Видео

You are right. I just did it.

I am forced to assume you also use Haiti as a model for why slaves should not attempt to free themselves.

@@Jesse-qy6ur don't know about that. i was referring to ussr.

@@Qnexus7: Clearly you don't understand what the USSR was and why it was that way.

@@Jesse-qy6ur sure, i lived in it, but you understand better, fair enough.

@@Qnexus7: I don't know why you think living in it gives you some kind of special advantage in knowledge, any more than having cancer makes you an oncologist.

The workers in the cities were actually well-paid often. But the peasantry was underpaid according to Archie Brown (both under Stalin and under his successors).

at the time a pension at 55 is like you get a pension at 90 nowdays life expectancy was shit at the time and still is in eastern europe

Most western nations had much lower pension ages too, increasing pension age is a result of an aging population. the soviets would have had to raise it too, its not sustainable to have an ever increasingly economically inactive group

@@QuantumR4ge: Once you industrialize agriculture and all of its inputs, yes, actually it is very sustainable and in fact desirable to have a large group liberated from producing material goods.

Regarding 1. Retirement Age: The difference in life expectancy between USSR and West Germany during the Cold War period was about 5 years (less than 10%, so comparable imo), but the West Germans got their pensions 10 years(!) later with 65. It was only later that Germany reduced their retirement age by 5 years, despite increased life expectancy. My suggested interpretation is that they had to compete with the USSR in this regard. 2. Peasants: Peasantry might be the wrong term. In the USSR everybody had a Dacha out of town, where he grew his own food. A relic from Imperial Russia. IMO the literature only speaks of peasants in the 1920s and 30s, not afterwards. However, Chauncy D. Harris wrote that in the late 30s the USSR had the highest urban population in all Europe and Asia. In 1989 ~2/3 of the population was urban. The relative number of kolkhoz and sovkhoz households was also continuously decreasing. So even if the rural population was underpaid, they were a shrinking minority group. 3. Wages and expenses again: What you would have to do is compare the median income, because USSR and USA have incomparable wealth gaps, and then correct for social benefits, because the differences are again too large, and purchasing power as well as taxation. While I have not done such a study, I can provide some numbers from 1980: a) Rent for a standard two-room “state” apartment in Moscow: ~12.5 rubles/month b) Phone connection: ~4 rubles/month c) Electricity: ~0,02 rubles per kilowatt hour d) Unlimited gas: ~2 rubles/month e) Unlimited heating: ~2 rubles/month f) Public transport: ~0.05 rubles/travel Unfortunately I do not have the median income, but the average household income was 100 rubles/month in 1980. On top of this you also have to include gains and expenses in the parallel economy. Ofc numbers, if available, vary greatly with time, because lots of things like two world wars happened and the USSR unfortunately did not make a statistic of everything like the US.

I will check it out.

Clearly this is much worse than the United States where the poor have to work three jobs for the privilege, and even the securely employed are a single investor-driven layoff or food-industry-induced-disease away from poverty.

The guy is very biased. Everything he says comes close to Reagan jokes.

This video is not against Robert E. Lee. I actually do not think Lee was a racist (by the standards of his time). In that aspect, there is nothing wrong with Trummp liking Robert E. Lee. My point was that Lee would probably oppose Trump for trying to end the peaceful transfer of power in the US.

The comparison only works in so far as the US and the Weimar Republic suffer from similar problems. Political polarization, inflation, crisis of meaning (especially among young men who could not find a job), political corruption, and drug abuse. In that kind of hellish environment, both Trump and Hitler offered to fix everything and make their countries strong and respectable once again. I am not saying they are equally evil. That would be crazy. It is also not crazy to compare The Beer Hall Putsch with the storming of the capitol in 2021. I am also fine with comparing some forms of extreme leftism of today with Stalinism.

​@@maks3964you could say the same about ronald regan in 1980 then. Shit is bad in the us now but nowhere near as bad as germany in the late 20s early 30s. Inflation is 4% annually not 4000% . On the left there is a push for a cultural revolution that wants to destroy western culture. Mao Ze Harris lol

However, Ronald Reagan did not try to stop the peaceful transfer of power in the USA. That is a big difference between him and Trump. You can't be a Fascist who likes Liberal Democracy. Harris reminds me more of Social Democrats in the Weimar. She just seems like an average politician.

He’s an atheist Trying to fine tune his argument by playing devils advocate Which was revealed 2 minutes Now I’m laughing at you 😂

I actually do think that The Argument from Desire (as C. S. Lewis called it) does not work. I am debunking the argument. I am an atheist. I just tried to Steelman the argument in the beginning. When it comes to Rome - where do we disagree? I know Rome was Christian when it fell. Some even say Christianity played a role in that. My point about communism was that despite many bad things communism was not all bad (in some ways it was better than the Putin regime today).

