Atheism doesn't lead logically to any political system.  Hell, it doesn't logically lead to anything.  Do you know basic syllogistic logic?  If so, this should make the point very clearly:

1. There is no god.

2. Therefore ?????

See?  No conclusion to be reached because we have only one premise.  Without some observation about the world, no conclusion can be attempted, much less justified.  Any conclusion someone claims to be drawing from atheism is in fact a conclusion drawn from atheism and something else.

As I read the bible, I can justify capitalism or socialism or communism.  That's the problem with it.  You can make it say whatever you want.  So... in an ironic twist, Christianity can be used to justify everything, and atheism cannot be used to justify anything.

Jesus despised the seeking of personal worldly riches and endorsed obedience to secular non-democratic emperors - "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s". His views would not appear to favour capitalism or democracy. Bad luck America!

As for Communism, seems to me Marx's slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is far more consistent with Christian ideals than raw competition for resources.

So I would say that Chritianity's ideal earthly society would have much more in common with the ideals (not necessarily the actual practices) of Communism that that of a capitalist democracy.

Protestant christianity, and in particular Lutheranism (but not necessarily all t brands of Calvinism) is very strongly associated with free market capitalism in America.

Ever heard of the "Protestant Work Ethic?" The idea was that through both faith and works (in Luther's case), people could get to heaven, and that laziness was a grave sin ("Idle hands are the devil's workshop&quot. Protestant communities would stress that people would make their own livings, start their own buisinesses, accumulate property, and give to charity.

However, this has much more to do with the English, Dutch, and German economic systems at the time of colonization. In isolated areas of southern Germany, France, and Switzerland, Calvinist and Lutheran communities formed socialistic or even communistic societies.

Atheism is only associated with communism because the USSR was so strongly anti-religious, as is Communist China, Cuba and Vietnam.

However, you cannot derive communism from atheism, only atheism from communism (and in particular, Karl Marx).

I have to say that all atheists being bisexuals is not very true statement. May be the ratio of such atheists is abit higher in the states. but its not the same outside.

I think that Ayn Rand did a fine job of making Ayn Rand look bad, but that's just my opinion.

-Triften

Socialism and atheism have nothing in common. Same goes for religion and capitalism. All we are seeing is a link brought about through recent histories propoganda. If Stalin were a capitalist, they'd have picked something else to hate about the Russians oh so passionately.

I suppose I shouldn't deny a link so quickly, but I just can't see anything that holds them together. Capitalism is more linked to the way life evolved than it is any religious ideas. Wolves and deer use capitalism. But they don't worship gods, to my knowledge anyway. In order for atheism to have meaning, theism must exist. But theism isn't linked to economics.

No, the socialist view of things is "If you have any wealth, government will forcible take it from you". There is nothing about voluntarily "giving" in the socialist agenda. Although, one could claim Christianity is like socialism except the punishment for not "giving" is hell, whereas the socialist punishment for not "giving" is prison.

There is an irrational view of socialist/communists that productivity can be taxed at whatever rate to take care of the social needs of low productive citizens. That the government has an unlimited ability to spend on welfare. Government is the solution to all problems

For every action there is a reaction. So as a reaction to this leftist economic view, you have right wing unregulated capitalism that says never do anything to fix the economic disparity problems of the lower class. God is the solution to all problems.

So were stuck with irrationality on the right and left when it comes to economic policy. We can't have an economic system that is based on scientific studies of what works and is sustainable.

One cannot be permitted to take if one is unwilling to give in a socialist society. It is not that the government will take from you, it will simply stop giving to you. It may expell or imprison you, if you continue to fail to contribute whilst receiving benefits that you are not entitled to since you aren't contributing, but then a capitalist society would do the same. Theft is theft.

What is a low productive citizen anyway? It may surprise you to know that without the cleaning staff, a factory will shut down within a week. A restaurant within a day. The factory and restaurant can do without half their workers or even a manager in some cases for a few days; but they cannot do without a cleaner. Yet the cleaning staff is generally the lowest pay scale, the most disgusting work, and the most inflexible hours. That is horrific inequality.

The rest is a strawman.

Democratic Socialism is not irrational.

What's interesting is that in The book of Acts, the first Christian church was communist in that everyone shared everything they owned with the whole group. God even punished a couple with death that horded some of their wealth from the whole group.

Atheists generally subscribe to Darwin's 'Survival of the Fittest' theory, which seems similar to laissez-faire capitalism.

How things got reverersed???

That you have not seen one does not mean that one cannot exist.

