Statheists

Urban Dictionary definition

One thing I've never understood is atheists who are so pro state. Frankly I'd prefer anti state to atheist any day if I had to choose just one. But still, how can you understand one huge delusion of society (god) but not an even more obvious one: the state?

Anyone ever been in an argument with these people?

 

Religious voluntarists, stay out of this one. I love ya'll but please, I don't want to spark another flamewar.

People's childhoods matter. If you're taught religion then to reject it means to realize that your parents and other trusted people lied to you. Some people don't have that burden (or it wasn't very heavy).

And if you've been pampered by the state, and your father is a cop and mother is a public school teacher, and you're relying on student loans and you have no hopes for a job in the free market, then that's too much to rethink for a lot of people.

Honestly, I think most atheists are former theists who seek to replace their theist faith with a secular faith. What's typically perceived as the next-most-powerful "thing" after God? The state. Hence most atheists aren't people without faith so much as they're people who have transferred their faith to what they see as the most powerful "thing" that actually exists.

Full disclosure: I am an atheist. But I lost my faith in the state before I lost my faith in God.

You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil State or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody. 
-- Bob Dylan

Full disclosure: I was an atheist until my thirties, and then found my faith in God before I lost my faith in the state. 

I lost my faith in the state a long time ago, my faith in god I only lost recently. I only find the first to be significant to society, and the second one is only significant to my personal life.

Like I said, I'd prefer an LDS ancap > statist atheist any day. Having basic respect for other human beings is way more important then religious beliefs.

Atheists believe there is no God.

Minarchists believe that the state of humanity (as it is and as it has been) makes the State inevitable (pun intended). That's a far cry from having "faith" in the state. 

It is anarchists who have faith that the state of humanity is different from what it actually is -- that a state without a State is conceivable. It takes faith to "see" what does not exist in front of you. 

 

A flamewar in a non religious direction?

Look, I prefer minarchism to any other form of statism. But statism is statism. 

There is no delusion/  It is an easy way to think about how you interact with things...certainly a lot easier and more "rational" for most to think about how to live in a world that exists that doesn't.

Besides all that if a state subsidizes your life style well enough, why not like it?  And even morso, who the hell wouldn't want to be Ceaser?

It's only when you wish "to serve" a state, mankind, greater good, or whatever do you become nonsensical.  All anracho capitalists talk about at the root, is the only rational way to discuss what actual power at it's base is - and the consequences of ignoring such a thing

z1235: Atheists believe there is no God.

Not neccesarily and, in my experience, also not usually so.

 

 

A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Implicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief. (Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

(Note: This post is predicated on the notion that secular commentary from theists, such as on sociology and psychology, is permitted. If it is not, I apologize, and will request this post be deleted)

This is a rather interesting subject for me. I have long noticed, in both a religious and secular context, that most self proclaimed "rationalists" and "freethinkers" both tend to have high homogeneity of opinion (most of them are followers of the AGW cult) as well as, relative to the general public, higher levels of statism and managerial mentalities. They are more likely to regard government as a benevolent managerial entity which is foolishly distrusted only by mad, Bible-thumping Glenn Beck watchers. This is particularily true in the area of education, where many "statheists" are fervently opposed to letting parents, rather than government "experts" and bureaucrats, have control of their children's learning, on the grounds that "religious nuts" will turn all their kids into miniature Fred Phelps and Jim Jones were it not for the benevolent Progressive Interventionist State and it's powers of divine management and compulsion.

If you want an absolutely perfect illustration of this mentality, just google "RationalWiki". Ricky James Moore II nailed it, as usual. The message boards dedicated to Richard Dawkins and the James Randi Educational Foundation are also good illustrations, as is this FSP thread.

From a psychological perspective, (and this ties into the Austrian concept of demonstrated preference), I think fewer people are atheists than is often realized. Most fanatical adherents of environmentalism are either atheists or pagans (who seem entirely confined into annoying hippies and the kind of people whose idea of a good time is listening to obscure death metal bands while reading Mein Kampf). Effectively, most people have a single object which they devote themselves to on faith. It may be religion, it may be the environment, or it may be odder, esoteric pseudo-cults like the space cult (both the one Rothbard spoke of and the nationalist kind obsessed with sending phallic rockets into space for the glory of their mother country). There *are* genuine atheists, but they are, as mentioned, rarer than you think. Ayn Rand, Walter Block, Penn Jiillette, these are examples which jump to mind, though Rand is borderline at times.

