Why I was wrong about athieism

[sticknstring73]

Additionally, I could also say that he is describing a pre-conversion me. What he’s describing is spot on: I don’t like X so I want the Gov to pass a law so NO ONE can do X.

Pray to God for grace to persevere versus Petition the Gov for more laws. There is a strange analogous relationship to these two principles.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I said this wasn’t even about atheism at all. Molyneux’s contention (at least for the first five minutes) was that conservatives, even if they are fundamentalists, are less of a threat to his freedom than liberal atheists because they tend to support government programs for the economically disadvantage. That is a very narrow view.

This is an example of misrepresenting his arguments.

He didn’t say liberal atheists are a threat to his freedom because they tend to support government programs for the economically disadvantaged, what he was claiming is that atheists have no recourse but to the coercive power of the state in order to force all citizens to comply with their pet social programs. In fact, as he points out later in the video, because atheists and agnostics have far fewer children than the religiously inclined, their recourse must be to coerce, by force, that compliance because they themselves, by not having many of their own children to sustain and pay for those programs, will have all of the benefits and none of the sacrifice involved when it comes to collecting those benefits for themselves.

The self-sacrificing involved in sustaining a truly voluntarist system of social programs isn’t an aspect of the atheist/agnostic viewpoint precisely because, in large part they don’t self-sacrifice with regard to what is required to sustain most of the social programs they promote. Molyneux cites the case of “sterility” of atheists and agnostics as part of his case.

The $150 000 to $200 000 it would take to raise each child they chose not to conceive and, instead, used on themselves wasn’t made as a sacrificial investment in the future of society. Yet, they will benefit in two ways, besides having kept that money to spend as they chose for themselves…

1. They have the “virtue signaling” of pretending to hold the moral high ground by promoting those high-minded social programs without having had to really sacrifice their own livelihoods by having and supporting children.
2. They will, themselves, benefit from those social programs when they become older on the backs of those children born and raised to the religiously inclined who not only sacrificed themselves by paying for raising more children but also had more children so those social programs could remain viable.

I would also submit that promoting illegal immigration is kind of a “last hope” and easy solution to the social program problem in the minds of leftists because by bringing in more individuals from other countries the aim is to fund the futures of those programs by increasing the numbers of contributors.

The truth is that those immigrants who are being brought in are taking from those programs in the short term leaving in doubt whether they will solve the viability question.

More immigrants saves the agnostics and atheists from the sacrifice and cost of actually having to birth, nurture and form children since there is a virtually endless supply of illegals from which “immigrants” and new citizens can be drawn. It is a cheap way for leftists to claim the moral high ground at virtually no cost to themselves in terms of day to day sacrifices.

I think Stephen Molyneux has made a good point on this.

As to his “overgeneralizing,” he provides the data on numbers of atheists who claim to be democrat and socialist in their political views (>70%,) the birth rates among Christian groups (>2.1) and atheists/agnostics (<1.6) and the numbers of atheists who claim to be conservative or small government (<20%). These are statistically significant and not mere “overgeneralizations.”

 

[GodsGrace154]

This is an example of misrepresenting his arguments.

He didn’t say liberal atheists are a threat to his freedom because they tend to support government programs for the economically disadvantaged, what he was claiming is that atheists have no recourse but to the coercive power of the state in order to force all citizens to comply with their pet social programs. In fact, as he points out later in the video, because atheists and agnostics have far fewer children than the religiously inclined, their recourse must be to coerce, by force, that compliance because they themselves, by not having many of their own children to sustain and pay for those programs, will have all of the benefits and none of the sacrifice involved when it comes to collecting those benefits for themselves.

The self-sacrificing involved in sustaining a truly voluntarist system of social programs isn’t an aspect of the atheist/agnostic viewpoint precisely because, in large part they don’t self-sacrifice with regard to what is required to sustain most of the social programs they promote. Molyneux cites the case of “sterility” of atheists and agnostics as part of his case.

The $150 000 to $200 000 it would take to raise each child they chose not to conceive and, instead, used on themselves wasn’t made as a sacrificial investment in the future of society. Yet, they will benefit in two ways, besides having kept that money to spend as they chose for themselves…

1. They have the “virtue signaling” of pretending to hold the moral high ground by promoting those high-minded social programs without having had to really sacrifice their own livelihoods by having and supporting children.
2. They will, themselves, benefit from those social programs when they become older on the backs of those children born and raised to the religiously inclined who not only sacrificed themselves by paying for raising more children but also had more children so those social programs could remain viable.

