How can atheism have morality?

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

That's insightful, I think anyone who has a parent capable of properly educating them before school is at an advantage for sure. I think the first 2-5 years of a persons life are the most vital, so your kids are fortunate to have a mother that values education. If you're not careful as a parent you may not realize what things are influencing your child the most- as the old saying goes "the tree remembers what the axe forgets". A parent can have just one bad day, lose their composure for just a moment and say something that sticks with that child for their entire life. A fleeting moment of emotions for the parents can be a lifelong sentiment for the child.

I was a good safety switch and would call it when I saw no gains being accomplished. I remember one time I came home and one of my sons was crying at the table with my wife next to him. She was saying you owe me 30 more words to spell and he was done in a snot running event. I got mad and nicely said that is enough and he is done...My wife at first said but he owes me... and I said no he is done we are resetting it at 0 and the next time he can start over.

He doesn't remember it but I do, and I remember everything like that in both my son's lives. I remember so much they don't, so I think parents remember much more than the child unless it was truly a life-changing event. I saved one of my sons from drowning and I still think about it, and he doesn't remember any of it.

One grew up to be an Electrical Engineer and the other snot running one will be a Doctor. Both have had a perfect life of zero issues or big mistakes, so I guess we did OK.

As for as your last point, I could see that being true on a small scale but on the grand scale the opposite is true IMO. The church, and theologies in general, are tools for the 'alphas' to concentrate unimaginable wealth and power.

You are thinking in terms of layers and as you go up it becomes more of a political controlling event, but that does not establish morals at the lowest layer of the practitioner. People say religion is bad as you explain and I say some parts are bad and some parts are good.

I believe the current capitalist system and extreme wealth inequality in the world are directly because of religion and other similar means of applying psychoanalytical tactics to the populous as a whole. For instance, look at all of the historical monarchs of Britain- the monarchs were subject to no earthly authority, deriving their 'right' to rule directly from the will of 'god'. Rights are literally imaginary- "god-given rights" absolutely do not exist.

Not really today...Wealth inequality is a farce. When you do the numbers that billionaire doesn't affect you in any way. It's a totally BS line to gather votes... I have said...what makes one man rich would provide the masses an extra quarter.

I don't look at it like 80% of our morals are learned- I think our morals evolve into more complex philosophies, but they grow from inherent moral senses. Among children and young infants, moral sense inherently exists.

I don't agree. I think you are confusing kids who may not do an evil act as being good, and I say they do not know good or evil yet, so they are a clean slate waiting on input. Morals have been so different over the centuries too, so if they are inherent how does that change then? We can also look around the world and see massively different sets of morals, so once again that tells us they are learned and not inherent.

A good parent will nurture that morality to continue growing through social interactions and exposure to various environmental factors IMHO. Providing a safe, neutral environment for your child's natural genetic traits to organically express themselves is the bare minimum of what a parent should be obligated to do IMO. They are essentially shepherds providing a safe, neutral, or positive environment for them to grow in.

Everything you are saying above is a learned event. Also, where do they magically come from in the first place to be some kind of inherent behavior? Through evolution as in nice people breed out the evil ones?

a reply to: Xtrozero

You should ask your sons the things they remember strongest from early childhood, it may surprise you.

As for everything else you said, it's not exactly exclusive to what I believe the evidence is showing.

"the moral sense is a complex construct of an evolutionary and social nature that evolves under the influence of interpersonal relationships."
(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Not really today...Wealth inequality is a farce. When you do the numbers that billionaire doesn't affect you in any way. It's a totally BS line to gather votes... I have said...what makes one man rich would provide the masses an extra quarter.

The mere existence of billionaires is evidence of a failed government/society. If you sincerely believe any person should have access to even just 1 billion American dollars, you clearly DO NOT understand how much 1 billion truly is. The order of magnitude is ridiculous, no one in this world works hard or smart enough to legitimately deserve 99 million dollars let alone 999 million... It's patently absurd and this is one area I have to call you out on for being uneducated. 1 million seconds equates to 11.5 days, 1 billion seconds equates to 31.7 YEARS. Let that sink in... and if it doesn't, I cannot help you understand. Our tax dollars and wages as American citizens are brazenly being stolen and theology is a major tool that allows this to happen.


