Other than atheism, what worldview/framework/school of thought are you

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
Other than atheism, what worldview/framework/school of thought are you

I tested Satre

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nordic Fox's picture
I'm a staunch socialist. I

I'm a staunch socialist. I believe that communal well-being can only come from cooperation and sincere assistance for people who are less able by those who are more able, and that people deserve an equal chance. Birth has nothing to do with who a person is, or how useful that person is... Nobility are simply people with better circumstances by default at birth, nothing more.

I also despise the system of capitalist-driven economy... It undermines democracy by giving power to those with more money, and leads to the misconception that people with money have more influence on society than those who preserve life, safety, and personal freedoms of the citizens living within a country.

As it turns out, this is another reason religion disgusted me from a young age: christianity alone promotes being happy with ones' circumstances, and never questioning anything involving economics. "god made you the way you are/as rich or poor as you are/you should be happy", and oddly enough even jesus had said "a rich man could get into heaven no easier than a camel could get through the eye of a needle"... This is roughly saying "Be happy that you are poor! A great afterlife awaits if you don't try to make money!"

So rich people retain power through religious grip, capitalist grip, corruption in places like the US congress.... I would gladly fight capitalism in any way I could.

I value people more than I value money, and yet I live in a country that values money over people. I'd like to see this change.

**addendum: I do not, however believe in helping those who will not help themselves. I don't want people to get the wrong idea, there. I just think it's wrong for someone to do something useful (firefighter, soldier, teacher, social worker), and yet have to live in squalor... While people who do next to nothing (politicians, ceo's, celebrity actors/singers/artists) make millions of dollars and waste it on unproductive, harmful endeavors like supercars, drugs, etc etc. It's wrong, and I don't abide by a society that accepts these people.

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
I actually think entertainers

I actually think entertainers do a lot for the economy. For one thing, they work stupidly long hours at variable rates, for another, sustained creativity is a tremendous strain on a person, and thirdly, we do need that relief or social commentary sometimes to get over how bad life ls

cmallen's picture
You make a good point, VPT.

You make a good point, VPT. Still, there's no excuse for Paris Hilton.

Nordic Fox's picture
Except that (successful)

Except that (successful) entertainers make three to four times that of what a normal working-class person makes.

Celebrities, popular bands, sport players (at the pro level), and now youtube video junkies make exorbitant amounts of money, for little or no effort on their own part. And if they only made, say $8 an hour, successful celebrities make a killing off of royalties from endorsing ads for companies.

If all successful actors made only $8/hour without royalties, then I'd take back what I said. As it turns out though, the only starving artists tend to be stage actors, painters, garage bands, unknown stand-up comedians, etc.

They are all very good at their art, but they make next to nothing.

Not to mention economy-wise, most celebrities do not contribute except to the specific companies that hired them, the products they endorse, etc. etc.

I say "most" because there are good celebs who do actually contribute, or even better encourage contributions without royalties to organizations that do help... Bill Nye for scientific education, Robin Williams (previously) for children's hospitals, that one country singer for veterans...

I just don't abide by the idiotic theory of "trickle down", that by allowing <10% of the population to retain 90% of the wealth somehow benefits us.

Rich people don't shop at Wal-Mart. Rich people shop at Italian stores for high-price imports that don't benefit American workers. Rich people buy European cars, not Ford F-150's.

My point is... It's silly when other people do more for their community (teachers, soldiers, cops, firemen, students) than any entertainer does long-run, and many people enjoy entertaining without being paid to do so: therefore it's crazy to keep things in the rich vs. poor status quo.

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
do you want to get paid 8

do you want to get paid 8 dollars an hour? you make it sound like it is somehow their fault when it is usually the market that sets the prices. Also, being an entertainer is incredibly stressful, believe me, I tried multiple fields, so you cannot claim it requires little or no effort. Many entertainers also have no job security and no not get paid per hour but instead get paid per project. this is nothing but crab mentality, where simply because one is of lower position in income, that makes a person believe they and everyone else will benefit by bringing those of higher position in income down, instead of bringing everyone up.

Nordic Fox's picture
Even better: I've had no

Even better: I've had no choice but to make $8/hour. To stand on a damn freeway and make sure people don't kill themselves by driving 90MPH on sheets of ice, or where the road has buckled.

