A question for Anti-Theists

[FatAndFaithless]

I get the difference in definition, but if one is a theist in that sense, what's the practical difference? If a God is pulling the strings on the universe (physics, natural phenomena, weather, etc), but we can't communicate with, entreat, quesiton, see, measure, or hear from it, what's the difference between that and a God that ceased to exist when the big bang happened?

-And as before. If we can't communicate with this god - and it is ultimately responsible for the contents of this world as it's creator, how do we seek redress for grievances? What does this have to say about our concept of justice, or of human rights?

yeah that's what I mean, if someone is a 'non-religious theist', it seems almost masochistic to me. "We're all subjects of his whim and there's nothing we can do about it"

[Dystopia]

I am serious. Sure, all those things are good reasons not to do any of those things - but they are not justifications for singling out industries -over and over again...everywhere in the nation - You know what those taxes you just mentioned amount to in the US? A campaign of wealth redistribution -away from minorities and the poor. All under the smug superiority of a position that was not rationally arrived at, but rationalized over after having already arrived. Curiously, we don't sin tax pollutant fuels (that wouldn't fly, our cars are "good")..people get up in arms about a pennies rise in a gallon...but the streets are empty when the price of a pack of smokes goes up 300% in a decade - on sin tax alone..while the cost of production actually decreases. We don't have universal healthcare here, so people are left floating in the wind when they smoke themselves to death. That one - a good counterpoint - doesn't even work in our system..........

- and the differences in the way we handle things which ought to be proscribed by the very same arguments is a wonderful example of why they are sin taxes - and not environmental counterbalance.

I am not an american so I will not discuss your current situation, I don't know the difference between your taxes and ours, but I can assure you in europe taxes on cigarettes are higher than in america. In some countries a pack costs 12€

The taxes on pornography exist because a lot of people go for it not for love of profession but for money,

And?

Because if there is a profession that has some risks and sometimes professionals can be victims of abuse the state doesn't want to incentive it, specially seeing people use it as a last resort or way to make profit, not necessarily because they love it but because they can be desperate.

I don't ethically support pornography (but I enjoy it), because I believe physical intimacy is something that should not be used to make profit, but I respect that people chose different paths. Pornography is taxed because the sex industry has already caused abuse of several participants, STD's, addiction to drugs, and addiction from porn viewers (it can develop into something serious), this is the reason pornography gets taxed, not because we think the body is sacred and holy, if that was true pornography would be banned altogether.

Again, pornography isn't breaking our bank in non existent social healthcare costs - and I seriously doubt the veracity of a claim that puts such an immense monetary toll on porn......

I don't doubt it

It seems to me you are pushing it to far and almost mixing morals with religion. Most people morally support physical intimacy not being used for profit, it doesn't mean all these people are religious.

Do they? Guess what, people who don't share our cultural heritage don't actually seem to think that at all. I'd call that curious, if it wasn't so obvious.

Cultural heritage is what defines who you are. Most western civilizations share some (but not all) cultural identities with the USA, religion has mainly an historical influence and some principles, even constitutional principles could have been influenced by religion. For instance when my constitution says 'Human life is sacred and inviolable' this could be influenced by religion, but the principle still fulfills the purpose either way.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am not an american so I will not discuss your current situation, I don't know the difference between your taxes and ours, but I can assure you in europe taxes on cigarettes are higher than in america. In some countries a pack costs 12€

Just checked the exchange rate, we have states that have rigged themselves up with an equivalent price.

Because if there is a profession that has some risks and sometimes professionals can be victims of abuse the state doesn't want to incentive it, specially seeing people use it as a last resort or way to make profit, not necessarily because they love it but because they can be desperate.

Taxing something is not interchangeable with "not incentivizing" something. Taxing something is also not "disincentivizing it". That's one of the defining hallmarks of a sin tax. You pick something that you know people will keep consuming - a product that simply does not seem to respond to disincentives under most circumstances - so that you can keep cashing in that check. If people stop consuming, then all of that "school funding" you promise the taxpayer as a cover for their plainly pious bullshit will evaporate. To be brutally honest - it evaporates anyway, because the fiction only has to be maintained long enough to cast a vote.