Again- go ahead and look at members of the American government and ask yourself why literally almost all of them are theologians. Theology is an oppressive tool that makes use of those "lower layers" you were describing to inbed itself into the early psychology of the populous- disguising itself as common human morality before it insidiously absorbs more people into blind support. Theology is very much a societal virus or parasite, if you will, taking the place of basic empathy for an unsuspecting populous. Your version of the alpha theory is nonsense- the guy who coined the term 'alpha male' spells it out perfectly- "An alpha male often can be a figure admired for empathy and protectiveness."

"De Waal emphasizes empathy as a key factor in social cohesion, suggesting it might hint at morality among primates."
(bigthink.com...)

Hatred is learned, empathy is inherited.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

You should ask your sons the things they remember strongest from early childhood, it may surprise you.

I have as I have been very curious. I have asked about every bad thing in my head and they remember none of it. Hell, my one son asked me when he was around 10-11 when will we go to Disneyland or other types of parks. I was like... dude you've been to 7 of them...and as I talked about each one he said...oh yeah...but could only really remember 2 or 3 bearly.

I tell my friends, don't take your kids anywhere until 8+...lol

"the moral sense is a complex construct of an evolutionary and social nature that evolves under the influence of interpersonal relationships."

And many times using religion as the method to create it...

BTW explain morality to me then. Is killing others, sex with boys, rape, incest, and so on and so forth not moral? It has been in the past and even today.

We do not kill others because "thou shall not kill". In other places in the world, they do not use that and they see killing as part of their culture.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
The mere existence of billionaires is evidence of a failed government/society. If you sincerely believe any person should have access to even just 1 billion American dollars, you clearly DO NOT understand how much 1 billion truly is.

The answer is who cares, no one should, why should you?

What is more important is that billionaire may have created 10,000s of jobs that could be 10,000s of families relying on them for a decent living.

I did a math thing a couple of times and I took the top 20 people paid at Boeing and said they decided to give it all to the workers and it came out to about 20 cents per hour raise. As I said what makes one person rich gives the masses a quarter.

How many jobs have you created?

Why a billion, why not a million... Who needs a million?

You can say that Musk does not need 100 billion, but look what he has done... He created companies that just happened to go from worthless to being worth 100s of billions. What should he do, say oh sh!t at 10 million, and give it all away?

Does Musk negatively affect you in any way?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I did a math thing a couple of times and I took the top 20 people paid at Boeing and said they decided to give it all to the workers and it came out to about 20 cents per hour raise. As I said what makes one person rich gives the masses a quarter.

With all due respect, the figure I found for the highest salary at Boeing is 108.5K, that is a little more than what Bezos earns in 4 days.

I'm not going to argue that people like him have not created jobs but "top 20 people paid at Boeing" and what the top earner's are making is apple and oranges.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The answer is who cares, no one should, why should you?

What is more important is that billionaire may have created 10,000s of jobs that could be 10,000s of families relying on them for a decent living.

I did a math thing a couple of times and I took the top 20 people paid at Boeing and said they decided to give it all to the workers and it came out to about 20 cents per hour raise. As I said what makes one person rich gives the masses a quarter.

How many jobs have you created?

Why a billion, why not a million... Who needs a million?

You can say that Musk does not need 100 billion, but look what he has done... He created companies that just happened to go from worthless to being worth 100s of billions. What should he do, say oh sh!t at 10 million, and give it all away?

Does Musk negatively affect you in any way?

They didn't create jobs, they monopolize an existing niche and replaced jobs that paid a living or thriving wage with jobs that do not even pay a living wage. They become billionaires through exploitation and replace systems that are better for you and I with systems that benefit only them as much as possible. They are the reason why it's too expensive to have anything made in America any more- anyone who does that will be undercut by these turds using what is essentially outsourced slave labor from other countries.


