/atheism/ - Atheism

>>7021

Because tardrtarianism is the only ideology that would prevent that, right?

>Why does Atheism and libertarianism often go hand in hand?

Libertarians are the type that don't like government interfering and regulating their lives. For better or worse that is.

It makes sense they would also not want a celestial government ruling over them either.

>I hate libertarians, and the fact that other Atheists worship that shit makes me want to vomit.

I'm not much a fan of Libertarianism either. I think it's a bit too simplistic and its economic aspects are doomed to fail.

That being said, atheists hardly worship Libertarians. Libertarians maybe but most atheists I've seen can only be described as social libertarians at best.

>It embodies everything that's wrong with this shallow, self-righteous generation.

I think instead of Libertarians you would better be saying social justice warriors. You want to talk self righteous do you not?

>Most Atheists I've known have no desire to be a part of society. They aren't involved in their communities, and I doubt they would care.

That sounds like something that can describe most of 8chan to be honest. At least outside of GamerGate.

>They aren't the type of people to go by "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". These people are the "few", and so they support the ideology that caters to them.

That in of itself is a bit of a simplicity especially since they don't believe the government should be regulating the lives of citizens, the latter vastly outnumbering the former.

>not all atheists are like that

>Shut the fuck up,

Calm down there, big red.

>I know that not all atheists are like that. Anyone who has experience with other Atheists will know exactly what I am talking about here.

Except you sort of did.

"Why does Atheism and libertarianism often go hand in hand?"

" Most Atheists I've known have no desire to be a part of society. They aren't involved in their communities, and I doubt they would care. They aren't the type of people to go by "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"."

You're the one saying that atheism and libertarianism are going hand in hand while most others likely wouldn't. How many prominent atheist libertarians can you name? Penn and Teller are the only ones I can off the top of my head.

>The whole "fedora wearing libertarian atheist" stereotype exists for a reason.

It came from cringy bullshit in Reddit and was perpetrated further by both SJWs, the religious, and some of /pol/ because they all have a beef with atheists.

>It just sort of makes me sad how Atheism used to be represented by scientists on the T.V.

When? Who?

>and now, because of the internet, it's being represented by whatever fucktard has a video recorder.

That's not a very nice thing to say about Thunderf00t, Aronra, DonExodus, CoolHardLogic, ArmoredSkeptic, etc etc etc.

>>7023

For whatever reason the formatting is really off when viewing this on the main page or at least that's what's happening with me.

Instead of in the thread. The entire bottom half is all in green despite not arrows. Click the reply and read this in thread if you're getting confused.

Well I'd call myself Libertarian-leaning but not a complete libertarian.

I believe people should have as much reasonable freedom as possible as long as they aren't truly harming anyone, that's all.

I never met a single libertarian in my life but some atheists. This seems to be an exlusively American phenomenon.

Could it be related to the collectivist aspects of many religion or the fact that large parts of the contemporary left in many western countries abandoned their traditionally anti-ecclestical/theist stances?

Daily reminder that we are being raided by /christian/

Do not fall for the bait.

Sage and ignore

>>7034

Let's not do that. While it's good to be a bit weary, let's not become like /pol/ or /int/ and try to think rationally. Maybe it's a raider, maybe not.

I am still working out my views. I hesitate to call myself a libertarian since I am more of a socialist. My major may have been in Business but my views are almost anti-business, since I don't think most businessses can be trusted to do the right thing. Especially large one which become impersonal machines.

As an American I favor more regulation, though if I were in a socialist country I might favor relaxing laws and income redistribution. I favor rewarding small businesses, not large ones. It's the small ones that innovate the most and treat their employees the most like family.

Well I think most athirst dislke unnesary

>>7017

>fedora wearing libertarian atheist

Fedoras were typically stereotyped as left-leaning white knights. How it got shifted to libertarian muhsoggyknees is beyond me.

