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

deleted
sorry it was posted in the wrong thread

 

two different things. Athiesm is a belief about what is. Anarchism is an opinion about how society should function.
One common thread is the rebellion. Some Atehists came to their positon because of rebellion against authority so perhaps they are more likely to rebel against other authorities too. however, rebellion is not the only reason for Atheism. Many people come to that position for other reasons, perhaps more logical reasons than a need to rebel.

 

Because atheists think, correctly, that anarchism would work as well as any political system. And that is, not well enough.


I'm also not much of a big weeping vagina, but neither am I a tiny little weener - which leads me to the thought that American patriots aren't atheistic at all.

I would think anarchists aren't atheistic as all that, either. The Garden of Eden is still a reality to them. The shining exception being, of course, Max Stirner, who never called himself an anarchist, and may just as well be considered simply an existentialist.

Long live ineluctable anarchy!

 

Fexurbis

LOL

Yes.. not well enough.. A 'lesser of 5 evils'

Occam

 

Columbo

Well, as theists have PHYSICALLY tortured 10's millions.
A few mentally tortured theists is but a slight affront.
[dont want to hurt their feelings. ]

Occam

 

Right back at you, last i checked China and the Soviets were athiests when they killed their millions...

 

shane

Yeh.. but they Killed evryone who was against them. Theists were just
a part of a general pogrom.

Try again, your arguement is cabbage.
You try to avoid history. Dont play patsy with me mate.. i'll eat you alive.

Do you deny torquemada?

Occam

 

Do you deny Stalin?

fanaticism is fanaticism.

Does it matter if the motive is religious or political?

The end result is the same, tortured dead.

you state that :theists have PHYSICALLY tortured 10's millions.

as if this is something exclusive to theists.

as if theism generally promotes and encourages the use of torture.

torture and murder are flaws in human nature, not simply the result of religious idealogy.

The U.S. Government is now using torture, but would it be fair for me to state that: americans have PHYSICALLY tortured x # of people."

I think not.
My being an american has nothing to do with why people resort to torture anymore than torquemada being a catholic has to do with why he resorted to torture. that was a major flaw with torquemada, not catholicism. The same with stalin.

a theist torturing people says nothing about theism anymore than an atheist toruring people says about atheism.

nothing about the -ism, and everything about the person(s).

People torture because they feel it yeilds results(or maybe they are just sadistic), the reason they give for committing the act (to save the church, to save the state, to protect the american people...) is beside the point and really has nothing to do with act at all.

If someone says something derogatory about my mother and i choose to respond with violence by punching them in the face, what does that say?

I could claim that the words about my mother drove me to violence but the fact is that there was another way to resolve the situation and that out of anger and frustration i chose the route of violence.

My act of violence really has nothing to do with my mother or even the person i punched, it is soley about what is wrong with me personally.

theists havent PHYSICALLY tortured 10's millions.

people have PHYSICALLY tortured 10's millions, while using theism as an excuse to do so.

There is a difference.

Blaming theists today for what theists did over 500 years ago makes as much sence as racism.

Individuals and/or specific groups commited those crimes, not an -ism.
So those individuals and/or groups carry the guilt and judgement, not every person who subscribes to the -ism.

what is the point of declaring:theists have PHYSICALLY tortured 10's millions.

Osama bin Laden is responsible for 911(if you believe the offical story) not muslims or arabs or anyone with the last name of bin Laden.

Now, it goes with out saying that some -isms do advocate violence or at least the belief of superiority, nazism does for instance, and some could say that the monofaiths do as well, theism in general though? no, all theism says is that one or more deities exist.

so saying that:theists have PHYSICALLY tortured 10's millions.
is akin to saying that:black people have looted hundreds of stores.
While it is technically true that the people who have looted in the past included some who were black, it is wrong and inaccurate to suggest that only black people have looted, or that black people are more prone to looting, or that being black has anything to do with looting.

same with theists and torture.
do not make the mistake of thinking that belief in a deity has anything to do with deciding to torture another human being.


Either way we have gotten:

Please review topic post.

 

Shane

Stalin and mao killed tens of millions to maintain their dictatorial
power over the ussr and china.
The church killed tens of millions to maintain it's hold over every
scrap of land it could manipulate governments to occupy in the
name of the church.

Stalin and Mao claimed an athiest stance. Yet killed without regard to
religion or creed.
The church claimed a holy stance but killed without regard to religion or creed.

In both , being suspected meant death.

And thus, you are correct.
And occam stands corrected.

The reason he speaks against religion, is that the church speaks of a
god of love.
NEVER, was a promise so desired. Turned into such a horror.
[utopian communism being a pale shade compared to the ideas of jesus]

"All evil need to flourish, is for good men to do nothing.
If this is the case. Then there are very few good men."
or maybe its a case of
"The fanatics, the fundies, know exactly what they will do.
[they want everyone to think like them]
The Rational moralists and good of heart..are full of doubt"
[they want everyone to think for themselves]

There seems only two answers to occam.
One is within the technology of this new century.
The other. Seems as old as time itself.

