/atheism/ - Atheism

>>12279

Can you name some? What's the difference to normal reactionaries? Alt right?

>>12281

pretty much modern reactionaries who want to go back to to pre enlightenment days

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment

Essentially people who unironically like Evola, catholic philosophy and social Darwinism.

>>12282

Well atm I don't see a problem with them and I can't see them getting more popular. One reason is that they are at odds with each other. Some prefer monachism but you can't sell that to american neo-reactionaries. Catholics probably fight against protestants. Basicly everyone has an own (false) idea how the good old times worked.

>>12282

>rejects egalitarianism

Well they got one thing right at least. People aren't equal and shouldn't be treated as equals.

>>12289

Worship nothing. Be free.

>>12279

I actually like some aspects of the Right wing.

Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I don't value traditional values.

>>12288

What exactly do you me by this? Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the same legal rights or just no to economic equality/socialism?

How will determine who is worthy and who isn't?

I'm one of them. We Nietzschean aristocracy nao.

>>12296

My issue is with this:

>Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth

There is no way we're equal in fundamental worth. Someone who can do brain surgery is worth more than someone who can just do menial labor. Both can do menial labor but only one of those two can do the truly skilled task of brain surgery. Having greater ability is like an added beneficial feature, it's always worth more.

I think people should be given the opportunities to prove themselves on equal grounds, there's no better way to make an assessment than when the confounding variables are controlled for. But lets not delude ourselves with this notion that all humans are of the same worth.

>>12299

Also consider someone like a serial child molester, their existence is detrimental and are of negative worth.

>>12299

>I think people should be given the opportunities to prove themselves on equal grounds,

So you believe in rule of law. The contradiction is that the elite have more influence to create rules that disproportionately favor themselves, and they create institutions and laws to protect their own interests at the expense of the less fortunate. Some of their interests are of questionable merit, such as protecting their spoiled brat children, or creating dynasties of inherited wealth.

>>12302

No I don't believe in the rule of law. Laws are manmade notions that are meant to be greater than individuals. I don't think there is anything greater than the individual. We're all above the law, just most impose it on others. So it's individuals imposing their ways on individuals, as soon as that stops the law is dead. It's not like physical laws which govern the universe, it's human imposing his/her way over another fellow human.

Now it's true that society has this structure that the ruling class is favored. But such is society. Society is inherently authoritarian, with kings, dictators, political parties, corporations, or commissars at the top dictating the rules for the masses. Sometimes they let the masses pretend they have a voice to keep them happy but it's trivial. Just like with the push for economic equality while the ruling 1% keep gaining larger and larger fractions of the wealth. As far as I'm concerned society should be a stepping stone, not a ditch as the elites would like it to be. Society promises freedom while it functions through dependence. Only when we can be fully-autonomous as individuals are we free.

I'd consider myself a classical liberal.

The general alt-right I disagree with sometimes but can respect. Those being conservatives who hate what conservative has come to mean. We're more alike than different. But I don't find too much stock in traditional values or fighting degeneracy or whatever.

The monarchists and nrx folks however are completely batshit. Obsessed with a romantic ideal of nobility that has almost never been a reality.

>>12299

Well the problem with this has always been is how can we choose who is more worth than someone else. Is a say, bellow-average snobish, greedy brain surgeon better than say some working class smhuck who also spends a lot of time helping his community, raises his well, and is just a generally nice person to be around?

Another problem is what a society deems to be worthy is mostly arbitrary and circumstantial. In ancient Sparta being athletic, and a borderline sociopath was what the best among us were like. In medieval or early modern Europe being a noble with lots of lands and inheritance is what made a great person. In modern times being good with fiancee and business is what people consider to be the most successful. Maybe in the future being a skilled programmer to control machines will be the most important skill or trait, who knows.

Don't get me wrong its perfectly fine to say someone provides a better or more valuable service to the community is fine. Its even fair that they be financially rewarded for it, but to say that are inherently more worthy is short sided and arrogant in my opinion.

>>12357

I never said anything has inherent worth. There is no such thing, value is desire someone ascribes to something or someone else. Which is again where egalitarianism fails, it at the least ascribes a fundamental worth to everyone just by virtue of being human.

Now how to determine value is a problem but that's tangential to the argument. Given a set of criteria, the whole species will not score identically unless the criteria is simply a matter of being human. But that's a worthless assessment due to the complexity of humans, even small variation has huge real life differences.

>neo-reactionaries

>alt-right

>>12282

Even /monarchy/ hates NRx

>>12298

>Nietzschean

>returning to the dark ages

Pick one

A bunch of really deluded people who fell for naive rationalism and naive interventionalism

>>12292

if conservatism isn't a fallacy from tradition then what are the exact values that conservatives seek?

why should they always come from the past? Wouldn't it be possible that there's something good society hasn't seen yet?

At what point and place in the past you arrive to a good society? The "traditional values" from the 17th century would be considered too progressist for a family in the Pleistocene.

>>12299

equality means equality against law. no more.

Of course all persons are different to some extent, but there's no reason as for why the state should take the differences personally.

>>12303

I agree with you, but a rule of law that maximizes freedom for all individuals is pragmatic.

>>12413

I was focusing on a specific aspect of egalitarianism that assumes equal worth by virtue of being human. I'm in no way a statist, the last people I trust to make good judgements on individuals are power-hungry weasel politicians and their their crooked lobbyist cronies. Now equality can mean several things: equal opportunity, equal worth, equal outcome, etc.

It's important to remember the pursuit of equality can conflict with liberty. Such as the example of equal outcome where people's freedoms are infringed so that everyone gets the same results by in a way punishing excellence. Some trees only grow so high, if you want the forest to be of equal height you gotta chop the others down.

Laws should be the same for all or as you say equal under the law. Not only because of fairness but for ease of assessment of individuals. And I want to be free to make judgements of others so to choose to associate with the people I like and it's only fair everyone else have that too.

>>12414

Agreed