The alt-right and non-theists:

[guillaumeb]

There have been posts about the link between far right viewpoints and various Christian churches. What I have not seen to date are any posts speaking of the various non-theist leaders and thinkers of the alt-right.

Here are a few:

In his interview with the Atlantic, Spencer, an avowed atheist, surprised Wood with a peculiar defense of Christianity: that the religion is false but it “bound together the civilizations of Europe.”
Spencer’s view is common among the alt-right. They have no interest in the teachings of Christ, but they see the whole edifice of white European civilization as built on a framework of Christian beliefs. From their perspective, Christendom united the European continent and forged white identity.

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/17/16140846/nietzsche-richard-spencer-alt-right-nazism

And speaking of the movement as a whole:

I would say it is definitely a young movement. I'd say that it is predominantly white millennial men. It is not sort of stereotypically conservative in its profile. I'd say that probably it is a more secular population than the country overall. That is, there are a lot of agnostics and atheists or people who are just generally indifferent to religion. And I think that it is a fairly well-educated movement on average, that as I think that probably the model alt-right member has at least some college education.

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/543730227/unite-the-right-charlottesville-rally-represented-collection-of-alt-right-groups

Also speaking of the movement:

However, in a truly disturbing trend for those of us atheists, agnostics and allies who embrace humanism as a progressive and inclusive philosophy of life, the Alt-Right has been gaining ground...among atheists. In fact, Alt-Right figurehead Richard Spencer has recently spoken and written publicly about how his movement is consistent with secular humanist values.

https://www.meetup.com/HarvardHumanist/events/239012294/

So what does this mean? I would argue that these instances and individuals are no more representative of the majority of atheists than the relatively few religious bigots are of theism in general.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. KKK has always been a christian terrorist organization....well at least for most of its history

I am not sure how much of a religious dynamic there is in the modern KKK. I suspect it is still has a religious aspect to it.

Modern fascists? They maybe more atheistic.......or they just see the religious of people to be used. Trump is not a christian in word or act but he has no problem using them.

[guillaumeb]

2. The KKK was indeed titled as a Christian organization.

Perhaps to create an emotional tie with non-members.

But the alt-right cannot be placed into a little box and titled as anything but very troubling. It includes people holding all manner of beliefs.

[Thomas Hurt]

3. yep, the far right is made up of multitude of different movement and orgs...

birchers
patriot movement
militias
sovereigns/constitutionalists
christian identity
KKK of course
skin heads and neo nazis
neo-confederates/secessionists
nativists groups - minutemen and the like
randian acolytes
libertarian utopians
anti tax protesters and scam artists
gold bugs
reconstructionists/dominionists
Army of God

[guillaumeb]

5. What a disgusting list.

A right wing hall of shame.

[trotsky]

14. There you go again.

They're bad, so they can't be religious, eh?

The KKK was, and is, a Christian organization - and refusing to accept that only perpetuates the problem.

[guillaumeb]

17. I suggest that you read reply #2.

[trotsky]

20. I did, and that's why I wrote what I did.

Hint: It's about your use of the word "titled."

[guillaumeb]

33. And? Please continue. eom

[trotsky]

50. You wrote: "The KKK was indeed titled as a Christian organization."

A perfectly valid (and true) sentence would have been "The KKK was indeed a Christian organization."

Why did you choose to insert the word "titled as," which implies that you think the label was false?

[guillaumeb]

58. Because the KKK WAS titled as a Christian organization.

If you are assuming another motive that is your misunderstanding.

[Act_of_Reparation]

70. For as often as you whinge about people framing or misinterpreting your posts...

...you might stop to consider your proficiency with the written word.

[guillaumeb]

73. I do take issue when someone completely turns what I say to serve a narrative.

As an example, if I state that I can only define Christianity for myself, and another poster asks why I insist on defining Christianity, what should I infer?

[trotsky]

76. So, is the KKK a Christian organization?

Or is it only *titled* as such?

There is a difference in meaning. Please clarify what you have said so that I am no longer merely serving my narrative, but accurately reporting that you evidently believe the KKK is not actually Christian.

[guillaumeb]

78. Again with the reframing.

The KKK is an organization that originally called itself the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. So they obviously identified as Christian knights and KKK members.

Your question could be taken in two ways.

