Egoist Philosophy Blog

A reader sent in a link to a post by Christiam blogger Bob Kellemen that is so hypocritical and condescending in nature that it deserves some attention. Bob starts us off by claiming that most (all?) of us are atheist because we’ve been let down and have emotional problems. So maybe if you’d been potty trained at the right time you’d still believe in god. He also says that all of us atheists just refuse to live by the rules Jesus made because we’re selfish.  It’s not every day that you hear every spurious atheist stereotype repackaged in a now-causal relationship and presented in an introduction. I haven’t read the books, though, so I won’t say any more about that bit of shit flung immediately into my face.

Now, Bob goes on to disparage the nebulous and poorly defined group of “fundamentalist atheists.” In this category, he places Dawkins and Hitchens – god bless them both. If Hitch and Dawkins are in this category, there’s no doubt I belong there as well. We fundamentalists are:

• Angry (citation needed)
• Anti-intellectual (citation needed)
• Unloving (citation needed)
• Judgmental (citation needed)
• Weak (citation needed)

Perhaps Bob would be kind enough to the mountains of evidence (and to be so confident, he must have mountains) to show that we atheists are, without exception, uneducated dicks. He’s right about one thing – I am presently very angry. I feel anger every time someone with an audience attacks me in a profoundly unfair manner. It upsets me when someone tells me why I believe the way I do, despite knowing nothing about me or my history.

Our readers will know that I have never once made any blanket statements about Christians, or even fundamentalist Christians. Why? Because doing so would be anti-intellectual, judgmental, unkind, and a weak argument. Aside from that, it would probably make me look angry.

So what is my point? To bash Bob Kellemen?

No.

OK, maybe a little. But primarily, I want to challenge him to either back up the claims he is making, or to stop attacking huge groups of people he doesn’t understand.

P.S. Bob, if you’d ever like to present a rational argument for honest discussion between us, let me know.

By Keenan Steel

In recent days, we’ve seen another study which seemed to confirm the theory that global warming is indeed happening. There are plenty of post online about whether global warming is happening or not; I happen to believe that man-made climate change is a reality, but that’s not what this post is about. There are a few good reasons to doubt global warming’s reality, but this post is about the bad reasons.

What interests me are the reasons that most people agree with or disagree with man-made global warming. In my experience, almost none of these people are scientists, and rarely does a specific study or scientific journal enter the conversation. In other words, we have no idea what we’re talking about. As with far too many things, people tend to form surprisingly strong opinions on subjects which they are not even remotely qualified as authorities on.

Burnt Offerings of CO2

Perhaps the strangest thing about the global warming debate is that highly-religious people tend to feel more strongly that global warming is a myth. (source) After all, god did command burnt offerings. The tradition continues to this day: “Please accept our burnt offerings of high-carbon emissions, o lord!” In reality, the feeling probably stems from Genesis 1:26.

“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

This is the verse that typically enters the conversation when discussing any reckless use of the world’s resources. The argument often boils down to this: god gave us dominion over the resources of this world, so we can use it however we want.

As an egoist in a cold climate, I am not highly concerned about the world heating up a few degrees. I am, however, in favor of reducing pollution and our reliance on fossil fuels. This stems from my research into pollution’s effects on health. Human health. MY health. Did you know that the most polluted areas in the world can expect lives that are 15%  shorter? (source) Regardless of your stance on worldwide global warnings, that strikes me as a strong argument for reducing our emissions of micro-particles.

Please Stop Talking If You Don’t Know Anything

I cannot stand to hear another debate where two people with no knowledge of a subject argue about it as if they were both experts. If you can’t point to a rational reason for believing one way or the other, accept that fact that you are not qualified to form an opinion on the matter. In my experience, most climate change detractors can be shamed simply by asking questions regarding the basis of his or her opinion, exposing the fact that their opinion is not fact-based at all. In light of the fact that most of us are not experts, I think it’s worth noting that 97% of those who are experts believe that man-made climate change is real.

