I am an atheist
I am an atheist.
I don't believe in your god. And not just your god; I don't believe in their god, either. I don't believe in Yahweh/Jehovah, Zeus, Thor, Allah, Vishnu, Satan, government/the State, Odin, Ra, or any other magical anthropomorphic immortal.
Yes, I see your temples, mosques, churches, capitols, cathedrals, crosses, statues, monuments, and other structures erected to give you a concrete thing to look at to prop up your faith and help you believe your god exists. All this proves is that believers waste a lot of money, some of which is stolen from people outside your faiths (one religion calls this theft "taxation").
I see the seminaries, monasteries, "public" schools, church schools, and social clubs established to brainwash people into your religion. When nonbelievers are threatened into handing over their children to you, and/or forced to fund your indoctrination centers regardless of their personal beliefs, your religion has crossed a line into pure evil. Guess which religion is most often guilty of this behavior.
I see your flags, vestments, holy books, constitutions, hymnals, jewelry, and other objects. They don't apply to nonbelievers. Keep those things within your own religion.
I see the deeds and rituals performed by you believers-- the good and the bad and the worse. The soup kitchens, the murders, the hospitals, the robbery, the chanting, the singing, the pledging of allegiance, the public prayers, the "laws", the rallies, the services, the parliment/congress, the elections, the preaching, the court proceedings, and all the rest. All this proves is that people are inspired by their beliefs to act, regardless of the truth of the things they believe in.
I am an atheist.
If you believe in any of those gods you are not.
If you believe in more than one of those gods you are a polytheist. If you believe in both Jehohvah and government, for example.
If you believe in only one of those gods-- government, perhaps-- you are a monotheist, even if you have always called yourself an atheist. You are not an atheist, you are an atelatheist-- an incomplete atheist-- because you do believe in a god. Denying this won't change it. Trying to claim your god is somehow not a god-- it is different from all the others gods-- is a tactic desperate religionists have always tried to use. It fails. This time and every time.
Nice perspective discussing the issues of government. 👌🏾
Very interesting view, @dullhawk. So you're an anarchist atheist. Nontheless, that view of the government as a god for people is, in a sense, only a symbolic and poetic thing. It is not the same to literally believe in a trascendental superbeing than to believe in the importance of ruling hierarchical institutions for society.
And what is your view about the exploration of the spiritual and trascendental realms of the human life? It would be a matter of philosophy, and even psychology. I strongly agree with Harris when he speaks about the importance of taking off these issues from the hands of the religious institutions, for a humanist and rationalist perspective in this knowledge.
Some would say I am an anarchist atheist, but that's redundant.
When people think about a god, they are almost always thinking of a magical anthropomorphic immortal. (That would be the lowest common denominator-- each god might differ in additional details.)
This is also what government is to most people.
Government is believed to be magical-- they believe it can change reality. Believers believe it can make theft not-theft by calling it "taxation". They believe it can negate the natural right to self-defense and defense of property. They believe it can make plants "illegal". All that is magical thinking.
Government is given anthropomorphic traits. Believers claim government can have rights, even though only individuals can. They talk about government doing things, when it can't. Only individuals can. It's as though they honestly believe it is a living, breathing person.
Government is believed by its believers to be immortal. They can't imagine a day when their government is over. They'll fight you if you point out that their government won't exist forever. They issue "Forever stamps" which they say will be good for postage forever. They don't realize all governments collapse and end. Some sooner, some later, but all go away.
Government has all the universally common, fundamental traits of a god.
I agree. Years ago someone told me I was the "most spiritual atheist" they ever met. I found that amusing, but I knew what they meant.
Yes, I agree with you, in a sense. I've seen people who are so enthusiastic about governments that they behave very "religiously" towards politics, showing those irrational (even fanatic) traits. But I have to say that not everyone who agrees with the existence (or the importance of the existence) of governments behave like that. Some rational people with very interesting and sincere points of view support the existence of governments.
