/atheism/ - Atheism

No

/thread

I feel like every other post here is a christfag looking to muddy the waters and playing falseflag.

But you can't say they're wrong as ultimately we don't know. But as far as specific religions that spout of really eccentric events, you most definitely can have a valid opinion that it may likely be wrong to you.

But of course, some do good for humanity without trying to inflict their religion which may not appear to be whole-hearted truth to us. People can be respectable regardless of (non)religion, race, etc.

Next…

I always found it funny that machiavelli believed in God, (and called piousity a virtue), and then immediately said virtues won't help you rule a kingdom. He was a frighteningly based man an Italian would have had to respect in his day.

Adam Smith seems to have been a deitist.

Wiki lists several rich people as Christians, although I'm sure they're wrong. Gates and Slim are both agnostic. Maybe whoever wrote the article counts Catholic baptism as an indicator of your religion forever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion#Religious_beliefs_of_the_wealthy

>>12012

Hi. I started this thread.

I really am an atheist. ( of course, you have no reason to believe that)

I just like asking thought provoking questions.

sorry if I provoked you personally.

I have this thing about questioning peoples beliefs to see how they think…

>>12017

You're not questioning beliefs, you're asking for beliefs favorable to a certain ideology. Seems a disguised 'hey guys, i know you don't believe what we do but give us a hug to confirm our how much you like people that believe'. It's hugbox shit, just like /christian/.

On reflection, Adam Smith might have been a closeted Atheist, since he derides superstition and Gods. I thought differently because he praised the church for allowing men of letters to arise, which he called a noble profession. However, he also says the church created Universities as coorporations to meet their own ends though.

I think the only way to know for sure might be to read his Genealogy of Morals carefully, and believe me, Adam Smith sucks at writing. Sometimes I want to shake him, so he would come out and give his views rather than being sly and elusive in his 670 pages of rambling essays.

>>12015

>>12020

Ok, so pardon me for misinterpreting. I also used to be christian and I've done things that I felt inspired to do, sometimes kind things to people that, in hindsight, I was better off leaving them to their own devices because empathy only helps so much for some people.

The inspiration to help those people cost me in the long-run so I probably take it out on christianity sometimes. And this was advice my family and pastor gave to me. In before 'they weren't true christians' fallacy.

But anyway, I think keeping this grain of humanity alive, to have sympathy for those down on their luck, is definitely valid for a healthy society. After all, it's hard to be happy if your neighbor's not happy, that is unless you're a true sociopath. I don't think we need positive or negative conditioning from religions or gods to keep this alive. I'm still just as giving as I was when I was a christian, fortunately and unfortunately when I'm being too trustworthy when I shouldn't.

>>12025

If you do that at least leave the IDs, and possibly the credit cards. It's expensive and a pain in the ass to replace those (gotta line up at the DMV, etc.) Usually that (and identity theft) is what bothers the guy who loses the wallet the most, not losing whatever measly amount is in the wallet.

https://imgur.com/a/JRbQt

>>12025

Whether we like it or not, life has a stupid tax. If you do stupid things that hurts yourself or others, you usually wind up paying in some way. I think sometimes for people to learn about real life it's best to represent how life really is.

If it was me I'd give it back, especially if it was a younger person or elderly. I endorse Machiavellian tactics because that's how a lot of life works underneath this sheen of superficiality, but I do still have this grain of humanity and forgiveness.

You'd not be punished for that unless you were caught, that's the 'stupid tax' part. But you can't be too evil because you become more of a target and you will get caught. I think anyone of decent intelligence knows you can't be too evil because of that nor too good, because people take advantage of you.

Also this notion of "good" person, "bad" person is likely a vestigial trait from religion or early upbringing. In the big boy world, the only thing keeping a man from what he can or can't do is what he can or can't do. Same applies with nations. And what keeps those things moderated are inherent functions of society, not religion. You'll notice societies without religions or many formal rules, usually smaller tribal societies, still function just as successfully because of inherent universal laws. Research Game Theory or this related video. People still keep in check regardless of artificial rules.

But I'm not a nihilist. I think for your own good and others, we're better off learning more Machiavellian tactics rather than how we want the world to be. To me, as a compassionate person, so I'd like to think, I'd rather people know the cruel rules of the game sometimes rather than the ones I want to implement but of course I can't because the universe has its own inherent, sometimes unfortunate rules.

