[quote]This just seems silly.[/quote] This seems like [i]not an argument.[/i]

What is there to argue?

[quote]So we come to the trouble with atheists. Atheists, in general, are leftists. Leftists demand lavish entitlements. They want the state to use its magic tax wand (I sometimes call it a 'gun') to shield them during their old age. They want the state to alleviate poverty and to subsidize healthcare. They demand these things, but they contribute so little to the sustainability of these programs.[/quote] [quote]The fertile and religious among us tend to lean to the right. Not only that, but they also have sustainable birth rates. It would be still be morally impermissible for the fertile and religious to support the welfare state, but at least their actions would lend to its sustainability.[/quote]

I guess I meant more of what is there to argue that's of any substance. The thing is, whether [i]you're[/i] religious or not, this thread just kind of reads like any old "Religious people are morally superior" thread, just with a libertarian twist. Assuming that's not the main point of the thread, I'm going to go back to my statement that this just seems silly. Religious affiliation is independent of political leaning. Political leaning is for the most part independent of how many kids you want/have. If someone believes that a society with certain leftist components would work best, and yet they don't want kids, although you didn't outright say it, it seems as though you would deem them [i]extra[/i] immoral (from a hard libertarian perspective), as well as a hypocrite, because they aren't creating more taxpayers to fuel the leftist society (although they also wouldn't be creating more recipients of taxpayer money, so there's that as well). The exact same thread could he made with gays as the main subject. [i]The problem with gays. They don't create more taxpayers, yet they generally lean left.[/i] I'm certain the thread could be made with any number of other groups of people within society as well. That's the main issue here. You might try to say there's a problem with these groups of people, but this isn't something that can be changed. At all. You're not going to make a case for an atheist to turn to religion off of this nor are you going to make a case for an left leaning atheist to turn conservative off of this. That atheist, or gay, or vegan, or infertile person, or individual thats part of whatever group you can pin this "problem" on would probably scoff at you if you tried to change their political leanings with this. "So you're trying to tell me that because I can't/don't want to have kids, I can't think that society would function better like [insert leftist idea]? That's ridiculous." The world isn't made up of any singular group. The population will keep growing, and people will continue to have different ideas for how best to run society regardless of how many kids they have. There's no argument or method for changing anything here. The OP is just a little factoid conceived by splitting people up into irrelevant groups and then drawing ultimately pointless conclusions from there on out, so like I said, it seems silly.