I think you're looking at classic versions of communism, not an orderly democratic socialism. Rich and poor would not exist. And they could not take more than they give.

And socialist democracy is a rational process that can restore equilibrium to the economy.

Which was exactly my point. Without the cleaning staff, you have no productivity. I ask you again to define a low productive worker in this light.

Spark plugs will not be manufactured without a cleaning staff.

I'm not talking about people's feelings, I'm talking about a rational approach to the economy. Something that is not currently happening. Anywhere. Your response is a strawman. You make invalid assumptions about the education system in such a political climate, and therefore there is nothing to respond to. A socialist democracy would be served best by having as much skilled labour available as possible. A capitalist democracy depends on there being a lower class of stupid people to do the drudge work. And that those people outnumber the skilled class. A foolish tactic that has helped to lead us into a position where people disbelieve in evolution, amongst other things.

Obama is not creating a socialist state. He's expanding on the socialism within a capitalist state. Which I cannot say will go particularly well, but I can't say it won't either.

So we should see blue people in every city, because people can have blue skin. And we should see a toaster orbitting around Sol, because a toaster could orbit around Sol.

It's just like arguing evolution with a theist. Strawman after strawman after strawman.

I've yet to see a perpetual motion machine either. I don't believe one can exist because it would violate basic laws of how the universe operates. Essential socialism is a perpetual motion machine, where you can theoretically get high productivity out of some people, while giving them little reward in return.

A welfare state violates the laws for biological systems. Lions that are successful hunters don't share their booty equally with all the other lions. Otherwise such a species would be replaced by a more successful predator.

The success of an ant colony does not depend on how hard the ants work but on how successful they are at getting what the colony needs.

If you stop giving lot's of food and water to the cows that produce a lot of milk, they'll stop producing milk. But socialists see the cow as a magic milk machine, it should produce the same no matter how little you give it.

We need to see a plan of how the system would not collapse from people taking more than they give. I've yet to see one.

How exactly is that going to be prevented? How is anyone motivated toward excellence and innovation in their education or career in such a system?

Nor will they be manufactured without someone investing money and developing technical and business skills. Unfortunately these people won't do their part unless they are paid well for it. It may not seem fair, but that's the way it is.

What assumptions have I made that are in error? If I'm wrong or illogical in my thinking, I'd like to know exactly why.

And how exactly do you motivate people to become skilled laborers if you tax them at high rates for their skilled labor and then give welfare to unskilled labor, so that their is no motivation to get ahead?

Tell me what strawman I am creating. Otherwise you are creating a strawman.

Socialism has pretty much come to mean 'supporting the welfare state'. Unlimited benefits to anyone that has a 'need' without conditions. Taking from people the wealth they produce and giving it to those in need. If this is not your position, I think you'd be better off not using the word 'socialist' to describe your position since this is what they all seem to believe.

You need to define a new term and state exactly what you believe is the best policy and tell us why the results would be good and not result in economic collapse.

I do have sympathy for you, I tried to define exactly my position here, but I was assumed to be in line with Republicans because I think it's insane to tax the most wealth producing citizens at obscene levels. I never used the word Republican to describe myself.

So then define what exactly you mean by 'social democracy' so I won't make any false assumptions?

No offense, but most of your friends are stupid.

1. There is no god.

2. Therefore ?????

3. Profit.

Are you certain you want to start this again?

Social insects have nothing to do with socialism. They don't have an economy, so they are not comparable to socialist states. That is as ridiculous as me saying that they are the perfect example of capitalism in nature. They form corporations (hives) that compete with one another for natural resources. They make risky investments (some workers and a new queen leave to form a new hive) in an attempt to start up new corporations. They have no central over site that enforces rules onto all hives.  Sounds like ants follow laissez-faire capitalism to me.

But in all seriousness: they don't have an economy and they are all mindlessly responding to each others' chemical signals; so they aren't socialist or capitalist.

No, they don't. Ants do not have a monarchy. "Queen ant" is just the name for the egg layer ant. She is not in charge and she is not in any sense a 'queen' of the colony. We should have named 'queen ants' something like 'breeder ants' or 'egg layer ants.'

There is a scary thought: turning over investment and production of new companies to the government. Goodbye private entrepreneurship, hello government investment bureaucracy. Please, don't tell me you actually would want the government to be the source of funding for start-up companies in the future.

So a pretty high (relative to now) minimum wage and a rather low (relative to now) maximum wage is what you are advocating. Wouldn't that encourage high income earners to flee your country and take their capital with them? This sounds like a hypothetical country that would suffer from capital flight as rich people decide to move to freindier states. Unless, of course, you seize all of their possessions when they flee and force capital to be stuck in your country. But at that point, I would have to say that you are advocating for some kind of horrible government that literally steals all of someone's possessions if they try and flee for a better life.

