Atheism Is No Defense Against Ignorance

I think this goes without saying, since atheism is only the default position in which humans are born and only entails particular philosophical positions. However, I would consider most atheists to be very intelligent and more in touch with reality than many others who are still trapped within the claws of theism.

But as I've debated various people about anarchism (even atheists) they do not see the injustice and very theistic-like structure of the state (ie. government, police, presidents, etc.).

I've covered this before, here, but I wanted to expand on it a bit and give an example of what I mean when I say that atheists aren't always in touch with reality.

I was reading Julian Baggini's book, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, which is an excellent book by the way, I just noticed something about "anarchy" that the author noted and I wanted to comment on it.

The passage I'm referring to is located where Baggini is discussing the silly claim made by theists that in order for social wellbeing to be maintained there must be god (religion) within that culture or else social destruction will ensue (like the communist and Nazi regimes, which are given as examples), which I have also covered elsewhere in more detail.

What Baggini says is this:

"Everything will be permitted only if we abandon ourselves to anarchy [emphasis mine], and there is no reason why someone would want to do that just because they do not believe in god.

More profoundly, it is an odd morality that thinks that one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward [emphasis mine]. The person who doesn't steal only because they fear they will be caught is not a moral person, merely a prudent one. The truly moral person is the one who has the opportunity to steal without being caught but still does not do so" (page 40).

Baggini was arguing about why religion is not needed for morality, but then completely contradicts himself when the state plays the exact same role as religion does to theists for morality!

Just as with the atheism/theism morality debate, a government is not needed for morality; there was morality before there were laws (just as there was morality before religion); the laws stem from morality (to some degree).

As I showed in my post It's So Ironic (the first link above) government and religion are practically the same. They serve the same roles, and seek to oppress man for it's own benefit. I've shown why this is true throughout many other posts, such my Tyranny of the State series.

It must also be stated that when Baggini says, "More profoundly, it is an odd morality that thinks that one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward" he is contradicting himself because what is the purpose of jails and prisons? What is the purpose of speeding tickets? What is the purpose of police? All these things (and countless others) are to keep people in line through fear of punishment just like the laws in religion, and atheists claim they don't need religion to be moral, so why would it be different for the state and morality?

It's too bad so many do not see this pronounced link between two of the greatest evils in the world: Statism and Theism.

I advice everyone to look a little harder and see that the government atheists defend is no different than the religion that many atheists fight against.