Spiritual Anarchism - Removing Belief in God from Morality

[FreeThought150]

I would first like to thank Stefan for all his work. The anarchist movement has given me a home in life; it has helped me to find my true belief system. I recognize that this may be a dirty topic for my first post in this community, but as you can hopefully tell by my user ID I am nothing if not a non-conformist. This has a good chance of turning into a bit of an essay, so please be patient with my incessant rambling. I recognize that there are likely many atheists here, and I noticed a thread on Buddhism as well. I hope you enjoy reading this and consider the implications of my thoughts.

 

I am no atheist. I believe in the existence of a deity, the type of deity varies as my philosophy evolves. I am not Christian, nor Buddhist, nor any other conventional religion. I have explored the beliefs of many religions. I grew up Catholic, and I went to Catholic school for approximately 18 years of my life. Ten of those years were spent in Jesuit schools, where students were encouraged to question teachings and to find their own belief system. Around the age of 17 I began dabbling in Buddhism, and by the age of 19 I was an agnostic. Since that time I have practiced to some level everything from Buddhism to Wicca. Now, at the age of 30, I find myself paying attention to my belief system again thanks to my conversion to anarchism. I have found my theology as well. This is meant to encourage a new understanding of how to approach faith and spirituality, not to prove my position (in fact I argue that my position, by design, cannot be proven). I will not discuss the exact hypotheses in this post, but you are welcome to ask me about them if you so please. I will say that, right now, I am a panentheist. This position is based on research that I do in physics, such as quantum mechanics, and also philosophical connections I have drawn from physics and the other sciences.

 

Spritual Anarchism - Removing Belief in God from Morality

 

The first and most important position that I will propose is the following: beliefs, theological or not, have no inherent moral value. Theological beliefs are no different than any other opinion a person holds.

 

One of many reasons that beliefs have no moral value is that positive rights do not exist, whereas negative rights do exist. Negative rights are those rights that preclude humans from taking certain actions against another. Examples of negative rights include property rights and the right to life; the non-aggression principle is a moral rule that defines precluded actions against others. Positive rights are those rights that entitle a person to certain actions by others. Examples of positive rights, as suggested by those who believe in them, are the right to health care and the right to charity from others. However, positive rights contradict the universality of negative rights, and therefore cannot exist. For example, a positive right to charity from others necessarily contradicts the property rights of other people. You cannot have the right to do as you please with your property if others are entitled to some portion of that property.

 

Following the same line of reasoning, there can be no such thing as a positive moral rule. In this case, a positive moral rule can be defined as an action that is morally imperative. Negative moral rules, however, do exist, being defined as moral rules that preclude taking certain actions against others. The non-aggression principle is a negative moral rule; it precludes the initiation of force and coercion against others. Positive moral rules cannot exist because positive rights do not exist, they are intertwined. If a person cannot be entitled to actions from another, then there can be no moral rule which states that you "must do X." It is logically sound to state that you "must not do X," however.

 

How does this apply to spirituality, and belief in a deity? Let us return to the opening paragraph: beliefs, theological or not, have no inherent moral value. Since positive moral rules do not exist, it cannot be argued that a person must believe anything to be considered a moral person. Believing is a positive action, it must actively be taken. In order to believe that having a certain belief is morally imperative, one must also believe in both positive moral actions and positive moral rights, neither of which exist.

 

How does this affect anybody reading this? Well, I will do my best to explain.

 

As anarchists, we should not tell others what they should or should not believe. They are entitled to their belief system. We can make arguments for our beliefs in an effort to persuade. The immorality of organized religion is partially founded in the fact that people are told that believing in a certain deity is morally imperative. This cannot be so, for the reasons explained above. Beliefs are instead morally neutral, although they can lead to immoral actions. Saying that "I believe Jesus was God" is just an opinion which holds no moral value, it is the same as saying "I think Kate Upton is hot." Saying that "I believe god does not exist" has no moral value, either. These are just opinions, hypotheses really, and whether I believe in god or not does not affect my moral character.

 

It is my belief that anarchists must argue for this idea. Anarchists come in all shapes and sizes. Saying that atheism is necessary for the advancement of the philosophy is not necessarily accurate. What is necessary for the advancement of the philosophy is the understanding that theological belief systems have no moral value by themselves, only the actions that occur as a result of ill-considered beliefs are immoral. Anarchists must seek to push not only for political anarchism, but also spiritual anarchism.

 

Spiritual anarchism is, to me, the idea that people can believe whatever they please about theology as long as they do not transgress on others' rights in the practice of their religion/spirituality/whatever. As long as they are not threatening others with the horrors of hell (I don't believe Hell exists, by the way) what a person believes does not affect anybody. This kind of threat is a demonstration of attempting to enforce a positive moral rule: that you must believe in X god or you are immoral. Positive moral rules do not exist, therefore the assertion that "you must believe in X god or you are immoral" is fallacious. Also, thanks to the existence of negative moral rights, saying such a thing is an immoral act. It is a coercive threat.

 

A fundamental problem with organized religion is that they do not follow a spiritual anarchic system. They demand that the faithful step in line and follow certain teachings, and do so with a coercive threat of eternal damnation. There are many reasons they do this, and I'm sure anybody reading this is aware of those reasons. I personally think that anarchist philosophy logically leads to spiritual anarchy, and not atheism. This is not to say that atheism isn't acceptable, because it certainly is. However, I think we must be open to people that believe in a deity, and respect their theological beliefs just as much as we would like them to respect ours.

 

I also feel that people, in general, ought to reject organized religion. I can't tell them they must, but it is fairly clear that organized religion is full of logical and moral problems.

