What is your favorite non-fiction book?

Is atheism incompatible with any economic system?

Yes, the search for instant pleasure without the fear of angrying God is making people far less religious. But Dawkins' influence cannot be underestimated, where do you think people go to after they lose their faith? They search for materials that can help than see the truth and Dawkins' God's Delusion is the first one they go to, it's the book that everyone looking for arguments to justify their lack of faith in imaginary being and primitive tales go to.

perhaps. i actually have little clue about intellectual life in the usa.

what most likely spawned atheism in europe is the emergence of ethnology and (post-)structuralism, wherein each culture (including its religion) is treated as an arbitrary, constructed narrative with contextual purpose.

To summarize, what is killing religion is modernity, technology, comfortable lives that we have nowadays and the courage to go up against pre-established and dumb 'traditions'.

But Dawkins' book is where those kinds of people are going to find the arguments they are looking for in order to finally lose their 'faith'.

It really is a misstep of phenomenal proportions. I gave it a try after enjoying The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype very much, and I genuinely couldn't believe that I was reading a book by an otherwise capable author. It's a fascinating experience.

I read this book and it made me realise just how much of of a psedeo-intellectual Richard Dawkins Is in comparison

>God delusion
>Non fiction

Kek

Saint Augustine was unbelievably smart. Wish he loved today, to create secular philosophy

Wait till you read City of God

Athanasius's Life of Anthony

How's that? Care to explain your points> If anything, it's Dawkins who debunks those kinds of old books.

No. Natural selection is it's own form of economy. What form it takes is irrelevant.

My favourite thing to do at the bookstore is move all the copies of the God Delusion to the fiction section

>there is no le god
>if u r believe in thing u r dumb
>lol dum dum dum
>lol u r stupid if u r positive person

just try to fathom, for even one moment, how triggered /r/atheism would be

That's not what the book is about at all, but I wasn't expecting much except dishonest from a person who believes in a primitive book such as the Bible.

I'm beggin' ya literature nerds to have sex and get a clue

If I could get sex, I would not be here

The Bible

Orwell is my God

TGD is overrated but got a lot of average plebs thinking so whatever I guess

...

>Understanding human history - Michael Hart
>Selfish gene – Richard Dawkins
>Collected works – Frederic Bastiat
>The world of yesterday – Stefan Zweig

Sounds interesting, will read

LM@Oing at you

This desu

pretty sure saint augustine couldn't write a book about evolutionary genetics tho

Isnt it that philosophy enabled science in the first place?

Those Dawkins quotes are both ok though.

Dawkins seems pretty reasonable. Even Nye's thing makes sense in context. But the general thrust of the image is correct.

my dia-
>NON-fiction
n-nevermind desu

...

Dawkins debunks nothing though.

Dawkins need to get the rope tbqh

Dawkins doesn't come off so bad there, though I've noticed him grow cattier with age.

>implying he didn't BTFO modern christianity

2/10
the shelf made it too obvious

das kapital unironically

communism has been cancerous everywhere it was applied, but the breadth of topics covered and the way it changed the world is amazing

>Be Cultural Catholic as a child
>Start having doubts, get into secularism during my teenage years
>Find comfort in Harris and Dawkins talking shit on established religion with "muh physical, tangible evidence"
>Mid-twenties now
>Dawkins is still vomiting teenage-level arguments and making "btfo" facebook posts about sucking STEM's dick
>Realize his material is nothing but fodder to win arguments against rednecks who preach the bible literally without even reading it.

I wish I could hate him for basically cementing the *tips fedora* archetype, but his constant sprerging seems justified when you live and breath near people who don't even know what their religion is nor where it came from and still shove their views down other people's throat.

...

He didn't. Back to plebbit

Capitalism is far more immoral than bolshevikism
Everything related to the 'enlightenment' is immoral.

i hope for your sake that is bait

Found the anclap

No idea what my favorite is, but reading Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray at the moment. Quote from text:

"We can all hum a made-up tune or sketch a picture of sorts, but few of us think we might be able to compose great music or paint great pictures. Writing is different. Every educated adult can write, and many, with reason, think they write pretty well. It thus crosses the minds of many that they could write good fiction if only they put their minds to it.

