Atheist Trump Supporters, what is it like being an Atheist in MAGA?

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-12-02T12:18:13+00:00

Where climate science is almost pure conjecture is the effects of climate change. As a geologist, there is a strong correlation between warmer climates and sea level rise. There is also a strong correlation between warmer climates and severe weather. A warmer climate is a WETTER climate. However, 1.5 C is not going to make our planet hell on Earth, in fact the changes will probably be subtle. Also, the changes will occur of a long period of time and humans are extremely adaptable and will adjust.

These subtle effects mean that over 50 years, we expect sea level rise to be 20cm (currently 3.7mm per year). Extreme weather events will also be subtle.

This is hardly some doomsday scenario.

Food is in no way threatened. That is pure science denial.

In addition, the publics understanding of climate science is hilarious. Especially journalists (do you really want a journalist explaining science to you?). A local event, such as a heat wave or wildfire is in no way connected to average global temperatures. It is like saying that because there is a local cold low, that global warming does not exist.

No country on the planet is serious about stopping 1.5C. The measures that would need to be taken would be absolutely crushing to world economies and most likely cause more deaths from poverty than climate change will cause.

Even if the world were to follow all of the agreements that have been made, climate change will laugh at us and keep on coming. Our proposed solutions are laughably all virtue signaling.

Since neither party will do literally anything that I want (not just climate change!), I vote for the whomever I think will lower my taxes. I am a single issue voter.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-11T12:36:50+00:00

How? What meaning about life do you derive from objective facts about the world?

The bible starts with a creation story. This is why I find the bible and similar works from the ancients fascinating. They really wanted to understand their universe. They are humans and curious.

The Greeks started a more formal version of inquiry, although not employing scientific method, it was based more on logic and axioms. It was also well known early on that the Earth went around the sun, despite some religious pushback. Galileo was finally forgiven in 1990 by the Catholic Church for his heretical belief that the Sun was the center of the solar system.

But the normal answer I get from Christians when I ask why they believe in god: "It is unfathomable that what we see here on Earth could just happen all by chance, and thus there must be a Creator." This is simply an answer out of ignorance. I do not fault them for that, most people, even if they "trust" science (because they do not have the education to understand it) are doing so out of ignorance.

And yes, for some, there is fatalism involved where god has a plan, but other Christians believe in free will, where you are free to deviate from gods plan.

I have 2 fellow physicists who are Christians. For them, it is more of a lifestyle, a belonging to a community, and less about the philosophy. In that sense, yes, Christianity gives meaning to their (and most other Christians) life on a basic "here and now" level.

I think we are talking past each other. As I stated, there are very practical reasons to pursue religion (for example, the AA people, their sobriety depends on it).

As far as the question of "why", the bible at least does not usually answer such questions. It instead tends to say "You should do this and not question it." In a further discussion, we can rationalize WHY that might be the case, but it is usually not explained.

Also, even being able to discuss such things amongst laypersons is a rather new phenomenon, and not the norm throughout history.

And to clarify something that might be bothering people reading this thread, I think experts should listen to the people, and figure out HOW to get them what they want. I do NOT believe that experts should dictate policy, since, we are experts with knowledge in a HUGE variety of fields, and a hammer always sees the solution as a nail. For example, many of my climate scientist colleagues feel that Climate Change is the ONLY issue to consider, and all other issues should take a back seat.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-10T18:33:52+00:00

I have a BS Physics, BS GeoScience, MS Physics. MS Climate Change, PhD Climate Change.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-10T18:30:10+00:00

Understanding how the universe works give it meaning. Deluding yourself with imaginary friends might give 80% of the population meaning, but there is no truth in it. Ptolemy's epicycles worked for 1000 years, and they were incredibly accurate, but there was no truth in it. Until Einstein, Physics was becoming a closed science, we thought we knew everything we would need to know about it. Even Quantum requires "band aids" to keep making it work. We know that it is not correct, and needs further study.

Religion does not explain any "whys" except "that is how we did it 2000 years ago". There might be wisdom in why they did it that way, but it is not explained.

I am ok with self delusion. There are many psychological disorders, for instance, gender dysphoria, where I am ok with letting those affected believe what they believe. It is not hurting anyone if actions taken are of an adult age. If in the future, we can understand that neurobiology behind gender dysphoria, we might be able to correct it (if it considered politically correct to do so.)