 

In closing, I would first like to apologize for the rambling. It has been a long first post, and I am sure there are some holes that I didn't close up perfectly. I hope you enjoyed reading, and I hope to provoke an interesting discussion.

[Magenta]

Theological beliefs are no different than any other opinion a person holds.

...

I believe in the existence of a deity.

 

Theological beliefs are not statements of opinion, they are statements of fact. Existence is not an opinion, it is a fact. How do you define "existence"? Here are some common definitions:

 

-- the fact or state of living or having objective reality

-- the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness

 

Do you believe a deity conforms to objective reality? Do you think reality is subjective? If you agree that reality is objective, then a statement of theological opinion would instead be "I wish for a deity to exist", rather than "a deity exists".

[FreeThought150]

Theological beliefs are not statements of opinion, they are statements of fact. Existence is not an opinion, it is a fact. How do you define "existence"? Here are some common definitions:

 

-- the fact or state of living or having objective reality

-- the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness

 

Do you believe a deity conforms to objective reality? Do you think reality is subjective? If you agree that reality is objective, then a statement of theological opinion would instead be "I wish for a deity to exist", rather than "a deity exists".

Posting from a phone, so I am sorry for any spelling or grammatical issues.

 

Many opinions are statements of our subjective beliefs or interpretations objective reality. There is more than one hypothesis about the objective origins of the universe (I am not counting creationism in this statement). A person's favored hypothesis may be a statement about objective reality, but that doesn't make it an objective statement. It is just an opinion.

 

You appear a little too caught up in the words and are not paying attention to the intent. No offense intended, but it is rather pointless to argue that a person cannot have subjective beliefs about the nature of reality. Such beliefs are just interpretations.

 

By the same logic, atheism cannot suggest that "god does not exist." Rather it must be said that "I wish for a god to not exist."

 

It isn't a very constructive discussion, regardless.

[Magenta]

When multiple theories are presented, that which best conforms to reality is the most valid. Any theory that does not conform to reality is invalid. The criteria by which these theories are weighed is not subjective. Logic and empiricism. One's choice of a theory does not affect reality. Of course someone could chose to believe in any theory, but that does not make the theory correct. If one puts forth a scientific theory, they are claiming that it adheres to reality and therefore are making a testable claim. If one makes a testable claim, they are offering it up to be tested.

 

An athiest can confidently claim that god does not exist because A) god is a logical contradiction and logical contradictions do not exist in reality, and B) god has no empirical evidence - he is actually purported to be impossible to empirically measure, which is the same as non existence. God fails the tests of logic and empiricism and therefore does not exist.

[Kevin Beal]

You can't tell people that everything is mere opinion and then tell them that their opinion is wrong. It's completely insane.

 

Having a debate where you can propose rules you violate at will is the very meaning of:

 

"It isn't a very constructive discussion", "it is rather pointless to argue", etc

 

If you can't acknowledge something so basic as following the rules you put forward for other people, then please don't engage people in debate anymore. All that's going to happen is it's going to go in pointless circles, nobody's going to learn anything about the topic and it's going to make people resentful.

 

You need to learn the basics of making arguments, propose an explicit standard by which you determine that statements are true or false and then make a case.

 

Here's an introduction to philosophy that will help you have productive debates.

[FreeThought150]

When multiple theories are presented, that which best conforms to reality is the most valid. Any theory that does not conform to reality is invalid. The criteria by which these theories are weighed is not subjective. Logic and empiricism. One's choice of a theory does not affect reality. Of course someone could chose to believe in any theory, but that does not make the theory correct. If one puts forth a scientific theory, they are claiming that it adheres to reality and therefore are making a testable claim. If one makes a testable claim, they are offering it up to be tested.An athiest can confidently claim that god does not exist because A) god is a logical contradiction and logical contradictions do not exist in reality, and B) god has no empirical evidence - he is actually purported to be impossible to empirically measure, which is the same as non existence. God fails the tests of logic and empiricism and therefore does not exist.

Regarding the first paragraph, I never said otherwise.

 

Regarding the second paragraph, it all depends on the nature of what we are calling "god." There are many physicists that believe that there are different universes with different fundamental rules. Just because logical contradictions are not allowed in this universe doesn't mean they can't exist in another, and it also doesn't mean that there can't be realms of reality that are not subject to rules at all.

 

This is a bit off topic. I wasn't planning on justifying whether there is or is not a god. I never placed an argument that there is a god, I just simply said that I believe in it. I'd vastly prefer we stay on topic rather than explore an issue that is tangential to the topic (and one that has probably been beaten to death around here, at that).

 

You can't tell people that everything is mere opinion and then tell them that their opinion is wrong. It's completely insane.

 

Having a debate where you can propose rules you violate at will is the very meaning of:

 

"It isn't a very constructive discussion", "it is rather pointless to argue", etc

 

If you can't acknowledge something so basic as following the rules you put forward for other people, then please don't engage people in debate anymore. All that's going to happen is it's going to go in pointless circles, nobody's going to learn anything about the topic and it's going to make people resentful.

 

You need to learn the basics of making arguments, propose an explicit standard by which you determine that statements are true or false and then make a case.

 

Here's an introduction to philosophy that will help you have productive debates.

Well, it's a good thing that I never told anybody that "everything" is mere opinion. What I said was that statements of theological nature are subjective statements (opinions) about an objective reality. 

 

The reason I said it isn't a constructive discussion is because it is completely tangential and unrelated to the topic. I didn't make an argument for the existence of god at any time in either the OP or my initial response to Magenta. As stated above, I would prefer we stay on topic rather than turn this into an argument between theism and atheism.

