Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

[gaffo]

Precisely correct. It's a void, a null, a mere negation.

yep

It's Nihilism.

no, i hate Nihilism personally.

I wasn't talking about what you like or don't like, gaffo. I was only talking about what Atheism, as a one-precept, negative ideology, makes it rational for a person to think.

That's an important distinction. One can make certain statements about Atheism that one cannot ever make about Atheists. And this is because Atheism, if it were really believed by anyone and lived out consistently, with all its rational implications, would simply issue in Nihilism.

In contrast, all Atheists I have ever encountered, including people like Marx, Freud and Nietzsche, do not live out a consistent Atheism. Instead, they take back into their belief system something that Atheism itself does not rationalize -- like historicism (Marx), morality (Freud) and hierarchy of values (Nietzsche).

In other words, then, there's no such thing as an Atheist who lives Atheism. There are only those who talk about Atheism, but live out some hybrid belief that incorporates Atheism's negation of God, and perhaps its implied denial of moral authority and ultimate meaning, but usually little more than those things. For the rest, they look to some other ideological package -- often Socialism of some kind, but not always. They always need a secondary ideology to supply what pure Atheism does not rationalize for them.

Lived Atheism is total Nihilism. And that's the implication of what we agree on below:

Immanuel Can: It's an ideological gelding: it has no fruitfulness in it. No good thing comes out of it.

gaffo: agreed.

ok.

it insists on imposing itself on people who may want to believe other things.

bullshit,[/quote]
Do you mean you suppose Atheists are happy to leave all other people believing in God? [/quote]

yes, of course, i do and assume most others do too (as i sated before, even in Saudi Arabia, 1/5ths are Athiests/Agnostics) - and IMO have no problem with others beleiving in Allah/etc.......that they must remain silent in their unbelief out of fear of jail/death is sad statement upon thier governments in said lands.

Dawkins certainly isn't.

Dawkins is a media whore, book sales/etc, he has never offered any wisdom.

there is a sizable minority (and by next century "We" will be the majority globally IMO) that are like you and other "Believers" (of any Faith) - some bad, but most good folks, just living our lives - and if living in shitlands - in hiding (all the millions of Atheist/Agnostic Arabs today have to do ). I'm thankful i live in a Western Democracy so no fear in my life over my Atheism.

But do you think that when people say "I'm an Atheist" they only want us to understand they hold a private disbelief? Or do you suppose they are trying to say, "I don't believe, and you shouldn't either?"

i think you equate the Dawkins/loudmouths - with the rest of us 98-percenters who are the silent majority of Athiests.

i.e. our identity is not fixated upon our atheism, we have other personal codexes, for me its universal humanism _ i cannot speak for other Athiests - but assume most of us are like me, we are not "athiests first" - but just persons that do not believe God exists, with other things that take precidence per our identity.

as i think most religious folks due (leave out the rabid tribalists that welcome hell for all others - forever for the heathens.

the last thing i wish is for anyone to become an Athiest

I think that perhaps that makes you unusual among Atheists.

no Sir, you show a bias, we are not all Dawkin's we don't have books to sell nor are famous.

we like you are just regular folks with no agenda.

I am not unusual in the least (at least i hope not!!!!!!!! - i hate Dawkins, if i thought most athiest were like him, id shoot myself! - lol).

Or perhaps you're the kind of regretful Atheist that Thomas Hardy the great novelist was. He decided that he disbelieved in God, but was miserable that he did.

yes, he sounds like me. I've heard the name, but know have incentive to learn more about him!

time for google.

But people cannot live with a void -- no meaning, no purpose, no hope, no future. So they have to add something.

agreed, for me it is Universal Secular Humanism.

Yes, see...this is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier. Plain Atheism is unliveable, so you had to add something positive -- Humanism -- to make it liveable. [/quote]

yes of course.

why so hostel toward Atheists?

Hostile? Not at all.

I feel no personal animus against them. It's not hard to see that their one-precept creed is not only empty, but is irrational as well, so it's really unthreatening to me. I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for the emptiness they sometimes evince. But they don't make me at all anxious, as you can tell from the way I'm "speaking." I'm feeling very calm, actually.[/quote]

good to read, you do know that Athiests are dissparaged generally in our culture yes? (not a crybaby, just sayin, i live in America, not Yeman -so i'm fine, not being a Yemani (if i were the latter i'd have reason to cry about my athiest - as i'm sure millions of Yemani are right now - in silence)

Godless, no morals etc.

And, as for misunderstanding them, as they assure me, there isn't much to understand about Atheism: it's a one-statement (dis-)belief claim, they all say. If that's untrue, please tell me.

no, what you state is true, i'm just more that "just" an athiest, i and most of "us" also have character - which is what matter, instead of which/or no - god one beleives in.

