3617 Shares

My fellow atheists, how many of you mindlessly accept the morality of the popular culture rather than?

My fellow atheists, how many of you mindlessly accept the morality of the popular culture rather than? Topic: In any case synonyms
July 22, 2019 / By Erynn
Question: ...seeking out your own 'higher moralities' as suggested by Nietzsche? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/ Corollary question: By accepting/living a 'popular morality', do you think it possible that this informs your politics or your reason? The reason I ask is because I see a good deal of Ayn Rand style 'atheists' in Y!A in general. IOW, they are political conservatives or libertarians. I also see many of these Ayn Rand atheists caught up in what I would call the utter zealotry of the conservatolibertarian extreme right wing: Teabaggers, birthers, virulent anti-socialism, fear of federal government et al. I wonder if these atheistic tag-alongs to this movement realize what their right-wing genesis is. Irrational anti-socialism is caused by the association of socialism with godlessness. Right-wing fear of overbearing federal government is much different than left-wing fear of it. RW fear is usually attributed to a superficial and militarist nationalism and a distaste for governmental interference of their ability to exploit others under an anarcho-capitalist agenda. LW fear of overbearing government is more often associated with a distaste for a theocracy or hints at theocracy (i.e. the deification of a dictator). Atheists are usually independent thinkers, so it intrigues me how so many don't exercise this independent thought in this instance or seem caught up in this kind of Red Scare fervor, which so closely resembles a religulous fervor. Perhaps some of you could shed some light on this? Entropy, I was thinking more along the lines of philosophical 'law'. Like because you are right wing you need to worship unregulated capitalism. i hope the word 'mindless' wasn't offensive. I couldn't really think of a good synonym. What I mean is 'by default' I guess. laslo, I would agree that most atheists at large are this way. I was speaking about a seemingly higher percentage of Ayn Randists in Y!A. Heretic. Neolibertarianism's fiscal conservatism is the direct offspring of Fear of Godless Socialism. PERIOD. There is no way it can keep this root fear from infecting its social liberalism as well, because it doesn't even recognize it as a root fear: hence pseudo intellectualism dominates their agenda. wynner: in short, you are projecting. In long, I am making an observation. I did not say I have the highest morality or any other such thing. I merely made an opinion statement. You can reject it if you would like and is your right, but you do it to your peril (again, in my opinion). Now are you really going to make everybody whose opinion you feel uncomfortable with, preface them with an "in my opinion..." clause? WellTrav, I don't follow Nietzsche or anybody else. I do see wisdom in Nietzsche but that is not the same as following. I could and have come to many of the same conclusions before even discovering him. As for Rand goes, I fail to see the wisdom of promoting a greedy and exploitative self-determinism ESPECIALLY in the times we now find ourselves in, where this very philosophy has led to many of the social and economic problems of the era. I can even conceive of a circumstance where I could become a Ayn Randist. Now is not that time.
Best Answer

Best Answers: My fellow atheists, how many of you mindlessly accept the morality of the popular culture rather than?

Claramae Claramae | 6 days ago
If you had any real interest in debating or understanding Rand's ideas you would have mentioned ONE in your rant. You attack her based on generalities you could have picked up anywhere. I'm pretty sure I heard all of these attacks on Rand and false connections to other ideologies from non-thinking journalists who know nothing about philosophy or ideas. You associate her philosophy with any random ideology you wish. Somehow tea party people, the right wing, religious conservatives are all in one category mixed with birthers, and all share Rand's philosophy? Somehow people who attack socialism based on the fact that it is godless in some cases goes along with Rand? How you made a jump from Rand to the religious right is beyond me.You are trying to package deal a bunch of different random thoughts and pin them all on Rand's philosophy. If you want any sort meaningful feedback, I suggest you isolate some ideas about capitalism (which i think is your main beef, not Rand) or Rand's philosophy (if she is your main beef) that aren't one liners used to get people out of debates by evading any ideas proponents of these philosophies use. This is what we call anti intellectual, and statements like these don't deserve responses, because they show you aren't interested in talking about ideas. Examples: 1. "I fail to see the wisdom of promoting a greedy and exploitative self-determinism".....explain how capitalism is exploitative....then I can explain how it isnt. I'm not gonna make the argument for you, and then argue that argument myself. That isn't how debates work. You don't debate with yourself. 2. "My fellow atheists, how many of you mindlessly accept the morality of the popular culture?" Explain how Rand's philosophy is mindless. Explain how her ideas of morality are incorrect (or mindless), then I can tell you how they aren't. Again, im not gonna make assumptions on this. 3. "rather than...? ..seeking out your own 'higher moralities' as suggested by Nietzsche?" Explain how Nietzsche's are not mindless. Explain what makes them superior to Rand's. Then I could actually make a statement and enlighten you on how they aren't. Again, you are dropping all the ideas from your statements. They are IMPOSSIBLE to answer. Explain the contradiction you see in Rand's idea and interpretation of individual rights (which she uses for her defense of capitalism....if you didn't know. I really can't tell by this question if you have ever read a word Rand said in your life.) Show me the contradictions or have me explain the concept for you if you don't understand it or havent read it.
👍 240 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? My fellow atheists, how many of you mindlessly accept the morality of the popular culture rather than? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: In any case synonyms


