The rise of the "statheists"

Permabear · 30-06-2014 1:21pm #1

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal · 30-06-2014 1:26pm

statheists, really?

Another label, just what the world needs.
Some people seem to just love labeling people and sticking them in boxes, seems to suit their world view.

GLaDOS · 30-06-2014 1:28pm

I'm atheist because I don't believe in God, it says nothing about how I think the country should be run

Otacon · 30-06-2014 1:28pm

Odd. I never had that. I think that is why I'm an atheist in the first place.

shruikan2553 · 30-06-2014 1:28pm

I don't know of anyone I would consider to have "faith" in the government. There are those who would follow a certain political party but if i was to say if they were atheis or not I would guess not. Its Joe down the road who always votes FF because his father did.

Nodin · 30-06-2014 1:28pm

Arguing this would mean accepting to some extent the opinion of somebody who accepts the views of an obscure early 20th century "philosophy" with the same fervour that once animate their belief in religion. Even though the Libertarian rejects religion as irrational, he or she advocates the continuing growth of their cult of the self.

oscarBravo · 30-06-2014 1:31pm

One aspect of this apparent dichotomy that you may not have considered is the difference between believing in what's possible in the future and what happened in the past.

Atheists accept that the universe and life emerged from a bottom-up process because there's no evidence to the contrary. That doesn't mean that they must axiomatically believe that everything must be created that way, or even that it's the best way to create things; simply that that's how it happened.

A belief that the universe wasn't created from the top down doesn't in any way imply a belief that nothing should ever be created from the top down. There is no dichotomy.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-06-2014 1:37pm

I am not seeing a contradiction really. The "Divine forces" apparently do not exist. While elected governments do.

I see no contradiction in wanting to divest us of one over the other therefore. I would like if one of the attributes of the force..... in which I place my trust to run the society I am living in..... was actually existing. Weird huh? I place similar constraints on my salary, and the contents of my plate at meals times too.

You are too focused on the "top down" aspect of it perhaps to have noticed that the lack of existence said force may be the issue people are having, rather than which way up the political pyramid is actually orientated.

KahBoom · 30-06-2014 1:40pm

Sure even Libertarians don't believe this? They almost all advocate some kind of a state.

It would be very interesting to hear someone describe how a stateless society can be made to function in a workable way that is actually desirable to live in - it seems to me to a practical impossibility, where attempts to explain such a system, are easily shown to have enormous practical flaws.

Turtwig · 30-06-2014 1:41pm

How the feck do you pronounce that word. It seems theistic too.
Sta theists.

It's quite easy really people don't necessarily trust politicians but they recognise there has to be some degree of control. Power corrupts, best to keep that power divided and restricted by bureaucracy than let it remain swift and decisive. Efficient inadequacy is far more damaging than efficient adequacy.Atheists are sceptical in general especially towards ideas like loose regulation and free market. Particularly, when and this is poisoning the messenger, most of the claims made are in line with methods of creationists propaganda. It's very hard to take such claims seriously when the bullsht alert alarm is triggering extreme caution!

30-06-2014 1:49pm

In fairness that's a bit presumptious, based on your own beliefs, and akin to "they don't necessarily worship god but recognise there had to be some degree of creation" :pac:

Giving it to state monopoly isn't really keeping it divided, is it

Permabear · 30-06-2014 1:54pm

This post has been deleted.

30-06-2014 1:55pm

I haven't freed myself from "control by divine forces", I don't believe that control exists. Bit of a difference.

30-06-2014 1:56pm

So belief in the fact of Darwinism means that logically one should be a fan of Social Darwinism?

Dades · 30-06-2014 1:57pm

I'm not sure I personally know a statheist.

So many? I'd suggest we've jumped the gun here. Sure, there's probably a group that could fit this label - but I'd be careful with my wording that people don't get the wrong end of the stick and think state-worshiping is rife among atheists.

Hang on, are we talking about atheists accepting the need for an elected government, or something more?

Most people I know feel our brand of democracy is a necessary evil, but nobody speaks in glowing terms about the system, the politicians and many of the laws it sets down.

In fact, who are these people?

Turtwig · 30-06-2014 2:00pm

It's not really. Most people accept that any society will have some form of hierarchy. With finite resources it seems inevitable really. But even if we had infinite resources we'd probably still have hierarchy. I don't think anyone sees how it can be avoided.

Nope, but then I don't like monopoly fecking payouts were heartbreaking. Don't like state monopolies either.

seamus · 30-06-2014 2:03pm

This is a really, really bizarre thread.

