Atheism and anarchism have a common point: They are against the state.
Believers, theists or non-theists (like Confuciusists or taoists) need the state to govern and to spread on their beliefs. So non-believers should be against the state and its religious power (theocrasy).
Communists and anarchists differ on this subject. The main stream communists need to have the state / the government. So they were against anarchists in Internationals.
In so called real socialism, ex-USSR and China had atheist inquisition. The religion may be opium of the peoples, but you should not force the people not to believe.
We see that ex-East Europe (COMECON) countries’ people partly return to the Christianity. Of course this is partly because of reel socialists.
The state has a 5 millenniums history and this is called as the World System.
This total panorama shows us, first we go to less gods and second we go to less state.
Today most atheists live in Europe. This is because of 2 world wars. People lost their believes to anything, also to their God.
3rd World countries have mainly 2 groups: Inquisition of Islam and non-theist religions.
In this panorama, Islam and Christianity seems to continue their religious wars for many next centuries.
We, the atheists must create a living space to ourselves. They will not allow us to exist. So we will struggle against them. So we do.
We, the atheists must create a living space to ourselves.
I hope that your idea of 'Living Space' idea is not a Hitlerian idea. How do you expect us to create a living space for us? Besides, I do not think that we need a seperate living space. When two diametrically opposite views exist in a society, it is always difficult for any one party to convinience the other party of it's opinions, but it will happen with some strugggle, because we are living in a free world. The muslim space, however, is an exception for this.
Agree completely - well said.
I agree with Jeremy -- Atheism is just no belief in gods -- where does against a state or government fit in to that?
I may have first been introduced to the idea of anarchism with Heinlein's novel, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. One of the characters of that piece, Professor Bernardo de la Paz, called himself a "rational anarchist," "anarchist" in that he preferred no government at all and "rational" in that he justified his position by accepting responsibility for his own actions. I found this to be a singularly intriguing proposition.
The problem with it, though, is for rational anarchism to work, absolutely EVERY PARTICIPANT of such a society would have to adhere to those principles. Let's be real here; atheists are a lot of things, but perfect ain't one of 'em! We all have our foibles (me emphatically included!), and even if we didn't have/need police, an organized fire department, as well as operations to deal with infrastructure from roads to electrical and sewers would be necessary. Granted, those could be privately owned, rather than controlled by some government, but the history of private ownership of such private facilities is sufficiently checkered to make me more than a touch leery of having such vital services potentially outside public scrutiny. Oh, but an atheist / anarchist-run organization would be utterly transparent? I'd like to believe that but ... uh-uh. An atheist government-run system might be better or not; there's no real telling.
Bottom line for me is that attempting to develop our own Lebensraum and build our own society could be as problematic as what we're currently involved in now, simply because of the variability of the human animal. Now granted, I'm not studied in anarchism; I'm an engineer, not a philosopher, and I'm sure these issues have been addressed long before I read one book and took my own shot at them. That's all I'm doing here - taking my own shot, based on what is very likely insufficient data - so keep that in mind when you pull out the long knives, okay, gang?
@Reha: It might be worth considering that people want to live with a government to do things that individuals can't do alone or in smaller groups. Don't your statements that atheists are a against the state and that most atheists live in Europe (which has some ancient countries) contradict each other?
I'm an atheist and I'm not opposed to the idea of a state or government. I am opposed to overreaching individuals within a government who seek to amass power to suppress individual freedom (no, I'm not a libertarian). Do you really want to turn over the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government to private entities, who are not answerable to the people? Or, police and fire protection to individual companies?
No disrespect intended, but your premise is false. Atheism and anarchism have a common point: They are against the state. Atheism is not a lack of acceptance or belief in a state or government. It simply means a lack of belief in god(s). Period. It does not mean acceptance or rejection of various and sundry political systems, although an exception to this statement would probably be a rejection of theocracy. Beyond that, however, atheists are free to embrace capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, etc. And, atheists can adhere to any of those systems without the baggage of faith or religion.
Atheism and anarchism have a common point: They are against the state.
Absolutely and positively incorrect. As an atheist I am against religion. I am not against government because government is nothing more than a way for people to cooperate. My status as an atheist has nothing to do with government or state.
As an atheist, I do not believe in god or any kind of supernatural power. I also reject religion. Thereafter I do not accept any view to be synonymous with atheism.
And I would add a bit to Madhukar's response that those making assertions have the responsibility to prove them - as I learned years ago from a very smart man for whom I worked, big claims require big evidence. No religion has provided such evidence. So we atheists don't have the hard work of disproving any religious claim - each religion has the burden of proof!
Okay, I'd say you're wrong when you state that atheism is "against the state". Atheism is against religion, not government.
Personally, I think anarchy is somewhat idealistic. If the world were what I think of as a perfect place, I's say social anarchy would be the best way to live (a la "Imagine" by John Lennon), but people are not perfect. Working together on this scale will not happen, it is purely idealistic, not realistic.
A general reply: You seem conditioned, you do not see the main idea of the text. There has been the state for 5 milleniums and it was always with religion. Even in the atheist state it was like a religion, as in USSR and China. Today EU states are not really secular. The Pope says bla bla, for example is against human cloning and EP does not say, 'who are you, shot up your mouth?'. (Instead, they claim that EU is a Christian foundation.) Look at Wikipedia 'religious education' and then multiply it with 10. Plus: Today in G-7 countries most of the servies are given by not the state. For example education, health, etc. A coordination foundation does not have to be a (central) state with money, flag, army, tax, etc. I show this point. The main idea of text is this. State and ordinary social life make people slaves, with not free thought. I do not see freedom in your replies. You are like domestic birds begging for her cage.