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.

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

I would hope that the atheists that are liberal are not so just to go against Christianity. That would make those atheists a one issue voter/thinker. Conservatism and liberalism are much more than about religion, like when they deal with foreign policy, economics, immigration, etc.

I'll also say that politics exposes how many atheists (at least the liberal ones) are not all-around good debaters. I often find that the same level of skepticism and critical thinking that they apply towards Christianity is hardly ever applied in their thinking on politics. The atheists I've debated on political issues seem to be so one-sided or biased that it's easy to poke holes in their arguments. I would expect this type of biased thinking to come from a politician running for office and not someone who claims to be rational and objective, as many atheists claim to be. So here we see that either atheists are selectively skeptical and rational or they don't do so well when they have positive beliefs/assertions to defend (as opposed to just being against a belief and expressing skepticism).

[Purple Knight]

Here's a question for pro-lifers: Do you really think abortion is murder? I mean, really really?

The only reason I ask is that you seem to make exception for cases of rape and incest, or when the pregnancy might seriously harm the mother.

Take the last: When the pregnancy might seriously harm the mother.

If it's murder, I would think the mother doesn't have the right to commit murder (especially against an innocent!) to preserve her own life any more than someone with end stage renal disease has the right to go out and kill a perfect match so he can take the victim's kidney.

If not, where am I going wrong?

1. People don't have a right to commit murder to preserve their own existence. Ever.
2. Abortion is murder.
____

Ergo, there should not be exceptions; there should not be cases when abortion is allowed.

Which am I getting wrong here? Premise 1, premise 2, or does my conclusion not follow?

[amortalman]

Maybe the whole problem we're having with this question is the wording. Had you written, "I'm asking if you would consider it a pro to not allow women to abort an unwanted fetus?" and stopped right there I probably would have answered yes, it would be the moral thing to do. But when you added, "and to force family or society to take care of the fetus?" it changes the whole complexion of the question.

No it doesn't. Someone will have to take care of the unwanted babies. If it will not be family or society, whom do you suggest?

Family or society is my answer.

Now, if I answer "yes" it seems as if I agree with your idea that family or society is being forced to do this, which I don't.

How about you just offer an alternative to forcing family or society to take care of all the unwanted babies we have added to our population in this scnario we are discussing?

Family or society is my answer.

In that respect, you're trying to put words in my mouth.

I did not put words in your mouth.

No. You tried to put words in my mouth.

I think you are just feeling trapped as far as where this thought of adding millions of unwanted babies to our population is going.

No, I don't feel trapped at all. But I can see where 600,000 infants being added to the population could be an issue that needs a lot of thought and time to solve. I never said it would be simple or easy to find a solution. I do believe it would be wise for pro-life activists to be involved in addressing that issue. Maybe they are addressing it and I'm just not aware of it. At any rate, It might take a long time to put things in place so that these babies would get the care they deserve. But I feel strongly that it can be done.

If abortion is deemed illegal, should we put mothers to death that still have the procedure?

No more than we should prosecute someone who has committed suicide.

This response comes across as dishonest to me. Someone who has committed suicide cannot be prosecuted. Someone that gets an illegal abortion can. My question is on point and was dodged.

Your question was disingenuous. The point I was making with the suicide victim was that the deed is done. The law against suicide is meant to prevent suicide. I would not want severe punishment for a woman who aborted her child. The deed is done. However, if it was against the law she should be held accountable.

Are you afraid I'll hold your feet to the fire the next time baby murder is brought up? This question follows from that line of thought. I would not want to answer it if I was in your position either.

No need to wait. I can bring it up right now. Abortion is murder. Killing babies is wrong. The murder of innocent babies is wrong. A healthy fetus is a living human being and those who participate in it without good reason are murderers in my book.

What is the ideal amount of unwanted babies that we should seek as a nation in your opinion?

That question doesn't even deserve an answer.

It does when you say things like this: "the best pro I have to offer is that the preservation of life in the morally right thing to do"
Seems like you are waffling now about whether preserving life really is the morally right thing to do.

That question does not deserve an answer because it is a loaded question. 1) It assumes that there is an ideal amount 2) It assumes that our nation is "seeking" those babies which it is not. 3) It assumes that saved babies are unwanted.

I honestly thought your answer would be 'all of them' (possibly discounting cases of rape or medical reasons).

Then we could talk numbers as we know how many unwanted fetuses are aborted each year.

From there we could discuss how family or society (or another mechanism if you can think of one) will take care of them. I wouldn't want to go down this path either though if I were you.

It seems to me that you're just trying to create more rabbit holes to go down. I don't know about you but I'm not qualified to figure out the details of such a complicated mess. I would leave that to those whose expertise, talent and experience qualify them to work out how they will be cared for.

How many unwanted babies are you prepared to take in? I'm looking for a number from you.

Classic deflection. Doesn't deserve an answer.

]I think I have successfully demonstrated that there is likely a shortage of those willing to take care of the unwanted babies you argue to force women to attempt to give birth to.

Irrelevant question. IMO, it's an underhanded way to try to make one feel guilty without the foggiest idea as to what might prevent them from taking in children.

Must we revisit this? They are likely "unwanted" 'by their mothers," not by society.

Please define this society you speak of that wants unwanted babies.
I fear it is imaginary. Is there a small portion of society that does so? Yes, but we are discussing adding 3/4 of a million or so unwanted babies.

Not many people "want" prisons either, but they are very necessary. Are not infants of more value than prisons? There are enough people who want an end to abortion that would gladly work for a solution. In fact, I once did some voluntary work at a counseling center for women contemplating abortion. All were volunteers.

I can't use my body to hide illicit drugs in my mouth or my anus.

il·lic·it
/i(l)ˈlisit/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom.