I've also noticed that the "fundamentalist atheists", who I'm sure are just a vocal minority among a sane majority, seem to subdivide into two groups, the gender ratio of which is rivalled only by the clientele of strip clubs and comic book conventions. The first of which are the "ringleaders", the Dawkins and Hitchens of the world. While Hitchens is much more vocally political (I don't know Dawkins exact views, but if I had to take a guess, it'd be a social democrat, though I tend to presume that about virtually everything due to the dominance of that ideology in Western culture and media), both are certainly vocal about their views on everything else, and both are firmly convinced in them. They act as guiding "leaders", probably without realizing, to many young people who feel an air of charisma and "no nonsense" from them. This includes, but only partially (their followers, I imagine, are chiefly in tertiary-level academia), the second group.

The second group is most likely (for reasons Plato elaborated on in the Ring of Gyges) more present in cyberspace than in the real world, but I have no doubt they are just as fervent in their positions in many cases, but too timid to put it out front, so to speak. It consists of men aged 12-30 (they are typically teenagers to very early twenties young adults, in my experience) who have a sort of smug sense of superiority and poor social skills, which causes them to congregate rather like a herd of angry elephants into internet chat rooms and message boards dedicated to discussing atheism. They seem not to be so much "atheists" or even "antitheists" as much as "anti-Christians", given they rarely turn their wrath towards the far more visible influence of Hinduism or Islam (though they lack of criticism of the latter is easy to figure out, and in some countries, not merely Middle Eastern ones, possibly legally actionable), and will even enthusiastically defend them as part of a sort of multiculti cultural Marxist mentality. There's not one particular "holy grail" example that stands out, but just google "atheism discussion" or "atheism forum" or "atheism chatroom" and you'll no doubt find many.

Just my two cents, and not for the Charon ferryman, either.

That's a pretty decent psychologism to a degree.  I would say it stops stricktly with "intellectual" personality types though. 

"True atheism" runs very deep in culture I think.  In all societies  that have wealth and cosmopolitanism "Theism" is just not on the radar of concern for people these days (maybe ever) - at best it is a chincy joke to make someone look smart for a second at a cocktail party, or something you favor because that is what your politics are.  It is an atheism determined more by the action of a very real "luke warmness" - which is the strongest demonstration of true atheism.  This would go for things like "environmentalism" as well, over all I just don't see that many people caring outside of sputtering out an opinion here or there at a cocktail party - the psychologism only works for a "certain type of people".

I don't exactly buy into the, "they have to worship something" idea.  I think most atheists just lapse into the default liberal mindset.  There's something about the psychology at play I believe.  The type of person who would become an atheist and mock religion is the type of person who would most often be liberal.  I don't think liberalism is a cause of atheism and I don't believe atheism is a cause of liberalism.

 

It seems like if people who have no coherent political views see atheists lambaste Creationists, they figure that whatever the Christian is (be it anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, pro-free market), it must be retarded.  And the cycle plays itself out.  However, if somebody is already pretty conservative and then loses their faith, I find that they very often become libertarians.

The separation between church and state is a fairly recent phenomenon.  The all-important programming to believe in the state no longer requires someone to believe in God as well.  The church is no longer a branch of the government bureaucracy - at least, most of them aren't.  Religious programming in the West is now very, very weak compared to statist programming for the large bulk of the population.  Chances are, "statheists" were not programmed and conditioned to nearly the same degree when it came to religion.  Barely at all by comparison, probably.  You're talking one hour in church a week, at most, versus half the day in school five days a week and virtually anything they might watch on TV at home? :p 

I think that after the Reformation and Enlightenment, it was realised by the relevant powerful people in the Western world that religion was no longer something they could control as much as they had in the past.  There would now be market-like competition for congregants between churches, and there would always be churches with a notion of God that did not approve of the government's policies, and perhaps might even come to disapprove of the government itself.

As a result, I think they've largely decided to throw Jesus under the bus as far as the peasantry are concerned.  The state is a cancer where real society and relationships should be, and churches do tend to involve an element of the latter.  They do operate some of the largest charities, after all.  Those are people who should be dependant on the govt instead, according to the programmers, you see. 

anarchists ... have faith that ... a state without a State is conceivable

Well, the lifeblood of the State is hypocrisy or the double-standard enforced through intimidation and bullying. Bullying will always be here, that's for sure. Some people are stronger and other people are weaker and it is possible, through bullying, for the stronger to live off the weaker. But the means by which the State's bullying is currently expressed (monopolization of law/security) is not necessarily the case. In fact, both theory and history are squarely against anyone who asserts that it is. States have not always monopolized law and security. The airtight monopolization of these services in the West is only very recent and still not global.