[Magenta]

One of many reasons that beliefs have no moral value is that positive rights do not exist, whereas negative rights do exist. ...However, positive rights contradict the universality of negative rights, and therefore cannot exist.

There are many physicists that believe that there are different universes with different fundamental rules. Just because logical contradictions are not allowed in this universe doesn't mean they can't exist in another, and it also doesn't mean that there can't be realms of reality that are not subject to rules at all.

Using your arguments,Just because positive rights are not allowed in this universe doesn't mean they can't exist in another. Therefore, beliefs have moral value.

[FreeThought150]

It occurred to me that this basically was just not an argument that I expected to encounter, so I'd like to apologize to Magenta and Kevin for my misunderstanding and misinterpretations. I guess that's what happens when you read and post while distracted by a cute new baby (I'm an uncle!). I'll try not to do that.

Using your arguments,Just because positive rights are not allowed in this universe doesn't mean they can't exist in another. Therefore, beliefs have moral value.

 

We don't live in those theoretical universes. We live in one where positive rights are not allowed, so therefore in this reality beliefs do not have moral value.

 

It is important to note that rules only apply when they apply, and do not apply when they do not. This isn't an argument for subjectivism, although it may come across that way. It is more an argument that universal rules are dictated by the reality in which we find ourselves, and may be subject to change if said reality is left behind. Also, the fact (if it is one, anyway) that a different universe has different rules than another doesn't invalidate the rules of either. Rules are valid across a reality as dictated by logic and empiricism, and do not have any affect on conclusions drawn in other realities.

 

This is much like the varying laws found in different countries.

[Magenta]

We don't live in those theoretical universes. We live in one where positive rights are not allowed, so therefore in this reality beliefs do not have moral value.

Therefore, can we conclude that, because we live in and can experience only this universe, that all other universes are the same as non-existence to us? Given that this universe is the only one that exists, "existence" must therefore be bound to logic and empiricism. Claims made about an existence might be reached through subjective means, but these claims are of objective reality and are open to evaluation against objective reality. Do you agree so far?

[FreeThought150]

I don't agree with everything you said, specifically "all other universes are the same as non-existence to us" and "given that this is the only universe that exists." However, I am pretty sure that I know where you are going with this.

 

Your argument is that conclusions about reality must be drawn from empiricism and reason. This is fair and accurate when discussing the universe in which we live.

 

The logic likely occurs as follows (sorry if I am getting it wrong, or missing something, I'm just trying to move things along, feel free to critique); premises in no particular order:

P1 - A deity cannot be observed or sensed through empirical means.

P2 - In order for something to exist, it must be able to be sensed through empirical means or induced through logic.

P3 - A deity violates the unversal principle of causality.

C- Therefore, a deity cannot exist in reality 

However, I would argue something different.

P1 - The universe (spacetime) exists.

P2 - Existence in spacetime requires causality.

C - Therefore, the universe (spacetime) must have a cause (creator).

 

P1 - The universe (spacetime) must have a cause.

P2 - Cause occurs before effect.

C - The creator of spacetime must have existed before spacetime existed.

 

P1 - The creator of spacetime must have existed before spacetime.

P2 - Before spacetime existed, the laws of spacetime did not exist.

C - The creator of spacetime was not subject to the laws of spacetime.

 

P1 - Causality is a law of spacetime.

P2 - The creator of spacetime was not subject to its laws.

C - Therefore the creator of spacetime is not necessarily subject to the laws of spacetime, and therefore does not require causality for existence outside of spacetime.

 

The problem with most atheistic logic is that is postulates that that which is not empirical is not real, and that the empirical universe consists of all that is. Such a position requires proof, and must develop a causal reason for the existence of the universe. If this ever happens, I will happily reject my current position. However, based on concepts such as the Observer Effect, which dictates that a system changes when it is being observed or measured, I don't believe that humans will ever be able to concretely say that all of reality (not just our universe) is empirical, but if I am proven wrong then great. In order to do so, the Observer Effect, which is accepted by scientists, must be eliminated through technology. Scientists may disagree on its effects, but without piercing it there is no way to claim that all of reality is empirical.

 

Edit/Addition: It is important to note that, pursuant to my above statements regarding the morality of hold beliefs, whether or not a "god" exists is fundamentally irrelevant. Believing one way or another doesn't change anything. It just means that one person or another is wrong, but whom is wrong doesn't matter because it has no effect on or within reality itself. As long as people can just accept that others are different, it does not matter what they believe so long as they are not applying those beliefs in a way that results in violence or coercion.

[Rob_Ilir]

Nobody learns religion or spirituality from proof, and that is a coercion against logic, empiricism and the nap. 

[FreeThought150]

Nobody learns religion or spirituality from proof, and that is a coercion against logic, empiricism and the nap. 

Please provide a little more information, because I feel like there are a lot of thoughts in this statement that are missing.

 

The reason I request more information is because my first reaction to this statement is : "You can't coerce logic, empiricism, or the NAP, they aren't people."

[Rob_Ilir]

When people say "I am religious/spiritual", they are saying that they grew up with religious/spiritual people, not that they arrived to that thought through logic or proof. And since people intentionally pass on illogical old scripts to fresh minds with no choice, that is coercion. 

[FreeThought150]

When people say "I am religious/spiritual", they are saying that they grew up with religious/spiritual people, not that they arrived to that thought through logic or proof. And since people intentionally pass on illogical old scripts to fresh minds with no choice, that is coercion. 

This is true as a general rule but not for all people. I arrived at my beliefs by wiping the slate clean, studying physics, and applying logic.

