Atheists as a group self-identify as being "liberal" more than any other group:

@BD66 You're just using U.S. numbers though. There is also a problem with self identifying. There are some "liberals" I have come in contact with that seem moderate to me or even more right wing.

@Piece2YourPuzzle You are correct with the US numbers. That's one of the first responses I got to explain the difference between the US polling numbers and the population on agnostic.com. See the following text in my original post:

International Factor: Lots of people on the web site come from countries other than the USA, and many of those countries are farther to the left of the USA politically. In many countries, Socialism is not a dirty word, so this international population is much more likely to be leftist/Socialist than a group of people surveyed in the USA.

Neoliberalism is a word with a widely different meaning than its connotation

@BD66 the problem with neolibrilism is that it's philosophy portrays a fair and even chance for all, because wealth can trickle up wards to the privileged so they can somehow invest it for their minions below it. The evidence is clearly that rarely happens. Infact people suffer from its effects, and the neolibrilists tend to use right wing arguments to bolster their politics and the ones fighting for social justice are called communists! Either way the evidence shows that countries that reject neolibrilism are far more progressive.

Let's not worry about me. The focus of my comment was I was asking people to speculate why atheists are so aligned with Democrats (who form the left wing of the US Government). This poll shows that atheists self-identify as being more liberal than any other group.

What happened to the people you cared about?

When polled, more atheists self-identify as liberal than any other group. Also if you look at the group membership here at agnostic.com, the numbers clearly show based on the groups that people join the leftist/liberals dominate this group through sheer numbers. First the group sizes:

Conservative Atheists 147 Members
Trump Pinata 756 Members
Leftists 167 Members
LGBT+ 431 Members
Conservative Atheist Singles 79 Members
Gun Control Now 314 Members
Progressives and Socialists 501 Members

Next the 2014 polling data:

Well said.

I was an atheist also at age 12, and I grew up on a farm in Central, IL. Jimmy Carter's grain embargo on the Soviet Union made me a "Vote anything but Democrat" at age 14, and other disasters such as Obamacare have only strengthened that resolve.

I didn't come up with the education factor, but I believe it is a strong one. Just because you and I were atheists before college does not mean that is the case for everyone.

Another factor associated with education may be the freedom an education at a University affords you. Many of my friends who are still religious finished school after high school, they went to work for their fathers in the family business, and continued going to the family church. There was undoubtedly a lot of peer pressure and societal pressure on them to keep them going to church every Sunday morning.

Those of us who had to good fortune to spend ages 18 to 22 (or longer) at a University, could stay up partying as late as we wanted on Saturday night, not go to church the following morning, and never suffer any negative repercussions.

@BD66 Education may be a factor, but attributing liberalism to leftist faculty is a faulty presumption. The only professors who ever professed their political leanings when I was in college were conservatives. That may not be true for everyone's experience, but it obviously happens often enough to be remarked upon. I just think that expanding your worldview, gaining experience, and challenging your thinking tends to lead to more liberal values.

@GinaMaria I have no idea where you went to college, but it's certainly the exception to the rule. This survey puts academics at #2 on the liberal scale, just behind the entertainment industry:

@GinaMaria Here's the whole article:

[businessinsider.com]

@BD66 That may be, but they kept their politics out of the classroom. I've been in university classrooms a lot over the years, and never encountered an instructor who lectured liberal ideas. If pressed, most wouldn't state a political opinion.

@GinaMaria What Universities have you gone to? I went to the University of Illinois, and most professors in my science/technology/engineering classes were not political, but walk across campus to the liberal arts buildings and it was a totally different story. I was there from '84 to '90, and things have gotten much worse since then. Then I went to the University of California Santa Barbara as a postgraduate researcher from '90 to '93. The campus was full of radical liberal professors who constantly staged rallies in the main plaza.

I like your story, because it shows great intelligence and individualism. I would also like to make the world a better place, but realistically America can not help anyone if it fails as society. We are so close to another civil war at this point because many democratic social elitists have subverted the judicial system by way of bribery and corruption that we are now fighting against socialism in America! (George Soros, Hillary, and Obama)

Socialism- Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
So do you actually want the government in America to have more money, power and influence over the citizens?
Do you actually want to own nothing but what the social elite grant you to live, while they hoard more than they would ever want?
This is what socialism is!
It does not matter how we try to make it fit, this will be the end result! Look at any place in history!

I think atheists just tend to think of the here and now. We have one shot to make a difference and no "perfect" afterlife to go to, so we want a world that's better for all. Conservatism doesn't get us there.