Occam

 

For me, it's as simple as this:
I would be enthusiastic over the idea of anarchy, if it weren't for the fact that there will always be someone wanting and trying to control the people...and it would be bound to be overthrown at some point or another, either by another form of government, or a dictatorship.

Anarchy, would only work in a far more educated world...in a world where people are far more respectful of other's differences.

And, I don't see that yet, therefore I think anarchy is a bad idea.

Anarchy, to me, is a rather idealistic goal, and I don't see it working well.

Also, anarchy probably wouldn't be necessary in the first place, if people DID turn around, and live in harmony and peace, so....

With that said, anarchy is a good example of thinking the grass is always greener on the other side. Things aren't going to be better no matter what government we have, or LACK OF, if people don't change. And if you want to try to change people, then that's a hypocrisy against anarchy. (I dont know if I worded that accurately, but I'm sure you know what I mean.)

 

Anarchy is, in my mind, stupid. Yes it is a wonderfull idea, but with out a form of government the world would be total chaos. Peoples minds are not storng enough to restrain them from doing somthing, bad, if they want to do it and no one will say anything. With no government people woud get their own justice which might be worse than what a governments punishment would be. And this would just be a repeating cycle of revenge and avenge.

 

Government is an emergent structure; even if we started off with some form of anarchy eventually someone would take control. Even if we have peacable creatures and murder and other such things are not an issue, someone needs to regulate economic affairs.


Why aren't more atheists and agnostics anarchists as well? Because the two have nothing to do with anarchism; they have to do with the existence of a god. Atheism means "without theism" and agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know whether or not there is a god.

Atheism and agnosticism are good ideas, anarchy is not a viable system (or lack of system) of government. It's like communism, it might sound good but it simply won't work.

 

To all of you who blame human nature and say government is a must, my question still stand:

So you atheists believe that moral absolutism is not necessary in order for human beings to behave "ethically" (no need for spiritual punishment/reward for being naughty/nice), but believing that a heirarchically structured centralized governing body of other human beings is not necessary is idealistic?

Why should I dismiss the idea that i need to obey an all powerful king in the sky and then around and embrace a not so powerful king/president/dictator/prime minister/holy council of judges here on earth?

If this life is the only one i'll ever have, why waste it taking orders from another who is no more or less than myself?

explain please.

 

What's the point of being an anarchist?
Anarchy isn't probable in today's world.

I can easily be an atheist, because the decision to be an atheist is not based upon everyone else, it is a personal lifestyle. But anarchy affects the lives of all people. That's the big difference between being an atheist, and supporting anarchy.

And to me, it's pointless to support something that isn't going to happen anyway.

 

By the way, you asked why more atheists aren't anarchists... and we told you why. Just because our answer may not correlate with the fact that you believe the two are tied together, doesn't mean we never answered your question.

I'm also, really tired, of hearing so much discussion, on all boards about things similar to this... "If you're an environmentalist, shouldnt you be veggie?" "If youre veggie, shouldnt you be against abortion?" "If you're an atheist, shouldn't you avoid putting up a christmas tree?"

Humans are not consistent, and are hypocritical by nature.... no need to question it. And for further clarification, hypocrisy isn't always the worst thing in the world as everyone makes it sound... EVERYONE has been a hypocrite, and EVERYONE lives, or believes things that contradict at some point or another.

Though I still don't think anarchy and atheism tie together as much as you believe they do.

 

Wow, you're an atheist because it's easy and you're not an anarchist because it's not so easy?

Even if i ever felt that way, i don't think i would announce my laziness.

Atheism is easy now because others in the past already bled for it, be thankful you'll never burn at a stake, they used to call free thinking women: witches....

The Inquisition wasnt just against other faiths, you could die for being an outspoken atheist as well.

 

so dont reply.

Obviously this thread(and message boards/forums in general) is for those who have an answer to reply.

If you don't care either way why bother to post in this thread?

 

Only when other people knew what they were thinking

 

And just how might you know that? Because if you ask me, chances are that it will!

 

Wow, way to put a spin on someone's words.

I was trying to say, that being an atheist is my personal belief, and it doesn't affect anyone else. And this, is acceptable to me, because I do not believe that my personal opinions should be crammed down others throats, and their entire lives changed because of it...
and anarchy affects not just me, but everyone else. And THAT is why I don't support it.

I have my personal reservations about the way the world should be, but I often don't concentrate to heavily on them, because it is not my place to decide the fate of others.

I'll work with what we have now, and do what I can to make the world a better place for those in need, but in now way shape or form, would I tell people to live without structure, when some people like, and need that kind of structure.

I wouldnt tell a christian, to be an atheist, anymore than I would try to tell the world to switch to anarchy.