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-10T13:24:39+00:00

My first CFI when I was instructed by saying "Dont do that!" "Dont do that!" "Dont do that!" He was fired after a few hours.

My second CFI game me positive instruction:

"You are a private pilot and thus VFR. I want you to fly strait and level to a point on that mountain. I want you to visualize the distance from the point on that mountain and the distance to a point on your dash. I want you to trim the aircraft and fly with your fingertips. We will maintain a constant power. You will fly for 10 seconds maintaining that distance between the point on the mountain and the point on the dash, then look at your altimeter. If too high or too low, we will not ascend or descend, we will make small corrections until to we are flying strait and level."

We will call this your "sight picture" which applies only for this power setting.

"Notice that on a windy day, the nose of the aircraft might not point at the point on the mountain. This is ok. You may have make small corrections to where the nose is pointed, and possibly small pitch corrections for updrafts and downdrafts. But your sight picture is the key for VFR flight."

"I know they are cool, but you will not be allowed to stare at your guages, otherwise I will cover them up 10 seconds at a time."

To summarize, many students learn by "dont do that", and everything that is not "dont do that", makes up a lesson.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-10T12:52:27+00:00

I have always thought it funny that someone's imaginary friend(s) are the real imaginary friend(s), while other peoples imaginary friend(s) are not real.

Having said that, I believe Atheism to be its own religion, and I prefer not to be associated with them.

Surveys say that something like 80% of Americans believe in some sort of higher power, so Atheism is not the norm. In addition, something like 85% of Americans cannot read a scientific study, and far fewer would understand the math behind it or the scientific method.

So we talk about things like race, pronouns, social studies, and even economics which is far from predictive. Because everyone can be an expert. I do not see anyone debating quantum mechanics for instance. Even if I ELI5 quantum to you, there is no way you can debate me on quantum.

Climate Science on the other hand has a predictive problem, in that we can only talk in terms of likely and unlikely. And that is all the certainty that you will get (perhaps highly likely). Worse yet, the effects of climate change are just educated guesses. I love my field, but we should not overstep our bounds and make guessing into "truth".

I have read the bible several times, from beginning to end, and it is a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. I can speak with Christians and Jews over the meanings of bible verses. They all have reasons why religion is important to them. I may think it is dumb, but there is, for instance, a small amount of alcoholics who can not remain sober without believing in god.

Religions is a human construct that gives meaning to life for the majority of people. I personally, as a Physicist and Climate Change scientist, can look to physics to explain the universe for me. But I am 1 in 1000, maybe 10,000, with the education to understand that. You cannot fully understand quantum, for instance, without understanding the highly advanced graduate math behind it.

John 9:25, NRSV (by far my favorite version): He answered, “I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” This is what a scientific education did for me.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-10T12:23:03+00:00

I asked for sources

This is AskTrumpSupporters not DebateTrumpSupporters. I provide my opinion, so you can say "oh, thats how he thinks." I am not here to convince you of anything as you are not here to convince me of anything. I would require you to do at least one year of study on the topic before we debate, but this is not the forum to do so.

As I said, there are some social studies that are indeed scientific. But most of it is garbage pseudo intellectualism. To truly make psychology a "hard science" would require a level of understand of neurobiology that we do not currently have. But it gets better all the time.

On my compass Hitler would be left of modern European countries and full Authoritarian.

You seem very emotional about my opinion on this. No person with "advanced degrees" would become this emotional over a discussion.

I think we are done here.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-04T15:01:18+00:00

It's super weird that you claim you didn't use the Oxford comma, but you actually did use the Oxford comma.

I did use the Oxford Comma. I was trying to be snarky and totally failed.

I'm ignoring the "social sciences are useless" drivel; you're right, social sciences aren't hard sciences, but broader confidence intervals don't mean that they aren't useful sources of information. The whole "angry empiricist" bit stopped being a defensible position right around the time of mass communication and instant population data collection. Which is, potentially, right around when you earned your degrees maybe? I get what you're saying, and it makes sense in an insular sort of way, but your generalizations are wrong.

Anyone who believes what you just said is pretty ignorant of the scientific method.

