The state of Anarchy (spontaneous agreement between people with no gov't involvement) would be dependent on the innate friendliness of mankind. Yet we know good and well that humans are not always friendly, cooperative or content to share and share alike.
The soul of mankind is self-oriented to the max. Anarchy is about the common good and cooperative concern for others. Where do you see this behavior being exhibited outside of our families and the few who volunteer their time, effort and/or money to worthy causes?
And now as Atheism and doubt of God increases, what hope is there?
I doubt that anarchy would work with such a large population. Maybe it did in neolithic times when there were only small groups.
Anarchy is not the solution. It will lead to chaos. Countries need governments but governments by, for and with the people. Governments are the organized structures of countries. Our governments don't reflect or maybe they do (the irrational majority) the people. When the majority wins, the government elected only reflects the majority. The rational thinker is forgotten.
Nowadays, governments reflect the corporative elite in that sense the people are excluded. Only two solutions appear either the people take the power physically in a revolutionary fashion, either they block the elite in encouraging to vote "none of the above". If none of the above has the majority, all those western pseudo-democracies will implode to our benefice.
"And now as Atheism and doubt of God increases, what hope is there?" I'm still trying to figure out what that has to do with your point on anarchy.
There are plenty of people who don't believe in God, but believe in government. These are apples and oranges, which is why religion and politics should never mix.
Without morals which come about with belief in God, we cannot have a democratic republic, let alone anarchy. Some say morals exist with atheism. I have been considering this... based on what, I wonder?
The common good?
The common sense of what is good for all?
I think unless we know that God is the basis of our realities and our existence, we will not be on the same page.
We will not agree, we will not know what the "good" is.
We have to be on the same page for laws to exist and for harmony to exist.
It seems to me.
Anarchy is based on knowing what is best for ourselves and each other and the natural caring that humans have for one another.
But if love of God is not taught at a young age, I do not believe we will be able to restrain the selfish, blindly ambitious, power hungry, greedy sides of ourselves. Temperance and self mastery is brought about by belief in God and following the laws of God.
So how do you explain the many altruistic, generous, charitable people who were not taught or do not believe in God? Do you not naturally know good from bad?
"I think unless we know that God is the basis of our realities and our existence, we will not be on the same page." Do you really think your morals are that much different than mine (atheist)? Do you like killing or hurting other people? I really don't understand how anyone actually believes morals have anything to do with belief. I have 3 children, who have all naturally come to have morals. They know it isn't ok to hurt others. They learn some of this because of common sense (don't be mean if you don't like people being mean to you idea), the rest learn them through basic human interaction. Actually you have me thinking now. Exactly where in the bible are morals provided?
I do agree though to some. There is no way we can handle anarchy when we can't handle a democratic republic. This has nothing to do with atheism or a lack of god though.
Kathryn....I see you as an intelligent, rational individual and I respect your right to state your opinions & beliefs. I am also blown away by your seeming rationale.
Your LIST..."selfish, blindly ambitious, power hungry, greedy," all of which blatantly apply to 90% of our alleged leaders, WHO BOLDLY STAND AS CHRISTIANS & BELIEVERS IN GOD & THE BIBLE. Are these those whom you feel have achieved "temperance and self mastery brought about by the belief in God and in the laws of god?" This is a rather stunning deduction. One that could take until the end of time for mere mortals to understand and justify without question or doubt.
At the same time, are we to conclude by your description of Atheism that those who do not recognize an existence of God, consist of all manner of evil, devoid of any moral compass or ability to live peacefully and productively? One would have to be completely irrational, totally blind, deaf, dumb and utterly brain dead to embrace such a conclusion.
There undoubtedly are solid reasons that defy the possibility of success via Anarchy, not the least of which would be lack of education, mental instabilities and serious lack of self-control, all emotion and respect for life.
Surely we have all seen and experienced respect, help, generosity, unity, compassion and goodwill ...given freely throughout our lives. Yes, from those even "outside our families"......is it your personal conviction that NONE of this is offered by atheists? Again, I can only be in total shock by your opinion.
