[muc]

Roosh tweeted https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/375388364033110016 and https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/375395023837069312 a few hours ago.

I thought it was interesting. Is there really a connection between atheism and consumerism?

Consumerism is closely related to capitalism. Capitalism is the economic system that teaches that we are responsible for ourselves more than other systems. Therefore there's a correlation with atheism, which also seems to promote a more "sober" worldview.

Another possible correlation could be that atheists tend to be more well off than religious people and that is why they consume more. And my impression is that religious people are used to self-restraint and therefore they probably are less tempted to buy things.

( btw. i wonder if this graphic is useful / accurate: http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/.../flat.html )

I sometimes think that the value of religion for the individual seems to be based in some sort of narcissism. It could be because it's easier to accept own shortcomings, being part of a group, and so forth. But for society, religion is an enforcer / encourager of behaviours that are useful. Perhaps also including less mindless spending.

Finally, I have made the observation that the best players I've met are indeed conservatives. Whether they are also religious I don't know. But perhaps there's a certain aura of complacency and self-confidence that they have at an earlier age, because they can rely on ready-made philosophy when it comes to most things.

I mean, it's not accident that people seem most charismatic when they (seemingly?) strongly believe in something. Think Che Guevara, Hitler, etc.

Anyway, I thought they were on average the better players. It doesn't matter if they are deluding themselves, etc. It seems to work.

And if you are a good player, you are less likely to buy the newest electronic gadget, right? I mean: A young girl in your bed every other day.. why would you need some toy to feel happier?

Another correlation I suppose.

[Dex]

I disagree because a lot of the betas that search for game became that way because of their conservative background. They felt guilt about sex so that affected their confidence and game. if you are conflicted about whether to fuck a girl or possibly go to hell, chances are you aren't getting many girls.

[Basil Ransom]

(09-04-2013 11:43 PM)muc Wrote:  

Roosh tweeted https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/375388364033110016 and https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/375395023837069312 a few hours ago.

I thought it was interesting. Is there really a connection between atheism and consumerism?

Movement atheists will deny any connection. Technically, being an atheist doesn't necessarily make you a vapid consumerist.

Which is true, but irrelevant. How will people respond? If you remove God from their life, what will they replace it with? An enlightened virtuous few may replace it with something honorable.

But what of the masses? Without the fear of God's wrath to keep them in the pews, will they merely decamp to the couch and the television? Without God to tell them gluttony is a sin, will they be abstemious?

(As for the rest of what you read, tl;dr, you should practice tightening up your writing.)

[Rutting Elephant]

As the acceptance of the reality of a cold, uncaring universe where you die and that's the end, atheism is red pill.

[Mage]

Feminism is a natural result of widespread atheism or separation of religion from state, which is a mild term for the same thing. Women are the biologically more valuable sex and without higher values, carried by men, it is just that natural that they come on top.

The religious hierarchy is God --> Man --> Woman. It all started with men rejecting God, thus started the destruction of this hierarchy. The naive men who rejected God for the sake of convenient consumerist life didn't realize that once they have lost the role of carrying the spiritual traditions trough generations they decreased their value and left women as more powerful beings cause of their biologically superior value. Thus men became the next ones to be rejected and that is what we see today.

I am not a religious person btw. although I am individually spiritual. I am just recognizing the fact that society needs a religion to function properly without bias.

It is always the same on both micro and macro levels. On both national and personal levels. Once a man or a nation of men forget about their God/mission/tradition/heritage/birthright/goal or whatever that stands above them, they fall prey to to women and children who stand beneath them. Heartiste commandment: You shalt make you mission not your woman your priority!

[EisenBarde]

Compare Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to the most alpha atheists you can find, no contest.

[MikeCF]

Religion seeks to restrain female sexuality.

We are seeing what happens when female sexuality is unrestrained.

Religion also limited a woman's role in society.

We are seeing what happens when women are given unlimited power.

Feminism has been overtaking churches for a decade or more, though, so in the U.S. the religious are becoming as blue pill as the atheists.

But I will say this, knowing many religious people: You can have a far more open discussion with Christian men about women than you can have with Reddit atheists.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I'd sure like to think so, but there are so many examples of religious men white knighting and being awfully beta and reality-denying that I just can't agree. I would hope so, at least, but I don't think there is proof.

When you go back 50, 100 or 200 years, religious people were really more red pill. But atheists were also more red pill then, harshly judging women for sluttiness, ignoring fatties, not making stupid divorce laws and so on. So I think that there has never really been a significant difference. Just as the feminist disease transcends individual beliefs, so does red pill.

