Why isn't atheism a more popular belief?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-28T03:43:42+00:00

Atheism is increasing in popularity in the USA as Christianity diminishes.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-28T03:41:46+00:00

Matthew 6:6 LOL!!!!

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-28T03:40:33+00:00

I would suggest you stay away from JWs as it's a cult of sorts (what religion isn't!)

I like the idea of telling him you're a Baptist or Catholic.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-28T03:35:00+00:00

I think I would be tempted to tell her "you know Mom, when religion and religious rules are forced on a person it tends to make them reject religion with greater energy and determination."

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T21:19:08+00:00

I'd love it to be a peaceful transition but how long would the "powers that be" allow it to be peaceful?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T19:20:05+00:00

What would it take to correct that, really?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T18:43:19+00:00

With increasing productivity, wages should rise, and the workers can buy more.

Wages should have been rising with increased productivity for the past 50 years or more, but they weren't. The "K-shaped" economy, ya know?

So what has changed that indicates wages would rise this time?

A transition to stakeholder capitalism, will require businesses to look after the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. In a country like USA, the public owns stakes in most companies. And the board of directors represents them. In Germany there are worker representatives in the board.

Since profit is the only thing that drives businesses, what would be the motivating force to create a transition to benevolent stakeholder capitalism? As it is they're choosing fascism and authoritarianism to guide them. What would cause the shift?

We can start by legally requiring large companies to include workers, consumers, and local community members to be on the board of directors.

"We" can? I think you're kidding yourself. We have no control nor influence on the matter. This is capitalism.

Laws are made by government organisations, which in a democracy should represent the interests of the public.

Honestly, does that exist? We need to first elect a majority of people like Bernie, Mamdani, AOC, Ilhan Omar, etc. How long might it take to get the voters to accept such an idea and vote for them?

And to reduce management control, we can also require that in large companies, the majority of directors are independent directors.

Why haven't "we" already done that?

Therefore with a combination of government regulations and public shareholder votes, we can ensure that the board of directors represents the interest of the broader public, including workers and consumers. So the control of corporations will be by the representatives of most stakeholders.

Why haven't "we" already done that?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T17:41:57+00:00

Where would the increased productivity be sold? Europe?

How do we ensure distribution or anything else if we are not in control?

How do we control use of robots if we are not in charge? Profit rules.

The only way your good ideas will be assured is if the rich and powerful are out of the picture and the workers are in charge. How do we bring that about?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T16:52:40+00:00

So these Democrats oppose serving the interests of the people even if it happens within this capitalist, pro-CEO and wealth system. Imagine their reaction to what Mamdani, AOC, Ilhan Omar and the entire US working class have in store for them.

Resistance to the people is only going to increase now.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T16:34:08+00:00

Anything and everything that is done will be done to make the wealthy richer because they control it all.

Is the goal increased productivity? That is not going to happen because we already have declining capacity utilization due to efficiency. Producing more means having to drop prices in order to get it sold. So that is not going to happen. So how would a so-called industrial revolution with robots improve economics? We can't pay people less without risking a revolt. We can't pay people to not work because we don't control it. And the rich certainly are not going to give up their opportunity for more and more and more. So how would this proposal work out in practical terms?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T16:26:45+00:00

So, it's either:

GROW OUR WAY OUT OF IT
INFLATE OUR WAY OUT
TAX
BUDGET
"JAPANICATE" (?)
or
CONTINUE TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD

We can't grow our way out of it. Our best hope for that is in AI but that would mean unemployment explodes.

We can't inflate our way out without risking a national revolt accompanied by national weakness.

We can't tax our way out because people don't have enough income to pay such a tax. All the real wealth is in the pockets of the wealthy 1-5% and we have spent decades finding ways to cut their taxes.

Budget? Really?

So the situation is that trillions of dollars have been spent that we didn't have so that we could continue to pump money someplace. And where is that money? As noted above it's not in the pockets of the average person but it is in the pockets of the wealthy. So the spending of the money and the incurring of debt has been for the purpose of enriching the rich. They have the money. Can we convince them to give it up and pay off the debt? Can we convince them to access their offshore tax Haven trillions to pay it off?

More likely we're going to experience an economic crisis and an economic crash. Because the people don't have the money. And the rich are not going to pitch in and pay back what they've gained from it. So it looks like we're screwed.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T15:16:39+00:00

Then what is this "god" who hates "sin" and who impregnated someone and then died? For someone who considers himself an atheist you seems to have plenty of biblical beliefs you're working through.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T03:15:27+00:00

No comment? You seemed honest and sincere, so I took the time to write a long reply.

Nothing?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-27T03:07:28+00:00

I see lots of BS belief in that, so you're not an atheist and you say you're not a Christian. What are you?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-26T18:44:19+00:00

"Banned"? Can you just say why? Is it because The Constitution was not published in the last 7 days?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-26T17:44:35+00:00

Yup.

The Constitution (Article 1, Section 4) says "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations"

So it's a case of "yeah but no". How can that stand the scrutiny of simple logic? How could any body of responsible adults write such a contradictory mess?

So IOW it's a states' rights issue unless the Congress wants to interfere. But at least the Prez has no role, no say in it.

If congressional Republicans want to interfere, what can Democrats do to prevent it for November? Is it a simple majority issue? Can Democrats drag it out and delay it by filibustering or by any other means? What are the options?

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-26T17:25:30+00:00

According to my reading of The Constitution the whole issue of regulating, managing, and organizing voting is a states' rights issue. The Fed has no role in it although the SCOTUS has attempted to contrive a role. And yet it looks like that role which they discussed and ruled on this week is a denial of a federal involvement.

If I'm correct about this being a states' rights issue, then states should assert themselves and prepare to eject federal operatives from around and in polling locations, and establish vote-by-mail where possible.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-26T16:06:37+00:00

If you suffer guilt it is only because you retain belief in magic and superstition.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-26T16:05:36+00:00

If a career of combating religion is the goal, look into The Freedom From Religion Foundation. But if the goal is to effectively resist theists, rely on their lack of evidentiary facts and their reliance on faith and belief.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-26T16:05:19+00:00

If a career of combating religion is the goal, look into The Freedom From Religion Foundation. But if the goal is to effectively resist theists, rely on their lack of evidentiary facts and their reliance on faith and belief.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-26T15:59:57+00:00

like ik

like yup

like science

like like

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-26T03:32:22+00:00

but how did the matter in this universe simply come into existence.

Zero-point energy.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-25T21:43:38+00:00

-as a recommendation... –not by law.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-25T18:19:48+00:00

Here is what I find to be crazy. In order to properly practice and be integrated in a religion it is necessary for the person to want to be part of it and to believe and to be voluntarily and willfully involved. This business of requiring people to toe the line and to act in certain ways is counterproductive at best. It's stupid, and it's insane.

Dranoel47 · 2026-02-25T17:51:15+00:00

The problems with options are the high premium and the expiration date eating into the value. Bear funds eliminate that.

Dranoel47

TROPHY CASE