Why do so many who identify as Atheists support Big Government?

[DominionSeraph]

99% of what is going on in terms of social conservatism is aimed at giving choices to states.

No, 100% of social conservatism is white Christians trying to get their way no matter what. If the US as a whole is too liberal in an area, conservatives want "state rights" so they can detach themselves and implement it locally. But if the US as a whole was conservative in an area, you can bet your ass that they wouldn't give a second thought to using federal power to crush any liberal enclaves!

The only conservative ideal is "me".

 

[bfdd]

The sentiment of this fucking post is exactly what I think whenever I see these idiotic threads made by worshipers. A person that must label any and every human juxtaposed to their beliefs is just stupid or arrogant.

Instead of labeling or trying to convert them, why not just have a conversation? Was it because you were coerced into believing what you believe?

<3

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm kind of curious to this. I am not religious at all, I don't identify with Atheism or Atheists due to my believing it is just another religion.

Atheism really isn't a religion at all anymore than being a Democrat or a Republican is a religion. In fact, it's less than that. It's merely the belief that a God does not exist or at least that there isn't any reason to believe in one. That's it.

Unlike a religion, being atheist doesn't imply anything about your Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, or Aesthetics. It's not a philosophy or a religion at all.

In fact, if there were a philosophy (that addressed all those areas) and it were put into a 400 page book, the entire issue of atheism need not be any more than one or two pages. "There are people who believe in religious mysticism and that a magical transcendental being exists. However, according to this philosophy there is no reason to believe in the supernatural." (The end.)

Though I was thinking. Why do they want to substitute so hard the "fake" God for one of their own creation? Some giant entity that is all powerful and will take care of everything, yet will be constructed of man? Please... Silly mortals.

Who said that they regard government as being a God? Heck, a socialist government might actually do something productive. What has God done lately to "take care of everything"?

A better question might be, why do religious Republicans who say they oppose big government support having the government get involved with religion? Why do they support big government in the form of the government telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies and in the form of the government's war on drugs?

 

[Ancalagon44]

I'm an atheist and I dont support big government. I do support financial regulation though.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm kind of curious to this. I am not religious at all, I don't identify with Atheism or Atheists due to my believing it is just another religion. Though I was thinking. Why do they want to substitute so hard the "fake" God for one of their own creation? Some giant entity that is all powerful and will take care of everything, yet will be constructed of man? Please... Silly mortals.

I thought we already had one village idiot...............

 

[Mursilis]

Atheists are not suckered by promises of afterlife, so we want to build a better society here on earth.

1) Why?
2) Who gets to define "better"?

 

[Ausm]

You want man to be controlled by the state.

We want man to be taught morals so he can control himself.

You can shove your "Morality" up yo ass😉

 

[Ausm]

No, 100% of social conservatism is white Christians trying to get their way no matter what. If the US as a whole is too liberal in an area, conservatives want "state rights" so they can detach themselves and implement it locally. But if the US as a whole was conservative in an area, you can bet your ass that they wouldn't give a second thought to using federal power to crush any liberal enclaves!

The only conservative ideal is "me".

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

I'm glad I don't live in Kansas which is a prime example to illustrate your point 😉

 

[sandorski]

1) Why?
2) Who gets to define "better"?

Whomever chooses to.

 

[First]

No they don't First because everything can be explained away with "intelligent design". You can't say some greater entity than ourselves didn't engineer our universe. There's no proof you can posture which would state otherwise. You're just left with more questions and have to dig back further to prove them wrong. You have faith that if we go back far enough we'll find out that our universe isn't of "intelligent design", there isn't any proof of such though.

The evidence for intelligent design existing is quite literally non-existent, it's zero. Bagel. Donut. Nada. The evidence for intelligent design not existing can, on the other hand, be found everywhere. Two easy and obvious examples being the Heisenburg principle and evolution, where randomness is practically a prerequisite.

Now, if you want to compare those two and call both "faith", you can certainly do that, but informed, intelligent people will laugh at you.

 

[mrkun]

The evidence for intelligent design existing is quite literally non-existent, it's zero. Bagel. Donut. Nada. The evidence for intelligent design not existing can, on the other hand, be found everywhere. Two easy and obvious examples being the Heisenburg principle and evolution, where randomness is practically a prerequisite.

Now, if you want to compare those two and call both "faith", you can certainly do that, but informed, intelligent people will laugh at you.

And further, by calling them both faith you're not doing anything to establish the truth or likelihood of your own position; you're just saying that evolution is as unfounded as ID.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No they don't First because everything can be explained away with "intelligent design".

Get this straight: "Intelligent design" doesn't explain anything. Explanations describe how things happen. Go ahead and ask an ID'er for their descriptions of how all this alleged "designing" got done. You'll get no answer.

You can't say some greater entity than ourselves didn't engineer our universe.

I can say that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that our universe was engineered by some greater entity.

There's no proof you can posture which would state otherwise. You're just left with more questions and have to dig back further to prove them wrong.

"Proof" is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. When evaluating empirical claims we must deal with evidence.

You have faith that if we go back far enough we'll find out that our universe isn't of "intelligent design", there isn't any proof of such though.

This is a load of horseshit. I have no such faith, and it is a testimony to your colossal ignorance that you think I would.

 

[bfdd]

evolution does not disprove ID.


btw I do not support ID or any of the organized religions beliefs, I'm just arguing against you guys think to finite.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

evolution does not disprove ID.

