/atheism/ - Atheism

Whatever has the strongest supporting evidence I've seen that it causes the least harm first and most good second.

>Atheists like us tend to be quite left wing libertarian-

Atheists like you are the minority.

Center. But I'm as much apolitical as atheist. I don't give a fuck about politics until someone encroaches on my liberties, same with religion. As long as there's civility in a political opinion or religious view, I don't give a fuck.

Neo-reaction/dark enlightenment

>>7895

woah edge

>>7885

Personally Im slightly leaning to the right and in the middle of the libertarian scale. I don't really give a shit if people want to be gay, change their genders, be some stupid special snowflake thing they made up, as long as they don't try to make oppressive laws regarding their shit or willfully try to indoctrinate others who don't want to be like them. I like some of the change society is going though (because mixing shit up makes society more interesting), but I absolutely despise the dangerous ego and entitlement this generation has. I hate how society is once again embracing feelings over facts as Christianity is fading away.

The reason I lean to the right is because while America is corrupt as fuck, there are some elements of capitalism I like. People should be allowed to be rich or poor, because taking that away doesn't change human nature, it just makes assholes find other ways to raise up above the rest. That being said, I don't think corporations should be allowed get away with some of the corrupt shit they do in america. It's fucked up that Microsoft and Apple own some of each others stock. Internet zoning laws that fuck over upstart ISP's are also fucked up. I believe the government shouldn't be able to control stuff like "hate speech", instead it should protect the people and reasonably protect business competition. Stuff like protecting the environment should be left up to boycott and awareness. Does that count as left wing libertarianism? Does that even count as libertarianism really?

Right-leaning Libertarian

I don't really have any side to support. I support political groups when they're willing to admit mistakes when they make them.

So almost no one in politics

>>7885

I don't know, because I don't care. I am sick of people trying to pin politics to everything.

>>7920

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

>>7905

Boycotts don't always work. Not all businesses are business to consumer, many are business to business amd one large company working with another generally won't care how polluted the environment gets. Executives are taught to put aside your personal feelings and only do what is best for your company - (which is generally to make money.)

As long as it doesn't happen in my backyard, there can be oil spills or Love Canals, or superfund sites, and those companies will do their best to deny and ansolve themselves of full responsibility for the costs. Sometimes it's easier to understand if you look at the third world where large companies and governments do not particularly care about pollution. So long as they are paid enough to live or send their kids someplace else, China can be covered in toxic metals and Jakarta can be covered in sewage for all they care.

Likewise in America there has been so much lobbying by energy groups that few people care about the unknown future dangers of fracking, even though we've already contaminated tens of thousands of underground resovoirs and drinking sources since the industrial age began. Oil is already cheap, but some people want to extract it all faster, within their lifetime. I guess people think once there's all the cheap underground fresh water has been contaminated by our haste, we'll just build expensive desalinization plants on the coast and power them with FRACKING and it will all work out somehow. But our species is going to be stuck on this planet for a long time, and there may not even be another hydrated garden planet in the nearest solar systems.

It's horrible how wasteful we are in the way we extract minerals. I don't know of many mine shafts that haven't been contaminated with toxic substances, or which haven't made the ground dangerously unstable. The government prefers to just rope them off and tell people not to go there, (as they've done in Death Valley or various super fund sites), kicking the problems we created down the road. It's the same way we prefer to bury our waste in landfills rather than forcing people to recycle everything in the way that Japan or Korea do. American culture is focused on the short term, and its business and government practices reflect this.

>>7920

Oh communism was tried, it just ended up turning into authoritarian because it's impossible to maintain anything resembling communism for long. At least in a large society anyways. Native Americans actually seem to have had something working that resembles communism.

>>7951

Communism works in small groups because people know each other and thus can care for each other. On a larger scale where we reach the limits of who we can know and befriend, known as Dunbar number, we stop caring about the rest because they're strangers. Thus to make us care about strangers authoritarian measures need to be taken.

Another example of small communism-like societies working: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

Socially liberal and financially conservative objectivist

>>7952

That's how I see it though I couldn't have summed it up so succinctly. It also works better in more homogenous societies.

I'm a right-wing atheist

I don't want to be in any political groups, I have my own opinions for everything, also I never voted.

>>8220

>I believe in stealing things from people to give them to people who did nothing to work for it.

This is the christfag shit that made America a welfare nation for niggers.

Fuck off.

>>8220

I believe in the right to survive, at least once you survive childhood. We should provide for people to have a place to sleep, food to eat and preventative health care regardless of your ability to find work. Sure there will be hippies and moochers, but I would prefer more od that system. People would still be motivated to pain to work for status, power, luxury goods, altruism, friendship, experience, and the love of the game.