I don't doubt it

I would love to see some estimates on the heavy toll of the porn industry.

Cultural heritage is what defines who you are. Most western civilizations share some (but not all) cultural identities with the USA, religion has mainly an historical influence and some principles, even constitutional principles could have been influenced by religion. For instance when my constitution says 'Human life is sacred and inviolable' this could be influenced by religion, but the principle still fulfills the purpose either way.

Of course, I only suggest that while "fullfilling it's purpose" it might also be unloading un-neccessary and harmful baggage - as stated. If we give a bad reason for something - it;s just about the same as arguing against it. So if I say "we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights" - I'm not making a very good argument for our rights - unless I can produce that creator to demonstrate that it did - indeed, endow us with anything like a right at all. Your constitution is basing it's conclusions on what your life is or is not (inviolable) based upon a word that means "connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration". Is that a good argument? Is that a "secular" position?

[Dystopia]

Just checked the exchange rate, we have states that have rigged themselves up with an equivalent price.

Well at least you have less smokers than us (depends on the european country, Greece has 40% smokers)

Taxing something is not interchangeable with "not incentivizing" something. Taxing something is also not "disincentivizing it". That's one of the defining hallmarks of a sin tax. You pick something that you know people will keep consuming - a product that simply does not seem to respond to disincentives under most circumstances - so that you can keep cashing in that check. If people stop consuming, then all of that "school funding" you promise the taxpayer as a cover for their plainly pious bullshit will evaporate. To be brutally honest - it evaporates anyway, because the fiction only has to be maintained long enough to cast a vote.

Ok here we go, the MAIN purpose of taxing is to get revenue money for the posterior expenses. This is the main function a tax has, if you want your government to spend money on hospitals, schools and other public services you have to fund it. The second function is to change or influence people's behavior, this is a secondary social-economical function accepted by most scholars at least here, the state will make you want to buy less of this product and buy more of another product. Let's say, for instance, rice or potatoes, these products have lower taxes because they are essential for survival, a pollutant fuel will have higher taxes to make companies use it less and bio fuel will have (at least here) tax exemption to incentive people and companies to use it.

I don't doubt it

I would love to see some estimates on the heavy toll of the porn industry.

I didn't claim to have any estimate. I didn't doubt what you said previously, that's what I meant

Cultural heritage is what defines who you are. Most western civilizations share some (but not all) cultural identities with the USA, religion has mainly an historical influence and some principles, even constitutional principles could have been influenced by religion. For instance when my constitution says 'Human life is sacred and inviolable' this could be influenced by religion, but the principle still fulfills the purpose either way.

Of course, I only suggest that while "fullfilling it's purpose" it might also be unloading un-neccessary and harmful baggage - as stated. If we give a bad reason for something - it;s just about the same as arguing against it. So if I say "we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights" - I'm not making a very good argument for our rights - unless I can produce that creator to demonstrate that it did - indeed, endow us with anything like a right at all.

Natural Law is the justification of human rights, not trough god but because we obtain such rights from the moment we are born, the only condition to possess them is to be a human biologically and physically, these rights are inalienable and you cannot lose them, even if you are a murderer and a child rapist (otherwise we wouldn't be supporting human rights)

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, so perhaps instead of saying that human life is "sacred" - your constitution ought to say that? Eh?

I appreciate that you are attempting to explain tax to me, but I'm trying to express to you that these are a subset of taxes for which the term sin-tax is used - to denote the justifications for the tax (and public apathy towards the tax), historically and in the present. If the goal is to modify our behavior, we are being herded into a decidedly puritanical pen. The same justifications that you feel ought to bump up the price of gas does not, in fact, occur here - and there is great public antipathy towards any such proposal. It's a moment of pure, unabashed and naked cribbing of religious busy-bodyism, written into law.

"Tax the blackjack table- that stuff is "bad" and those people can't complain, we're doing it for their own good - don't touch my gasoline tank!"

Why don;t we see proposals to tax gasoline at an immense rate while subsidizing tobacco as a means of carbon sequestration?

