Why do so many supposed atheists buy into the economy being a morality play?

[coloradoatheist]

Not quite. Because the belief in the free market is that it shapes over time and not a one single time.

You know what Net Neutrality taught me? There is no "free market" other than this capitalistic utopia fantasy in the minds of some. It is much like the Utopian communistic Star Trek society. It isn't possible. A corporation will try to corner whatever they can, to manipulate the market, whether it is in their own market or an adjacent market. You have Comcast that is trying to dictate the market for IP media providers.

So there are chances for the market to try things like burning their hand to find out it's painful and shy away from doing it again. One of the reasons we do have a sluggish recovery is that banks learned to be more prudent in their lending of money.

It did?

And what did happen? Comcast and Netflix reached an agreement to pay for the upgrade without government intervention. It was a blip and they found a solution.

 

[ksen]

You know what Net Neutrality taught me? There is no "free market" other than this capitalistic utopia fantasy in the minds of some. It is much like the Utopian communistic Star Trek society. It isn't possible. A corporation will try to corner whatever they can, to manipulate the market, whether it is in their own market or an adjacent market. You have Comcast that is trying to dictate the market for IP media providers.

So there are chances for the market to try things like burning their hand to find out it's painful and shy away from doing it again. One of the reasons we do have a sluggish recovery is that banks learned to be more prudent in their lending of money.

It did?

And what did happen? Comcast and Netflix reached an agreement to pay for the upgrade without government intervention. It was a blip and they found a solution.

Nice whitewash of what was basically extortion.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You know what Net Neutrality taught me? There is no "free market" other than this capitalistic utopia fantasy in the minds of some. It is much like the Utopian communistic Star Trek society. It isn't possible. A corporation will try to corner whatever they can, to manipulate the market, whether it is in their own market or an adjacent market. You have Comcast that is trying to dictate the market for IP media providers.

So there are chances for the market to try things like burning their hand to find out it's painful and shy away from doing it again. One of the reasons we do have a sluggish recovery is that banks learned to be more prudent in their lending of money.

It did?

And what did happen? Comcast and Netflix reached an agreement to pay for the upgrade without government intervention. It was a blip and they found a solution.

Nice whitewash of what was basically extortion.

And I talked about how companies do that stuff all the time in the retail business too. Slotting fees are used in grocery stores and other retail stores to put items in a more prominent place. Netflix could have decided to create their own backbone network.

 

[ksen]

Netflix could have decided to create their own backbone network.

That argument never gets less stupid the more it's repeated.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Netflix could have decided to create their own backbone network.

That argument never gets less stupid the more it's repeated.

Except its a decision that businesses have to make. How as a producer of something do you get it to your intended market? Do you sell it on Amazon, do you build your own stores, do you go to Wal-Mart, do you do mail order? Netflix is relying on its competitor to deliver it's product and and it either needs to compete or come to an agreement with its competitor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know what Net Neutrality taught me? There is no "free market" other than this capitalistic utopia fantasy in the minds of some. It is much like the Utopian communistic Star Trek society. It isn't possible. A corporation will try to corner whatever they can, to manipulate the market, whether it is in their own market or an adjacent market. You have Comcast that is trying to dictate the market for IP media providers.

So there are chances for the market to try things like burning their hand to find out it's painful and shy away from doing it again. One of the reasons we do have a sluggish recovery is that banks learned to be more prudent in their lending of money.

It did?

And what did happen? Comcast and Netflix reached an agreement to pay for the upgrade without government intervention. It was a blip and they found a solution.

You could say the same thing about the mob... just with the Internet example, it is done via lawyers.

You know, it'd be a shame if all that data of yours got caught up in the Intertubes. We just want to help you help us protect you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Netflix is relying on its competitor to deliver it's product and and it either needs to compete or come to an agreement with its competitor.

And that's the problem (and I'm not talking about the misplaced apostrophe)! Netflix is relying on its competitor to deliver its product. How many hands in the bucket can a company be allowed to have. Movie theaters are not allowed to be run by the movie producing companies. Yet, we are allowing Media companies to own the Internet pipeline? How long until Comcast buys Level III?