[quote]The thing is, whether you're religious or not, this thread just kind of reads like any old "Religious people are morally superior" thread, just with a libertarian twist.[/quote] My point is that American atheists, specifically leftists (which turns out to be most of them), have a particular brand of selfishness. Is that to say that religious people are morally superior? No. I'm pointing out a problem with a certain group of people. I don't care how you read it. Judge the argument on its merits. [quote]Assuming that's not the main point of the thread, I'm going to go back to my statement that this just seems silly. Religious affiliation is independent of political leaning. Political leaning is for the most part independent of how many kids you want/have.[/quote] I understand that religion and political standings are independent of one another. However, there are certainly links. Most atheists are leftists. Leftists support a welfare state (or at the very least, support the existence of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid). Atheists also have alarmingly low birth rates. This shows some selfishness on the part of American leftist atheists. They want these lavish entitlements, but they aren't willing to contribute to the future pool of taxpayers. Atheists have low birth rates. I focus on their rates instead of overall leftist birthrates for a reason. [quote]If someone believes that a society with certain leftist components would work best, and yet they don't want kids, although you didn't outright say it, it seems as though you would deem them extra immoral (from a hard libertarian perspective), as well as a hypocrite, because they aren't creating more taxpayers to fuel the leftist society (although they also wouldn't be creating more recipients of taxpayer money, so there's that as well).[/quote] I [i]am[/i] deeming them "extra immoral." They're uniquely selfish. Entitlements are immoral to begin with, but it's even worse to cash in on entitlements without contributing to their sustainability. Again, look at Greece. Their demographic pyramid is upside-down. Their recipients outweigh the benefactors, and they're paying the price. Granted, the economic model is one giant Ponzi scheme to begin with. It would take an ever-expanding population to fund the Greek welfare state, and at some point it will become unsustainable. However, the Greeks have taken the opposite approach. Rather than following through with this Ponzi scheme, they've just taken on the missing bits as debt. [quote]The exact same thread could he made with gays as the main subject. The problem with gays. They don't create more taxpayers, yet they generally lean left. I'm certain the thread could be made with any number of other groups of people within society as well.[/quote] I could absolutely make that argument. However, I'd also have to show that straight people tend to lean right, which isn't necessarily the case. I wouldn't be saying anything special about gays, since they're not the only ones requesting a welfare state in the realm of sexuality. [quote]You might try to say there's a problem with these groups of people, but this isn't something that can be changed. At all. You're not going to make a case for an atheist to turn to religion off of this nor are you going to make a case for an left leaning atheist to turn conservative off of this.[/quote] You claim that nobody is going to change, but that isn't really an argument against what I've said. Consequence has no bearing on the truth value of a statement. I can say that American atheists are uniquely selfish, and that may very well be true. The consequences of me saying that might not be enormous, but that doesn't change the truth value of my statement. [quote]That atheist, or gay, or vegan, or infertile person, or individual thats part of whatever group you can pin this "problem" on would probably scoff at you if you tried to change their political leanings with this. "So you're trying to tell me that because I can't/don't want to have kids, I can't think that society would function better like [insert leftist idea]? That's ridiculous."[/quote] What a horrendous misrepresentation of my argument. I'm not saying that they can't hold their ideas. I'm pointing out that their ideas are selfish and immoral, and that they're especially selfish if they're not even willing to perpetuate the system that they support. [quote]The world isn't made up of any singular group. The population will keep growing, [/quote] Of course the world isn't made up of any singular group. I never stated that, nor does my argument hinge on it. The population, however, could very well stop growing. Look at Europe. Birth rates are in the basement, and many nations are starting to follow Greece's path into demographic decline. There's no magical guarantee that the population will keep growing. It grows because we make it grow, and it can shrink if we stop. [quote]and people will continue to have different ideas for how best to run society regardless of how many kids they have. There's no argument or method for changing anything here.[/quote] This still isn't an argument against what I've said. Again, consequence doesn't change the truth value of a statement. My argument doesn't have to change minds in order for it to be correct. [quote]The OP is just a little factoid conceived by splitting people up into irrelevant groups[/quote] I wouldn't call religion "irrelevant." The same goes for political ideologies. You use the phrase "irrelevant groups," but if people's ideas and values aren't "relevant," then what is? [quote]and then drawing ultimately pointless conclusions from there on out, so like I said, it seems silly.[/quote] My conclusion had a very distinct point, though. It's incredibly selfish to cry for a welfare state that you have no intention of sustaining. Atheists, in general, cry for a welfare state that they have no intention of sustaining. I don't care what consequences you do or don't foresee from this statement. That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's valid.

[quote]I could absolutely make that argument. However, I'd also have to show that straight people tend to lean right, which isn't necessarily the case. I wouldn't be saying anything special about gays, since they're not the only ones requesting a welfare state in the realm of sexuality.[/quote] Why would you have to show that straight people tend to lean right? Hypocrisy isn't dependent on what other people do. The other religions existed in your OP only as comparison points to justify atheists being the group singled out for this particular thread. The main idea of hypocrisy would have remained the same whether or not those other religious groups were included in the OP or not. [quote]You claim that nobody is going to change, but that isn't really an argument against what I've said. [/quote] It wasn't meant as an argument against what you said. It was simply a statement. [quote]What a horrendous misrepresentation of my argument. I'm not saying that they can't hold their ideas.[/quote] It wasn't really a misrepresentation of your argument. Obviously, you being a hardcore libertarian, you wouldn't force anyone to not hold their ideas and what have you. However, you think that the low birth rates and leftist ideals shouldn't go together morally, so ideally to you, they wouldn't exist together. If you come to someone with this thread to try to convince them that they're a hypocrite, you're trying to sway them away from their leftist ideals. You're telling them they shouldn't have both of those traits. [quote]There's no magical guarantee that the population will keep growing. It grows because we make it grow, and it can shrink if we stop.[/quote] Well when population starts actually becoming a major problem, then there will be conversations to be had about that. That will inevitably get into the much trickier subject of how to deal with falling birth rates though. [quote]I wouldn't call religion "irrelevant." The same goes for political ideologies. You use the phrase "irrelevant groups," but if people's ideas and values aren't "relevant," then what is?[/quote] To society and the world as a whole they might not be irrelevant, but in this context, they are. What difference is there between atheists and gays in this context? There is none. As for the whole "crying for a welfare state that you have no intention of supporting" main idea of the thread, I disagree that it's selfish. Not that I [i]do[/i] hold these particular viewpoints, but if I think that society would function best as a leftist society, that has no bearing on my desire for not having kids. The two are entirely independent of one another, and I wouldn't change my view on politics because someone tried to convince me I was a hypocrite for not having kids. Most people are very far from being as radically libertarian as you, and as far as I'm concerned the hypocrisy in this situation is very much subjective.