[Dystopia]

Right, so perhaps instead of saying that human life is "sacred" - your constitution ought to say that? Eh?

I appreciate that you are attempting to explain tax to me, but I'm trying to express to you that these are a subset of taxes for which the term sin-tax is used - to denote the justifications for the tax (and public apathy towards the tax), historically and in the present. If the goal is to modify our behavior, we are being herded into a decidedly puritanical pen. The same justifications that you feel ought to bump up the price of gas does not, in fact, occur here - and there is great public antipathy towards any such proposal. It's a moment of pure, unabashed and naked cribbing of religious busy-bodyism, written into law.

"Tax the blackjack table- that stuff is "bad" and those people can't complain, we're doing it for their own good - don't touch my gasoline tank!"

Why don;t we see proposals to tax gasoline at an immense rate while subsidizing tobacco as a means of carbon sequestration?

Here we don't use the words 'Sin tax', only as a metaphor. These taxes are officially called Special Consumption Taxes (IEC's in my language, they all over the european union), even countries like sweden where a vast majority are atheists have these taxes. I do agree with you that some taxes denote a high level of puritanism and there are contradictions, the example you gave comparing blackjack and gasoline was good. This doesn't mean this kind of tax needs to go, when there is cons of an activity, taxes will be higher, this is the way it works. One of the main reasons for smoking tax is increased medical costs, specially here that healthcare is 'free' most people dislike the fact they are paying for smokers' healthcare.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here we don't use the words 'Sin tax', only as a metaphor. These taxes are officially called Special Consumption Taxes (IEC's in my language, they all over the european union), even countries like sweden where a vast majority are atheists have these taxes. I do agree with you that some taxes denote a high level of puritanism and there are contradictions, the example you gave comparing blackjack and gasoline was good. This doesn't mean this kind of tax needs to go, when there is cons of an activity, taxes will be higher, this is the way it works. One of the main reasons for smoking tax is increased medical costs, specially here that healthcare is 'free' most people dislike the fact they are paying for smokers' healthcare.

And I would dislike to have to pay for a snowboarders healthcare. Can we get some sin taxes passed on snowboarding? How about hockey? How about eating? People do clearly dangerous and unhealthy things in your country that aren't related to cigs, I'm assuming.

[Dystopia]

Here we don't use the words 'Sin tax', only as a metaphor. These taxes are officially called Special Consumption Taxes (IEC's in my language, they all over the european union), even countries like sweden where a vast majority are atheists have these taxes. I do agree with you that some taxes denote a high level of puritanism and there are contradictions, the example you gave comparing blackjack and gasoline was good. This doesn't mean this kind of tax needs to go, when there is cons of an activity, taxes will be higher, this is the way it works. One of the main reasons for smoking tax is increased medical costs, specially here that healthcare is 'free' most people dislike the fact they are paying for smokers' healthcare.

And I would dislike to have to pay for a snowboarders healthcare. Can we get some sin taxes passed on snowboarding? How about hockey? How about eating?

See this is what I keep telling to people. Why is everybody complaining about smokers healthcare? Smokers pay so many taxes that sometimes the money covers healthcare and some of it is used for completely unrelated expenses. Why don't we tax obese people since they don't pay extra taxes for eating too much? And diabetic? On the other hand, if one supports free healthcare you should support it even for people that have made bad decisions

[The Grand Nudger]

After all, those are the people who need healthcare the most, eh? A sin tax is the opposite of that. It;s claiming to be doing something "for the good of this group" -as you lay additional economic burdens upon them..

[Bibliofagus]

@OP: I'd say self-identifying as an anti-semite works counterproductive if I'd want anything I say or think to change anything in Israel.
That said: Although I don't self-identify as an anti-theist, I probably qualify. The reason I do is mainly that I've come to see how deep religious indoctrination runs through culture, and that I think that is something to be opposed. So I do.

I grew up in a secular household, in the Netherlands, and was always an open atheist. I never cared until my fascination with stupid led me to some video's on creationism and the video's that debunked them. So I watched these, had my fun and what happened next was that these video's debunked some beliefs I had held unconsciously as well. That the story of jebus is in any way moral for instance.