 

What of people that have spiritual tendencies but do not practice an organized religion? What of people that have no scripture to pass to their children? What of people that keep beliefs to themselves and do not force them upon others (including children)?

 

You are painting a broad picture of people based on their beliefs, essentially stereotyping people negatively. Honestly, the same thing could be said of militant atheists that treat their atheism like an organized religion.

[Rob_Ilir]

I arrived at my beliefs by wiping the slate clean, studying physics, and applying logic.

 

 

Not sure what that means, if you can give the steps that would be helpful.

 

But considering you find something wrong with the non believers of fairys, I am sure you do not frequent life with them a lot. And that would be a complete opposite of what you wrote. 

[Flake]

Rob, he doesn't have a problem with non-believers, he just thinks non-believers shouldn't judge believers as bad people.

[FreeThought150]

Not sure what that means, if you can give the steps that would be helpful.

 

But considering you find something wrong with the non believers of fairys, I am sure you do not frequent life with them a lot. And that would be a complete opposite of what you wrote. 

I don't have a negative opinion of atheists. I may not agree with them on certain details, but since those details are superfluous to my moral philosophy, it doesn't matter. That's what was intended to be the message of the OP. Belief in a deity is superfluous, all that matters are people's actions.

[Magenta]

However, I would argue something different.P1 - The universe (spacetime) exists.P2 - Existence in spacetime requires causality.C - Therefore, the universe (spacetime) must have a cause (creator).

You have just created an infinite regression. If everything requires causality then your creator must have a creator ... which must have a creator which must have a creator ... 

The problem with most atheistic logic is that is postulates that that which is not empirical is not real, and that the empirical universe consists of all that is.

Again, please define "exist". When it comes to positive rights, you claim that we live in empirical reality and therefore truth statements are derived from empirical reality. Then when you discuss deities, you say that we must consider alternate dimensions when evaluating truth statements. 

Edit/Addition: It is important to note that, pursuant to my above statements regarding the morality of hold beliefs, whether or not a "god" exists is fundamentally irrelevant. Believing one way or another doesn't change anything. It just means that one person or another is wrong, but whom is wrong doesn't matter because it has no effect on or within reality itself. As long as people can just accept that others are different, it does not matter what they believe so long as they are not applying those beliefs in a way that results in violence or coercion.

Have you listened to FDR 686 and 687? Their title is "What's Wrong with Believing in God?". The links are here:http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_686_Why_Not_Believe_In_God_Part_1.mp3

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_687_Why_Not_Believe_In_God_Part_2.mp3

[FiddlertheLeper]

If there are other universes, but we exist in this one, then for those other universes to exist to "us", they would have to have a measurable effect on our universe right? If not, then anything we can think of can exist and cannot be dis-proven, because if it does not require a measurable effect in our universe to exist we have no way to verify or validate its existence or non existence. If this is the case then all possibilities exist, Unicorns, people with 5 heads and no bodies, etc. (or at least can be asserted to exist without any way to dis-prove or prove)  So if a deity exists in another universe that does not effect our universe in any measurable way, then it is the same as non-existence to everyone in our universe right?please feel free to correct me on any errors i made in my logic here. thanks

[FreeThought150]

You have just created an infinite regression. If everything requires causality then your creator must have a creator ... which must have a creator which must have a creator ... 

Again, please define "exist". When it comes to positive rights, you claim that we live in empirical reality and therefore truth statements are derived from empirical reality. Then when you discuss deities, you say that we must consider alternate dimensions when evaluating truth statements. 

Have you listened to FDR 686 and 687? Their title is "What's Wrong with Believing in God?". The links are here:http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_686_Why_Not_Believe_In_God_Part_1.mp3

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_687_Why_Not_Believe_In_God_Part_2.mp3

No, the creator need not have a creator because it exists at least partially outside the universe in which we live. The concept of causality does not therefore need to apply, which I previously said, and outlined in the syllogisms that follow the one you quoted.

 

I am incredibly wary of people linking Stefan's work at every turn. I have listened to his case and I disagree with it. No offense intended, but it reeks of an argument from authority, although I am sure that you didn't intend it that way.

 

If there are other universes, but we exist in this one, then for those other universes to exist to "us", they would have to have a measurable effect on our universe right? If not, then anything we can think of can exist and cannot be dis-proven, because if it does not require a measurable effect in our universe to exist we have no way to verify or validate its existence or non existence. If this is the case then all possibilities exist, Unicorns, people with 5 heads and no bodies, etc. (or at least can be asserted to exist without any way to dis-prove or prove)  So if a deity exists in another universe that does not effect our universe in any measurable way, then it is the same as non-existence to everyone in our universe right?please feel free to correct me on any errors i made in my logic here. thanks

Saying something "exists to us" is a form of subjectivism, it necessitates that something must be able to be perceived in order to exist. I explained why this is not valid due to scientific conclusions that are accepted by modern physics.

 

Again, we are incredibly off topic here. Can we please stick to the topic of the OP and leave whether a deity exists or not behind? It isn't relevant.

[Kawlinz]

As anarchists, we should not tell others what they should or should not believe. They are entitled to their belief system. We can make arguments for our beliefs in an effort to persuade. The immorality of organized religion is partially founded in the fact that people are told that believing in a certain deity is morally imperative. This cannot be so, for the reasons explained above. Beliefs are instead morally neutral, although they can lead to immoral actions. Saying that "I believe Jesus was God" is just an opinion which holds no moral value, it is the same as saying "I think Kate Upton is hot." Saying that "I believe god does not exist" has no moral value, either. These are just opinions, hypotheses really, and whether I believe in god or not does not affect my moral character.

