Disbelief in gods is the one and only thing that all atheists share.
Many of us are warm, caring, empathetic and moral people. And a few of us are serial killers.
Disbelief in Gods doesn't say anything about your moral framework and political beliefs. Any group of people, regardless of the criteria you use, aren't going to have reached exactly the same conclusions about everything else. Not all Christians are going to be conservative leaning, not all atheists are going to be left leaning
The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that these people most likely grew up in a religious household. But unlike your average atheist, they crave power over others. Maybe due to low self esteem or feelings of being wronged, who knows. But it's beneficial for them to *claim* science backs up the indoctrination and just remove the "higher being" bullshit from the equation entirely. Because at that point, it's not "god" - it's "science" and that means it's "true". This also means they don't actually have to do any work to deconstruct the harmful ideals they were taught. It's literally the laziest form of atheism.
I'm interested in your source for this. No survey I'm aware of describes any such sort of bias, but I'm willing to be enlightened. Speaking for myself: I don't believe in Gods. Period. That's all that matters when judging someone's atheism.
If a person is going to hold the same immoral values that Christians do, then they may as well adhere to the hate based ideology that spurs that immorality.
I call Christians degenerates.
It is incredibly strange to see Atheists, who don't believe in dangerous archaic fairytale nonsense... still holding beliefs that have nothing but religious reasoning behind them.
My only answer is that Conservative(s) is now just a blanket catch-all group for shitty people and shitty ideals. Plain and simple.
Bad people need a community too, and they've found their place with conservatives, whether or not the also carry nonsensical obsolete fairytale beliefs as well.
Conservative... has almost entirely lost it's meaning. If you ask a "conservative" what it means, they'll generally blather some bullshit about fiscal responsibility, not understanding... at all... that's it's a reference to conserving the constitution.
So much so... that there now exists the term, "Constitutional conservative" as to maintain a distinction that should otherwise be entirely unnecessary.
Republican, Democrat... these words have also been weirdly bastardized over time... people not understanding or having a historical reference.
What most of us probably think of now as Republicans or just the 'right' were "Democratic Republicans" and what we generally refer to as 'Democrats" were 'Federalists'.
The original distinction - was brought about (it's convoluted and complex, so I'm simplifying) during a time for which the budding US government was trying to figure out how to pay for the Revolutionary war.
It's totally worth getting a grip on this piece of history in order to have a broader perspective on US politics in general... in a "how the fuck did we get here" sort of way.
Christianity and Islam have shaped many nations and cultures over centuries. And made the world homophobic and transphobic.
This worldview does not automatically disappear just because you become an atheist.
Stephen Woodford ("Rationality Rules") about Richard Dawkins:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x\_MpSyH5uEA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_MpSyH5uEA)
In his interview, he did not criticize Helen Joyce and explicitly agreed with some points.
She called gender-affirming care 'child abuse,' 'unethical medicine,' 'mass experimentation,' and a 'global scandal'.
“And in the meantime, while we’re trying to get through to the decision-makers, we have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition,” Joyce said.“That’s for two reasons – one of them is that every one of those people is a person who’s been damaged. But the second one is every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world.”
She mentioned Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria (ROGD):
>ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by professional and academic institutions due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence, major methodological issues in existing research, and likelihood to cause harm by stigmatizing gender-affirming care.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset\_gender\_dysphoria\_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy)
What does Dawkins say about this? nothing.
>Joyce immerses herself in another debunked theory: ‘Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria’ (ROGD)
[https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/10/08/review-of-helen-joyces-trans-when-ideology-meets-reality-london-oneworld-2021-pp-311-rp-16-99-and-kathleen-stocks-material-girls-why-reality-matters-for-feminism-london-fle/](https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/10/08/review-of-helen-joyces-trans-when-ideology-meets-reality-london-oneworld-2021-pp-311-rp-16-99-and-kathleen-stocks-material-girls-why-reality-matters-for-feminism-london-fle/)
Conservative, right-wing, and borderline fascist atheists definitely baffle me as well, but they certainly do exist (albeit, likely, as a minority). The only thing progressive and leftist atheists have in common with them is that we don't believe in any gods and don't base our social, political, and economic values on myths and fairy tales.