Finally, it's important for me to inform you, I am NOT an atheist. I also am not concerned with a threat of anarchy. My greatest fear is in RADICAL RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM DEDICATED TO THE TORTURE & OPPRESSION, DEATH AND DESTRUCTION OF WHOEVER WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THEIR BELIEFS. Peace to you, Paula
As a very liberal atheist I find your logic rather perplexing.
Even in this tiny fishbowl (HubPages) there is so much extreme disagreement that, you're absolutely right, anarchy wouldn't work at all. The only reason you see atheism as the problem is because you don't agree with it. I could just as easily say that without religion, anarchy would work.
There are plenty of moral atheists and plenty of immoral Christians. Would you say that the people of the Westboro Baptist Church are more moral than any random atheist? Because they believe that their behaviour stems from God.
Misinterpretation of the bible is the Biggest threat. Misunderstanding of religion is the absolute problem.
How do we undertand God, Jesus, Krishna and Buddha correctly and in the light of TRUTH?
After all they all teach (unbeknownst to most of us) the same thing in different ways.
God is our creator. He created us according to certain principles in scientific ways. It is hard/impossible to intellectualize God. It is a word which refers to an unknown. These religions all teach the same thing in that they teach how to find God on another level… through sensing God's presence within and without. Atheism is correct in that it states there is no God based on the intellect. We cannot know God through outward knowing. Only inward. And this takes a constant search. We need to respect the force which made us. Arrogance is probably the biggest stumbling block to finding God and the Goodness of that force that created us and sustains us. The force is one of love and joy. We can find that force, but not through the intellectual mind.
What does Jesus say?
Heaven is within.
Until all know where and how to find heaven, and we are all pursuing heaven, hell is upon us in so many ways.
...and we must fight and fight to survive.
The Way I See It
How do you represent what you believe is God, Jesus, Krishna and Buddha? What is your proof? A feeling? A knowing? Is it a belief some do not count as proof. Are these people who do not believe as you bereft of good due to it? It is as the good book says "what fellowship can light have with darkness?" The inverse can be said if another believes they are the light. When it comes down to it you choose to believe and others choose not to. It does not make you right and them wrong or vice versa.
One must read what Buddhism teaches, Hinduism teaches and Chritianity/ Judaism teaches.
There is a common thread.
It is based on the truth of Spirit.
...and that we are all of Spirit.
I mean, logically did you create yourself?
Where did the essence of your consciousness come from?
It came from Consciousness itself, which of course is invisible and too subtle to be measured, weighed, or detected with man made apparatus.
...and who are we fighting? Those who want heaven from without. Those who think endless amounts of money/power will make them happy, (the globalists for instance,) tricksters who try to steal from others in the myriad ways they do, (career politicians, for instance,) thieves, molesters, addicts, the blindly ambitious who walk all over others to get to the top, seducers and last but not least, idealists who just want what they want in the name of "equality" or "peace".
How does Atheism address these types of people?
Atheism does not teach that heaven is within. Instead, it teaches the LIE that there is no heaven anywhere.
...and that humans are incapable of intuition.
Thanks for nothing, Atheists. You advance the cause of neither democracy or anarchy.
Unless you can prove otherwise.
You seem a bit backwards! Atheist are the one to hold them accountable now, unlike your career politician CHRISTIAN judges who just give most of them a slap on the hand and send them back into population! "How does Atheism address these types of people?" Most of us believe they are to be punished NOW. We don't hope justice will be found after they die, we want justice served now while they are actually capable of seeing and being part of their punishment. In my opinion the concept of heaven or hell is here, living. We make our lives great (heaven) so we can enjoy a full life or we make our lives hell by making poor choices and doing bad things.
If someone is punished adequately here we do not need to hope for eternal punishment. Being dead is enough. No need to drag it out with eternity!
And Christianity teaches the LIE that there is a heaven floating in the sky somewhere. And that humans are incapable of morality.
