Atheism Community versus Anarchism Community

[Mike Fleming]

I was just comparing these two communities the other day.

 

I came to atheism before anarchism so I tried to connect to that community first.  I never felt comfortable.  I felt like there were a lot of prominent dickheads and I felt like many of the people had no real principles at all.  I understand a lot of the criticism labelled at atheism.  I think it is misfiring, because it should be going towards people rather than the idea itself.  There is no philosophical problem with atheism.  Much of the community however...

 

Contrast this with anarchism and the anarchist community.  I don' think there is a prominent anarchist that I don't like.  I'm sure I could probably come up with one or two if I really thought about it, but for the most part they are a really great bunch of people.  The major conventions and such also seem like they are better places to hang out.

 

Am I being unfair on the atheist community?  These are basically my genuine feelings.  There are good people involved who I like such as Dawkins and a few others.  But I've always felt uncomfortable with Harris's views.  Never liked Hitchens.  And then you've got some real assholes on the next level who shall remain nameless.

 

I have to guess it's because they don't seem to have concepts like the NAP to guide them.  Or maybe it  is just my own bias...

[jpahmad]

Just curious, why do you feel so uncomfortable with Harris?

[Mike Fleming]

Mainly because of his views towards Islam , he seems to want to blame the religion and the people for all the terrorist problems and, at least it appears to me, doesn't want to ask questions about the true causes, ie America's constant interference overseas.

 

Also, he seems to have almost blind faith in government.  

 

And when he talks about morality in terms of making everyone happy and doesn't seem to look at basic principles.  There's a lot of stuff I don't like.

 

Which is a pity, because he's really quite a smart guy with interesting things to say.

[J-William]

I was just comparing these two communities the other day.

 

I came to atheism before anarchism so I tried to connect to that community first.  I never felt comfortable.  

 

 

I don't know about the dickheads, but the lack of principles sure was obvious to me as a libertarian.

 

I came to atheism before anarchism as well (in fact I was an atheist from very young, my first memory of the subject involves thinking that if there is a god he can't send good people to hell for not believing... which pretty much settled the question for me)

 

I came to liberty from my parents, and reading Atlas shrugged in 8th grade, and I was pretty much an objectivist til I found FDR.

 

When I first got into podcasts I would listen to all sorts of atheist podcasts. It was ok for a while, but I wanted someone who was an atheist and not a statist (by the Randian definition). So I searched iTunes for atheist and libertarian, and found a little podcast by a canadian guy in his car...

 

It was only a little while til I stopped listening to those atheist podcasts because they always covered the same topics and had the same boring debates with theists, and were ridiculously stupid when it came to the state.

 

I can honestly say I would not have discovered FDR if it weren't for atheists being such huge fans of the state.

[jpahmad]

Also he's a determinist and uses language like "we don't cause our causes" and things like that.  Which lends itself to being a statist of course.  My question is, is he just appealing to popular sentiment in order to sell books?  Or, does he really believe these things?

[J-William]

Also he's a determinist and uses language like "we don't cause our causes" and things like that.  Which lends itself to being a statist of course.  My question is, is he just appealing to popular sentiment in order to sell books?  Or, does he really believe these things?

What's the difference?

[jpahmad]

The difference between what?

[J-William]

The difference between what?

 

 

The difference between him believing or just putting on a show for an audience.

 

I'm pretty sure his shilling for Israel is not just a show, but something he really believes in.

 

But regardless, the point of my question was, that there is no important difference between him actually believing and pretending to believe to sell books. You can't know, and it's not really worth your time to ponder the question.

[jpahmad]

 

But regardless, the point of my question was, that there is no important difference between him actually believing and pretending to believe to sell books. You can't know, and it's not really worth your time to ponder the question.

 

 

Agreed.  But why am I drawn to ponder it?

[Pepin]

I quite like the atheist community. When the subject is politics, I tend to cringe, as the level of thinking is too surface based.

[Mike Fleming]

Also he's a determinist and uses language like "we don't cause our causes" and things like that.  Which lends itself to being a statist of course.  My question is, is he just appealing to popular sentiment in order to sell books?  Or, does he really believe these things?

 

Well, I don't want to get into a free will/determinist debate on here (I'm in the determinist camp btw) but my general take on Harris is, he's pretty good at science stuff as he is a trained scientist, hence being correct about things like determinism, but very poor when he wanders outside science into things like politics and philosophy.  I assume he just really hasn't researched and thought about them much.

 

And determinism does not lead into being a statist.   I don't know where that idea comes from.  But again, FDR does not really tolerate this debate and it's not the topic of the thread.  As far as I know, popular sentiment on the subject is that we do have free will.

[jpahmad]

And determinism does not lead into being a statist. 

 

 

 

I was referring to Harris's statement "we don't cause our causes" as lending itself to statism, not determinism per say.