[quote=Hrkman]I don't believe in God because there is no evidence to support a deity, nor reason for one. The universe and life and earth and all as we know it could have existed with or without God.[/quote]

Same with anarchism. The universe WAS anarchistic for most of history.

[quote]Obviously, there is evidence that Governments exist, and I do believe there is reason for them. If we never had governments, we'd still be tribalistic savages who can take what we want with no restrictions besides our own morality (which is lacking for some, and therefore tribalism oft leads to the least moral people taking control).[/quote]

That sounds just like a theist arguing that morality comes from God and if God doesn't exist, morals wouldn't exist and therefore God exists.

The people comprising a government might be real, but the being called a "government" is not. Same way men calling themselves incarnations of God might be real, but the being God isn't real.

Least moral people taking control isn't anarchy, that's a government or more specifically a kakistocracy.

[quote]Governments in no way suggest brainwashing. Last I checked, I had an equal balance of the media telling me things that the government has done poorly on, and things they have done well on. If anything, I hear more about the poorly. Does the government brainwash me against itself?[/quote]

Everything they tell you, they also suggest some change in the government should be done. They don't tell you about taxation being theft, war being murder as these things are inherently evil and the State doesn't want you to believe it should be removed. They'll only tell you the poor things if it means those deeds can be removed by changing the system. The media will tell you things that the State should be changed, but never abolished.

It's like the media criticizing Westboro Baptists, but not talking about getting rid of religion as a whole, and only saying religion needs to be changed.

[quote]They are both authority figures, yes, but I'd say more than 50% of our country could disagree with "everything they do is just". Ever had a president impeached? Ever had a president who's approval ratings went under 30%?[/quote]

The State's inherently evil deeds (which cannot be stopped without abolishing it) are seen as just (95% people don't think taxes are theft or war is genocide).

Kind of like a Christian saying, "I don't agree with God killing person X, but God-belief is still desirable."

[quote]Both Gods and Governments have been seen to murder millions: Yes. But I don't see how having no governments would reduce the murder; it would simply place it in the hands of different people.[/quote]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll]State-committed crimes[/url] vs. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_prolific_murderers_by_number_of_victims]Private crimes[/url].

[quote]God gives infinite punishment for finite and insane sins. (Don't insult me bro!)[/quote]

Okay, fine, the governments' punishment is finite while God's is infinite. But people have been killed due to all kinds of stupid laws by the State (list is too long).

[quote]Last I checked, I am allowed to blasphemize the holy George Bush and not receive much punishment, much less eternal damnation. The government, unlike religion, does not offer infinite punishment either. Finite punishment for finite crimes is much more reasonable, and is also required for a society to function. Is your idea to let criminals commit crimes, and walk free?[/quote]

George Bush is only a part of the system. I'd like to see you try and rebel against the State as a whole - there are plenty of laws making it very easy for the State to throw you in jail if you speak out against it as a whole.

Under a market anarchist society courts are handled privately. Criminals must pay back restitution to the victim before they can go free. It's not like there's no courts and no police, there's just no monopoly of those funded by money stolen at gunpoint.

[quote]Your examples at the end are also inaccurate.
"Only Government could provide protection, nothing else"
"Only God could cause the Big Bang, Nothing else"

Do you know why the second statement is so insane? It's because no one has ever proved God, and therefore it's ridiculous to use him as an example.

Governments have been proved to exist[/quote]

Prove a 'government' exists without resorting to the people comprising it - that's like a Christian proving God exists simply by proving that Jesus Christ existed.

[quote], and also proved to provide a system of fair punishment for crimes.[/quote]

Hahaha no. That line is so bat fuck insane I'll just give you a link (there's probably millions of evidences against that) - http://www.mises.org/story/2107

[quote]I wouldn't agree with it in the first place. I'm sure a society of perfect humans could also provide their own protection. Please alert me when you locate this civilization.[/quote]

Government is people. Repeat with me. Government is people, therefore anything that applies to humans applies to governments as well. If people aren't perfect why would you support one group of imperfect people ruling millions?

Please alert me when you locate a civilization where the citizens all have the same values and beliefs so everyone is happy with one singular system imposed onto them, where the people in the government are perfect and know exactly how to spend people's stolen money.