A world completely devoid of bullying will never come to be. That is granted. But a world where there is a thriving market in law and security requires no faith at all to believe in.

Clayton -

It's only when you wish "to serve" a state, mankind, greater good, or whatever do you become nonsensical.

This sounds very Randian to me. I never understood the moral-imperative-to-self-interest in Randian thought... it strikes me as self-contradictory on its face (how can I have a duty to have no duties?)

I hold a higher standard of behavior. Even though I see that all the benefits currently accrue to the mediocre hordes of subservients, I believe it matters to do what is right. It might take a few generations but, sooner or later, it matters. I'll be dead by then? So what, my children and grandchildren will likely live many generations beyond me. I believe that imparting to my children a genuine morality and respect for their fellow man is a crucial part of this. The mediocre hordes consume and consume but for what? Half of them go childless, the remainder have one or two children on which they will expend a mansion's worth of money to put them through some Ivy League university... and then their children will repeat the cycle.

Man has no imposed purpose. Every individual's purpose is their own to decide. But I do believe, in the long run, the chosen purpose of individuals cannot long be inconsistent with the physical necessity of survival and reproduction. Any disposition against nature in this regard will be weeded out within a generation. The more introverted the chosen purposes of individuals in society become (production solely for the sake of self-consumption), the more unhealthy I think society has become. It's like those bumper stickers you see on the backs of those huge RVs "We're spending our children's inheritance." How can there be any social order or coordination where family does not cohere across generations? And how can family cohere across generations without economic reasons to do so? The inheritance is how families, at one time, maintained moral discipline and order within the family. "I will disown you" isn't much of a threat when you're in the process of spending your children's inheritance.

</off-topic, meandering rant>

Clayton -
 

The problem with most self-identified atheists is that they are not so much atheist as anti-theist. It's not just that they don't believe in God but that they have emotional issues with religion. Take Richard Dawkins, perhaps the leading example of anti-theism today. It is true that the Bible has false claims in it. But so do old science textbooks. So do many books on history, politics, society and economics. Modern thought is shot through with myths that have far more impact and relevance to today's world than the myth of Joshua's Missing Day. So why the focus on these rather arcane factual errors?

The Bible has much bigger problems than its factual errors. I was raised a devoutly religious Christian - I can still quote dozens of Bible verses and some catechism questions from memory. But I read this book four years back and that's when it really dawned on me that there isn't a shred of redeeming value in the Bible. The biography of David's life is a fairly transparent whitewash and, even worse, David himself was basically nothing more than an insignificant warlord typical of any of a number of surrounding territories in the region. We have statues of David, bloodlines of royal kings drawn back to David, an entire esoteric order founded on myths surrounding David's son (Freemasonry) and so on. It would be one thing if David was a monster but still notable (e.g. Nero). But the fact is, not only was David a monster, he was a nobody. The problem with the Bible isn't its factual errors. Lots of books have factual errors. Half of what we think we know today will be thrown into the dustbin 100 years from now. The problem is that the Bible is a political book from cover to cover. It was assembled for political reasons. Much of it was written by scribes (employees of the King) and whatever portion of it was spoken by genuine holy men and prophets was still recorded, catalogued and preserved by scribes. And the Bible continues to serve its political role today. The Koran is very similar in this regard, perhaps even more so.

In my view, Dawkins and the Reason crowd of anti-theists are doing a disservice to the project that was begun by the Higher Criticism. And in obstructing this progress - whether wittingly or unwittingly - they are helping to preserve the status quo to the extent that the Establishment draws power from religious myths and superstition. More important and useful than debunking the Bible is to just teach people how to engage in critical thinking. If people have critical thinking skills, you don't need to debunk they Bible, it will debunk itself. Leave the work of criticizing the Bible in detail to people who really are expert in it. It's harder than it looks.

As for myself, I am a theistic agnostic - basically, I don't know anything about God and I reject outright the claims of others to have any better information/knowledge regarding God than I have, yet the fact that I exist is genuinely very puzzling to me and impels me to a sense of mystical awe towards the world. All the purported answers I've heard regarding why the Universe exists are deeply dissatisfying, whether they involve spiritual entities or not.