Claramae Originally Answered: My fellow atheists, how many of you mindlessly accept the morality of the popular culture rather than?
If you had any real interest in debating or understanding Rand's ideas you would have mentioned ONE in your rant. You attack her based on generalities you could have picked up anywhere. I'm pretty sure I heard all of these attacks on Rand and false connections to other ideologies from non-thinking journalists who know nothing about philosophy or ideas. You associate her philosophy with any random ideology you wish. Somehow tea party people, the right wing, religious conservatives are all in one category mixed with birthers, and all share Rand's philosophy? Somehow people who attack socialism based on the fact that it is godless in some cases goes along with Rand? How you made a jump from Rand to the religious right is beyond me.You are trying to package deal a bunch of different random thoughts and pin them all on Rand's philosophy. If you want any sort meaningful feedback, I suggest you isolate some ideas about capitalism (which i think is your main beef, not Rand) or Rand's philosophy (if she is your main beef) that aren't one liners used to get people out of debates by evading any ideas proponents of these philosophies use. This is what we call anti intellectual, and statements like these don't deserve responses, because they show you aren't interested in talking about ideas. Examples: 1. "I fail to see the wisdom of promoting a greedy and exploitative self-determinism".....explain how capitalism is exploitative....then I can explain how it isnt. I'm not gonna make the argument for you, and then argue that argument myself. That isn't how debates work. You don't debate with yourself. 2. "My fellow atheists, how many of you mindlessly accept the morality of the popular culture?" Explain how Rand's philosophy is mindless. Explain how her ideas of morality are incorrect (or mindless), then I can tell you how they aren't. Again, im not gonna make assumptions on this. 3. "rather than...? ..seeking out your own 'higher moralities' as suggested by Nietzsche?" Explain how Nietzsche's are not mindless. Explain what makes them superior to Rand's. Then I could actually make a statement and enlighten you on how they aren't. Again, you are dropping all the ideas from your statements. They are IMPOSSIBLE to answer. Explain the contradiction you see in Rand's idea and interpretation of individual rights (which she uses for her defense of capitalism....if you didn't know. I really can't tell by this question if you have ever read a word Rand said in your life.) Show me the contradictions or have me explain the concept for you if you don't understand it or havent read it.

Barbra Barbra
Again, as with the other question recently posted regarding religion/atheism/capitalism, I only partly agree with you, but I still find your question amusing. I've had some of the same thoughts. However, I would not be as eager as you to get into a debate about higher and lower moralities as suggested by anyone. But I have to admit, I'm always amused by digs on Ayn Rand and her devotees. You just don't see that enough. :)
👍 100 | 👎 0

Adele Adele
Wow, I think your rant...err, question...holds the new record for the most number of artificial and mostly arbitrary labels in the history of Y!A. I don't accept anybody's morality, popular culture's, Ayn Rand's, Nietzsche's, or anybody else's. I work out my own, one situation at a time. I find it very amusing, though, that you think it's anti-free-thinking to get "caught up" in Ayn Rand's type of morality, but not anti-free-thinking to follow Nietzsche. Following is following, no matter who it is you're following. Peace.
👍 95 | 👎 -6

Tayler Tayler
I hardly think there is any direct correlation between atheists and Ayn Rand Social Darwinists. Perhaps it's the "dog eat dog" nature of Ayn Rand's "law of the jungle" that causes your misconception? If anything, I would suggest that most atheists embrace secular humanism, which is antithetical to the brutal chaos and amorality preached by Ayn Rand.
👍 90 | 👎 -12

