I am an atheist anarchist

[Nihilism]

I grew up in a Christian household. My parents did not practice religion that much though. They would take me to church every once in awhile and they would hardly ever talk to me about religion. My parents are also conservatives and Republicans, and so I inherited their religion and ideology.

As I grew up and learned to think for myself, I noticed all of the hypocrisy, contradictions and hatred generated by both church and politics. As I dug deeper and started asking the question: what does it all mean? I finally realized that there is no answer to this question. These artificial systems of organizing humans are based on myths, fairy tales (narratives) and outright falsehoods. I find zero truth value in anything political and anything religious. I tend to know what I want and I tend to know how to get it without anyone telling me explicitly how, or forcing me on a particular path.

The idea that we can make a psychic connection with a supernatural being by partaking in rituals and absorbing mind numbing dogma is insanity personified. Likewise, the idea that we must obey documents called "social contracts" and attempt to live our lives in accordance with principles of 'fairness' and 'justice' by forking over huge sums of money & resources to men we often never met a day in our life, is also insane. The heroes of society are moneyed, perverted, backstabbing vultures in suits with flag pins, selling us the path to some Platonic form of justice/fairness/security, and men wearing robes, walking around babbling to themselves about some vague, shriveled concept called 'god.' When will the madness end? Perhaps when we are dead.

 

[CauseAndEffect]

^^Now THAT deserves a blessing point.

 

[aigiqinf]

As I grew up and learned to think for myself, I noticed all of the hypocrisy, contradictions and hatred generated by both church and politics. As I dug deeper and started asking the question: what does it all mean? I finally realized that there is no answer to this question. These artificial systems of organizing humans are based on myths, fairy tales (narratives) and outright falsehoods. I find zero truth value in anything political and anything religious. I tend to know what I want and I tend to know how to get it without anyone telling me explicitly how, or forcing me on a particular path.

Then are you a sophist or a humanist and thus a member of a de facto religion?

 

[ragarth]

The value of religion is rooted in history. It can be argued that religion has historically played a valuable role in binding groups together, providing an organizational structure to those groups, and creating a framework in which knowledge can be passed from generation to generation. This does not mean that religion is fully valid today, after all we now have governments, educational systems, and economic systems to perform these same functions in more controllable, understandable, and efficient ways.

One can argue that worship of government, money, and knowledge has taken over the roles of religious worship. If this is the case then I worship knowledge, because I feel I will never have enough of it, and through the acquisition of knowledge I help all mankind.

 

[MaxP]

This is what happens when you only get told the what and not the why of your parents beliefs.

 

[Isambard]

I am an atheist nihilist who is an opportunist.

 

[ragarth]

I am an Atheist Transhumanist who believes in the good of mankind, the value of social structure, the value of diversity, and the value of self?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm a Eudaimonist (and former Extropian transhumanist) who is on a nontheistic philosophical and spiritual path in life.

I could politically be called a libertarian (in the American sense of the word), though market liberal or Aristotelian liberal might be a better fit. While I tend to favor a republican form of government (i.e., a type of liberal democracy) because I don't think that historical circumstances are right for anything better, I'm still fascinated, with caution, at the thought that some form of anarchocapitalism might serve well enough in a colonization scenario.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Nihilist]

Then are you a sophist or a humanist and thus a member of a de facto religion?

Sir, as a nihilist, he is neither a sophist nor a humanist. I suggest you review the meaning of each of these. Moreover, I suggest you review your understanding of religion as a concept, as neither nihilism, sophistry, nor humanism can accurately be described a religion.

 

[The Nihilist]

This is what happens when you only get told the what and not the why of your parents beliefs.

Then what answer do you have, smart guy, that would correct this poor fellow who has obviously been led astray?

 

[MaxP]

Then what answer do you have, smart guy, that would correct this poor fellow who has obviously been led astray?

Hm? I don't really think this thread invites debate(waaaaay too much material), and anyway, I was making a neutral observation.

 

[The Nihilist]

Look, if you have information that establishes the existence of god, then (forget) the OP, let's hear it.

 

[ragarth]

Hm? I don't really think this thread invites debate(waaaaay too much material), and anyway, I was making a neutral observation.

You're statement was about as neutral as stating 'Jews deserve to die' as an observation. Attaching the word 'neutral' to something does not automatically make it so. Try attaching the word neutral to sulfuric acid and see what happens.

Neutral can be defined in these ways:
impersonal: having no personal preference; "impersonal criticism"; "a neutral observer"
inert: having only a limited ability to react chemically; chemically inactive; "inert matter"; "an indifferent chemical in a reaction"
not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest
possessing no distinctive quality or characteristics
achromatic: having no hue; "neutral colors like black or white"
one who does not side with any party in a war or dispute
having no net electric charge

Youre statement was personal, your statement is technically inert since I know of no way to make words react chemically, your statement was definitely biased towards one side, it did have a hue, the words were black on my screen , it did side with one particular party, and everything about computers deals with the movement of electrons so unless you're using an optical processor your statement had a net electric charge.

So, I am partially wrong, you are neutral in one instance: Words cannot react chemically.

 

[IAmLegion.]

I grew up in a Christian household. My parents did not practice religion that much though. They would take me to church every once in awhile and they would hardly ever talk to me about religion. My parents are also conservatives and Republicans, and so I inherited their religion and ideology.

As I grew up and learned to think for myself, I noticed all of the hypocrisy, contradictions and hatred generated by both church and politics. As I dug deeper and started asking the question: what does it all mean? I finally realized that there is no answer to this question. These artificial systems of organizing humans are based on myths, fairy tales (narratives) and outright falsehoods. I find zero truth value in anything political and anything religious. I tend to know what I want and I tend to know how to get it without anyone telling me explicitly how, or forcing me on a particular path.