I don't think Boeing is a good example- considering the CEO of Boeing is not a billionaire. The highest paid position at Boeing is Chief Financial Officer (CFO) with a salary of $348,800 per year- the CEO took home 22.5 million (64.5X the highest paid employee) in 2023. The CEO David Calhoun's estimated net worth as of January 2024, is approximately $62 million. Wal-mart is a good example IMO. The Walton's net worth is $267 billion with Jim Walton being worth the most at 67 billion. The current CEO of walmart has an estimated net worth of $435 million. I think it is obvious that walmart exploits their employees as far as they are legally allowed. Then the Walton family is setup as an LLC so they can disperse nontaxable wealth through the entire family line. There are infants in that family with a net worth of billions of dollars but since they are minors their net worth is private so they can put massive amounts of funds into their accounts and the American public will never know about it. If you want to check the math on walmart instead, that would be intriguing.


Musk employs similar tactics-

"The system is broken because it taxes income and not wealth. For years and years, Musk didn’t need an income because the stock he owned was worth so much. Essentially what overnight billionaires like him get to do is borrow and borrow and borrow against their company’s stock, therefore paying NO taxes besides sales tax, etc. Then, when the banks make him finally sell some of the stock to cover all the loans, THIS is when — and only when — he pays taxes. Otherwise, he’s just a billionaire free-rider. the system allows it. The PRIMARY reason the system is broken is that it devalues earned income while greatly favoring unearned income like stock gains and dividends. Musk’s income wasn’t earned. It was long-term capital gains. He could plan to have this one year of income and possibly get the maximum deductions this year and next. Regular wage earners don’t benefit from this sophisticated practice we CPAs call ‘tax planning'."

Our tax system disproportionately favors the wealthy. It has been intentionally reduced to this system through all the sh*t administrations we've had in this country, but in particular the Reagan administration. I personally think every president and administration in my lifetime has been pure garbage, so I don't expect anything to change any time soon.
People get all uppity about the elections and trump vs biden etc. but they don't pay attention to foreign policy and the alarming number of non-governmental, international organizations popping up all over the place. Trump’s foreign policy and strategies was obama’s and is now biden’s. Foreign policy hasn't changed in over 60 years, regardless of administration because it is an illusion of options- they all work towards a common goal because a much larger power structure is in place. A great example is how the DNC sabotaged Bernie Sanders- the primary members of the DNC and the DNC corporation itself couldn't afford to be taxed by Sanders' plans. They even had a court hearing (observer.com...) conceding the right to sabotage Sanders- you may recall the GOP doing very similar things to Ron Paul when he was the front-runner. This is all the workings of the billionaire (or ruling) classes.

The biggest thing that annoyed me with elon musk is how he lobbied against and successfully halted the speed-rail systems that were being built in CA- a project that taxpayers had already invested over 100billion dollars into. He lied about the entire hyper-loop concept, the truth is that an efficient speed-rail system (akin to the Japanese bullet-trains) would significantly lower EV sales in the number 1 state for tesla sales (366k sales in CA vs the next highest state at 62.2k in FL). Elon Musk admitted to his biographer that he only announced hyperloop because he wanted California's high-speed rail system to get canceled.


Electric vehicles were always a scam to begin with- if we were going to significantly reduce greenhouse gases, we would have to go after the inefficiency in modern agricultural techniques, unnecessary aircraft/spacecraft, nuclear warhead testing, etc.- not the average citizen, who combined do not even come close to those pollution levels. EVs do not solve this problem; electric power generation is a significant source of toxic metals and other pollutants discharged into bodies of water, as well as land pollution through the disposal of millions of tons annually of coal ash, which can contain contaminants like mercury, cadmium, arsenic, etc. You may have also noticed people exposing the charge stations running off of gasoline generators to charge vehicles. The only real solution is efficient public transit IMO- get all the people who do not want to drive off the road and stop forcing cars on people. This will make driving much more enjoyable for the people who actually do want to own and operate vehicles.

originally posted by: daskakik
With all due respect, the figure I found for the highest salary at Boeing is 108.5K, that is a little more than what Bezos earns in 4 days.