But you're totally correct: I should be happy that some yuppie, drug-addict superstar does 30 hours worth of work and makes ten times what I've made in my LIFE.

Why would I ever be mad about that? So silly of me to question the neo-nobility.

Vincent Paul Tran's picture
because cutting their wages

because cutting their wages won't magically make your wages go up

Nordic Fox's picture
There is no excuse for their

There is no excuse for their outrageous wages in the first place, you're missing my point.

[Edit]: Here's a clear example for you. If garage band A sells album 1 and it sells well (people buy 1,000,000,000 albums) and they make a royalty, great. If they put in the work to do good things, fair enough. What I oppose is that band A will then sell product B (or endorse it) and make an additionally exorbitant amount off of product B as well as album A, and they only make money -from- product B because of their success! If any band could do this, I'd have no problems. But as it stands.... Only people who are filthy rich gain mass wealth -because- they have massive wealth to begin with! They have insurance, stocks, they have product, they have net worth, networking with other wealthy investors, etc... If all my shit goes under, I have nothing. There are no programs to help me, no courts that would say 'student loans can be bankrupted in an emergency', no free cars just waiting for me.

And I strongly disagree with your misguided statement: "lowering their wages will not raise yours", you're half-correct. It won't raise -my- wages, but if you chop the enormous wages of single, high-tier workers and distribute more of that same capital more evenly, everyone in the company/production makes more money in the end, and will likely be more willing to work harder and make the company more profitable in the end! There is no reason, absolutely no reason that anyone should make 5,000,000 a year, when the person at the lowest-rung in the company makes a measly 18,000 a year!

A-list movie stars (hell, B-list movie stars!), sports stars, university basketball/football coaches make exorbitant amounts of money for essentially the same damn thing, and yet they also have access to royalties on any works they publish, songs they sing/record (depending on a record company/copyright), ad sponsorship and company cameos for extra income....

I'm not angry that millionaires are millionaires. I'm angry that millionaires continue making millions of dollars, doing pitiful amounts of actual 'work' as compared to people who risk their lives on a daily basis, waste their whole lives serving others or learning just to make their jobs possible make next to nothing.

Maybe I'm talking to the wrong crowd here, but I for one never feel "Happy" or "Hopeful" when I can't afford a $400 fucking fix on my car, and someone drives by in a Bugatti that's only 3 days old, because their old one was dusty/they gave it away to a friend/relative/etc.

If you honestly tell me that you can work a job where people who do far less than you, in safer environments, with more connections to have better job security than you and bigger financial safety cushions....

I'll simply call you a masochist, dude.

Aren't you happy that P. Hilton, J. Beiber, Donald Trump, the 'Kardashians', Kanye West have more money individually than you ever will have in your life?

I never said I had to be a millionaire, but if we (WE, collectively, pay attention here pal) spent the same amount of money elsewhere.... The distribution would benefit a far larger number of people.

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
Ok. Let me pivot the

Ok. Let me pivot the conversation. Government dipping its hands into people's pockets is usually a bad thing. There can be a case made that we need taxes to keep museums open and shit, but America was more soccessful at helping the poor when the government did not actively help the poor. The theory goes, this created a vaccuum where generous peple of all socioeconomic backgrounds helped each other.

That's all I'm saying

P.S. Unless someone is The Butcher of The East, I'm happy said person is wealthy. I plan to steal any ideas I can from them and game the market until I can crash the system and make it reboot at something closer and akin to communism :)

Nyarlathotep's picture
VPT - "but America was more

VPT - "but America was more soccessful at helping the poor when the government did not actively help the poor."

I understand someone probably told you that and you are just repeating it; but I don't think that is true.

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
ok sure, various social

ok sure, various social programs are beneficial at the very least in the short term. But when you rely on another for your subsistence living, you aren't going to live a financially secure life

Nyarlathotep's picture
VPT - "but America was more

VPT - "but America was more soccessful at helping the poor when the government did not actively help the poor."

The current poverty rate is around 15%. The poverty rate when social security was introduced was around 45%, with the majority of seniors living in abject poverty. So no, America was clearly not more successful at helping the poor when the government did not actively help the poor.

The question I have for you is: who told you this lie, and why do you think they told it to you?

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
this misconception is common

this misconception is common for people who have a polarized view of politics. Just because one solution is better than a bad solution does not make the good solution the best solution

That's the best way I can describe it

P.S. social darwinism and trickle down "economics" is proven total bullshit.

