Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2015, 12:00 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2015 12:40 PM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
(22-06-2015 11:45 AM)epronovost Wrote:  
(22-06-2015 11:21 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  Ok. So some are saying libertarianism supports the idea of zero government. I would have called that anarchy.
But I have a question that's been kicking around in my head for a while.
I don't know if a country without a governing body could work or not so I won't make any assertions.
Here's the problem I have. I think most of us would agree that a person can be good without gods. I know right from wrong so I don't need some invisible dude telling me not to kill. I don't need god to control my behaviour. Isn't believing that we need government to control behaviour kinda the same thing? Unless many theist would rape and murder if you could convince them there's no god. I dunno. Any perspective?

You seem to be confused by what a government actually is or at least you are using to different usages of the word at the same time. In a democratic state, or at least in a democratic inspired state, the government is nothing more than the institution that serves to enforce and structure the collective decisions of a majority of the members of the society as to how it should work and how should we all agree to behave with one another. It's what Rousseau called «le contrat social» (the social contract). When we say a government is necessary to build an organised society it's not because the government has moral authority over us. The government is simply enforcing the rules/laws we have decided for ourselves. It's a way to deal with the small minority who would break the «social contract» for their own gain despite the fact that it may cause arm to others or to the collective. Most people will never face law enforcement agents, but some do and for very good reason. Libertarianism offers no solution do deal with individuals or even groups of individuals that would cause arm for their own profit. It also offers no solution to glaring problems like the oppression of a small group by a tyrannical majority. It also undermine the greatest tool for human advancement: cooperation in large groups. History so far has demonstrated that human happiness, prosperity and cohesion can only be found with a careful balance between individual freedom, collective boundaries, minority protection, wealth redistribution and supple justice and governance system.

I don't remember being a part of that group that decided what the laws are.
As I said I won't asset one way or the other if we can do without government but I certainly don't remember giving consent to be governed..
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not advocating for no government I just like to try and look at things from a different side to make sure I'm on the right side.
Devils advocate I suppose.
I do believe that I should be able to do what I like short of hurting others though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
(21-06-2015 01:58 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Never heard of it. Is it like the "New Atheists"? Never heard of them either until I came here. I'm still trying to grasp what a "militant atheist" means.

Protip :
"Militant atheist" is to atheism, as "Evangelical Christian" is to religion.

It's about personality types.
Some people just can't keep their mouths shut, or find anything fun to do Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-06-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
Never really understood the point of "Atheism+". It looks to me like a surrender to the theist's cry of "what good does atheism do for you". There's no reason to try to bolt unrelated things onto the side of atheism and no reason it should be expected to provide anything. Trying to polish the image of atheists by explicitly linking it to other activities just seems strange.

Secular humanism, feminism, libertarianism, etc are all possible things that anybody, atheist or theist, can support to whatever degree they want. None of them are based on there being no deity and not believing in a god doesn't necessarily lead to any of them. All atheism does is let you start at ground zero and build up your own priorities based on what you value and what problems you perceive to be most important. I don't need no stinking + to tell me what those values should be for me.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
22-06-2015, 12:31 PM
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
(22-06-2015 10:44 AM)epronovost Wrote:  The common goal of all school libertarianism be it from left or right wing is to make the central government as small as possible or even abolish it.

Except government - defined as the process by which groups of human beings, er, govern themselves - cannot be abolished by definition.

And that "as possible" is a goddamn gigantic loophole through which any and all possible ideologies can freely sail. Nobody sits around thinking, "hey, I just had a thought - why don't we make our communal institutions unnecessarily large and complicated?"

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 12:33 PM
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
Godless is more.

Bumper sticker.
BOOM. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
22-06-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
(22-06-2015 11:45 AM)epronovost Wrote:  History so far has demonstrated that human happiness, prosperity and cohesion can only be found with a careful balance between individual freedom, collective boundaries, minority protection, wealth redistribution and supple justice and governance system.

The particularly fascinating thing about striking that balance is that, necessarily, the precise specifics of any given instantiation will satisfy nobody. That's baked into the compromise implicit in striking a balance in the first place!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 12:38 PM
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
(22-06-2015 12:33 PM)kim Wrote:  Godless is more.

Bumper sticker.
BOOM. Shy

Godless is more -> Bumper sticker -> Boom (either from angry theists with boom sticks or, if one is lucky, theist heads exploding) Tongue

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-06-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
@Drunkin Druid

I don't know where you live or how old you are, but I will base my answer to you on the premise that you are an adult living in a western country, most likely an American if not, this won't be use. If you live in a western country, you are a member of the group that decides what the laws are by voting on various subject, expressing yourself, financing various political groups, pushing petitions, etc. Of course, this isn't a direct access to the nexus where final decisions are made or applied. You only have access to the nexus by the ability to select a representative that shares your views on various point and that you can petition or finance relatively easily. Nothing prevents you from trying to become a representative yourself by convincing your fellow citizen that you have keen interest in the matter, desire to work with them and for them and the aptitude to have this kind of responsibility. Of course, the concept of representation lessen your direct implication in the selection of laws and various other decision like trade agreements, but doesn't void it. Government is also only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the powers that shape society, its laws and customs.

The use of a representatives was developed to allow citizens to focus on their particular trade and facilitate debates especially in large community like a country or even a continent. How to produce and maintain a good democracy based on representation is about has complex as anything else when it comes to structuring large groups of people. In my opinion, America and Canada (my own country) have a relatively poor system when it comes to it. Germans, Swedish and Danes seems to have a more sensible one while far from perfect. Israel certainly as an impressive ones when it comes to the quality of representation, but very chaotic in nature and facing new problems because of it. Maybe, with the development of telecommunication, the need for representatives will be reduced, but only time will tell.

