What are the issues atheists have with control?

[lightgigantic]

Confidence statement.
Where is your reason / rationale for such a statement? Where is your evidence?

where is your evidence that a person can exist without accepting the authority of anything, even if it is the authority of their own imperfect senses?

The default position for everyone SHOULD be their ability to reason.

lust/envy/avarice is commonly observed to have the capacity to over turn reason

Unfortunately there are some who decide to delegate that to their religion.

more unfortunate are those who delegate that to their imperfect senses

Some of us choose not to.

thus they land at the default position of accepting "something else"

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh come on. What makes atheists more lustful than the theists who indulge themselves in an entirely selfish fantasy which also transfers to politics and power

selfishness in the pursuit of politics and power is not symptomatic of perfected theism

If any religion was rationally and evidently true, then I would not reject religion because it just happens to have more control. But the fact that religion is a means to control a population is just one thing that shows religion for what it is: A tool for greedy men to make people do what they want them to do.

so you would hold a type of religion that didn't bear a social influence as more credible?
Is anyone who occupies a position of power greedy by necessity?

How vague. I still don't understand this fear of control you label atheists with. I am going to a pub tonight, and I must behave accordingly otherwise I'll be thrown out of the pub. I am fine with that. I must also behave in certain ways to avoid jail. I am fine with that.

But if you are talking about control relating to god... well, it's not a case of not wanting to be controlled by god, it's more a rational sense of: "well why the fuck should something that effectively doesn't exist decide where I put my penis?"

Once again, this is a separate issue (the nature of god's existence/nonexistence)

If you read the OP, you can see it was more about how atheists commonly describe religion as a "controlling force" as a sufficient means to reject religion (which begs the question what force they will accept by default, for say, determining where they will put their penis - aka lust, envy, avarice etc)

I object to control by alleged deities because it absolves the actual controller - the one who speaks for the deity - of accountability.

its not clear how a person is absolved from accountability in that circumstance

I do not want to be in the power of arbitrary authority that cannot be held to account for their decisions and commands. If that means I have "issues" with authority, so be it.

then the issues you have with religion must be a drop in the ocean compared to the issues you have with society/politics

Or reason, whichever you prefer.

then why is it commonly seen that the forces of wrath,lust, envy etc can surmount reason?

Did you forget about the Catholic priests who like to fondle little boys?

then such persons would be on the same conditioned platform of existence as atheists (namely they accept some other "authority" because they cannot accept the authority of god)

I think anyone would abhor being controlled by someone who used myth and superstition as their guidance, as would someone who used Astrology, Tarot Cards or an Ouija board as their guides.

once again, this is a separate issue about the nature of god's existence/non existence - the OP was more about how and why atheists commonly express how religion has a controlling element, and that notion of being controlled is a sufficient reason (outside of issues of god's existence/nonexistence) for god to be rejected.

 

[KennyJC]

selfishness in the pursuit of politics and power is not symptomatic of perfected theism

And perfected theism is? Just as you can say perfected theism (what a BS phrase) results in lack of selfishness, I, an atheist would say that a perfect person is not selfish with religion having nothing to do with it. But there is no such thing as someone who isn't selfish - you are on an expensive computer that could be sold to prevent a few people going hungry in the world. Also, it'd be hard to be a perfect theist in this regard since the scripture of some of the major religions is mostly about power and politics... especially power.

so you would hold a type of religion that didn't bear a social influence as more credible?
Is anyone who occupies a position of power greedy by necessity?

Typically anyone who is strongly religious and in power is more likely to have faith wars. And don't deny this... the state of the world today is religion = war and secular countries = peace. War I am sure you will agree is the definition of lust and greed. Sweden with 87% atheist isn't going to bomb anyone any time soon are they?

Once again, this is a separate issue (the nature of god's existence/nonexistence)

It's not a separate issue... It's still control that is in the life of the atheist. Sometimes atheists will be in favor of more control in some things, and less control in others

If you read the OP, you can see it was more about how atheists commonly describe religion as a "controlling force" as a sufficient means to reject religion

And I am telling you that it is just one reason to reject religion and not the prime reason for rejection. The prime reason for rejection is that there is not a jot of evidence for it's far out claims.

(which begs the question what force they will accept by default, for say, determining where they will put their penis - aka lust, envy, avarice etc)

The Law? So you can't just put your penis anywhere since someone else might object which constitutes rape. You can put your penis anywhere you want if the other person agrees.

 

[Sarkus]

where is your evidence that a person can exist without accepting the authority of anything, even if it is the authority of their own imperfect senses?

This question is irrelevant to the specific point I asked - so please have the courtesy to answer the question that was asked:

Where is your reason / rationale for your prior statement? ("which tends to land such persons in the default position of accepting the authority of their lust/envy/avarice/etc")
Where is your evidence?

Stop avoiding answering questions with questions of your own.

lust/envy/avarice is commonly observed to have the capacity to over turn reason

So what? Default positions are often superceded with other positions.

more unfortunate are those who delegate that to their imperfect senses

Why?
You speak such inane comments without any backup whatsoever.
Please explain why delegating authority to ones senses and reason is more unfortunate than delegating to religion?

thus they land at the default position of accepting "something else"

So what? That is irrelevant - and you know it.
The specific point in question was delegating it to RELIGION. Whether it is something else, internally generated or not, is irrelevant to this specific point.

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
selfishness in the pursuit of politics and power is not symptomatic of perfected theism
”
And perfected theism is?

full obedience to god

Just as you can say perfected theism (what a BS phrase) results in lack of selfishness, I, an atheist would say that a perfect person is not selfish with religion having nothing to do with it. But there is no such thing as someone who isn't selfish - you are on an expensive computer that could be sold to prevent a few people going hungry in the world.

fortunately god doesn't agree with atheists in thinking that theists should be disempowered (ie be bereft of all means of bearing a social influence)

Also, it'd be hard to be a perfect theist in this regard since the scripture of some of the major religions is mostly about power and politics... especially power.

they are not about selfishness in the pursuit of power and politics however

“
so you would hold a type of religion that didn't bear a social influence as more credible?
Is anyone who occupies a position of power greedy by necessity?

”
Typically anyone who is strongly religious and in power is more likely to have faith wars.

is it possible for a person to occupy a position of power with out having recourse to chastisement?

And don't deny this... the state of the world today is religion = war and secular countries = peace. War I am sure you will agree is the definition of lust and greed. Sweden with 87% atheist isn't going to bomb anyone any time soon are they?

instead they rely on first world ethics (which involves loading off all their crap to 3rd world countries)

“
Once again, this is a separate issue (the nature of god's existence/nonexistence)
”
It's not a separate issue... It's still control that is in the life of the atheist. Sometimes atheists will be in favor of more control in some things, and less control in others

it is a separate issue, since the Op is dealing with why an atheist will commonly offer "Look religion has a controlling influence - I am glad I am not controlled" as a sufficient argument (outside of the issue of god's existence/non existence) for the rejection of religion

“
(which begs the question what force they will accept by default, for say, determining where they will put their penis - aka lust, envy, avarice etc)
”
The Law? So you can't just put your penis anywhere since someone else might object which constitutes rape. You can put your penis anywhere you want if the other person agrees.

then obviously people in jail serving sentences for rape accepted a different authority

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
where is your evidence that a person can exist without accepting the authority of anything, even if it is the authority of their own imperfect senses?
”
This question is irrelevant to the specific point I asked - so please have the courtesy to answer the question that was asked:

Where is your reason / rationale for your prior statement? ("which tends to land such persons in the default position of accepting the authority of their lust/envy/avarice/etc")
Where is your evidence?

the evidence that it impossible for a person to not accept some authority

Stop avoiding answering questions with questions of your own.

its legitimate - if a person rejects any established authority on normative values they act according to either
a) another body of normative values (which would beg the q in the case of the OP in regard to atheists)
b) manufacture their own behavior pattern (through the agency of personal likes and dislikes aka - lust and avarice)

“
lust/envy/avarice is commonly observed to have the capacity to over turn reason
”
So what? Default positions are often superceded with other positions.

hence default positions are vacated due to accepting something

“
more unfortunate are those who delegate that to their imperfect senses
”
Why?
You speak such inane comments without any backup whatsoever.
Please explain why delegating authority to ones senses and reason is more unfortunate than delegating to religion?

to begin with I said delegating to their senses (as opposed to delegating to their reason)

“
thus they land at the default position of accepting "something else"
”
So what? That is irrelevant - and you know it.
The specific point in question was delegating it to RELIGION. Whether it is something else, internally generated or not, is irrelevant to this specific point.

it is relevant to the OP however

 

[greenberg]

What are the issues atheists have with control?
...
Is it incorrect to state that atheists abhor the notion of being controlled?

I think that when someone (including atheists) has a problem with control, this is the manifestation, the symptom that lust and bewilderment have ceased to be enjoyable, or at least ceased to be as enjoyable as they used to be. At that point, one wants to exert control oneself, in order to get the enjyoment back; these attempts at control are manifested as various forms of resistance.

Also, there is a common experience that the authority one used to submit oneself to, has become corrupted, has betrayed one, or has simply failed to execute its function. Such as older siblings and parents not standing up for the younger child, or being abused by the police or otherwise mistreated by those in one or other form of authority over oneself. This can lead to the person having a general mistrust for any authority.
However, I argue that this sort of mistrust for authority is principally the same phenomenon as I described earlier. For example, children often act in lust and bewilderment (and in children, we tend to call that "playful curiosity", not "lust and bewilderment") - and it's okay, as long as the other siblings and parents make sure nothing too bad comes from such actions. But sooner or later, other siblings and parents cannot prevent the child from reaping the negative results of its actions; e.g. the mother won't always be around to prevent the child from swallowing everything it can ... The child then develops some mistrust for the other family members, and also makes attempts to control the situation as best it can (e.g. screaming to get attention, following others around, giving orders ...).



P.S.
I hope you don't mind me resurrecting these old threads - I think the topics are excellent!

 

[greenberg]

I find atheists are less likely to accept authority on anything.

Personal experience. Most scientists tend to be atheists, and it's the nature of science to find things out based on observation and evidence rather than authority.

Scientists still accept that the methodology of science is authoritative.