Anarchism

Why should we want power? As long as we have enough power to protect ourselves from oppression, why should we seek more of it?

A side effect of empowering a group is that it also empowers the leaders of the group. I'm extremely leery of the idea of making anyone the 'leader' of an atheist movement. One-issue voters are the foundation of totalitarianism. The essence of atheism is skepticism. (In my opinion) Skeptics are natural opposers of political orders. As it should be. To attempt to impose our own order, would be to lose our skepticism of ourselves (and our leaders).

loquax said:

Richard Dawkins raised the point about how atheists have very little political power, and that this should be changed. He also said that getting atheists together is like herding cats. Technically atheists share nothing in common about their beliefs - they all share a lack of belief, and that's it.

So we have a conundrum. How can we attain power if by nature we steer away from grouping? I know very little about anarchism, but it's hard not to make parallels. Could it be that in the future we might find ourselves gaining anarchic power (that might evolve into pseudo-political power through influence), or do you see atheists grouping together?

And if the former, aren't we, the writers, the political voice of the movement?

Click to expand...

There are atheist groups you can join. I'm not sure there is really much of an atheist movement. Maybe atheists are often people who are as fed-up with Big ideology as they are with Big Theistic religion...as a writer...my interests have little to do with addressing political issues. I just drop in fascists as bad guys as needed and let it go at that.

loquax said:

Exactly, grouping atheists doesn't work. I would define atheistic political power as the lack of religious political power. How that might come about is the topic of interest.

Higgins - I'm a member of the "brights". Just not sure if these groups will ever get anywhere.

Click to expand...

I kind of agree. I have nothing against religions, I just am very tired of ideologies masquerading as religions.

I personally would doubt that atheists are more or less group-minded than religious people. It may just be that atheism is not an easy thing to form an instituion around--although a few such entities do exist. I personally am a dues-paying member of a dozen difference guilds and societies.

Sarpedon's post is excellent.

Unfortunately, faction inevitably rules politics. Always has, always will. I've always said anarchism couldn't possibly survive in any human society because some set of people will gather power and rise to the top. Violently, as they always do.

"Always has, always will. I've always said anarchism couldn't possibly survive in any human society because some set of people will gather power and rise to the top."

Click to expand...

You've heard of Swords into Plowshares movement? The Phil Berrigan Institute? The Catholic Worker movement? Intentional communities? Most of these are anarchist movements, some of which still operate now. Without formal leadership. Many, being NPO or registered religions pay no taxes either. An interesting thing to think about.

But the difference is that on a large-scale, like that of a nation, neighbors aren't always as interested in another's intention, just their resources. Consider Guevara and Castro and Russia.

AMC

I'm wondering if modern communications technology has once again made direct democracy practicable.

I'd hesitate to try it with our current educational/legal system though.

We actually had a leader once, Madeline Murry O'Hare, the very first guest on the Donahue show. She was an awfully unpleasant woman who died an awfully unpleasant death, along with her awfully unpleasant son and awfully unpleasant granddaughter, immediately prior to her scheduled appearance as the last guest on the Donahue show.

Ms. O'Hare siphened money from her charity for personal use. And, an awful lot of it. Which wouldn't have haunted her so much, except she refused to pay taxes. It was her own haunted persona that lead to police not taking her seriously when she was in danger. ...Her own nasty nature that made a fired employee target her for a brutal, weeks long detention followed by execution.

That ex-employee and his buddies put millions in gold coins in storage, protected by a cheap, generic masterlock. Someone went through the entire storage area, trying locks, and took that money so they had nothing to show for one of the most heinous murders I've ever heard of... the heinous murder of one of the most heinous people that I've ever heard of...

Niniva said:

Her own nasty nature that made a fired employee target her for a brutal, weeks long detention followed by execution.

Click to expand...

It always fascinates me when people blame the victim of a violent crime FOR the violent crime.