You never give consent to be governed and nobody should ever ask you for it. In the same fashion you never gave consent on being born, on your sex, on your birth country, on the economic status of your parent and of your community, on your ethnicity and a plethora of other things that define your existence and your life. You are born in a community. It supports you from day one. Thus, you have to follow its rules to integrate it in a successful fashion. You should be able to convince people to change them if you think they are wrong or change community if another one suits you better and they happen to be inclined to receive new members. A good government system must be flexible to accommodate the new members of a community, but on some points it may very well be fixed. As a human being, you are dependant of the work of hundreds of other people for your happiness and to maintain your standards of life. In turn, hundreds of people are dependant of your work for the exact same thing. It's a relation of codependence and cooperation to face successfully enormous tasks/challenges, bound by laws and enforced by an authorised authority. It's not sexy, it's not always fun, sometimes it misfire and create wrongs, but it works. Libertarianism is incapable of producing a realistic model of society capable of handling conflicting agendas, human pettiness and mistakes. In fact, many of its models would exacerbate many of the problems caused by our pettiness and our occasional incompetence while others ignore completely the fact that governments are one of many organ of power and control that restrain our freedom in any society.

I hope this help clarify a few points you might have had about government, morality in society and power. You got some very tough questions I must admit and my writing abilities in English aren’t quite enough to do it in shorter and clearer way I fear. If you are interested on these subject I might have a few author to suggest. Do you read French?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 01:08 PM
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
(22-06-2015 12:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-06-2015 11:45 AM)epronovost Wrote:  History so far has demonstrated that human happiness, prosperity and cohesion can only be found with a careful balance between individual freedom, collective boundaries, minority protection, wealth redistribution and supple justice and governance system.

The particularly fascinating thing about striking that balance is that, necessarily, the precise specifics of any given instantiation will satisfy nobody. That's baked into the compromise implicit in striking a balance in the first place!

One of the most famous Canadian Prime Minister was named Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He held office at the turn of the 20th century. He was known for being a man of compromise and use his skills to reach them to solve, albeit temporarily several, crisis from natives rights to French vs English linguistically and political rights. He was massively unpopular in all groups, but was elected three times. I guess that everybody knew that to know when a good compromise is reached all the opposing groups must feel cheated of something. Living together, in peace in such massive groups is very hard. Sometimes I am impressed we managed to stay together and productive beside all our disagreements. I thought you might like the little historical anecdote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2015 03:25 PM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Atheism Plus; do many subscribe to this movement?
(22-06-2015 01:00 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Drunkin Druid

I don't know where you live or how old you are, but I will base my answer to you on the premise that you are an adult living in a western country, most likely an American if not, this won't be use. If you live in a western country, you are a member of the group that decides what the laws are by voting on various subject, expressing yourself, financing various political groups, pushing petitions, etc. Of course, this isn't a direct access to the nexus where final decisions are made or applied. You only have access to the nexus by the ability to select a representative that shares your views on various point and that you can petition or finance relatively easily. Nothing prevents you from trying to become a representative yourself by convincing your fellow citizen that you have keen interest in the matter, desire to work with them and for them and the aptitude to have this kind of responsibility. Of course, the concept of representation lessen your direct implication in the selection of laws and various other decision like trade agreements, but doesn't void it. Government is also only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the powers that shape society, its laws and customs.

The use of a representatives was developed to allow citizens to focus on their particular trade and facilitate debates especially in large community like a country or even a continent. How to produce and maintain a good democracy based on representation is about has complex as anything else when it comes to structuring large groups of people. In my opinion, America and Canada (my own country) have a relatively poor system when it comes to it. Germans, Swedish and Danes seems to have a more sensible one while far from perfect. Israel certainly as an impressive ones when it comes to the quality of representation, but very chaotic in nature and facing new problems because of it. Maybe, with the development of telecommunication, the need for representatives will be reduced, but only time will tell.

You never give consent to be governed and nobody should ever ask you for it. In the same fashion you never gave consent on being born, on your sex, on your birth country, on the economic status of your parent and of your community, on your ethnicity and a plethora of other things that define your existence and your life. You are born in a community. It supports you from day one. Thus, you have to follow its rules to integrate it in a successful fashion. You should be able to convince people to change them if you think they are wrong or change community if another one suits you better and they happen to be inclined to receive new members. A good government system must be flexible to accommodate the new members of a community, but on some points it may very well be fixed. As a human being, you are dependant of the work of hundreds of other people for your happiness and to maintain your standards of life. In turn, hundreds of people are dependant of your work for the exact same thing. It's a relation of codependence and cooperation to face successfully enormous tasks/challenges, bound by laws and enforced by an authorised authority. It's not sexy, it's not always fun, sometimes it misfire and create wrongs, but it works. Libertarianism is incapable of producing a realistic model of society capable of handling conflicting agendas, human pettiness and mistakes. In fact, many of its models would exacerbate many of the problems caused by our pettiness and our occasional incompetence while others ignore completely the fact that governments are one of many organ of power and control that restrain our freedom in any society.

I hope this help clarify a few points you might have had about government, morality in society and power. You got some very tough questions I must admit and my writing abilities in English aren’t quite enough to do it in shorter and clearer way I fear. If you are interested on these subject I might have a few author to suggest. Do you read French?

I don't read French well. And I'm Canadian. Grew up in a small town in an area where most people are like gun toting southerners.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: