In The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit Of Capitalism, Weber believed that the Protestant ethic was the driving force behind the mass action that led to the development of capitalism. Importantly, even after religion became less important in society, these norms of hard work and frugality remained, and continued to encourage individuals to pursue material wealth.

For example, part of the meaning of modern atheism are the unsustainable life-styles we associate with consumer-capitalism, life-styles that Baby Boomers in particular often justify on the basis of their metaphysical belief that "you only live once" . Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest.

If my opinion is correct, then the rise of sustainable environmentalism throughout the world will be correlated with a rejection of today's widespread atheistic beliefs for metaphysical belief systems that give moral incentive for individuals to live sustainably. — sime

:lol: That's not how it works, actually. When you abandon reason things can get rather counterintuitive.

Better known for their high-dollar political spending, the billionaire Koch brothers have also poured millions into Catholic University’s business school to promote a free-market orthodoxy sharply at odds with the teachings [earthly stewardship] of Pope Francis. — https://prospect.org/culture/koch-brothers-latest-target-pope-francis/

Different people interpret it in different ways, which is not unusual. — T Clark

Not unusual at all. A Buddhist might experience “emptiness” (no God), for example, and someone else might experience something more akin to a sky-father. If the experience doesn’t align with or isn’t affiliated with any religion then it’s not a religious experience, though it could be the birth of a new religion, if the experiencer possessed sufficient charisma.

Call it what you will, but it is part of what it means to be a theist. — T Clark

It’s part of a particular tribe of theism if it is “religious”.

Not all of them I imagine, he did show a lot of skin. :lol:

I think religious feeling ultimately comes from personal experience of God. — T Clark

It could only be a religious feeling if whatever is experienced is inline with a religion, otherwise it’s just an experience, perhaps a spiritual experience.

I watched The Long Goodby last night. Man, they sure don’t make movies like they used to. The pacing was so much slower. The first 15 minutes of the film were dedicated to the feeding of a cat. Not that that’s not “okay with me”. Strangely, the acting felt almost like a stage play.

The part with Arnold was just weird and definitely not his best work.

By “thought system” do you by chance mean science? Science is probably better described as a method.
— praxis

I wasn't thinking about science in particular. Ciceronianus said this:

Theism breeds all sorts of convictions, demands, wishes, conclusions, dreams, hopes, institutions, strictures and emotions (not to mention wars and other forms of violence).
— Ciceronianus

I think it's reasonable to apply something similar to the atheistic worldview. — T Clark

Of course. I think that the most significant difference is that the ‘religious system’ relies on absolute authority. That’s a big difference because it allows leaders to lead without having to rationally justify anything. Indeed, to the delight of their leaders, many religious followers are decidedly anti-rational.

Atheists have no absolute authorities.

It doesn't have to be, but the aggressive type I am talking about, and that we often see here on the forum, usually is. — T Clark

By “thought system” do you by chance mean science? Science is probably better described as a method.

I expect that a good number of conscientious Christians don't spend a lot of time arguing. — Wayfarer

Yes, that too sounds ordinary, and I imagine the same is true for conscientious atheists.

I don't pretend to know whether there are many theists who act as though they believe in everlasting life, since I have met so vanishingly few of them in relation to how many there presumably are in the world. — Janus

I expect that anyone who believes in life everlasting would not be materialistic, for instance, yet Christians, at least in the US, seem quite ordinary in that regard.

That's a rather sweeping statement! — Janus

I don't seem to have stirred up any disagreement.

As far as believers are concerned, God is not a social theory or internet talking point, but the most important fact about life. For them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. — Wayfarer

Well, there's certainly no evidence that Theists have everlasting life, and they rarely behave as though they actually believe it.

Accelerated dragon variation.

Sicilian defense, promising to be an exciting game.

Thanks. Which is which of you?

@Hanover

Post the link, if you please. I’d like to watch, or review if it’s a fast one.

I recently learned a bit of Spanish history from reading a bunch of Isabel Allende books. A particularly touching part was when, after Franco took power, a shipload of Spanish asylum seekers arrived in Chile and, despite their fears, were met with dockside fanfare and open arms.

I think anyone who considers themselves a philosopher should know how to play chess, and should play well. — Mikie

True in my case. I don't consider myself a philosopher and don't play chess very well.

Did a YouTube search for my city and it’s supposedly the fourth most neighborly city in the nation, though I suspect a goodly amount of PR foolery in the presentation.

Wow, I thought you photoshopped it. :up:

Definitely anxiety producing.

Cinema Paradiso
The French Lieutenant's Woman
The Crying Game
Hamilton
A Fish Called Wanda
The Matrix
Alien
Bridesmaids
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Blade Runner

No one is responsible for tire dust. — Nils Loc

I’m responsible for the tire dust that my tires and I produce. :worry:

What about this: do what you want with your own stuff (and here this only includes stuff you’re using for yourself) so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. — Jamal

The problem, which I think Mikie eludes to, is that even the simple act of tossing a plastic straw in the trash may contribute to a negative result for others.

Where I live, society entitles me to do a lot of messed up shit with things I may own. I’m responsible for all of it.

Feel better? — NOS4A2

I’d feel better if individualists were more inclusive towards collectivists.

You’ve made a little caricature — NOS4A2

I’m pretty sure you’ve done that yourself.

The weirdest contortions. — NOS4A2

Indeed. Are you claiming that Trump is not a collectivist?

You'll find that when individuals have the freedom to pursue their own self interest, the vast majority of them will seek voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation with other individuals. — Tzeentch

I think that may only be true in small groups and where there’s a culture conducive to cooperation. States are too large and abstract to feel a sufficient sense of responsibility for our fellow citizens, apparently.

I didn’t say I was unsure about the practice. I was unsure about the answer to your quibbling question. — NOS4A2

Which is about individualism in practice.

You gave the example of Mao and communists China. Can you offer a similar example for individualism or is what you’re talking about merely theoretical?

You are expressing every individual’s primacy. If you realize the primacy of the individual you afford him rights and defend those rights against infringement. I’m not sure everyone has to agree to that. — NOS4A2

You’re not sure about all this? You claimed it was true in theory AND practice, yet you don’t seem to be able to come up with a practice example, and now you’re unsure.

Any declaration of universal human rights. — NOS4A2

So, for example, if you declare a particular universal right you are expressing your primacy? Wouldn’t everyone need to agree with whatever right that you declare and also agree to your primacy?

Right, I’m curious how this works out in practice. Can you not give an example?

I suppose that I should have specified that my interest is in an example of the inclusive practice of individualisms affording primacy to each and every individual.

In this regard one could claim that collectivism is exclusive and individualism is inclusive. The former affords primacy to a faction while the latter affords it to each and every individual involved. This is true both in theory and in practice. — NOS4A2

If true, you should be able to give an example of this in practice.

with one you’ll be violating someone’s rights while with the other you won’t. — NOS4A2

Because the others have no rights or they have all rights?

Thanks, you're too kind.

This shoutbox doesn’t have even one pig pic. :sad:

I only read a small portion of the New Theology PDF but I will say that whoever developed it doesn't seem to have a solid grasp of religion in general or in some of the specifics, from what I read.