Why are most atheists politically liberal?

[amortalman]

It seems to me that most atheists are politically liberal. But why is that? And should we include agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers? Most creationists tend to be political conservatives. Has it always been this way or is this relatively new? In the U.S., the polarization of the two parties is so severe that the thinking seems to be that if one identifies with either side he is expected to buy into the entire philosophy.

I've asked a lot of questions because as an agnostic I consider myself a conservative on most issues. Am I a man without a country? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about any or all the questions I presented.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 17 by Clownboat]

Clownboat said:

"Would the world be better off if this year we had an extra 1 million unwanted babies born or 1 billion? After answering this question, you are of course still free to find abortions as abhorrent."

There would certainly be pros and cons to your question. We can speculate on both sides of the issue but no one really knows which would be the right choice in the long run. But if we get into the quagmire of, "would the world be a better place if...?" it's not hard to see where this could lead. For example, would the world be a better place if no one was allowed to live past the age of 70?

Please list some of the pros you allude to if we had 1 billion unwanted extra babies born.
I'm trying to envision who would take care of all these unwanted babies. How many would you be willing to take care of and raise?

Make a case for 70 year olds being unwanted and we can then discuss that like we are unwanted babies currently.

Like I said from the beginning, them being unwanted is an important key to this discussion. You conveniently left that out with your attempted analogy.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 17 by Clownboat]

Clownboat said:

"Would the world be better off if this year we had an extra 1 million unwanted babies born or 1 billion? After answering this question, you are of course still free to find abortions as abhorrent."

There would certainly be pros and cons to your question. We can speculate on both sides of the issue but no one really knows which would be the right choice in the long run. But if we get into the quagmire of, "would the world be a better place if...?" it's not hard to see where this could lead. For example, would the world be a better place if no one was allowed to live past the age of 70?

Please list some of the pros you allude to if we had 1 billion unwanted extra babies born.

I was thinking along the lines of the following:

1) IMO any society that does not respect the sanctity of life cheapens life. I think that when life is cheapened it leads to a general disrespect for life and increased murder and suicide rates. Of course, you first have to believe that life begins at conception, which I do.

2) Studies have shown that many young women, after aborting their child, suffer guilt and depression.

3) Who can calculate the value to society that millions of discarded lives might have furnished?

4) Finally, I believe it is the height of immorality and an assault on human life.

I'm trying to envision who would take care of all these unwanted babies. How many would you be willing to take care of and raise?

Many would be adopted. There are many qualified couples who are eager and willing to adopt but usually, they have to wait a long time to get a child. The important thing is that a civilized society does not commit atrocities for the sake of convenience. Problems can be solved. The wholesale slaughter of innocents is a cowardly and barbaric way to avoid working toward a better solution. Human life is not something you can discard like garbage because you don't want it.

Make a case for 70 year olds being unwanted and we can then discuss that like we are unwanted babies currently.

At present time there is no case to make but already there are murmurings that the elderly are not needed and are a medical burden to society.

Like I said from the beginning, them being unwanted is an important key to this discussion. You conveniently left that out with your attempted analogy.

No, I take the position that being wanted or not has nothing to do with the issue of right or wrong.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 17 by Clownboat]

Clownboat said:

"Would the world be better off if this year we had an extra 1 million unwanted babies born or 1 billion? After answering this question, you are of course still free to find abortions as abhorrent."

There would certainly be pros and cons to your question. We can speculate on both sides of the issue but no one really knows which would be the right choice in the long run. But if we get into the quagmire of, "would the world be a better place if...?" it's not hard to see where this could lead. For example, would the world be a better place if no one was allowed to live past the age of 70?

Please list some of the pros you allude to if we had 1 billion unwanted extra babies born.

I was thinking along the lines of the following:

1) IMO any society that does not respect the sanctity of life cheapens life. I think that when life is cheapened it leads to a general disrespect for life and increased murder and suicide rates. Of course, you first have to believe that life begins at conception, which I do.

2) Studies have shown that many young women, after aborting their child, suffer guilt and depression.

3) Who can calculate the value to society that millions of discarded lives might have furnished?

4) Finally, I believe it is the height of immorality and an assault on human life.

I'm trying to envision who would take care of all these unwanted babies. How many would you be willing to take care of and raise?

Many would be adopted. There are many qualified couples who are eager and willing to adopt but usually, they have to wait a long time to get a child. The important thing is that a civilized society does not commit atrocities for the sake of convenience. Problems can be solved. The wholesale slaughter of innocents is a cowardly and barbaric way to avoid working toward a better solution. Human life is not something you can discard like garbage because you don't want it.