But there is a balanving act, and it does not have to be a simplistic false dichromy of pure capitalism or pure communism like Americans like to paint economics. I am in favor of income redistribution, and also a smaller government since that fosters competition. However there is an important exception - big businesses must be broken up or have their income redistributed so they do not approach the power and corruption of a large government. There is synergy between democracy, transparency, fair competition and economic growth. I support freedom from nepotism, in government or business, and believe in creating true meritocracies once a person's basic needs are met.

Likewise I prefer smaller nations because they allow for more direct governance and competition. Large countries tend to act like complacent monopolies and find it easier to extort their lesss privileged neighbors rather than being diplomatic and innovating for wealth. Switzerland is one of the most ideal countries because it is closer to the Athenian ideal of direct democracy. It is a country that became rich through innovation, despite being geographically disadvantaged and landlocked in the mountains.

I understand the economic law that when the government becomes involved in the marketplace corruption is the inevitable effect, (and the UN as the largest government is naturally the most corrupt.) But large companies are just as unethical, and unlike with the government you can't vote out the leaders of big companies that trade with and rely on one another more than the consumers. Some claim large companies are more meritorious than small companies - and perhaps corporations are during the hiring process, but behind all those policies are people at the top who circumvent everything for nepotism on personal preference. The only difference is because their company is larger, they have more capacity to waste when they make errors of judgement.

The goal of a government that favors competition instead of paying lip service to Adam Smith, should be encouragement of small companies, and ease of starting new businesses. Laws should be enforced, and laws must be fair, few and simple.

>>8227

I prefer a meritocracy where the best and the brightest rise to the upper echelons of society.

>>8232

I assume you prefer autocratic/top down management over bottoms up governance? The later is becoming more in vogue in the Western world, because it is believed to enhance productivity in individualistic societies.

>>8235

I'm actually a Libertarian and believe that people play on unequal footing but colleges should be the balancing factor, but they're not at this point. This is what I hope to fix.

>>8287

>education

Private education is a cross between a system designed to keep the elite in power, and University trying to fleece it's students. Those who can afford an education are given mentorships and are taught the rules of the game so they can better fleece their fellows.

Education is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough to combat inequality. There are plenty of "BS" (bullshit) degrees, and average and lower-tier universities have become diploma mills. Uper-tier universities are more exclusive, and having goof grades isn't always enough.

There will always be hard-workers who lack common sense , even if they could be educated. These people have to subside on the droppings of the rich, (and the rich are not usually empathetic as I'll explain later.)

The luxury brands favored by the rich are frequently a collosal waste of our resources. Many times the new rich will buy an expensive product on the assumption it must be worth more than an identical product that is cheaper. It's all about branding.

Or they buy an expensive product to show off, or keep up with their rich neighbors. (A few real estate agents like to justify it, saying if they don't drive luxury cars they won't be respected by their clients. To the extent that is true, society should change to encourage people to give respect upon a person's creative merits, or taste, rather than the thickness of their pocket book.)

Studies also show those who are born rich lack empathy, unlike those who are born poor or those who rise up from being poor. The rich have often had success easier than they realize. They say "I'm rich. If everyone just worked they would become rich like me."

Obviously this is self-serving and diminishes the effect of luck. If you ask they if they were poor they will say yes, because mom forced them to work minimum wage one summer. Or because they had to cook bean buritos as a student in an house they owned, while renting a room out. Then they got lucky and now they attribute more of that success to their own efforts than to external factors.

(There are terms in psychology that describe this tricky phenomenon. Whereby if bad luck happens to you, you tend to attribute it to external factors in the enivironment, but if good luck happens to you, you attribute it to your own personality traits. Conversely, people tend to attribute the successes of another person more to their personalities traits, and diminish the role of the environment.)

>>8290

>Private education

By this, I assume you mean collegiate education, correct? Or do you mean private schools? Or if you're a brit, public schools?

>is a cross between a system designed to keep the elite in power, and University trying to fleece it's students.

Assuming you are talking about colleges, then yes, I agree. However, that doesn't mean that the system itself is flawed, just the execution of the system.

>Those who can afford an education are given mentorships and are taught the rules of the game so they can better fleece their fellows.

I doubt that, because those who can afford an education go on to become doctors and such and are thus too busy to worry about fleecing people.

>There are plenty of "BS" (bullshit) degrees

Defined as?

>average and lower-tier universities have become diploma mills.

The problem? These places have bad reputations from the beginning and thus jobs are less likely to accept diplomas from those locations.

>Uper-tier universities are more exclusive, and having goof grades isn't always enough.

I agree, it's become more about money than it has about skill, and that needs to be fixed, but the government would rather bloat the military budget rather than nationalize some of these colleges, not all of them, mind you, just some.

>There will always be hard-workers who lack common sense , even if they could be educated.