@@Puzzles-Pins The totalitarian regime thing, I think we pretty safely can say that it's not a bug but a feature, and families usually are communist or something close, but the model does not scale well.

How can a materialistic worldview produce an ethical humanistic framework unless arbitrarily? If there is no transcendent authority, there is no reason to believe in morality. After all, your own thoughts and actions are merely chemical or physical interactions.

​@@grantb6732The foundation of any ethical framework is arbitrary, since they wouldn't exist without minds. You pretend that there's something in reality that grounds your morality but your "foundation" is infinitely worse than the methodological naturalist alternative. If your God controls what is moral, you have zero assurance on what will be moral from moment to moment, and since your God can speak to people without others knowing about it, you can never know whether or not a person's actions are indeed moral according to God at any moment. Compare this to, let's do as we do for all societal constructs and get together to talk about it, and it becomes absurd to think religious morality could ever be superior even accidentally.

@@thejabberwocky2819 “Let’s get together and talk about it” provides no fundamental grounding for your morality. If a God does not exist, then you getting together with other human beings to discuss social constructs is no different from a bunch of physical objects being assembled in a room. I will grant that the religious believer is by nature uncertain about many of the particulars of morality, but supposing that a principle exists that grounds morality as an objective reality which may be further explored and made more concrete by a study of reason and human nature is a far superior concept logically for constructing morality compared to supposing that morality is entirely subjective and therefore does not even exist. In other words, supposing that it is good for a bunch of people to merely discuss morality and come to a conclusion about its nature requires that morality be objective in some sense, which requires the existence of a transcendent being.

@@grantb6732 That's the point though. Not only is a fundamental grounding for morality impossible and nonsensical (morality doesn't exist in reality, only human conventions), but even if you were correct about God providing morality I already proved that that would not be a fundamental grounding either. Difference between sentient minds discussing what they would like morality to be and assembling a bunch of inanimate objects, is hopefully obvious. But apparently not: the difference is sentience and preference, which is the only possible basis for any moral system. No, you're wrong. A religious believer who thinks god sets the standard for morality can know NOTHING about what is moral as I just demonstrated. If you posit a fundamental principle that isn't from a god, show that it exists. You can't, it's just wishful thinking. Subjective does not mean "doesn't exist", it means "only exists in minds" No, it doesn't require morality to be objective. People have subjective preferences of what ought to be moral or not, and in aggregate we decide what is right or wrong based on those preferences. Feel free to provide literally any evidence that objective morality exists.

@@thejabberwocky2819 You contradict yourself several times in this statement. “Morality does not exist”and “sentience and preference are the only possible basis for a moral system” are two sentiments which cannot coexist logically. If morality does not exist, and morality is merely human convention, then morality cannot exist in the mind, only the interactions of chemicals. If morality is entirely subjective and contained within individual minds, then the morality of someone else can be broken without breaking one’s own individual morality. In other words, there is not reason to follow any system of morality so long as my opinion of morality is different from another person. This means that morality does not exist because nothing can be truly immoral. By claiming that your system is superior to mine you imply that there is some metric by which to measure the quality of opposing thoughts. If morality is purely subjective, how am I behaving in an inferior fashion by thinking or behaving in a different way. Furthermore, if sentience is merely something created by the interaction of chemicals and matter in the brain, how is sentience morally superior to throwing rocks in a room or pouring one chemical into another. You also contradict yourself by saying that human beings can know nothing about morality from presupposing the existence of a God and then observing human nature to try to gradually discover moral features through reason, when in the next thought you also say that morality can be learned through the aggregation of the moral opinions of other human beings. Does morality exist or does it not exist? It cannot be both.

Yes. I could site almost any empire prior to the 1700s.

@@grantb6732 I'm sceptical that they actually worked if you think deeper about it. They may have worked for a certain group of people and in the sense that they were stable. But I'd argue they were stably bad other than that. What would be such an empire that you'd say has worked?

The Holy Roman Empire was explicitly Christian. So was the Byzantine Empire. The Ottoman Empire experienced periods of dominance as a Muslim Empire. China was a majority Confucian Empire for stretches of its history (along with other religious movements). The ancient Roman Empire was religious; it’s people regularly worshipped at shrines, kept images of gods in their homes, and worshipped at temples and in regular ceremonies. (I could say the same thing about the Greek Empire.) The United States is a religious country (even if you don’t think it is currently, it certainly has been in the past). The British Empire was religious, explicitly establishing its own religion under the Church of England. Every major continental European country has been mired in religion at some point in its history, France, Italy, Germany/ Prussia, Austria, etc. Russia used to be committed to Orthodoxy. The Egyptian Empire had its own mythology and religious practices. India has long worshipped Hinduism. The ancient Babylonian Empire was religious. The Israelites in ancient times were obviously religious. I could go on, but frankly if none of the aforementioned countries can be considered successful, than no civilization can be considered successful.