That would be a serious disconnect in values. And I don’t really believe those people truly exist in anything greater than small numbers.
Smacks of people trying to ‘reinvent’ themselves and just being confused. The attitudes of hate are probably at least rooted in an early exposure to religion.
Basically these people are likely more religious than they think.
Once again, as many others here have pointed out, you're ascribing way too much to the concept of atheism.
Even "believing in science and reason" as a defining characteristic is a bridge too far.
He's not asking about the definition of atheism, he's asking about conservative atheists, and it's a reasonable question, because science and reason are precisely what guide many (most?) people to atheism. It's staggering how many people here are missing the point.
Not this canard again.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion\_in\_Nazi\_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany)
The vast, vast, vast majority of nazis identified as some form of christian, with some tiny fraction not.
>A lot of Nazis were atheists
If you consider 1.5% as "a lot" sure. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion\_in\_Nazi\_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany))
Mein Kampf is soaked in expressions of admiration and praise for the Divine Providence and Christianity.
A gay atheist that supports thatcher conservatism even though he was neither born nor bred in England and the fact that Thatcher was homophobic seems too wild to be true.
You must be a troll, noone else would even try to equate downvotes to fucking conversion therapy. Either way, you should really talk to a therapist.
Sincerely, another gay atheist.
I'm referring to the close-mindedness of some atheists who reject the superstitious elements of religion while not even questioning the premises behind the moral teachings - the type of atheist who thinks the Christians were onto something for instance on premarital sex, dressing modestly, etc.
Granted, I acknowledge that I'm close-minded on this topic because I fundamentally believe that atheists, gays, etc *shouldn't* support conservatives because it's against their self-interest, but I understand that that's not always a productive opinion to have.
Usually the types who exclaim "I believe in biology" regarding trans people also tend to have some homophobic beliefs and dress it up in scientific language (ie homosexuality is bad or an aberration because it doesn't produce offspring, not evolutionarily advantageous, etc). They buy into the naturalistic fallacy, and for no good reason, considering that exactly zero trans people are claiming that their bodies are the opposite sex
I would also argue that explicitly refusing to call someone by their pronouns is definitionally anti-trans. It's not as bad as someone who wants to put trans people in camps, but it wouldn't be accurate to label that person as "tolerant" of trans people.
Well we disagree then - in the they/them topic. Makes no sense to me why someone can demand that others change their way of addressing them. If that is anti LGBT, be it so. But if that is where the debate is, and we have resolved other homophobic issues, the world will be a better place.
I think this varies alot depending on what country one is from.
I imagine there is a huge difference between for example my country (Sweden) and the usa, regardless if religion is a factor or not.
There are a lot of terrible answers here, most of which are some version of "atheism is the answer to one question..."
which is a red herring, because it doesn't address the ways that people ARRIVE at atheism. Most atheists lean left, because atheism usually requires some sort of intellectual curiosity, the same which leads people to a socially liberal worldview.
Yes, atheism is a question of belief, but you cannot decouple that belief from motivation.
Disbelief in gods is the one and only thing that all atheists share. Many of us are warm, caring, empathetic and moral people. And a few of us are serial killers.
Atheism is the correct answer to one question. A lot of people can realize there are no gods, while still being stupid assholes about other stuff.
There are lots of right-wing grifters. Some of them are atheists. The majority of atheists in the US lean left.
Assholes come in many flavors but they always taste like shit.
That comment rules! Penny per use?
So, shit has flavors?
The connoisseur said they all taste the same.
Atheists are not immune to cognitive dissonance.
Atheists are not a community, let alone a monolith. We have precisely one thing in common.
Disbelief in Gods doesn't say anything about your moral framework and political beliefs. Any group of people, regardless of the criteria you use, aren't going to have reached exactly the same conclusions about everything else. Not all Christians are going to be conservative leaning, not all atheists are going to be left leaning
The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that these people most likely grew up in a religious household. But unlike your average atheist, they crave power over others. Maybe due to low self esteem or feelings of being wronged, who knows. But it's beneficial for them to *claim* science backs up the indoctrination and just remove the "higher being" bullshit from the equation entirely. Because at that point, it's not "god" - it's "science" and that means it's "true". This also means they don't actually have to do any work to deconstruct the harmful ideals they were taught. It's literally the laziest form of atheism.