 

It is my belief that anarchists must argue for this idea. Anarchists come in all shapes and sizes. Saying that atheism is necessary for the advancement of the philosophy is not necessarily accurate. What is necessary for the advancement of the philosophy is the understanding that theological belief systems have no moral value by themselves, only the actions that occur as a result of ill-considered beliefs are immoral. Anarchists must seek to push not only for political anarchism, but also spiritual anarchism.

 

Spiritual anarchism is, to me, the idea that people can believe whatever they please about theology as long as they do not transgress on others' rights in the practice of their religion/spirituality/whatever. As long as they are not threatening others with the horrors of hell (I don't believe Hell exists, by the way) what a person believes does not affect anybody. This kind of threat is a demonstration of attempting to enforce a positive moral rule: that you must believe in X god or you are immoral. Positive moral rules do not exist, therefore the assertion that "you must believe in X god or you are immoral" is fallacious. Also, thanks to the existence of negative moral rights, saying such a thing is an immoral act. It is a coercive threat.

 

A fundamental problem with organized religion is that they do not follow a spiritual anarchic system. They demand that the faithful step in line and follow certain teachings, and do so with a coercive threat of eternal damnation. There are many reasons they do this, and I'm sure anybody reading this is aware of those reasons. I personally think that anarchist philosophy logically leads to spiritual anarchy, and not atheism. This is not to say that atheism isn't acceptable, because it certainly is. However, I think we must be open to people that believe in a deity, and respect their theological beliefs just as much as we would like them to respect ours.

 

I also feel that people, in general, ought to reject organized religion. I can't tell them they must, but it is fairly clear that organized religion is full of logical and moral problems.

 

In closing, I would first like to apologize for the rambling. It has been a long first post, and I am sure there are some holes that I didn't close up perfectly. I hope you enjoyed reading, and I hope to provoke an interesting discussion.

 

I think you run into a problem when you say people are entitled to their beliefs. Agreed. But when you contrast that with " we shouldn't tell people what they can and can't believe".... well, I think you might see the error. If not, let's give it a spin.

 

I believe that you can tell people what they should and shouldn't believe. i think that belief in falsehood is - well, incorrect. How would you convince me of your belief, without contradicting your belief?

 

If spiritual anarchy says that we can't threaten people with the horrors of hell, then spiritual anarchy requires that we tell people what they can and and believe. If you don't mind a (hopefully) quick experiment....

 

"Of course hell exists and of course I'm going to teach my son Zach about it. I'm a God fearing man and I'll be damned if someone tells me it's just an opinion"

 

what's your reply? how would you advocate for spiritual anarchy without contradicting the ideas of spiritual anarchy to do so?

[Wesley]

Things that are in space time require causality, but there is no reason whatsoever that space time requires causality. You missed a few steps there.

 

Also, something may have causally resulted in space time without being a creator. A creator requires consciousness where a causal chain does not. You are attributing some sort of causal chain to a creator rather than the causal chain being what exists in itself. The causal chain you may be able to prove exists, however you cannot then prove that it was a creator without creating an infinite regression or creators for the creators. (Even if the creator exists in another universe this does not mean that it does not need a creator and how could this universe affect ours?) It smells of a magical place to avoid the infinite regression problem to keep the illogic of a deity.

 

Finally, if someone uses Stef's podcasts in order to present many arguments in a concise way that doesn't require typing pages and pages, then it is not argument from authority. If someone says "it is true because Stef said it was" then that would be argument from authority, which nobody has claimed. That was a somewhat clever way of dodging the argument by having someone fear that their argument was unjust.

[FreeThought150]

I think you run into a problem when you say people are entitled to their beliefs. Agreed. But when you contrast that with " we shouldn't tell people what they can and can't believe".... well, I think you might see the error. If not, let's give it a spin.

 

I believe that you can tell people what they should and shouldn't believe. i think that belief in falsehood is - well, incorrect. How would you convince me of your belief, without contradicting your belief?

 

If spiritual anarchy says that we can't threaten people with the horrors of hell, then spiritual anarchy requires that we tell people what they can and and believe. If you don't mind a (hopefully) quick experiment....

 

"Of course hell exists and of course I'm going to teach my son Zach about it. I'm a God fearing man and I'll be damned if someone tells me it's just an opinion"

 

what's your reply? how would you advocate for spiritual anarchy without contradicting the ideas of spiritual anarchy to do so?

Perhaps it wasn't incredibly clear in the OP, and I appreciate the feedback/critique and your request for expounding upon the idea. What I really meant was that people can and should have healthy debates about what is true, whether it is faith, atheism, spirituality, etc. I clearly didn't say that well enough in the OP, and for that I apologize (I blame my girlfriend).

 

What I disagree with is the idea, that I have seen in some anarchist communities, that conformity to atheism is necessary for participation. Free association is fine, but I think that it does the movement a disservice to ostracize people based on beliefs that are, in the end, irrelevant. So long as the person isn't attempting to threaten or coerce others with their religious beliefs, I don't feel they need be ostracized, but rather engaged through healthy debate.

 

With that in mind, I would engage this person (let's call him Bill) in a healthy debate to understand why he believes that hell exists, and more importantly why he feels it is necessary to threaten a child. I would explain to him my position, and whether he accepts it or not I don't really care. The fundanmental problem I am trying to address is this feeling of personal offense that people take only because others have a different position than they do, resulting in problematic bickering which damages the cause.

 

If Bill is an anarchist, then I do not support ostracizing him unless he begins attempting to coerce others within the community. What he tells his children is none of my business. If the goal is to improve society, I will take a political anarchist in my corner even if I don't agree with every thought in his head. I won't take somebody that misrepresents the position to the public, however. I determine whether I shall associate with him based on how his behavior affects me and/or the community, not based on whether he believes in a fanciful lake of fire.

