You must log in or # to comment.
Religion and spirituality are a thing that will always exist, and churches with them. The thing to abolish is not churches but the cult and indoctrination doctrines that things like the Vatican or the Amish or Scientology or the Falun gong do. I don’t mind if David and Jane from accounting donate money to the small local church, I care when the small local church use that money for the perpetration of Vatican policies (like priests having a wage but nuns having to give everything they have to the church, the demonization of other religions and ethnicities, the hatred towards GLBT people, maintaining the status Quo that the feudal society in the church wants to have or hiding the paedophiles from public awareness)
Religion encourages belief over fact, for that reason any form of religion is unacceptable.
And LGBT please, the L goes first out of respect.
The LGBT thing was a typo, sorry
I understand your point, i am a deeply unreligious person, but at the same time I believe that anyone can do what they want as long as they don’t hurt other people. If someone wants to believe that a God created the universe using the Big beng and slowly stirred evolution towards creating us I don’t mind, if someone believe in karma, or “manifesting” things I also don’t care. i agree with you that if someone puts belief over facts and gets all antivax that person is clearly not mentally well and need help. Still, banning religion (like banning the majority of other things) is very often completely useless to eradicate the problem, it usually makes it harder, more extreme, and usually brings profits to bad people
It is not about banning things. It is about teaching tools that allow to not fall for stupid things.
Yea. The solution is to restructure society to where these beliefs do not become institutionalized and hold power over others.
We can encourage scientific and critical thinking but people will think what they think in the long run, we can only hope to provide as much access to tutelage and information as possible so that the most people possible will understand material reality and structure our political systems so that individuals who espouse these as fact do not obtain power to dictate the lives of others.
If we can manage that then individuals who hold these personal beliefs will just have to reconcile them with recognized scientific facts for themselves.
As long as people have their needs met, everyone has free and ready access to the education to understand that these beliefs are not factually proven, and no one is dictating the actions of others to live by those beliefs, let people think and do what they want that makes them feel better.
Banning and making things taboo just pushes people to get defensive and insulate themselves in their beliefs and put intrigue into the concept, exposing it to more people.
Science has already demonstrated that our perceptions are an illusion. In the absence of objective perception, we should engineer our beliefs and perceptions for social utility. Appeals to align our perception and belief with objective reality are not only a pie-in-the-sky dream, they inevitably push traditional white capitalist perceptions, which have been socially engineered to perpetuate an ideology of control.
To abolish capitalism, we must abolish capitalist realism.
We must abolish capitalist realism but that is not synonymous with the scientific consensus of objective reality.
We must always strive to become more educated about our world.
Dr Donald Hoffman ran thousands of evolutionary simulations in his cognitive science lab, seeking to understand the beginnings of perception on earth. He pitted organisms that perceive the simulated world as it truly is against organisms that instead perceive fitness payoffs. Fitness beats truth. Truth perceiving organisms always go extinct, because perceiving reality is a waste of resources.
Our ancestors in the primordial soup went through the same process. What we see around us is a simplified interface for interacting with the world based on our survival needs. Not objective reality. Taking our evolved perceptions seriously is a good way to stay alive and reproduce. Taking them literally is a good way to come to incorrect conclusions.
Something I’ve always wanted to ask, who would run public services and everything the government does? Would it just be volunteer work and everyone gets a free houses and food? I’m more of a communist, but I get that corruption and human greed would absolutely be a problem in that system.
Who runs public services now? The workers.
FAQ:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
Section I is likely to cover your questions in some manner
Yes, some people would have to do the organizing task to allow the people to get things done efficiently. And those organizers would have to make decisions. So to make it fair, the people should chose who would be the organizers out of those who want to do that job. We could have votes to decide who becomes those organizers at regular periods. Those organizers would govern the collective for a while and then they’d go back to another vote so if the majority thought they were being unfair they could be relaxed. But we’d also want a separate group of people to make independent decisions based on an agreed set of rules that even the organizers wouldn’t be allowed to break - this would ensure minority rights. The second group could judge any cases of disagreement as fairly as possible using case history. Oh, and we’d probably need a figurehead leader to communicate to the people and other countries. They could be voted in independently to make it fair.
I’m glad you’ve not read or learned anything from my link…
Anarchism does not work how you’ve hypothesised and does not result in a reinvention of the state.
You’re a terrible troll. Try reading, you might learn something that’s more interesting than boring internet baiting.
To preface: this would all be assuming we have been successful in abolishing the problematic, arbitrarily hierarchical, societal institutions which anarchists argue to be oppressive such as the carceral justice system and, for the anarchist-communists which I am an advocate of, monetary-based economics. —
Decentralized, Horizontally structured, federated systems of volunteer workers organizations from different industries would take over the duties of these roles and essentially become the new government. All the “government” is, in its current form, is a group of elected officials and those assigned by the elected who dictate how resources should be distributed and the social rules by which we abide by. People understand that if we want things then people need to do the labor to make those things a reality. Local communities know best what they have for their community and how much they can afford to share with the others and how they want to run things.
Distribution of authority would come from the bottom up instead of the top down. Groups would associate and do business with other groups through mutual agreements, with the terms only being dictated by those involved in the process, usually accomplished via consensus of appointed delegates from each group.
Federated groups would have mutual agreements of basic material resource distribution as agreed upon by all those within the federation. Anarchist communism would have agreements respecting the collective ownership of property and means of production within communities who are doing the labor that is being regulated.
Housing would be however those within the local area who design and build the housing and related infrastructure want to build it and if they have the resources and land available in agreement with those in the community who will be living in those houses. There would be mutually agreed upon rules and regulations within those communities to ensure the protection and safety of everyone but they do not have overreaching authority to impose those on others not directly involved or affected by their actions of that specific process.
Food would be the same for those who do the labor to grow and transport the produce within the community. It would be distributed however that local community has agreed to distribute their collective resources among themselves and their excess with neighboring communities.
Conflict would be solved through de-association with federated groups. No group would be forced to federate with any other group but that means that they will not be included in the decision making process nor gain any benefits thereof but also will not be beholden to any of the agreements made. They are free to federate separately and make their own mutual agreements as they see fit between themselves and those that do associate with them.
Corruption only has power because it forces people to listen. If people are free to ignore them and organize among themselves then no corrupt entities can relegate power for themselves over others.
excuse me but could my church at least have a chance to do something naughty we haven’t even had a chance to dodge our taxes yet
White atheistic statists have been trying to eradicate Indigenous knowledge and spirituality here in Australia for centuries. It’s never going to work. This always was and always will be Aboriginal land. The spirits of the old people are in the land, guiding and protecting the young people.
There is no anarchist atheism in Australia. Atheists are colonisers.
