Why I was wrong about athieism

[sticknstring73]

This is a video by an atheist who has apparently had it with athiests and the left In general. It’s about a half hour, light swearing once but this has got to be one of the most erudite yet approachable augments on the benefits of religion vs the state I’ve EVER heard. I wish I could remember it verbatim.

Moderators if you feel it belongs elsewhere please put your good judgement to work.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c

 

[Gregory_Olson]

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.

He did overgeneralize, yes.

There’s no inherent problem with being a conservative and an atheist, although I can see how it’d be disheartening to identify with a group whose worldview you tend to hate.

Still, I agree with sticknstring73 that his arguments were approachable. I was able to relate to a lot of the points he made, although I thought his problem with certain groups not having enough kids was weird.

 

[adamhovey1988]

This is a video by an atheist who has apparently had it with athiests and the left In general. It’s about a half hour, light swearing once but this has got to be one of the most erudite yet approachable augments on the benefits of religion vs the state I’ve EVER heard. I wish I could remember it verbatim.

Moderators if you feel it belongs elsewhere please put your good judgement to work.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c

I have a really slow Internet connection, could one of y’all please summarise it?

 

[Thom18]

I have a really slow Internet connection, could one of y’all please summarise it?

He’s talking about ideological differences between Christians and atheists. He mentions how his Christian neighbors may try to convert him with the word while atheist neighbors would try to do so with the sword (and he talks about how they want the government to haul you away to jail if you don’t pay your taxes). Another point he makes is that Christians don’t usually try to force you to do things, but atheists want the state to force you to pay for what they decide is moral.

He also mentions how many kids religious people have versus atheists and agnostic.

 

[GodsGrace154]

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 think this is what they call being “off topic”

BUT

What is The Rational Rat Pack?
How does one join? LOL.

I remember that pack and it looked like a lot of fun!!

GG

 

[sticknstring73]

He did overgeneralize, yes.

There’s no inherent problem with being a conservative and an atheist, although I can see how it’d be disheartening to identify with a group whose worldview you tend to hate.

Still, I agree with sticknstring73 that his arguments were approachable. I was able to relate to a lot of the points he made, although I thought his problem with certain groups not having enough kids was weird.

It may seem like an overgeneralization but for me who works with many left wing adults between 25 -35, he is very correct about the selfishness. Many of them don’t want kids not because it causes them anxiety or they feel they would be bad at it but because they do not want the party of adolescence to end. But at the same time they want to make decisions concerning all of us. Primacy of the self reigns supreme for them.

It’s not weird when you consider that by pushing their form of “state-ism” and all that it brings on everyone they are in effect asking the children of today to pay for them tomorrow. Many of these social programs that they want only work if the birthrate stays at a certain rate. IMHO he explains it pretty well. If you want a future you need children and children mean personal sacrifice, and that they won’t do.

Also, I have experienced a conversation with an athiest who was in total denial that his atheism had become a religion for him. I’m sure many of us who consider ourselves religious have had that experience.

 

[GodsGrace154]

It may seem like an overgeneralization but for me who works with many left wing adults between 25 -35, he is very correct about the selfishness. Many of them don’t want kids not because it causes them anxiety or they feel they would be bad at it but because they do not want the party of adolescence to end. But at the same time they want to make decisions concerning all of us. Primacy of the self reigns supreme for them.

It’s not weird when you consider that by pushing their form of “state-ism” and all that it brings on everyone they are in effect asking the children of today to pay for them tomorrow. Many of these social programs that they want only work if the birthrate stays at a certain rate. IMHO he explains it pretty well. If you want a future you need children and children mean personal sacrifice, and that they won’t do.

Also, I have experienced a conversation with an athiest who was in total denial that his atheism had become a religion for him. I’m sure many of us who consider ourselves religious have had that experience.

Very good post.

If we all just think of ourselves, what will happen to our society?

We seem to be at the epitomy of selfishness - the end result looks bleak.

Atheism IS a religion and all you’ve said is so true. I guess the people IN the forest can’t SEE the forest…

GG

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

.

So many errors?

I suppose it wouldn’t be too difficult then to outline one of them?

Or do you simply want your own overgeneralizing about all of his errors to trump his supposed “overgeneralizing?”

A mere assertion concerning “so many errors” doesn’t seem to add up to a counter argument, not even if it comes from a rat who represents an entire pack of supposedly “rational” ones.

I am finding this thread quite coincidental because I happened to watch the very same video about two days ago. After reading some of the comments on it at that time, I was struck by the fact that so many commentators didn’t seem to understand Mr. Molyneux’s points nor the gist of his line of reasoning.

 

[Latias]

This is not even about atheism at all; this is about extreme libertarianism and the notion that every function of the state requires illegitimate and morally unacceptable coercion.

Ok, the state exercises forces by punishing people who break the law and in order to facilitate the collection. One could even question the utility of some government expenditures, such as whether they want to pay for Trident SLBMs. (I doubt conservatives would object to the later). However, it is inane to say that all of the functions of the states are unnecessary and unjustified use of force.