I am probably stereotyping based on Stephan Molyneux but I'd go with it being a neurotic avoidance of authority. There really are some people who are atheists as a form of rebellion. Even if they know logical reasons to doubt God, what I'm talking about is the initial reason they became atheists. If you really became an atheist because you don't like sky daddy and you don't actually process those feelings properly, all the logic in the world is nothing but rationalization. And if you have that kind of attitude toward God of course you'll look at the State that way. And anything else you perceive as a seat of authority, like the scientific community or unions or whatever (varies by personality and level of knowledge)

Alternative explanation sourced from my memories of when I was a Libertarian (am now libertarian as in on that side of the spectrum vs. authoritarian):

People tend to project their own traits onto others to fill in gaps in their knowledge of those people (individuals and groups). This is especially true of psychological traits because you're less likely to see direct evidence to contradict your preconceptions. The result of this is that most people are under the implicit impression that everyone else thinks like them. The best example of this I can think of is the way some individuals don't seem to be able to grasp that not all men are attracted to women. It also applies to more abstract things like the way people interpret information or stimuli. This is why you get angry nerds arguing about their favorite movies. People who disagree with your interpretation are betraying your assumption that others see things the same way you do (aside from being a shortcut this behavior is also typically a source of validation).

All that shit applies to the topic the following way:

Atheists tend to be more logical than the average person. Being more logical doesn't necessarily mean they're free of psychological quirks like the one above. Some atheists follow that behavior described above. To rephrase that, they assume that people in general are more logical than the average person. Follow? What's happening here isn't a lack of reasoning; it's a lack of empathy. You think not everyone's as smart as you (and you're not necessarily wrong), but you don't fully understand the implications of that statement. This is how we get the asinine assumption of rational behavior in some economic theories. The same applies to laws. You're a libertarian because you think that other people can be convinced to behave reasonably and for the benefit of society without the State using force to make them pay taxes or providing a disincentive to commit crimes.

Oh fuck. Not gonna retype this, but I'm using the general "you".

>>7078

>Implying China is more Libertarian than Japan.

>>7078

>implying bribery is more common in more libertarian societies

>anecdotal evidence

>I personally want to live in a society where the rich don't have immunity from the rule of law

>implying libertarians want a society where they do

>anyone with "excessive wealth" is a robber baron

>all these implications

>I know better than to trust such robber barons to ever become philanthropists. If they ever do it, it will be because it is in their own self-interests,

>Then I realized most of that philanthropy stuff in America is a smokescreen so people stop criticizing the rich for not giving away all the money they sit on which they skimmed from workers' salaries.

Okay, so let's say that rich people are only ever generous to keep people from criticizing them for not being generous or because it's in their self-interest. Would that be a problem? The only reason the government ever does anything good is so people will continue to vote for whichever party is in power.

>>7089

>but theyre still giving even if they do it so people stop bugging them

Half-assed Philanthropy, where you give a small percent of your wealth away every year and then give twenty billion or something to your princeling kids when you die is not the ideal. Income redistribution is much fairer, since in my experience whenever you see a park or something that the rich have built, it's just the tip of the wealth they are sitting on compared to if they had been forced to give more away or pay their employees fairly.

When ordinary people have money they can do things like get an education, be happy, or start their own restaurant without saving for twenty years and taking some loans, and generally pull themselves up.

If you are rich in the third world you almost certainly didn't earn through innovation, but just stealing and ripping off the disadvantaged, and polluting… If you look at the major companies in the third world they have brought nothing new to the world, no new products, no new drugs, no starbucks franchises or ipads.

The corruption perceptions index, and HDI show what a great place Chinese cities are for the businesses that don't give a fuck about anybody. And I do think it's more libertarian than Japan which has a lot of silly laws. In China the laws don't apply to you if you're rich.

When someone contradicted me to say Japan was more libertarian, you were probably thinking about censorship which isn't even as bad as Westerners think. Most of the censorship is similiar to the self-censorship Christians follow when they refuse to read Atheistic literature. You can still circumvent a firewall in China with a vpn and read the English wikipedia or news sites, but fear and a lack of curiosity keeps people from it. People prefer ignorance and simple lives of video games and shopping over getting a broader education.

As long as you obey on certain politics, China's business world remains open as the wild west. By contrast you can't even open a large store in Japan if a lot of local small shops veto it to the city, because they have a law that prevents walmarts, costcos, and megastores from coming and wiping out the tens of thousands of mom and pop retailers.

Regulations make it very difficult for a foreign company to set up shop in Japan compared to China. In China if you have a few well connected Chinese friends, which all business people do, you can have a business visa, and a license in no time at all. Just be sure to gift fruit baskets and such to certain officials on holidays, to keep things running smoothly, and you can ignore all kinds of regulations that only exist on paper.

It's more libertarian than western countries if you are rich (and therefore connected.) You can pollute the sky and build a park on the roof, speed, and bribe everyone. You can even hire thugs to beat competitors.