[quote=Hrkman]I don't deny the universe was anarchistic for most of it's existence, and I doubt anyone would. That doesn't mean that Anarchism is correct. I don't really get how believing that there could be existence without god is related to believing that there was existence without government, which I fully agree to. That doesn't mean that I don't think the government is correct now, but you can't apply theism and say, "I think that there is an existence for God NOW, but I believe we didn't need him until the beginning of civilization".[/quote]

Atheism was the position for most of early man, just like anarchism. People did fine without State-enforced law and State-belief, the same way people did fine without God-given morality and god-belief. I'm not saying this proves they're correct; just that atheism and anarchism have a lot in common.

[quote]No, It's saying what is fact. Before there was developed civilization, we went through a period of tribalism where the strong take what they want and the weak get to be stepped on. I am not going on a limb of faith to say this, it is what happened.[/quote]

If we need the State to protect the weak from the strong, there's technically nothing protecting the weak from the State. This strong-takes-from-weak battle is actually an argument against the State since a State gives an opportunity for the strong to take from the weak, legitimately.

[quote]Taxes being theft and War being Genocide is just giving the same words new, more threatening titles. That doesn't mean they aren't the same thing. The government doesn't tell me taxes are theft and war is genocide because they are the same thing already, but you're just giving it a harsher name because you are opposed to them.

i.e. An anti-abortionist might call a human fetus a "potential human", while a pro-life man might call it a parasite. Are they both true? yes. Does one sound a lot cruder than the other? yes. Does that mean it's a parasite and NOT a potential human? No.[/quote]

I'm not giving them harsher names, I'm calling them for what they are. If I went around taxing people I would be considered a thief - different words are used when the State does the exact same thing in an attempt to make theft seem legitimate. Taxation would be considered theft if another person did it and the State is people, therefore taxation is theft.

[quote]When I say that the blood will just be on different hands, I mean that the people will still declare wars whether there is the State or not. What's to stop Companies from going to war too? They might not be able to tax you, but if they have access to armies and their own personal police, then they obviously have the power of weaponry.[/quote]

Technically there's no guarantee a company will never go to war the same way there's no guarantee a bomb won't blow us up tomorrow. We're talking about how [i]likely[/i] a company is to go to war, compared to a State.

So which is more likely to go to war? An organization that funds its war through billions of dollars coercively extracted from other people, or an organization that must shoulder all the costs of war itself? An organization that can legitimately coerce millions into fighting on their side, or an organization that would get their pants sued off if they did that?

[quote]So you're saying that the markets are totally acceptable to people protesting them? You can start a full rally against a company and they'll sit back and accept it? You can call the man in charge he is a douchebagshitwhoremotherfuckingslutfuck, and he'll be fine? Or will be arrested by private courts, and tried by a biased court after you just offended the company.[/quote]

Depends on the situation. If the company cheated you and you call the company president a motherfucker and he gets mad at you and sues you, any court with a good reputation for maintaining justice and fairness would take your side because the company cheated you in the first place.
Or if you just decide to call him a motherfucker for no reason, I don't see how a private court would handle that case any worse than a State-court.

[quote]What? Prove a government exists without referring to the people in it? Why would I want to do that? Can't I prove it while referring to the people in it? I don't get your challenge.[/quote]

The State is nothing but a group of people pretending to be a part of some transcendent entity called a government, the same way Jesus (for one) was nothing but an ordinary man calling himself a transcendent entity called a God.

[quote]I can easily prove a government exists. You are part of one. You can see the leaders of our government. You can use all 5 senses for all things you would need to prove that you are in a government. It can't get much more proved than that, As opposed to god, whom I can none of my senses for his existence. [/quote]

I am not part of a government (unless you mean self-governing which makes it a different case). I don't vote. I don't participate in the system. I am a person whom a group of people aka the State tries to enslave by forcing arbitrary rules onto me at the point of a gun. The same way people such as church ministers attempt to force their bible-based moral rules onto me at the threat of Hell.

[quote]Ok, our crime system isn't perfect, but it's better than most. A man is, in most cases, fairly tried for his crimes, most of the time given a fair warning of what crimes are crimes, and has a group of 12 randomly selected citizens to decide his fate. How is a private court system better?[/quote]

Competition. There's several private agencies competing against each other on the basis of reputation. Each private court must do its best to serve you best in every possible way in case you leave and patronize another one. It can't get any simpler than that.

I haven't heard of Animal Farm, but I've been looking into reading 1984 as soon as I finish The Fountainhead and then Pride and Prejudice, for school and a scholarship essay. *groan*

A text that I like that relates atheism and anarchism is [url=http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/cleyre/etf.html]The Economic Tendency of Freethought[/url] by Voltairine de Cleyre.

*DISCLAIMER* The type of anarchism presented in ETF is likely quite different than noor's anarchism.