 

Things that are in space time require causality, but there is no reason whatsoever that space time requires causality. You missed a few steps there.Also, something may have causally resulted in space time without being a creator. A creator requires consciousness where a causal chain does not. You are attributing some sort of causal chain to a creator rather than the causal chain being what exists in itself. The causal chain you may be able to prove exists, however you cannot then prove that it was a creator without creating an infinite regression or creators for the creators. (Even if the creator exists in another universe this does not mean that it does not need a creator and how could this universe affect ours?) It smells of a magical place to avoid the infinite regression problem to keep the illogic of a deity.Finally, if someone uses Stef's podcasts in order to present many arguments in a concise way that doesn't require typing pages and pages, then it is not argument from authority. If someone says "it is true because Stef said it was" then that would be argument from authority, which nobody has claimed. That was a somewhat clever way of dodging the argument by having someone fear that their argument was unjust.

Your first sentence is interesting, and it could be accurate. However, then we are back to what I said in the OP: it's all a matter of opinion. You think spacetime itself does not require causality to exist, and I think that it does. Right now we don't have evidence in favor of either position as far as I know. The argument on this topic is called "The Cosmological Argument." Aristotle addressed the Cosmological Argument with the following premise: "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause." The abstract concept of "god" is this First Cause, to many. Many atheists dismiss this idea by saying that something that merely created the universe and did nothing more hardly deserves the label "god." This comes from falling prey to propaganda by organized religion that a god must be more involved with its creation. Just because a person can't shake the organized religion ideals, even in their atheism, doesn't mean that a position that posits a deistic god is invalid. Also, this first cause not not have a creator because it is instead transcendant, and has no beginning and no end. While I accept that such an idea is abhorrent to atheists, the idea that the first cause exists at least partially outside the universe means that it need not obey the laws inherent to the universe.

 

Why does a creator require consciousness? I'm not saying I believe either way, I'm just asking you why you say this.

 

Of course I can create a causal chain with a creator without an infinite regression. I just did it a few posts ago (with accomodation for the point you made in your first paragraph, of course). Just because you disagree with me doesn't make it invalid, it just means you disagree, which is fine with me. Does it truly bother you that I believe otherwise? If so, why?

 

I wasn't specifically accusing Magenta of an Argument from Authority, I just said that it "reeked" of it, and that I am wary of it. An argument from authority need not be explicit.

 

That being said, I am about to invoke commentary from Richard Dawkins (irony!). I would certainly hope that you can understand that I'm not saying he's right because he's Richard Dawkins, one of the more militant atheists. In its most base form, my position of panentheism is also one of deism. I do not believe that a magical "it" intercedes in the universe, reveals itself through humans, or even cares at all about what I think or how I behave. Think of it as the cosmic clockmaker. Dawkins has said that a deist has a compelling, logical case for their position, however he disagrees with the conclusions. In typical Dawkins form, he also likes to bash the position as "watered down theism," but that's just how he speaks.

 

The purpose of the above paragraph is not to say that I am correct because Dawkins thinks I have a case. It's just food for thought, a bit of a challenge to people disagreeing with me to step outside their comfort zone of empiricism. There yet remains more to be learned by human beings. I am not so attached to my beliefs that I would not reject them were there not compelling, proven, scientific evidence that they are false. My evidence that they are true can be summed up in one simple statement: the universe exists. The word "god," for me at least, is simple a word which labels the first cause. It need not have any other consequences.

[Kawlinz]

I think that *some* anarchist communities are based on truth and philosophy, and in these communities, they don't accept theism as a logically valid conclusion. If that means excluding people from their conversations, like you said, they can do so. if you feel it's a disservice, there are other communities that will accept theists. If you feel you'd like to debate them, that's cool too. I don't debate theism anymore since it's not worth my time, I haven't come across an argument that I haven't already seen in the last, I don't know... 10 years?

 

I don't see how you can say bickering will damage a movement, and pin it on some atheistic anarchist communities. people are going to disagree when they aren't using the same processes for understanding truth. Try telling these Christian Anarchists that there's no moral value in believing in God. I agree with the statement. 

 

I also think that what bill tells his children is of great importance to everyone. If he's telling his children that they're going to hell if they don't obey God's word, he's absolutely violating the NAP. What's the kid do, say "I don't believe you, this sounds like a bunch of gobbledy gook - what facts and evidence do you have to prove that?" Maybe 3 christian parents will say it's okay, he doesn't have to believe, doesn't have to go to Sunday school, doesn't have to read the Bible. I'd be willing to guess that the vast majority of parents aren't like that. Someone who raises their child using threats, intimidation, coercion or violence is no anarchist I want in my community.

[FreeThought150]

I think that *some* anarchist communities are based on truth and philosophy, and in these communities, they don't accept theism as a logically valid conclusion. If that means excluding people from their conversations, like you said, they can do so. if you feel it's a disservice, there are other communities that will accept theists. If you feel you'd like to debate them, that's cool too. I don't debate theism anymore since it's not worth my time, I haven't come across an argument that I haven't already seen in the last, I don't know... 10 years?

 

I don't see how you can say bickering will damage a movement, and pin it on some atheistic anarchist communities. people are going to disagree when they aren't using the same processes for understanding truth. Try telling these Christian Anarchists that there's no moral value in believing in God. I agree with the statement. 

