Is it possible to be an atheist conservative?

Is it possible to be an atheist conservative?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gfOob-36OEo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I'm a classical liberal is that good enough

Libertarian atheist here

Is it possible to be an atheist leftist?

Belief that all humans are equal and that there is no variation between biological subgroups in tantamount to belief in creationism.

Absolutely. The right takes a more no nonsense view of politics than the left. Atheism should be the natural path for anyone willing to put their special snowflake feels to the side since they get in the way of seeing the world as it is. Christfags on the other hand, drone on about their gay fairies like little girls.

...

Look here OP.

You can use logic to argue both sides, left and right. However, modern liberals don't like logic. It means you have to back up your opinion with evidence, and they ain't got time for that. Personally, I don't think any law, or amendment should be made without scientific evidence. Technocracy is the ultimate future of every civilization.

Why pol so obsessed with christianism? Its literally religion of weakest people who always giving up. Even Jesus himself give up at the end. No surprise islam is growing fast now and winning in this competition. Religion cant save you, especially christianism. But science and logic can!

Oh, oh! You forgot all those other rulers in history that changed religions just to suit their rule!
>seems pretty fucking conservative

...

No, because atheism implies intelligence, and conservativism implies stupidity, immaturity and racism, and intelligence cannot be categorized with those properties, therefore since atheists are smart they cannot be conservative, only liberal.

The same with libertarians, who are all immature, stupid, fascist and irrational.

>implies
You dropped this.

yeah, just go ahead and jump off the nearest building

stop speaking for other people you fucking backward snow-cunt

sure, after all religion is just one more thing you may have to read about to learn

You sound emotional.

Yes,but only if you respect religious people

Atheists fedora neckbeards can't be conservative,normal atheists can

Sargon pls

See deity beleif is either simply an artifact of our sapience and the way our brains deal with a chaotic world or God's intrinsic interaction with the chemical makeup of our minds and, get this, it is actually irrelevant which of the two is true.

Agnostic Atheist here who hates other atheists and views Christianity as superior.
I love God; the fact of whether he exists or not is irrelevant to me.America and by extension all of Western culture is the result of 3 ingredients. The greatness of America essentially boils down to 3 things and it doesn't matter if you're an atheist or not, I'm strictly talking of formula; ingredients in a pot. Those 3 are thus:
Judeo-Christian Morality
Greco-Roman Philosophy ~and
Anglo-Saxon Law
I find that the humility to admit that I do indeed lack (because it is a lack) the faith is a personal flaw within my own heart. Even IF God definitely doesn't exist this is true. It is healthy for a society to have this ever present intrinsic judge in ones mind. I always felt something... off about popular atheism and it was only after I got into politics, and later Bill Whittle, that I discovered why. Christianity, at the end of the day, gets shit done. And has historically.This "holds people back" line every hipster leftist likes to regurgitate is pure untruth.
Frankly, I'm at a point where I think I could defeat Richard Dawkins in a debate. (famous last words) I detect in the man an earnestness if, admittedly, also an arrogance that is so endemic in us atheists. As a millennial I certainly possessed it.
Despite what people like him may wish were true; atheism does not tend toward morality but -nihilism-. And when you really think about it, why wouldn't it?

>le classical liberal meme

>he's not a based classical liberal

youtube.com/watch?v=gfOob-36OEo

Fucking idiot.

>being an atheist implies
>implies

Did your forget to take your pills? Or its just lack of masturbating which creates all this anger what you spilled here?
I hope you understand me, my english is bad.

...

>Guys i'm not totaly retarded just a little
Every classical liberal ever

Why would I respect some childish garbage some retard convinced himself to feel better? Leftists and kike-worshippers aren't even aware they're in the same boat. Pathetic.

examples please

>65 IQ
it's niggers.

Immature, stupid, whiny and probably racist.

Thanks for proving my point, Christian conservative kooks.

I'm atheist and I believe that the country's wealth should be shared between the working indigenous (White) people.

As long as the christcucks don't chimpout, they can avoid being gassed in my utopia. Adhering to any other religion is punishable by reconditioning.

Checked, and yes, I am one.

Sure. Conservatism is systemic pragmatism, and as such it is not utopian, and while it doesn't reject a religious aspect it doesn't necessarily need one. I think Oakeshott is pretty good to observe for the matter, as you can find arguments both for and against religious conservatism.

Came here to say this. The left has views on human nature, biology, and economics that are completely at odds with reality and border on being a religion. I would question whether it is possible to be an atheist and a leftist.

