The reason I do this is because there is a statistical correlation.

Okay, if so, why is there a statistical correlation?

I have no clue why, I just recall surveys that show that those who express religious beliefs also tend to be politically conservative or vice versa if you like.

Religions have content that's socially conservative. Gods, prophets, etc.(whatever it might be depending on the religion at hand) supposedly issue decrees against certain sorts of behaviors, clothing options, diets, etc., and that content doesn't change.

Religions have content that's socially conservative. Gods, prophets, etc.(whatever it might be depending on the religion at hand) supposedly issue decrees against certain sorts of behaviors, clothing options, diets, etc., and that content doesn't change. — Terrapin Station

Okay, but if they did issue such decrees, and religion itself is a myth as atheists claim, then it follows that they never issued such decrees for religious reasons. So why did they issue them? Just like today we issue laws in order to prevent wrong-doings and harm, so too, they must have perceived harm in those behaviours that they issued religious injunctions against. And therefore it seems quite clear that the position of social conservatism, given that take, would be separate from the position of religion - given atheism. Why are there so few atheist social conservatives?

And therefore it seems quite clear that the position of social conservatism, given that take, would be separate from the position of religion — Agustino

No one is saying they're identical. You asked why they're associated with each other. That's why. An association is different than not being separate. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are associated with each other. They're separate people, however.

Also, I'm not sure if you focused on the fact that I said, "certain sorts of behaviors . . . " and noted that the content in question doesn't change.

No one is saying they're identical. You asked why they're associated with each other. That's why. — Terrapin Station

Okay, but then why are there so few atheist social conservatives? Because remember, the few back in the day religions were founded, who were in power and had brain compared to the uneducated majority, if atheism is true, it would mean they founded religions and allowed them to flourish in order to justify their actions to the people. They could justify much more easily by "God said it" to the uneducated majority, than by explanation - the uneducated majority couldn't understand explanation, but they could understand "God said it". But this means that these people with the brains had been atheists themselves, and used religion merely as a tool. If so, they must have had independent reason - reason apart from religion - to issue the social conservative decrees they did. So this proves that there are independent reasons for holding to social conservative positions, and raises the question as to why there are so few atheist social conservatives today?

if atheism is true, it would mean they founded religions and allowed them to flourish in order to justify their actions to the people. — Agustino

What are you talking about? Are you positing something like the idea that "atheists created religions"??? (And what would that have to do with the topic you presented in this thread?)

Anyway, there are definitely social conservatives who are not religious.

Re atheists and their political and/or moral stances, I'm not actually aware of any widespread statistical surveys of that. I wouldn't say I know what most atheists political and/or moral stances are. I also never had an impression that either most atheists have some political and/or moral stance in common or that there's a widespread belief that they do.

What are you talking about? Are you positing something like the idea that "atheists created religions"??? — Terrapin Station

I am saying that if atheism is true, then atheists created religions. Head over to a website like Quora, or Reddit, and so forth, and you'll see most atheists there always associating social conservatism with religion, to the point they think that folks cannot be socially conservative unless they are religious. And yet this seems strange.

(And what would that have to do with the topic you presented in this thread?) — Terrapin Station

Because if atheism is true, then atheists themselves (those who created religions) had independent reasons to hold to social conservative positions - so it seems strange to see today so many atheists who would find social conservatism as anathema to their position, and equivalent to basically being religious.

I am saying that if atheism is true, then atheists created religions. — Agustino

What do you take atheism to be, first off?

What do you take atheism to be, first off? — Terrapin Station

Lack of belief in God.

Okay, so how would "A lack of belief in God" being true (do you mean it's true that the person has a lack of belief in God? Or are you more saying if the belief has right what the world is like?)--anyway, how would the lack of belief in God being true have any sort of implication for the creation of religions?

In other words, if it's true that some poeple have a lack of belief in God, or if the lack of belief in God has right what the world is like, then that implies that atheists created religions because _________ ?

I think one of the reasons conservatism is associated with religiousness is because that political party made great efforts to secure them as a voter block.
I am not sure, but I believe at different points in US history voting habits and religious views were not so clearly defined as they have come to be in more recent times.
.

They could justify much more easily by "God said it" to the uneducated majority, than by explanation - the uneducated majority couldn't understand explanation, but they could understand "God said it". — Agustino

Aquinas says basically this:

It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation [Emphasis mine].

raises the question as to why there are so few atheist social conservatives today? — Agustino

Group think and peer pressure.

Okay, so how would "A lack of belief in God" being true (do you mean it's true that the person has a lack of belief in God? Or are you more saying if the belief has right what the world is like?)--anyway, how would the lack of belief in God have any sort of implication for the creation of religions? — Terrapin Station

Atheism being true obviously doesn't mean a lack of belief in God is true. It means there is no God.

Atheism being true obviously doesn't mean a lack of belief in God is true. It means there is no God. — Agustino

Okay, so if the atheistic belief has right what the world is like, then that implies that atheists created religions because _____? (And then what's the argument there?)

