Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

[_GlennThigpen]

Religious people tend to be politically conservative, whereas irreligious people tend to be politically liberal. The two groups have different styles of giving-- conservatives individually, liberals collectively through government. Individual giving is all well and good, but it's ultimately inadequate to resolve the problems created by growing economic inequality.

It doesn't surprise me that religious people are happier and longer-lived. There's something to be said for the institutional support and the sense of certainty about the meaning of life that religion provides.

Chris, do you mean that Democrats are more secular than religious? Don't want to get this into a political thread, but Democrats tend to be more liberal than the other major party.

Using the government as a means of "giving" is just another way of saying "redistribution of wealth." The government and those redistribution methods is a prime reason for the growingeconomic reality.

As for the religious part, I have to agree. What to atheists have to look forward to? If they are wrong ,they will never know. To me believing is much better than the alternatives offered. And if I am wrong, I will die in blisssfull ignorance.

Glenn

[_CaliforniaKid]

Chris, do you mean that Democrats are more secular than religious? Don't want to get this into a political thread, but Democrats tend to be more liberal than the other major party.

I'm not saying a majority of democrats are secular, but I am saying that a majority of seculars are Democrats.

Using the government as a means of "giving" is just another way of saying "redistribution of wealth." The government and those redistribution methods is a prime reason for the growingeconomic reality.

If you're suggesting that progressive economic policies are the cause of rising income inequality, you're simply mistaken. Progressive policies are widely understood to reduce inequality. The biggest problem with such policies is that they are difficult to enforce, because they encourage tax evasion and exploitation of loopholes. So they work best in stable democracies with effective systems of enforcement.

As for the religious part, I have to agree. What to atheists have to look forward to? If they are wrong ,they will never know. To me believing is much better than the alternatives offered. And if I am wrong, I will die in blisssfull ignorance.

Atheists can look forward to life. As long as they are alive, they have something to look forward to. And even the moment of death does not have to entail hopeless or despair. Death is simply one of life's bookends.

While religious certainty may enhance life-satisfaction, that does not necessarily mean it is a socially desirable trait. People who take the time to question everything serve a valuable social function as reformers and knowledge-producers. And in any case, religious certainty for some us simply isn't achievable. Faced with a choice between doubtful religiosity and fairly confident skepticism, I'm convinced I'll be happier with the skepticism.

Peace,

-Chris

[_GlennThigpen]

If you're suggesting that progressive economic policies are the cause of rising income inequality, you're simply mistaken. Progressive policies are widely understood to reduce inequality. The biggest problem with such policies is that they are difficult to enforce, because they encourage tax evasion and exploitation of loopholes. So they work best in stable democracies with effective systems of enforcement.

Peace,

-Chris

I would need to know what you understand to be progressive economic policies before I answer that.

Glenn

[_emilysmith]

The intended definition seems implicit in your selected quote.

[_CaliforniaKid]

The intended definition seems implicit in your selected quote.

Right. I'm thinking particularly of the use of a graduated tax schedule (i.e. taxing the rich) to provide basic services and economic opportunities to the poor.

In a purely free market economy, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is inevitable. Because it takes money to make money, a billionaire's economic advantage increases with every dollar he earns. He then passes this advantage on to his children. The concentration of wealth has deleterious effects on the rest of society. Small business owners can't compete with the efficiency of large corporations, and the poor become increasingly indebted for basic services. The purpose of a progressive tax policy is simply to limit the concentration of wealth and its harmful effects on the poor.

[_richardMdBorn]

In a purely free market economy, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is inevitable. Because it takes money to make money, a billionaire's economic advantage increases with every dollar he earns. He then passes this advantage on to his children.

This is false. Neither Warren Buffett nor Bill Gates started out rich. The children of the rich rarely are as motivated as their parents were. The Rockefellers are still rich, but are not at the very top as was the case circa 1900. Dynamic capitalistic economies offer many opportunities for people to rise economically.

[_Kevin Graham]

Using the government as a means of "giving" is just another way of saying "redistribution of wealth"

As is individual giving a literal "redistribution of wealth". The government just does a better job of it because it doesn't discriminate according to color or religion or what not. The fact is wealth needs to be redistributed in order for inequality to be minimized, so anyone truly concerned with inequality shouldn't be so uptight about wealth distribution. In a free-market society, it is simply impossible for everyone to benefit equally. Capitalism requires a poorer majority, otherwise the minority wouldn't be able to obtain wealth.

[_Kevin Graham]

This is false.

No it isn't.

Neither Warren Buffett nor Bill Gates started out rich.

He never said all rich people were born with silver spoons. But the free market is really only "free" during its infancy, and as the winners are separated from the losers the "equal competition" factor becomes a thing of the past. For example, no American with a dream of starting up their own Walmart type store will ever be able to compete with the likes of Wal-Mart or Target, no matter how "motivated" they are. Unless he or she is already born a billionaire, that is. Because only then would they be able to invest in the same things to make the competition more even, such as to start up sweat shops in Indonesia to compete with the low wage employees working for Wal-Mart.

But Bill Gates gave became a thief and a con-man, essentially. In free-market theory, the guy with the best product wins. But Gates created a monopoly, even though his product was essentially crap. No computer programmer in the business would have said Windows 95-200 was anything but junk software that had a tendency to crash. I suggest you go watch the film "Pirates of Silicon Valley" to get a real glimpse into the makings of the Microsoft and Apple billionaires. Gates was responsible for producing nothing of serious value. He stole from others. Everything from the mouse (Xerox) to the kernel for his software (Apple).

The children of the rich rarely are as motivated as their parents were. The Rockefellers are still rich, but are not at the very top as was the case circa 1900. Dynamic capitalistic economies offer many opportunities for people to rise economically

And I think six of the top ten richest people in the world inherited their wealth. The Koch brothers and the Walmart family. They're sure to place their children in executive positions within the company even though their only qualification is based on genetics. I think one of the Walmart kids did finally decide to go back and finish school though.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Neither Warren Buffett nor Bill Gates started out rich.

Actually, they did.

The Rockefellers are still rich, but are not at the very top as was the case circa 1900. Dynamic capitalistic economies offer many opportunities for people to rise economically.

There is some truth to that, but overall, it misses the point. When wealth is concentrated at the top, there isn't as much opportunity for those at the bottom. There is still some movement depending on how a person uses their money, but it still remains the case that it is easier to make money when you have money and harder when you do not. Certainly, in the last few decades, those at the top are continuing to be much better off, while those in the bottom 95% are not. When progressive policies are in place, the benefits of economic growth are more broadly shared.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Right. What they said.