Are you writing a dictionary? Allow me to remind you of the statement I was responding to:

Please notice that what you copy/pasted was actually my response to you.

Well, that's what I said, isn't it?

You commented about illicit drugs in your mouth/butt. I responded to that statement. None of us are allowed to do illegal things. Therefore your statement was irrelevant.

You took my comments out of context and completely ignored my rebuttal. If you're going to challenge what I say at least acknowledge what I say. Therefore, your statement is irrelevant.

Do some people tell other people what they can or can't do with their bodies or not?

You're not a parent are you? Parents do this kind of thing all the time.

And so do the laws of our land.

You said you didn't like some humans telling other humans what they can to do or not do with their bodies. Is that not what you said? I said that laws and the police do it all the time. Is that not true? It is a perfectly legitimate argument. The fact that it is lawful for women to abort healthy babies makes no difference to the argument. The fact I'm establishing is that it is lawful for some people (those who write the laws) to tell other people what they can and cannot do.

I can tell my children what they can or can't do with their bodies, therefore I should be able to tell women that they must attempt to carry an unwanted fetus to term... does not follow.

Do you not know the difference between parenting rules and our justice system upholding the laws of the land that tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

By your logic, we should remove the choice that we currently have to drive. You said that the preservation of life in the morally right thing to do. Do you no longer stand by that? Or would you use reason to make an exception for driving?
(Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.)

Let's use reason to see those traffic deaths are unintentional whereas abortion is intentional.

I see. So the preservation of life being the morally right thing to do only applies when you feel it should? In this case whether intentional or not. How cavalier.

Why don't you try to find a solid rebuttal to my point? Maybe you can't. It is impractical to ban driving. The economy would fail and we would all starve to death. Abortion is intentional. Driving deaths are unintentional. Banning abortion saves lives. Banning driving causes chaos and death.

Preservation of life is the morally right thing to do cannot be the reason or else we end up removing vehicles and stairs and on and on.

I hope your "readers" take a hard look at that comment. Saving lives by banning abortion does not logically lead to removing vehicles, stairs, and on and on.

We should seek to preserve life where we can.

Restricting the ability to drive would do this and you know it.

You should give that some more thought. I really think you're smarter than that. But if you want to dig your hole deeper go ahead.

So follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion if you really stand by it.

I really stand by it.

Science has given couples plenty of ways to avoid pregnancy and for the most part these ways are ignored.

Your words are clearly false here, sorry.

[quote/]

More than 99% of women aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.

This statistic proves nothing. It doesn't tell how many times they didn't use contraceptives.

Some 60% of all women of reproductive age are currently using a contraceptive method
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/c ... ted-states

According to this, my "most" statement could be off by as little as 11% or so, right? So according to this stat, I stand corrected. But I'm not convinced the numbers aren't skewed somehow. Again - according to Maureen Phipps, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, "The single biggest reason for unplanned pregnancy isn’t ineffective birth control -- it’s from a couple not using any contraception."

The bottom line is that over 600,000 induced abortions will be performed this year in the US. I tend to believe Dr. Phipps that couples aren't using any contraception.

[Clownboat]

I once shared your thoughts on abortion. Heck, I've held my own sign back in the day. I no longer share your thoughts on abortion though and you have failed to bring me back.

This does not mean your arguments were bad obviously, but I did personally find them to be unconvincing and the greater evil. Yup, more evil than aborting a fetus.

If you have any questions you would like me to answer, or if you feel I dodge any point you made, please make me aware of it.

"My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
I may not like abortions, but I need to keep my feelings out of other peoples personal affairs. Your mileage may vary of course.

[Menotu]

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.

Maybe it's because a lot of conservative ideals are based/thought to be based on religious dogma?
Or maybe atheists just don't see much value in conservative ideals?
Surely there's some type of similar correlation there I'd think.
I've often wondered that myself

[Danmark]

Because atheists seek truth, not ideology. Conservatives appear to be more instructed by their political, economic, and religious biases. Atheists tend to be liberal in that they are more interested in understanding reality, rather than trying to make facts conform to their beliefs.
Example:
Religious conservatives are much more likely to be science deniers. Why?
Science tells them the air and water are getting dirty and causing climate change. Conservatives don't like to believe this because they don't want anyone telling them to change.
Religious conservatives don't like to be told the Earth is more than 10,000 years old or that evolution is a fact, so they reject science.

Atheists do not have a preset conclusion about whether there is a God; they just find no evidence for one.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 55 by Danmark]

What you're saying makes a lot of sense, and I have thought most of the same things from time to time. I abandoned my Christian beliefs about four years ago and I suppose some of my conservative roots are still bearing fruit as I was very well rooted in Southern Baptist doctrine. But I've been environmentally conscious for many years and I do believe the science. Young-earth teaching was probably the first crack in the wall for me. Now, I marvel at how closed-minded I was and at the same time see where work needs to be done on de-indoctrination.
Thanks for your very clear observations!

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 55 by Danmark]

What you're saying makes a lot of sense, and I have thought most of the same things from time to time. I abandoned my Christian beliefs about four years ago and I suppose some of my conservative roots are still bearing fruit as I was very well rooted in Southern Baptist doctrine. But I've been environmentally conscious for many years and I do believe the science. Young-earth teaching was probably the first crack in the wall for me. Now, I marvel at how closed-minded I was and at the same time see where work needs to be done on de-indoctrination.
Thanks for your very clear observations!

Also, atheists are smarter and better looking and their children are above average.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 57 by Danmark]

Don't forget, our children are kinder.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 57 by Danmark]

Don't forget, our children are kinder.

And our wives are beautiful and never nag.