@@cupofcoffee4251 Also, just so we can do a trade off here, what non-religious countries do you believe to be successful. This will give me a better idea of what you mean by a civilization “working”.

@@grantb6732 I'm not denying there were many religious empires and countries. My problem is more with the term "working". I'd say that the countries you mentioned weren't really working beyond existing and providing wealth and power for the eilite. Besides that, most people in these countries were poor, war was considered a normal activity of states, human rights were a complete desaster and there was no participation for normal people. The US might have been different in many aspects, but there was still slavery and women couldn't vote in the beginning. Something that especially the church didn't want to change. I mean, would you like to travel back in time to spend your life in one of the countries you mentioned? I'm sure I wouldn't want to. A working civilization would be the US after the civil rights movement or Japan or European countries. Those aren't perfect either, but "working" doesn't require perfection for me. But those countries before 1700 before the enlightment, those were definitly not working.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127087/

What is a secular country? Just one with a majority secular population? A country with no or little mention of God in its founding documents? What if a country’s history is soaked in religious ideals, then gradually transitions to a majority secular population over time? Can it still really be called a nation based on “secular principles”?

It seems the question is not whether secular societies have ever existed, the question is whether they last or deteriorate over centuries? How do they generate cohesion, solve moral quandaries, etc?

I want to point out that there is not enough data on this because the western countries you are describing and Japan- Vietnam have been non religious for a short time I'd say the western countries if you want to be charitable since the 60s and Japan since the end of World war 2 (because their emperor was a deity or something close). The pattern of all these countries minus Vietnam because I don't know:the Baby Born rate has plummeted especially, people are depr$$ed( this is particularly true in Japan where people live in saad apartments and work themselves to unalive), people in the west start to believe in new things that replaces it ega1itarianism, hed0nism and n1hilism and, we have no values that unify our society, our language seems to be abstracted to the degree where we can't agree on basic definitions like woman and man, men commit suicide and have less feelings of purpose in their lives, no one are having babies because modern "culture " is implying that humans are unnecasary and should collectively seize to be. And yes I believe this is the result of a secular culture

awkwardly the countries you mention were not founded as Secular nations. They were originally religious nations or held deities/idols until a more recent time in history. And if you look at the points in history since abandoning religious or idol culture, their social cohesion, happiness rates, birth rates etc have all fallen since. So you could argue they don't work by the same vein. More data would be needed, but we don't have a control group of a country who has been founded on non-religious practice and cohesion and thrived... because it hasn't happened.

@@TryinBin8889 Actually No, Japan was not founded by religion, but Shinto, an indigenous religion, dates back to the beginning of Japan's history. Vietnam was not founded by religion, but many religions have influenced the country's culture and history. Denmark was founded during the Viking Age and was Christianized in 965 CE. Sweden was also not founded by religion, but like much like Vietnam has been influenced by religions. Since they moved away from being "overly" religious their societal health has improved. Metrics include general health of the populace, number of people in prisons, etc. As a country becomes more religious, we see the opposite.

I could flip this statement around and it would contain about the same intellectual content “Trying to explain religion to an atheist is like trying to explain colors to a 100% completely blind person.”

​@grantb6732 a blind person from birth has never experienced colors, but I've experienced Christianity and I'm still an atheist. Most people who are atheists have experienced religion, and most religious people have never experienced atheism. Therefore what you said is not analogous.

@@stargatemaster94 What about atheists who convert to Christianity? Or Christian’s who have experienced atheism? Or atheists who haven’t experienced Christianity? I’m sorry, but this rebuttal is just incorrect.

@grantb6732 what about them? You didn't actually make a point. Btw, atheists who converted to Christianity and Christians who have experienced atheism are part of the same group. The point we are making is that a religious person who has never experienced atheism is like explaining color to a blind person. Explaining religion to an atheist who has never experienced religious experiences is also like explaining color to a blind person. So what? I love that you wholeheartedly thought you made a great gotcha. You didn't, and my example was spot on.

​@@stargatemaster94 So the whole point is mooot then The original comment has no content There are atheists from birth as well as christians from birth as well as converts in both directions. To make blanket statements about any may be spplied in the opposite direction

It's not pretense It's obvious repeated history Widespread irreligiousity is one of the cheif features of societies in decline From rome to arabia to persia to several chinese empires

​@goyonman9655 so it doesn't matter if the religion is true. It seems silly to argue that society works better with false beliefs. A secular humanist society has never been tried

@@davidspencer343 When did I say religion was not true??? When did I advocate false beliefs? The fact that atheism can only parasitise on already built civilisations and never build one is evidence it is more false than most false beliefs

@@goyonman9655 I meant a society apparently doesn't need one specific religion. Alot of religions work and they can't all be true. So it's not about truth

@@davidspencer343 Of course all religions can't be true But atheism is definitely false The truth cannot be permanently parasitic on falsehoods

@wills9392 I disagree, but I'd be willing to believe no culture can develop without superstitions, things we cannot explain are where legends are born.

