundrum of a God that rules over all existence but allows evil to exist. One might argue that a God that creates existence but refuses to care for its creation would be criminally negligent, but I think that it just amounts to the existence that we experience anyway: a Godless universe, which is not all that terrible after all.

Coming in late, but regarding the above... Such an "absentee landlord" view of God won't fly for Christianity (nor Islam or Judaism). Deism is a whole separate kettle of fish that has different issues (deists were opponents of the Abrahamic faiths along with atheists, though nowadays they're fewer in number from what I can tell).

As for God's character, lots of people now don't realize that classical theism says he had no moral agency. In our terms he had no ability to make judgments by a notion of right and wrong nor be held accountable. That last part obviously follows from the fact there's no one else powerful enough to hold God accountable I suppose. The first however has unsettling implications to theists, which is why many now reject it.

Basically, this means there's nothing that God could do that's wrong (or right, though people don't mention that). Those notions only apply to his creations (i.e. us, and any other moral agents out there, such as aliens). Now, most claim God can't/won't will certain things (e.g. killing infants for fun as being moral). That again only applies to moral agents. He can kill anything he'd like at any time, and it's not immoral.

So if that's right it seems on classical theism we do live in a moral nihilist universe ultimately, even if there are moral rules for the little people (mortals like us) since its maker has no morals. Remember this when people talk of atheism being equivalent to moral nihilism-many forms of theism are too ultimately. So that's one way which people get out from the problem of evil.

It's also quite hard to square such a view with common attributes given to God like all good (usually expanded into just, loving, merciful) as those are surely moral characteristics. What this tells me really is people who defend theism philosophically will say things the common believers don't actually hold and might be shocked by. I doubt even the theistic philosophers deep down ever believe them, as they will continue to say God is loving just etc. while also claiming he's ultimately amoral.

Another method (quite old as well) is claiming evil is simply the absence of good (called privation theory). So disease is a lack of health (they include natural harms under "evil"), theft means you now lack your property etc. God is not responsible, they say, as he doesn't create a lack of things. This however is pure sophistry. Naturally occurring evils like that don't come from nowhere-they're part of the creation God made, given theism.

The same goes for loss of property, injury, death etc. in many cases. Natural disasters are causes of all those things (again caused by God ultimately per theism). The people affected lack health, life etc. due to these things. We could flip things around just as easily saying that life is a lack of death, health means a lack of disease, holding property means lacking theft etc.

Edited by Fireblood on Jun 9th 2022 at 4:27:38 AM

Anyone have any ideas of what to do to stop awful human beings like Kenneth Copeland from getting money? Televangelist preaching is so full of corruption and manipulating poor people that it looks like there is basically nothing worthwhile in the vast majority of it. I'm sure there is some local public access Televangelist preacher who means what they say and gives almost all the money they get to give to the poor with only a little funding to keep their charities lights on, but they aren't the ones that need to be taken down by the government. How do you take those down? Besides showing people how awful they are? Clearly that does not work. What laws can we vote for, programs can we volunteer for and what restrictions would not be met by "but Copeland's religious freedom"?

As an Atheist I think most of us can agree we need to stop rich people grifting desperate religious people, but how can we do it in a way that can actually work?

Well, one of the main ways to cut it back is to make it more difficult to file for tax exempt status as a religious institution. There's a lot of tax code problems surrounding churches (and generalized non-profits) but making it more difficult to file for tax exempt status would make it slightly less lucrative. It certainly wouldn't stop the grifting, but it would be a start.

American Evangelical Christianity does have a lot of cult-like tendencies (thus why it's such a hotbed for conspiracy theories and why Qanon fit right in.) so there needs to be more safe groups for people considering leaving, like the groups for people leaving cults and other things like that.

Other than that, I'm sure there's more things, but I can't think of them immediately.

Is it weird that I find religion fascinating despite not believing in it?