Okay, so if the atheistic belief has right what the world is like, then that implies that atheists created religions because _____? (And then what's the argument there?) — Terrapin Station

That implies atheists created religions because the folks who have created religions were the educated - those who could, first of all, write, and write very well. If you look at some of the Books from the Bible for example, they are very well written, and they illustrate quite complex points. Clearly they weren't written by idiots, or uncultured men and women. If there is no God, and if no God actually communicated with them, it is obvious that they would be aware of this when writing the religious texts. As for why they created religion - simple - to have an easy way to teach and enforce morality on their fellow men.

That implies atheists created religions because the folks who have created religions were the educated - those who could, first of all, write, and write very well. — Agustino

What? But nothing in that sentence is implied by "The atheistic belief has right what the world is like."

This conclusion works just as well: "The atheistic belief has right what the world is like, and religious believers created religions."

Also, you're adding "Atheists are those who were educated and could write well"???

Clearly they weren't written by idiots, or uncultured men and women. If there is no God, and if no God actually communicated with them, it is obvious that they would be aware of this when writing the religious texts. — Agustino

And here you're attempting some correlation with intelligence, being educated and writing well with religious beliefs (including a lack of the same)???

None of this follows from anything else.

"The atheistic belief has right what the world is like." — Terrapin Station

First of all I struggle to understand this sentence - the atheistic belief HAS right?? What the hell does that mean?

And it does follow - because it implies that folks who created religions must have been atheists. It's impossible to claim God communicated with me, unless I really did have consecutive experiences of God communicating. But if atheism is true, then God didn't communicate with me, and I darn well know he didn't.

First of all I struggle to understand this sentence - the atheistic belief HAS right?? What the hell does that mean?

If it gets right. If the belief coheres with what's the case in the world.

It's impossible to claim God communicated with me, unless I really did have consecutive experiences of God communicating. — Agustino

it's not at all impossible to claim that x communicated with you without really having an experience (or consecutive experiences if you like) of x communicating with you. How is that possible? By lying.

Of course, it's also possible to claim that x communicated with you where you really did have an experience (or consecutive experiences) of x communicating with you but where no x communicated with you. In other words, your mental phenomena could be illusory, or you could be mistaken about how your mental phenomena correlate with the world.

It's not at all the case that the people who created religions had to be atheists just in case there are no gods. The people who created religions could have been (and surely were) religious believers. It would just be the case that their beliefs were mistaken (re correlations to the world).

If it gets right. If the belief coheres with what's the case in the world. — Terrapin Station

Sorry but such expressions are totally foreign to me. It gets right? How can something get right? Something may BE right, but GET right?

it's not at all impossible to claim that x communicated with you without really having an experience (or consecutive experiences if you like) of x communicating with you. How is that possible? By lying. — Terrapin Station

Yes I agree. Therefore if they lie about it, they are atheists.

Of course, it's also possible to claim that x communicated with you where you really did have an experience (or consecutive experiences) of x communicating with you but where no x communicated with you. In other words, your mental phenomena could be illusory, or you could be mistaken about how your mental phenomena correlate with the world. — Terrapin Station

Yes but it would require this to happen consecutively, over almost an entire life-span. That's highly unlikely and dubious. Apart from this, I would need to suffer of no sort of mental illness which impedes me from influencing my fellow men in order to be able to start a religion.

It's not at all the case that the people who created religions had to be atheists just in case there are no gods. — Terrapin Station

No but they certainly probably were, and surely I have no reason to assume otherwise.

The people who created religions could have been (and surely were) religious believers. — Terrapin Station

How would they come to religious belief if there is no God? Moses for example, claimed to come to religious belief and came down the mountain with tablets written by God. He surely must know if God really communicated with him or not. And if God didn't, and he is lying, then he knows he is lying.

Yes I agree. Therefore if they lie about it, they are atheists. — Agustino

That certainly doesn't follow.

Joe believes in God. Joe doesn't believe that God has communicated with him. Joe says that God has communicated with him. Joe is lying about this. Well, Joe believes in God. It's not true that Joe is an atheist.

Yes but it would require this to happen consecutively, over almost an entire life-span. — Agustino

I'm guessing that you're talking about a specific case here, rather than just any instance of someone claiming that god communicated with them.

That's highly unlikely and dubious. — Agustino

Implication in logic isn't the same thing as "high degree of likelihood." So that something is highly unlikely/dubious doesn't imply that the alternative is a logical implication. Logical implications only obtain when the alternative is (logically) impossible.

Apart from this, I would need to suffer of no sort of mental illness which impedes me from influencing my fellow men in order to be able to start a religion. — Agustino

At least we know now that you believe that no political leaders, no cult leaders, no powerful business executives, no highly influential artists, philosophers, etc. had mental illnesses.

No but they certainly probably were, and surely I have no reason to assume otherwise. — Agustino

If I had believed you were simply talking about probability rather than logical implication, I would have proceeded very differently.

How would they come to religious belief if there is no God? — Agustino

Via attempting to explain natural phenomena, various regular occurrences, various disasters, etc.

