on religeon (part 1)

"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished."

Mikhail Bakunin



I would say that I am certainly a philosophical materialist. That means that i do not believe in the existence of god, gods, goddesses, angels, demons or any supernatural at all. This is of course attached to my atheism.

Now, I imagine that hearing this you would think "of course you don't believe in a supernatural, you are an atheist". There you would be wrong, although you could be forgiven for being so.

Being an atheist does not mean you do not believe in a supernatural. A lot of Buddhists could be called atheists because they don't believe in a god (although some Buddhists actually worship Buddha and there are certainly supernatural qualities ascribed to him, including a virgin birth.).

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. There are many none believers in gods that still believe in all kinds of hokey things, the raelians for example. No, you don't have to disbelieve in faeries and spoon bending to be an atheist.

However, if you want to truly believe in rationality and the scientific method without being a hypocrite, you have to be an atheist. Now, I am aware that scientists such as Francis Collins (who mapped the human genome) profess religious beliefs while practising science professionally. I would personally regard this as hypocrisy.

Science and religion are not “non-overlapping magesteria” as Stephen j Gould has claimed. Religion makes claims about the origin of the universe that are completely at odds with what science has proven (the age of the earth, the reasons for the complexity of life). Also, religious groups often seek to interfere with science.

The Catholic Church consistently tries to stop stem cell research, the fight against HIV and AIDS and the religious often reject and declaim science for relying too much on physical evidence and observation. Apparently scientists have to have more “faith”.

What is faith? Faith, to quote mark twain, is “believing what you know ain’t so”. Essentially it is about believing in things you have no ability to prove and cannot see.

How can you use the scientific method and demand proof for everything but neglect to do so for religion?

This, to me, seems like crass stupidity and double standards.

It is important in life to believe things based on common sense and rationality. That is, believing things based on proof and being able to back things up with a firm foundation of facts. If you cannot prove somthing exists, then why believe it? Wouldn’t it be better to believe things you know to be true?

Here is a nice link to a Wikipedia article about the scientific method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Beliefs_and_biases

Believing things just because you want them to be true or because your church tells you they are true, does not make them true. You should believe things to be true based on your own figuring out of things and your examination of the evidence. If it could be absolutely and 100% proved that a god/goddess existed then i would certainly belive in him her. I still wouldn’t bow down before him/her/it though (I’ll get to that later).

Faith is gullibility. Believing in the existence something merely because you read it in a book or because you really want it to be true, despite the evidence is absurd. We know a hell of a lot about this world and all the available evidence points to this being an essentially materialist universe. What we know about the brain shows us that the mind and the brain are not separate and most claims about the afterlife (near death experiences) have been debunked. There are tons of books and programmes that completely show how easy it is to fake psychic phenomena.

Does this mean that we should be closed minded to such things? Of course not. It just means we shouldn’t believe it until we’ve see observable and demonstratable proof. We shouldn’t accept it on face value.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus

Now, obviously it is impossible to disprove all concepts of a creator at this time, i will focus on the Abrahmic god. I will say however that the mounting evidence against their existence makes them all unlikely and the complete lack of evidence doesn’t help.

Christianity is the religion that most people in the west have the most experience of. This religion doesn’t really stand up to analysis and i am actually deeply offended by many of its tenets. Also it goes some way towards explaining my antitheism (an antitheist is not only someone who doesn’t believe in a god, but is also glad god doesn’t exist and views religious faith as potentially harmful, disliking the idea of faith.). These offensive tenets are:

Vicarious redemption: the idea that an innocent man can have the perceived “sins” of the world put on to him and redeem everyone (including those born after the event) by being horrifically tortured and killed is utterly vile. Plus the fact that he supposedly only died for three days only to resurrect and become god (or just his second in command depending on your view) renders his “sacrifice” absurd, even if you think such a thing can do anything to help anyone do anything wrong then you shouldn’t put the guilt onto someone else. I can serve your sentence (though i oppose the existence of laws), i can pay your bail, but i can’t take the “sin” away from you and put it on my head. You do something bad, you live with it.

This whole thing stinks of self loathing and wish fulfilment. This is human sacrifice. I’m glad there is no proof this never happened, but quite frankly if the concept of sacrificing someone and using them as a scapegoat doesn’t bother you, then something may be wrong with you.