Cool story, bro. In fact nothing can disprove ID, which is precisely why it is a worthless proposition.

btw I do not support ID or any of the organized religions beliefs, I'm just arguing against you guys think to finite.

"I'm just arguing against you guys think to finite."

That resembles an English sentence, but for the life of me I can't parse it.

Wanna take another stab at it, Shakespeare?

 

[First]

lmao, what a tard.

 

[bfdd]

Most of the sciences we use today were created to explain how Yahweh/Allah/God created the world. You can keep talking all you want, but that's a fact. The only reason we have atom theory is because someone was trying to figure out how a God could have put the world together. So you want to argue your scientific proof as proof against God? That's silly.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Most of the sciences we use today were created to explain how Yahweh/Allah/God created the world. You can keep talking all you want, but that's a fact.

Is it, Einstein? Because you say it is? 🙄

The only reason we have atom theory is because someone was trying to figure out how a God could have put the world together.

You appear to be desperately unfamiliar with Monsieur Laplace and his famous reply to Napoleon.

So you want to argue your scientific proof as proof against God? That's silly.

Where has anyone claimed "proof against God"? I seem to remember stating quite explicitly that one god-hypothesis, so-called "intelligent design," was impossible to disprove. So where are you getting the idea that anyone has proffered "proof against God"?

 

[bfdd]

Cerpin, what the fuck does some dudes opinion have to do with anything? How is that any different than anything else? That's your argument? What some other dude believed? Please... You know who and why the scientific method was created right? yeah

I'm saying no proof for or against a God truly exists, also you guys are taking my thread OT now ;|

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerpin, what the fuck does some dudes opinion have to do with anything?

It surprises me very little that the significance of his statement is lost on you.

How is that any different than anything else? That's your argument? What some other dude believed?

His statement became famous because it encapsulates precisely the disposition of science with regard to the existence of gods, fairies, djinns, etc.... Scientific inference only makes sense in the presumed absence of the effects of intermeddling magical beings with inscrutable motives.

Do you even know which quote I mean?

Please... You know who and why the scientific method was created right? yeah

If the automobile were created to drive people to Narnia, that doesn't mean that Narnia exists, nor is driving one an attempt to navigate to the White Witch's castle, no matter what the driver says.

I'm saying no proof for or against a God truly exists,

No proof for your computer exists, either.

also you guys are taking my thread OT now ;|

If you don't want to be made to look stupid, stop making stupid claims.

 

[jackschmittusa]

bfdd

"Most of the sciences we use today were created to explain how Yahweh/Allah/God created the world."

I vote this the stupidest comment of the week!

The Greeks speculated that if you cut something in half, then cut one of the pieces in half, and continued doing this, you would eventually reach a point where you couldn't do it anymore. Thus the concept of the atom, the uncutable. No god was involved in this thought process at all.

Chemistry came from alchemy, which had people combining stuff to transmutate ordinary, common substances into gold. It had nothing to do with god.

I could go on and on, but if you don't get the point already, it would be a lost cause.

 

[bfdd]

bfdd

"Most of the sciences we use today were created to explain how Yahweh/Allah/God created the world."

I vote this the stupidest comment of the week!

The Greeks speculated that if you cut something in half, then cut one of the pieces in half, and continued doing this, you would eventually reach a point where you couldn't do it anymore. Thus the concept of the atom, the uncutable. No god was involved in this thought process at all.

Chemistry came from alchemy, which had people combining stuff to transmutate ordinary, common substances into gold. It had nothing to do with god.

I could go on and on, but if you don't get the point already, it would be a lost cause.

Physics, atom theory, scientific method, algebra. Yeah, who again were behind most of those things which more modern theories/laws/systems were based. Read on why they were invented. They have specific reasons. Just because YOU don't accept those reasons, doesn't make them untrue. Pursuit of truth takes many forms.

 

[Howard]

Conservatives tend to be religious, and also tend to say that they prefer smaller government.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Physics, atom theory, scientific method, algebra. Yeah, who again were behind most of those things which more modern theories/laws/systems were based. Read on why they were invented. They have specific reasons. Just because YOU don't accept those reasons, doesn't make them untrue.

And simply because you assert that these things have certain nebulous reasons that you seem loathe to describe does not make it a fact. What was your point again?

If you knew anything about the scientific method, you would understand that it's power derives from the fact that it is independent of the individual, so that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists can perform the same experiments and make the same observations, regardless of their religious beliefs. So, the fact that you think it makes a single iota of difference which individuals made which scientific discoveries for whatever motivations tells us all that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Pursuit of truth takes many forms.

Science isn't the pursuit of truth, Poindexter. That's the domain of philosophers.

 

[Howard]

And simply because you assert that these things have certain nebulous reasons that you seem loathe to describe does not make it a fact. What was your point again?

If you knew anything about the scientific method, you would understand that it's power derives from the fact that it is independent of the individual, so that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists can perform the same experiments and make the same observations, regardless of their religious beliefs. So, the fact that you think it makes a single iota of difference which individuals made which scientific discoveries for whatever motivations tells us all that you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

Science isn't the pursuit of truth, Poindexter. That's the domain of philosophers.

I think you can find some very prominent historical examples of instances when the scientific method was frowned upon because of religion.

 

[Ausm]

most of the sciences we use today were created to explain how yahweh/allah/god created the world. you can keep talking all you want, but that's a fact. The only reason we have atom theory is because someone was trying to figure out how a god could have put the world together. So you want to argue your scientific proof as proof against god? That's silly.

lmfao