Agnostic.com

7 0

How Many Here are COMPLETE ATHEISTS (as I am)?
“Richard Dawkins is not an atheist. You cannot be an atheist unless you are an anarchist. You can be an anarchist and not be an atheist but you cannot be an atheist and not be an anarchist because government is a god and Richard Dawkins, unfortunately, totally believes in the god called government.” Larken Rose

ResponsiblyFree 3 Dec 29
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

None of the responses here have addressed the propositions by Larken Rose which are:

  1. Government is a Religion/God. That is, people (Aka “Citizens&rdquo😉 BELIEVE in Government as a Morally Legitimate Authority which has the Right to Rule/Control them just as people (Aka “Religious Believers&rdquo😉 believe in God as a Morally Legitimate Authority.

  2. Atheism means to not believe in any Gods as Morally Legitimate Authorities.

  3. Anarchy etymologically means “No Ruler”. To a Voluntaryist/Anarchist/Autarchist (Self-Ruler) it is immoral (morally illegitimate) for any person/persons to use first physical force to threaten/control/rule another/others.

  4. Government, defined by Max Weber: “A human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

  5. Given the above points (#1-4), then an “atheist” like Richard Dawkins who believes in the God of Government cannot accurately be called an “atheist”.

  6. A religious person who believes in some God that does not permit that person to justify or act out the use of first physical force against another whether as a “legitimate criminal” (Government) or as an “illegitimate criminal” (Mafia), then that person would be accurately called an anarchist.

The Ad hominem responses are, hopefully to more mature readers, immaturely irrelevant: “wacko”; “support for…Youtube”; “plain stupid”; “soooo STUPID!”

The other responses do not make any rational sense to me and do not address Rose’s propositions.

A quote by an anarchist entrepreneur/philosopher Isaac Morehouse:
“When the world becomes free…it will not be because of a change in government, but because of a change in attitude toward government. Genuine change will come when the state is ignored, not reformed. The world can become free of the barbarous relic called the state. The state is a dangerous fiction whose power rests entirely on people’s belief in its necessity, or inevitability. Belief in the state is not insurmountable. It is not hard-wired into the human mind. It is not a given that a state must or will always exist. The state, like so many other superstitions now thought to be outrageous, inhumane and inefficient, [such as slavery] can be left in the ash heap of history.”

A quote by Larken Rose from his seminal book, The Most Dangerous Superstition [that is, Government]:
“The main factor distinguishing the belief in “government” from other religions today is that people actually believe in the god called “government,” The other gods people claim to believe in, and the churches they attend, are now, by comparison, little more than empty rituals and half-heartedly parroted superstitions. When it comes to their everyday lives, the god that people actually pray to, to save them from misfortune, to smite their enemies, and to shower them with blessings, is “government.” It is “government” whose commandments the people most often respect and obey, Whenever a conflict arises between “government” and the teachings of the lesser gods – such as “pay your fair share” (taxation) versus “Thou shalt not steal,” or “duty to country” (military service) versus “Thou shalt not murder”– the commands of “government” supersede all the teachings of the other religions. Politicians, the high priests of the church of “government”– the mouthpieces and representatives of “government,” who deliver the sacred “law” from on high – even openly declare that it is permissible for the people to practice whatever religion they wish, as long as they do not run afoul of the supreme religion by disobeying “the law”– meaning the dictates of the god called “government.””

Finally, view the picture attached to this post, from the book by R.J. Rummel, Death by Government, about which comes this quote from Reason online magazine, demonstrating why Government IS THE Most Dangerous Superstition (aka, God, Religion):
“Being anti-government is the logical result of taking a close look at the state and its bloody works. Let's start with a number: 262 million. That's the number of unarmed people the late Prof. R. J. Rummel estimated governments murdered in mass killings he termed "democide" during the 20th century. ‘This democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century,’ he wrote.”
[reason.com]

Understand the FACT: Governments have killed orders of magnitude more than religions in the 20th century. Follow your reason all the way to the end and become a complete, true Atheist by becoming an Anarchist/Autarchist/Voluntaryist.

I invite substantive, reasonable, responses that address the above propositions #1-6 and the above quotes.

You are only as free as you take the responsibility to be. Love is Responsible Freedom. Jack in Auckland, NZ.

Source:

I think you should take this up with Steve Mcrae. [facebook.com]

@DavidLaDeau I think you should think and address the issues.

@ResponsiblyFree I would really like to but you post makes no sennse to me, that is why I suggest you put the quetion to Steve. You will have a great conversation I am sure. Your post simply does not follow in the most remote of streatching credulity.

@DavidLaDeau I don't know this Steve Mcrae and why you want me to put this to him. That my post is not comprehensible to you, is your problem that I cannot solve since I think that the post has a clear enough meaning to the average person who has an intermediate level of English. I will leave it there.

2

Seems to me that if you form your definition of God broadly enough to encompass government, then it would also encompass anarchy.

skado Level 9 Dec 29, 2019
3

That is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo STUPID!

3

in the simplest terms, just plain stupid.

1

It looks like we get our very own brand of wacko.

2

No. Bad defining of words, to make a point perhaps, but still bad defining. Atheism means none belief in a supernatural god, nothing more, the state may be that exact equivalent of a god, state-ism may be a religion,, but the state is perfectly natural. It is like saying that an animal is a plant, because they are both alive, and there are intermediate things.

3

Probably got to disagree on a small point. To be a proper atheist one would need to believe in synarchy rather than anarchy, as anarchy is a devolution into disorder which cannot be sustained. Synarchy, however, requires one over arching ideal that orders all things, in composite with one or more other groups.

Depends very much on which definition of Synarchy you are using two of them are lexicographically correct one of them is dubious.
Synarchy:
a) Rule by two ( or more) persons (from Syn- Greek meaning With)
b) Rule by harmonious cooperation (from Syn- Greek meaning With)
c) Rule by secret societies. (from Synn middle English/Norman French meaning Guilt or secret)

@LenHazell53 Any will do. The rule by cooperation is the thrust of it. The participants are arbitrary.

@Geoffrey51 excellent then, adherence to this may well be the only way to save society from the corruption that is passed off as modern democracy.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:443476
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.