That's a funny joke Vastet. Having a more highly educated work force would only help the capitalists at the top of the economic machine. They aren't conspiring to keep us dumb and uneducated. They are wishing that more of us would get educations. There is a reason for private grants. It is a business investment that pays off. A stupid uneducated workforce is a bad work force. And the people on top know it. That statement of yours is nothing short of a conspiracy theory.

The have the laws of nature that cause them to do what is necessary to survive. Their economy is do what is necessary to survive. So they've adapted how they operate to do this. This is what humans should do, it is not capitalism or socialism.

The nuerons in ones brain does the same thing. Yet somehow the combination of all those neurons leads to one being a capicalist or socialist.

In other words give money to people to build and run the factory. But you have to give them a lot of money to do this and you need to pick the best people to do this. These people will get rich which violates your rule about no rich and poor.

Then you'll just exacerbate the labor shortages in certain fields like nursing, energy, engineering, accounting, etc.. Everyone will become a music, art or physical education major or they just won't get any education since there is no advantage.

We have that now with graduated income tax system. It has done nothing to change the gap between rich and poor.

Or they grew up in a dysfunctional home and school system. Or they just liked to party and do drugs instead of study. Or they didn't have the mental capacity to develop skills in high wage fields. Or they think all rich people are assholes and they didn't want to be like them.

Not exactly. People EARN the right to run them by gaining an education and by demonstrating capability. They don't get rich because they are not in charge of the cash flow. It's like a well run military. A sergeant given control of a munitions factory doesn't become rich off of the sales of the factory, he just runs the factory. View the workforce in a similar light to a military and you'll have a better idea of the basis of my ideas.

That doesn't even make any sense. You'd have to demonstrate capability in those fields to be able to go anywhere. And most people are not great singers or artists or gymnasts, despite what they might personally think.

Worse for your argument is that the culture would reflect the needs of the time. If doctors are in shortage, and projected to remain in a shortage, than children are slightly more encouraged to follow the medical industry than say engineering. It is looked upon more favourably than other positions, and perhaps there would be an extra motivating factor for attempting to alleviate stress on the system. As I've mentioned previously, people would be encouraged to develope skills in multiple fields to reduce the very problem you allude to.

Income taxes is hardly an effective strategy to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. You just piss off both sides when all of their paycheque's are reduced.

Some people are indeed there for those reasons, I admit. But there are also the ones that I've mentioned.

Not exactly the same. Your level of experience, education, and work imparted would all be direct impactors on your income. And before you or someone else asks, yes someone could work at a level below their capability and retain the wages they are entitled to if society needs extra bodies in one level of the workplace over another. The whole point is flexibility and efficiency.

Now put a socialist democracy in charge of the military, and you've got what I'm talking about. The politicians and the generals may still get more credit for certain activities than the average joe, but they've earned such status with time and education, as well as participation. As far as the money goes, they'll get the benefits they've earned, and no more.

The military makes an active effort to destroy such notions in its recruits in favour of people who will follow orders unquestioningly. The system I am referring to would not.

No, therein is the reasoning behind multiple fields. You may be assigned one or two fields that you have demonstrated an aptitude for, but you can still choose others for yourself. Only gross negligence or proof of failure to understand the concepts of a field would bar you from participation within it.

Psychology, for one thing. Actual benefits for another.

Remember that I am not proposing an entirely equal payscale for all workers. Merely a restructured one that addresses gross imbalances in todays economic policies.

If it is extensive, then everyone goes over, and other fields are left destitute.

The fact of the matter is that I would anticipate shortages and surplusses in almost every field, always. There would be a constant flow of excess and shortage that was sought to be used as efficiently as possible. The diversification of the education system and the workforce is the tool I would utilize to control this. The key would be to keep shortages from becoming critical, and excesses from becoming wasteful. With a properly diversified populace, the difficulty of achieving such a state is negligible.

As I am currently working in the tax industry, I can tell you that low wage people are NOT quite happy to have to pay taxes. The rate they are taxed at doesn't even matter to most of them. The average person has no idea what the tax rates even are. They're just pissed that they get taxed in the first place.

You have failed to show that wealth redistribution as I am proposing it would destroy motivation, innovation, and hard work. So I have nothing to respond to with this point.

The free market does do that, which is why I incorporated a version of it. What the free market does not do is protect those at the bottom from those at the top. Nor does it anticipate shortages or surplusses very well. Nor can it do anything about them when they happen. This society could.