[quote]Why would you have to show that straight people tend to lean right? Hypocrisy isn't dependent on what other people do. The other religions existed in your OP only as comparison points to justify atheists being the group singled out for this particular thread. The main idea of hypocrisy would have remained the same whether or not those other religious groups were included in the OP or not.[/quote] Atheists have been singled out because they tend to lean left, and because they have terribly low birth rates. Their birth rates can be compared to those of opposing ideologies - namely those with a religion. I could say that gays are similarly selfish, but their lifestyle isn't conducive to having children, so who can blame them? Atheism is a choice. It's an ideology. Homosexuality, for what we know, is not. I'm going to attack and lay blame on ideas, not characteristics. [quote]It wasn't meant as an argument against what you said. It was simply a statement.[/quote] Your statement still has no bearing on the truth value of what I've said. [quote]It wasn't really a misrepresentation of your argument. Obviously, you being a hardcore libertarian, you wouldn't force anyone to not hold their ideas and what have you.[/quote] Let's get one thing straight. Labeling somebody as "hardcore" is just emotional appeal. It's sophistry designed to discredit somebody because they're "radical," and thus cannot be taken seriously. Truth is a binary. It is not a gradient. Somebody cannot be said to be wrong or erroneous by virtue of being extreme. I know you didn't mean anything by it, but sophistry is sophistry. As for "forcing somebody not to hold their ideas..." I am against the initiation of force against others, and I am against violating the rights of others. Am I going to hold a gun to somebody's head and force them to relinquish their ideas? Certainly not. I'm also not going to hold a gun to somebody's head and force them to pay for my healthcare. Force is force, and initiating force is immoral. However, I'm not against discourse and I'm not against the competition of personal values. I wouldn't use violence to force a Marxist to change his ideas, but I'll certainly argue against his ideas until he relinquishes them. The same goes for anything. I think marijuana is gross, and I find stoners intolerable. However, I'm not willing to use force to stop people from using it. I may try and persuade others to stop using it, and I might gripe about it. I don't have to accept something in order to recognize it as within somebody's rights. So, as you said, I would be trying to sway somebody from certain ideas. I certainly would. They're still allowed to hold those ideas. They're not going to face any force or threat of force for holding those ideas. However, I'm still going to point out the problems with their ideas. I'm also not saying that they shouldn't have both of those traits. Atheism and leftism aren't necessarily related in any way. The trouble isn't with atheism. It's with atheists. Atheists have comparatively low birth rates, and this makes them uniquely hypocritical if they hold leftist ideas. [quote]Well when population starts actually becoming a major problem, then there will be conversations to be had about that. That will inevitably get into the much trickier subject of how to deal with falling birth rates though.[/quote] I'm not even particularly concerned with birth rates - at least not in this instance. I'm pointing out that a theoretical welfare state needs an abundance of taxpayers in order to be sustainable. Atheists, by and large, support the welfare state. However, they don't contribute their "fair share" to the pool of taxpayers. Without a welfare state, it really isn't anybody else's business if you have kids or not. When your future well-being relies on whether or not your neighbor has kids, it becomes your business. [quote]To society and the world as a whole they might not be irrelevant, but in this context, they are. What difference is there between atheists and gays in this context? There is none.[/quote] Atheists are atheist by choice, and their ideas don't directly contribute to non-reproductive relationships. [quote]As for the whole "crying for a welfare state that you have no intention of supporting" main idea of the thread, I disagree that it's selfish. Not that I do hold these particular viewpoints, but if I think that society would function best as a leftist society, that has no bearing on my desire for not having kids.[/quote] Again, you're misrepresenting my point. The ideas themselves are independent, certainly. Being a leftist doesn't necessarily mean you don't want children. However, as the trends show, atheists are leftists, and these particular leftists don't have a sustainable amount of children. It doesn't have to be a conscious thought, like, "I'm an atheist and a leftist, therefore/and I have no intention of having children to sustain my ideal economic model." By not having children, for whatever reason, they're acting selfishly. The motives and desires behind not wanting children are irrelevant. A welfare state needs children. They don't have children. It's as simple as that. I never said there was a connection between the ideas. [quote]Most people are very far from being as radically libertarian as you, and as far as I'm concerned the hypocrisy in this situation is very much subjective.[/quote] Again, labeling somebody as "radical" is just sophistry designed to discredit somebody. Deal with my ideas, not my labels. Subjective? It certainly isn't. A welfare state needs an ample supply of taxpayers, which means a growing population. Leftists support the welfare state, and atheists are, by and large, leftists. Atheists also have dismally low birth rates, which means that they don't contribute to the growing population that their economic model needs to survive. The hypocrisy isn't subjective. It's right there in the data. The same point could be made about other groups, sure, but does that change the validity of the argument at hand? No.

