A very close friend of mine insists that anarchy is a religion, not just a form of lawless government. She says that it is what she believes. How can I explain to her that just as we don't consider democracy, theocracy, or dictatorships religions, anarchy isn't either?

Anarchy can be... if your religion dictated that you need to live as primitive wild animals as God intended... totally free.... totally wild.

if she conforms in anyway to any social standards then i would say she is less than completely devote towards said religion....

Thus it is a matter of extremes... she may claim to be.. but just as alot of Jews and Christians and Muslims claim to be... facts are.. THEY ARENT GOOD ONES.

-MT

i truly think she is just saying it because she doesn't want to be considered an athiest.

poliwog,

She could be agnostic. If she is, she can use that term instead. I seem to find more respect when I tell someone I am agnostic. :P


[Renrue]

Perhaps if y'all Googled a few sites on Anarchy, and you had some inkling of what you spoke, you could answer your girlfriend from intelligence and knowledge instead of other people's opinions who have no more knowledge than you do.

We have. I sat down with her and looked all related terms up on the internet.

I'd be interested to hear her argument for it being a religion?

Anarchy is not living like wild animals, not social chaos, not complete lack of any restraint or laws.. That is just a bunch of propaganda by the 'conservatives' in power who'd fear losing said power.
Anarchy means that local communities can make their own 'laws' and rules of conduct and enforce same. The feds are for the protection of borders and thats it. We the people take care of our own problems in our own neighborhoods, our own communities. Its not a 'wild-in-the-streets rampage of bomb throwing freaks'! It is just an alternative form of 'non'-government with advantages and disadvantages like everything else.

It certainly threatens some people though, 'authoritarian' personalities, obsessive compulsives, anal retentives (Republikkkans?), fundamnentalists...

It is no kind of religion unless some mental defective treats it like one. Actually, to be made into a religion, anarchy would have to be forced to immitate the same old patriarchial BS that we have already. One of the strengths of anarchy is its flexibility... There is no 'flex' in religion! *spits in the dust*

See here (http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v103y1995i1p26-52.html)
and
Something interesting re; Anarchy in cyberland (http://www.cli.org/DPost/X0023_ANARCHY.html)

Friend: Everyone at school is all like, "are you an Athiest?" and it's like, "No."
Poli: Well what do you believe in as a religion?
Friend: I am an Anarchist.
Poli: But thats a form of government.
Friend: I know. Its a state of lawless government.
Poli: But I thought we were talking about religion.
Friend: Anarchy can be a religion.
Poli: But it's a government.
Friend: It can be both.
Poli: What makes you say that? Does that mean you don't believe in anything?
Friend: Well I Believe in reincarnation, and that there is a higher being somewhere out there, but I don't believe in God and Satin and all that crap.
Poli: Wait, I'm confused. Isn't that like being an Athiest?
Friend: No. Being an Athiest means that you don't believe anything.
Poli: We should look all this stuff up on the internet when we get home.

Friend: Everyone at school is all like, "are you an Athiest?" and it's like, "No."
Poli: Well what do you believe in as a religion?
Friend: I am an Anarchist.
Poli: But thats a form of government.
Friend: I know. Its a state of lawless government.
Poli: But I thought we were talking about religion.
Friend: Anarchy can be a religion.
Poli: But it's a government.
Friend: It can be both.
Poli: What makes you say that? Does that mean you don't believe in anything?
Friend: Well I Believe in reincarnation, and that there is a higher being somewhere out there, but I don't believe in God and Satin and all that crap.
Poli: Wait, I'm confused. Isn't that like being an Athiest?
Friend: No. Being an Athiest means that you don't believe anything.
Poli: We should look all this stuff up on the internet when we get home.

anarchy isnt a state of lawless government, its the abscence of law and government. it is individual autonomy without any restriction at all on personal freedom. murder, rape, theft, anything you want to do is ok as long as someone does not stop you from doing it by force. it has nothing to do with religion at all. it cant be considered a religion because a religion requires a belief in something, faith in something that you think is there but is insubstantial or intangible. anarchy either exists or doesnt exist in a pretty obvious way, you cant believe in anarchy as a spiritual or religious concept, it is a socio-political state of affairs.

atheism is the non-belief in god or organized religion.

nihilism is the state of not believing in anything at all.

I'd be interested to hear her argument for it being a religion?

Anarchy is not living like wild animals, not social chaos, not complete lack of any restraint or laws.. That is just a bunch of propaganda by the 'conservatives' in power who'd fear losing said power.
Anarchy means that local communities can make their own 'laws' and rules of conduct and enforce same. The feds are for the protection of borders and thats it. We the people take care of our own problems in our own neighborhoods, our own communities. Its not a 'wild-in-the-streets rampage of bomb throwing freaks'! It is just an alternative form of 'non'-government with advantages and disadvantages like everything else.