You don't even know it, but you're already worshiping a God by being an Atheist. Especially with that symbol, you probably haven't even noticed the star symbol (In the middle), much like the Star of David being hidden in it.

You're being tricked goys!!!

>we trust science... unless the science negates our carefully constructed anti-white narratives

>Is it possible to be an atheist conservative?
Yep, I consider myself an atheist conservative.

I basically get the benefit of cherry picking an awesome political stance. It's core is based in libertarianism and basically leaving each other the fuck alone. That gels with some left wing beliefs like for example equality of marraige for gays.

However I also take a hard right stance on a lot of things, natural hierarchy (observed in nature to be true), good core family values (because they promote healthy long term relationships and likelyhood of raising non-degenerte offspring who will pass on your values.

However I'm not religious because basically it's impossible to believe in god and also be a rational thinker at the same time.

It's a glorious mix of all the best parts of politics/rationality/faith/morals/values all bundled into one.

If everyone behaved the way I did the right would prosper under their own consrvative values, and the left would implode in on itself in a few generations of degeneracy and stupidity. Meanwhile no violence/war/fighting is needed which means everyone is that much more well off, as violence is basically the most expensive way of resolving disputes.

Literally get on my level.

>reddit spacing

Is it possible to be an atheist and not own a dragon dildo collection?

No Christ is the answer degenerate kys

I don't worship any symbol. Christfags talking bullshit again.

no. not really

there are atheists who are on the fence but they must decide sooner or later

For someone so full of himself, you surely can't differentiate between religion and science. See, science in general answers the question what something is, and religion is a moral system that answer the question what should I do.

Your glorious mix of best parts of anything clearly signals that you never read Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Jung and Heidegger in your life.

Educate yourself a bit before you splatter your shit around like a 2 year old mate, you're embarrassing yourself.

How did you make the determination that I can't differentiate between religion and science?

Science is a tool which is used to discover truths about the universe by proposing a thesis that describes observations and then tests the validity through experiment by making predicitions.

Religion is most certainly not just a moral system it's a mish mash of assertions about reality (a lot of which are demonstrably false), moral tales and rules, as well as some questionable and unverifiable history. Nothing religious has ever been verified to be true by any modern standards of evidence which is why it's such a colossal joke and why when used as a standard of evidence (that god said so) leads to a contradictory and incoherent view of reality when compared to other religions/gods.

The morals from religion are arbitrary and are deemed to be true because god said so (by fiat), where as the morality of something like the secular/libertarian camp tends to be a secular morality reasoned from first principles such as the NAP.

Still conservatism and traditionalism have a massive amount of value in the world because, guess what, the evidence points to them having that value, for long lasting fulfillment and happiness. You can arrive at that conclusion through rationality rather than the embarrassing stupidity of religion.

So, you're an atheist conservative? Let me guess, you are married to the Tooth Fairy and you wrote in a Trump/Dawkins ticket, right?

Lol, fucking please, you aren't an atheist then. Atheists are intelligent, skeptical, and witty, while conservatives are all stupid, racist, unintelligent and sexist, something that atheists CANNOT be.

Lol, fucking please.

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, Dawkins books on biology are a lot more interesting than his work on religion. If I could have voted trump I would have, I have a genuine Trump hat and Trump/Pence sign. In fact I bet on Trump winning and made a large chunk of change.

Atheist lack belief in the existence of a god, that's all. Conservatives and bro tier and it will be cool again to be conservative at some point, what is cool/popular is cyclical.

7/10 for making me reply, it's the best I can do :)

>Nothing religious has ever been verified to be true by any modern standards of evidence

You see, you're applying here methodology of science to something that's not scientific at all. As I've said, if you ever read anything about phenomenology for example, you would know that scientific reality is predicated on a mountain of metaphysical assumptions that you either willfully ignore here or you just don't know.

Let me blow you mind, every religion is true. But not it a way you think, it's a part evolutionary part cultural representation of our deepest moral beliefs about the world. It a story, a myth told since the dawn of man about what life is and how you should act in it. It's basis is meaning, not scientific truth.

>Your glorious mix of best parts of anything clearly signals that you never read Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Jung and Heidegger in your life.

Potentially it could signal having reached different conclusions than they did.

>Technocracy

I think it worrisome that technology is so often conflated with science. The two are separate things.

"atheists" that worship "science" are worse than sand nigger cultists.

It could, but it isn't. His statements about religion prove that.

