Why aren't more atheists and agnostics anarchists as well?

I mean, once you get rid of the possibility(or in agnostics case the certainty) of god, isn't it only natural to want to expel all other forms of illegitimate authority from your life and others?

Just curious...

 

Elton John was going on about this.

 

A few less laws would be nice, for sure. And less regulations, bureaucracy, licences, government power, etc.
But you need a few rules. Okay, maybe just the one.
And it harm none, do what thou wilt.
Then, if we need another, how about: Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you.
The crimes need to be addressed somehow though, too. No enforcement means no fear of reprisal, which is not a good thing when you have a murderer in town.

 

I live in a democratic republic, so the authority the government possesses isn't illegitimate, so I can't answer your question.

 

Actually some religions are far closer to being anarchist. Look at Islamic philosophy, they only answer to God. When you only answer to the God in your head, you easily loose all respect for others. This is a true pathway to destruction.

When God and heaven are your number one priority then earth and mankind can only be second at best.

 

Beyond Democracy, (What could there possibly be)?

 

If fear of reprisal didn't stop the person from becoming a murderer in the first place, why would it stop that person from murdering again?

And isn't that the same arguement theists use to defend theism, specifically that without a "universal moral code of law" nothing would stop people from raping and mudering(funny how they always go straight for raping and murdering, sometimes throwing in pedophilia for good measure)?

I assumed that since atheists and agnostics have already dismissed the absurd notion that mankind needs moral absolutism to keep from destroying itself they would also be in a better position to recognize that the same holds true for man's law as well.

If fear, force and coersion are not enough to convince me to obey a divine spirit with a bag full of omnis, then they certainly aren't enough to convince me to obey self-appointed demi-gods.

 

okay, but i'm not talking about religion, i'm talking about atheists and agnostics.

and answering to god is still answering to a higher power than self, not anarchist.

 

If i want to know the history of "Crocodile Rock" i'll ask Sir Elton, otherwise...

 

there seems to be a "why aren't more _____ anarchists" in every, fill in the blank, p&r subforum.

obviously idiology is NOT directly tied to belief, though in a sense, idiologies ARE beliefs.

anarchy, like every other idiology is a means to and end. when that means becomes an end in and of itself, whether an idiology or a belief or some other thing, then rather then facilitating its intended purpose, more often then not, it gets in its own way.

people also use that word anarchy in more then one way as well. to you and me it might be an ideal state of abscence of formal authority or need for it, while to others it may mean getting away with destroying everything and turning everything into crap, which many governments are in a sense defacto doing, governments, cultures, and societies all, by trying to paint everything with one stroke of a too wide brush, something idiologies and beliefs often both tend to be.

service state annonymous, non-marxist socialism, and the abscence of formal hierarchy are all equaly acceptable to me. what counts, really, is the kind of world
we all end up having to live in, more so then our loyalties or lack of them to particular perspecties.

and by that i don't mean ends justifying means either in as much as there are both means and ends, some of which can never be justified, let alone by each other.

perhapse that question needs to be turned partialy arround to something like: "what sense does it make to support ANY one idiology or system of belief or anything else, at the expense of its claimed intentions?"

and simply placed in the more general catagory of phylosophy and religeon in general, since indeed, it seems intended to be addressed to all beliefs and idiologies.

=^^=
.../\...

 

No, each thread is direct at a specific group in regard to whether or not their particular belief system supports a non-heirarchical approach to interpersonal relationships.

I'm an anarchist who is doing a bit of "soul searching".

Certainly anarchism might mean something different for me than it does to those responding, but that only means that they have an opportunity to learn from me while i'm learning from them.

not spamming themnax, but genuine curiosity.

(the points you've raised about ideaology and belief are taken and noted though)

 

No, if you realized that God is only a figment of mans imagination then you would understand that God only exists to gratify ones selfishness. God is an excuse to do whatever you want, even murder. All you have to do is convince yourself that your actions are justified by your religion. How many times have you heard someone say “I’ve made peace with god”, or “God has forgiven my sins”? Real convenient way to get to sleep at night isn’t it?

I think Atheists would love to have a fair and just social system geared toward the long term advancement of mankind. Sure, we need rules because we are a human and have weaknesses. The problem is our social systems are based heavily on religion. Religion is fundamentally flawed and corruption runs rampant.

 

verry nice read...thank you for the link

 

When and how did i give the impression that i didn't think so as well?

 

Yeah, Crimethinc kicks much ass.

You can browse more of their articles in the 99 bottles forum:

Some great reading material

 

my appologies if i appeared to be standing on anyone's toes or in their way.
twas a knee jerk reaction to the all to familiar of chauvanisms.

people HAVE been conditioned to expect certain things of hierarchies. things
which some of may require some degree of social organization, but only within
limited spheres and even then not absolutely in any sense requiring formalized
hierarchies.

people have expectations and demands, often based on familiar and unthoughtout ambient assumptions. if only people would examine them indeed.

if no one ever took anything for granted we would be living in a very different, and
possibly much more gratifying world and one with far less suffering.

at least, if those who would rather create and explore could be excused from eternal quibbling long enough to enjoy the gratification of doing so.

hierarchy, of course, does nothing to releave us of this either, but only adds more fuel to its fire. so indeed an abscence of it, or at least relative abscence of it, would be something of a blessing. perhapse most of all to the point, an abscence of it being imposed upon anyone by any one or several.

=^^=
.../\...

 

No prob, nax.

You and i have been posting here for years, i know you have good intentions.

exactly, very insightful.

 

Why aren't more atheists and agnostics anarchists as well?

Because atheissm and agnosticism do not necessarily imply anarchism and neither does it imply anything other than a love of mentally torturing theists

 

Of course not, which is why the question is, "Why aren't more atheists and agnostics anarchists as well?" and not, "Why aren't all atheists and agnostics anarchists as well?"

Speaking as a torturing atheist or as a tortured theist?

 

I should have added in my response why I, personally, am not a anarchist.

Reason #1: I'm not a big weeping vagina.

Reason #2: No further reasons necessary.