This offers a direct way of testing out my “Here, you try it” thought experiment. There is no better way to appreciate the difficulty of creating even minimally adequate art, let alone great art, than trying to write a paragraph of fiction. A daunting gulf separates the stringing together of words into good sentences from the creation of stories and characters that speak to people across time and cultures"

Pfft, I bet he uses modal logic.

True, having nice things is far more immoral than machinegunning reactionaries into pits.

>nice things
Delusional anclap spotted
muh not true capitalism

>an
nah
>cap
not without qualifications
You're saying communism is better at making nice things than capitalism?

I don't know how you can even begin to ascribe moral qualities to methods of scarce resource distribution, at least not in any intellectually honest fashion. There's nothing inherently immoral about price coordinated redistribution or centralized distribution so neither one could be morally preferable on its own.

>tfw no Jonathan Pageau dad

>nice things
Not defined. Sorry, try again anclap
Wrong.

*Bolshevism ;)

>Not defined
e.g. food

owww dude you should really stop baiting this hard

Still not defined. I see you don't understand economics either.

At what level of economic understanding does not having food become preferable to having food?

When you transcend basic economics and move into post-ethereal theological economics

>post-ethereal theological economics

So like the medieval world?

The bourgeois consumes calories, the proletarian subsists entirely on S U R P L U S V A L U E

Are you autistic or do you not understand this isn't black and white?
Modern agriculture makes awful food.
Go back to /pol/ please.

Is this muh evil GMO meme? Even if it were true, bad food < no food.

*>

You don't understand GMOs, good job underage.
No, you clearly do not understand what modern agriculture is. Stop talking, you don't know jack.

> So like the medieval world?

In the medieval world only a small amount of pious religious leaders have attained this power. These are the ones still alive today, heading the Illuminati to bring forth the will of God.

>when children who learned about agriculture from Minecraft try to converse with you

For just reading The Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini is really good, I also liked the Raging Reporter about Egon Kisch. And as a person who's historical focus is on post-war Japanese political radicalism Eiko Siniawer's Ruffians, Yakuza, Nationalists is one that I've gotten a lot of us out of.

I hesitate to take agricultural advice from commies.

Production based on needs rather than on exchange will lead to better outcomes for humanity in general and is therefore morally superior. Not to say that a change in the mode of production will come about because people suddendly decide it's more ethical.

Capitalism or the price coordinated economy is a system of production based on need. So is socialism or central planning so really "production based on need" amounts to a meaningless platitude. Capitalists aren't producing goods that don't sell so they can't be said to "produce goods that aren't based on what consumers need."

The difference between capitalism and socialism is how those goods which are produced based on need are distributed, not whether goods based on need are produced.

If you want to judge which system of distribution is better you ought to look at the results or how efficiently goods are distributed under each system.

well, capitalism is more about what you want than what you need. to illustrate the difference, you might *want* several pounds of meat and grains to get your family through the winter, but the revolutionary collective is going to realize you only need one delicious potato.

>He thinks needs are fixated
Learn some economics, please

You must perform several exchanges in capitalism in order to fulfill needs. For most people that means selling their labor power in exchange for a sum of money. They then use the money to fulfill their needs in yet more exchanges. This is partially what is meant by "production for exchange". In socialism/communism this way of relating to each other is done away with.

All you're saying is that socialism isn't a price coordinated economy. What's your point? Are you claiming that central planning is more efficient in distributing goods?

>All you're saying is that socialism isn't a price coordinated economy. What's your point?
that's pretty much my point yeah

>Are you claiming that central planning is more efficient in distributing goods?
distribution without the need for exchange would be more efficient than the current mode yes

You've asserted that central planning is more efficient but you haven't provided any reasons to believe that's true. If you want to have a conversation you have to go beyond asserting things.

Here's a reason for believing capitalism is more efficient at distributing good. Imagine the difficulties of an oil company headquartered in Texas trying to decide how much gasoline--and what kinds--will be need in a filling station at the corner of Market and Castro Streets in San Francisco during the various seasons of the year, as well as in thousands of other locations throughout the country. The people who actually own and operate the filling stations at all these locations have far better knowledge of what their particular customers are likely to buy at different times of the year than anybody in a corporate headquarters in Texas can hope to have.