>>7078

I felt for you until you said one single thing:

>And I prefer a culture where excessive wealth is a source of embarrassment

That is VERY destructive thinking, and it only enables bad things to happen, and other types of evil people will take advantage of this mentality to take away others rights and put themselves on top.

You've seen what SJW's do. And with that you still believe stuff like this is good?

There shouldn't be a culture that prevents rich people from getting rich, there needs to be one that keeps them from abusing their so much.

>>7017

You need to get raped by the biggest dick available then because his needs outweigh yours.

Although I do agree with you on libertarians. Objectivism is the right way to go.

>>7099

There are different levels of "rich." It is nearly impossible to become very rich without doing unethical things like taking unfair advantage of the disadvantaged, lying or cheating. You can become wealthy enough by hard work and clever thinking but that is often not enough when people by nature have unlimited greed. People get addicted to the game of making money and they tell themselves I allowed more worthy of it than the guy I am ripping off - just because.

There must be an amount of wealth where all people would say without am doubt no one deserves that quantity, much of it you must have gotten by happenstance or cheating others, and if you are allowed to hoard it will be wasted, or squandered, or the power it gives you will corrupt you.

>>7072

Oh I suprised more people didn't notice that and avoid that blatant shitpost.

>>7997

That's a lot of bullshit opinions you have there based on nothing. Some people create products that people like a lot, so they become rich. They sold something that people wanted, I don't see the unethical part.

>>8003

How about where they lay their employees or 3rd world suppliers pennies to become so insanely rich? Or by crushing your competitors In unethical ways.to create a self serving monopoly which you then maintained. Or doing stock manipulation, or cheating other investors or shareholders, say through through a leveraged buyout. There is a huge difference between making an honest modest profit and the barely checked avarice you commonly see, but most people are simply not aware of the extent of things, or how the truly rich tend to become so. My idea is simply that you cannot become very rich, say a Bilionaire, without taking advantage of people you should have had compassion on. Just look at the horrible business practices of Henry Ford and his automations, or of Andrew Carnegie who basically ran sweatshops until be felt a pang of guilt and built libraries for philanthropy. His later actions doesn't mean it was ever right him Andrew to have become rich in the way he did. I think his employees would have been better off with more money to make smart decisions rather than him throwing it at libraries with his name on them. They hated his guts.

Without regulation we revert to Upton's book "The Jungle." I'm fact you see annual scandals in our food supply, ever year, like ecoli, or mad cow disease. Often they are even in the meatpacking industry which shows how little we have come since that hundred year old book was written sometimes, but people have just accepted that American growth hormone fattened beef/veal will taste inferior to Australian grass fed cattle. A couple years ago someone filmed a guy forcing a wounded and obviously sick.cow into the slaughter house which is supposed to be against the law, but the profit of grinding up a diseased animal into hamburger patties was.too much to pass up. Sometimes it feels like America is barely a notch over China, and the USA is often just a feel good agency.

Usfda not usa is a significant enough typo to point out. I am on a phone and autocorrect accounts for half of any typos I may make. Proofreading, scrolling, and copy-pasting is difficult with android and I am always afraid that if I wait too long to submit a post for a proofread, I might lose the post due to a misclick or the limitations of this device. It has happened before, so I implore the reader to bear with the childish typos, duplicated or misplaced words, and words that sound like a different word was intended. As long as the gist of the message is conveyed that is enough, and I accept there will always be a loss of information in communication, even if there were no mistakes in transmission.

>Thinks atheism and libertarianism go hand in hand

Lets see, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong, atheism+, SJWs…

>>8011

Most SJWs are actually religious, and atheism+ being actual atheism? Good one.

>>8012

I don't see how you could construe this as Libertarianism. I see nothing to do with it here.

Though, as a Libertarian, I think that the christfag store owner should be able to do this. In fact, most Libertarians do.

>>8013

>Most SJWs are actually religious, and atheism+ being actual atheism? Good one.

If you count feminism and SJW as a cult, then sure, most SJWs are religious.

>I don't see how you could construe this as Libertarianism. I see nothing to do with it here. Though, as a Libertarian, I think that the christfag store owner should be able to do this. In fact, most Libertarians do.

Not understanding obvious sarcasm over the internet.

>>8017

Hell, in pretty much any civilization, from the Mayan kings, the European monarchs, the Egyptian pharaos to the Japanese emperors, the rulers derived their legitimation from being the descendents of divinity until the European enlightenment gave birth to secularism.