I'm not going to argue that people like him have not created jobs but "top 20 people paid at Boeing" and what the top earner's are making is apple and oranges.

If we are talking the super-wealthy the top 400 people is around 2 billion and up. 25 billion and up is like 10. If we are talking about Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg types it's all stock, so what do you want them to do?

Musk's first sale was a game for 500 bucks, next was 7% of a company he helped create Zip2 for 22 million. After that was the same process until today where he has numerous companies doing crazy things and is over 170 billion in stock.

Do you think the world has benefited from him or was it hurt, more importantly, were you hurt by his wealth?

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere

They didn't create jobs, they monopolize an existing niche and replaced jobs that paid a living or thriving wage with jobs that do not even pay a living wage. They become billionaires through exploitation and replace systems that are better for you and I with systems that benefit only them as much as possible. They are the reason why it's too expensive to have anything made in America any more- anyone who does that will be undercut by these turds using what is essentially outsourced slave labor from other countries.

The problem is you see them as taking from others and not creating. What has Musk taken from others? The owner and CEO of the LLC I work for has taken nothing but has given a lot. He keeps 1000 families fed to start.

"The system is broken because it taxes income and not wealth. For years and years, Musk didn’t need an income because the stock he owned was worth so much. Essentially what overnight billionaires like him get to do is borrow and borrow and borrow against their company’s stock, therefore paying NO taxes besides sales tax, etc. Then, when the banks make him finally sell some of the stock to cover all the loans, THIS is when — and only when — he pays taxes. Otherwise, he’s just a billionaire free-rider. the system allows it. The PRIMARY reason the system is broken is that it devalues earned income while greatly favoring unearned income like stock gains and dividends. Musk’s income wasn’t earned. It was long-term capital gains. He could plan to have this one year of income and possibly get the maximum deductions this year and next. Regular wage earners don’t benefit from this sophisticated practice we CPAs call ‘tax planning'."

So you want to tax what has already been taxed..over and over again? Does the government pay back Musk 44 billion if X goes under? Something like 80% of LLCs fail...

Our tax system disproportionately favors the wealthy. It has been intentionally reduced to this system through all the sh*t administrations we've had in this country, but in particular the Reagan administration. I personally think every president and administration in my lifetime has been pure garbage, so I don't expect anything to change any time soon.
People get all uppity about the elections and trump vs biden etc. but they don't pay attention to foreign policy and the alarming number of non-governmental, international organizations popping up all over the place. Trump’s foreign policy and strategies was obama’s and is now biden’s. Foreign policy hasn't changed in over 60 years, regardless of administration

It's the old stick it to the evil rich mentality. It could favor the rich more because they actually pay most of the taxes...geez How should it favor the bottom 50% who already pay little to none? I looked into taxing the rich 90% and it came to 600 billion more per year in taxes...It isn't as much as people think when once again we look at spreading it across 100s of millions. 600 billion is about a 7% increase in what we spend.

a reply to: Xtrozero
You are making my post out to be something it isn't. I just said that "top 20 people paid at Boeing" are not in the same league as the billionaires NH mentioned.

originally posted by: daskakik

You are making my post out to be something it isn't. I just said that "top 20 people paid at Boeing" are not in the same league as the billionaires NH mentioned.

We could play the same game with the big guys, let's say Bezos said he was going to sell off 10 billion every year of stock and give it to the employees they would get 120 extra bucks per week. Just like taking them to a 90% tax bracket none of it is news-breaking numbers in the end.

So this goes back to the original statement that these ultra-rich are destroying America because they are wealthy and make so much more than everyone else. I'm trying to see why that is believed while showing the reality that massive wealth for one is peanuts to the masses.

a reply to: Xtrozero
I never said anything about the original statement. I just pointed out your example was from employees earning a lot less, allowing you to toss out a really low ball number.