It certainly threatens some people though, 'authoritarian' personalities, obsessive compulsives, anal retentives (Republikkkans?), fundamnentalists...

It is no kind of religion unless some mental defective treats it like one. Actually, to be made into a religion, anarchy would have to be forced to immitate the same old patriarchial BS that we have already. One of the strengths of anarchy is its flexibility... There is no 'flex' in religion! *spits in the dust*

See here (http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v103y1995i1p26-52.html)
and
Something interesting re; Anarchy in cyberland (http://www.cli.org/DPost/X0023_ANARCHY.html)


read it and weep

from Merriam Websters online dictionary:

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>


you definition of anarchy is a complete fabrication.
look at where the word comes from in greek - its root means no ruler. the minute you have a hierarchy of leadership or a chain of command you contravene the concept of anarchy. the world in anarchy is the world of nature, only the strong survive...etc.

I know all of that, she doesn't. Well except for that Atheism thing.

nihilism is the state of not believing in anything at all.
If this is the case, then nihilism would be the only intellectually honest position to take.

ni·hil·ism (n-lzm, n-)
n.
Philosophy.
1) An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
2) A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
3) Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
4) The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also
5) Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
Psychiatry.
6) A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.

I know all of that, she doesn't. Well except for that Atheism thing.

well, you cant make her know it, eventually she will try to explain her rationalization to someone else and will get laughed at for being so naive, and then she'll probably change her mind.

read it and weep

from Merriam Websters online dictionary:

you definition of anarchy is a complete fabrication.
.
If your whole understanding of the complexity of the various forms of anarchy come from an online dictionary, then you, my friend, have a lot to learn.
But thank you for sharing.
Read your dictionary definition and weep? Hardly...
Why dont YOU do some intensive investigation and report back to the class....

If the big words don't throw you, why don't you start by actually reading the link that I provided referencing cyber-anarchy. That has some important descriptions and concepts that are applicable 'here'.

If this is the case, then nihilism would be the only intellectually honest position to take.

ni·hil·ism (n-lzm, n-)
n.
Philosophy.
1) An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
2) A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
3) Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
4) The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also
5) Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
Psychiatry.
6) A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.


only if you are stupid. some things exist, that much should be obvious to a normal person. things that can be demonstrably quantified with sensory perception should be understood to "exist". nihilism is essentially the denial of self-existence, because in order to rationally justify the fact that nothing else exists, it is essential to admit that you must also not exist according to those same conditions. however, this is altering the definition of existence. something exists when people know it exists, through proof, observation...etc. since people can only know that something exists in terms of the scope of human knowledge, you have to deny the validity of all human knowledge and experience to invalidate existence. there is no basis for this invalidation. in other words, if you want to get technical and unnecessarily abstract about it, then yeah nothing really exists outside of your own perception of it, but since existence is a concept invented and named by humans, we have dictated its terms and are the only ones qualified to say what exists and what doesnt. nihilism is circular idiocy for lazy pseudo-intellectuals.

If your whole understanding of the complexity of the various forms of anarchy come from an online dictionary, then you, my friend, have a lot to learn.
But thank you for sharing.
Read your dictionary definition and weep? Hardly...
Why dont YOU do some intensive investigation and report back to the class....

im sorry, im telling you what the word means. whatever backward definition of anarchy you have come up with doesnt mean what the word means, and is obviously a clear misrepresentation. what you are describing is small-scale decentralized government, which is completely at odds with the concept of anarchy which means disorder and lack of authoritative laws and government that can compel people to do things against their own whims. put two and two together there friend. i took international relations in college, i know the bullshit definition of anarchy as self government that they try to pass off. its ridiculous. anarchy is government of the individual by the individual and has no authority extending to anyone else outside of that single individual, that creates a situation of disorder, unless you encounter ideal conditions in which a large number of people all agree on the same thing and no one feels the need to deviate from the common cause. thats a near impossibility.

Thank you for sharing Charles.
I didn't know that you are 'college educated' and obviously now know it all!
Certainly there is nothing that this 'stupid', 'backward' person can say to you of any value.
Bye the bye, you display your ignorance is also aparent in your nihilism rant.
Did you, by any chance, take a class on 'Clue101' as you display your cluelessness. You at least know no QM theory. Maybe you attended the Prince James College?
Why do you think, you arrogant clueless little prick, that there is such voluminous writings on the subject if the dictionary can tell you all you need to know?
The last word here can be yours if you like (which I'm sure will be forthcoming).
Hahahahahaha....
Have a long life...