1) Is the KKK an officially sanctioned Christian organization?, or
2) Is the word "Christian" that is contained in the title an unofficial term that the KKK founders adopted for their own reasons?

[trotsky]

79. Oh I get it. "Reframing" means that someone has asked a question you don't want to answer.

Is the KKK a Christian organization?

It's a simple yes/no question. Answer it.

[guillaumeb]

80. I did answer it.

The answer did not satisfy your needs perhaps.

An example that might help:

The Knights of Columbus is an organization that was founded by a Catholic priest as a fraternal organization. It is generally chapter based in specific churches. Its members are Catholics.

The KKK, in contrast, is not sanctioned by any particular Christian denomination.

[trotsky]

83. You picked one specific, arbitary definition of what it means to be a Christian organization.

With absolutely no reasoning as to WHY you selected that specific, arbitrary definition. But let's explore this corner you've just painted yourself into.

Tell me, is Catholics for Choice a Christian group?

[trotsky]

81. KKK Leader Disputes Hate Group Label: 'We're A Christian Organization'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/virginia-kkk-fliers_n_5008647.html

“We don’t hate people because of their race, I mean, we’re a Christian organization,” Frank Ancona, the group's Imperial Wizard, told Virginia's NBC 12 on Thursday. "Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen, all Klansmen are supposed to be murderers, and wanting to lynch black people, and we're supposed to be terrorists. That's a complete falsehood.”

[guillaumeb]

82. Which returns to my initial response.

And settles nothing.

[trotsky]

84. It settles one thing:

The KKK most definitely views itself as Christian. Agree or disagree?

[guillaumeb]

85. See #2

[trotsky]

86. Nope, not the same.

Valiant effort but you are stuck here, and this is going to be delightful to see you humiliate yourself yet again.

[trotsky]

87. And if you can only define Christianity for yourself,

then you don't get to declare that others aren't Christian. They can define for themselves, and so the KKK is a Christian organization.

QED.

Now squirm.

[ollie10]

93. Churches and religious groups across the spectrum have condemned the KKK.

it makes little difference what they call themselves, whether the KKK call themselves christian or whatever.

A bank robber can call himself a Christian...but it does not logically follow that Christianity supports bank robbery.

[MineralMan]

94. Some have. Many, perhaps. But far from all.

Truly.

[ollie10]

102. Of course not all.....

....just as not all secular organizations have attacked KKK, nazis, etc.

[Angry Dragon]

107. proof for your last sentence??

[guillaumeb]

108. Fantasists who dream of the South rising again,

neo-Nazis,
sovereign citizen adherents, and other types are all part of that right.

[Angry Dragon]

109. okay

[TomSlick]

4. No everyone that claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

A Christian is someone who acts like a Christian - who does the things that Christ commanded.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21.

[guillaumeb]

6. Many here will take exception to that.

The religion group is open to all.

[TomSlick]

7. Understood

I struggle with the frequent criticism of Christians on DU base on the actions of some who claim the title but seem to have ignored the basis teachings of the Gospels. The Klan is not a Christian organization.

[Brainstormy]

53. Are Mormons?

Just curious on how you decide which organizations, claiming the title, are, or are not Christians.

[TomSlick]

91. I said I wasn't going to respond to anymore of these,

the blow-back is too disheartening. Maybe this one won't get such a violent response.

I have serious theological and historical disputes with the LDS church. However, the Mormons I have know - to a person - demonstrate the best of the teachings of the Gospels. They are concerned for the poor and immigrants. They have no tolerance for hatred of other religious groups. They do not espouse hate of any form. Their claiming the name of Christ does not seem in the least hypocritical.

I am not qualified to discern between groups that claim to be Christian so long as they pass the basic test of 1 John 4:20: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." Groups like the Klan fail this test. Their claim to being Christian is a lie.

[Lordquinton]

95. The Catholic Church fails this test

Roman and Orthodox.

The Pope isn't Christian?

[Mariana]

98. Plenty of Christians don't consider Catholics to be Christian.

I have no idea if TomSlick is one of them.

[TomSlick]

103. I really should give up.

Again, I have theological differences with the Catholic Church. However, try to convince me that Mother Teresa wasn't a Christian. Try to convince me that Sister Helen Prejean isn't Christian. Try to convince the Nuns on the Bus aren't Christians.