Peter Peter
Atheism, of itself, does not apply a set of political views. It is commonly known that both Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, people who would not agree on much of anything politically, were atheists. However, atheism imposes upon people the obligation to decide for themselves what their system of ethics and morality will be. Some people will choose a system of ethics that meshes well with popular culture. In fact, I suspect most people would, as it makes living with other people easier. However, not all people will do so. For my part, I read Rand a little later in life than many do. My Libertarian leanings have little to do with her and more to do with my collegiate experience, where I majored in economics-finance and minored in philosophy. Indeed, it was in college that I became an atheist. Only after I finished law school did I start to read Rand. Indeed, and as I think is the case with many, I did not adopt a laissez-faire atheistic political view because I read Rand; rather, I likely enjoyed Rand more than most because of my already-existing view of the world. This is not to say that Rand did not affect my philosophic beliefs. Rand objected to the popular notion that we are our brothers' keepers. This is something that caused, and often continues to cause, me to think about the more popular system of ethics in which we are. I was raised Catholic under a belief system that living for the sake of another was considered good and noble. Rand disagreed, leading me to my current opinion that, if I choose to help someone out, that's fine, but it's not my obligation to provide for the existence of another, nor is it another's obligation to provide for mine. This is the essence of egoism. Rand is often criticized in her philosophy. The criticisms are well-known and need not be pursued at length here. I do not pretend to be competent to defend every challenge laid against her. However, there is something in her philosophy that I find appealing. I was struck by what I perceived to be a contradiction in your opinion. You indicated: "I wonder if these atheistic tag-alongs to this movement realize what their right-wing genesis is. Irrational anti-socialism is caused by the association of socialism with godlessness." I do not doubt that you believe this, and as you indicated above, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it cannot be more obvious that Rand's opposition to socialism cannot be predicated on an association of socialism with godlessness, as she herself advocated both godlessness and laissez-faire capitalism and warned of those who base their systems of ethics on a deity that is accepted on faith. Moreover, I think Rand is not unique in this aspect. It is true that many Republicans are both fiscally conservative and religious, but I have spent my whole adult life as a conservative and an atheist. I did not choose to be a conservative because of a fear of godlessness. I embrace a world that does not rely on a deity for its ethics (as do most atheists). Well, this answer is long enough, so I will cut it short without arguing with the numerous other things we disagree about, but suffice it to say that I found your opinion unpersuasive, and frankly, plainly impossible in many respects.
👍 85 | 👎 -18

Peter Originally Answered: Atheists: why you don't accept Christian evidence?
If you're new around here, and not just a troll: Short answer: The evidence (even in the Bible) shows that Jesus is just a mythical character and never existed. Here's the long answer (with evidence), which is needed to cover all bases: All reliable evidence points to Jesus Christ being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The evidence is in the Bible, the other religions of the time, and the lack of writings about Jesus by historians of the time. The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth created to fulfill prophesy, cobbled together out of stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited symptoms of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming. Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, his moral teachings. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past. If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8. If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format like a Harry Potter story, with Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarizing from Mark. The gospels don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts, and were written in Greek - which the disciples would not have known. In fact, there are no claimed eyewitness acounts of Jesus - anywhere. If the Jesus story were true, his trial would have been legal. Instead, the purported trial was illegitimate under both Roman and Jewish law. The story of the trial is just a re-telling of the Jewish ritual of scapegoating, where one goat is set free (i.e. Barabbas, which means "son of the father") and one goat is sacrificed (i.e. Jesus). If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus and Philo of Alexandria) wrote about him or his disciples. Therefore Jesus didn't exist. The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time (especially Dionysus, Mithra, and Horus). Some early Christians attributed this to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity. Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like Mithra, Zeus/Jupiter, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis, Tammuz, Hercules, Perseus, Bacchus, Apollo, Helios, and Sol Invictus -- whose birthdays are also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.” There were more than a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected after violent deaths -- Mithra, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Attis, Hermes, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Tammuz, Asclepius, and Prometheus. Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine. For much more evidence, see the links. There are also several good books on this, including: "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed At All" by David Fitzgerald "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty "Not the Impossible Faith" by Richard Carrier -

If you have your own answer to the question in any case synonyms, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.