That said, I think religion is in many ways helpful to the sustainability of an individual civilization and have to thank it for many things despite its major flaws such as inciting religious wars or allowing corruption.

[scandibro]

Something I see often is mistaking nihilism or unbriddled hedonism for atheism.

Most atheists I've met are of that variety and not because they've actually pondered the issue of religion and belief.

Atheistic nihilism/atheistic hedonism is very much in line with liberal university dogma.

I'm an atheist btw.

[aphelion]

It depends on what you mean by 'red pill' or 'blue pill'.

The religious mind is constantly buffeted by the obvious reality that Religion, whatever it may be, has A Lot Of Explaining To Do. Religious tenets that were once inviolable are now consistently challenged by the discoveries of science, archaeology and philosophy. And, surprise surprise, it's losing.

So. If you take the blue pill as to mean the continued and dogged belief in fantasy land, rather than embracing a cold and harsh reality, then religion is as 'blue pill' as you can get.

Now as it happens, religion codified many strictures on sexuality for men and for women, and to us that seems 'red pill' since it happens to have a number of strictures that make for a functional society, and is based on a fundamental understanding of human psychology dressed up in supernatural bullshit. But that correlation is rather accidental. The house is still built on sand rather than rock; if it is red pill to say that men should lead a relationship, it is blue pill to say that because God wants it that way.

[Mage]

(09-05-2013 02:36 AM)aphelion Wrote:  

It depends on what you mean by 'red pill' or 'blue pill'.

The religious mind is constantly buffeted by the obvious reality that Religion, whatever it may be, has A Lot Of Explaining To Do. Religious tenets that were once inviolable are now consistently challenged by the discoveries of science, archaeology and philosophy. And, surprise surprise, it's losing.

So. If you take the blue pill as to mean the continued and dogged belief in fantasy land, rather than embracing a cold and harsh reality, then religion is as 'blue pill' as you can get.

Now as it happens, religion codified many strictures on sexuality for men and for women, and to us that seems 'red pill' since it happens to have a number of strictures that make for a functional society, and is based on a fundamental understanding of human psychology dressed up in supernatural bullshit. But that correlation is rather accidental. The house is still built on sand rather than rock; if it is red pill to say that men should lead a relationship, it is blue pill to say that because God wants it that way.

God is nature and yes it wants it that way. Those who fallow natural tenets will reproduce and survive.

[soup]

(09-05-2013 01:27 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Religion seeks to restrain female sexuality.

We are seeing what happens when female sexuality is unrestrained.

Religion also limited a woman's role in society.

We are seeing what happens when women are given unlimited power.

Feminism has been overtaking churches for a decade or more, though, so in the U.S. the religious are becoming as blue pill as the atheists.

But I will say this, knowing many religious people: You can have a far more open discussion with Christian men about women than you can have with Reddit atheists.

The problem isn't not believing in god, it's feminism.

It's passive aggressive not to get to the point with this.

If you believe in god in the old testament sense, you believe that there is a king that controls you and you should worship him for fear of his retribution. Essentially, you are worshipping an alpha male. Gay?

Any guy who works to get his game together knows what it feels like to have a powerful force standing in his way.

Do you get Stockholm Syndrome and fall in love with the dominant force? You have to recognize it's power, but do you really have to love it?

If there is an all powerful warlord controlling everything I do, my questions to him are:

"Why do you care about my little life?"

"If you can do anything, why can't you entertain yourself another way?"

"Why did you let feminism get so much power"

-----

Also, the top atheist Richard Dawkin destroyed that elevator bitch's argument.

[soup]

(09-05-2013 01:27 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Religion seeks to restrain female sexuality.

We are seeing what happens when female sexuality is unrestrained.

Religion also limited a woman's role in society.

We are seeing what happens when women are given unlimited power.

Feminism has been overtaking churches for a decade or more, though, so in the U.S. the religious are becoming as blue pill as the atheists.

But I will say this, knowing many religious people: You can have a far more open discussion with Christian men about women than you can have with Reddit atheists.

The problem isn't not believing in god, it's feminism.

It's passive aggressive not to get to the point with this.

If you believe in god in the old testament sense, you believe that there is a king that controls you and you should worship him for fear of his retribution. Essentially, you are worshipping an alpha male. Gay?

Any guy who works to get his game together knows what it feels like to have a powerful force standing in his way.

Do you get Stockholm Syndrome and fall in love with the dominant force? You have to recognize it's power, but do you really have to love it?

If there is an all powerful warlord controlling everything I do, my questions to him are:

"Why do you care about my little life?"

"If you can do anything, why can't you entertain yourself another way?"