>>12027

Society is about more than just what you can and can't do, it's connected by circles of trust. All business deals fundamentally rest upon the strength of someone's word. Even in countries that follow the Rule of Law, there's no guarantee that if you loan money to someone they will keep their promise and repay you rather than hiding it and telling the court they have no money.

>Research Game Theory

Machiavelli basically wrote game theory, except he used the language of the Renaissance. One of the central points of Machiavelli made is you're supposed to behave one way, while acting another. You want to create the impression you are capable of being generous, while actually being McScrooge. (Because if you are actually generous, it creates an expectation, and soon you won't have any money. Whereas if you save money, you can use its power in an emergency.)

Similarly, you want to create the impression of being righteous while being without moral scruples.

He also said you need to be capable of being ruthless when the situation calls for it, or well-mannered, because if people learn they cannot trust you you cannot make treaties. He says you should have no scruples with breaking your word when the situation calls for it, but you should endeavor to make sure no one knows about it, or any of your other "sins."

A lot of this can apply to brand management for companies. Lot's of companies want you to think everything is organic, made locally, and their workers are treated well (even if the CEO is a billionaire.) Chick-fil-a (a fast food chain), and IKEA want you to think being a family run corporation makes them more trustworthy than hundreds of family run corporations (including Walmart.)

http://familybusinessindex.com/

There is always uncertainty about whether you can take anyone at their word..it's one of the reasons I'm nervous about making friends with businessmen or lawyers. They know the rules of the game and can legally backstab you more efficiently, and even if they are generous to you when you're in their circle, there is this hypocrisy because they're probably ripping off the wage-slaves to shower affection on someone who doesn't need it. To play the game well, they have become the most openly nepotistic and hypocritical people.

>>12028

By "can or can't do", of course I mean it's dictated by trust and other societal functions. I don't just mean what you physically can or can't do. Other powers can be employed to change just what you can or can't do such as trust, part of your social power, how much people can trust you.

I'm not really too intimidated by businessmen, lawyers, politicians and such. They're playing the same game we are, they have their own niches to exploit, you just have to find them to balance the power. Influential people tend to be vulnerable to at least as many as they influence, which can easily turn on them.

But I'm probably sounding a bit too pretentious here. I don't have life figured out either, no one does. I just like to share what I've learned and read so far in my life which has consisted, ironically, of asking what life is supposed to be about, therefore not enjoying much of my life as I should've. I think a lot of us on any forums about religion, morality, etc probably waste more time on the meta than actually enjoying life. Then again, it may be worth it if you actually enjoy discussing the metas of life.

>>12010

There seem to be Atheist figures that aren't worthy of respect. Fortunately, the worst ones tend to flock to Feminism and cease to represent Atheism.

>>12033

Very true.. One's belief in the supernatural doesn't seem to correlate with their moral character.

(I consider this to be evidence against the existence of god)

>>12015

Machiavelli was a republican writing a Monarchist's manual in a time when the Medici had taken over and ousted him from his post in Florence. The Prince is a satire about how monarchies are tyrannical by necessity, not an endorsement.

>>12035

Whatever label you slap on Machiavelli, it doesn't mean his writings aren't still valid to this day. Even now his words can be refreshing, at least the little I've read. Most of the conclusions he draws are ones I have after being fucked over enough in life and reflecting on life choices. Though I do kind of disagree with him that it's better to be feared than loved. When you rule out of love, even in your weakest times you'll have followers just out of loyalty with the added bonus of not having to watch your back so much.

>>12033

Why don't people just ignore them instead of giving them the attention they want? I'm tired of hearing about feminists. I probably hear more whining about anti-feminism in my circles than I hear about from fems whining.

>>12036

> Though I do kind of disagree with him that it's better to be feared than loved.

Well he was a realist. His point in that section was that above all a leader must be feared and respected. Machiavelli would always back up his threats, and would not draw a red line and then turn away as Obama did.

He said a man who loves you might still betray you for money, or to improve his standing, but if he fears you he'll think twice. If he fears you and loves you, that's even better.

I don't get the impression Machiavelli would be a fan of democracy, given he talked about how much easier it is to control a centralized government, and how decentralized governments always leave an opening for a foreign power to exploit. (He hastened to add that a country used to freedom is difficult to occupy without endless trouble though.)

Isn't it hilarious how Machiavelli called Moses one of the greatest leaders in history (to have led a nation through the desert?) The poor chum doesn't seem to have realized he was fiction, even though he spends a lot of pages talking about the relationship between religion and the state, and the failings of the Vatican's leadership in bygone eras.