That's true, and that's a problem of environment and genetics than it is a problem of economics.

>These people have to subside on the droppings of the rich

I don't see this as a problem, this is why the minimum wage was put into effect, though I believe that it should be abolished.

>The luxury brands favored by the rich are frequently a collosal waste of our resources.

Those luxury brands actually put money into the economy and decrease the prices of many if not all items on the market, this is how deflation works, and deflation tends to be very good for poor people, and very bad for rich people. Inflation works the other way, and it's usually poor people who cause inflation.

>Many times the new rich will buy an expensive product on the assumption it must be worth more than an identical product that is cheaper. It's all about branding.

Does it cost more? Then it's worth more.

>Or they buy an expensive product to show off, or keep up with their rich neighbors.

Why does this matter? When rich people blow their money on stupid shit, it's putting that money into the economy which benefits poor people. What you should be complaining about is hoarding, which causes inflation and puts a fiscal burden on the poor.

>A few real estate agents like to justify it, saying if they don't drive luxury cars they won't be respected by their clients.

They actually won't. I have been refused many business deals because I wear a cheap suit. And I understand that, I agree with it. Don't hate the game though, hate the player.

>Studies also show those who are born rich lack empathy

I can believe this. Though I don't see what this has to do with poor people.

>The rich have often had success easier than they realize.

Not all rich people are born rich. being rich isn't a constant, it's a variable.

>They say "I'm rich. If everyone just worked they would become rich like me."

I have never heard a rich person say this, the only people I hear say this are poor people oddly enough.

>There are terms in psychology that describe this tricky phenomenon. Whereby if bad luck happens to you, you tend to attribute it to external factors in the enivironment, but if good luck happens to you, you attribute it to your own personality traits. Conversely, people tend to attribute the successes of another person more to their personalities traits, and diminish the role of the environment.

Yes, It's called attribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_%28psychology%29#External_attribution

>>8291

>is there is an illusion of fair play that the rich, government, and our education syatems prop up that narrative because it serves them. They don't want you asking too many questions, or making too many demands.

I agree, but this is equivalent to saying that every single Jew in the world is part of a Zionist conspiracy to take over the world. A select few of them, to be sure, but not every Jew is involved.

>In reality many of the rich are constantly stealing resources that would benefit society

I might agree with this depending on how you define that. In the case of a manufacturer, they make a product that people need, so they are benefiting society by making money from them, which they then put into their business and other facets of the economy. It's a cycle.

>Moreover, you are unlikely to become rich without 1) a good background 2) favorable chance 3) engaging in legalized stealing or profit mongering

That's just not true. I doubt Sam Walton did any of these things, or Bill Gates for that matter. They got rich by giving people what they wanted.

>Once you have wealth you will inevitably waste tons of resources by allocating them poorly in your ignorance.

That money doesn't vanish into thin air, it goes to someone who then puts it back into the economy rich or poor.

>One of the reasons Japanese car companies were historically so successful

Was that they made better cars, regardless of how they did it. The end goal is that they made better cars.

>in their arrogance

The correct word here is ignorance.

Why do you try so hard to malign the rich? Not every rich person is evil. Sure some may be, but it's not in their money. Whatever they spend their money on, goes back to the economy. That prostitute that that rich businessman bought uses her money to buy a crib for her child, or a candybar at the corner store, or an ounce of cocaine from the dealer around the corner of the corner store. And those people don't burn the money they get, they put it back into circulation. If you want to see why our economy is so ill, look at people who save their money. These are the true villains. It's strange how doing something so smart could endanger the wealth of everyone.

Line 1 typo: I meant "doctors are becoming upper-middle class, and are no longer upper class"*

>>8355

>but the best way to become truly rich is generally to take the greatest risk and enter entrepreneurship

I wouldn't say it is a risk as even a sub-par business is still usually stable.

>I think doctors are a bit of an exception though.

So what are the other exceptions?

>Why else would you see so many incompetent sons promoted at their parent’s companies?

And their incompetence makes the company crash.

>Even regular people might oppose smoking, but look the other way when their mutual fund invests in tobacco if it’s profitable to them.

Who opposes smoking?

>I just don’t see how these 6 people’s happiness justifies the enslavement of nearly half of America’s population.

What enslavement?

>These heirs were born into wealth, probably isolated, and probably don’t particularly care about the rest of us.

As I have said before, wealth isn't static. It is a dynamic factor.

>>8365

>I wouldn't say it is a risk as even a sub-par business is still usually stable.

I meant that most peoples' first businesses fail. In fact, 60 percent of start-ups on average ultimately fail. However, if a person tries a second time to start a business their chances of success increase a lot. If a person has money, they can therefore throw the dice more times.

>So what are the other exceptions?