If someone claims the name of Christ and loves humanity - then yes, s/he is a Christian. If someone claims the name of Christ and hates - then under the simple test referenced above, then s/he is a liar and hypocrite.

We'll figure out the theological differences later. I suspect that we'll all be surprised to some degree. The important thing now is for Christians to show Christ's love by loving others.

[Lordquinton]

104. I was going by your own words

John 4:20: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."

The RCC has a strict policy about LGBTQIA that disqualifies them. Yes, even Sister Helen, the Nuns on the Bus, and Mother Theresa, well let's not even start there...

If you have something to say directly to that, then please do, because we're going by your rules. To me they are all christian, you're the one saying people aren't, then complaining when you get pushback.

[Lordquinton]

105. Yea, I know

I consider them all to be christian, and have no problem reminding them they all read the same book. I have no problem with Spencer being an atheist, because all that means is he doesn't believe in a god, aside from that he goes against the majority of atheists (regardless of how they are stereotyped)

[trotsky]

100. And you know what a Christian Klan member will tell you?

"I don't hate black people. I just don't think we should live together. For they have the mark of Ham upon them yada yada yada..."

Your criticism is thereby neutralized. Don't you think if it was that simple to identify "true" followers of a religion we wouldn't have all the problems we do today?

Or does everyone just need to ask you if they are following the rules correctly?

[Voltaire2]

8. Who decides who is a "true Christian"?

You? The pope? Pat Roberson? Sorry but sorting out the Christians you find embarrassing is lame.

Richard Spencer claims he is an atheist and he is also clearly a fascist. I have no reason to doubt his atheism. Nor do I think that somehow "true atheists" can't be vile shitheads.

[TomSlick]

9. It's not that hard.

Anyone that espouses hate is using only using Christian imagery. By their fruits you will know them.

You can no more condemn all Christians based on the hatred of a few than you can condemn all Moslems for the actions of jihadists or - for that matter - condemn all Americans for the actions of the Klan or American Nazis.

American Nazis no more represent the majority of Americans than groups like the Klan represent that claim to be Christian.

[Voltaire2]

11. excuse me? where and when did I condemn all christians or muslims?

[TomSlick]

24. You didn't but others here do.

Sorry, it's a sore toe.

[Voltaire2]

32. So you just decided to derail the discussion by

tossing in an attack on things not said?

Your bible is full of appalling violence. You could try to hide all that by restricting Christianity to the gospels, but even there violence is found, and of course those texts are routinely interpreted as various sects and individuals see fit, again justifying all sorts of political positions across the spectrum.

[TomSlick]

43. I give up!

Neither of us will convince the other. I try from time to time to convince DUers that it is counterproductive to assume that all Christians are hateful evil people. I have yet to be successful.

[Voltaire2]

48. And you just did it again. "all Christians are hateful evil people"

nobody has made that argument and yet you keep posturing as if somebody has. The first time you admitted nobody was saying that, now you've just doubled down.

The fact that not all christians espouse progressive values does not condemn all christians. It just means that being a christian does not mean much of anything about what political views you might hold, although we can look at the data to see what political positions christians are more likely to hold. Ignoring the fact that you want to excommunicate the christians you disagree with, polling data generally shows people who identify as christians to be distinctly more conservative than people who identify as non-religious.

[Mariana]

99. I don't think anyone in this thread has ever said that.

There isn't really any point in continuing a conversation with a dishonest person.

[HAB911]

12. Anyone that espouses hate is using only using Christian imagery.

So the same holds true of atheists? Then I deem Spencer is not an atheist.

These are questions with no answers. At least none that can be agreed upon.

[trotsky]

29. "Anyone that espouses hate is ... only using Christian imagery."

Luke 14:26 - "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

Do you know who allegedly spoke those words?

(BTW - I am not aware of anyone here condemning ALL Christians or ALL Muslims for actions of extremists. I do know that I, and others, have blamed the foundational documents and teachings of Christianity and Islam for the actions of extremists. There's a difference, you know.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. But see:

Christians are more than twice as likely to blame a persons poverty on lack of effort (WaPo)

4. No religion: 67% Clinton, 25% Trump; religion: 44% Clinton, 51% Trump http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls (and the figures for Christians voting for Trump are a little higher still than for all religions)

[Mariana]

44. If they aren't Christians, what are they?

I think most of those Christians you don't like are sincere in their Christian faith. They believe they are doing the will of his Father who is in heaven. They just interpret the will of his Father differently than you do. You may very well be right and they are wrong, but that doesn't make them non-Christians.