It is very entertaining to see clear confusion about what science and religion is, and that's a sin both religious people and atheist do. Basic reading of Jung for example would show you that you are willfully blind to the whole of metaphysics that science is build upon when criticising religion. And religious people are even worse when they literary interpret their texts as scientific proof of something.

Of course. In real countries like the USA, a conservative is one who seeks to conserve the principles of the constitution and the limited government described therein.

>canadians
probably anglo too lel

It's possible but you're demonstrably a minority and probably still less conservative than your religious peers

Science deals with reality, that which is manifest. I acknowledge there's a great many things in heaven and earth that religious and spiritual people conjure up as outside the realm of science and that's lovely, there's just no reason to believe it's true. And furthermore if we relax our standards of evidence to allow for reasonable belief in say religion, what we get is an incoherent and contradictory view of the world.

For example if we accept that a holy book is a good standard of evidence we have to accept the Bible as true, but then we also have to equally accept the Koran as true, and these are 2 different monotheistic religions which cannot co-exist by their own dogma. Thus this relaxed standard of evidence doesn't tell us anything concrete.

Science is predicated on presuppositions that reality is as is presented to us, because a science based on this theory allows us to determine truths about our reality, such a laws of motion and orbiting bodies. These laws are reliable and helpful, sure you could presuppose we're in a matrix and that science only tells us about the matrix and no real reality but you have no actual reason to suppose that's true, and you gain zero understanding about reality where as science progresses. It's just an assumption of some religious people that atheists don't understand the ideas of presuppositions and axiomatic assumptions about their belief structure.

The only way you can assert that every religion is true is if you cherry pick only the parts you like about each religion and ignore the contradictory nature of the other parts, but you have no rational basis for doing so, other than it gives you a conclusion you're happy with.

I never said you get meaning from science, I'm just saying you can get it absent of religion.

What would you recommend
the best Jung reading to start with

I am one

>tfw you think religion is all superstition but realize it's useful superstition so you go to church anyway.

Both science and religion are stories.
Except that one gives us video games and the other takes our money and gives us a wafer....

You're talking to one. Down with degeneracy.

is it bad that i kinda do this
even though i am aware that superstition shit doesn't actually work, doing some superstitious shit just makes it feel a bit better.

Mussolini was NatSoc and an Atheist.

Yes. It has nothing to do with religion. It's about conserving the basic principles that made your country great. You can be an atheist conservative, but you can't be a Canadian conservative if that is what you are looking for.

The difference between believing in science and in religion is that science works. :^)
Oh, and when science fails, the solution is more science, but when religion fails, the solution is also more science. :^^^^)

>For example if we accept that a holy book is a good standard of evidence we have to accept the Bible as true, but then we also have to equally accept the Koran as true, and these are 2 different monotheistic religions which cannot co-exist by their own dogma. Thus this relaxed standard of evidence doesn't tell us anything concrete.
Again mate, you're missing the point. It's not about truth in those books, it's about meaning. I agree 100% with what you wrote about science, but religion is something different and you are falling into the same trap as religious fundamentalists do when you read holy texts as something more then experiments and stories about moral and inner life of a human.

>The only way you can assert that every religion is true is if you cherry pick only the parts you like about each religion and ignore the contradictory nature of the other parts, but you have no rational basis for doing so, other than it gives you a conclusion you're happy with.
Again see what I wrote, you don't have to cherrypick anything, because it's not about that. Those are the oldest and deepest stories about human experience that we told eachother since with left the trees.

>I never said you get meaning from science, I'm just saying you can get it absent of religion.
Well, there is no way, most of all scientific, that you can prove this statement. All your values, morals and meaning in life is taught to you by your culture, which is always backed up by religion. That's a fact, there are no such things as morals derived from yourself, read Nietzsche's Beyond good and evil.

>is it bad that i kinda do this
>even though i am aware that superstition shit doesn't actually work, doing some superstitious shit just makes it feel a bit better.

It's a fair question, it kind of gets at the jugular of whether or not it matters if you're conservative for rational reasons or irrational ones, if the outcome is the same.

The devil is in the details, if you have to make a decision that can affect your life based on the superstitions then you very may well be harming yourself or someone you know by sticking to them. Where as someone who is conservative for rational reasons may not be bound by the same rules.

Keep in mind that feeling better about comfortable yet ultimately false beliefs is the very definition of blue pill behaviour. Although it's a fair question to ask are you actually better off being a blue pilled conservative over a red pilled one if blue pilled conservatives are happier.