Thank you for sharing Charles.
I didn't know that you are 'college educated' and obviously now know it all!
Certainly there is nothing that this 'stupid', 'backward' can say to you of any value.
Bye the bye, you display your ignorance in your nihilism rant.
Did you, by any chance, take a class on 'Clue101' as you display your cluelessness. Maybe you attended the Prince James College?
Hahahahahaha....
Have a long life...

i wasnt bragging about my college education, thats just where i first encountered the ridiculous fallacy that anarchy can somehow be a form of government. good response to what i said by the way i see you have a lot to offer that contradicts my points. i dont display my ignorance of anything in any of my "rants". i openly admit that i dont know everything, but when it comes to a definition of a concept, i am a strict interpreter. i, for example dont thinkt hat you can have anarchy and government occupying the same social space without one of them being thwarted out of existence. i dont htink that you can justify not believing that anything exists when something obviously exists in the only terms that are possible to understand. thats it. you can rave on about how ignorant i am and how i dont know what im talking about, but it doesnt seem to me that you are really refuting any of it. if your argument has some logic lets see it, tell me the things i dont know.

I am not interested in what you believe or not, and not interested in arguing 'existence' with you. You wouldnt be so quick if you were familiar with QM to be such a materialist. Believe what you like. I'm not here to 'argue'. And you arent in a position to learn..

I am not interested in what you believe or not, and not interested in arguing 'existence' with you. You wouldnt be so quick if you were familiar with QM to be such a materialist. Believe what you like. I'm not here to 'argue'. And you arent in a position to learn..


then dont argue existence with me, no ones making you. but dont act enlightened when you cant even make an argument that has a leg to stand on. i do believe what i like and i'm always learning, i think the problem is more that you are in no position to teach.

I am not interested in what you believe or not, and not interested in arguing 'existence' with you. You wouldnt be so quick if you were familiar with QM to be such a materialist. Believe what you like. I'm not here to 'argue'. And you arent in a position to learn..

and by the way are you talking about Quantum Mechanics? if so, how does that effects what exists and what doesnt and whether or not you can be sure if something exists? i love how you just drop something like that without expanding on it at all. if you know something why dont you show us that you do?

and by the way are you talking about Quantum Mechanics? if so, how does that effects what exists and what doesnt and whether or not you can be sure if something exists? i love how you just drop something like that without expanding on it at all.
I 'drop' something like that for those who know Q(uantum) M(echanics) and thus can follow my statements from that perspective. QM doesn't 'effect' (sic) what is 'believed to exist', it attempts to 'observe and define/understand' what seems to exist, right 'down' to it's foundational level.
I'm sorry, but I cannot spend the time every few days answering the same fundamental questions, I rather spend my time diddling on the 'frontiers of thought'. (Reference the below quote regarding 'rewarding')

if you know something why dont you show us that you do?
It matters not one whit what you believe of me and what I understand for the simple reason that I understand that which I understandand, and have no need to convince the 'mirror of my mind' of that which I have found. Understand? I am using this forum to 'hone' my understanding to the point where I will be able to publish a lucid and coherent paper of a new and cutting edge hypothesis for the cognitive enjoyment of those with unclenched minds. I will be happy to post it here subsequent to publication for your perusal and remarks, but it will not be detailing all the 'basic' work, it is assumed by the author that the readers will be at or beyond a 'certain' level of understanding of the subject. Otherwise i would have to take voluminous fields of time to 'explain' each sentence. We are talking 'cutting edge' here, not 101. If you wish to know what I consider 'cutting edge', one example that comes pretty close comes from the site link below.
I have found certain 'values obtained' in the study and practice of many different 'paths', theoretical QM being one of them. If you are interested in finding your own 'fruit' in the wondrous study, then take your own decades and do the work.

And, even at the end of the day, after all is presented, and some minds grow stretch-marks and others warp trying to understand, UNCLENCHED MINDS that is, the vast majority will take decades to be brought up to speed and there will still be the 'willfully deluded' and their 'churches'. Gallileo was just recently 're'communicated'!;

"The brain "tends to search for and hold onto the most rewarding view of events, much as it does of objects (Events, objects, concepts, beliefs)," -www.edge.org. "It is much more rewarding to attribute death to God's will, and to see in disasters hints of the hand of God."

"We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology." - http://www.edge.org/

I am just offering something to 'play' with that can be quite a powerful 'tool'. Right now, here, I am offering small bite-size canape's for those interested. But I am finding that the publishing way is the way to go for the initial 'presentation' to be 'taken seriously'. After that, discussion will be, I'm sure, forthcoming. After that, even if it all fades immediately into the mists of obscurity, it was still one helluva ride! If I win the Nobel Prize, I'm gonna get my car fixed!
*__-