Additional studies: http://reviewrelay.com/electronics-sale/

“We are the 99% – please take more of our money.”

The internet population’s support for the Occupy Wall Street movement is riddled with laziness and hypocrisy. Specifically, I suspect that they are, with few exceptions, supporting evil “corporate greed” on a daily basis. Indulge me for a moment by answering the following questions:

• I assume that you are on the internet right now. Who do you pay for internet access? Is it, perhaps, a large corporate company? Before you tell me there are no alternatives, do a search for high speed internet service providers in your area. There are probably half a dozen.
• I assume that you are also using a device to access the internet. Who made and assembled the devices you are using?
• Who made your mouse, keyboard, chair, shampoo, soft drinks, and packaged foods? Who built the building or tent that you are in?

Do you support each of the companies and brands in your home? Yes – clearly you are. If you are calling for an end to corporate greed, I would suggest that you start by considering the products and services that you buy on a daily basis. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to grab a sharpie and a ream of paper from Walmart, and then turn around to condemn corporate greed. You’re the one supporting it! If the people want change, they will bring change. Before you demand social responsibility for large companies and the government, take a little responsibility of your own.

I am waiting to see what emerges from the chaos that is now Occupy Wall Street to talk about it further. While I support an end to corporate lobbying, runaway government spending, and political corruption, I do not believe that people are bad simply because a lot of people want to buy their goods and services. The rich are rich because we, the 99%, made them that way. For that, I cannot fault them, nor blame them for my economic problems.

My message is simple today: the 1% won’t care what you have to say as long as you continue to make them wealthy. A purchase is an endorsement that says, “keep doing what you’re doing, because I will keep buying.” You can run around yelling at the police all day, but just remember: it’s more likely than not that your angry replies are powered by ExxonMobil’s oil wells.

I’ve been spending so much time on Reddit that I’ve hardly been blogging – we should really do a weekly feature on Reddit posts, and another on Facebook debates. For example,  ”BadLemur” asked Reddit today: What are some questions you’d like to ask a pastor to make him squirm?

I would choose one of two topics: the problem of evil, or, more likely, the question of evidence. That is, I would pound the question over and over again: “why do you believe? What evidence do you have for your claim? Do you have blind faith, or do you believe for a reason?” You get the idea. If you go this route, be prepared to be told that “you can’t prove god doesn’t exist.” I prefer a short response that gets back on topic immediately – for example, “just as I cannot prove that I don’t have an invisible unicorn back home, but no one should believe that I do unless I provide evidence for the unicorn. So what is your evidence?”

Having debated a number of pastors in a number of settings, I can attest to the pointlessness of it. Religious leaders tend to be made up of self-righteousness, religious fanaticism, and often a belief that they received their authority directly from god. They also feel a vested interest – emotional and financial – in proving themselves correct. You’re not going to change their mind, and it can often be infuriating. For the most part, it’s not worth your time.

That said, some points for talking to religious leaders:

• Public debates are generally are not about who is more logical, reasonable, or more correct. Quite often the “winner” of the debate is the one who the crowd likes more personally and makes their points in the most interesting, understandable, and relatable way. Unless your crowd is composed of experts, you have to play the game. Be calm, polite, and funny if you can be.
• Unless you’re in a formal debate, you’re going to struggle to get your share of speaking time. He is going to talk right over you – loudly and indignantly. Your best bet is not to talk over him, but to point this fact out. For example, “excuse me, but please let me finish answering your question,” or, “you have been speaking far more than I have – please be respectful and allow me to speak.” Repeat your request if you must. If you do so calmly, it becomes apparent to the listeners that you are not being treated fairly.
• Do not get distracted. Don’t follow tangents. Do not get defensive and waste your time debating which dictator was or was not an atheist, or which scientist was or was not a theist. You may be told that you’re going to hell – if you feel the need to respond, do so in a sentence or less, and stay on your point.
• Their weakness lies in logical fallacy, and your strength is (hopefully) a sound argument. Exploit that. Make it clear what you aim to show (e.g. that there is no evidence for god), do your best to show it, and then conclude the debate by claiming to have shown it. (e.g. Pastor McAngry, you have failed to present any evidence for god, despite being asked repeatedly to provide any. This is because there is none.)