It's and interesting question, it depends on what you value, for better or worse I value truth over happiness, I'd rather know what is true and real and be less happy so in some sense I don't really have a choice, I have to pick the red pill every time.

>implying my atheism isn't what enables my racism in the first place
No God to make us equal means no reason that we are. White man gets black bone marrow, dies. SCIENCE!

yes

Atheism doesn't imply trust in science. Stop telling me what to think leaf.

Yes, because conservative doesn't = religious conservative. I've always been a Conservative Republican, and I'm an Atheist IMO the Religious right has hijacked the party for long enough

Start with Dreams, Memories and Reflections. If you think that's the right stuff, just get everything you can by him, and get Nietzsche because Jung was his student and heavily influenced by his writings.

Let me just add something, let go of the idea that religion is a scientific fact about anything. Like all myths, it's a collection of stories that carry and reflect meaning and human values.

If you take that position, you will find that there is no contradiction between being a scientist and religious person. Also, you will see how most of the people, both atheists and religious are deeply flawed in their interpretations of the world. And isn't it funny that that exact thing is the message of so many religions world wide, that we are sinful/prone to make mistakes with usually dire consequences. That's how you should view religious truth.

Well I'm atheist and also conservative so I guess it is possible.

I simply like conservative values.

>Again mate, you're missing the point. It's not about truth in those books, it's about meaning. I agree 100% with what you wrote about science, but religion is something different and you are falling into the same trap as religious fundamentalists do when you read holy texts as something more then experiments and stories about moral and inner life of a human.
The problem is that holy texts are ambiguous because they're written ambiguously, so some people see them as literal history, some see them as moral instruction, some see them as parobles, etc.

That's the fault of the text though, it's certainly NOT ambiguous what a science paper tells us, it's structured specifically in a way which defines that it's talking about reality and the properties of it, and then is explicit in its detail. Which is why I can be sure about talking about the purpose an intention of a science paper, but not a holy text. If you interpret a holy text one way and not another, why? Why not another way?

>Again see what I wrote, you don't have to cherrypick anything
It's certainly true the monotheistic religious texts contradict each other in at least some places, especially when it comes to the one true god, and no worshiping false idols etc. So this point really regresses into my last one. If there's a non-literal interpretation of holy texts why do we suppose this us more correct than other interpretations and what reason do we have to believe it's true?

>That's a fact, there are no such things as morals derived from yourself
I derive my moral system from the NAP, the premise that undesirable aggression against yourself is bad (unwanted) is a universal statement from which you can hook the basics of moral principles. Don't initiate aggression against others, from that you can derive basically most of the conservative religious dogma about morals (no killing, stealing, abuse/assault, rape, etc) except you don't have the baggage of things like thought crimes.

It's good, even if you're doing it for less than saintly reasons.

Being part of the religious life of a community lets you make connections and those connections can be an asset to you in the future as well as reinforcing a network of traditionally-minded people in your area.

I personally believe that religion is fundamentally silly but I see that my local church is an active force against the advancement of politics I disagree with and for that reason I'm an active member. If my soul gets saved in the process it's a bonus.

Yes it's called being a skeptic. If you take a neutral approach to the world and demand proof for things instead of believing based on faith or abstract concepts, then you will find that you will be a bit more conservative about many things. Even if your liberal on other ideas the leftists will hate you because you don't just accept their position unquestioned.

I don't see why not. I'm a 5th generation Satanist conservative and voted Trump & Pence.

>The problem is that holy texts are ambiguous because they're written ambiguously, so some people see them as literal history, some see them as moral instruction, some see them as parobles, etc.
That's the folly of man, one of if not the most important message of all religions. We are sinful and make mistakes, and we write stuff ambiguously among other things. But subject is very abstract too, so it can't be more precise.

>I derive my moral system from the NAP, the premise that...
And how is that different essentially to, let's say Christian doctrine that your culture was based partly on, partly on pagan (which btw is not much different). Your culture is much more older then you and religion is much more older then science and culture, so it's very easy for someone, who had moral values ingrained in him evolutionary and culturally through millennia, to say that his values are his own just because he rationalizes them differently.

I'm a clinical psychologist, and I can tell you this mate, biggest and most harmful illusion there is - is that people have control over themselves and their values and thoughts. The voice of god comes from abyss that is man, and there is a reason that all the stories from dawn of man till today tell that as truth. You are legion, and truth is legion, it has many form and comes from many places.

This guy gets it.

The modern left is a religion.

Original sin and white privilege are the same concepts.