This is the problem with central planning. When resources are distributed like this the company in Texas can't make use of localized knowledge and the whole thing becomes a guesswork. Some gas stations get too much gasoline and others not enough.

The notion that government planners under socialism could possess and make better use of all this information than the myriad consumers, workers, entrepreneurs, business managers, and other market participants in thousands of different industries was labeled "the pretense of knowledge" by Hayek in his Nobel prize acceptance speech in 1975. It was, said Hayek, the "fatal conceit" of socialist everywhere.

Your anectode might be a good argument against a Soviet style economy but it has little to do with socialism. Producers, planners, distributors and consumers are one and the same in socialism, organized in worker's councils. There's no bureaucratic organ divorced from the process of production since the people that decide what to produce are the producers themselves. Society decides consciously as a whole what to produce, based on whatever their needs are. The products are then placed in distribution centers were people can go pick up whatever they need. This seems to me a more efficient process than the current were I must visit potentially dozens of shops and businesses in order to feed, clothe and house myself.

They were using modern agriculture. Try again.
Enjoy your impending doom, murderer.

All you're doing is repeating what was said here. Yes, socialism produces things based on need but so does capitalism. You're not saying useful in answering the question of which system is more efficient in distributing those goods that are produced based on need. I've given you a good reason things produced under socialism are distributed inefficiently and you haven't attempted to respond to it at all or explained why my argument would work for the Soviets but not any other type of socialism. What's the difference between Soviet socialism and any other type of socialism when we're working with the most simplified and bare boned definition of socialism - centrally planned distribution?

You can assert that central planners, "worker's councils," or whatever you want to call them are more efficient in distributing goods but that's not a reason to believe its true. Repeating slogans like "production based on needs" --as if capitalism is in the business of producing things that aren't needed-- is not an argument.

>but so does capitalism.
Wrong.
>centrally planned distribution?
That's not socialism, that's state capitalism. There is no central planning in communism.
>is not an argument.
I'm very sure you need a fidget spinner, Spergy McAutist.

Don't delete your posts because you're retarded

I can't talk to you anymore. You're not bringing anything substantial to the conversation and now you're greentexting which is where I draw the line. Have a good day.

Oh, so you're a redditor. Goodbye.

nah capitalist firms only know if the product they make fulfill a need after they have delivered it to a market. Nokia certainly thougth they fulfilled a need when they overproduced millions of shitty phones, wasting thousands of man-hours and resources in the process, but that turned out to be false. In socialism, such a separation between production and actual human needs are gone and with it all the extreme wastefulness you see in capitalism.

>Socialism is central planning
Socialism is common ownership of the means of production.

We can agree that factories sometimes produce products that aren't needed by consumers. When this happens under capitalism the company suffers losses and if they continue making poor decisions they will go bankrupt. This is the great thing about a price coordinated economy because this is what makes it efficient. The system corrects itself. When a factory produces products that aren't need under socialism those products will be placed in a warehouse which costs money or if the products are perishable they'll waste away. The factories and workers under socialism don't have the same incentive to produce goods efficiently the way capitalists do.

You can call socialism "the common ownership of the means of production" or whatever you want. In regards to how scarce resources with alternative uses are distributed, socialism is defined by central planning. The one definition doesn't contradict the other so the distinction is meaningless.

...

>When this happens under capitalism the company suffers losses
No you fucking retard. Do you seriously think you need a fucking fidget spinner? Holy shit you are brainwashed.
>socialism is defined by central planning.
Wrong. Try again you flaming retard.

>When a factory produces products that aren't need under socialism
Why the fuck would people produce things that nobody needs?
>warehouse which costs money
There's no money in socialism since exchange relations no longer exists.
>The factories and workers under socialism don't have the same incentive to produce goods efficiently the way capitalists do.
Sure, widely different incentives and considerations at work. The socialist worker is still concerned with reducing time spent at the factory as is the capitalist worker and the socialist workers have a very direct way of doing so since they are in full control of their workplace.

>not just Marxist faggot economics
>FAKE Marxist faggot economics published after the deaths of both Marx and Engels by that Czechnigger Kautsky
wew

I can only imagine the massive hard-on a communist gets from watching peasant families resorting to cannibalism.