Just remember that there’s likely nothing to be gained from confronting a pastor in a one-on-one setting. Sadly, the truth is that people weigh the risks of being wrong before they even begin listening to a debate (see confirmation bias). Because a pastor stands to lose so much, they are more likely to dismiss your arguments. This is also true of your everyday Christian. One of the most effective methods of de-brainwashing someone is to first show them the benefits and intellectual freedom they might enjoy without religion, and how they don’t actually need it to be good or find meaning in life.

A recent article reports that Hungary is now passing a “fat tax” on fatty, unhealthy foods. The justification? Hungary has a socialized medicine system, where the government pays for the vast majority of medical care, prescriptions, and procedures. The thinking goes like this: “some people are taking advantage of the system by failing to take care of themselves. We can rectify that by introducing a disincentive to buy unhealthy foods, while also using the extra money to pay for healthcare.”

Hungry hungry Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, has said,

“Those who live unhealthily have to contribute more.”

So those who use more healthcare resources have to pay more for them? What a novel idea. Why not take it a step further, and require everyone who uses a disproportionate amount of healthcare resources to pay for more? It sounds like a good idea to me. We could call it “capitalism.”

What Hungary and other countries are learning is that you can’t have your cake (no pun intended) and eat it to. If you really want to offer people a free service, you can bet that some people are going to be a drain on the system. This fact has been displayed time and time again in government services: it’s inevitable, and in most cases unavoidable. Entitlement programs lead to some people paying less and using more. That’s the whole point.

If you stick to a free government healthcare program, there are two courses of action you can follow. One, you allow people to be irresponsible, taking advantage of a system that pays for their lack of self control. The second option is to begin controlling elements within society to make people act the way you want them to. For example, you impose taxes when people are unhealthy. You must then define what is unhealthy, and put a system in place to make sure that the tax is actually paid, with a corresponding punishment if it is not.

What if the fat tax fails to address Hungary’s weight problems, as I suspect it will? Do you begin taxing people who don’t exercise? Do you expand the list of taxed foods? If a socialized system is serious about being fair about eliminating waste and making people responsible for their actions, why not consider every way that people can be irresponsible with their health? Or do you cut out the middleman and start directly taxing the man with the large middle? Regardless, you’re going to need a bigger system to ensure compliance.

These are your only options: free-market healthcare, socialized healthcare with serious waste, or socialized healthcare with increased government involvement in your personal choices. Hungary’s fat tax is a good example of how entitlement programs like socialized medicine lead to an increase in government control in our personal lives.

By Keenan Steel

Our last few posts have been about politics, and they’ve really given us some publicity. Carson’s post about Ron Paul was, by far, the most popular post on this blog to-date.

People have been asking who we are, and I don’t think we’ve given them a satisfactory answer. We’re just a couple people blogging, yes, but we have plans – very big plans. We’re interested in doing a lot more than talking academically about the philosophy of egoism: we actually intend to make some serious change. We are in the process of crafting a movement – a movement that I hope and believe will have a significant impact on the future. It’s far too early to give any specifics, but here are the plans:

• We need a new domain name. The current “egoistphilosophyblog.com” is a mouthful, and, as I mentioned, it’s entirely too narrow. The new domain will reflect the name of the movement. Traffic will automatically be redirected to the new site with the new design, just as soon as the sale is final.
• The owner of this new site will be a non-profit entity. This entity will eventually be engaged in lobbying for change in politics, while also assisting other non-profit groups, research organizations, and charities
• While donations will be welcome, we refuse to guilt people into giving – rather, we only accept donations from those who believe in our causes and want to help.  Accordingly, the non-profit entity will also own a for-profit entity. The for-profit entity will help embark on business ventures (again, it’s too early to give details) that will at least allow for full-time dedication to the non-profit side.