Attempting to claim a direct link between disparate groups, combining them under a single name and then assigning attributes and properties to that fictitious group.

You can claim, "No, no I'm not talking about *all* atheists, just this subgroup with certain political beliefs", but it's pretty clear from the first line of your last paragraph that you consider atheists to be some semi-homogenous group with shared concepts and shared ideals. This isn't the case for simple questions like, "Is it OK to kill", never mind the complicated mess of political ideals.

You may find, for example, that a majority of "statists" also happen to be atheist, but that doesn't mean the reverse is true. That's just the "atheism == communism" fallacy wearing a mask. A huge number of conspiracy theorists you encounter online seem to be very religious, but that doesn't mean I assume that all religious people are conspiracy nutjobs.

Turtwig · 30-06-2014 2:04pm

Nature shouldn't really be used as an argument for anything. Society itself apparently contradicts nature everywhere. Hate to pick on the veggies but they're the best example here. Oh the internet too!

Permabear · 30-06-2014 2:09pm

This post has been deleted.

robindch · 30-06-2014 2:12pm

The only implacable hostility I've seen here recently is my entirely reasonable dislike of Rand and her rubbishy books

and your's to anybody you call "left" - trendy, bar-room, progressive etc.

Uh, no, "they" haven't.

Permabear · 30-06-2014 2:17pm

This post has been deleted.

Dades · 30-06-2014 2:52pm

My concern is not with the term but your wording:

"Why..., do so many atheists insist"

I don't think we've established such a demographic exists, never mind the quantity of them.

More prone than who - theists? I don't think this is an atheist thing.

What that blogger is saying is:

"Atheists - you are clearly able to use logic - how come your logic doesn't show you that my political views are correct?"*

* Note I am apolitical so have no interest in choosing a side here

oscarBravo · 30-06-2014 2:59pm

I still don't think there's a contradiction. It's possible to believe that complex systems can emerge through bottom-up processes, while simultaneously believing that it may be more efficient to create complex systems in other ways.

I don't disagree that markets are capable of organising themselves through chaotic processes; I'm less inclined to agree that allowing them to do so is self-evidently better. In much the same way that I don't believe that humans were intelligently designed, but that doesn't mean that I think intelligently designing things is inherently a bad idea.

Valmont · 30-06-2014 3:21pm

This is a fair analysis. I suppose the author of the blog is wondering that given the atheists rejection of intelligent design in one sphere, why isn't there a greater proportion of them who reject it in others? In fact given the acceptance among atheists that at least one complex structure can arise without being predetermined, why don't we find that there are more libertarian athiests than say, libertarian creationists? Although I accept that there is an entire debate to be had on whether we can compare a complex structure such as society to a complex structure such as the human body.

FactCheck · 30-06-2014 3:47pm

Well in that case I think the reason there are so many "statheists" is the same reason there are so many [of what the blogger would probably term?] "statists".

The vast majority of people in the US and abroad believe there should be a bigger government than existed in early 19th century America. Even here in the UK, Conservative David Cameron passionately defends state-provided universal health care from the NHS.

The issue isn't "why do so many atheists believe this"; they believe it because it is what most people believe. The blogger may as well wonder why so many atheists like ice cream.

Turtwig · 30-06-2014 3:48pm

We had a thread about ice cream once it proved quite divisive.

robindch · 30-06-2014 3:52pm

Typical banana-splittist.

Philo Beddoe · 30-06-2014 4:09pm

I'm an atheist because I don't believe God exists, not because I wish to free myself "from top-down control by divine forces or institutionalized religions."

I do accept the idea that the universe and intelligent life on this planet have emerged from bottom-up processes rather than the divine hand of a creator. But I also acknowledge that it's a fairly brutal, trial-and-error-heavily-leaning-towards-error process. 99% of all species which came into existence through this process have also ceased to exist. This is not a system I want our society to be modelled on.

Cabaal · 30-06-2014 4:09pm

Bloody People's front of banana's!

Zubeneschamali · 30-06-2014 4:14pm

Evidence.

bnt · 30-06-2014 4:32pm

To me this is related to the Atlas Shrugged discussion in another thread. What is the "State" for? Does everyone need it, to the same degree? What happened before there was a State? Do we want to go back to a Feudal system, as it was in the Medieval era?

Without State protections, those less able to take care of themselves are exploited or abused in various ways, or left to live miserably or die. If you've seen any Game Of Thrones, you'll probably understand that the Medieval "common man" generally got the short end of the stick, unless said stick was being applied to his head.