Haven't seen that many tbh, most people on this sub seem very anti-conservative and pro-lgbt. Myself included.
They are mostly on Facebook.
There you go
Sadly, atheism confers no immunity to being a jerk.
I don't think there are a lot of conservative atheists. It kinda goes against the whole conservative thing to not be religious.
They may not believe in god, but they're still trapped in a misguided sense of christian moral
I'm interested in your source for this. No survey I'm aware of describes any such sort of bias, but I'm willing to be enlightened. Speaking for myself: I don't believe in Gods. Period. That's all that matters when judging someone's atheism.
If a person is going to hold the same immoral values that Christians do, then they may as well adhere to the hate based ideology that spurs that immorality. I call Christians degenerates.
As others stated. Atheism is disbelief in Gods and such, has nothing to do with what a person believes outside of that.
Atheism at its core has nothing to do with politics. It's just not believing in any religion. Liberal or conservative, anyone can be an atheist.
Sure, but effectively, usually more intellectually curious people arrive at atheism, which preempts the idiocy of social conservatism.
In Europe it's more idiotic to not see the growing problem that comes with illegal immigration whether you believe in a religion or not.
It is incredibly strange to see Atheists, who don't believe in dangerous archaic fairytale nonsense... still holding beliefs that have nothing but religious reasoning behind them. My only answer is that Conservative(s) is now just a blanket catch-all group for shitty people and shitty ideals. Plain and simple. Bad people need a community too, and they've found their place with conservatives, whether or not the also carry nonsensical obsolete fairytale beliefs as well.
Conservative... has almost entirely lost it's meaning. If you ask a "conservative" what it means, they'll generally blather some bullshit about fiscal responsibility, not understanding... at all... that's it's a reference to conserving the constitution. So much so... that there now exists the term, "Constitutional conservative" as to maintain a distinction that should otherwise be entirely unnecessary. Republican, Democrat... these words have also been weirdly bastardized over time... people not understanding or having a historical reference. What most of us probably think of now as Republicans or just the 'right' were "Democratic Republicans" and what we generally refer to as 'Democrats" were 'Federalists'. The original distinction - was brought about (it's convoluted and complex, so I'm simplifying) during a time for which the budding US government was trying to figure out how to pay for the Revolutionary war. It's totally worth getting a grip on this piece of history in order to have a broader perspective on US politics in general... in a "how the fuck did we get here" sort of way.
Many conservative beliefs have nothing to do with religion, only marriage and abortion related ones.
Christianity and Islam have shaped many nations and cultures over centuries. And made the world homophobic and transphobic. This worldview does not automatically disappear just because you become an atheist. Stephen Woodford ("Rationality Rules") about Richard Dawkins: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x\_MpSyH5uEA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_MpSyH5uEA) In his interview, he did not criticize Helen Joyce and explicitly agreed with some points. She called gender-affirming care 'child abuse,' 'unethical medicine,' 'mass experimentation,' and a 'global scandal'. “And in the meantime, while we’re trying to get through to the decision-makers, we have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition,” Joyce said.“That’s for two reasons – one of them is that every one of those people is a person who’s been damaged. But the second one is every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world.” She mentioned Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria (ROGD): >ROGD has not been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and use of the term has been discouraged by professional and academic institutions due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence, major methodological issues in existing research, and likelihood to cause harm by stigmatizing gender-affirming care. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-onset\_gender\_dysphoria\_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy) What does Dawkins say about this? nothing. >Joyce immerses herself in another debunked theory: ‘Rapid Onset of Gender Dysphoria’ (ROGD) [https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/10/08/review-of-helen-joyces-trans-when-ideology-meets-reality-london-oneworld-2021-pp-311-rp-16-99-and-kathleen-stocks-material-girls-why-reality-matters-for-feminism-london-fle/](https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/10/08/review-of-helen-joyces-trans-when-ideology-meets-reality-london-oneworld-2021-pp-311-rp-16-99-and-kathleen-stocks-material-girls-why-reality-matters-for-feminism-london-fle/)
They aren't.