Original sin: the notion that we are all born with an innate sin. Somehow we’re all responsible for two naked people taking dietary advice from a talking snake. This is (apparently) the cornerstone of the religion and yet the Adam and eve story is not only absurd, but discredited. Among the Christian community only the crazy fundamentalists take this myth literally. But why believe it? Why believe that all humans are worthless sinners? And shouldn’t the sacrifice have sorted that out, if was so valid? And where is the proof this even exists. And why would the “sin” of someone who died should be passed on to descendants. That kind of stupid logic lead to the whole “Christ killer” thing that in turn led to anti-Semitism

God:

As suggested by the quote above, and obviously as an anarchist, i’m not going to be a fan of having a big boss in the sky watching over me and making rules for me that i didn’t take part in the decision making process of. An all seeing all knowing sky pixie. The abrahmic god kills the notion of free will (something the god squad likes banging on about). Think about it. If he knows everything you have done and everything you will do before you even do it, that means he knows if you are going to hell or not. that brings me to

Hell:

Why the hell (no pun intended) would anyone love or respect a god that created a place like hell? This is a mirror to the threats of physical and economic coercion of the state. God is a boss, a king, a “lord”. If he were real we defiantly would have to abolish him. But he doesn’t. There is no reason at all to believe in him. None. Even the briefest glance at the bible shows how many atrocities he allegedly committed.

So this god comes along and says you are guilty of sin before your birth and are damned to eternal torture, but if you accept him as your lord and master and kiss his arse, he will save you and send you to a place of eternal bliss. Sound like a protection racket to you? Sounds like it to me.

"An anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do.

Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them, so what good are they?

Being a pacifist between wars is as easy as being a vegetarian between meals."

Ammon Hennacy

individualism

turns out I might be an individualist anarchist, which surprised me because I thought I was a social anarchist. Not that it matters in the long run, but hey, we'll see if this proves true. I'm certainly pro-free-market, anti-capitalist,anti-rothbard,anti-konkin, anti-state, pro-mutualist, pro-freedom.

I would say I'm against the notion of collectives as the ideal. The rights of the individual are extremely important. I still maintain that social interaction is important, but individual rights are paramount.
Instead of people being bunched together in collectives, individuals, when needing to work with other individuals, should come together voluntarily to form co-operatives with no leaders, no higher authorities and therefore no hierarchies. decisions should be made when everyone in the co-operative has had a say and are in full agreement.

Does this make me an individualist? looks like it.


But I'm an anarchist first and foremost.

minarchism, markets and capitalism

I think minarchism is really naive. Governments are instruments of control and exploitation. they never stay small.

look at America. It started off with small government, constitutionalist libertarian ideals and look where it is now.

After a relatively short period, it has devolved into the mess it is now- A hostile capitalist society on the way to full tyranny. It dominates the world and is a major threat (that's the American government, not the citizens- I feel compassion towards them. I'd love America to truly be the land of the free. it isn't.) to the rest of the world. It arms countries, sets up dictatorships and then starts bloody wars to overthrow them when they get out of control.

Saddam was put into power by the US.

so was the current regime of Iran.

I'm willing to bet that Afghanistan was too.

saying you want a small government is like if I had a malignant tumour and the doctors wanted me to have it removed, But instead I tell them "no,no just shrink it. I'll be fine!".

Governments never stay small.

They grow and grow and grow. They dominate and bring tyranny (government itself is tyranny)
and next thing you know, you have cancer.

minarchism is naive.

Also, the state breeds capitalism. State socialism (what an oxymoron) can only ever postpone capitalism.

You cannot have true socialism (workers owning the means of production and controlling it democratically) when there is a state. The state is a class in and of itself. this simply whittles society down to two classes. The working class and the ruling class- the producers and the parasites.

Capitalism dominates the word market, even though it is perfectly possible to have the producers trading with each other in a voluntary,free,unregulated way without being capitalist. To me, the ideal society would be made up of self employed workers,artisans etc coming together and voluntarily forming co-operatives, in order to carry out projects with the community collectively owning the means of production. decisions should be made fairly and democratically. No authorities, just everyone on a level playing field. Having some sort of free market is fine.

I do not mean free market in the Marxist sense. I am not a Marxist (goodness no), though I am a socialist. The idea that the free market simply expresses the underlying long-term transition from feudalism to capitalism is nonsense. it's just that if we are to have a market, then we shouldn't have tax,tariffs and regulation. After all, the formation of a free society necessitates the abolition of the state and notions of authority,hierarchy etc. I don't see economics and history in that sort of Marxian transition notion, as if this is some sort of progression, an evolution if you will. no,no,no. To me an evolution indicates something positive. Feudalism is bad, I think we can all agree with that, but was the move from feudalism to capitalism that bigger a move? its just the move from battery to free-range. It's still a form of exploitation of labour. its still essentially human farming. that's what governments are in a way. It's people farming.