 

I also think that what bill tells his children is of great importance to everyone. If he's telling his children that they're going to hell if they don't obey God's word, he's absolutely violating the NAP. What's the kid do, say "I don't believe you, this sounds like a bunch of gobbledy gook - what facts and evidence do you have to prove that?" Maybe 3 christian parents will say it's okay, he doesn't have to believe, doesn't have to go to Sunday school, doesn't have to read the Bible. I'd be willing to guess that the vast majority of parents aren't like that. Someone who raises their child using threats, intimidation, coercion or violence is no anarchist I want in my community.

Your first argument is a thinly veiled attempt at saying that all theists are disinterested in truth and philosophy. Not only is it false, it is condescending. Just because people don't fall in line with your particular philosophy or belief system doesn't mean they aren't interested in truth. I am already beginning to see a pattern of groupthink around here: "if you don't agree with me then you are wrong, and I'm going to do everything I can to silence you." Passive aggression is still aggression.

 

I am saying that bickering can damage a movement, but I never pinned it only only atheism. There are many other things people bicker about, and those are equally problematic. The reason I brought up atheism in this thread is because as a whole, this particular community is generally atheist. I would argue the same to a militant Christian. Generally speaking though, Christian and even Muslim anarchists are more spiritually anarchistic than atheists.

 

Why would Bill's treatment of his children have "great importance to everyone?" If you aren't affected by it, it's none of your business. Just as with all interactions, it is between the two people involved. It has nothing to do with you.

[Kawlinz]

No, no it's not. at all. Show me where I say anything close to "theists are not interested in truth or philosophy."

 

If christians and muslims are more spiritually anarchistic than atheists, most don't practice that with their children, where it is most important. Saying I'm not affected by Bill's threatening his children, might be true, but it's only for the moment it's happening. I may be affected by Bill or his child in the future, and how Bill treats his children may have a direct impact on me.

 

Saying it has nothing to do with me so I should mind my business doesn't make sense to me. If there are laws against pot smoking and I'm not a pot smoker, should I also mind my business because that law will never affect me? If people discriminate against gays and i'm not gay, should i mind my own business? If someone threatens and beats their wife... well, I'm not a woman, I'll never be affected by it, so I should but out. you get the idea. We are allowed to defend third parties who are in trouble and can or won't defend themselves. some people call that "putting your nose where it doesn't belong".

 

What do you think of defending third parties?

[FreeThought150]

No, no it's not. at all. Show me where I say anything close to "theists are not interested in truth or philosophy."

 

If christians and muslims are more spiritually anarchistic than atheists, most don't practice that with their children, where it is most important. Saying I'm not affected by Bill's threatening his children, might be true, but it's only for the moment it's happening. I may be affected by Bill or his child in the future, and how Bill treats his children may have a direct impact on me.

 

Saying it has nothing to do with me so I should mind my business doesn't make sense to me. If there are laws against pot smoking and I'm not a pot smoker, should I also mind my business because that law will never affect me? If people discriminate against gays and i'm not gay, should i mind my own business? If someone threatens and beats their wife... well, I'm not a woman, I'll never be affected by it, so I should but out. you get the idea. We are allowed to defend third parties who are in trouble and can or won't defend themselves. some people call that "putting your nose where it doesn't belong".

 

What do you think of defending third parties?

"I think that *some* anarchist communities are based on truth and philosophy, and in these communities, they don't accept theism as a logically valid conclusion."

This is a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss other people's positions.

 

I have made this same argument with indoctrinated organized religion folk. Some of them reject it, and others agree and feel that they will teach their children what their personal beliefs are, and also present other options and even atheism, allowing their children to pick for themselves. Atheism can be just as coercive as organized religion depending on how it is presented, especially if there are no other options presented.

 

If you have a problem with Bill's child later in life, that's between you and the child. This idea that you can blame the parents for everything is pure nonsense. It is an externalization of an individual's faults. Parents can have an effect, but ultimately people make choices in life. That person, and that person alone, should be held responsible for the consequences of their activities.

 

A person's duty to protect is dependent on the immediacy of the issue. You don't have the duty, or even the right, to march into the home of an abused woman just so you can sit around and "protect" her. If something is actively occurring, or she requests your presence, that is a different matter, but even then it depends where the event occurs. I obviously don't advocate for laws on drugs whatsoever, but you are affected by the laws directly (violent crime) so a position of repealing the laws is in your best interest. People have the right to discriminate against whomever they please in the natural order, the market will sort them out; people have the right of free association.

 

The concept of defense of third parties is highly dependent on the immediacy of the issue. If you break into somebody's home to protect an abused woman or child, there is a good chance you are going to be charged with a crime. In a Stateless society, there's a good chance you are going to get taken to dispute, and the case would be valid. It's not a person's responsibility to run around and play Superman, saving the innocents, there isn't even a right to do it. However, if you are in a place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and are witness to violence, it is definitely an immediate threat that can be dealt with if you so please but only in a manner commeasurate and symmetrical to the pre-existing level of violence. You are not morally responsible to do so, however, it isn't an obligation.

 

In the context of the above, you do have the right to report abuse to either the State authorities or the liable party (in a Stateless society). You don't, however, have the right to violenty intercede because it makes you feel like a hero.

[Kawlinz]

"I think that *some* anarchist communities are based on truth and philosophy, and in these communities, they don't accept theism as a logically valid conclusion."

This is a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss other people's positions.

 

I have made this same argument with indoctrinated organized religion folk. Some of them reject it, and others agree and feel that they will teach their children what their personal beliefs are, and also present other options and even atheism, allowing their children to pick for themselves. Atheism can be just as coercive as organized religion depending on how it is presented, especially if there are no other options presented.