Clayton -

Nielsio:

People's childhoods matter. If you're taught religion then to reject it means to realize that your parents and other trusted people lied to you. Some people don't have that burden (or it wasn't very heavy).

And if you've been pampered by the state, and your father is a cop and mother is a public school teacher, and you're relying on student loans and you have no hopes for a job in the free market, then that's too much to rethink for a lot of people.

 

so true, that it deserves to be quoted.

From my experience, I was pretty much an atheist since the day I born (parents didn't force me religion that much) and lost my faith in a state (completely) in my early twenties. And yes, both parents work/worked in private sector. I am also doing that. :D

outstanding post Praetyre

 

also whoever said - people need something to believe is the winner... 

 a god is not as evil or powerful as a state..that is why i pray (pun intended) that the new atheists don't win

 

 

I love your last post Clayton. I consider myself a strong atheist, but definitely not an anti-theist. Sure, I make fun of religion sometimes with atheist friends, but I never openly bash religion, or have emotional issues with religion.

My approach to atheism is this: Okay there is no god. Now what I do? How do I live my life to fullest, and keep myself content? What values are important to the world and humans? What ethics and morality should I follow? Etc etc, but I never think "How am I going to get rid of religion?". Frankly, I think religion is withering away as we speak, as people become more and more apathetic to religion, and hold is more of a famial identity (oh I'm christian, and celebrate christmas, I'm jewish and celebrate hanakuh etc).

This sounds very Randian to me. I never understood the moral-imperative-to-self-interest in Randian thought... it strikes me as self-contradictory on its face (how can I have a duty to have no duties?)

It isn't Radian.  All I know of Rand are a couple of dime store novels that are a bit tedious to read.  The line was meant to be taken on the Stirner-Nietzche-and maybe even "positivist" axis (who despite their flaws were A OK with morality in my book). To call myself a moralist would be false.

"Correctess" is a description of what manifests itself before your eyes and your contextualization. 

 

But I do believe, in the long run, the chosen purpose of individuals cannot long be inconsistent with the physical necessity of survival and reproduction. Any disposition against nature in this regard will be weeded out within a generation.

This seems like a metaphor to me. 

Also some things to consider:

People in relevant countries on avg tend to produce less children and have more other stuff they want.  We have all sorts of things to minimize reporoduction, and all seem to be used with a decent amount of frequency.  Conservatives who seem obsessed with the family and fertility seem to be off the mark a bit.

I wouldn't be suprised if there were  ways to create and develop bodies that were more convienet systems to our lifestyles in the near future.  There seem to be some market and sociological indicators that there are.  I would not look to reproduction, or have a "traditional" view of reproduction in this day and age as a way to devop much of a good world picture. 

It doesn't seem far fetched to say the traditional family model is a failed / failing/ or just one of several available options system.  I don't think statism is to blame either - but rather the fact that it is easier to interact with any social group at any time one prefers and  better available options to follow one's own will due to the unpreceedeted wealth, peace, and prosperity and technology of all previous times.  While welfare and/or govt subsidies may add to things here and there to the poor, it says nothing of how the rich live there lives - which is still showing a decent enough rejection of the family model in favor of other matters of concern.

Furthermore what does and does not get breeded out just seems like a non issue to me.  It ignores ontological reality - ad in doing so it ignores all reality that can be discussed in sociological inter-subjective situations.

But I do believe, in the long run, the chosen purpose of individuals cannot long be inconsistent with the physical necessity of survival and reproduction. Any disposition against nature in this regard will be weeded out within a generation.

This seems like a metaphor to me.

No, it's not a metaphor, it's an evolutionary argument. While I'm an individualist as far as the volitional choice of values/ends goes, I'm not an individualist on the wider scheme of things. I don't think nature cares whether we're self-actualizing or not. All that matters to nature is who reproduced.

Also some things to consider:

People in relevant countries on avg tend to produce less children and have more other stuff they want.  We have all sorts of things to minimize reporoduction, and all seem to be used with a decent amount of frequency.

But if you look within a particular country, the correlation between wealth and fertility is strictly positive... more money = more children. This suggests to me that the differences in the fertility rates between countries are political, not a result of the supposed "wealth differences" between those countries. There is a chapter in Kanazawa & Miller's book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters that discusses situations where it's more advantageous (from the PoV of evolution) to cut loose the children that one already has and let them fend for themselves. I think this may be part of the explanation of the anecdotal correlation between impoverished countries and extremely high fertility rates. If most of your children die before they have children of their own, it's better to have a lot of children to make up the difference. Those with the best genes are the ones most likely to survive to reproduce. Nature's logic is brutal but there's no point in wishing it away. I'm guessing here but the point is that anecdotal correlations (e.g. the stereotypical starving Ethiopians with high fertility rate vs. the wealthy Ivy Leaguers with one child) don't give us a causal theory.