Nordic Fox's picture
True... And I derail things

True... And I derail things and fly off the handle a little, I admit. But when I see anyone driving a Lamborghini when I can't even afford new tires working full-time.... It just makes me want to spit on their car, not admire their success....

I'm not against people getting money for hard work. But the people that get away with hedge-fund loopholes, stock exchange plays, ad revenue in addition to sponsorship and endorsements from companies, or CEO's who get $5 mil a year, and fire 40 people to keep their wage up.... THAT is what I'm against.

In modern life, American income when placed on a graph is very, disturbingly disproportionate. I made rather bland/broad arguments rather than concise ones.... But the bottom line is when 10% of the population makes/holds 90% of the nation's capital resources....... That's just wrong. That's very close to the feudal system, a few nobles with all the nation's wealth who lord over a massive number of poor.

That's what makes me mad... Not really that Charlie Sheen has more money than me, or has more success... It's just that the money Charlie Sheen (good example?) makes goes to drug-dealers, not drug-stores where we work and shop... Ya know?

Anyway, I fully, completely endorse stealing ideas from the rich! We're bombarded with corporate ads everywhere we go, at all times of the day.... So who's to tell us we can't use those ads/ideas to our own benefit?

And though I do agree that governments digging into people's pockets can be a bad thing.... You tell me where else you expect roads, schools, and so forth to come from? Private companies? They gouge us in such a way that would make any government blush! lol

Basic phone plan? $30. Groceries? Lets say, $75/week. Rent? $700 for a 1-bedroom apartment. Drive a car? Tires $230, insurance $500/6 months, registration $72 every two years, utilities? Gas $70/month, electric $37/month, water $22/month, garbage service $20/month, internet $70/month.

Oh, you only make $1200/month? Why can't you afford this bill for $576.00 for your car fix? Oh... You don't live where you can bicycle to work? What's wrong with you?

By-in-large though, this only fuels my disgust with christianity, as it openly endorses remaining in poverty.... A stupid obvious ploy to get peasants to enjoy their lot in life.

Matthew 19:24, Jesus said: "Again I tell you, a rich man could get into heaven no easier than a camel could get through the eye of a needle."

Funny.... I wonder why there are so many millionaire christians, then? Either they know it's bullshit, or...

Anyway, I don't want to be filthy rich, myself.... I'm just tired of rich people assuming "everyone can afford this/that/the other! Because I can, surely they can!" ....It's horse shit. I'm just tired, angry and frustrated honestly. Be well!

We don't need a gov't to help the poor, we need a gov't who keeps corporations from BLEEDING the poor dry!

And if that was a Hillary jab, I dare you (seriously) to tell me how many people died (including non-combat contractors) fighting a war we didn't need to fight during the administration of "W" that put us over 5 Trillion in debt when we had a surplus before... And people worry about 4? And they act surprised that an embassy was attacked? Embassies in the Middle East are exactly like a 7/11 in the wrong end of town... It's just a target waiting to be attacked, it's only a question of 'when', not 'who's at fault'.

Vincent Paul Tran's picture
I have my own beef with

I have my own beef with finance. I majored in it close to the finance capital of the south, and saw first hand what a rigged market it is. I agree with Bernie Sanders on this one - make finance boring

cmallen's picture
"It's wrong, and I don't

"It's wrong, and I don't abide by a society that accepts these people."

Accepts? More like fosters and glorifies. Even negative publicity pays off.

Nordic Fox's picture
So very true! Your earlier

So very true! Your earlier example (P. Hilton) is a dead-center version of "being stupid and famous pays big bucks" haha!

I'm lost on the popularity of people like her, the duck dynasty people, reality TV shows (which are all staged and scripted), etc. etc....

Kataclismic's picture
Beautifully written NordicFox

Beautifully written NordicFox, I share every point.

Nordic Fox's picture
Thank you! (months later... I

Thank you! (months later... I need to be on this forum more often!)

cmallen's picture
I share pretty much all the

I share pretty much all the sentiment expressed above by NordicFox and would probably label myself socialist if asked politely. However, I do have days where I couldn't give a damn about other people. My inter-social leanings swing between great empathy and a desire for total social equality and justice, and borderline homicidal misanthropy (sometimes not even pausing in the grey area between the two).

