1.Atheism+ and similar ideologies

[Cato]

I wish i had a better browser so i could see the video

Just a 6 second scene from Forrest Gump with him calmly stating "And that's all I have to say about that".

[KUSA]

I am a Libertarian / Conservative leaning Atheist. Generally speaking I hate groups and group mentality. Back when I was a Christian I rarely participated in group activities. It seems to me that most people that need to be part of a group tend to be idiots. It's hard for me to hang around idiots for long before I get irritated listening to their babble.

As for most Atheists being liberal I have a theory on that. Religious people depend on God to give them what they want and also a sense of security. When a religious person turns Atheist they no longer have that so they turn to the Government for it. Government is now their God. They pray to their new God in the voting booth with their hands held out ready to receive something.

I have actually seen this happen to someone.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I am a Libertarian / Conservative leaning Atheist. Generally speaking I hate groups and group mentality. Back when I was a Christian I rarely participated in group activities. It seems to me that most people that need to be part of a group tend to be idiots. It's hard for me to hang around idiots for long before I get irritated listening to their babble.

As for most Atheists being liberal I have a theory on that. Religious people depend on God to give them what they want and also a sense of security. When a religious person turns Atheist they no longer have that so they turn to the Government for it. Government is now their God. They pray to their new God in the voting booth with their hands held out ready to receive something.

I have actually seen this happen to someone.

Or it could just be that they see left leaning political theories as offering a greater sense of social justice vis right leaning ones?

I'm a pragmatist, so really I'd adopt any policy that could 'work' regardless of the spectrum it's from.

But I think it might be a pit presumptive to theorise that left leaning atheists have simply substituted a non-existent god for one in the guise of 'government' (which after all doesn't really describe anything). That would gloss over, for example, notions of altruism, and philanthropy, which like pragmatism take elements of social theory from both wings with the ultimate aim of creating what many might regard as a social equality; an axiological justice that has its roots in welfarism and social justice.

I think it's wrong to conclude that group behaviour = idiocy. I don't see any evidence of that unless the core ideological enterprise that informs the group is itself idiotic. This, obviously, is not always the case.

Oh I should have added; in the case of A+ - you're on the money.

[Tonus]

In a democratic nation (or at least, one that touts the idea that we all have a voice) it might be natural to replace god with government, in the sense that we may feel that government is capable of making the changes that could improve everyone's lives versus waiting on a nonexistent god to solve all of our problems. In the USA there is likely also to be the factor that the GOP is closely linked to Christian groups who are using that link to push their religion into people's lives whether they want it or not. My impression is that many libertarians here are Republicans at heart who are trying to 'send a message' regarding either taxes, or more liberal social policies, or that religious wing of the party.

I do think that there is also a very strong undercurrent that seeks a more socialist management of the economy and providing more goods and relief to the poor. It should be no surprise that the pro-capitalist, wealth-friendly, anti-union nature of the political right would be an instant turn-off for them. The feeling is that the USA is in a position to create a much more progressive society than even many European nations enjoy, but the political right will fight that to the death. Combine that with the level of political polarization that has occurred here over the past 20-25 years and you have a country where you are expected to be on either side of a single ideological line.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Combine that with the level of political polarization that has occurred here over the past 20-25 years and you have a country where you are expected to be on either side of a single ideological line.

Which is the saddest thing, really.

An illusion of choice is not really a choice at all. I wish people would actually take more stock of the political sphere and not just fall for the headline banners that the given parties advertise.

[Mothonis]

Another problem is they claim anyone who disagrees with them is privledged.

[Coffee Jesus]

The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw

Haidt describes morality as like a matrix (yes, the movie) i.e. morality binds and blinds us.

At 5:30, he introduces five moral concepts that he thinks are "on the first draft of the moral mind" (picture of a baby). Okay. At 9:00, he describes liberals as having a two-channel morality, and conservatives as having a five-channel morality. I want to criticize that statement.

Cooperative inquiry is important to morality too. Inquiry allows us to progress morally, and we have to respect eachothers independent conclusions so that inquiry can carry on smoothly. Maybe this isn't on the "first draft" of the moral mind, but it's definitely part of morality (pragmatic ethics). In some instances, conservatives have criticized research on the basis of its conclusions rather than its methedology. I bet liberals would have a better understanding of this principle.
Furthermore, those five categories could probably be broken down further, and the disparity might become more naunced as we break them down.