|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
 Posted - 05/27/2001 : 17:34:18
|
This thread originally began 11-28-2000
I am writing in order to share with you an argument I am developing against atheism. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated.
In a real sense I began developing this argument/thought experiment during the late 1980s as I watched crowds in Russia protesting in support of a return to Stalinism. I simply could not understand how anyone could support the return of such evil. However, recently (August 1999) an answer to this question came to mind as I read, from cover to cover some of my economic textbooks while simultaneously browsing the Internet infidels website.
What came to mind is that every person Stalin had murdered or starved to death served the economic interest of someone else.
Also I noticed that disproportionately the authors on the atheist website are philosophers or research scientists with no public policy background or experience. In fact, I counted that of the twenty-two scholars listed on the site, whose bios were accessible, only one had a degree in economics (Paul Kurtz B.A.).
It would appear that atheists live rather sheltered lives far removed from the real world of public policy where human nature and power overlap.
With this as background, we can construct my argument/thought experiment as follows:
Assumptions:
* All public/government policy is economic policy since the government is only a subset of the economy and serves to reallocate resources.
* Money does not equal Income: Money is defined as any item that is used as a store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. Whereas income is defined as a flow of utility/happiness experienced as one applies means (money) toward an ultimate ends.
* National Income = Output: Since National Income is the sum of society's expenditures on goods and services, it equals society's output. National Income is the sum of the incomes of labor and other factors of production; it, therefore, equals society's income.
* National Income = Output = Utility = Happiness
Now let's imagine a state of America where three generations in the future there are no Bibles in American households because of the tradition of burying your bible with your parents. What better way to reflect the newly entrenched secular sentiment?
Now let's imagine we have a president who is the worst kind of person imaginable. For not only is the president an atheist, the President is also an economist.
Consistent with his atheism, the president could say that since the measure of a nation is its national income, I propose that we remove all factor inputs that are a drag on the economy. My plan would involve the liquidation of the entire federal and state prison population, the poor and all those with IQs below 85. The result of my policy would be an upward spike in wages, output and productivity and lower prices and stable interest rates (see graphs).
The dilemma for the atheist is that on what basis would he object to his atheist president and atheist public opinion in order to stop mass murder? Afterall, if God does not exist all you have is reason to guide you and since this is a matter of public/economic policy all you have to follow in your decision-making is the science of economics.
The atheist is on the horns of a real moral dilemma. He cannot object based on his personal feeling alone because a subjective approach would be ruled out by his atheist commitment to the reign of reason.
Furthermore, he cannot appeal to public support because that would be the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. In fact, in an atheist America, it could be argued that public opinion would be persuaded by the science of economics.
Batter Up
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 17:36:25 [Permalink]
|
You certainly do make a lot of assumptions.
Assumption #1: It would appear that atheists live rather sheltered lives far removed from the real world of public policy where human nature and power overlap.
You based this on the fact that one bio on one atheist site had an econimics degree? You think that this group of atheists and their backgrounds is common to most atheists? I don't agree there at all. What I see is that you have made some personal decision as to who and what atheists are. Atheists are, by and large, everyday people doing everyday things. Some of these people make websites and teach at universities and some work in restaurants or stay at home and raise families.
Assumption #2: Well, this one is wrapped up in some bizarre Twilight Zone episode where human nature has changed drastically and people don't care if other people are massacred to save a buck. Now I am not an atheist myself, but it's not hard to imagine atheists being disturbed at the thought of such a thing. You assume a great deal there and happen to be so far from reality I wonder if you'll ever find your way back. Maybe national output=happiness to you, but I think you're just going to find a bunch of atheists looking at you and shaking their heads.
You don't understand the morality has little to do with religion. Morality has to do with what what we as a society decide collectively. You assume atheists are immoral. Yes I said it before, but I wanted you to see it again because it's that prejudice that I believe has led you to make such an outrageous projection of morality in an atheist society.
Is that a home run? LOL
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 17:50:36 [Permalink]
|
@tomic:You certainly do make a lot of assumptions.
ChristianSkeptic (CS): The first part is simply a personal narrative that serves to give the reader some background of what and how I was thinking at the time that leads up to the actual thought experiment.
Feel free to skip it.
CS:Assumption #1: It would appear that atheists live rather sheltered lives far removed from the real world of public policy where human nature and power overlap.
@tomic:You based this on the fact that one bio on one atheist site had an economics degree?
CS: No. I wrote, "I have noticed that disproportionately the authors on the atheist website are philosophers or research scientists with no public policy background or experience."
Moreover, I only state that it would appear. I did not make a dogmatic assertion.
@tomic:[Do]You think that this group of atheists and their backgrounds is common to most atheists?
CS: So far that has been my experience.
@tomic:...What I see is that you have made some personal decision as to who and what atheists are.