[trotsky]

13. There are horrible people who are also atheists.

But none of them can justify their horrible behavior with atheism.

However, there are horrible people who are also theists - and they can always justify their horrible behavior with their religion.

[guillaumeb]

18. A logical fallacy.

An atheist might very well justify his/her actions with their philosophical beliefs. Who are you to decide what things these alt-right people use to justify their actions?

Anyone can always declare that their personal beliefs and/or philosophy of life is the justification for their actions.

[trotsky]

21. An atheist's "philosophical beliefs" are theirs and theirs alone.

A billion Christians think the bible is the word of their god. The bible itself contains specific passages that command or at least endorse atrocious behavior. This is why religion is different than all the other things you try to scapegoat - patriotism, atheism, etc.

[guillaumeb]

34. The Bible has many passages.

And many interpretations of those passages.

In the end, each individual's philosophical beliefs are their own individual beliefs.

[trotsky]

51. It sure does.

And your interpretations are no more or less valid than any other Christian's. But one thing you do share is that you believe your god's wants and desires for humanity are contained in the book. You also believe that your god is outside the realm of direct human understanding. Put those ingredients together and you've got a toxic mix that no other philosophy or political system will ever have.

[ollie10]

55. Oh really?

You say: "But one thing you do share is that you believe your god's wants and desires for humanity are contained in the book. You also believe that your god is outside the realm of direct human understanding. <b>Put those ingredients together and you've got a toxic mix that no other philosophy or political system will ever have</b>.

What book do you mean? The Bible? You should be aware that not all Christians take the Bible literally. There are also religious readings that are not in the Bible that influence Christian thought. And, for that matter, not every Christian agrees which books are in "the Bible" and beyond that there are many interpretations of biblical passages that do not reflect on the Bible as historical fact but rather in symbolic or metaphorical lessons.

As to a toxic mix that no philosophy or political system will ever have? I'm sorry but there political philosophies and political systems that you seem to be ignoring....such as fascism, naziism, white supremacy, nihilism etc

I also take issue with your point that every christian's interpretation of Christianity is as valid as anyone else's. You would say David Duke's interpretation that America is founded on a white christian family values is as good as Mother Teresa's? ...... Really?

[trotsky]

56. Why hello there. Are you new to DU? Welcome!

Please note that at no time did I claim that all Christians take the bible literally. So that kind of negates your 2nd paragraph entirely. Moving on:

Yeah, add the notion of a supreme being that endorses your thoughts and any belief system instantly becomes more toxic. A human thinking something versus a human thinking that the divine creator of the universe supports their thinking, the latter is always worse. White supremacy? Bad. Thinking white supremacy is god's natural order (as slaveowners and supporters believed)? Worse. Get it?

You would say David Duke's interpretation that America is founded on a white christian family values is as good as Mother Teresa's?

Nope, because if you read closely you'll see that I didn't say that. My claim is that their interpretations are equally *VALID*, not equally good or beneficial to humanity. Not that you've picked a particularly great example of "good" with old Mother T, but I'll allow it for purposes of discussion.

Why they are equally VALID is because at no point will your god ever speak up and declare that David Duke is wrong, and Mother Teresa is right. You are aware there are bible verses and interpretations that support each of their positions, right? You might not like the parts of the bible David Duke uses, you might not think they should be interpreted as he does, but you have no more authority than he does.

[ollie10]

57. Yes, adding religion to the mix MIGHT make someone more toxic.....

....or.....religion might take someone's toxic instincts and teach that this is wrong and make the person less toxic than he/she other wise would be.

It depends on the individual. And it also depends on the religious beliefs we are talking about.

Most religions at least attempt to teach love, the golden rule, etc. They can inspire people to be liberals (even though the opposite often happens).

It is hard to make generalizations about theists....since there are so many brands of them and variations within the brands.

And...thanks for being welcoming!!!

[trotsky]

59. Are you aware of how badly you are representing what I have said?

First, you accused me of claiming all Christians take the bible literally. I didn't. You realize that now, right? Do I need to quote you my post versus what you claimed again?