The idea that we can make a psychic connection with a supernatural being by partaking in rituals and absorbing mind numbing dogma is insanity personified. Likewise, the idea that we must obey documents called "social contracts" and attempt to live our lives in accordance with principles of 'fairness' and 'justice' by forking over huge sums of money & resources to men we often never met a day in our life, is also insane. The heroes of society are moneyed, perverted, backstabbing vultures in suits with flag pins, selling us the path to some Platonic form of justice/fairness/security, and men wearing robes, walking around babbling to themselves about some vague, shriveled concept called 'god.' When will the madness end? Perhaps when we are dead.

How old are you?

 

[MaxP]

You're statement was about as neutral as stating 'Jews deserve to die' as an observation. Attaching the word 'neutral' to something does not automatically make it so. Try attaching the word neutral to sulfuric acid and see what happens.

Neutral can be defined in these ways:
impersonal: having no personal preference; "impersonal criticism"; "a neutral observer"
inert: having only a limited ability to react chemically; chemically inactive; "inert matter"; "an indifferent chemical in a reaction"
not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest
possessing no distinctive quality or characteristics
achromatic: having no hue; "neutral colors like black or white"
one who does not side with any party in a war or dispute
having no net electric charge

Youre statement was personal, your statement is technically inert since I know of no way to make words react chemically, your statement was definitely biased towards one side, it did have a hue, the words were black on my screen , it did side with one particular party, and everything about computers deals with the movement of electrons so unless you're using an optical processor your statement had a net electric charge.

So, I am partially wrong, you are neutral in one instance: Words cannot react chemically.

As much as I enjoy sarcasm, it was a neutral observation. When parents do not teach their children why they should believe what they believe, the children quite naturally reject the parents belief, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Scientology, Pantheism or anything.

 

[MaxP]

Look, if you have information that establishes the existence of god, then (forget) the OP, let's hear it.

Well, its funny. I find when I present constructs that demonstrate why God exists, they are disregarded in exchange for hard evidence. When I provide hard evidence of some kind of intelligence, it is disregarded as being attributable to chance, then people disbelieve in God due to a lack of evidence. Couldn't I believe my computer and internet connection is a result of chance and thusly disbelieve in Dell and AT&T?
It is of course, impossible to offer up God, being the universe, on silver platter saying, here's God, guys. Enjoy. Just as it is impossible to offer up the universe on a silver platter and say, here's existence, guys. Have fun. And that's what you ask as your hard proof. So right off the bat you set impossible standards.

Anyway, what does this have to do with what I said?

 

[ragarth]

As much as I enjoy sarcasm, it was a neutral observation. When parents do not teach their children why they should believe what they believe, the children quite naturally reject the parents belief, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Scientology, Pantheism or anything.

I refute that, it does not logically follow that a child more often than not chooses not to believe in their parent's beliefs without indoctrination unless said belief does not fit with the moores and needs of living in current society, in which case it can be argued that the childhood indoctrination could actually hurt the child by making them less equipped to deal with modern society.

 

[MaxP]

I refute that, it does not logically follow that a child more often than not chooses not to believe in their parent's beliefs without indoctrination unless said belief does not fit with the moores and needs of living in current society, in which case it can be argued that the childhood indoctrination could actually hurt the child by making them less equipped to deal with modern society.

It does logically follow, however, that if I were to raise a child and tell him computer ads are evil, but not tell him why, he would at best have a passive acceptance of it, but if he was the inquisitive type, a complete rejection. That is the only observation made.
And anyway, the indoctrination would be critical to making an informed decision, no? To know what your parents believe, why, etc. would better prepare the child for a decision to believe it or, not whereas a child who has no instruction will see the set of beliefs as seemingly random and pointless. There are cases of complete blind faith of course, but that's the exception.

 

[Legion.As.One]

Forcing religions on children is disgusting. (I made my point).
Both my parents, although christian, advise me to look at all points of view. As a result I can form opinions of my own. Although, many of my views are formed because of my parents' influence.

Completely contridictary to many of my peers' interests, I love to learn about religion. Religion is an amazing creation of the human mind. And so I never discriminate based on religion, I go to church for school but I also learn about other beliefs at school. Very multi-cultural

What I just said really had nothing to do with this conversation, unless I link it to: Religion isn't maddness, its human nature. To make sense of the unknown (everything is unknown, because we don't know anything) in any way possible (evidently: the idea of omnipotent deities - where's that come from??!!). I, personally, think that its impossible. We can only seek the Truth of - and in - the universe.

The universe is all and many; it is chaotic order. Chaos has a certain order, and order has varieties of chaos. All is one.

So I'm a: (for your information(not that you really need to know))
Discordianist/Pantheist (without the god/s)/ Atheistic Satanist
Maybe it has a name, I just don't know it... yet

(Anarchy is the order of chaotic freedom, so I see it)



P.S. IAmLegion has a cool name

 

[Mystman]

Government, with it's always present element of "other people telling you how you should act" is in fact less than ideal.

But considering that human nature / reality simply doesn't allow for the concept of anarchy (you always have people willing to follow the guy with the big pointy spear - the little band led by Mr. Spear will always be able to steal your stuff if you're the only one defending it; tada, you have a dictatorship), I prefer a more civilized approach to governing.

The idea of "lets eradicate 2000 years of advances in governing and all take on the governing structure of cavemen! Only now living packed together in cities housing millions and many carrying guns, riding tanks, flying bombers, and having the keys to nuclear weapons! I'm sure it will work out fine!" is just... weird.