You must live such a sad life, firmly believing in absolute bullshit without a shred of evidence to support your superstitions.

@@dienekes4364 Why does it matter to you at all, me believing in such bullshit? When in fact according to your worldview there is no meaning or value inherent to existence. Your very thoughts, words, and action are entirely worthless in the scope of reality as it is, a pathetic and tormented yelp into nothingness from which you became and will return. Do you wish to continue?

yet, we persist..

Same with Iceland and Estonia

@@zahubshahid7944 Iceland is less than half a million people. I consider it as a micro country but yeah an atheist civilization still working. I don't know much about Estonia.

How much do you know about China? People in the west tend to just say things about countries they know nothing about and just make assumptions based on their political ideologies they've been force-fed since childhood.

How is atheism responsible for 90% of wars?

​@@maks3964he's high or something, also creating an atheist society is almost impossible since there's nothing meaningful to do anything and as simple as that sounds it can destroy all your hopes because its contradict the human nature to have a purpose even if you don't agree with religion but religious folks have a reason to wake up each day with motivation

Japan is not atheist…

Japan also has an horrendous self deletion rate, and is beginning to experience population collapse just like many secular areas of the west. Amazonian tribes hardly count as civil society.

That doesn't count because the japanese constitution is heavily based on American ideology which has nothing to do with atheism

​@@wills9392 Did you know that countries with the highest population of believers also have the highest percentage of people in prison? Statistics also show that populations with the most believers also have the highest divorce rate. Go figure that my friend!

​@@gofish7388 "Japan is not atheist…" I didn't say it was my friend. Good luck.

They are called the Piraha people (the atheist tribe in the Amazon).

@@maks3964 "They are called the Piraha people" thank you.

"It's working for me" It's not working for America America is declining in porpotion with it's atheism

Michael Burleigh presents us with this question in his book. I agree that in a strict sense of the word Nazism is neither. But Hitler believed it to be science while Himmler wanted it to be a religion.

@@maks3964 Socialists, of every cohort, use propaganda. The NAZI's actually had a Minister of Propaganda. His function was to promote falsehoods to indoctrinate their subjects. Therefore, we cannot trust what the NAZI's say about their beliefs. Instead, we must look at their actions. Was NAZI dogma the result of the scientific method? Or was it derived by the methods used by philosophers? No. I apply a different word for Socialist dogma: uneducated Sophistry. Was the KKK a religion or science? No, it was a band of thugs who gained control of a territory and then created a cult to justify that control. This is quite common in history.

I agree. I don't think it's a coincidence that the US became so powerful (given the fact that it was the first secular state).

Interesting how all the successful countries have adopted secularism…

Secularism is not Atheism....neither is getting rid of certain religous dogmas. And the western civ, which I assume you mean with the greastest, is not based on atheism. Rather religious freedom. Also things in the west started to go down once the religous foundation started to erode. The atrocities of the 20thcent. were driven by anti religous zeal. I think one can even argue that the stern believe that there is no higher instance, is a religous motion of it´s own....

@@Enrico_Palazzo_opera_singer "The atrocities of the 20thcent. were driven by anti religous zeal." The Crusades, The Inquisition, the subjugation of the Aztec were all started because of christianity.

@thundershield I know historical knowledge isn't exactly great on your side of things typically, but damn this is historically illiterate. Think of any great civilization or empire. Guess what? There is a 99% chance your pick was a highly religious society. If you are unironically gonna argue muh they 'ultimately' failed and collapsed, once again that's historically illiterate, all societies and empires fall. That's an inevitable part of the life cycle of any civilization, including your precious secular society. Just because you are in a moment of time x society you live in hasn't collapsed yet doesn't demonstrate anything about it's success inherently, it's like a Roman living in 400 AD saying well Rome must be the greatest empire ever as it still stands while all its rivals crumbled into dust. You can replicate that sort of fallacious thinking with any society at any point in time, which would be the present for people living in it. Also what exactly is the 'greatest civilization so far' in your eyes exactly? The Modern West? When I as an outsider look at it I see nothing but a degenerate cesspool in decline. Ironically enough the height of the West, which would be the 1800s to early 1900s, happened when it was still incredibly religious as a society, where as it's decline in strength when compared to other civilizations happened around the same time as it's en mass de-Christianization. Other facts to also keep in mind are already by 1450-1500, Western Europe was the wealthiest major region on earth, far before it was atheistic or even secular. So chalking the West's historic successes to 'secularism' is over-simplification at best and factually incorrect at worst.