 

[arkirk]

Atheism is only ONE NEGATIVE in a whole plethora of issues the complex human mind concerns itself with. A person's morality is a picture of his/her preferences for human interaction. Atheism means no theistic god forms. It does not mean no conscience. Atheism is not a blindness but rather a clearing away of a certain amount of confusion and error in our metaphysical and ethical thinking. Atheism does not preclude empathy, personal evaluation of life experiences, or the formation of moral preferences. It simply removes the notion that our moral preferences should be guided by an external anthropomorphic god and that there is a god that determines what is good and bad. Atheism does not release us from ALL ERROR AND OBLIGATION TO THOSE AROUND US. It simply releases us from ONE MORAL TALKING POINT.

Ironically, human beings think much of the time as "holy scriptures" purport "God" thinks. That does not seem such a logical stretch to understand when you accept tha God is an invention of the human mind and that ideas of "god" would most likely reflect ideas of "his" inventors. We all are tasked with determining what is the right thing for us to be doing in a given situation. I frequently find myself more aligned with people who are religious than the likes of Ayn Rand, who decided there is no god and only her logic counted. I think this thread possibly belongs in our Moral Principles portion of the Forum rather than here, but it is the morals of our current power grabbing leadership that is shooting down our political system and removing both democratic legitimacy and effectiveness from it, so I guess the argument belongs here too.

 

[ksen]

The Market is real and Milton Friedman is his profit.

 

[arkirk]

Netflix is relying on its competitor to deliver it's product and and it either needs to compete or come to an agreement with its competitor.

And that's the problem (and I'm not talking about the misplaced apostrophe)! Netflix is relying on its competitor to deliver its product. How many hands in the bucket can a company be allowed to have. Movie theaters are not allowed to be run by the movie producing companies. Yet, we are allowing Media companies to own the Internet pipeline? How long until Comcast buys Level III?

Agreements with competitors of the nature discussed above are RESTRAINT OF TRADE under the law. But who cares about that old fashioned law stuff. These two companies can create an invisible partnership that amounts to a monopoly. What an old fashioned idea, but they are still trying to permanently carry the tattered old and unenforced Sherman Anti-trust Act to the ash heap. The legislative climate, with all those Republicans and neo-liberal Democrats in the mix means they just make get away with it.

 

[Archimedes]

Atheists reject the idea of supreme beings being the arbiters of morality and of supreme beings deciding if someone is "good enough" to get into heaven or "bad enough" to get thrown into hell.

Atheists also reject the idea of the capricious gods that can be found in many mythologies. And jealous gods. And lusty gods. Etc. But not because we object to the idea of being capricious, or jealous, or lusty, etc. just like we don't reject the idea of Gods because a moral objection to passing moral judgment on others.

Should atheists who reject the existence of Gods somehow object to the existence of a judicial system that decides if someone is "bad enough" to get thrown into prison?

Your point only holds water if the reason the atheists you're talking about rejected the idea of God because of the judgmental nature of God, not because they simply find no good reason to believe he exists.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The economy

The way we divvy up our stuff

is a morality play

as are our politics, our art, our social conventions.

we are what we practice.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Don't understand the question.

Let me see if I can elaborate a little:

Atheists reject the idea of supreme beings being the arbiters of morality and of supreme beings deciding if someone is "good enough" to get into heaven or "bad enough" to get thrown into hell.

However some atheists, when talking about the economy they often talk about how those with a lot are smart, good, and deserving while those with little are slothful, lazy, and not deserving.

When it comes to the economy they seem to have adopted a hyperized version of the Protestant Work Ethic.

All they've done is replace godly salvation with market salvation.

It is evident in many posts of our resident conservative atheists.

People cannot believe in those things without belief in a supreme being?

 

[ksen]

Let me see if I can elaborate a little:

Atheists reject the idea of supreme beings being the arbiters of morality and of supreme beings deciding if someone is "good enough" to get into heaven or "bad enough" to get thrown into hell.

However some atheists, when talking about the economy they often talk about how those with a lot are smart, good, and deserving while those with little are slothful, lazy, and not deserving.

When it comes to the economy they seem to have adopted a hyperized version of the Protestant Work Ethic.

All they've done is replace godly salvation with market salvation.

It is evident in many posts of our resident conservative atheists.

People cannot believe in those things without belief in a supreme being?

I'm not saying they can't I'm saying it seems weird to me. Maybe the problem is on my end and it's perfectly logical to reject invisible gods that hand out rewards based on whether we're good enough while believing in an invisible hand that rewards us based on whether we're good enough.

 

[coloradoatheist]

People cannot believe in those things without belief in a supreme being?