Our human CULTure bandies about powerlessness and power to take its wee collective (and individual) mind(s) off the inevitability of death.

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor Hershman

Speaking as an atheist, I'm not interested in atheists achieving power. What I want to see is atheists being welcome to sit at the table of power. Right now, an atheist can't even get elected Dogcatcher in America. All because of religious hostility.

I also don't necessarily agree with other atheists on important issues. I'm a liberal and an atheist. Some think, "liberal atheist" as if the two are joined at the hip. I've debated the issues with plenty of conservative atheists. I'd rather vote for a Jewish or Christian liberal than a conservative atheist (provided the former are committed to not confusing religious dogma with the law of the land).

Ayn Rand Objectivists are all off-the-chart conservatives. They're also atheists. They're convinced of Rand's near-Godhood and of their own moral and intellectual superiority. I find them shallow, self-centered, and pretentious.

What would you do with more power? Dawkins might want to use it to eradicate religion perhaps, but why? Religion is just superstition tied to morality. We can't eradicate superstition - it fulfills an emotional need for many people; and any change to morality must involve the whole culture, not just some rationalist elite.

It would be nice for atheists be able to run credibly for significant public office without lying about their views. But that's just because our views are minority views. Other groups have the same problems; the median tends to attract popular vote.

Ruv Draba said:

Religion is just superstition tied to morality.

Click to expand...

Ever the editor, I shall whittle this statement a bit.

"Religion is just superstition."

It would be nice for atheists be able to run credibly for significant public office without lying about their views.

Click to expand...

Sure it would be nice. But why? I would rather not waste new oil in and old machine; I'd sooner save it for a new machine. It's my opinion that people abandoned by their state's ideologies should form their own communities and allow them to thrive. Outside of this possibility, there is an old statement: "A big ship turns slowly".

...

So is there a hope that there might be small steps toward tolerance (as if atheists haven't proven enough that they are in fact human), despite the fact that it's BS that a group has to work to be "accepted," essentially, as human in the first place. It's what W.E.B. Dubois called "twoness" or "double-consciousness" when he wrote of the black culture during the New Negro movement. Atheists for some reason seek assimilation into a culture that does not readily accept them. They are other. So they seek to either change the ideology-in-power, or overthrow it, both of which are nearly impossible (Prospero is invincible, after all).

People might argue with me that blacks have had it much differently, that the "twoness" of Dubois could never fully apply to atheists. I agree. But I also think sociologically speaking, the atheist has been a deviant to a lesser degree and so is to a lesser degree ostracized, and like any social deviant, the atheist carries that social status as a burden.

AMC

I have confidence that atheism and agnosticism is slowly growing in America. My unscientific observation of my kids' generation is that atheism is widespread amongst them. As you say, the ship turns slowly. But it does turn.

First things first. We must stop the spread of religious dogma being peddled as science.

fullbookjacket said:

First things first. We must stop the spread of religious dogma being peddled as science.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely true.

I think, and I would have to look it up to be sure, that each generation gets more religous and more conservative as they age.

AMCrenshaw said:

Sure it would be nice. But why? I would rather not waste new oil in and old machine; I'd sooner save it for a new machine. It's my opinion that people abandoned by their state's ideologies should form their own communities and allow them to thrive.

Click to expand...

If I got an invitation to become a citizen of a developed atheist-only society I probably wouldn't join. I much prefer a pluralist society -- they produce better art, prettier architecture and have more interesting dinner conversations.

So is there a hope that there might be small steps toward tolerance (as if atheists haven't proven enough that they are in fact human), despite the fact that it's BS that a group has to work to be "accepted,"

Click to expand...

It's long, slow work to teach others to tolerate us. The most important step is to actually be useful to them; the next most important step is to have that use acknowledged, and the last step is for others to realise that you're no danger to them. (Of course, having atheists rant about the need to destroy other belief-systems does nothing for that last thing.)

