← Articles · Atheism, Reddit
Right-Wing Atheism as Impossible?
By heilreality ·
In this article, I’ll be reacting to a post on r/atheism titled, "I almost feel like it’s impossible to be a right wing atheist."
Let's dissect the post!
I almost feel like it’s impossible to be a right wing atheist.
The uncertainty of the title itself is laughable. "I almost feel like" The "almost" obviously makes no sense; the "feel like" will become quite ironic in a second.
Like… how. How could you believe any of that stuff if you’re an atheist. If you’re an atheist born into a religious family, you have strong critical thinking skills. If you’re an atheist born into a secular family, you’re not used to just taking important truths in stride and blindly believing things with no evidence.
I say this as a hard atheist: you’re just being narcissistic. Being right about one thing doesn’t equate to having "strong critical thinking skills". I hate to be the one saying this, but it’s not that black and white.
Like how would an atheist ever just shut their brain off and blindly support a border wall, the drug war, or endorse a faith-based trickle down economic theory.
I’d first like to point out the premise, that apparently, people who support what OP opposes all have to shut their brains off to do so. My opponents? Oh, they're just braindead.
Secondly, OP fails to account for the fact that the right is politically way more diverse than the left. OP thinks that the right is a monolith, while the right is a spectrum. The essence of the right is (metaphysical) inegalitarianism. I.e., the idea that people are not equal. From this premise (among others, of course), one might derive mainstream American conservatism, monarchism, statist nationalism, or, as we do, anarcho-capitalism. OP is exclusively addressing the first one.
We ancaps, right-wingers ourselves, don't really support any of those. At least not in the way OP most likely meant them. If we mean state border by "border wall", then no. We also undoubtedly oppose the war on drugs. And for the last one...
or endorse a faith-based trickle down economic theory.
This is peak Reddit. "Trickle-down economics" is a commie straw man. It's based on the premise that wealth can only be redistributed and not made. It's nothing more than a pejorative term. We ancaps don't support "trickle-down economics"; we support "wealth-making economics". To respond to what I think OP intended, we don't just support cutting taxes for the rich, but abolishing them entirely for everyone.
The problem with the post is simple: it's simply whining without any arguments, besides the collectivist narcissism in the first paragraph. It only discusses the "right wing" by listing some positions OP considers "right wing". Also, "trickle down economic theory" pretty strongly implies that OP genuinely thinks right-wing economic theories support "trickle-down economics". OP is whining about a blatant straw man he considers real, while simultaneously whining about his tribe's collective intellectual superiority.
Let's check out the comments!
Top comment with 330 upvotes:
You don't need religion to hate. You don't need religion to hold discriminatory views. Religion is a tool, and more accurately a weapon; it's not necessary to have that weapon to harm others, it just helps to have it. Nationalism, misogyny, and racism do not require religion. They only require either a sense of superiority or a desire for superiority.
For the second sentence: correct. You don't need religion to realize that widespread discrimination against commies is necessary if one wishes to maintain a libertarian social order. But religion is not a "tool" in itself; it's a primitive form of philosophy. It also makes me wonder what problem the commenter could have with "nationalism" when he explicitly distinguished it from racism. Saying "misogyny" instead of sexism is also a really interesting choice. And for the last sentence, I don't really get how the commenter doesn't seem to see the irony in it.
Most other comments are just what one should expect from Reddit. However, I was able to find a voice of sanity: a no longer available user with -7 upvotes:
Are you literally 12? What dumb ass source gave you the idea that "atheist" is somehow synonymous with rational, intelligent, or benevolent? Atheism is literally only about the belief in god. Which is a religious/philosophical and slightly science related issue. All the other shit you mention are social and cultural ones, and frankly pretending you know what the "objectively" right answer to those is just pathetic and juvenile, and probably a big part why some people dislike atheists so much.
Also lol "faith-based trickle down economic theory"? are you for real? For that matter, the average person lives better today than kings did a century ago. "Trickle down" economics absolutely exist, even if the amount that trickles down isnt as much as you think you deserve..
Why I'm a right-wing atheist.
Let's start with something the post completely missed: let's define our terms.
- Atheist: someone who doesn't believe in the existence of any God(s) or someone who explicitly rejects the existence of any God(s).
I'd prefer the latter definition, but the former is way more common. Either way, I without a doubt reject the existence of any God.
- Right-winger: someone who rejects (metaphysical) egalitarianism; i.e., someone who rejects the existence of metaphysical equality among humans.
I do so.
But why do I do so for either of them? For the same reason in both cases: I see them as objectively true. The case I would make for rightism and atheism is the same: the objective recognition of reality.