Now, I should also say that I have friends and colleagues who are Atheists, and many whom I like and respect. But I do not agree with them about Atheism. For me, there's a huge difference between disagreeing with a person's beliefs and disliking the person. I make no connection between the two, in fact.

like myself - character over right god/no god - . again, ignore Dawkins if that is your view of Athiests. he is a celbrity whore, nothing more.

i'm just like you Sir - some character, and no showboat.

as 98-percent of all Christians/Jews/Muslims/Hindus and Atheists, not trying to sell books, just trying to do the right thing and live life in peace.

Atheists have no "political ideology"

This is also true.

But Atheists are also often political people.

only media whores.

The Communists certainly are. Marx said that "the critique of religion is the first of all critiques" (his words), then provided the rationale that killed over 100,000,000 people in the last century alone. This is a good illustration of what happens when Atheism gets paired up with political beliefs.

I'm not into the "who is the bigger mass muderer bullshit (I regect your assertion that Athieism allows the greater mudering).

Hitler was an egoist with no actual faith - outside himself (he was a Pagan German nominally - survial of the fittest, but like Germanic Viking Religion), Pol Pot was a Buddist, Serbs were Orthodox Catholics, and Hutu were Roman Chatholics.


none of those political figures of Faith were limited in their killing by their Faith!

so don't give me that bullshit!

My point is simply that if it's up to "us" and we have insufficient power, then the next logical step for the Atheist is to create or adopt some existing political ideology to mobilize the collective. If he doesn't, then he is going to have to accept his own personal powerlessness -- political Nihilism -- and give up.

Secular Humanism is the proper political view.

I have no reason to suspect you're not a conventionally moral person. But if you are, then I can guarantee you're living by a code Atheism itself does not supply you.

thanks and yes, Atheism is a negation of God's existance, it is not a more nor immoral code of conduct.


- the latter is a construct of one character - and irrelivent of believe in any God (there are as many dickhead Religionists of all Faiths as there are in the Atheist camp).

no more nor less. BTW belief in "God" does not make one moral nor dissbeleive in said make one immoral.

dicks will make others pay (they hate themselves, but being cowards (and unactualized) tranfur their self hate to all others - and make life hell for the rest of us) - be they beleivers or athiest. they are the way they are due to their character! not per which god they affirm!

Latest figures put the numbers of genuine Atheists at about 4%.

ok, and Agnostics make up the rest of the 20 percent.

They've been there for some time now.

not really, much lower in the 19th century and prior.

prob around 1-percent or so in prehistory.

However, even were Atheists 99% of the world's population, it would not suggest Atheism was true; just as when 100% of the people on earth believed the world was flat, it did not make that true.

WOW - out of left field from you to me - ya. I agree.

As i stated, i do not know the Truth - i think there is The Truth, but beyond me.

i'm an Atheist due to "God not showing himself before me" - I'm not an Atheist out of some "Nighalist Faith"/war with God.

if God - which one? Vishnu - oh bummer for the Yahwists!/etc.............or if there is a (or many)Gods - maybe he/they are not moral per man's view of morality? then again - bummer.

I'm not into the "there is no God and here is why" rhetoric/theads. the "go god" threads bore me FYI.

I would welcome there being a God or even Gods - more aptly, i hope they are moral - i see no evidence of them existing nor of them being moral - but i still would welcome them both existing and being moral and me being wrong in my Athiesm.

do you understand?

I'm an Ant!!!!!!!!! my nature is too limited to waste my time upon trying to "know God/s" when my nature is too low.

I'm limited to empiricism, in this life and since "god has not shown himself to me" - i've been an Atheist since 1979.



That would be what's called "bandwagon fallacy," if we believed it did.

the concept that folks - friends (Hindu/Muslim i've made over the years who are not Christian, but I affirm as good - under Christian theology - GO TO HELL FOREVER due to not "beleiving in Christ".

If Christians have no problem with that concept, and Athiests like myself do.

That's not a fair representation, and I would prefer to challenge it; but let me pretend for a moment that you've got the Christian view right. Let me ask you, then:

It's fair, the Apocalypse of Peter was rejected for the Canon!!!!!!!!

so Hell instead of "time served, is FOREVER".


finite sin, infinate punishment!!!!!!!

that is immoral Sir!

Do Atheists (your own kind, not all Atheists) believe in justice?

yes we do.

Do you believe in the affirming of good and the retribution against genuine evil?

yes we do so.

Or do Atheist believe, in concert with Atheism, that there is no good and no evil, no justice or injustice?

no, dicks are the same percentage regardless of faith/non - so most folks are good, 15 or so percent of Christians/Muslims/Athiests are assholes.