I'm not saying they can't I'm saying it seems weird to me. Maybe the problem is on my end and it's perfectly logical to reject invisible gods that hand out rewards based on whether we're good enough while believing in an invisible hand that rewards us based on whether we're good enough.

But you don't think there is a difference in someone reading a book compared to basing their decisions based on their actions throughout life and data they can look at?

 

[ksen]

I'm not saying they can't I'm saying it seems weird to me. Maybe the problem is on my end and it's perfectly logical to reject invisible gods that hand out rewards based on whether we're good enough while believing in an invisible hand that rewards us based on whether we're good enough.

But you don't think there is a difference in someone reading a book compared to basing their decisions based on their actions throughout life and data they can look at?

wat

 

[Archimedes]

Maybe the problem is on my end and it's perfectly logical to reject invisible gods that hand out rewards based on whether we're good enough while believing in an invisible hand that rewards us based on whether we're good enough.

What would be illogical about it? It would only be illogical if the reason for rejecting gods was because of their purported nature of handing out rewards for being good enough. How many atheists reject the existence of God because they don't like the idea of him handing out rewards and punishment for behaviour?

Is it illogical to believe in narwhals when you don't believe in unicorns because having a horn on the head is a property of unicorns and somehow the existence of other things with horns on their head should be rejected?

 

[Unbeatable]

People cannot believe in those things without belief in a supreme being?

I'm not saying they can't I'm saying it seems weird to me.

Does the idea that all human beings, regardless of whether they believe in gods or not, are vulnerable to cognitive biases, seem weird to you?

Maybe the problem is on my end and it's perfectly logical to reject invisible gods that hand out rewards based on whether we're good enough while believing in an invisible hand that rewards us based on whether we're good enough.

So you expect atheists to be perfectly logical?

Do you understand what the just world fallacy is?

 

[funinspace]

Don't understand the question.

Let me see if I can elaborate a little:

Atheists reject the idea of supreme beings being the arbiters of morality and of supreme beings deciding if someone is "good enough" to get into heaven or "bad enough" to get thrown into hell.

Or more simplified: atheists/agnostics don’t find any of the purported god(s) to be of reality. But I reject the idea of the IPU being the source of all tasty sweets just as much as I reject the idea of supreme beings in the way you state above…

However some atheists, when talking about the economy they often talk about how those with a lot are smart, good, and deserving while those with little are slothful, lazy, and not deserving.

When it comes to the economy they seem to have adopted a hyperized version of the Protestant Work Ethic.

All they've done is replace godly salvation with market salvation.

As others have suggested, atheists come in all forms of stripes and spot, much as theists do. The notion of an “invisible hand” in the economy, has little to do with notions of salvation, magic, or unearthly power when used by people who argue for economic matters with this as part of their description. Whether one uses Adam Smith’s original view of the Invisible Hand, or more modern interpretations of that phrase, it generally is just a catch phrase for describing what is consider the natural economic interactions of society.

This is a good explanation as any:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisi...etation_of_the_.22invisible_hand.22_quotation

The theory for the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all the individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole. The reason for this is that self-interest drives actors to beneficial behavior in a case of serendipity.

I certainly hope you are not conflating the term salvation (in the Christian theological sense) to the more mundane secular use of the word:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/salvation
In Christianity : the act of saving someone from sin or evil : the state of being saved from sin or evil
: something that saves someone or something from danger or a difficult situation

It is evident in many posts of our resident conservative atheists.

Ignoring your malformed notion of people believing in “market salvation”…The majority of non-theists here, tend to lean towards the liberal side of the ledger. The only group I would align with the implied meaning of “market salvation” would be the purveyors of Christian Prosperity theology, like Kenneth Copeland.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Atheists don't reject god - or gods. They hold that gods aren't real. I don't see how that correlates in the OP.

I don't see how what you've stated changes anything.

Exactly how isn't everyone an actor in the morality play that is life everyday? Isn't Pilkington after readership and viewership same as his peers? Being part of a morality play isn't the issue here. Fuck, I'm starting to sound like Walter Sobchak.

The issue is always what a society wants, and whether there is sufficient collective intelligence that can be brought to bear toward those ends. I'd venture the present U.S. society doesn't know what it wants. Sure, you can conduct a multiple choice survey that applies the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and perception and come up with what "most" people want based on the choices you provide. And is that it? Now we all know? We have our answer? Now lets make policy?

Your atheism angle is as silly as Jimmy's true christianity implication. People are simply what people do, and never what they say, which the article quantifies nicely.