That is all.

But since you bring it up. 120 extra bucks a week would be welcomed by all, and not seen as peanuts by many and he would still be making 2.5B/year on top of what he already has.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
It's the old stick it to the evil rich mentality. It could favor the rich more because they actually pay most of the taxes...geez How should it favor the bottom 50% who already pay little to none? I looked into taxing the rich 90% and it came to 600 billion more per year in taxes...It isn't as much as people think when once again we look at spreading it across 100s of millions. 600 billion is about a 7% increase in what we spend.

We could play the same game with the big guys, let's say Bezos said he was going to sell off 10 billion every year of stock and give it to the employees they would get 120 extra bucks per week. Just like taking them to a 90% tax bracket none of it is news-breaking numbers in the end.

So this goes back to the original statement that these ultra-rich are destroying America because they are wealthy and make so much more than everyone else. I'm trying to see why that is believed while showing the reality that massive wealth for one is peanuts to the masses.

You have it backwards, but I can see how that could be conveyed when you throw numbers without context. The reason the top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 98 percent of all income taxes in 2021 is because they earned 90 percent of all income in the country. The specific reason they chose to say 50% is to skew the statistics so people will assume there isn't as much inequality if 50% of Americans are doing well- notice how you specifically don't mention in your regurgitated talking points that the top 1 percent of American earners pay almost 40 percent of all federal income taxes, which is more than what the bottom 90 percent pay combined. This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. You are spreading ruling-class propaganda using extremely misleading statistics- lay off the fox news if you haven't already because I'm pretty sure these are Bill O'reilly's old talking points.


The IRS estimates losses above 380 billion annually just from rich people hiring tax attorneys because the IRS doesn’t actually have the resources to fight multiyear court battles (one budget cut that republican officeholders consistently support is the plan to slash the budget of the IRS). That is just the estimates on 'detected evasion'- nothing in comparison to the 'undetected evasions' the top 0.01% of earners ($10,000,000+ annual income) through off-shore accounts and dispersing nontaxable wealth through their family lines. Speaking of which, just imagine for a moment how much even just $1,000,000,000 truly is- to be considered the top 0.01% of earners in this country requires you to make $10,000,000 per year- it would take 100 years, saving the entire $10,000,000 every year, to accumulate $1,000,000,000. There were a total of 3,194 billionaires worldwide in 2022, and approximately 49.6 million people living in modern slavery– meaning forced labor, forced marriage, rationed food sources, etc.- approximately 1/4th of all modern slaves are children. Most cases of forced labor (86 per cent) are found in the private sector. Farm workers are some of the most oppressed workers in the United States- in the worst cases, they live in conditions constituting modern-day slavery. In the United States, 80 million tons of food is discarded every year- over $444 billion worth of food annually- which is 38% of all food grown or imported in the United States. But we can't afford to give children free lunches at school, that would be socialism (the ultra-rich enjoy more socialism than anyone, by far).


"Detected evasion declines sharply at the very top of the income distribution, with only a trivial amount of evasion detected in the top 0.01 percent.”

"Offshore tax evasion goes almost entirely undetected in random audits.”
(gabriel-zucman.eu...)

To be in the top 0.1%, you have to earn $3,212,486 annually, top 1% is $823,763 annually, top 5% is $342,987 annually and top 10% is $173,176 annually- that alone should spell it out for you. Americans in the 0.01% represent about 0.007% of the U.S. population, yet they receive more than 5 percent of the nation's collective capital and labor income- the top 1% receives over 20% of the nation's entire income. The top 1% represent only 0.3 percent of the U.S. population, yet they receive nearly one-quarter of the nation’s collective capital and labor income. I sincerely hope you're not clueless enough to believe that they legitimately earn that income as opposed to the true criminal nature of the situation.