Because if your belief were the latter, you could not possibly raise your objection against the Christian idea of Hell.

red hairing.

I object to the concept of being sent to Hell forever!!!!!!!!!!! for a FINITE sin!!!!!!!!!!!! (I'm a fucking Athiest! - so assuming the agurment via some christians that i am via pride instead of lack of evidence........ok my Pride (i sin! - Amos whole work as about PRIDE! and its one of the Seven!!!!!!!!! - there is NOTHING good about PRIDE! nadda..................so assuming i'm an Athiest due to my egoist pride (rather than lack of evidence of God/s)....................its just for me to sit in Hell FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????????????????

no, its not! -as i know you know its not!!!!!!!!!

but Appocalypse of Peter was not allowed into the Canon, so "time served" - I'm OK WITH SEVERING TIME IN HELL FOR MY PRIDE - but NOT FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(is your God too weak or not moral enough to hear/save souis in Hell rempenting?) - I'm asking YOU!!!!!!! - you are the Christian, not me - so defend a God that is either not moral/or too weak to save lost souls that repents from Hell after serving thier sentence!

they just sit there FOREVER.

I go to HELL FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why? not due to my works - i do mostly good works (like most non-Chrsitian jews/muslims/hjindus) - i go to Hell FOERVER for not beleiveing your Christ is YHWH.

so be it.

It could then not possibly be "unfair" for Hell to exist, since as per Atheism, there is no such thing as "fair." Nobody "deserves" anything, and nothing is to be expected either way.

don't be obtuse, I'm fine with serving my sentence for my sins - to be sent to Hell for a TIME.

not FOREVER though!

only an immoral God would demand a forever punishment for a finite trangression/sin.

maybe God is a dick?

I know nothing about your God nor care, i follow my conscience, and my conscience does not affirm the concept of a Forever punishment in Hell for finite sins.

and maybe you are right, there is God and He is YHWH and he is a dick and will place me in Hell Forever for my unbelief in his existance - regardless of my good works - then so be it. I am not at war with your God, if he is a dick then i'm fucked.

all i can do is hope if he exists he is not a dick. anything else is beyond my ablilty .

if i go to hell forever.

so be it.

[henry quirk]

"...I'm bustin' out."

[gaffo]

"...I'm bustin' out."

so to clarify you are not a Libertarian, but a Republican.

affirming the State to have the power of God, and so a-ok with The State taking life via Capitol Punishment.

I'm fine with whatever view you may have, but not with your claim you are a Libertarian, while affirming what NO (fiscal/nor social Lib would with a straight face affirm such for The State's Powers).

Do you reject Capital Punishment or not?

it you do not, then you are no Libertarian!

instead just another Republican denying he/she is and claiming something he/she is not.

[gaffo]

for the record i think you Henry is a Repulbican, not a Libertarian.

you have lib leanings, but at the end of the day not enough to be a legit lib, just instead a wannabee Lib Republican instead.

my take.

you are welcome to clarify if you wish.

[henry quirk]

"so to clarify you are...a Republican."

No, I'm not.

#

"affirming the State to have the power of God, and so a-ok with The State taking life via Capitol Punishment."

Where did I say or hint at such a thing?

[Immanuel Can]

"so to clarify you are...a Republican."

I've noticed that in the U.S., nobody allows you to be anything but one party or the other. And you're told that if you're not Leftist, you must be "Alt-Right." I've even had Americans tell me that when I talk about U.S. politics, I'm obligated, as a non-American, to declare for one part or the other.

This is unusual, in world politics. Real polarization. No nuance. No alternatives.

Very strange.

And no, I don't think you're a "Republican," Henry. I think you have some policies of theirs you like, at most. But I suspect you'd be more Libertarian than the GOP would ever wish you to be. So you don't fit the pattern into which they want to force you either.

[henry quirk]

...repubs/cons call me dem/pro, and vice versa; libertarian party folk say I'm not a libertarian (as they incomprehensibly lobby for universal guaranteed income); other natural rights folk claim I'm too rigid & single-minded, a purist (cuz , really, they're consquentialists); folks like gaffo, and I don't know what the hell they are, point & wag them fingers, 'tsk-tsk'ing.

Take 'open borders': I'm all for 'em, in a minarchy, not in the current welfare state. The right only hears 'I'm all for 'em' and goes bonkers, the left only hears 'not' and goes bonkers; the 'libertarians' say I can't legitimately hobble free movement even as they bitch & moan about the welfare state (and, like skepdick, promote their own version of a welfare state).