Which isn't a problem here. The ordered structure of a military with the freedom and inspiration of a democratic society.

How much fun are you having when your competitor just got a new set of drums because he was participating in genetic research as well, and he's got a crowd of hotties around him while you've got noone?

What lie? It's a lie to tell a kid that we need doctors? Sure...
The free markets benefits are outweighed by its cons. This takes the benefits of the free market and eliminates the cons.

All of these problems are the result of the free market. Education costs an arm and a leg because of the free market. Exploitation of natural resources for personal gain because of the free market. Corrupt politicians because of the free market.

You are describing problems with capitalism that socialism will solve. You aren't describing problems in socialism that need to be overcome.

A restricted market. But I think you're starting to get it. Kind of. I'm not looking to abolish capitalism completely, it is far too useful. I'm looking to reverse the polarity of the markets we use. From primarily capitalist with a modicum of socialism to primarily socialist with a modicum of capitalism. 

You mean the people below the poverty line pay almost no taxes. NOT low income people. People below the poverty line are people who are one step shy of living on the streets, probablty in a slum. Or they already are on the streets.

And how are you going to determine that with a free market? People are free to fudge numbers all over the place and there is no appointed watch dogs to make sure it's all on the level.

And if you haven't gotten by now that this system rewards success, I fear I'm wasting my time explaining it to you.

I am not going to go into minute detail work when this is merely a concept. I could spend the rest of my life discussing this with you on the detail level, and accomplish nothing. While theists continue to go merrily bye wasting our resources and time.

You give me a nations population willing to listen to and implement my ideas, and I'll bother going into minute details. Otherwise it's something we'll figure out for ourselves when the time comes. If it does.

Same as above. As it's not about to happen, it's not a concern to be dealt with. I'll not project into the future to make assumptions.

I never tried to say we can get away from supply and demand, just that it can be subjected to a measure of control. Maybe if we somehow found infinite resources we could, but I haven't seen or heard of anyone designing a molecular organizor(ie: replicator from star trek) yet. Of course, even such a miracle technology would only do so much. Nothing is infinite.

Many of the people I've seen who are socialists concentrate on the bottom of the pile. I look at the whole thing. Maximum wage, land, policing, government, military, etc. The problems generated by focusing on a segment can be fixed by looking at the larger picture. Or smaller parts of different areas of the bigger picture. But now I'm being vague.

They are not incompatible. A soldier is an inaccurate reference to use, as I'm not talking about a society where everyone is a soldier ready to go into battle. 

That's your opinion, it is not a fact.

I've told you multiple times that there is a financial reward for broadening your horizons. What is it going to take to get that in your head? I'm just going to go back to simply quoting strawmen as opposed to expanding on why if this continues.

So you're not a psychologist.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said in this thread. The education system has been rooted in capitalism since the dawn of history. There have always been private schools for the rich, with better resources tools and materials then is available to the majority. And thats just for up to grade 12. Then it gets hardcore, where you can't proceed at all unless you have the money to.

Strawman.

The public school system is in these straights for the very reason that the rich do not participate in it beyond paying their taxes. For the very reason that their kids aren't subjected to these conditions, so they have no reason to intervene. It is not "public" schooling at all, it is "poor" schooling. In a literal sense as well as an ironic one.

It is in the very fact that the rich CAN flee the system that proves it is rooted in capitalism. It is the very act of doing so that has made the public system so much worse than its competitors in private education.

Once you break a socialist system within a capitalist nation by introducing a capitalist alternative, the socialist system will invariably grow weaker as the rich pool their resources into facilities for the rich. Money and resources are invariably removed from the socialist system to provide for the capitalist system, constantly devaluing the socialist system, and constantly adding to the rich/poor gap as a result of the consequences.

A purely socialist run system with socialist competition would not face this resource drain.

And I know too many poor people who tried to get a loan and were not accepted to allow your assertion to ring true. Only honour role students get free money like scholarships.

And if you think government loans are so easy to deal with then I wonder if you really know anyone who has one and fits the definition of poor. I know quite a few people who do, and they will be paying them back for at least 10-20 years, living on the edge of poverty in the process, where one mistep puts them on the street. Meaning they have no flexibility at all in job procurement and very little in their personal lives. Both contributing factors to an unhappy lifestyle of debt procurement. They need a high paying job so they can pay back the loan as well as pay rent and buy food, let alone other day to day costs of living.

St. Lawrence College. Canada. Ontario. Brockville.

Editted to remove an unwarranted smartass comment based in frustration.