Anyway, much faster is to learn to tolerate others -- including their myths about us. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus -- heck, even some New Agers -- can be very interesting and worthwhile people because of their beliefs, not just despite them.

People might argue with me that blacks have had it much differently,

Click to expand...

The average level of education among atheists is way higher than just about any other social minority you can think of. Atheism is less than 10% of most societies, but it's a very well-educated 10%. We don't have the same economic problems that many other minorities have, and our 'differentness' is only apparent if we choose to make it so. Other than at the margins I don't think that anti-atheistic sentiment compares to what other minorities experience.

The average level of education among atheists is way higher than just about any other social minority you can think of. Atheism is less than 10% of most societies, but it's a very well-educated 10%. We don't have the same economic problems that many other minorities have, and our 'differentness' is only apparent if we choose to make it so. Other than at the margins I don't think that anti-atheistic sentiment compares to what other minorities experience.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Click to expand...

(Of course, having atheists rant about the need to destroy other belief-systems does nothing for that last thing.)

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this statement. Another poster mentioned that religious dogma is peddled as science-- and while that is true, I think it is more important at this point in spreading the awareness that groups (not only religions) peddle absolute truth where truth is fragmentary at best, superstitious and/or suspect, and dangerous at worst. With awareness and education comes critical thinking - one hopes - and with that the ability to discern which institutions are healthy and which are leading us to doom. "Stopping religions" is in my opinion an old point that needs reworked. Institutionalized ideology of all sorts is what needs to be "stopped", and a lack of demand might end its supply...

If I got an invitation to become a citizen of a developed atheist-only society

Click to expand...

You assumed I meant atheist-only, which, of course, I didn't.

I much prefer a pluralist society -- they produce better art, prettier architecture and have more interesting dinner conversations.

Click to expand...

So why couldn't the new community be pluralist? If the intention is to cultivate diversity and tolerance, atheists and theists could certainly belong peacefully to the same community. And you said it: pluralist societies produce better art, etc. because art, etc. is a better outlet for conflict-generated creativity than, say, hate-language or outright violence. Wouldn't you think?

You can stop reading now. The rest is half-rant.





And if the intention of the new community is yet a step further-- that is, not just tolerance of one another, but the cherishing of one another and the mutual esteem of one another, why should humanist atheists and God-loving human-loving Christians (for example) not be capable of belonging to the same community? Well, you know it's possible on paper, and I'd admit I'm talking about one of those ideal situations, but I have seen these communities run for my whole life and am convinced they're not only possible but more desirable than the overarching government/power/system of domination. If George Bush, for example, wasn't "fulfilling his purpose", more would simply call his administration a tyranny. For the most part, there isn't another word for it (how many people has he and his buddies sent to die in Iraq on false pretenses?). Yet, it's not that bad, so the average American tolerates it. Why should they not? Some high % of Americans believe in God, much of that % being a personal one who communicates via prayer. It all works. Why should atheists (or whoever) seek to make themselves part of that community when if they created one on their own, they'd not only have nothing to complain about, but they would exemplify "virtues" (for a lack of a better word) that for the most part the system-in-power is lacking.

AMC

p.s. Sorry about the other thread. I enjoyed it.

AMCrenshaw said:

With awareness and education comes critical thinking - one hopes - and with that the ability to discern which institutions are healthy and which are leading us to doom.

Click to expand...

Critical thinking doesn't take for everyone and I don't believe that it will any time soon. Some people do not grow to become critical thinkers. Some seek harmony in preference to truth. Others seek sensation and experience. Others seek conformity and stability. It's from the unity of such people that society gains its strength, resilience and adaptability. Critical thinkers have an important job to do, and part of that job is to communicate effectively to people who do not think as critically. In the same way, we're lucky to have people who can build harmony between any two viewpoints -- no matter how conflicted.

AMCrenshaw said:

Institutionalized ideology of all sorts is what needs to be "stopped", and a lack of demand might end its supply...