@GinaMaria This argument "We have one shot to make a difference and no "perfect" afterlife to go to, so we want a world that's better for all. Conservatism doesn't get us there." proves you are a leftist, and further confirms the link between leftists and atheists. If you actually look at the merits of the argument, it's extremely weak. Any time you have a big powerful government vs. small government experiment:

Communist China vs. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore
East Germany vs. West Germany
North Korea vs. South Korea
The rest of South America vs. Chile

The countries the embrace capitalism and reject central control of the economy experience prosperity, and the countries the embrace government control of the economy experience poverty, misery, and often famine and mass murder.

Education is the most significant factor by far.

You have no idea how comical your comment is.

@BD66 You have no idea how ridiculous your post is. It's a draw!

@Sticks48 Tell me about your education, career, and academic/professional achievements?

@BD66 Tell me why your tiny little brain can't let this go. It dawned on me I blocked you months ago because you were a douchebag. Some of the blocks have become unblocked. I'll just do it again.

@Sticks48 I think you must have remembered me:

You call me a idiot. I demonstrate to you that you're probably spotting me 60 IQ points, then you block me. Your feeble brain forgets the experience, and the cycle repeats.

Here is what I have done with my tiny little brain.

Placed 19th in the United States in the National Mathematical Olympiad.

Completed a PhD in Electrical Engineering from the #4 ranked program in the USA.

35 patents.

Founded 2 Limited Liability Companies and 1 Limited Partnership.

41 appearances in Lipper Best Money Managers.

Tell me, Sticks, what have you done with your brain?

Now go ahead and block me, forget about it in a couple months, and we'll do it all over again.

Did you read the article I sourced, and the poll results? My views are very much in-line with the majority of the poll's respondents, but for some reason, on this web site I find myself very much in the minority.

@BD66 The demographics listed in that poll shows that it was nowhere near scientific.

Categories such as African American, White male, Woman?

Really?

Why not AA female? White female?
Why no educational levels?
Why no Income levels?
Why only 2 age groupings?

That poll was ludicrous.

@Lucy_Fehr How about this data from the Pew Research Council that shows atheists self-identify as liberal more than any other group.

@BD66 That's true, we do identify as liberal for the most part.

Why does that make us "leftist fringe"; are you saying our small numbers relative to believers makes us a fringe group?

Perhaps you should also clarify what you mean by fringe group because the general and accepted meaning by most of the population is that fringe groups are crazy

@Lucy_Fehr

There is no reason to be so defensive.

fringe group in British
(frɪndʒ ɡruːp)
noun
a group that is on the periphery of a larger organization because its views are more extreme than the majority

[collinsdictionary.com]

@BD66 I am not being so defensive; nothing in my responses to you indicate that I am anything other than a person asking for clarification of what you mean by the terms you used as I do not think they apply here.

To use the word so in front of defensive implies an overblown or extreme emotional response which I did not display in any way. To insinuate that I did is to attempt gas-lighting.

We appear to agree on the definition of fringe group but why did you not address my first question regarding why you think the group of people on this site fit the definition?

What larger organization is this site on the periphery of?
We the users are non believers and for the most part liberal.
The pew poll indicates that atheists are predominantly liberal.

What makes this site extremist?

I didn't like Trump or Clinton, so I voted for Gary Johnson. Trump certainly has issues and could work on his delivery, but I've been pleasantly surprised by his actions since he took office.

@BD66 just OMG....name a few...?

@AnneWimsey
Actually delivering on campaign promises. Putting America first when it comes to trade, instead of bleeding America dry like Obama was doing. Actually trying to keep our country safe by addressing immigration and not catering to the demands of NATO. Not funding or indirectly supporting terrorist countires. Basically the opposite of everything Obama did to undermine the stability of our country! Like not using money to undermine the judicial system and create the witch hunt called the Mueller investigation. Clearly one a sided fiasco. They ignore everything Hillary and her associates did that might come up in the so called investigation and focus on catching conservative politicians in a lie because they don't remember everything they said in a conversation 5 years ago. What a waste of time and money!

Socialism- Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. A system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
So do you actually want the government in America to have more money, power and influence over the citizens?
Do you actually want to own nothing but what the social elite grant you to live, while they hoard more than they would ever want?
This is what socialism is!
It does not matter how we try to make it fit, this will be the end result! Look at any place in history!

How about:

East Germany vs. West Germany
Communist China vs. Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan
North Korea vs. South Korea
(The Rest of South America) vs. Chile

[en.wikipedia.org]

Those examples would lead you to believe that Capitalism leads to a better life for the people of a country than any form of Socialism/Communism/Collectivism.