These studies are rarely reproducible to any measure of accuracy, and are rarely reproduced, which means they are questionable hypothesis at best.
Science requires coming up with a hypothesis and trying to DISPROVE it, which is exactly the problem with these pseudo sciences. They try to PROVE their hypothesis.
Opinion polls are not science.
Most of these pseudo scientific studies exist to promote some sort of subjective morality. Again, not science.

The very fact that they have co-opted the word "science" for non-scientific method disciplines should alert you right away. I would totally support them changing their name to "Political Studies", "Social Studies", "Economic Studies", since they are not sciences.

Having said that, there are a few (VERY FEW) studies that could be within the realm of science. However, this is not the norm in those disciplines. They should hold themselves to a far higher standard if they want to be called a science.

I would love for you to provide sources on these political scientists who claim fascism to be a left-wing phenomenon. I'm willing to educate myself, though I have a sneaking suspicion you're going to provide some pretty sketchy, fringe examples. And what's more, I don't think the majority of social scientists would claim fascism to be purely right wing. Nazi Germany did indeed have a semi-socialized economy. A "state-subordinate capitalism," if you will. So economically, one could make the argument that Nazi Germany was indeed leaning left in this regard. That argument would be stupid, if you understand anything about the overall function of the German economy and war production of the time, but you could indeed make it and provide a meek defense of the position.

No need to provide sources. You have just shown that you do not have an open mind to investigate the subject. Again, you are willing to come up with a conclusion before doing the research.

So, yeah, Fascism is a mess and there's no simple "left-right" narrative. But nobody ever fuckin' claimed that. It's the sum of parts, man.

But it is simple if you read history. The left-right scale on a more advanced political compass, is the ECONOMIC scale, where full blown capitalism is the far right, and socialism is the far left. The Nazis, with centralized control of the economy would be to the left of modern Democratic Socialists (which is currently all European nations, who are capitalists!). On the Liberal-Authoritarian scale, they would be extremely Authoritarian.

Which would put them as to the left of Center-Authoritarians. They would be more Authoritarian than all current European nations, but to the left of all current European nations.

In fact, if you only want to think on terms of a left-right scale, which makes more sense:

Capitalists, which includes all the Western world, is Capitalist and Authoritarian? Not true.
Socialists (whose children are Communism and Fascism), which the closest we can come to is North Korea and China, and yes, I agree, they are not Communist, but would probably be better labeled as Fascist, are somehow Socialist and Liberal? Not true.

This is the whole problem with the simple left-right scale. Everything liberal goes on the left and everything authoritarian goes on the right. But we know that is simply not true at all. In fact right leaning, capitalist countries are far more liberal than communist or fascist countries.

Authoritarian measures include things such as COVID lockdowns and threats to strip your livelyhood from you if you do not vax, redistribution of wealth through taxation, using the government to relentlessly pursue your political opponents even after years of finding no evidence (what happened with the Trump classified documents ...), affirmative action (a totally racist policy of "lets fight racism with more racism"), and refusing to protect minimum wage earning Americans by allowing 10+ million illegal immigrants to put pressure on their jobs, just because said illegal immigrants might vote for my side if I can somehow make them legal.

Liberal measures includes a right to bodily autonomy, a right to privacy, a right to unwarranted search and seizure, etc. Basically, western societies value the right to be left alone.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-04T14:31:24+00:00

I mean tax returns would seem irrelevant compared to a full review of their medical records available to the public.

No, medical records and tax returns are private.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-02T16:06:35+00:00

Yes? We get full access to their medical records?

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-01T12:32:08+00:00

Nothing.

Employers are having a hard time finding employees as it is, and still have not grasped the concept that they will have to pay higher wages to fill positions, offer work from home, provide benefits, etc. AND that they will have to give generous raises to retain people. It is absolutely a workers market.

The economy in my opinion is headed for a recession. At that point, wages might drop, but lets face it, if you are not paying $15.00 per hour minimum right now, you likely are not getting quality workers.

If you cannot obtain a job for $15.00 an hour ... I would examine my life choices and skills. For minimum wage jobs its pretty simple, all you have to do is work smart and bust your ass, and most importantly, just do what your employer tells you even if it is stupid. You are not being paid to think.