It's not just about taxing the rich; it's about fair wealth distribution and stolen wages. If a business cannot pay a living (or thriving) wage, it should not be allowed to exist in this country, let alone receive massive bail-outs with our tax-dollars. Dumb-ass republicans believe it is socialism to want the things you already f*cking paid for with your tax-dollars. Taxpayers receiving benefits from the taxes they paid is not socialism, its the way f*cking taxes are supposed to work- our tax dollars aren't supposed to just disappear into the pockets of the wealthy and the military. The ultra-rich are not just destroying our country, but other countries as well- not simply 'because they are wealthy' but because they actively steal wealth and resources from everyone else too. People like you have effectively been brainwashed into thinking they are heroic job creators (they outsource far more jobs than they create) who are generously supporting the rest of us- when in reality the average American's quality of life suffers greatly because of these parasites.


The total number of amazon employees is 1,525,000. 10,000,000,000 divided by 1,525,000 comes out to 6557.38 per year (or $136.61 per week). $6,557 per year is a significant amount money for the majority of Americans, it's definitely not peanuts- and if you think that it is, you're 100% out of touch with reality.

originally posted by: NovemberHemisphere
You have it backwards, but I can see how that could be conveyed when you throw numbers without context. The reason the top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 98 percent of all income taxes in 2021 is because they earned 90 percent of all income in the country. The specific reason they chose to say 50% is to skew the statistics so people will assume there isn't as much inequality if 50% of Americans are doing well- notice how you specifically don't mention in your regurgitated talking points that the top 1 percent of American earners pay almost 40 percent of all federal income taxes, which is more than what the bottom 90 percent pay combined. This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. You are spreading ruling-class propaganda using extremely misleading statistics- lay off the fox news if you haven't already because I'm pretty sure these are Bill O'reilly's old talking points.

My point was much simpler. If you don't pay much taxes how do you get a tax break? I'm not playing the 1% pays more taxes.... I'm just saying that you need to pay into it to get a refund. I saved 6,000 under Trump BTW.

I'm in favor of a 10% across the board for anyone who makes let's say 25k or more

The IRS estimates losses above 380 billion annually just from rich people hiring tax attorneys because the IRS doesn’t actually have the resources

approximately 1/4th of all modern slaves are children. Most cases of forced labor (86 per cent) are found in the private sector. Farm workers are some of the most oppressed workers in the United States- in the worst cases, they live in conditions constituting modern-day slavery. In the United States, 80 million tons of food is discarded every year- over $444 billion worth of food annually- which is 38% of all food grown or imported in the United States. But we can't afford to give children free lunches at school, that would be socialism (the ultra-rich enjoy more socialism than anyone, by far).

You are kind of jumping all over the place here. 90% of businesses are a small business, so where do you think those forced labor people are? Didn't the IRS just hire 95,000 more people under Biden? It isn't money lost it is using the tax code to pay what is called your fair share. Don't like it change the code, go flat tax then you can get rid of 95% of the IRS.

Then you jump into food...I'm losing your point here... BTW I think every school has a lunch program for poorer people. All this isn't a billionaire thing it's a Government thing.

It's not just about taxing the rich; it's about fair wealth distribution and stolen wages. If a business cannot pay a living (or thriving) wage,

They do, but not every job is a living wage job. 15 bucks an hour to cook french fries is crazy. In the end, payroll comes out to 35% of a company's cost. If it goes past 40% they need to adjust like raising prices, reducing staffing, and hiring more part-time to get back down to that 35%. That is a hard set number.

The total number of amazon employees is 1,525,000. 10,000,000,000 divided by 1,525,000 comes out to 6557.38 per year (or $136.61 per week). $6,557 per year is a significant amount money for the majority of Americans, it's definitely not peanuts- and if you think that it is, you're 100% out of touch with reality.

I used 1.6 million, but yes it is in reality. Amazon pays well and also pays in stock. A friend of mine worked for them for 3 years making 140k in an industry that pays about 90k, and he ended up with 300k in stock after the three years. The problem is they layoff a lot and they expect 60 hours a week for that pay.