@BD66 I think there is a big difference between Socialist/Communist and Democratic Socialist. Us 'leftists' seem to want the most good for the most people.

It's an interesting strategy. If you call yourself "Progressive" than the things you want politically become good because they are progress. Therefore by definition, those who oppose you oppose "progress' and their beliefs are therefore bad.

It's somewhat similar to the homophobic wordplay in the 1980's and transphobic wordplay today. Anyone who does not agree with the lifestyle or protected status of a non-mainstream sexuality is afraid of it rather than simply non in agreement with it.

@BD66 First of all, to be LGBTQ is not a lifestyle but an orientation they are born with.

As for “protected status”, gay rights are human rights. They want only the same rights as everyone else to be free to be who they were born to be.

@dare2dream excellent post! BD66, go educate yourself, Please!

@dare2dream I will give you an example of "protected status" at work in the real world. When I was a manager at Cisco Systems, there was going to be a layoff. My manager had me rank all 18 of my direct reports from 1 to 18. Some of the guys were field engineers who were traveling all the time, and they had no idea what was going on back at the corporate offices. I asked my manager if it was OK to tell the ones in the top 5 that they had absolutely nothing to worry about so they could focus on their jobs. He said "Yes, please do", so I told those 5. Much to my surprise 2 of the 5 people in my top 5 who I had told they had nothing to worry about were on the layoff list. What happened was the list for the entire department went to a compliance attorney. The attorney said there were not enough:

Whites and Asians
People Under 40
Males

on the layoff list, so another manager who I didn't even report to was forced to add Whites males and Asian Males under 40 to the layoff list, and I lost 2 of the 5 top performers in my group.

Any time you protect a group:

non-whites or non-asians
people over 40
females

you are in effect discriminating against

whites and Asians
people under 40
males

I'm all in favor of LQBTQ people having equal rights, but if they become another "protected class" you will get institutional discrimination against non-LGBTQ people in favor of LGBTQ people.

@BD66 I see what you mean. That looks like reverse affirmative action or some thing.

I think the problem with Cisco was they didn't recruit enough
non-whites or non-asians
people over 40
females
in the first place.

@dare2dream It's amazing you can live in Fremont, CA and make that statement! We'll break them down one at a time and hopefully open your eyes a little bit:

I think the problem with Cisco was they didn't recruit enough

non-whites or non-asians - Go to one of the elite universities nearby (Stanford or Cal) and walk around the electrical engineering/computer science/computer engineering campus. Count how many non-whites and non-asians you can, and you will see the problem of how a company of 50,000+ people could staff its technical ranks with non-whites or non-asians.

people over 40 - Drop by one of the many startups in the area around 8pm and see who comes out the door. Everyone you see will be 45 years or younger. After 45 you can't do tech work 60+ hours per week.

females - Go to one of the elite universities nearby (Stanford or Cal) and walk around the electrical engineering/computer science/computer engineering campus. Count how many female students you can see, and you will see the problem of how a company of 50,000+ people could staff its technical ranks with women. Then drop by one of the many startups in the area around 8pm and see how many women you see. You may see some young ones, but you can't work Silicon Valley hours and be a mother at the same time.

As an American, I think you are correct and what you said needs to be heard by Americans. I agree, they conflate socialism with communism. I will add, they also conflate socialism and communism with tyranny and dictatorship. I agree with the distinctions you pointed out.

Thanks for posting this!

Too true

@dare2dream I’m very glad that you think I’m correct...I sometimes hesitate to give my opinions on American political issues. You already have some aspects of a socialist society in your welfare system, without it millions of citizens would be destitute, and if you operated a universal health insurance scheme it wouldn’t leave people at the mercy of high insurance premiums or be unable to afford essential prescription drugs. The only people benefitting from private healthcare are the Insurance companies, the Pharmaceutical Conglomerates and the Medical profession.

Truth be told, nobody (that really understands what a Free Market, and Capitalism are) thinks that the US is a Free Market Capitalistic Economy. That being said, we do know that old adage that Socialism eventually will always lead to Communism. Capitalism is essentially an economy with a minimum of Government interference.

@Captain_Feelgood I totally disagree with the “old adage” that Socialism eventually will always lead to Communism. There is absolutely no evidence of that happening. There is a distinction between Government operating sensible social policies for the benefit of their citizens and interfering with how they earn and spend their money. It’s not Government interference to make sure their citizens have good, affordable health and welfare services, rather it is a duty.

@Captain_Feelgood What "old adage" are you taking about? Cold War claptrap? Joseph McCarthy crap?