[quote]Atheists have been singled out because they tend to lean left, and because they have terribly low birth rates. Their birth rates can be compared to those of opposing ideologies - namely those with a religion. I could say that gays are similarly selfish, but their lifestyle isn't conducive to having children, so who can blame them? Atheism is a choice. It's an ideology. Homosexuality, for what we know, is not. I'm going to attack and lay blame on ideas, not characteristics.[/quote] All I'm getting out of this is that hypocrisy is okay in certain instances, which I doubt is what you mean. Gay people still choose to lean one way or another politically, so I think you definitely could blame them the same as others in this case. [quote]Let's get one thing straight. Labeling somebody as "hardcore" is just emotional appeal. It's sophistry designed to discredit somebody because they're "radical," and thus cannot be taken seriously. Truth is a binary. It is not a gradient. Somebody cannot be said to be wrong or erroneous by virtue of being extreme. I know you didn't mean anything by it, but sophistry is sophistry.[/quote] I just used it as an synonym for "very", dude. You're very libertarian. I don't think anyone would argue that. Someone else might hold libertarian ideals but might be far more casual about them than you. Truth might not be a gradient, but political leaning is, and you're the most staunchly libertarian person I've ever seen, so that's just how I described you. Imo, knowing where someone lies politically is useful in a debate, even if it's not relevant to addressing the arguments at hand. [quote]I'm not even particularly concerned with birth rates - at least not in this instance. I'm pointing out that a theoretical welfare state needs an abundance of taxpayers in order to be sustainable. Atheists, by and large, support the welfare state. However, they don't contribute their "fair share" to the pool of taxpayers. Without a welfare state, it really isn't anybody else's business if you have kids or not. When your future well-being relies on whether or not your neighbor has kids, it becomes your business.[/quote] I suppose that's fair. [quote]Atheists are atheist by choice, and their ideas don't directly contribute to non-reproductive relationships.[/quote] I think a lot of people, including me, would disagree with you on that first part, and in any case, like I said, I'm sure there's other groups within society that this same thread could be made about. Comparison to opposite groups isn't really necessary except for a little extra context. For the rest though, I'm still not sure I agree that it's objectively hypocritical, and if I were to come around to that point of view, I think my attitude would just be "Oh well, everybody's a hypocrite in some form or another" anyways. Frankly though, I don't really feel like arguing any further. I get bored and worn down by arguments like this pretty quickly, so have a good night. I won't be responding again.