Now you're accusing me of saying religion will make a person more toxic. I didn't say that either. What I said was, "...add the notion of a supreme being that endorses your thoughts and any belief system instantly becomes more toxic." And yeah, whether a component of a belief is good or bad, it's TOXIC to then assign some kind of divine blessing to it. Let policies and beliefs stand up to scrutiny, reason, and analysis on their own. Whether or not they please a god is completely irrelevant, and only brings toxicity into the equation.

[Fix The Stupid]

64. I find it disturbing that so many believers have so little reading comprehension skills here.

Outright lies, distortion of what you wrote - is this part of the playbook?

What about 'bearing false witness' do these believers not understand?

Is it a symptom of "the ends justify the means?" As in, "I can lie, distort, make shit up all day but it doesn't matter because I believe and will be rewarded by my god"...

I honestly can't see it any other way. The patterns are too obvious.

[trotsky]

67. I've seen it enough to conclude that yeah, it's part of the playbook.

They can't argue with what's actually said, so they drag out the straw men.

Atheist: "I do hope that the influence of religion in politics declines with time."
Believer: "OMG, I can't believe you want to murder all religious people!"
Atheist: "WTF?"

[Lordquinton]

96. Seems to be

Don't forget accusing you of of having done what they are at that very moment doing.

[ollie10]

68. You are misunderstanding what I said.

I did NOT say that you claimed all Christians take the Bible literally.

What you had said was: "You say: "But one thing you do share is that you believe your god's wants and desires for humanity are contained in the book. You also believe that your god is outside the realm of direct human understanding. <b>Put those ingredients together and you've got a toxic mix that no other philosophy or political system will ever have</b>."

Let's be clear....I did not say I believe god's wants and desires for humanity are contained in "the book". In fact, i did not even say I believed in the Bible. I was and am discussing in the abstract, not as a means of trying to promote god or the lack of god. OK? So you misunderstood what I was saying from the get-go.

And I responded about your use of the term "the book" to clarify that.....

"What book do you mean? The Bible? You should be aware that not all Christians take the Bible literally. There are also religious readings that are not in the Bible that influence Christian thought. And, for that matter, not every Christian agrees which books are in "the Bible" and beyond that there are many interpretations of biblical passages that do not reflect on the Bible as historical fact but rather in symbolic or metaphorical lessons."

This is NOT to say you claimed all Christians take the bible literally...just to clarify and expand upon what "the book" may or may not mean.

And, furthermore, I did not say you said religion would make a person more toxic. What I said was...."Yes, adding religion to the mix MIGHT make someone more toxic.........or.....religion might take someone's toxic instincts and teach that this is wrong and make the person less toxic than he/she other wise would be. It depends on the individual. And it also depends on the religious beliefs we are talking about".

Now if you took it that way, I am sorry for not being clear enough, but that certainly was not the intent.

[trotsky]

71. You said: "You should be aware that not all Christians take the Bible literally."

But I never claimed otherwise. That's the central point here. You tried to lecture me on something I never claimed. When talking about Christians, unless you're including Mormons, clearly "the book" is going to be the Christian bible. But if you want to talk about how it can be said that ALL Christians take at least PART of the bible literally, that's a great topic.

You also said: "Yes, adding religion to the mix MIGHT make someone more toxic....."

By prefixing with "Yes," you are implying that you are agreeing with the thing that follows as being something I said. But I didn't say that.

I just want to make sure we are clear on all of this. It's been a constant struggle with another poster on here (guillaumeb), constantly correcting him when he states things I never did - I don't want to deal with yet another theist throwing straw men around.

[ollie10]

72. Sorry if I was not clear.

It was not my intent. I was actually trying to speak in general, instead of specifically about you.

I am not a theologian. However, I do bristle a bit when people (and it is usually the fundamentalists) talk about "the book". Which book? I mean, there are several "books" that are not included in a lot of bibles....such as the gospel of thomas for just one example. Then you get into all the translational issues and again the question is which book? Then you get into the symbolism and the metaphors....and do we believe the world was really created in 6 twenty four hour time periods, or does this story have meanings that were never meant to be historical? This is the sort of thing I was wanting to discuss in abstract.

I guess what I would like to say is that some christians (and members of other religions) have religious beliefs based on a thoughtful study of issues.....and of course the same can be said for atheists. Then again, many never get to study the bible except on the superficial level, and on that level a lot of stuff looks silly if taken literally, so they get turned off to the whole thing. Whatever.