>>12038

I'm sure ever major leader has backed down from something at some point or had their bluff called. You might lose a little bit of respect but respect isn't very tangible. Myself, respect doesn't mean a whole lot, as long as I get by in life but of course it does lead to greater social power which I barely give a fuck about, of course most leaders and a lot of people do.

But while you mention it, I have mentioned Machiavelli here before and I have to admit he is the only religious figure I can think of at the moment for his views on dealing with people which tend to be very practical methods.

>>12039

*only religious figure for whom I respect that I can think of at the moment for his views on dealing with people.

Fixed.

>>12016

of course there are. where is your sarcasm?

being wrong about some things doesn't render you completely wrong about everything.

In the West there simply were no atheists in the modern sense of the word at least starting from the Middle Ages and until the beginning of the Enlightenment, or if there were some they were not prominent, or they were killed, or erased from history or never expressed their atheism for fear of being killed. Even in classical antiquity philosophers that might have been atheist are uncommon.

This means that there was a time when all the great people were theist of some kind. thinkers, artists, etc.

And although atheism and skepticism in general keep gaining prominence, specially among scientists, theists still form a big stupid chunk of the human population so it is not unreasonable to find a fraction of them doing great things in parallel with atheists

>>12015

As an active Wikipedian, for the last months I have attested a religious hijack in many of the articles discussing the links between religiosity and other traits. Someone is adding arguably sourced sentences and paragraphs in support for the religious, but it does so in a way that disrupts the Wikipedia neutrality policy.

As for the wealthiest, I don't care what they belief because what matters is the correlation of general populations. It doesn't surprise me that swindlers make lots of money. I despise both Gates and Slim and many others on that list. They would appear in my list of the most unethical celebrities alive, including Zuckerberg who is undoubtedly Atheist.

All sources I have read say Slim considers himself a Maronite Christian, and even though Gates I think did called himself agnostic once, he has updated this claim to look more like a non-practising Catholic Christian.

>>12016

he actually inferred them and correctly modelled the basics of genetics, however the evidence came from James Watson, Francis Crick, et. al. It is an analogous case to priest Lammaitre and Edwin Hubble.

>>12017

well, I think you just asked the obvious. Most people here, probably all, would honestly answer your OP question with a yes.

>>12025

there's no rationale to blame atheism for your ethics.

the fact that you would have done differently, probably more morally, when you superstitiously believed that you would be punished doesn't make religious ethics valid or superior. It just shows how naive and baseless religious ethics is.

>>12037

This. I'm sick of the same "what did they do now" videos/posts. I don't care.

If you don't like certain person don't follow them. Life is much better if you don't rage about things you can't change anyway.

>>12036

The problem is some redpill retards use Machiavelli like a proof. Same with the phrase "Cui bono". They turned it into someone did get a profit by a event so he did it. If you don't have evidence then you are just a cynic asshole who is sometimes right but wrong in most cases.

https://philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973

Checkmate atheists.

>>12061

Sure.. but Churches are considered charities.

I give money to my private club where we all get together, sing songs, and pat each other on the pat for being club members..

Why is that good? Better yet why is it tax deductible to give money to my club house to get a better sound system and basket ball court?

>>12053

Carlos Slim was born a Maronite Christian, and I wouldn't be surprised if he just pretends he still is one because he wheels and deals in Mexico. He doesn't seem religious, and his aphroism is "Charity doesn't solve anything." I've heard he isn't very religious and doesn't talk about it to his friends. I can't confirm it though, because there's not much about his life in English, and I can't read Spanish.

Bill Gates married a Catholic and eventually started going to church with her. He once said "There are more productive uses of a Sunday," and we can surmise he thinks theology is bullshit. It's likely he goes either to please his wife, for the social interaction, or because he now works with philanthropists.

>>12061

A lot of that is due to tithing/guilt. Many of the richest men turned philanthropist have been Atheists or irreligious. Andrew Carnegie thought religion was nonsense, but he gave away a much bigger proportion of his wealth than Rockefeller. If Carlos Slim really is a Christian, it appears that the non-religious tend to give more away.

>>12061

Church is tax exempt and the staff is paid in donations. Most churches beg you to give your hard earned money to people who may not deserve it. That just shows you how much church goers are cucks.

>>12066

>they doesn't seem religious

might be true, or might be your perception. Wikipedia can only report what reliable sources say though, even if it's the biographical subject lying about his own beliefs

>>12215

could be a banner

>>12061

and they are the ones causing more evil too.

look at the correlations between religiosity and crime

Wade davis