Not that I'm an advocate of the State in all circumstances. Social Welfare is (in theory) a safety net, not a hammock: there when you need it, but needing it is only supposed to be a temporary condition, not a lifestyle. :cool:

Karl Stein · 30-06-2014 4:48pm

Let me invent a new word too....

Okay I've thought of one, 'Corporationists'.

People who believe in the virtue of the fictional entity that is the Corporation with its top-down quasi-fascistic management practices.

Ultimately 'the state' and 'corporations' are just human beings who've come together (careful now) to do things in a certain fashion.

recedite · 30-06-2014 5:03pm

IMO the answer to both questions is Yes. But this is not about one economic system or another, it is about authority, and who or what is the ultimate authority over people.

The origins of this go back to tribal life. If a dispute arose between individuals, somebody had to arbitrate and resolve it. This boss figure can get his authority in either of three ways;

1.Be ordained by God with divine authority. Interestingly this is very topical because we are witnessing an Islamic Caliphate being established in the Levant region this week under this very supposed authority. The new ruler is apparently "the leader of all Muslims in the world".

2. Be the strongest. Kill your rivals and subjugate everyone else. This is the traditional kick-ass warrior chieftain/king figure. Someone like Saddam Hussein, who previously ruled there.

3. Be elected by the people. Or better still, let the people assemble and vote on matters themselves. In this case, the assembled body itself had the power to impose sanctions, banish bad people, declare war etc..
In Northwestern Europe this assembly was often called a "thing" and a faction often held a meeting in somebody's house before the main meeting to discuss their strategy. This was called a "house thing". Today the word still lives on in political "hustings". Nowadays "the thing" is "the State".
So, it is obvious that most non-psychopathic atheists will opt for No. 3 choice. But that is not to say we worship the State, or think it infallible.
This kind of State authority is in fact the result of a "bottom-up" evolutionary process, not a "top-down" one.

In some middle-eastern tribes the high priest figure and the kick-ass figure came to an uneasy truce whereby they both shared power. The high priest anointed the kick-ass ruler with oil to show divine approval. The early Israelites practiced this dual mandate type of rule, and the concept of dual authority, as in "give unto Caesar what is his" later transferred into Christianity. Medieval Christian kings were always anointed by their high priests to gain extra legitimacy, and the church constantly reinforced this idea of kingly authority among the sheeple. In return the church received money, land and favours.
The Israelites did prophesise that one day a Messiah would come, a divinely ordained military commander who was both high priest and king, and who would conquer the world for them.

For a while, Popes ruled over quite a large part of modern day Italy, called then The Papal States, being both king and high priest. But when the Papacy had its ass kicked by both Napoleon and later the Kingdom of Italy it was an embarrassing blow to divine religious authority. Military power is real, and can easily be tested by a rival. Spiritual power is much harder to challenge. So as long as the cash keeps flowing in, it is much better for high priests in general to claim spiritual authority only, and leave the wielding of temporal power to others.
The problem for the modern democratic State is to prevent those sneaky high priests from trying to influence the civil power. The separation of church and State. The repudiation of canon law, sharia law, and any other law allegedly handed down by God, in favour of an agreed civil law.

shruikan2553 · 30-06-2014 5:09pm

Im a bit confused here. Is this person saying that if an atheist says intelligent design isn't true then why do they support the idea of something being controlled?

Nodin · 30-06-2014 5:40pm

Personally I think it's just an attempt to poke a certain demographic with a stick.

Zubeneschamali · 30-06-2014 7:10pm

Actually, I think maybe an atheist criticized St. Ayn Rand on another thread...

Permabear · 30-06-2014 7:56pm

This post has been deleted.

swampgas · 30-06-2014 8:12pm

Possibly atheists (and I'm guessing here) are less likely to approach the problems they see in life by passively praying, or by fatalistically "offering it up". They may not be hampered by a belief in a "Natural Order" which is not to be challenged. They may not believe in an afterlife and thus be more driven to fix the here-and-now.

The most obvious way to effect change in society is, I would argue, by engaging in politics, and by developing local and state structures to implement the changes that are desired. Which means government, and lots of it.

As far as I'm concerned, government is how millions of people coordinate their activities for mutual benefit. It's far from ideal, but mostly I'm amazed that it works at all.

So maybe atheists are interested in politics/the state/government simply because it's all that's left to them to improve the world they live in?

robindch · 30-06-2014 8:18pm

Good coinage, but I'd suggest another definition:

Corporationista: somebody who feels that society is better served by groups answerable to nobody than groups answerable to everybody.

Permabear · 30-06-2014 8:21pm

This post has been deleted.

swampgas · 30-06-2014 8:27pm

I think the free market is an essential part of a functioning society, but I think society should get to decide the rules of engagement, aka regulation.