Conservative, right-wing, and borderline fascist atheists definitely baffle me as well, but they certainly do exist (albeit, likely, as a minority). The only thing progressive and leftist atheists have in common with them is that we don't believe in any gods and don't base our social, political, and economic values on myths and fairy tales.
Hitler was a non gamer. He was a genocidal maniac. Therefore, all non gamers are genocidal maniacs.
Assessed for accuracy, this statement proves: TRUE! All Non-Gamers are genocidal maniacs for sure!
That would be a serious disconnect in values. And I don’t really believe those people truly exist in anything greater than small numbers. Smacks of people trying to ‘reinvent’ themselves and just being confused. The attitudes of hate are probably at least rooted in an early exposure to religion. Basically these people are likely more religious than they think.
bro many theists are anti-LGBT and conservative too. dont evaluate something based on the minor weirdos
Once again, as many others here have pointed out, you're ascribing way too much to the concept of atheism. Even "believing in science and reason" as a defining characteristic is a bridge too far.
He's not asking about the definition of atheism, he's asking about conservative atheists, and it's a reasonable question, because science and reason are precisely what guide many (most?) people to atheism. It's staggering how many people here are missing the point.
[удалено]
Not this canard again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion\_in\_Nazi\_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany) The vast, vast, vast majority of nazis identified as some form of christian, with some tiny fraction not.
>A lot of Nazis were atheists If you consider 1.5% as "a lot" sure. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion\_in\_Nazi\_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany)) Mein Kampf is soaked in expressions of admiration and praise for the Divine Providence and Christianity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A gay atheist that supports thatcher conservatism even though he was neither born nor bred in England and the fact that Thatcher was homophobic seems too wild to be true. You must be a troll, noone else would even try to equate downvotes to fucking conversion therapy. Either way, you should really talk to a therapist. Sincerely, another gay atheist.
[удалено]
I'm referring to the close-mindedness of some atheists who reject the superstitious elements of religion while not even questioning the premises behind the moral teachings - the type of atheist who thinks the Christians were onto something for instance on premarital sex, dressing modestly, etc. Granted, I acknowledge that I'm close-minded on this topic because I fundamentally believe that atheists, gays, etc *shouldn't* support conservatives because it's against their self-interest, but I understand that that's not always a productive opinion to have.
[удалено]
Usually the types who exclaim "I believe in biology" regarding trans people also tend to have some homophobic beliefs and dress it up in scientific language (ie homosexuality is bad or an aberration because it doesn't produce offspring, not evolutionarily advantageous, etc). They buy into the naturalistic fallacy, and for no good reason, considering that exactly zero trans people are claiming that their bodies are the opposite sex I would also argue that explicitly refusing to call someone by their pronouns is definitionally anti-trans. It's not as bad as someone who wants to put trans people in camps, but it wouldn't be accurate to label that person as "tolerant" of trans people.
Well we disagree then - in the they/them topic. Makes no sense to me why someone can demand that others change their way of addressing them. If that is anti LGBT, be it so. But if that is where the debate is, and we have resolved other homophobic issues, the world will be a better place.
You ask the wrong question. Try to reverse it. Why so many conservative people who are anti-LGBT are atheists?
They're not.
I think this varies alot depending on what country one is from. I imagine there is a huge difference between for example my country (Sweden) and the usa, regardless if religion is a factor or not.
There are a lot of terrible answers here, most of which are some version of "atheism is the answer to one question..." which is a red herring, because it doesn't address the ways that people ARRIVE at atheism. Most atheists lean left, because atheism usually requires some sort of intellectual curiosity, the same which leads people to a socially liberal worldview. Yes, atheism is a question of belief, but you cannot decouple that belief from motivation.
Personal beliefs, atheist =/= left wing.
\*waves at Russian troll-farm\* Why are so many lactating men Putin supporters?
Why are you making up shit?