 

If you have a problem with Bill's child later in life, that's between you and the child. This idea that you can blame the parents for everything is pure nonsense. It is an externalization of an individual's faults. Parents can have an effect, but ultimately people make choices in life. That person, and that person alone, should be held responsible for the consequences of their activities.

 

A person's duty to protect is dependent on the immediacy of the issue. You don't have the duty, or even the right, to march into the home of an abused woman just so you can sit around and "protect" her. If something is actively occurring, or she requests your presence, that is a different matter, but even then it depends where the event occurs. I obviously don't advocate for laws on drugs whatsoever, but you are affected by the laws directly (violent crime) so a position of repealing the laws is in your best interest. People have the right to discriminate against whomever they please in the natural order, the market will sort them out; people have the right of free association.

 

The concept of defense of third parties is highly dependent on the immediacy of the issue. If you break into somebody's home to protect an abused woman or child, there is a good chance you are going to be charged with a crime. In a Stateless society, there's a good chance you are going to get taken to dispute, and the case would be valid. It's not a person's responsibility to run around and play Superman, saving the innocents, there isn't even a right to do it. However, if you are in a place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and are witness to violence, it is definitely an immediate threat that can be dealt with if you so please but only in a manner commeasurate and symmetrical to the pre-existing level of violence. You are not morally responsible to do so, however, it isn't an obligation.

 

In the context of the above, you do have the right to report abuse to either the State authorities or the liable party (in a Stateless society). You don't, however, have the right to violenty intercede because it makes you feel like a hero.

I'm just stating that some communities don't accept theism as logically valid. Is that not factual? wasn't that a part of the premise of your original post, that some anarchist communities say that atheism is a must? Originally, you said I was being condescending by saying that all theists are disinterested in truth/philosophy. Now, you're saying that I'm dismissing positions. What's with the change?

 

I know atheism can be just as indoctrinating if it's presented as "there's no god and that's that, no one's practicing religion in my house"

 

No, my issue isn't with Bill's child later in life. my problem is with bill and how he's treating his children NOW. The child can't defend themselves, they are dependent on the parent. Am I going to use violence? No. Am I going to accept bill, who doesn't support spiritual anarchy, into my community for the sake of spiritual anarchy? no, it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

 

So, drug laws cause violent crime. Do we wait until the criminals are about to act violently before we intervene or do we repeal the drug law that causes that crime? You seem to be advocating both in different instances. You want to repeal the drug law, but you also want people to accept Bill who intimidates his son with threats of hell if he disobeys "the word of God"... which really means Bill.

[FreeThought150]

I'm just stating that some communities don't accept theism as logically valid. Is that not factual? wasn't that a part of the premise of your original post, that some anarchist communities say that atheism is a must? Originally, you said I was being condescending by saying that all theists are disinterested in truth/philosophy. Now, you're saying that I'm dismissing positions. What's with the change?

 

I know atheism can be just as indoctrinating if it's presented as "there's no god and that's that, no one's practicing religion in my house"

 

No, my issue isn't with Bill's child later in life. my problem is with bill and how he's treating his children NOW. The child can't defend themselves, they are dependent on the parent. Am I going to use violence? No. Am I going to accept bill, who doesn't support spiritual anarchy, into my community for the sake of spiritual anarchy? no, it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

 

So, drug laws cause violent crime. Do we wait until the criminals are about to act violently before we intervene or do we repeal the drug law that causes that crime? You seem to be advocating both in different instances. You want to repeal the drug law, but you also want people to accept Bill who intimidates his son with threats of hell if he disobeys "the word of God"... which really means Bill.

I didn't change positions, I simply worded the sentence differently. It came across as a thinly veiled attempt at saying that "people that are interested in philosophy and truth don't believe in God." That may not be how you meant it, but that is definitely what came across in writing.

 

I didn't necessarily say that you *must* accept Bill into the community, especially if he is doing the indoctrination bit. I think it wouldn't be constructive just to reject him based on the fact that he believes in Hell, especially if he is not doing any indoctrination (as described above). Since we have determined Bill is indoctrinating as put forth by the original theoretical, rejection is acceptable but not based on our/your/whoever lack of spiritual anarchy, but because he is coercive. It is perhaps a matter of semantics, but sometimes semantics are important. Spiritual anarchy doesn't have to be an applicable issue when what we are really concerned about is Bill's coercion.

 

Basically the point is, have a different concern than just "this person believes in God." Coercion is an acceptable reason, to me, for exercising free association. I respect a person's right for free association, but sometimes exercising the right can be more destructive than constructive. It's important to truly understand the person's beliefs and how these things are put into practice.

 

Personally we repeal the law not because it causes crime (and I probably should have said this before, but I was distracted) but rather on the basis of property rights. The idea that certain property should be illegal is silly.

 

I didn't argue for people accepting Bill who is guilty of coercion. I am arguing for acceptance of an unnamed person (Sally?) who may believe in God, but does not commit coercion. If that wasn't clear, I apologize for the confusion, it was probably my fault.

[Kawlinz]

"Your first argument is a thinly veiled attempt at saying that all theists are disinterested in truth and philosophy."

has a different meaning then

"[Your first argument] is a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss other people's positions."

 

​It's not wording a sentence differently, it has a different meaning all together.

[FreeThought150]

"Your first argument is a thinly veiled attempt at saying that all theists are disinterested in truth and philosophy."

has a different meaning then

"[Your first argument] is a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss other people's positions."

 

​It's not wording a sentence differently, it has a different meaning all together.

If you can't see how claiming that people aren't interested in philosophy and truth is symmetrical to a dismissal of a person's position, I clearly can't help you.

[Kawlinz]

Glad we agree on something.