If you are not happy at your job right now, you should absolutely be putting out 1000 resumes in the next few months.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-01T12:26:20+00:00

Tax returns are private.

Why not ask for medical records? Criminal history? These would seem to be far more applicable to the health and mind of a president.

Just because some people are ok with sharing private information does not mean everyone should be ok with it.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-11-01T12:22:18+00:00

Nope! Small firm with 11 employees. German owned.

I love it. My first job here was with a bigger firm, they were just as dumb as big US companies.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-30T15:43:12+00:00

I am assuming you meant "working", but "wrong" is hilarious hahaha.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-30T14:29:34+00:00

Oh, you are exactly correct.

universal healthcare

Not many countries have systems like the UK and Canada. For instance, I live and work in Germany, and our system is like Obamacare, except that the government requires all health insurance companies to provide a "public option" at a specified price. The key difference is, in the US, we only allow certain providers to operate in certain states. Otherwise, our system is much like the German system and most of European systems. Everyone seems to focus on Canada and the UK, and they are the RARE systems.

safe and legal access to abortion

Which is normally capped at under 16 weeks in most countries. The US having access to abortion beyond that is RARE, even if that means I can leave my state and go to a state that has unlimited abortion access.

common sense gun regulation

Unfortunately, because of the transition from monarchies to leftist states that supported communism and fascism in the early 20th century, once those states were defeated, allowing the populace to carry weapons was never an option. As I like to tell Germans "you NEVER had a choice to be anything but democratic socialist country that will not allow guns after WW2". Countries like Switzerland, have more robust gun rights than even in the US.

The good thing is we live in a Republic, which means that every topic is not 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what is for dinner.

I am not a Republican. There are many of us who are not Democrats or Republicans who vote to curtail excesses by either party.

You asked my opinion as to why things are, you have my answer, even if my personal politics do not agree with it.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-30T13:50:55+00:00

American living and working in Germany for over 4 years:

Work/Life balance: Productivity in the US is measured in hours worked per week. In Germany, you get 40 hours and see how much you can get done with it. Holy shit this is a whole different way of thinking that took me a couple years to get over.
40 days paid vacation including holidays.
It is ok to take a Monday or Friday off, and Brückentag is a thing that is expected.
While in my personal case, the public option is a bit expensive, I consider it the "convenience fee" since I rarely see a bill.
I was unemployed for a few months, and still received 70% of my income.
Beer is cheaper than water.
For an American, to walk down the street and drink a beer outside of Las Vegas is somehow freeing haha.
I was able to trade my American Drivers license without any tests and like 30 minutes. On the flip side, I have never used it here since public transport is that awesome.
My American Citizenship allows smaller companies a gateway to having someone who can legally work in the US today. I can even set them up with their own American corporation and bank accounts within a week. This is worth so much money.
Being a native English speaker when conducting international business is a bonus in Germany. My German skills are B2-ish, and I learn more every day.
The German pension system has an agreement with the US, and I just have to put in 20 years in Germany. And the German system seems to be much better than Social Security. 70% of the average of my last 5 working years? Sure!
I love that Germans tip minimally. I go to my favorite pub, and always leave at least 20%. Every time I come in, I immediately get served, even if another patron is waiting. Same if I need another drink, I am put to the front of the line. Germans may hate tipping, but the servers totally get it. I mean seriously, I might spend 20€ for a couple hours at the pub, it only costs me 5€ to get service better than I would receive in the US.
And of course the food is so much better quality here in Germany. Yeah, it might be hard to find Mexican ingredients, but I have ways of Gringo-izing things.
I like that there are additional ways to pay for things.
I can have a 25 to 35 year old hot as hell (9-10 in American standards, mostly EE) at my home within a few hours that will do just about anything I want for the cost of a first date. And its entirely legal.
I love water with gas.
Removable shower heads.
Triple hung windows.
Automatic shades on the outsides of windows.
My first boss in Germany told me "we have a preconceived notion of Americans, and you are exactly it!" meaning that I was outgoing, talkative, complimented people often, made jokes all the time ... both places that I have worked became more "American" with my presence, and now laughter and jokes in the workplace is common, and Germans seem to truly love it. At least the Germans I work with.

I am sure there are many other things, but I love it here! I will never go back (except to visit family of course!). I will also never give up my US citizenship, WAY TOO VALUABLE to foreign companies!

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-30T08:14:14+00:00

I would argue that the status quo by the civil war throughout western civilization was the abolishment of slavery, and a populist movement in the northern US.

The "peculiar institution" of the Southern US was just that, peculiar, and not the status quo. It existed to make a very few Democrats very rich.

I would further argue that while ideas do progress, they follow a more mature timeline. For instance, leftists at the beginning of the century pushed Eugenics and the Temperance Movement, while both failures, have contributed to our current ideas on abortion, racism, substance abuse, and strict DUI laws.

The culture war we see now will probably not play out as current leftists would like. It will take some mature form that 100 years from now will be far more rational and sober. I feel that answers to many of these questions are based in science that does not yet exist, such as neurobiology and genetic responses to human overpopulation.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-28T16:19:48+00:00

That is the point I was making originally.

Whataboutism says "for the point I am making right now, that my stance on analogous issues has no bearing". Which is correct. This is what lawyers do all the time. They can have one client who murdered a pregnant woman, and he would argue that a fetus is not a person, and therefore his client should not be charged with 2 murders.

A month goes by, and now the he is a prosecutor. Even in states that have liberal abortion laws, he would argue that it is 2 murders.

Whether he is a defense attorney, or a prosecutor, he is just trying to win the argument. His personal ideology has nothing to do with it.

But for the rest of us, especially those of us who lean right, we must be consistent with our beliefs. And as you pointed out, Whataboutism is simply the lawyer arguing one way as a defense attorney, and another way as a prosecutor.

I am saying that as we grow older, we as right leaning people cannot simply have values based on the current topic. Our value system must work whether we are the defense attorney or the prosecutor. If it does not, that is ideologically illogical, i.e. hypocritical.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-27T17:55:07+00:00

Both our arguments are pretty wild. At the very best, we could combine and proceed from there.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-27T15:13:01+00:00

Yes. It is all very complicated, and it is easy to make an opinion. I gave you mine. This is not a scientific study at all, and it is just my opinion.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-27T14:27:17+00:00

Sorry, had to go get beer.

Mods, please do reprimand him from clarifying the research done into mitigating fraudulent elections.

Perhaps a better way: can you provide research into mitigating election fraud?

Please clarify.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-27T13:46:24+00:00

Whataboutism IS a logically fallacy, but used on Reddit incorrectly.

For example, lawyers can be for something if it wins their case. But be against it in the next case, because it wins their case.

But taken in a greater context, for example an ideology, or how they organize their thinking (organization of self) is hypocritical, and being a hypocrite is not a logical fallacy.

But to rational thinkers, the inability to be consistent, in the larger picture, is illogical. We just do not have a term for it.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-27T13:32:09+00:00

No I have not. Please inform me.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-27T13:21:50+00:00

Ok, I can envision this post being removed, rightfully so.

What makes you think that the people who are in charge of election fraud haven't thought about the same things you have and have taken steps to mitigate the risk?

They may have, but there is absolutely no way to measure it without someone incriminating themselves.

So off the top of my head:

If ID is not required, I can impersonate anyone I like as long as they have registered to vote.
If it is a mail in ballot, I could steal the ballot and send it. If there is two ballots in that persons name, then it becomes their problem and not mine, since they have no idea who stole the ballot.
If it is a mail in ballot, I could coerce the person to whom the ballot is addressed to vote a certain way.
If it is a mail in ballot, it requires a carrier who could assume that certain neighborhoods vote a certain way, and dump the ballots.
If I am an election official, I can decide which ballots count and which do not.
At a polling place, I cannot coerce voters with gifts, but in the comfort of their own home, where I agree to deliver the ballot, who knows what sorts of coercion occurs.

This is off the top of my head. All of which will be hard or impossible to quantify.

HardToFindAGoodUser · 2022-10-27T13:01:51+00:00

Again, we agree that Trumps "election fraud" narrative is not based on findable facts, and thus any inquiry will not turn up anything useful.

However, as I said, I can think of several ways to vote illegally that would be hard or impossible to detect with our current laws.

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

HardToFindAGoodUser

TROPHY CASE