MarcStevens.net Forum

Full Version: atheism and anarchy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

noworldorder

Why does atheism seem to be paired with anarchy and libertarianism? For example, on Stefan Molyneux's site many talk about how they try to convert people to atheism.

I am not an atheist. I understand why people are. Religion is for the most part absurd; and many have never had (or recognised) an experience of something beyond this world.

This explains why some people are atheists but not why atheism is often ideologically pared with anarchy and libertarianism. Any thoughts?

Suverans2

Good morning noworldorder.

My opinion: Because most anarchists and libertarians, due to a lifetime of brainwashing, equate the belief in a "first cause" [God] with "revealed religion" and are simply unable (or unwilling) to separate the two as Thomas Paine was able to do.

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html (See Chapter X)

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deis..._deism.htm

Calvin

I think it has to do with the initial reactions associated with experiencing the the process of independence from a controlling belief system. Whereas it is easy to see that most religions become hijacked by the negative tendencies of human nature by individuals from a newly acquired libertarian perspective.

When people "become" a libertarian or anarchist, the overwhelming principal of independence from thought control is golden and I think they unconsciously develop an instinct to ditch all belief systems immediately. Religion, or the "belief" in God, being just another belief system, or at least that being the perception.

On that note, here is in interesting clip concerning whether morality "needs" God. I think Denys Turner makes some good points.

noworldorder

Thanks for your comments. I remember when I was a teenage at one point I became a punk (although we used the term 'hardcore'). It was a profound shift for me because I was abe to find a subculture that supported the idea that the world was totally messed up, and that there is no reason to accept social authority. Part of this package was athiesm. I wonder if a similar dynamic was not at play; that is, a reactionary rejection of everything that even smells like authority.

Another issue for me is the conflation of religion and spirituality (although one does not need to define the terms as I do). Atheists generally attack religion and by that I mean belief systems. But they do not seem to acknowledge what I would term spirituality which for me is an experience of something immediate and real, yet beyond the range of conceptual thought.

Its late...
Suverans2 Wrote:Good morning noworldorder.

My opinion: Because most anarchists and libertarians, due to a lifetime of brainwashing, equate the belief in a "first cause" [God] with "revealed religion" and are simply unable (or unwilling) to separate the two as Thomas Paine was able to do.

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html (See Chapter X)

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deis..._deism.htm

The problem is that "first cause" is not synonymous with God. I personally speculate that there is some reason why there exists something rather than nothing. Yet the definition of God involves an entity that is conscious without a brain, alive without a body, omniscient and omnipotent, and many other aspects and characteristics that are entirely absurd to human understanding.

Back to the topic of the original post I believe the reason there is a greater overlap than chance would suggest is common characteristics of the thinkers. There is a high degree of skepticism and caution in both philosophies.

Suverans2

Good morning, noworldorder.

noworldorder Wrote:Atheists generally attack religion and by that I mean belief systems.
Atheism is a "belief system"; atheists believe there is no Creator, unless of course there is an atheist out there which can prove, empirically, that there truly is no Creator.

The "big bang theory" of creation, if one takes the time to follow it backwards, must begin its "belief system" with, the gases that went "bang" created themselves from absolutely nothing, which of course is "entirely absurd to human understanding". :eekeek:

Perhaps we could bring about a "Voluntary Society" by allowing others to believe as they see fit, on this particular topic, and leave off any name-calling, if they don't believe exactly as we believe.

Suverans2

WorBlux Wrote:Back to the topic of the original post I believe the reason there is a greater overlap than chance would suggest is common characteristics of the thinkers. There is a high degree of skepticism and caution in both philosophies. [Emphasis added]
Wouldn't "a high degree of skepticism" more realistically support agnosticism rather than atheism?
Suverans2 Wrote:
WorBlux Wrote:Back to the topic of the original post I believe the reason there is a greater overlap than chance would suggest is common characteristics of the thinkers. There is a high degree of skepticism and caution in both philosophies. [Emphasis added]
Wouldn't "a high degree of skepticism" more realistically support agnosticism rather than atheism?

Well the highest degree of skepticism would be to question weather of not the sensation of thirst is necessarily connected with he bodies need for water while slowly dying of dehydration and also floating on a raft in the middle of a clean fresh-water body.

While these sorts of inquiries are a source of amusement, great debate, and brain-twisting; skepticism is only useful when moderated to the practicalities of human life. While many anarchists are on the deist or agnostic on the scale rather explicitly atheist a question arises. What practical difference is there between a being whose existence can not be proved or disproved as in the case of strong agnosticism, a being whose existence has not been proved or disproved but which may be as in the case of weak agnosticism,a being who does not exist at all in the case of atheism, and a being which may or may not still be alive and affecting the universe in the case of deism?

noworldorder

Quote:Perhaps we could bring about a "Voluntary Society" by allowing others to believe as they see fit, on this particular topic, and leave off any name-calling, if they don't believe exactly as we believe.

I agree complelety of course. Lets have a rational. thoughtful, and respectful conversation.

Quote:the definition of God involves an entity that is conscious without a brain, alive without a body, omniscient and omnipotent, and many other aspects and characteristics that are entirely absurd to human understanding.