Do you think he would scream I won the lottery for an extra 136 bucks per week? It is peanuts... BTW that is a 3 bucks an hour wage increase.

So what is a living wage?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

My point was much simpler. If you don't pay much taxes how do you get a tax break? I'm not playing the 1% pays more taxes.... I'm just saying that you need to pay into it to get a refund. I saved 6,000 under Trump BTW.

I'm in favor of a 10% across the board for anyone who makes let's say 25k or more

You are kind of jumping all over the place here. 90% of businesses are a small business, so where do you think those forced labor people are? Didn't the IRS just hire 95,000 more people under Biden? It isn't money lost it is using the tax code to pay what is called your fair share. Don't like it change the code, go flat tax then you can get rid of 95% of the IRS.

Then you jump into food...I'm losing your point here... BTW I think every school has a lunch program for poorer people. All this isn't a billionaire thing it's a Government thing.

They do, but not every job is a living wage job. 15 bucks an hour to cook french fries is crazy. In the end, payroll comes out to 35% of a company's cost. If it goes past 40% they need to adjust like raising prices, reducing staffing, and hiring more part-time to get back down to that 35%. That is a hard set number.

I used 1.6 million, but yes it is in reality. Amazon pays well and also pays in stock. A friend of mine worked for them for 3 years making 140k in an industry that pays about 90k, and he ended up with 300k in stock after the three years. The problem is they layoff a lot and they expect 60 hours a week for that pay.

Do you think he would scream I won the lottery for an extra 136 bucks per week? It is peanuts... BTW that is a 3 bucks an hour wage increase.

I've been too busy to sit down and reply to you this last week, apologies for the delayed response.


Who is talking about tax breaks? I was talking about receiving basic benefits that our tax-dollars should automatically be paying for- healthcare being the most glaring example- and then you tried to lie with statistics. The bottom 90% of Americans pay more than enough taxes and insurance premiums to warrant hassle-free healthcare options- regardless if it only totals to ~10% of the overall taxes paid in the country- the average American pays a much larger percentage of what's left of their stolen wages (net worth) in taxes. Our government not only allows but endorses middlemen where there should not be any- these insurance companies receive government subsidies and then turn around and collect money from consumers all the while providing as little coverage as humanly possible. The amount of money the average American pays for privatized healthcare is more than it would cost to provide healthcare with tax-dollars (that are already being paid on top of insurance premiums) with no middlemen. These insurance companies get to dip into both government subsidies and people's wages; remove the leeches on society and suddenly the government is capable of providing basic human needs as a minimum standard (as it should be).

I'm not jumping all over the place, all of the things I mentioned are clearly interrelated- the wealthiest class of people are controlling our government regardless of who the people elect. It's just like any other fake regime the U.S. has setup in other countries to steal elections; the illusion of options and the encouragement of chaos/inn-fighting so the greedy elite can successfully divide, conquer; and consolidate wealth, natural resources and political influence.

90% of businesses are a small business"

-There you go, lying with statistics AGAIN. Over 80% of small businesses are solo ventures and employ zero staff. Of the fewer than 20% of small businesses that have any employees, they employ a total of 61.6 million people which represents 45.5% of the entire workforce. The general cutoff for a “large business” is having at least $7 million in annual revenue and 500 employees. 9% of small businesses make over $1 million, approximately 16% of small business owners make less than $10,000 per year. Your point only further illustrates the struggling middle class being forced to pay for the criminal elite. You ignore the obvious discrepancies and difference in magnitude between the revenue of the largest businesses vs the smallest ones- you appear stupid enough to think billionaires have a right to exist. Even most millionaires are parasites to society- 90% of all millionaires become so through owning real estate. More money has been made in real estate than in all industrial investments combined- because they are monopolizing and capitalizing on a basic necessity- shelter. Neither the biden or trump administration did anything to stop the 2 largest investment firms in the world (blackrock & vanguard) from buying up as much residential property in the country as humanly possible. Sixteen million homes currently sit vacant across the U.S.- roughly 653,000 Americans are homeless.