Make a case for 70 year olds being unwanted and we can then discuss that like we are unwanted babies currently.

At present time there is no case to make but already there are murmurings that the elderly are not needed and are a medical burden to society.

Like I said from the beginning, them being unwanted is an important key to this discussion. You conveniently left that out with your attempted analogy.

No, I take the position that being wanted or not has nothing to do with the issue of right or wrong.

I don't see where you listed much for the 'Pros' to having the dicussed unwanted fetuses being born.

I understand where you are coming from, but you have not convinced me that all these unwanted babies would benefit humanity. I do share your dislike for abortions though.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 23 by Clownboat]

Claowboat wrote:

"I don't see where you listed much for the 'Pros' to having the dicussed unwanted fetuses being born."


As you undoubtedly know, that all depends on how much value one puts on the pro-points I listed. I put a great deal of value on them but I can understand that others do not.

[2ndRateMind]

It seems to me that most atheists are politically liberal. But why is that? And should we include agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers? Most creationists tend to be political conservatives. Has it always been this way or is this relatively new? In the U.S., the polarization of the two parties is so severe that the thinking seems to be that if one identifies with either side he is expected to buy into the entire philosophy.

I've asked a lot of questions because as an agnostic I consider myself a conservative on most issues. Am I a man without a country? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about any or all the questions I presented.

Well, I have noticed this tendency among the religious right, also. To think that they have the right to lay down the law for others, because God is on their side, and what He says, goes, and should go for everyone.

I spent a long time as a liberal who did not believe in God. And now I am a liberal who does believe in God. Divine Command ethics does not work for me, entirely, because I am the product of the postmodern era that looks for a better justification for moral decision making than just 'because the Bible says so'.

It may just be that there is a personality difference at work here; some people are comfortable with rules, and want their rules inflicted on everyone else; and some people are more comfortable with freedom, and want their freedom extended universally, and resent rules considerably.

As analytic scalpels go, this may be a gross over-simplification; the religious right want all the freedom they can get to become rich and suffer no taxation to aid the poor, but want to reduce freedoms around sexual moralities; whereas liberals may be more inclined to succour the poor through the compulsory taxation system, but suffer no constraint on their sexual activities and expression.

Whether there is room for compromise in these matters remains, as yet, uncertain.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 23 by Clownboat]

Clownboat wrote:

"I don't see where you listed much for the 'Pros' to having the discussed unwanted fetuses being born."


As you undoubtedly know, that all depends on how much value one puts on the pro-points I listed. I put a great deal of value on them but I can understand that others do not.

You said: "1) IMO any society that does not respect the sanctity of life cheapens life."
I hear your opinion, but not sure where sanctity of life is coming in to play as I'm asking you about 1 billion unwanted fetuses that have now been born and how that would benefit society (be a 'pro'). I can respect the sanctity of life myself, yet still see the repercussions of what 1 billion unwanted fetuses being born would inflict on humanity (the many 'cons').

You said: "2) Studies have shown that many young women, after aborting their child, suffer guilt and depression."
This does not address those that feel relief for not being forced to attempt to birth a fetus that they do not desire to attempt to carry to term. Your use of the word 'many' excludes far too many.

You said: "3) Who can calculate the value to society that millions of discarded lives might have furnished?"
Let's be honest here, this isn't even close to being a 'pro'.

You said: "4) Finally, I believe it is the height of immorality and an assault on human life."
Your beliefs also do not qualify as a 'pro'.

So far, I still don't like abortions and I would love for them to stop, but what you trying to pass off as 'pros' are not affecting the position we seem to share.

Perhaps you should consider the 'cons'. We can still hate abortions afterall.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 26 by Clownboat]

You said: "3) Who can calculate the value to society that millions of discarded lives might have furnished?"
Let's be honest here, this isn't even close to being a 'pro'.

I was being honest and my statement stands. What part don't you understand? Ok, I'll spell it out for you.

What if one of those "unwanted" lives turns out to be another Albert Einstein, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Bach, or William Shakespeare? Would any of these qualify as a "pro" in your estimation? Is this shortlist sufficient that you get the point?

As for the questionable point of unwanted babies: Who does not want them? The mothers? If the mothers do not want them does that mean no one wants them?

Who is going to take care of a million unwanted babies? Who took care of them before abortion became a means of birth control?

[Clownboat]

amortalman said: "3) Who can calculate the value to society that millions of discarded lives might have furnished?"
Clownboat answered with: Let's be honest here, this isn't even close to being a 'pro'.

I was being honest and my statement stands. What part don't you understand? Ok, I'll spell it out for you.