I don't share your opinion.

1. I think there is emperical evidence for the mind existing independently from the body: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html</a><!-- m -->

2. I think are sound arguments against common objections to immortality: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mediafire.com/?hiwwz00u35j" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mediafire.com/?hiwwz00u35j</a><!-- m -->

3. And most importantly there is the possibility of insights found through subjective introspection - but these are personal and cannot thus be evidence except for the individual who has had the insight.
noworldorder Wrote:I don't share your opinion.

1. I think there is empirical evidence for the mind existing independently from the body: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html</a><!-- m -->

2. I think are sound arguments against common objections to immortality: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mediafire.com/?hiwwz00u35j" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mediafire.com/?hiwwz00u35j</a><!-- m -->

3. And most importantly there is the possibility of insights found through subjective introspection - but these are personal and cannot thus be evidence except for the individual who has had the insight.

Well Great, let's get started then!

1. To accept this evidence I have to weigh it against the course of normal experience. Most people keep perceptions firmly planted in their bodies during the course of the day, and those that claim they don't cannot demonstrate the ability in a controlled setting. I find it that NDE's are more likely the result of fraud, mistake, or fantasy, than that the usual experience of people is wrong.

2. Let's look at it.
Quote:And we have thus, I think, proved our original contention
that the self cannot be one of the activities of its own body.
If the self was, as this theory would require it to be, merely a
way in which matter behaved under certain circumstances, it
would be possible to explain the self satisfactorily in terms of
matter. And it would be possible to imagine a state of things
in which those circumstances, which determine the activity of
matter to take the form of spirit, occurred nowhere in the
universe, which would then be a universe of matter without
any consciousness. But so far is this from being the case that
we can, as we now see, only explain matter in terms of a conscious
self, and to talk of matter existing without consciousness
is simply unmeaning. So far is matter from being the sole
reality, of which the self is only a form, that, taken by itself,
it is not a reality at all. It is something which is known by
the self, and which is meaningless apart from the self's knowledge
of it.


That a conscious being is unable to speak of anything without reference to it's conceptual faculties is tautological and to be expected regardless of the source or cause of that consciousness. As a crude analogy, a CPU can only access bits which have first entered it's memory banks. The lack of comprehending matter outside comprehension doesn't really establish anything about the nature of matter.

Meaning is a function of comprehension and not of existence.

The mistake is continued

Quote:The supposed independent existence of matter side by side
with me did give a certain presumption against my immortality.
For, taking matter as independent of me, there was
some prima facie reason to suspect that I was only an activity
of my body, and in that case I should certainly cease when it
died. But my body is only matter. And neither my body
nor its death can exist except as events in some mind. And
this, as we have seen, makes it impossible that I should be an
activity of my body, and removes one reason for supposing
that I should be destroyed by its death

Matter here being equivocated with the perception of matter.

But even accepting the following for a moment it brings up a paradox:



Thus the creation of a mind, not being witnessed by any mind, must equally be of no existence if we accept that reality is solely the events of the mind. Thus removing any reason for the supposition that you ever began to exist.



I readily admit there is a philosophical problem in going from perceptions to reality, but this self-referential method of the author in no way overcomes that problem.


3.When they are qualified as you have done, I have no argument against them but one. At one time I held a few of these personal experiences (and still do I suppose) but have judged those properties entailed within and opposed to common experience less likely to be true than the common experience.

denizen

the definition of an atheist, that I prefer is:

one who believes only that for which rational evidence is available

Suverans2

Quote:THE only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first cause, the cause of all things. And, incomprehensibly difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it, from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it. It is difficult beyond description to conceive that space can have no end; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. It is difficult beyond the power of man to conceive an eternal duration of what we call time; but it is more impossible to conceive a time when there shall be no time.
In like manner of reasoning, everything we behold carries in itself the internal evidence that it did not make itself. Every man is an evidence to himself, that he did not make himself; neither could his father make himself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his race; neither could any tree, plant, or animal make itself; and it is the conviction arising from this evidence, that carries us on, as it were, by necessity, to the belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a nature totally different to any material existence we know of, and by the power of which all things exist; and this first cause, man calls God. - Excerpted from The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine

criminalpolitics

Definition Main Entry:
Quote:CULT

Function: noun
Usage: often attributive

1: The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work;
especially : the object of such devotion; a group of people characterized by such devotion

These are just some of the so many definitions used for the word "CULT"
What we we talking about again... oh yes, what CULT do you follow LOL

Suverans2

Quote:″…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god.″ – Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [Emphasis added]

GOD, n.
4. Any...thing exalted too much in estimation...and honored as the chief good. – Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

GOOD, n. That which contributes to diminish or remove pain, or to increase happiness or prosperity; benefit; advantage; opposed to evil or misery.
Ibid.

Yep, Roderick, no doubt about it (IMO), you're right.

Suverans2

criminalpolitics Wrote:These are just some of the so many definitions used for the word "CULT"
What we we talking about again... oh yes, what CULT do you follow LOL
DEIST, n. One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's