That's a good question that deserves an answer, although I can't think of any at the moment. One problem is when you stop caring about making money, you become more likely to be taken advantage of and less likely to become rich. The managers, bureaucrats, and so forth quickly take advantage of the money those inexperienced with business are leaving on the table.

>Who opposes smoking?

Christians. Certain states, or Hong Kong in public places. The federal government also taxes cigarettes. Warren Buffet said he doesn't own stocks in Tobacco but he likes the industry because it's addictive and safe.

In other words, the opponents are those who consider it a social evil, and certain governments that believe it will result in higher medical costs for socialized medicine.

>What enslavement?

Incredibly low minimum wages relative to the developed world, and little chance of vertical mobility, or even horizontal mobility for many individuals.

>As I have said before, wealth isn't static. It is a dynamic factor.

This is technically true, but money isn't static either. If you have enough money invested, it can grow faster than the rate of inflation. If you have even more invested, it can grow faster than the rate you spend it at.

It can therefore sometimes take generations for that advantage to go away completely. And if you are wealthy enough and frugal enough, you can live off of the interest of your asset, and then pass it on, which results in generations of old money.

There are privately held companies that have lasted for hundreds of years. The queen of England would still be rich even without the government stipends. Forbes estimated a few years ago her private assets to be around about £275 million pounds.

>>8410

>I meant that most peoples' first businesses fail. In fact, 60 percent of start-ups on average ultimately fail.

I believe fail in these instances usually means that the company wasn't turning a profit or a profit that could sustain an overhead at least.

>One problem is when you stop caring about making money, you become more likely to be taken advantage of and less likely to become rich.

Why would this be?

>The managers, bureaucrats, and so forth quickly take advantage of the money those inexperienced with business are leaving on the table.

That's how anything works, if you misuse something, someone will do it better than you and make a profit.

>Christians.

Perhaps where you are. Where I live, the majority of Christians here smoke and out of the 9 atheists and 1 "agnostic" I know nobody smokes. Except the "agnostic", he smokes weed, does that count?

>The federal government also taxes cigarettes.

The government taxes a lot of things.

>Incredibly low minimum wages relative to the developed world, and little chance of vertical mobility, or even horizontal mobility for many individuals.

That's why we have unions.

>This is technically true, but money isn't static either. If you have enough money invested, it can grow faster than the rate of inflation.

And that money still "goes" somewhere. It doesn't vanish.

>Forbes estimated a few years ago her private assets to be around about £275 million pounds.

Assets are not money but the worth of things that are not money, such as property.

>It can therefore sometimes take generations for that advantage to go away completely.

That all depends on the economy.

>>8421

>You must have mistaken that for a heart attack.

>>8421

Everything says a post scarcity society mix.

>>8437

>post-scarcity

>non-fiction

Pick one.

I was raised catholic with general pro-market views. I abandoned catholicism in late teens and pro-capitalism in my early adulthood.

But one thing I never abandoned was my deep despise for marxism. It makes no sense from head to toe, and not only that, they get in the way of science. I have no patience for feminists saying it's all nurture and no nature, I have no patience for the politically correct police bashing on anyone slightly suggesting the idea that blacks might be less inteligent, I have no patience for fags who want to claim that the causes of faggotry shouldn't even be discussed because you should just tollerate it. [b]I have no patience for relativism of any form, I deeply despise marxists/post-marxists for this.[/b]

Few days ago I was reading that "against philosophy" paper from Weinberg, he told the case of a sociology department who studied the social interactions of physicists in their labs for some months and in the end concluded that since the way physics was practiced and what should be investigated next depended on the social interactions of physicists then that meant that our understanding of universe was actually reflection of their power structures and personal interests happening in physics departments, then they went on to accuse physics departments of being patriarchal, exclusivist, etc. As Weinberg commented, the problem is that these loons actually have the power to influence politicians and cut down science budget.

So I'm in a situation where I don't particularly believe in anything, but I know what I dislike and what I must fight against. Dunno if that would make me a right winger, guess it makes me a "reactionary".

>>8444

You sound like a Libertarian. Good on you.

>>8467

This forced cuck maymay makes no sense. What is even funny about it?

>>8467

>what is law of conservation of mass/energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

>for something to be scarce, something must be given up, or traded off, in order to obtain it.

At best we can meet all our needs with self-sustaining, self-repairing automation. And we totally should. But as soon as we want something new we'll have to trade our time, materials, energy, etc to obtain it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

>>8467

As long as products require time and energy to make there is going to be a limited amount.

>>8469

I know m8.

>the woman who he was with cheated on him!

>events beyond his control are a reason to laugh at him!

>never mind that him being a cuck is the result of a woman's actions; women have the right to choose what they do and the right to not be responsible for their actions!

At least Anthony Burch specifically is humorously pathetic.