leave churches free to mind their own affairs but tax the hell out of them

Kate wrote

That would be really messy. Darfur chainsaw massacre. That is dark kate.

[dogpet]

happywarrior wrote

Hey, dogpot, at least I spelled atheism right this time and I didn't capitalize it either.

Do what you like, it's nought to do with me. It just surprised me is all, I think some other trolls do it deliberately.

Irreligious wrote

Skribb, can you give me an example of a soceity that is free of rules and interdependent responsibilities between the government and the governed that is also secure? Those seem like contradictions to me.

I'm not sure what you mean, Irr.

An example of a society that is free of rules is easy to imagine, but what role does a government (the very name of which meaning "large and in charge") have in a society that isn't governed by any rules? Consequently, there aren't any "governeds" in a rule-free society.

Also, by example, do you mean an actual, historical example, or a hypothetical model? Because I'm not a history buff, so if you mean the former, I have no idea.

Irreligious wrote

Human concepts of fairness and justice seem to evolve far more swiftly than human nature, itself, so something greater than our wanton wiles has to impinge on our baser predilections. And, no, I am not talking about a god figure from another plain, but our own collective, nascent ability to arbitrate, negotiate and attempt to see things from others' points of view. It's not perfect and full of trial and error.

But we can't indulge that without an arbiter and, if need be, a protector from the excesses of others. And that is government which, ostensibly, should be our collective will.

Truth be told though, humans are not a homogenous group, so a collective will does not exist. Unless of yourse you are reffering to the "majority", which I still think is highly unfair.

I think you failed to address my main arguments though (personal agenda, majority etc.). I'd be pleased if you did.

Professor Chaos wrote

So you're a fan of quoting someone without identifying who you are quoting?

Well to me it's usually what is being said that is of value, not the one who said it.

Also I get the feeling that people are trying to give the quote more merit just because someone "smart" or "famous" said it.

That said, you do have point

Professor Chaos wrote

You could just get rid of that absurd second line of text.

Why is it absurd? It happens to be a personal statement of mine that I think makes a lot of sense (it should, because it's how I roll, yo). In case an explanation would clarify things for you; it means that what is important is intent, not action.

Simply put (here be bad analogeez); if you kill someone, that's usually something bad. Well, if you killed because of revenge (say, your now-victim had killed your brother), it makes the murder a lot more forgivable than if you had killed for fun.

Is that absurd?

Irreligious wrote

As I said earlier, somebody or something (a real thing and not an imaginary super entity) is going to be in charge at the end of the day. The currently rich and powerful will do everything in their power to protect what they have amassed and avoid having the masses of the less fortunate run roughshod over them, and the poor, the disenfranchised and the abused will lie down and take ill treatment for only so long.

We've all got to survive (it's our internal mission), and the only way to do that is through is cooperation, as best as we can manage it. Anarchy is antithetical to that ideal.

Well, yes, but also; no.

Yes, because you are correct in your observation (limited to that spectrum of thought).

No, because;
a) You assume that the rich and powerful are evil (which is pretty much tried and true, I admit - but read on) and that no one can stop them
b) Why shouldn't they protect what they have amassed? As long as their property is legitimately acquired (i.e in non-douchebag ways), it is rightfully theirs.
c) There're different kinds of anarchism, even socialist anarchism, ripe with collectivist tenets (though in all fairness I assume we are all talking about "vanilla" anarchism)

I would also like to point out that anarchy as a definition is slightly different from anarchism (I so do hate it when semantics ruin a good debate). Anarchy is the condition of a state-free society, whereas anarchism is a political and philosophical ideology that entails anarchy, seen through a certain pair of spectacles (for example, there are christian anarchists (although that in itself is ludicrously paradox) as well as feminist anarchists, capitalist anarchists and so on). Do you see the difference?

I think what largely affects the "anarchism vs. statist" debate for the worse is that very disconnect, and the fact the ones who actually do advocate anarchism (the ones I've come across, including myself of course) are good-natured people, the ones that would donate to charity, help the poor, sick and homeless (disenfranchised? isn't that a state-specific word?), never harm other people, etc, etc.

This doesn't mean that they are naïve or gratuitously idealistic, it means that they are the ones who see solutions to the problems, while the dissidents (statists) can only see the problems.

Another thing that is cramping the debate is the fact that statism and advocacy of democracy is highly memetic, just like christianity, and the followers of statism seldom (I'd say almost never) question their ideology, just like christians seldom question their religion (this is also another reason why I think anarchism is the "atheism of politics").

I am fully aware that it is very hard to think outside the statist box, but it is a crucial ingredient in understanding the anarchist view.

[Sternwallow]

Lily wrote

You people are incredible. I obviously hit a nerve without even intending to. Damn I am good!



So, am I correct in concluding from these hysterical posts that:

a. Every single last atheist has weighed all the scientific evidence, as well as the evidence for a theistic position, and made a careful choice based only on the evidence.

b. All atheists are well educated, every single one.

c. No atheists are or ever were teenagers. Not a single one.

d. No atheist has ever been turned off church by actual painful experiences. Not a single one.

Uh huh. Sure.

Careful, Bovina, you are swiftly sliding down hill with ever poorer logic and arguments. Of course not all atheists have access to all of the scientific evidence so some will be acting on less than complete information. This does not imply that theists have access to any evidence so we cannot conclude, on this basis, that any atheist is rational.

Many atheists are well educated, generally more-so than theists. Ignorance of facts could matter only if the theistic side had facts to know.

In short, to generalize characteristics of a group does not imply that every member of the group has all of the characteristics in perfect completeness.

After all this time, it is not too late for you to leave these threads.

[Sternwallow]

Lily wrote

...I've gotta be me. What else can I be but what I am?

You can, if you wish, be just a tiny increment better today than you were yesterday. You do not have to give up and accept as permanent, the hateful husk that you appear to be.