Conservatives who seem obsessed with the family and fertility seem to be off the mark a bit.

True. My views are not informed by conservatism, however. I believe that our biology informs our choice of ends so I believe there is a certain inevitability to the forms of satisfaction related to reproduction (family, etc.)

I wouldn't be suprised if there were ways to create and develop bodies that were more convienet systems to our lifestyles in the near future.  There seem to be some market and sociological indicators that there are.  I would not look to reproduction, or have a "traditional" view of reproduction in this day and age as a way to devop much of a good world picture.

 

I'll revise my views when things change that dramatically though I do think that surrogate motherhood is going to be a booming industry in the near future.

It doesn't seem far fetched to say the traditional family model is a failed / failing/ or just one of several available options system.  I don't think statism is to blame either - but rather the fact that it is easier to interact with any social group at any time one prefers and  better available options to follow one's own will due to the unpreceedeted wealth, peace, and prosperity and technology of all previous times.  While welfare and/or govt subsidies may add to things here and there to the poor, it says nothing of how the rich live there lives - which is still showing a decent enough rejection of the family model in favor of other matters of concern.

I think you have it exactly backwards. The family model is the most powerful. In fact, I think this is the defining distinction between the wealthy and powerful versus the "unwashed masses." The rich and powerful, as a rule, keep it together (Hollywood airheads on the cover of Us Weekly are not "rich and powerful" in my definition). The poor are poor, in large part, because they descend from family conflict. Just read the history of European royalty and watch how one family would wait for another to get embroiled in family conflict so they could make a move on their territory. The Godfather is how the world works.

Furthermore what does and does not get breeded out just seems like a non issue to me.  It ignores ontological reality - ad in doing so it ignores all reality that can be discussed in sociological inter-subjective situations.

It's a non-issue with respect to volitional choice of means for the satisfaction of wants.

Clayton -

 

No, it's not a metaphor, it's an evolutionary argument. While I'm an individualist as far as the volitional choice of values/ends goes, I'm not an individualist on the wider scheme of things. I don't think nature cares whether we're self-actualizing or not. All that matters to nature is who reproduced.

I am still reading this as a metaphor.  Science provides no "answer in itself".   It is a utility function for any specific ontological entity that can utilize it for their own benefit.  Evolution does not select anythig, much less the "best thing".  Nature is not "mechanical" (it isn't anything), ad life and death are just words to utilize ontological utility. 

And in a very true sense of the word, you are biologicaly speaking a "mutant" and uniqe to yourself.  You're not really allowed to call things life, or dead thing as anything other than another aspect of a species. It's just the "live" ones are a more rare specimen of a species. This goes nothing against neo darwinism as I understand it (I am a bio major, but it has been awhile since I have read this subject).

 

I believe that our biology informs our choice of ends so I believe there is a certain inevitability to the forms of satisfaction related to reproduction (family, etc.)

No, in so much as it does - it would be treated as a mechanic would look at a car.  And even than it is still a model to form an ontological utility function

What has been tradtionally thought of as scientism is dead. It has been for some time, not that "post-structuralism" "ad hoc" bohemian "anti-concept" philosophies are an alternative...but science is no the answer.

 

I think you have it exactly backwards. The family model is the most powerful. In fact, I think this is the defining distinction between the wealthy and powerful versus the "unwashed masses."

My thinking wasn't that lofty - I was just talking about my deeply held intuition on 50K plus types of  housholds.  As far as the forbes 500 list dunno how much it confirms one way or the other.  It wasn't my main focus though.  My over all saying is there seems to be a dramatic shift in family functions as the "tribal" society to the more peaceful, prosperous, "atomistic", and specilized open society becomes more and more obvious within the human mental framework.

 

I'll revise my views when things change that dramatically though I do think that surrogate motherhood is going to be a booming industry in the near future.

I say to a degree it has already happeed, and speculating about things that would once be radical concepts becomes a bt easier...though there is an obvious danger in speculating or taking a speculation to seriously

 

Clayton: It's not just that they don't believe in God but that they have emotional issues with religion.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

 

Atheists SECRETLY believe in Yahweh