As to worldview, I don't know if I subscribe to any particular school, but I usually start any serious thinking building on the foundation of the assumption I have that humanity will be short-lived and inconsequential in the universe; and that the universe as I perceive it is a mere fraction of what really is there; and that whatever I think the universe is probably is a mere fraction of whatever reality there might be. Then I temper that with the realization that I'll never know any of these assumptions are even close to the truth and all I have is me, right now, in this place, and I might as well get down to enjoying myself while it lasts. It works for me so far.

Nordic Fox's picture
I wish I could agree twice

I wish I could agree twice lol

(I thought I was the only person that had compassion and empathy, but suffered from occasional borderline homicidal misanthropy)!

Then again, I really love the teachings of Plato, who seems to have had similar misgivings and observations of Greeks in his own time....

"I am ashamed of all Greeks, that I may be one since grown Greek men remain ignorant and illiterate despite capacity to become educated, while in Egypt children at a young age learn arithmetic and grammar through simple games, and already show themselves more capably educated people than our own." -Plato, my favorite grumpy old philosopher

Vincent Paul Tran1's picture
personally, I believe life

personally, I believe life will find a way to endure past the age of the universe, that life probably being human

Nordic Fox's picture
"Life... Finds a way." -Dr

"Life... Finds a way." -Dr Malcom, Jurassic Park

Fictional movie, but true sentiment. There are bacteria that survive in extreme pressures/temperatures on Earth, with an absolute lack of food for 99% of their lives.

If that doesn't prove the strength of nature/life, I don't know what does!

Travis Hedglin's picture
I'm... Boring. I don't think

I'm... Boring. I don't think I have anything so exciting that I would consider it a worldview, I just deal with reality as it presents itself, and don't worry about shit I don't need to.

Nordic Fox's picture
That's a way to survive, I'd

That's a way to survive, I'd say that makes you smart, not boring lol

Travis Hedglin's picture
My hobby is saying mean shit

My hobby is saying mean shit to stupid people online, it is hardly exciting or uncommon, and I made a twitter where I lost more followers than I gained. I just chalk it up to people not really wanting, or being able to handle, a persons unvarnished opinion.

Nordic Fox's picture
Nahh, I think modern people

Nahh, I think modern people are just too sensitive.

We (as in people such as you and I, atheists, agnostics, non-conformists, intellectuals, and those without "politically correct filters") are akin to today's versions of Socrates and Plato....

The problem isn't our lack of filter, it's our inability to tolerate idiocy, and the increasing number of idiots in the world only frustrates us more. So who's to blame us for lacking filters? If the trend continues, we should be honored as heroes! Throughout history, the true minority has stood true, regardless of changing trends and tides.

So stay strong, man. And I say keep that filter off, if people get offended... So be it. They must learn that you can't tread on people and expect them to be kind in turn.

Just remember my hero, Plato once said something like:
"I am ashamed of myself, and of all Greeks for the state we are in. Whereas Greek men now (back then) are vastly illiterate and lacking in skill of arithmetic, Egyptians as young as mere children are learning games... That teach them to be fully adept at language and quick with arithmetic before even adulthood! What a shame Greek men bring to Greece, should they refuse to change this!" (At least I think it was Plato?)

Travis Hedglin's picture
Well, I would have to agree

Well, I would have to agree about peoples sensitivity. I spent the better part of an hour explaining to someone the biological, anatomical, reasons behind why men sit with there legs wider apart than women, just to be called a transphobe and misogynist. I supported self-defense courses for all college students, regardless of gender, just to be called a sexist. I was told my comment for them to "fuck right on off" was harassment of a sexual nature. Subsequently, I lost access to my account for almost a week.

I am not quite sure what the hell has happened to people lately, they seem to have all gone insane at the same time, and truth now takes a backseat to feelings and personal experiences. I had thought when people became less religious such mind-draining stupidity might finally be abolished, but it seems they are now in the employ of people who claim to be secular, yet don't seem to have understood the concept of skepticism in the least.

Nordic Fox's picture
Yeah... I see frightening

Yeah... I see frightening parallels to the book 1984 and the movie 'Idiocracy' in our world today. I hope people wake up from their techno-stupor and smell the proverbial toast burning.

In any case, be well!

Travis Hedglin's picture
I am finally simply telling

I am finally simply telling people that if they find me offensive, then they should quit fucking finding me. :)


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.