Take guns: I own one (so to some I'm the debbil), but I make no appeals to the second (so to some I'm disloyal or unamerican) and I got no time for the NRA (so some call me a liar or loop back to unamerican & disloyal).

I got no 'home' 'cept my own head.

As for America's party mentality: I don't get it. Here, in Louisisna, I'm registered as 'no party'. When I vote, I vote for person, not party, but a whole whack of folks seem to have taken a blood vow to a party.

It's tribalism capitalized on by those lookin' to rigidify, and thus get a leg up on, everyone. Damn 'shepherds' & 'sheep'. I won't be either, so I got no tribe.

[henry quirk]

Cut the goddamned umbilical already!

[gaffo]

...repubs/cons call me dem/pro, and vice versa; libertarian party folk say I'm not a libertarian (as they incomprehensibly lobby for universal guaranteed income); other natural rights folk claim I'm too rigid & single-minded, a purist (cuz , really, they're consquentialists); folks like gaffo, and I don't know what the hell they are, point & wag them fingers, 'tsk-tsk'ing.

Take 'open borders': I'm all for 'em, in a minarchy, not in the current welfare state. The right only hears 'I'm all for 'em' and goes bonkers, the left only hears 'not' and goes bonkers; the 'libertarians' say I can't legitimately hobble free movement even as they bitch & moan about the welfare state (and, like skepdick, promote their own version of a welfare state).

Take guns: I own one (so to some I'm the debbil), but I make no appeals to the second (so to some I'm disloyal or unamerican) and I got no time for the NRA (so some call me a liar or loop back to unamerican & disloyal).

I got no 'home' 'cept my own head.

As for America's party mentality: I don't get it. Here, in Louisisna, I'm registered as 'no party'. When I vote, I vote for person, not party, but a whole whack of folks seem to have taken a blood vow to a party.

It's tribalism capitalized on by those lookin' to rigidify, and thus get a leg up on, everyone. Damn 'shepherds' & 'sheep'. I won't be either, so I got no tribe.

I'm i registered Independent, due to my State's refusal to allow 3'rd party registration - Green.Libertarians are no registerable in mt state.


I hate identity politics (tribalism), and political correctness, so that leave out of the Democratic party today (I was aligned with the 70's dems - but that party move away from the melting pot ideal i value so i left that part decades ago).

I'm a liberal socially and a conservative fiscally.

also mostly - not always - but usually conservative constitutionally per understanding of valueing original intent of, and alos a stickler for affirm the Rule of Law in all lands (so if one state has a law the other does not, learn your laws and affirm them in the states you reside it).

and if you do not like the said law in your state, affirm it a the Rule of Law until you can muster the means to repeal it legally!!!!

instead of playing the crybaby - pick and choosing the laws you like and ignoring the others you don't.

-------

so in summation i view myself as a registerd indepentant liberal libertarian myself.

..........

what are your Henry?


BTW i posted a reply to weenie dog about guns and state laws (where is that thread i cant find it). he posted a question about it and i anwsered him - though sayin i was not you also.

[Ansiktsburk]

This topic interests me. What is the current consensus in the thread?

[FlashDangerpants]

This topic interests me. What is the current consensus in the thread?

There isn't one, nor can there really be one.

The truth is that there is no such thing as a Neoliberal anyway. Some people find themselves referred to as "neoliberal shills" by leftist anti-capitalist people we tend to refer to as "tankies" any time we point out that certain economic facts are best not ignored. But the tankies calling us neolibs, when push comes to shove, can only define the term by reference to supply side fiscal conservatism, which is weirdly not at all what the shills are ever proposing. This circle cannot be squared, but it isn't very important.

Handily, when we offend the right we are called other names, such as (((Globalist))) or something vaguely antisemitic to do with George Soros. But these people aren't really able to define anything much either. Sometimes I think they might call us neoliberals too.

So there we are, the title of neoliberal doesn't accurately describe anybody alive and at large in the world, but a centrist strain of largely free market folks will allow others to call us that name simply because the people flinging the term around are a bunch of populists with bad ideas and arguing with them over a name will only result them calling us other names anyway.

Either way, carbon taxes and more permissive immigration policies are good. As are social safety nets and universal insurance (health, unemployment, all that good insurance shit). But rent control is bad in a way that 'globalism' is not. And trade wars are never easy to win becasue they don't come with any winners ever. Hopefully that is a sweeping set of statements that will annoy all the people it ought to.

[henry quirk]

Welcome back...

[FlashDangerpants]

Welcome back...

I'm like a fart attached to a boomerang

[henry quirk]

Welcome back...

I'm like a fart attached to a boomerang

HA!

[Arising_uk]

...

I'm i registered Independent, ...

You have to register your political affliation over the pond?