In my case, I'd like to support anarchism (in my youth, I did), but I live in a country where the bad version of anarchism rules our social life. The lack of strong virtuous rational institutions to regulate society makes that the whole country is ruled by a miriad of little dictators, gangsters, bullies... all fighting each other in order to attain more power, using people, deceiving, murdering, manipulating. You know, this is the "Game of Thrones".
Some years ago I read a book about anarchism in which the author said something very accurate in my context. It was like: The anarchism has an unjustified trust in the rationality of people.
I know, for certain, that if here would exist a strong rational democratic government, these little groups could not have so much power to oppress the normal innocent people of the communities.
Yes, the government is a limitation, but in some cases a government with good principles could be a healthy limitation against the pretentions of gangsters and psychotic leaders. It would be "the least bad of the options". All this bloody chaos, murder and oppression makes me dream at least a bit of the "order" that exists in developed countries.
Of course, I know that everyone makes his opinion based in his context. In Venezuela we'd like a simple democracy, in other countries maybe people want something beyond democracy. All depends on the context.
They may be otherwise rational but their support of governments is an exception. Being interesting and sincere says nothing about whether their points of view have any legitimacy.
If it is ruling anything, it's not anarchism. That would be like a square circle.
Those don't require government. In fact, government blocks their existence.
I think they have that backward. Statism is unjustified trust in the rationality of people, and unjustified trust in the ethics and morality of people, besides. Who else would belive it's sensible to let flawed humans have power over others?
Democracy is mob rule. Might (through superior numbers) makes right. No thanks.
No such thing. All government is founded on the superstitious belief in political "authority"(you need to read that book!), and exists only through theft and aggression-- rights violations. You are saying a gang of bad guys is the only thing protecting you from being violated by a gang of bad guys. This is the "But, a warlord!" fallacy.
I want liberty. I don't need a religion based on the belief in the god of government for that. If that's what you need, so be it. Just don't expect me to go along or to pretend it's anything other than a religious belief.
Many thanks for the links, my friend; I will read that at first opportunity. I like to get every point of view, because I know how surrounding situations can condition our perspectives in life.
In fact I do agree with your assertions, I just think that they are more valid in the abstract thinking than in reality. Living in a place where many groups joined to try socialism, to spread off the power out of the State into many little structures at the communities, I've seen what really happens when you try something like that: the birth of many little power centers which can be as authoritarian as the worst State.
And that is exactly what I mean when I agree with the sentence of the mentioned book, about the unjustified trust in people. I loved anarchism, but it really proposes that we should, by many means (peaceful education or armed revolution, depending on the anarchist group), build a society where there is no hierarchy, no guidance of any institution, no control or regulation over the social life, because people can really control their own lives in complete freedom, colaborating with others by their free will and solidarity... that is overtrusting the rationality of masses.
In many senses, that was tried by many in my country. But the reality shows us that some people is always looking for the guidance of others, incapable of using their own will, intelligence or strength (happily making themselves "sheeps"), while in the other hand, many others are always thirsty for power and authority over other's lives... or simply willing to take on the hard responsibilities which no one else wants to face (therefore becoming unavoidably leaders or "masters" in their contexts). This is simply part of our human diversity.
But, as I see it, that not necessarily have to drive to oppression. Some people wants to guide others because they see how those "others" cannot guide healthy their own lifes (one can see that, for example, in his own family). That would be the best version of control, and it's all about the ruling values. For me, the problem is not the power (because that power is just the consequence of our differences) but the unhealthy principles, values and objectives which that power could be used for.
We have different abilities and potentialities, or simply different desires, and the outcome of that is that many people just don't want to assume some responsibilities in their own lives, leaving the path open for others to manage that part in the social reality. As Jung said, it's not only that the masters use their followers, but also that the followers are using their masters to free themselves from their own vital responsibilities.
That's why I question, when I look at leaders and rulers: which ones are their values and principles? I don't dream for a utopian society in which every single person behaves completely responsible towards his own life; I know that such ideal doesn't understand the essential diversity of human psychology. But I could wish a society where the ruling values and principles could really prevent the upcoming of dangerous, stupid or psychotic leaders and systems.