I mean, that's sort of my point. Not even "Christianity" is a term that can pin down what an individual believes to be true, since there are different interpretations even within one religion.
You're just assuming that *your* interpretation is the correct one and that everyone else is missing out on something. What were you saying about arrogance?
You didn't mention it, but that arrogance does not bode well for any benign form of anarchy. Throughout history it has been used to forcibly exert control over others, and there is no reason to think it will change any time soon. "My god says you should behave this way, and I will make sure you do!".
Perhaps as the doubt in a god increases, anarchy becomes a more viable choice for society? Without that incredible arrogance that "MY god is the REAL god and provides all moral structure" we can live more in harmony with each other?
The world is ready for the status as we see it presently manifested. If 'Anarchy' means "general lawlessness and disorder, esp. when thought to result from an absence or failure of government"(thefreedictionary), then some part of the world already experience symptoms of Anarchy...
This is an updated explanation of Anarchy: Spontaneous agreement between people with no gov't involvement who are dependent on the innate friendliness of each other. The basis for a workable situation under anarchy, is no property ownership. All the bad things that happen, according to anarchists, are due to allowing private ownership of land.
Now, in a democratic republic such as ours, there is indeed the illusion of buying, owning, selling land.
However, deep down, everyone knows you can never own land! Just the right to pretend ownership!
"Updated explanation of Anarchy..." Welcome to adjustment generation, " we will do it our way." No surprise if one word or expression is being change as it 'fits to us." Tradition of 'christianity' is doing those "adjustment" for centuries now, just to bring itself to a disrespectful position of the world. ( The comments of non believers or atheists proves my remark above.) We do live in the world of constant changes, sadly many to disadvantage of personal integrity, morality and chastity. Similarly with the word 'anarchy' originateded in mid 16th century via medieval Latin from Greek '''anarkhia''' from '''anarkhos"' from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler,' meaning a s t a t e of disorder d u e to a b s e n c e of non recognition of authority. Absence of governement and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. It was ' in the begibibg,' now changed as during the centuris usage of the word has gradualy declained as the condition of the society was redily tolerating group of persons or single person which does not recognize authority. As of our own world the anarchy is spreading, as we hear it in the news all over world, as well in our neighborhoods...
You are right Kathryn, the World is not ready for Anarchy, never will be according to the original mneaning of the word.
Mankind is not ready for Anarchy exactly because most human still believe in predetermined orders, like the state or religion. Atheism actually makes man think about its own existence, and realise that human kind must save itself, we cannot wait for a god to do that (or people that do "god's work"). When we use social reason and science, we come with some ideals, like the one that tell us to be tolerant with personal liberties, and what stop us from doing something wrong is not fear of a god or love to him, but the ethics that is developed with the reasoning. Today what holds humankind at the past is blind belief, on a government, on a god or any institution or movement. The state of Anarchy will only be possible if humans, all of them, think for themselves, study the facts and debate them with one another on a not DOGMATIC way, only them humans may not need a government. For that to happen we must accept each other but being able to change ourselves, and religion is not very good on doing that, but science and social reasoning is the most advanced path we have until today. To a Anarchy state function we need to build society on thing that change and evolve, religions dont change, but science does, it changes to fit new discoveries and new ways of thinking about our own reality.
by Cattleprod Media7 years ago
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not...
by Brittany Williams3 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by Thomas M D Hemsley5 years ago
This forum is for anyone here who wishes to debate on the subject of religion and religious beliefs. Outline your position, whether it be theist or atheist, explain why you hold that position, and then people can debate...
by Richard VanIngram8 years ago
The short answer is, "Yes."Should he or she, though?My answer , after my own search, long, difficult, very individualistic is again, "Yes." Can I understand why some or many rational individuals...
by Tim Mitchell3 years ago
Does belief require something to be a known (to know) to exist? Does to know something mean there is belief (rather than simply suggest) that it exists? If there are more than a singular known existing as truths, then...
by augustine725 years ago
Is atheism non-belief in the existence of God or belief in the non-existence of God?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.