CS: I have made an observation based on my experience thus far regarding what may be called the occupational/professional distribution or cluster of American atheists.
@tomic: ...Some of these people make websites and teach at universities and some work in restaurants or stay at home and raise families.
CS: Far removed from public policy "where human nature...." which is not a bad thing if all men were angels.
My point being that public/government policy has a more broader and lethal impact than any other segment of society.
@tomic: Assumption #2:
CS: What I present is not a mere assumption but a thought experiment, which has real-world plausibility.
Moreover, I substantiate each and every one of my economic assumptions. It is only the economic assumptions, which underlie the experiment, that are relevant.
@tomic: Well, this one is wrapped up in some bizarre Twilight Zone episode…
CS: Unfortunely, the thought experiment is not "some bizarre Twilight Zone episode."
There is at least one example in history in which mass murder did make for good economic policy.
Specifically, Stalin's policy of a “command economy” supports the premise of my experiment. As quoted in “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:… )1987) by Paul Kennedy (by the way I reject his thesis of Imperial Overstretch but his historical facts are rather good), Pages 321 –323), “…There seemed to Stalin only one way for the state to raise money and simultaneously increase the switch from farming to industry: that is , buy collectivization of agriculture, forcing the peasants into communes, destroying the kulaks…the state thus interposed itself between rural producers and urban consumers, and extracted money from each…Having driven private consumption's share of the GNP down…the USSR was able to deploy the fantastic proportion of around 25 percent of GNP for industrial investment…The resulting upturn in manufacturing output and national income..was something unprecedented in the history of industrialization…Russian national income rose from 24.4 to 96.3 billion rubles, …By the late 1930s, Russia's industrial output had...soared well past that of France, Japan, and Italy, but had probably overtaken Britain's as well.”
@tomic: where human nature has changed...
CS: Do you believe that human nature is good? If so then how do you know what you believe is true?
@tomic: ...people don't care if other people are massacred...
CS: It not merely a matter of people caring since you must also take into account the fact that self-interest and ignorance can override feelings.
In the case of Stalinism, Brzezinski writes in the Grand Failure:… “...The Stalinist system endured…It survived because it had become a vast structure of overlapping privileges, controls, rewards, and vested interests.. It also endured because the newly urbanized Soviet masses could not conceive of a |
|
|
|
Legomancer
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 17:51:42 [Permalink]
|
Your argument makes the common fallacy that morals = religion. I am, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. This does not make me any kind of cold-hearted automaton. I believe in being kind to my fellow man and doing the right thing BECAUSE it's the right thing to do, not because a being in the sky will let me in his club if I do them.
You do not need a god to not believe in gassing people who are "useless" to society. Those who do not worship a god do not automatically default to worshipping money.
|
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 17:54:14 [Permalink]
|
Legomancer: Your argument makes the common fallacy that morals = religion.
ChristianSkeptic: What the thought experiment demonstrates (at least will demonstrate when you take a swing) is that it makes better sense for an atheist not to have morals.
My challenge is for you to provide the atheist president a case not to proceed with his policy so convincing that the only why he can reject it is to do so on self-conscious irrational grounds.
Your attack against theism does not prove atheism.
Legomancer: I am, for all intents and purposes, an atheist. This does not make me any kind of cold-hearted automaton.
ChristianSkeptic: What good reason can you provide a fellow atheist and the atheist president of the thought experiment in particular to be otherwise?
Legomancer: I believe in being kind to my fellow man and doing the right thing BECAUSE it's the right thing to do,
ChristianSkeptic: Your argument ends where it began, this is circular reasoning, and thus not good reason to be moral.
Legomancer: …You do not need a god to not believe in gassing people who are "useless" to society.
ChristianSkeptic: Within the context of the thought experiment, if all government policy is economic policy than “gassing” unproductive factor inputs makes good sense. I await you to provide a good reason to do otherwise.
Legomancer: Those who do not worship a god do not automatically default to worshipping money.
ChristianSkeptic: Since income is defined as a flow of utility/happiness/gratification/well-being that is experienced, the increase in national income stemming from the atheist president's plan provides both material and subjective benefit.
What good reason can you provide to stop him?
|
|
|
|
Legomancer
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 17:55:36 [Permalink]
|
ChristianSkeptic, excuse my bluntness, but this is foolishness. You have made up some definition of atheism and you have made some decisions about what atheists believe and how they act and have based your "argument" on that. Never mind the fact that the foundation of your argument - namely, these definitions and assumptions - are erroneous. You seem to refuse to hear other than what you have decided about atheists. This is a "debate" that is unwinnable because you are, basically, rejecting out of hand that which disagrees with your assumptions and thus your arguments. I'd prefer to focus my energy on debates that are actually debates and not just...what's a word I can use on a polite forum... onanism.
|
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 17:58:14 [Permalink]
|
Legomancer:…You have made up some definition of atheism...
ChristianSkeptic: My working definition is that an atheist is someone who has ruled out the possibility that God exists. If you object to that definition please provide a refutation.
Legomancer: …and you have made some decisions about what atheists believe…
ChristianSkeptic: This is false. I have not made a gross generalization about what all atheists believe. It should be obvious from the structure of the thought experiment that I leave room for discussion and debate among atheists.
The question remains which atheist moral system (e.g. yours) or non-moral system (i.e. the atheist president) is coherent and corresponds to reality?
Legomancer: … the foundation of your argument - namely, these definitions and assumptions - are erroneous.
ChristianSkeptic: Prove it. Afterall, the reason I began this discussion in the first place is to test the argument to see how far it can go. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Legomancer: You seem to refuse to hear other than what you have decided about atheists.
ChristianSkeptic: This is false. I await your case to the atheist president and your response to my point that your foundation for morality is an example of circular reasoning.
Legomancer: This is a "debate" that is unwinnable because…
ChristianSkeptic: no atheist moral system can provide a good reason for the atheist president to change his mind.
Legomancer: … you are, basically, rejecting out of hand that which disagrees with your assumptions and thus your arguments.
ChristianSkeptic: Give me one example were I have merely “rejected out of hand that which
disagrees with [my] assumptions.”
Legomancer: I'd prefer to focus my energy on debates…
ChristianSkeptic: that you can “win” .
It may (and I believe that it is) the case that my argument/thought experiment highlights a fatal flaw in your belief system that should at least give you something to think about or at best sufficient grounds to reconsider theism.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 17:59:23 [Permalink]
|
This entire argument seems to revolve around your idea that atheists have morals all their own and that these morals have nothing to do with the morals of the rest of society.
This is something you refuse to accept since you appear to have made up your mind. Your thought thingy is not new. In fact, it is a very, very old idea that Christians throw out all the time. It always ends up the same because Christians think they have cornered the market on morality and simply do not understand that if there was no such thing as Christianity that there would still be morals and generally accepted rules on what is "right" and "wrong."
You think you have come up with some novel "experiment" that exposes a fatal flaw in Atheism. That Atheists have no basis for morality. And it is precisely that assumption that brings your house of cards crashing down.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:01:03 [Permalink]
|
@tomic: This entire argument seems to revolve around your idea that atheists have morals all their own...
ChristianSkeptic: I submit the obvious fact that atheists have conflicting moral systems or in the case of the atheist president none at all.
I submit that the thought experiment/thingy will demonstrate that it makes better sense for an atheist to reject morality.
@tomic: …and that these morals have nothing to do with the morals of the rest of society.
ChristianSkeptic: This is false. My thought thingy serves to test moral systems for application. I mean what is the point in believing something if it has no application when it matters?
It is my contention that it is the test of application that atheist moral systems fail as they cannot, thus far, provide the atheist president any good reason to change his mind.
@tomic: … if there was no such thing as Christianity that there would still be morals and generally accepted rules on what is "right" and "wrong."
ChristianSkeptic: As an associate of skeptic friends, @tomic you would agree with me that the assumptions of these non theistic “moral and generally accepted rules on what is ‘right' and ‘wrong' should be subjected to skeptical inquiry?
At this point it is obviously I do not think that atheist moral systems past skeptical inquiry (as demonstrated by the thought thingy) and I suppose you think at least yours does.
So let's debate.
@tomic: …That Atheists have no basis for morality.
ChristianSkeptic: This is not my position. My position is that the basis for atheist morality is irrational.
The question remains, @tomic what good reason can you provide the atheist president to change his mind?
|
|
|
|
Legomancer
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:02:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The question remains which atheist moral system (e.g. yours) or non-moral system (i.e. the atheist president) is coherent and corresponds to reality?
Well, being that I am real and your atheist president is not, I think the answer would be self-evident.
|
|
|
|
Tiptup
Skeptic Friend
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:04:38 [Permalink]
|
This is a very interesting discussion. Although because it deals with morality I think it would be better suited in the Religion forum.
Seriously though. The term morality comes from the plays that were performed in ancient Greece. They involved storys that often, if not always (I'm not sure), contained lessons on how people should act. That is why we ask, "What was the moral of that story."
Over the years, the definition of the word morality has changed. Essentially though, its meaning is the general concensus that a given society may have on what is "right" and "wrong". This does not limit itself to religious people, because athiests possess morality as well.
Ethics on the other hand is a science which studies how morality affects society. For instance, are societies better off keeping the elderly around? Or do societies opperate more eficiently without old people slowing it down.
Lets say our society eventually thinks that it has PROVEN that we would be better off without mentally challenged individuals being brought up in our society. So slowly our morality changes to the point that this is an acceptable idea. Lets say that even those who study ethics will say that society will operate better. It is at this point we achieve a dilemma. What would make the policy of aborting "unwanted" people immoral?
If everything we base our morality on is what society, through concensus, decides is right and wrong through a random survival selection, then what is the opposition for such a policy?
If morality is just something that each of us individually decide is right an wrong, then what is to stop the majority from enacting the policy on the minority? Would it still be wrong for them to do this? And if it is worng, then why?
Perhaps you believe in a form of freedom above all other morality. In other words, anything is moral, just so long as you don't infringe on any other persons "rights". Unfortunetly people's rights are trampled on all the time, and what fundamentally makes this wrong if the majority of people in a society believes it is not?
Finally, an athiest believes that there is no God. The only way I can see that athiests could possess any kind of ethical system, is if he belived that mankind possesses some sort of "inherrant morallity" in the first place. Thus he would not be an athiest, but a humanist (mankind is God).
Tiptup
-------------------------
I DON'T MAKE SENSE-I GOT MY PRIDE; DON'T NEED NO MEANING; I FEEL NO SHAME-I WILL NOT BELIEVE; I GOT NO CHOICE-I'M OUT OF CONTROL; AND I LOVE IT!! |
|
|
|
Legomancer
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:06:07 [Permalink]
|
This is maddening. Is it so hard to believe that someone could not believe in god and yet have a knowledge of what is right and what is wrong? In fact, perhaps an atheist has a better sense of morals because his belief in doing the right thing stems from an actual desire to do the right thing as opposed to fear that he will be sent to hell.
I'm sorry, but Christians do not hold the monopoly on morals. In fact, as trite as the argument is, a lot more blood has been spilled, pain has inflected, and hatred been spewed in the name of religion than in the name of atheism.
While we're at it, do you enjoy it when people say, "Oh, he's a Christian! He must be real preachy and tries to convert people and sits around in polyester singing 'Kum-ba-yah'?" Probably not, because none of us like stereotypes. So let me tell you how insulting this assumption that atheist = soulless machine who for some reason can't see why gassing elderly people would be bad is. We don't believe in god, is all - we're not frickin' Nazis.
|
|
|
|
ChristianSkeptic
New Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:07:38 [Permalink]
|
Legomancer: ..Is it so hard to believe that someone could not believe in god and yet have a knowledge of what is right and what is wrong?
ChristianSkeptic (CS): I have not made the assertion, nor does the thought experiment imply that we must believe in God in order to live moral lives. Also, I'm not denying, nor does the thought experiment deny the obvious fact that atheists can recognize objective moral values without believing in God.
The question you have avoided is, does it make better sense for an atheist to be moral?
I submit the thought experiment demonstrates that it does not.
Legomancer: In fact, perhaps an atheist has a better sense of morals because his belief in doing the right thing stems from an actual desire to do the right thing…
CS: Legomancer, you're still hopelessly trapped in the vortex of circular reasoning.
Legomancer: as opposed to fear that he will be sent to hell.
CS: This is a strawman assertion, since morality in the Christian belief system does not stem from such fear.
Legomancer: ..Christians do not hold the monopoly on morals.
CS: Attacking Christianity does not proof atheism.
By the way, if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Objective moral values exist. Therefore, God exist.
Legomancer: In fact, as trite as the argument is, a lot more blood has been spilled, pain has inflected, and hatred been spewed in the name of religion than in the name of atheism.
CS: This is a gross generalization that paints all acts in the name of God as being frauds. Yes its true, there are examples of people using God as a pretense to murder others.
However, such people are operational atheist, not Christians.
Legomancer: …So let me tell you how insulting this assumption that atheist = soulless machine...
CS: The challenge of the thought experiment is for you to give the “soulless machine” atheist president a good reason not to enact his policy.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:08:53 [Permalink]
|
However, such people are operational atheist, not Christians.
Oh now isn't that convenient!! LOL
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Legomancer
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:10:15 [Permalink]
|
Christian Skeptic, I gave you your answer. I told you that I am an atheist and have morals, and there's no reasonto believe any other atheist would automatically not.
You responded by asking what was more realistic, my attitude or the attitude of the president in your so called thought experiment. I replied that since I am real and the president is not, it would seem my attitude might be more realistic.
You have not responded to that.
HOWEVER, I'd prefer that you don't. This "experiment" of yours becomes more idiotic and pointless each time you post. Can we just cut to the chase and get to the part where you declare victory over the atheists because they could not defend against your scathing attack on atheism? Then you can smugly go about your business and maybe an actual discussion can start up instead.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2001 : 18:11:17 [Permalink]
|
I should have brought this up before and I alluded to it earlier, but the thing is....this thought experiment is one of those things you find on Christian websites under headings like "Questions to ask Atheists." I have seen this thought experiment before. This exact same thing.
Know what I mean ChristianSkeptic ; )
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