@Marionville The distinction should be that governments can provide a safety net and not sink into a collectivist death spiral. Every developed country in the world does that. However when governments pick winners and losers through central planning, they are treading on very dangerous ground and have the potential to create the next Cuba or Venezuela. If you look at all the South American countries, the most prosperous one is Chile, the one that most aggressively fought off leftism/collectivism: [en.wikipedia.org]

@BD66 Get a grip on reality....to compare the extremely progressive and enlightened Northern European countries, and their governance to Cuba and Venezuela is risible.

@Marionville Please review these slides. Cuba and Venezuela were both once rich countries before collectivism drove them into economic death spirals:

[msn.com]

@BD66 Bad governance and corruption has turned them from prosperous countries into basket cases. There are checks and balances in place in the Scandinavian countries against such a decline. They are all truly democratic, and corruption is minimal.

@Marionville So Socialism has had some degree of success in homogeneous Scandinavian countries. Socialism has been a disaster in the heterogeneous countries of the Americas. Norway is a tiny Scandinavian country with tremendous oil reserves, and the people there manage those reserves wisely and lead prosperous lives. Venezuela is a tiny American country with tremendous oil reserves, and the people there mismanage those resources and the people are starving. What gives you confidence that the Socialist model that seems to work in the tiny group of homogeneous Scandinavian countries will work in the rest of the world (particularly the New World) where leftist policies have led to an endless string of disasters.

@BD66 centuries of stability...and the European countries including the Scandinavian ones are all Parliamentary Democracies not virtual dictatorships. Most of them are also Monarchies, that way the Head of State is not a politician, the same as in the UK. Prime Ministers never have the power to become Autocrats in the way Presidents of Republics do. Take DT as a case in point....trying to overrule the votes of elected representatives by executive order, That just couldn’t happen in a Parliamentary democracy, especially not in a monarchy.

@Marionville

So comparing Scandinavia to Latin America and South America

Centuries of stability vs. Centuries of instability
Democracies vs. A long history of dictators
Weak Heads of State vs. Powerful Heads of State
Heads of state have little power to become autocrats vs. Heads of state often become autocrats.

Socialism in Scandinavia is really a generous safety net, not state ownership of industry. Can you see why the Scandinavian model for Socialism might work OK in Scandinavia but why Socialism has been a disaster in the Americas?

@BD66 "s9cialism" as administered by "leaders" full of rapacious greed and nothing else except maybe murderous intent to any opposition, as in much off South America, can hardly be compared go True Democratic S9cialism and it is Ridiculous to even try! What is wrong with ypu?

@BD66 I really feel you are not listening to me....you were the one that decided Socialism couldn’t work. I merely pointed out that it does if it is applied properly, and used the Scandinavian model to show that it can and in fact does work. The brand of Socialism you refer to is closer to a Communist Dictatorship. We have had many Socialist governments in Britain, none of them resemble the Cuban or Venezuelan models. Try reading and reasoning instead of sticking to your preconceived notions.

@AnneWimsey Correct. I don’t know why some of your countrymen find it so hard to grasp.

@Marionville

You are not using the conventional definition of Socialism. You are taking a few Scandinavian countries with generous safety nets and a high standards of living, calling that Socialism and declaring Socialism to be a success, but here are the most common definitions of Socialism:

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

The Scandinavian Countries do not meet any of those definitions.

Instead you should say "A few Scandinavian countries with generous safety nets"

[merriam-webster.com]

@BD66 Did you not read my first reply where I talked about Social Democracy being the bridge between pure Capitalisn and pure Socialism. Don’t treat me like I am an uneducated hick. I’d wager that I know a hell of a lot more about the different definitions and degrees of Socialism that there are practised in the world than you do, having lived lived and worked in many countries which have had Socialist governments. I don’t need your American dictionary to define it for me. Most of Europe has had some sort of Socialist government at some time in the last hundred years, not just Scandinavia.

@Marionville What is your definition of Socialism? That could be part of the international factor which you deserve credit for bringing up. If people in the USA are using a definition of Socialism from the Merriam Webster dictionary, and whenever that definition has been tried in practice, it has led to disaster almost every time, and people outside the USA are using a different definition of Socialism that is not so toxic, that could explain why Socialism is a dirty word in the USA and not so overseas.

@BD66 I think we are finally getting somewhere! You are correct....there is the crux of the problem. USA and U.K. have a language in common but not a common language! That also goes for dictionary definitions...there is sometimes a disparity.

@Marionville It could be a difference between a word and a political party. In the USA, Democratic is viewed as a positive term by most people, but not for roughly half the population when they think of it in terms of the Democratic party. Likewise to someone in the USA Socialist is someone who believes in Socialism:

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

and not someone who agrees with some or all of the Socialist party platform in one of many countries.