Please note that it is all complaints about statism: very few conservatives (although Molyneux made a reference to wars) oppose the military industrial complex. People should remember that the arch-conservative Reagan had a budget with very large deficits.

I do not see anything wrong with the tendencies of atheists to believe that having some government influence over the economy is better than having a system where all outcomes are dictated by the whims of the market.

BTW, which side is against using force? Which side supports less military intervention, less imprisonment for non-violent drug offenses, and lower use of solitary confinement in prisons? What side has a favorable view of law enforcement and the military, the people who actually have guns? What side is more likely to regard Rodney King and Eric Garner as sympathetic victims?

 

[thephilosopher6]

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 think he realized he was overgeneralizing because… it was kind of the point.

 

[GodsGrace154]

This is not even about atheism at all; this is about extreme libertarianism and the notion that every function of the state requires illegitimate and morally unacceptable coercion.

Ok, the state exercises forces by punishing people who break the law and in order to facilitate the collection. One could even question the utility of some government expenditures, such as whether they want to pay for Trident SLBMs. (I doubt conservatives would object to the later). However, it is inane to say that all of the functions of the states are unnecessary and unjustified use of force.

Please note that it is all complaints about statism: very few conservatives (although Molyneux made a reference to wars) oppose the military industrial complex. People should remember that the arch-conservative Reagan had a budget with very large deficits.

I do not see anything wrong with the tendencies of atheists to believe that having some government influence over the economy is better than having a system where all outcomes are dictated by the whims of the market.

BTW, which side is against using force? Which side supports less military intervention, less imprisonment for non-violent drug offenses, and lower use of solitary confinement in prisons? What side has a favorable view of law enforcement and the military, the people who actually have guns? What side is more likely to regard Rodney King and Eric Garner as sympathetic victims?

I don’t wish to change the subject, as they say here.

But you do have a couple of misconceptions.

(I haven’t seen the video; I’m not allowed to because I’ve disabled something or other for my grandchildren and there’s too much stuff on there).

First of all, Reagan having very large deficits. President Reagan will be rememebered as one of the greatest presidents that ever served. Hindsight is great. He lowered taxes and the governments income went through the roof. The REASON there was a huge deficit is because the Democrats were in Congress at the time and they love to spend our money.

Second, the govt is SUPPOSED to have a STRONG MILITARY. The functions of the govt should be very lilmited. It’s not supposed to put its nose into every facet of our lives. That’s what FREEDOM is all about. It’s not only freedom TO, it’s also freedom FROM. One of the major reasons a govt should exist is to PROTECT ITS CITIZENS since this is something we cannot do ourselves.

GG

 

[Latias]

I don’t wish to change the subject, as they say here.

But you do have a couple of misconceptions.

(I haven’t seen the video; I’m not allowed to because I’ve disabled something or other for my grandchildren and there’s too much stuff on there).

First of all, Reagan having very large deficits. President Reagan will be rememebered as one of the greatest presidents that ever served. Hindsight is great. He lowered taxes and the governments income went through the roof. The REASON there was a huge deficit is because the Democrats were in Congress at the time and they love to spend our money.

Second, the govt is SUPPOSED to have a STRONG MILITARY. The functions of the govt should be very lilmited. It’s not supposed to put its nose into every facet of our lives. That’s what FREEDOM is all about. It’s not only freedom TO, it’s also freedom FROM. One of the major reasons a govt should exist is to PROTECT ITS CITIZENS since this is something we cannot do ourselves.

GG

My remarks were entirely relevant concerning the video’s thesis.

Molyneux used the rhetoric of the government possessing guns to coerce people to do certain things. Are most conservatives, except radical libertarians such as Molyneux, really averse to government power? The examples that I gave strongly suggest that they are not against such power.

Much of what you say is just question begging, such as the reason why a government should exist. Why should it be restricted to what you say is to protect its citizens? Would you say that US foreign policy in Nicaragua and Honduras protects its citizens?

 

[Gregory_Olson]

It may seem like an overgeneralization but for me who works with many left wing adults between 25 -35, he is very correct about the selfishness. Many of them don’t want kids not because it causes them anxiety or they feel they would be bad at it but because they do not want the party of adolescence to end. But at the same time they want to make decisions concerning all of us. Primacy of the self reigns supreme for them.

It’s not weird when you consider that by pushing their form of “state-ism” and all that it brings on everyone they are in effect asking the children of today to pay for them tomorrow. Many of these social programs that they want only work if the birthrate stays at a certain rate. IMHO he explains it pretty well. If you want a future you need children and children mean personal sacrifice, and that they won’t do.

Also, I have experienced a conversation with an athiest who was in total denial that his atheism had become a religion for him. I’m sure many of us who consider ourselves religious have had that experience.

He was backing up his point that atheist/liberals have a reputation for being afraid of responsibility. His demand that these groups need to have more children was a way of saying ‘now put your money where your mouth is’ regarding their state-ist ideals; I thought he explained it well, too.