Click to expand...

If for no other reason, institutionalised education produces ideology because of the logistics of educating large numbers of people. The reality of education is that it will remain institutionalised in the main just because demand will continue to exceed supply. Some groups will always take advantage of that to conform ideology to suit their purposes.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for a large subculture of 'free-thinkers' any time soon.

So why couldn't the new community be pluralist? If the intention is to cultivate diversity and tolerance, atheists and theists could certainly belong peacefully to the same community.

Click to expand...

My community (urban Australia) is already reasonably pluralist. Australia has around 17% non-religious folk as of last census -- which is about twice as many as some of other developed countries. We have twice as much tertiary education as many other developed countries. It's far from perfect, but perhaps easier to work with and nurture than to start some alternative. True cultures take lifetimes to develop -- so one can't hope to harvest the fruits of cultural seeds that one plants.

And you said it: pluralist societies produce better art, etc. because art, etc. is a better outlet for conflict-generated creativity than, say, hate-language or outright violence. Wouldn't you think?

Click to expand...

I wish I had a clear answer. Pluralism admits multiple sources of inspiration. Communication from multiple perspectives offers contrast if not conflict... but the price you pay is that individual 'schools' of style and thought may not develop so far.

At least with pluralism, if you don't like one thing you can hope to find something different.

And if the intention of the new community is yet a step further-- that is, not just tolerance of one another, but the cherishing of one another and the mutual esteem of one another, why should humanist atheists and God-loving human-loving Christians (for example) not be capable of belonging to the same community?

Click to expand...

Of course they are. Such communities already exist as communities of interest. For a while I spent time in an online humanist community including secular and sectarian members. We had no problems discussing things and enjoying one another's perspectives. We had far more in common than in difference, and I think that we all found our differences stimulating rather than irritating.

Why should they not? Some high % of Americans believe in God

Click to expand...

From recollection, around 92% of US citizens have some religion, which means that 8% either don't or aren't saying.

Why should atheists (or whoever) seek to make themselves part of that community when if they created one on their own, they'd not only have nothing to complain about, but they would exemplify "virtues" (for a lack of a better word) that for the most part the system-in-power is lacking.

Click to expand...

Well, if 'virtues' mean anything then they're valuable for their own sake. If we exemplify them because they're valuable then they change our culture and that filters through to our expectations of leadership.

And there's no community on earth that has nothing to complain about.

Sorry about the other thread. I enjoyed it.

Click to expand...

I was getting a lot of valuable thought from it too - but all the forums here are purpose and community-oriented. I trust and respect the moderation on AW, which is far better than my experience of many other forums. AW comes with no guarantee that a subject -- however legitimate to discuss -- fits into a particular forum. That really depends on the community's interests and sensibilities. If it doesn't fit, well there are non-AW forums too of course.

veinglory said:

I think, and I would have to look it up to be sure, that each generation gets more religous and more conservative as they age.

Click to expand...

This is what the urban legend is on this, I guess...but given that everybody is born an atheist and a free-thinker...perhaphs they are at their most religious and conservative just before puberty.

I know it is a little more than just an urban legend as I was introduced to the effect at an epidemiology conference. But I was pretty bored at the time and cannot remember the name fo the researcher who was showing data or remember exactly what it was.

Certainly republican voters skew a lot older and have for some time, suggesting it is not a generational effect.

veinglory said:

I know it is a little more than just an urban legend as I was introduced to the effect at an epidemiology conference. But I was pretty bored at the time and cannot remember the name fo the researcher who was showing data or remember exactly what it was.

Certainly republican voters skew a lot older and have for some time, suggesting it is not a generational effect.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you that individuals become more conservative and religious as they age.

I'm the opposite. I was very conservative and pretty religious in my misspent youth. I'm 51 now. And very liberal and confirmed atheist. Clearly, I've gotten smarter and wiser with age.