That's possible, but not true for my facebook friends. My conservative facebook friends are much more likely to post conservative things than my liberal friends are to post liberal things.

Interesting Stats:

Conservative Atheists 147 Members
Trump Pinata 756 Members
Leftists 167 Members
LGBT+ 431 Members
Conservative Atheist Singles 79 Members
Gun Control Now 314 Members
Progressives and Socialists 501 Members

It's clearly an issue of numbers, There are many more left leaning people on this site than there in society at large.

Mmmmm.... I really don't think that's it.. Conservatives discuss this stuff just as much, but perhaps less of a 'in your face' way. When it comes up, they'll talk about it. They don't go around attacking people with 'Feel the Bern' shirts on.. On the other hand, it's not safe to wear a MAGA hat in certain areas for sure. Conservatives are much less likely to wear their political feelings on their sleeve.

@Captain_Feelgood riiiiiiight, all I have seen on the news is MAGA-hated idiots hitting people in the streets.....

@Captain_Feelgood Really?? I've been verbally attacked by conservatives for sharing my progressive views. I've been called stupid and uneducated (I'm neither) just for believing that the wealthy have an obligation to pay more in taxes because they take more from our resources than they contribute. I've never done the same. I don't engage in personal attacks and I often just back off from hateful discourse rather than further damage old friendships. I can't say the same of my conservative friends and acquaintances.

Hahahahahaha. No. Conservatives are waaay more likely to be loudmouths AND assume that everyone else shares their regressive "values".

@OpposingOpposum From my experience, I would say conservatives are way more inclined to be loudmouths with their facebook posts. Liberals are way more inclined to engage in group intimidation tactics on college campuses.

@AnneWimsey Strange.. All I ever see is the exact opposite. I see people wearing Maga hats getting attacked all the time, but not the opposite.

@AnneWimsey, @GinaMaria And I get attacked for having conservative views.... mostly here though. Imagine that.. ?

@GinaMaria It's kind of a silly claim actually... I just googled ''attacked for being anti Trump''.. and all the reports are of Trump supporters getting attacked... ??

@Captain_Feelgood I'm not speaking about physical assault. You may forget I'm in Arizona, but it's trump country here, so speaking out against him definitely sparks heated arguments.

@Captain_Feelgood REALLY? Than maybe you should watch something besides Faux!

@AnneWimsey And you should watch something besides CNN and MSNBC. ?

@AnneWimsey Mmm, no, just get a different perspective from time to time. I like to tune into CNN and MSNBC once in a while to see if they ever even try to give a balanced view of issues. I have to admit, 99 percent of the time they don't. But at least I do check them out to see what they're saying. I at least try to keep an open mind and give them the benefit of the doubt. But, I guess that's asking too much of you. Good luck with that bubble you like to live in. Oh, and good job having to resort to name calling. It says volumes about your level of intellect and self control. Cheers

@GinaMaria Ive been told how stupid and uneducated I am numerous times by people that often did not even finish high school or barely passed.

They wear their bad grades as a badge of honor but I'm the stupid one.

@Lucy_Fehr I like to get my news from newspapers, as when you are listening to a stream of words you cannot stop & think critically.
Why do you ASSume education level is some kind of bellweather of intelligence? Drumpy & all his family, plus hangers-on, all have degrees..

@AnneWimsey Why do you ASSume I do?

Just because I did not include a disclaimer saying that a college degree does not determine intelligence doesn't mean I think it does. I don't recall which post of hers I was responding to but clearly it reminded me of willfully ignorant rednecks telling me how stupid I am for not thinking as they do. The irony of a high school drop out telling someone else they are stupid ya know?

No a college degree does not necessarily equal intelligence but in my previous post the people I spoke of absolutely did not finish school or had bad grades they bragged about. These were people did NOT want to learn anything back then and do not want to learn anything now. They are everything negative about the redneck stereotype.

In middle age, they are still bragging about failing classes or dropping out when they get together to brag about how cool they used to be/are.

But here is a bit more context: I grew up in the culture; I dropped out of school to have a baby at 16; I got a GED a couple of years later; I spent a lot of time at the library and checked out books on any topic that captured my interest before the www was a thing; I didn't get my degree until I was in my 40s but people who didn't know me from childhood assumed I had gone to college. I still seek out information on a myriad of subjects for no reason other than curiosity.

I chose to be educated long before college was an option and they could have as well; they lived in the same town with the same resources or better than I had and didn't so I feel 100% ok with talking shit about them.