Still it came off to me as ironically imposing, especially juxtaposed with what he had just said about the sword versus the word. Perhaps though I missed his grander point that backing up state-ist ideas requires a great amount of effort and personal investment that the average atheist/liberal is unwilling to supply, implying that there is likely a better, more conservative policy.

 

[Latias]

He was backing up his point that atheist/liberals have a reputation for being afraid of responsibility. His demand that these groups need to have more children was a way of saying ‘now put your money where your mouth is’ regarding their state-ist ideals; I thought he explained it well, too.

That’s a broad stereotype. It is like saying that Christians have a reputation for being sexist bigots or that Muslims have a reputation for being terrorists.

Most people who support wars never enlist or have children that enlist either.

 

[GodsGrace154]

My remarks were entirely relevant concerning the video’s thesis.

Molyneux used the rhetoric of the government possessing guns to coerce people to do certain things. Are most conservatives, except radical libertarians such as Molyneux, really averse to government power? The examples that I gave strongly suggest that they are not against such power.

Much of what you say is just question begging, such as the reason why a government should exist. Why should it be restricted to what you say is to protect its citizens? Would you say that US foreign policy in Nicaragua and Honduras protects its citizens?

Hi Latias

I did say ONE of the most important reasons a govt exists is to protect its citizens (or words to that effect). There are other reasons. Removal of garbage, Education, Building Roads.
You know, things we cannot do on our own.

Of course conservatives believe govt should have power. Just LIMITED power, as I said previously. It seems to want too much these days. It would even like to take over the health system. Do you like socialized medicine?? Have you tried it?

Sometimes what our govt does in other countries CAN be for our protection.

Are you aware of what’s going on in Europe with migrants?

I don’t know about Nicaragua or Honduras, but I know a lot about Europe. The governments there are NOT protecting their population. Many problems are being caused due to this. Yes. It would have been proper to help these migrants in their own countries. Safe zones and the like.

So governments should do what they’re supposed to do first and foremost.

I’ll end it here since we’re not here to discuss politics.

GG

 

[Gregory_Olson]

That’s a broad stereotype. It is like saying that Christians have a reputation for being sexist bigots or that Muslims have a reputation for being terrorists.

Most people who support wars never enlist or have children that enlist either.

I agreed with DaddyGirl from the start that he overgeneralized–see my first post. Yes, it’s best to try to avoid arguing based on reputation or averages. Part of the problem with talking about liberals, conservatives, atheists, or Christians in general is that some dependence on reputation or averages is necessary.

For the record, I have a friend I’ve known since we were 10 who today is both an agnostic and a liberal, and who also doesn’t fit Stefan Molyneux’s sketch of the type at all.

Still, I think the video recognized that. His purpose was to discuss what he doesn’t like about liberal atheists in general, and I think he did as good of a job as could be asked of him.

 

[Latias]

I agreed with DaddyGirl from the start that he overgeneralized–see my first post. Yes, it’s best to try to avoid arguing based on reputation or averages. Part of the problem with talking about liberals, conservatives, atheists, or Christians in general is that some dependence on reputation or averages is necessary.

For the record, I have a friend I’ve known since we were 10 who today is both an agnostic and a liberal, and who also doesn’t fit Stefan Molyneux’s sketch of the type at all.

Still, I think the video recognized that. His purpose was to discuss what he doesn’t like about liberal atheists in general, and I think he did as good of a job as could be asked of him.

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.

 

[Sarcelle]

He did overgeneralize, yes.

There’s no inherent problem with being a conservative and an atheist, although I can see how it’d be disheartening to identify with a group whose worldview you tend to hate.

Still, I agree with sticknstring73 that his arguments were approachable. I was able to relate to a lot of the points he made, although I thought his problem with certain groups not having enough kids was weird.

Conservative atheists are a lot more common than people think.

In fact, most atheists I know are conservative in their political views. These are mostly atheists who have become atheists through much deliberation and thought, not as an anger reaction against religion in general.

 

[adamhovey1988]

He’s talking about ideological differences between Christians and atheists. He mentions how his Christian neighbors may try to convert him with the word while atheist neighbors would try to do so with the sword (and he talks about how they want the government to haul you away to jail if you don’t pay your taxes). Another point he makes is that Christians don’t usually try to force you to do things, but atheists want the state to force you to pay for what they decide is moral.

He also mentions how many kids religious people have versus atheists and agnostic.

Okay this is definitely true in most cases it usually is Christians that have more kids. I do know some fairly conservative atheists thogh. I would say that that is more the exception than the rule. I think using the Bible to try to get people to convert to Christianity is not necessarily a good idea because they may not believe the Bible to begin with. In fact they probably don’t. I think if you’re going to use the Bible to talk to an atheist that you should probably convince the atheist why the Bible must be true first

 

[sticknstring73]

Conservative atheists are a lot more common than people think.

In fact, most atheists I know are conservative in their political views. These are mostly atheists who have become atheists through much deliberation and thought, not as an anger reaction against religion in general.

I wish I met more examples like this. Evidently I do not have the luck.