I would also submit that promoting illegal immigration is kind of a “last hope” and easy solution to the social program problem in the minds of leftists because by bringing in more individuals from other countries the aim is to fund the futures of those programs by increasing the numbers of contributors.

The truth is that those immigrants who are being brought in are taking from those programs in the short term leaving in doubt whether they will solve the viability question.

More immigrants saves the agnostics and atheists from the sacrifice and cost of actually having to birth, nurture and form children since there is a virtually endless supply of illegals from which “immigrants” and new citizens can be drawn. It is a cheap way for leftists to claim the moral high ground at virtually no cost to themselves in terms of day to day sacrifices.

I think Stephen Molyneux has made a good point on this.

As to his “overgeneralizing,” he provides the data on numbers of atheists who claim to be democrat and socialist in their political views (>70%,) the birth rates among Christian groups (>2.1) and atheists/agnostics (<1.6) and the numbers of atheists who claim to be conservative or small government (<20%). These are statistically significant and not mere “overgeneralizations.”

Thank you Peter Plato.
I believe I trust your account. I was unable to watch the video. Youtube won’t let me. ( it must be R rated!! LOL).

Anyway, yes, all you say is very true. I see the immigrant problem as it’s happening and could not agree more.

As far as high ground and social values - yes. Very nice that they come up with them and then WE have to pay for them whether or not we want to.

I’ve always wondered why it is that the Hollywood crowd is so liberal. it must be because they get to hold on to their money while aiming for that high ground you speak of. They get to keep their money and their “clean” conscience!

GG

 

[Latias]

This is an example of misrepresenting his arguments.

He didn’t say liberal atheists are a threat to his freedom because they tend to support government programs for the economically disadvantaged, what he was claiming is that atheists have no recourse but to the coercive power of the state in order to force all citizens to comply with their pet social programs. In fact, as he points out later in the video, because atheists and agnostics have far fewer children than the religiously inclined, their recourse must be to coerce, by force, that compliance because they themselves, by not having many of their own children to sustain and pay for those programs, will have all of the benefits and none of the sacrifice involved when it comes to collecting those benefits for themselves.

I said that. Any government activity, whether it is purchasing weapons systems or funding Medicare requires taxation, and that, according to Molyneux, requires coercion. Molyneux is predictable: if you support government programs for the disadvantaged, you support coercion; therefore, you are a threat to “freedom”. If I support a less aggressive foreign policy, I would reduce the amount of taxes (and perhaps coercion).

Childless people also pay property taxes, and some of that funds education of the children that they do not have.

Declared atheists and agnostic earn more money (and, of course, the tax system does not penalize one for having children, instead one gets deductions). Maybe you should advocate for more progressive taxes, or maybe, you are a White Catholic that earns more than atheists advocating for your interests. Perhaps you would be the one “virtue signalling” by saying the amount of private charity you give and that government programs do not constitute “charity”.

According to conservative wisdom, people get more conservative as they age, so it is problem that would somewhat rectify itself. Atheists are fairly young.

Again, this isn’t about atheism anyway.

–

Both sides engage in “virtue signalling”. I could say that the religious conservatives are not genuinely concerned with “religious freedom”. For instance, they would not come to the defense of a group of Muslims that have been denied a building permit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I said that. Any government activity, whether it is purchasing weapons systems or funding Medicare requires taxation, and that, according to Molyneux, requires coercion. Molyneux is predictable: if you support government programs for the disadvantaged, you support coercion; therefore, you are a threat to “freedom”. If I support a less aggressive foreign policy, I would reduce the amount of taxes (and perhaps coercion).

This depends very much on where the line of “disadvantaged” is drawn by the promoters of government intervention. Molyneux’s point is that atheist/socialist types tend to push the line far to the left and inordinately make the State more and more responsible for looking after those who could be, under a more conservative set of values, completely able to look after their own needs.

The issue isn’t an either/or one with a clear delineation between the advantaged and disadvantaged precisely because the way that the political society handles things like education, social expectations, family life, etc., is going to push the boundaries to the left or the right, moving more or less of the population into the categories of “disadvantaged” or “advantaged.”

In fact, by creating the expectation that the State will more and more look after its citizens, the political climate foments a more entitled and needy population., By fostering greater independence and an entrepreneurial spirit, the character of the populace becomes more self-reliant.