I think you can find good in all religions and in various types of non-theistic beliefs as well. i think it is much better to learn from each other than to look down on others who disagree.

I am not familiar with the other poster.

[trotsky]

75. Once again I must object to your phrasing.

"i think it is much better to learn from each other than to look down on others who disagree."

Who is doing this? Who are you chiding?

I have been quite clear that I'm blaming religion and religious thought, not people, for making bad ideas worse. Why do you imply here that you're just trying to be the good guy here and not "look down on others"? Who is looking down?

[ollie10]

88. Not chiding anyone....

I find it puzzling why you object to my suggestion that we try to learn from each other.

[trotsky]

89. OK, just stop it.

You know I am not in any way objecting to your suggestion. You are playing a coy little trick and it needs to stop. Now. So that you don't head down the path that guillaumeb is on.

I asked you a question. Please answer it.

[ollie10]

90. wow....just wow!

You asked several questions, and I was not clear what you meant. They were leading questions.

[trotsky]

92. Done with you. Again. n/t

[guillaumeb]

60. A revealing observation, but of your feelings only.

When you said:

Put those ingredients together and you've got a toxic mix that no other philosophy or political system will ever have.

You made a personal judgment, and your framing implies that your personal judgment is absolutely correct. This reveals much about your feelings about Christianity, but nothing significant or specific about Christianity.

[trotsky]

62. A revealing observation of history itself.

Religious certainty has made every bad situation worse. More intractable. More resistant to change. You unlink people's observation and reason from a process, and it WILL become more dangerous and toxic. Every single time.

Besides, it's just your feelings that lead you to try and dispute my correct analysis. You have no counter-analysis to speak of, just your standard insulting response.

[guillaumeb]

65. More revelation, but of the non-theistic type.

I understand how you feel about my arguments, and me personally, and I accept that. And now you are attempting to introduce some needed nuance that was lacking in your original observation.

You originally stated,

Put those ingredients together and you've got a toxic mix that no other philosophy or political system will ever have.

That is a judgment, a personal observation that is unsupported by any historical evidence. First, it was Christianity that was more toxic than any other philosophy or political system, now it is religious certainty in general.

[trotsky]

66. Your claim is false.

From the get-go, I said: "This is why religion is different than all the other things you try to scapegoat - patriotism, atheism, etc."

RELIGION. Not just Christianity.

So you can shelve your little "congrats on the nuance" shtick. It is really not helping.

[MineralMan]

25. Philosophical beliefs and religion are not the same things.

I have philosophical beliefs, but none have anything to do with any religion. They are independent of religion, entirely.

It is a mistake to equate religion with philosophy. They are different words and philosophy has no religious requirements for its existence.

[guillaumeb]

35. A philosophy of life can be composed of many elements.

Some philosophies might be inspired in whole or in part by specific religions, some obviously are not.

[marylandblue]

40. Also the history of philosophy and religion are closely intertwined

The existence of God has always been both a philosophical and theological issue, and in modern times, atheists who defend their beliefs usually need a philosophy of religion to defend their arguments.

[guillaumeb]

41. Excellent points.

Philosophy can be defined as:

c :  a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy

This certainly overlaps with religious discussion.

[MineralMan]

15. Atheism has nothing to do with politics.

It also has nothing to do with ethical compass on the part of the individual.

There is no correlation between atheism and any other positions an individual might take. Period.

The same can be said for religious beliefs. There are wonderful, kind people who are religious and atheistic. There are also bad people in both groups. There is simply no relationship between those characteristics.

[guillaumeb]

19. And do you speak for all atheists?

In my opinion, it falls to each individual to decide what motivates their behavior and philosophical beliefs.

[MineralMan]

22. Nobody speaks for anyone but him or herself.

Last edited Mon Aug 28, 2017, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

However, atheism still has nothing whatever to do with politics or ones ethical compass. It is only a disbelief or a lack of believe in deities. One can hold any other position on anything at all, so it is always a mistake to say anything about atheists other than that they are atheists.

You can speak of individual atheists or religionists and how each behaves and acts, but nothing about either group that is accurate in predicting that behavior or actions.

Some religionists are racists. No doubt some atheists are racists. Some racists may be either atheists or religionists, but you can't tell, based only on their belief or disbelief in deities. That has nothing whatever to do with racism.

