I think the op was unclear tbh It seems to me the main idea here is that statists usually believe in the state on the FAITH that it is what its commonly believed to be. In this light, a parallel can be drawn with religion, in which the religious view religion to be what its commonly believed. Your gripes with the premise of the OP are legit, as the idea is unclear, and perhaps Op can correct me, but i think what i mentioned above is the main point. I only discerned that because its a thought i have had often.
I'd say if anything is testable, the everything is testable. Just because you don't know how to measure or test for the existence of divinity, does not mean you can't I'm a firm believer that any theory can be tested, once you know how to do it.
Until a way of testing the claim empirically in a manner that is repeatable it's untestable. When/if that day comes the concept of divinity will stop being irrelevant but until then...
But couldn't the same logic be applied to ANY philosophy? Although I don't think the term really applies here, wouldn't an AnCap philosophy be even more "faith based" than a statist philosophy, since there are really no true, measurable examples of an AnCap society to analytically study?
Yes, you could draw a parallel this way with any thought or theory involving belief. AnCap philosophies can and have been tested. They just aren't practiced. Their results provide a result which the ruling elite would not prefer, otherwise, they would go with it We just differ on an opinion of semantics. You call it untestable, i disagree and call it untested.
Sorry, I think it's still apples and oranges. Comparing religion/faith in a higher power to a socio-political system by which individuals choose to govern themselves is just bizarre. Especially when you get down to the nitty gritty, it's just a convoluted way of asking: Why do atheists have faith in humanity when they don't have faith in a higher power? Anyone who is feeling even mildly flip would of course respond with: What makes you think atheists have faith in humanity, or are statists in the first place? Just because one does not believe in higher beings does not mean that one believes in a particular brand of governmental system.
Faith = complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Atheist = disbelief in the existence of a god/gods/deity. While one really has nothing to do with the other, critics of atheism often argue that it's a faith in itself, because they can't prove there is no god, afterlife, etc. Subtle irony in there somewhere.
I agree that all atheists are not statists, (many are not) and that not every atheist agrees on faith in humanity. Op was generalizing to be sure. Its the process of belief, not the objects of belief which are parallel. Some staists follow the paradigm of the state as "good" or "necessary" to human society, yet they do so on a belief that what they are told about it is true, just like religion. Atheists complain that theism is unworthy of consideration as its based on faith in something completely unproven. In the case of the statists, they are almost worse, because they believe in something that has only ever been dis-proven.
Atheist don't believe in faith unless it is been proven by theories, scientific research. Lets take a look at the dictionary. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (from Merriam Webster dictionary) If we are presented with a lack of evidence in a mystery, how do we go about solving it? assuming this is a mystery which “must” be solved, we first take a look at the evidence. Then when we find out there is a lack of evidence, we create theories. theories are like educated guesses. If the theory consistently the same, it turns into an fact. The state has been proven that it leads to corruption, aggression, high toll death, and bankrupted. This has been dated way back to B.C. It has been tested. Thereby, Why do Atheist reject the evidence and continue to put faith on the states? In addition,
The issue people are taking with what you are saying is very simple. Atheist != Statist Where are you pulling information about atheists being supportive of any particular form of government to the degree that "all atheists" clearly support anything? What does one thing have to do with the other? Where are these atheists who are doing all this rejecting you're objecting to?
Yes I know that I was over-generalizing. There are quite few statism atheist out there. Quite to contrary, the statism is sub category of Atheist. They do see the fact but reject the validation and continue to put faith on a system that was design to fail. Exhibit A: This is quite familiar....
Until it's tested the difference is semantic yeah. I'm an apatheist though so it's not a biggie for me really. the prefix a- means without theism - deals with belief gnosticism - deals with knowledge I'd say anyone who is gnostic has faith, but there are few gnostic atheists that I've ever met. You could argue that the commonly used definition of a word has more bearing on it's meaning that it's technical definition, but I think when it's only that way becaause people don't have knowledge of etymology it doesn't count. That's a different thread though. Faith is only present where empirical evidence is either currently lacking or doesn't exist. Evidence exists that statism is an effecient and dangerous path so faith isn't the right word. I'm not really sure what is, but it's not faith. most (all) work on a utilitarian basis too, a lot of the negative ones don't. Attributing anything at all (negative or positive) to religion is sort of missing the point, it's all down to the individual not the group they belong to.
speaking as an atheist...i ask myself this same question all the time. I cannot understand replacing the word god with president and the word religion with state and calling yourself an atheist. it is fucking bonkers. one of the standard atheist arguments against religion is that it is made up of men and women...who are imperfect as it says in your book, so why would you blindly follow a religion made up of imperfect people... that is pretty logical and straight forward and you could change the word government for religion and it is still just as logical. but your average atheist is clueless to this, and if you try to explain it to them you get the exact same apologist arguments we hear from religionists. it is kind of fun really. i like going to atheists meetups and convincing the participants that they are not in fact atheist, they have just made statism their religion. at least religion is a voluntary collectivist stroke fest, ever try to refuse the gospel of the state...it doesn't end well. it goes without saying that i am not a popular person in the local atheist groups