Simply having people trading ,exchanging items, is fine. Not sure you could suppress it without coercion anyway, even if you wanted. it's just that an autonomous structure based on voluntary co-operation, mutual aid and workers self ownership are needed to make it fair. agreement between producers is needed for things to function. you don't need big brother breathing down your neck.

common sense and reasonableness are not artificial concepts. Profit (as in the gaining and hoarding of money) should not be the important thing. The natural form of profit should be the product of ones labour. Money is fine as long as it is treated for what it is, a token of exchange. Nothing more, nothing less.

Property should be based on personal use. Buying a building of piece of land and then paying someone to use it is wrong. Capitalism encourages selfishness. it is a parasite that makes its victims parasites themselves. obviously we can't go straight into Anarchy. a lot of people are in this artificial state of the mememe mentality. They are dependant on the state and are manipulated into loving their manipulation. We must ease the crutch away. We must educate them.

ignostisism

I think I'm very probably an ignostic. I don't know if god/goddess/gods exist, and I really don't care.

questions about the existance of deities are meaningless, because we don't have a true definition of what a god is.

There is no clear way to tell whether there is a god or not. we'll find out when we die anyway. if there is/are god/s, then they/he/she/it can't care much about us because he/she/it/they ignores us anyway.

That's not to say there isn't some kind of afterlife. I've had paranormal experiences in my time, but that does not mean there is a god, and quite frankly I don't care. Why should I? If there is a god, then he/she/it will not punish me for simply using my free will (which was theoretically given by the supposed creator/s in the first place), and if there is no supreme deity then I won't be effected in any way,shape or form. It's a win-win.

That doesn't mean I will bow down and worship the god/goddess/gods if they do exist. I'm an Anarchist. I'm against there being authorities and hierarchies in the first place .

If I had a son I wouldn't want him to worship me, even though I would have helped create him. Same concept. Creating the universe entitles a bit of respect, but that's the difference between illegitimate authority and legitimate authority. Someone who is a legitimate authority is someone who is an expert in something and you can go to them for advice, but they have no right to force you to do want they think is right. an illegitimate authority is someone who forces you,through coercion(which is immoral), to do what they say. This is part of the argument against government.

Government is like a big playground bully, but with worse consequences. The worst a bully can do is rough one or two people up and and steal their break time snack. A government has armies, steals money off you (through tax,because tax is theft) and if you refuse, it can either put you in gaol (which is immoral in itself) or steal more money from you in the form of fines.

Governments kill you through wars and are bad news all round. does all this make god a legitimate authority? he/she/it/they don't force you to do stuff you don't want you to, but god doesn't give you advise if you ask either. people who pray are (as far as I can tell) talking to themselves.

Even then though, there is no way to tell whether the prayer has been answered because even if things go the way the person wanted that could just be good luck. there is no real way to know if god exists and there is no fixed way to define what a god IS. different forms of theism have different definitions. Most people use the definition of the monotheistic religions , but what about those people who aren't monotheistic? there are so many different alternatives.

why do atheists attack theists? if someone wants to believe in something, go ahead-knock yourself out. As long as you don't force your beliefs on other people and you don't use it as an excuse to hurt people. this is why I'm against people like Richard Dawkins. He is just as bad as the religious nut-jobs (preachers and door knockers). believe or disbelieve in god, just don't force it on me or anyone else.

If it's good for you, then great- just don't bother me with it. I believe in freedom and liberty.
I will not rule and I will not be ruled over,to paraphrase Tucker.

I am a ignostic, I am a mutualist and I am an anarchist. Freedom to all.

class

I was on one of the two Anarchist forums I'm a member of, and I came upon this thread about the discrimination against white middle-class males. There was this bloke on there saying how he hated middle class people and how they shouldn't take part in the Anarchist cause. This struck me as a bit hypocritical. Surely Anarchists (myself included) want a classless society, free from hierarchy and exploitation? Then surely using class to discriminate against people goes contradictory to that? seems a tad hypocritical? Add to that the fact that a lot of the all-time great anarchist writers were middle-class? maybe that's just me being a middle-class white kid again. ho-hum.

Anarchist involvment in Greece

I have noticed that the British media seem to be largely ignoring the Greek insurrections and when They don't they refer to "leftists" rather then anarchist or communists. There seems to be from what I've seen, looking into it in the alternative media, there is quite a large Anarchist presence. But, hey, the mainstream media isn't there for showing the truth. its there to make you think what the state wants you to think. The majority of the mass media to my knowledge is owned by only about four companies and they lie a LOT.