Look at your words above in bold. You asked a 'who' question.
Your 'who' statement is not a 'pro'.

What if one of those "unwanted" lives turns out to be another Albert Einstein,

Or a Hitler or a Mohammed!
Your 'what if' is not a pro.

Is this shortlist sufficient that you get the point?

Again, you asked a 'who' question and it did not reflect a benefit to allow women to choose to carry a fetus to term or a benefit to not allow women to choose to carry a fetus to term.

Pride cometh...

As for the questionable point of unwanted babies: Who does not want them?

An aborted fetus is unwanted by definition except for cases where saving a mothers life is on the line (then a wanted fetus may be aborted).
You could argue that a soup kitchen would want them and it will not affect that the fetus is unwanted by the mother, therefore the fetus is unwanted. This is how I am defining unwanted fetus when I use it.

Who is going to take care of a million unwanted babies?

Please answer your own question. It is a good one.

Who took care of them before abortion became a means of birth control?

Please learn the difference between birth control and abortion. It will help to foster good debate.

Either way, I fear you mean back when infant morality rates were through the roof?
Let me inform you that nearly half of all births died before reaching puberty.
Back then, 1/2 (if not more) of all conceptions aborted naturally. The fetuses that did make it to term had a 50% chance of making it to puberty.

This thinking of your is arcaic and you should amend it IMO.

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

[amortalman]

It seems to me that most atheists are politically liberal. But why is that? And should we include agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers? Most creationists tend to be political conservatives. Has it always been this way or is this relatively new? In the U.S., the polarization of the two parties is so severe that the thinking seems to be that if one identifies with either side he is expected to buy into the entire philosophy.

I've asked a lot of questions because as an agnostic I consider myself a conservative on most issues. Am I a man without a country? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about any or all the questions I presented.

Well, I have noticed this tendency among the religious right, also. To think that they have the right to lay down the law for others, because God is on their side, and what He says, goes, and should go for everyone.

Certainly, there are those who try to make others conform to their beliefs and it isn't confined to the religious right. Most people express their convictions at the ballot box primarily and as long as we have a free society they're allowed to do that. I don't like some of it myself. For example, I live in a state that has no lottery because the religious right turns out in force and votes it down every time. I don't like it but the majority of voters rules.

I spent a long time as a liberal who did not believe in God. And now I am a liberal who does believe in God. Divine Command ethics does not work for me, entirely, because I am the product of the postmodern era that looks for a better justification for moral decision making than just 'because the Bible says so'.

I've was a conservative and believed in God, now I'm a conservative and don't believe in God.

It may just be that there is a personality difference at work here; some people are comfortable with rules, and want their rules inflicted on everyone else; and some people are more comfortable with freedom, and want their freedom extended universally, and resent rules considerably.

I think I'm right in assuming that you're not against rules, per se.

As analytic scalpels go, this may be a gross over-simplification; the religious right want all the freedom they can get to become rich and suffer no taxation to aid the poor,...

I don't think one can justify that comment by calling it over-simplification. For one who values his freedom so much, you're pretty hard on those who want the freedom to help the poor voluntarily. It has been my experience that the religious right and conservatives, in general, are very generous not only to the poor but many charitable causes.

...but want to reduce freedoms around sexual moralities; whereas liberals may be more inclined to succour the poor through the compulsory taxation system, but suffer no constraint on their sexual activities and expression.

Personally, I would be against compulsory taxation for the poor because it's just more government control that takes away the individual's right and freedom to give as they please to whomever they please. The Federal tax system is already set up to benefit the poor by collecting no tax or by giving tax credits. Your tax and my taxes help make this possible.

As for sexual freedoms, no individual or group has the right to tell two consenting adults what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their bedroom.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to post 2 by rikuoamero]
"For example, a quick and dirty example, was the fight for 'free love', the de-stigmatisation of having multiple romantic/sexual partners."

Well, enforced strictly enforced monogamy, is somewhat justifiable as a public health measure, and by ensuring fewer "incels" it cuts down on violence. (And please, don't ask for "citations", just study some sociobiology.) Most intraspecies violence among primates is competition for mates. And most of the guys who go on shooting sprees seem to be incels.

But, to address the original question, most atheists are those who are actually able to change opinions by observing facts and exercising reason. Neuroscientists have demonstrated in active brain scans that liberals are more likely to interpose the cortex between stimulus and reaction, whereas conservatives tend to invoke the cortex only to justify what they did after the fact. Having learned by nature and nurture to question their first impulses, liberals are more practiced in re-evaluating impulses contrary to reason.