If you want a better society you cannot ignore the outcasts and 'failures'- they aren't going any where and the problems will continue to evolve; it is better to integrate and raise standards of education and living when possible- not build 750 million dollar football stadiums- transferring wealth from American tax-dollars to billionaire football team owners.

but not every job is a living wage job. 15 bucks an hour to cook french fries is crazy. In the end, payroll comes out to 35% of a company's cost

Not if they sell enough french fries.... I see you have a very weak grasp on basic economics. A 3 dollar per hour raise is a pretty big deal for most Americans- again, you are so out of touch with reality it actually disgusts me that people like you are running their mouths. It is a very simple dynamic in theory; every full-time job must pay a living wage- if the job warrants any existence at all and requires someone's time it warrants a fair wage- time is the most valuable thing we have- any additional skills and qualifications should also be compensated accordingly in addition to the person's very valuable time. Employees keep the business afloat, the business keeps the employees afloat. If the business model is not efficient enough to accomplish this, then it should not even exist under any form of capitalism, let alone in a democratic republic AND receive government bailouts after losing the stolen wages they brazenly gamble with on wall-street. Every job in America should absolutely be paying a living wage- if you disagree, I personally think you are an absolute fool.

So what is a living wage?

A living wage is the minimum income necessary for a person to meet their basic needs. The cost of housing varies throughout the country and employees should not be forced to commute- in most scenarios, wages should be based off of the cost of housing in the immediate vicinity of the place of employment. People like you attempt to lie with statistics- to convince people there isn't enough company revenue to properly compensate the value of employees, which is patently false. I'll say it again- if an employer cannot properly compensate the value of their employees, they should not exist under any form of capitalism; it's not capitalism any more- it is a form of slavery. Capitalism and slavery are supposed to be exclusive to each other- capitalism promotes labor done by free people, rather than slavery. A central principle of capitalism is FREE MARKETS.

originally posted by: neoholographicpart2
I often hear moral arguments from atheists but atheism can't be moral. There's no objective standard of good with atheists so everyone's subjective morality is equally good and equally evil which leads to modal collapse. Here's the definition of morality:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Atheists have no objective standard of good so there's no distinction between good and bad behavior so there can't be any morality in atheism.

First, they have morals the same way all other religions you don't believe in have them. Hindu, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, they agree on moral principles and then assume it's from a deity even though you believe it isn't.

But the simple answer is we come to agreement about basic morals and ethics, often based on past philosophy like Greek ideas, base laws on them and there you go.
Evolutionary it is an advantage to get along with other members of a tribe.

But you also make up your own morals. If you are Christian you no longer follow OT ethics, slavery, permanent slavery and the children of slaves who are non-Hebrew are permanent slaves. Women and children may be taken as plunder of war, Deuteronomy, rules of war.
In 6 cities you should kill every living thing, women, children, babies, animals, because they have a religion Yahweh doesn't like and it might "rub off".
Unruly children should be stoned.
Graven images should be the most important rule as is denial of freedom of religion.
Women should remain silent in church, families should separate if non-believers are members. This is NT wisdom. Eternal torture is also preached for non-belief.

None of these things are now considered moral. Freedom of religion is now considered moral.


But going further, like all other religions that claim revelations and laws/morals from a deity, (that you don't buy into), you have to demonstrate your revelations are actually from a deity. What is consensus in historical studies is Genesis is a re-working of older Mesopotamian myths. Same goes for the 2nd Temple Period (Persian) and the NT is all Hellenism. Dr James Tabor is the expert on this.
So you cannot prove any standard beyond a set of morals written down by humans, invented by humans.

Also Proverbs, one is an Egyptian text.
"The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation."
en.wikipedia.org...


Here is some source material on Genesis:


These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,

John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.



2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”



The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”


THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”


The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”



The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”