Joe believes in God. Joe doesn't believe that God has communicated with him. Joe says that God has communicated with him. Joe is lying about this. Well, Joe believes in God. It's not true that Joe is an atheist. — Terrapin Station

Okay, how does Joe form a belief in God? He tells others that he believes in God because God has spoken to him. If that isn't so, why doesn't he give the real reason for his belief? I'm not saying that these that you list aren't possibilities - they are logical possibilties, but I don't care about that, because they're very unlikely.

So that something is highly unlikely/dubious doesn't imply that the alternative is a logical implication. Logical implications only obtain when the alternative is (logically) impossible. — Terrapin Station

I'm talking pragmatically here not logically. I don't care about having an air-tight logical argument for this.

Via attempting to explain natural phenomena, various regular occurrences, various disasters, etc. — Terrapin Station

If you look at religious texts, these are very rarely cited as reasons, and most of the religious texts don't deal with explaining science or the reason for the occurrence of natural events at all. They mostly deal with history and morality.

Right, so first off, if we're talking about a probability argument, what sort of data are we using for our probability statements?

Social conservatives are foundational, tied to certain basic beliefs which they cannot change and still remain socially conservative...family values, core values, core christian values & or beliefs.

I think conservative-christians/progressive christians mirror social-conservative/progressive democrats.
In our culture's christian value systems provide the basis for many conversations. My guess is that religious conservatism has as much natural affinity towards social conservatism as social conservatism has toward religious conservatism. A progressive christian social conservative seems to me to be impossible.

I think religion is a means of giving and maintaining order. It was tapped early on in the formation of societies. People bought into it because it made sense of their world and gave them a way to contend with their fears. As people found rational foundations for their beliefs, their reliance on religious explanation declined, but their reliance on religious value system (by both Atheists & Christians) remains strong, because is still is very effective in keeping order.

Isn't a least part of the reason why the merging of Christian and Moslem cultures so difficult, is the fundamentalist Moslems value systems does not match up well with contemporary Western value systems, making the conversation difficult, and each side view the other's actions as fundamentally flawed.

Social conservatives are foundational, tied to certain basic beliefs which they cannot change and still remain socially conservative — Cavacava

But so it is with everyone. This holds for progressive liberals too - they can't suddenly be anti-gay marriage and still be progressive liberals...

When does the association between conservatism and religion begin? Not in the youth of a religion, it would seem. The youth of the 3 Abrahamic faiths were not especially conservative as I remember--more like associated with social upheaval.

Once established, (period of centuries) religions accumulate cultural and material assets. They become a 'vested' interest, which they wish to preserve. Individuals who identify as members of the religion become both asset and preservation police. They want what they joined to maintain its attractive features. Members and administrators regularly police the boundaries and inner precincts of the religion to prevent subversion and decay.

That's very simplistic, of course. Christianity went through a lot of social and theological upheaval prior to the Reformation; Luther wasn't the first disruptor, and he wasn't the last, obviously enough.

But what is a more interesting question, Agustino, is why and how some people make of the conservative religion a springboard into very non-conservative, even radical, religious practice? I'm thinking of Dorothy Day, here. (You may not be familiar with her). She was at best a lapsed Christian, maybe moving towards atheism; a journalist, socialist, who in the 1930s experienced a reconciliation with the Catholic Church and (with Peter Marin) founded the rather left-wing Catholic Worker, which practiced a radical hospitality for the burgeoning numbers of homeless men and women in New York. She died sometime in the 1980s, and is on track to sainthood -- something she would have abhorred. "Don't call me a saint," she said. "I don't want to be dismissed that easily." There were maybe a hundred Catholic Worker houses of hospitality at their peak; some of them are still operating.

Day didn't soften up her radical views as she aged, but she was always faithful and obedient to the Church. (Granted, she sometimes had to look for a bishop with views friendly to her own.)

It isn't very common that that people do this--launch "revolutions" within the church, yet preserve their conservative faith. The Berrigan brothers come to mind--both priests, both involved in radical political activity.

Progressive liberals can move towards the center they are able to contextualize and relativize their beliefs into the spirit of the law. Social conservatives are restricted, they have to be far more literal in their interpretation of their interpretation of their value systems, they have no ideological path to move towards the central option, if they do, they are no longer conservative.

In the Tragic Vision, moreover, human nature has not changed. Traditions such as religion, the family, social customs, sexual mores, and political institutions are a distillation of time-tested techniques that let us work around the shortcomings of human nature. They are as applicable to humans today as they were when they developed, even if no one today can explain their rationale.

-- Pinker (2006)

Why are there so few atheist social conservatives? — Agustino

Well, I am one of the few, but I have got to say that I have become more sympathetic towards religion (especially Christianity).

Group think and peer pressure. — Thorongil

edit: Christopher Hitchens is the only commie I respect.

I don't follow why social conservatives are restricted and progressive liberals aren't. In fact, it makes no sense at all to me. Both are equally restricted.