"Why did you let feminism get so much power"

[Teedub]

I'd actually say it's the reverse, for reasons discussed by others.

However, I think it's more to do with societies rather than religious belief in most cases. For example, most German men are atheists - and pretty blue pill and beta. Most Russian men (at least in times past) are also atheist, yet come across very masculine and dominant.

[sixsix]

Game = Red Pill
Feminism = Blue Pill

Atheism = Red Pill
Religion = Blue Pill

Roosh Wrote:

Religious people are more red pill than atheists. They better understand gender differences and the natural order of man.

That is bullshit for multiple reasons:

They deny reality. While the old-school religious patriarchs might be more alpha, as in masculine, confident and in control, they still are not red pill. They have a completely false and laughable world view that is dictated to them by other men. The man in the sky is a fairy tale. Believing in what they believe in, is embarrassing to the max.

They too have become feminized. Most religious people are nothing like the original believers. They don't obey the laws (You can't eat see food, mothafuckas), they don't respect the husbands (The sanctity of your third marriage, right...) and that list goes on.

Even the remaining alpha ones, aren't red pill. Their social norms aren't the results from understanding male and female psychology, it's the results from cultural evolution. Just like they weren't against eating pigs because they did the science on diseases, but because it was adaptive. That ain't red pill. That is following orders from that fairy in the sky (in other words: listening to the rules of other, dead men).

You're confusing 'Atheism: The Idea of Intelligent Men' with 'Online Social Outcasts That Call Themselves Atheist Skeptic Feminists'.

The world isn't online, guys. Reddit isn't the norm. All those blogs and websites are governed with people that are losers in real life. When you see their pictures you will understand. Fat, ugly and on the autism spectrum. Cool people don't participate in those communities.

[sixsix]

These Are Some Real Life Atheists:


Richard Dawkins: British evolutionary biologist. Against gender feminism. Rips people apart.


Richard Feynman: American theoretical physicist and Ultimate Player.


Brad Pitt: Player.

Pretty much every Scientist Genius from the 20th century. And they weren't always the nerds, it used to be cool. Now the cool kids become athletes, dumb as fuck and religious. Progress!

[j r]

Religion is somewhat useful for keeping the proles in line. And an individual can find value in religion in terms of giving his or her individual life some structure. However, once you realize that almost all religions are bullshit, it's almost impossible to just pretend that they aren't.

[Que enspastic]

I bet 95% of this board is atheist. We should do a poll.

[Teedub]

^

It would be interesting to see who votes what as well.

[Que enspastic]

I disagree that Richard Hawkins is Alpha though. One of the worst debaters I have ever seen.

Hitchens though was a real thug when it came to verbal sparring.

[thegmanifesto]

(09-04-2013 11:43 PM)muc Wrote:  

And if you are a good player, you are less likely to buy the newest electronic gadget, right? I mean: A young girl in your bed every other day.. why would you need some toy to feel happier?

Seems to make sense.

I do know that I was the last person on earth to buy a cell phone.

And I have never had an Ipad, Itunes, Ipod etc.

(09-05-2013 12:12 AM)Dex Wrote:  

I disagree because a lot of the betas that search for game became that way because of their conservative background. They felt guilt about sex so that affected their confidence and game. if you are conflicted about whether to fuck a girl or possibly go to hell, chances are you aren't getting many girls.

Not trying to ruffle any feathers but I have never met a cool, smooth player in my life that was a Conservative.

Hell, I can't even think of any famous ones.

[Teedub]

^ Arnie in the 70's was a pretty smooth dude and he has always been staunchly conservative...at least fiscally, so perhaps not socially.

[TheKantian]

(09-05-2013 01:17 AM)Mage Wrote:  

Feminism is a natural result of widespread atheism or separation of religion from state, which is a mild term for the same thing.

Yeah....if you are saying atheism and separation of religion from the state are mildly equivalent, then no...just no. lol.

[Sherman]

Religion is more red pill in the sense that most religions have a concept of "evil". It's possible to be an atheist who believes there is no such thing as evil, but the atheist is really being shielded from the reality by protectors he does not see. It's really a child-like view of the world and not red-pill at all. Also, consider the notion of the devil in the Bible as someone who is actually very beautiful and the beauty masks the darkness so you can't see it until it is too late. Even if you are an atheist, you have to admit that is a pretty good description of things you can experience in your everyday world.

[thegmanifesto]

(09-05-2013 08:45 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

^ Arnie in the 70's was a pretty smooth dude and he has always been staunchly conservative...at least fiscally, so perhaps not socially.

Fair enough.

But it is a pretty damn short list.

And Arnie is pretty damn liberal, like you said.