Personally I would prefer slight over-regulation to any under-regulation, as under-regulated markets seem to get out of control so quickly. So, from a purely engineering safety-margin perspective, I can accept a sub-optimal but predictable market over a maximally productive yet unstable alternative. Maybe I'm just risk-averse :-)

Permabear · 30-06-2014 8:35pm

This post has been deleted.

Kiwi in IE · 30-06-2014 8:40pm

If 'downsizing the state' refers to the reduction/removal of public healthcare, education and social welfare, possibly religious people are more comfortable with it than atheists in general? Those who believe that social/health problems can be solved by praying to a god or that 'everything is in god's hands', are possibly less likely to realise that social support and public services are essential to ensure civilisation. This however does not reflect reality, hence why atheists may be generally less enthusiastic about it.

(Post made up of gross generalisations are personal theories with no basis, in line with and in an attempt to answer OP).

Nodin · 30-06-2014 9:14pm

Atheirandphobics. It's a thing now.

diveout · 30-06-2014 10:27pm

I think there are always chunks of people who wont admit it to themselves, who like to be dominated. At least religion, outside of a theocracy, is a personal choice. The state dominates without giving you a choice.

I am an indifferentist, in that god may or may not exist, or gods may or may not exist, but whether they do or not doesn't really matter, and trust me I have no interest in expanding governments.

Statists will want religion and god out of the way so they can clear the path for pure domination and they wont have to compete with god for hearts and minds. But it's not necessarily the case that atheists will want more state control.

Dave! · 30-06-2014 10:46pm

I don't know why you'd feel the need to draw comparisons between biological processes and societal constructs. It's like saying you believe in gravity, therefore you should believe that there is some sort of downward force within society also, which results in the majority of the people grouping at the bottom in some way. Maybe it's a nice metaphor, but they're completely unrelated concepts.

And I don't think either that being an atheist is predictive of ones attitude towards statism any more than any other arbitrarily chosen liberal characteristic is.

bnt · 01-07-2014 10:26am

You're kidding, right? The "Intelligent Design" non-discussion isn't about the concept of intelligent design in general, but about whether life on this planet has been "intelligently designed" by a supernatural "designer". There's no evidence for that, but that doesn't mean that we humans can't use our intelligence to design something. Maybe even big things, like governments.

Piliger · 02-07-2014 4:30pm

One of the few intelligent comments on this thread. Atheists have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with each other other than the fact that they do not believe in god(s) and the supernatural. Trying to find dumb ways to divide them up and draw conclusions and psychological profiles out of their 'lack' of belief is a nonsense.

The same nonsense that people talk about when they talk about big government people and small government people, especially in the US. There are no such groups in the US. Not at all. And rarely outside of the US either.

The so called big government people actually want smaller government and usually end up with smaller government, but in different areas. The small government people actually want small government only in areas that they don't like but bigger in their favourite areas.

Such as the GOP who say they want small gov but they want enormous military ! and want to operate a justice system to punish people for what they do in their bedrooms and in their bodies. The Democrats want bigger Gov in social welfare and medical care, but smaller military and other areas.

The whole debate is built on a quicksand of nonsensical assumptions and inferences and profiles.

magicbastarder · 02-07-2014 6:11pm

it actually strikes me in a way as a reflection of some insecurity - 'i believe group X is rational and shares my views on position A, so i identify with them, so it troubles me that they do not share my views on position B, so i will try to rationalise a cause for it'.

freyners · 02-07-2014 6:49pm

I particularly find the argument that they transfer their allegiance bizarre (someone summed it as bishops to bureacrats earlier). That assumes that all atheists used to be part of a religion which, in addition to be clearly false, shows a lack of understanding of atheism in general. It smacks of the "they're going through a phase" condescending ****e you often here peddled by the likes of David Quinn

Piliger · 02-07-2014 8:11pm

Indeed. And of course there is the old reliable, simple outrage at the atrocity of Atheists refusal to believe.
Atheists used to be a joke for theists. They made funny jokes, nasty jokes and purely offensive jokes.
Then Atheists started to speak out .. horror .. they started to talk in public .. they started to actually criticise theists and the ultimate horror, they started to criticise theism in public in tv and on the internet.
The response is of course to attack Atheists at every turn, to scrounge around and find something to undermine them, weaken them and vilify them. They try to equate Atheism with extreme religion; to claim they invented morals, etc. etc.
This latest nonsense of statheists is just another flavour of this kind of counter offensive. It is transparent, and as irrational as their very theism is.

The rise of the "statheists"

Comments