In other words, I would suspect Mr. Molyneux is challenging the common notion among leftists that through their pushing for more and more social programs, the long term effect is to create a more dependent and entitled class of human beings who expect the State to always intervene on their behalf rather than solving problems themselves.

This would seem pretty clear from how modern liberal/left leaning governments are increasingly becoming involved in child care, child discipline, enforcing politically correct outlooks, etc., where they really have no business.

Childless people also pay property taxes, and some of that funds education of the children that they do not have.

Sure, but couples who raise children have expenses of $5000 to $10000 per year per child which childless couples do not have – in addition to the tax burden. In many jurisdictions income splitting is possible to ameliorate tax burdens on couples that is not available to single individuals, which is one reason why gay “couples” have made an issue of gaining similar tax benefits.

In order to keep social programs viable over the long term, these require future tax payers to provide a continual flow of money into them in order to underwrite them long term. These social programs are not sustained by taxes, but, rather, by contributions directly to them by those who will benefit in the future.

By their very nature unemployment programs and government managed pension or old age security plans are multi-generational. This means the plans are designed to be increasingly paid into by future generations to offset things like inflation or economic recessions. Moly ex, I think, is Canadian so he does understand the workings of these plans more so than do those who live in less socialistic countries. His objection, then, is that atheists and agnostics are pushing for more and more government run social programs which are by their very nature multi-generational, but are not living up to the reproductive requirements for these kinds of plans to be sustained long term. In other words, these individuals are idealistic but not realistic.

I could say much more on your other points, but I suspect I am pushing limits already.

 

[GodsGrace154]

This depends very much on where the line of “disadvantaged” is drawn by the promoters of government intervention. Molyneux’s point is that atheist/socialist types tend to push the line far to the left and inordinately make the State more and more responsible for looking after those who could be, under a more conservative set of values, completely able to look after their own needs.

The issue isn’t an either/or one with a clear delineation between the advantaged and disadvantaged precisely because the way that the political society handles things like education, social expectations, family life, etc., is going to push the boundaries to the left or the right, moving more or less of the population into the categories of “disadvantaged” or “advantaged.”

In fact, by creating the expectation that the State will more and more look after its citizens, the political climate foments a more entitled and needy population., By fostering greater independence and an entrepreneurial spirit, the character of the populace becomes more self-reliant.

In other words, I would suspect Mr. Molyneux is challenging the common notion among leftists that through their pushing for more and more social programs, the long term effect is to create a more dependent and entitled class of human beings who expect the State to always intervene on their behalf rather than solving problems themselves.

This would seem pretty clear from how modern liberal/left leaning governments are increasingly becoming involved in child care, child discipline, enforcing politically correct outlooks, etc., where they really have no business.

Sure, but couples who raise children have expenses of $5000 to $10000 per year per child which childless couples do not have – in addition to the tax burden. In many jurisdictions income splitting is possible to ameliorate tax burdens on couples that is not available to single individuals, which is one reason why gay “couples” have made an issue of gaining similar tax benefits.

**In order to keep social programs viable over the long term, these require future tax payers to provide a continual flow of money into them in order to underwrite them long term. These social programs are not sustained by taxes, but, rather, by contributions directly to them by those who will benefit in the future. **

By their very nature unemployment programs and government managed pension or old age security plans are multi-generational. This means the plans are designed to be increasingly paid into by future generations to offset things like inflation or economic recessions. Moly ex, I think, is Canadian so he does understand the workings of these plans more so than do those who live in less socialistic countries. His objection, then, is that atheists and agnostics are pushing for more and more government run social programs which are by their very nature multi-generational, but are not living up to the reproductive requirements for these kinds of plans to be sustained long term. In other words, these individuals are idealistic but not realistic.

I could say much more on your other points, but I suspect I am pushing limits already.

I agree with all you say.
From experience - living in a socialist country, or at least it used to be. Trying different things now since socialism doesn’t work. Margaret Thatcher once said that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.

Could you please explain this. I don’t know WHO you mean:

“In order to keep social programs viable over the long term, these require future tax payers to provide a continual flow of money into them in order to underwrite them long term. These social programs are not sustained by taxes, but, rather, by contributions directly to them by those who will benefit in the future.”

(I highlighted and underlined your post above also).

Thanks.

GG

 

[roseofshannon]

Ugh.
He lost me at the 2 minute mark.
And then all the way thru it, over and over and over again.

So many errors, so much overgeneralizing.

.

I’m with you on this one. I couldn’t make it through because he wasn’t sharing logical argumentation but stereotyping and generalizing instead.