I speak only for myself. I am an atheist. Beyond that, you know nothing about me, other than what you can glean from my writings, which are actions.

[marylandblue]

39. I predict that atheists are more likely to be politically liberal than conservative

So I googled it and found evidence for this correlation here
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

So even if you can't predict what a particular individual believes, you can make some generalizations about what a given population of atheists are likely to believe.

[MineralMan]

46. That may well be true, but

the only way to know about an individual is to ask directly. Why make assumptions? And if you don't know someone well enough to ask, why would it matter?

[marylandblue]

47. It matters because this is a political board

In politics we make assumptions all the time. We have to, because political parties are coalitions. Political candidates make assumptions about who will vote for them, use marketing data to find those voters and create campaigns to appeal to those voters. They can't ask each individual what they think, they have to deal with groups and subgroups.

And in terms of the article at the top of this thread, it matters because the alt-right is targeting young atheists. Which means Democrats have to target the same young atheists and turn them into liberals rather than RWNJs.

[Lordquinton]

97. There is a correlation between godlessness and left views

Perhaps realizing that this is it and we have to take care of each other makes people more socially compassionate?

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Atheism is literally a lack of a belief in the supernatural.

That's it. Nothing more. It's what the word MEANS. When you call some other element of the populace a theist, again, you have only answered whether they believe in a supernatural being/dimension/things. You have not identified if they are Christian, Muslim, Seventh Day Adventist, etc.

There are additional bolt-on philosophies that may accompany the idea of atheism, and these will vary from atheist to atheist. Secular Humanism would be a popular example. Not every atheist is a secular humanist.

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. I guess it means not all atheists are humanists.

But then, no one claimed they were.

[MineralMan]

23. Exactly. Nobody claimed that.

Humanism has no direct relationship with either atheism or religionism. It is a separate, independent thing. I do not understand why that seems to be so hard to comprehend for some people.

[trotsky]

26. Naw, it's just the usual tripe.

"See? There are bad atheists, so you guys need to quit criticizing the awful ideas in religion."

[MineralMan]

27. Yes. That has been a frequent theme here.

"Whataboutism" at the very least. See, I found this atheist guy who's a sonovabitch, so atheists aren't nice people.

[guillaumeb]

37. However, I wrote the following end remark:

So what does this mean? I would argue that these instances and individuals are no more representative of the majority of atheists than the relatively few religious bigots are of theism in general.

[Act_of_Reparation]

30. Seems more like shameless self-congratulation to me.

Like somebody's clapping themselves on the back for meeting some arbitrary moral standard they alone have decided everyone needs to get behind.

[guillaumeb]

36. Interersting how many different things people can read into an article.

[trotsky]

52. Naw, your reputation is just that bad. n/t

[guillaumeb]

61. More revelation, if any needed it, about your position. eom

[trotsky]

63. About your position, you mean?

Yeah, everyone is pretty clear on that. You're welcome.

[Dawson Leery]

28. As with Islam in the Middle East, Christianity held Europe together

by brute force. The end result of 1400 years of theocratic bullshit was the Enlightenment, where organized religion was put aside for
logic and reason.

Spencer is no Athiest, if he defends the supremacy of religion in society.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. If he doesn't believe in God, he's an atheist.

That's really the only criterium.

[guillaumeb]

38. Spencer defends the usefulness of religion in society.

And he describes himself as an atheist.

[marylandblue]

42. This is Plato's noble lie

Plato's view was that you had to tell people lies for the good of society. Apparently Spencer views Christianity that way, and according to some historians, this was Constantine's position. These historians argue that Constantine was not a Christian, but found Christianity to be useful in holding the Roman Empire together.

[guillaumeb]

45. And these historians might be correct about Constantine.

Henry VIII also used religion for political purposes.

[Dawson Leery]

74. Religion is but the law of the primitive.

[guillaumeb]

77. A view that might make one feel good about holding an opinion,

but other than that...?

[Voltaire2]

49. more recently Leo Strauss, one of the founders of neoconservatism.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

101. "relatively few religious bigots"

You live in a different world than I do, I guess. Where do you think anti-abortion, anti-women, blue laws, etc come from?

[kwassa]

106. Old cultural norms

Did those norms come from religion, or were they applied to religion?