You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What or whom do atheists posit as their highest authority?
- Thread starter water
- Start date
As it stands it just seems our English styles differ. Confusion does happen, (although not usually over something so meaningless to anything), but that's the way it is. Next time I will be a little bit more careful over how I type to hopefully avoid you having another pointless hissy-fit.
Oh, and the "now you have irked me" comment has really got me scared.. oooh.
Twat.
Oh, and the "now you have irked me" comment has really got me scared.. oooh.
Twat.
sounds like someone's authority has temper tantrums. good thing we can predict the weather...
Satyr said:Freedom is terrifying, as Sartre knew it was.
Most prefer the tranquility and safety of slavery and in allowing authority figures to dictate their lives.
We are always slaves to something or someone. As caused beings, we have no choice over when, where and that we are born, neither do we have a choice in how the people around us are.
If we think all there is to us is our bodies and the functions emerging from it, then we will be slaves to our body and those functions.
Slaves to our pleasures.
What exactly does your ego or that which you think your "self" to do with you?
Nasor,
Why would they have to back up their claim?
I'm not being tedius. I am simply being thorough.
Why all this? I find such wonderings superfluous.
What is the source of this "burden of proof" concept? Why would anyone want to prove anything to anyone? And why would anyone want to have anything proven to him?
* * *
Crunchy Cat,
And reality is "that which is real". Stating identities means nothing.
It must be that when you posit reality as the highest authority, you mean something particular that has to do with reality.
* * *
jayleew,
Actually, it is the strictly logical mind that will come straight to God by its own method of rigour.
A logical mind cannot go and claim there is no God, for a negative cannot be proven. It is not a matter of who bears the burden of proof. It is a matter of the logical mind remaining true to itself. The logical mind must either refrain from all claims about God, or insist in its decision it has made about god. The only acceptable decision is that there may be a God, but there is lacking knowledge about God.
* * *
Crunchy Cat,
Such a stance does not exlclude the existence of God.
* * *
Cris,
I have no confusion.
A rational agent is, if he is to be a rational agent, able to produce a non-circular and non-selfreferential jsutification for his actions.
Why? Justify your assessment. Why the necessity of reasonableness?
(Esp. in the light that the only reasonableness that humans know, is the human reasonableness.)
* * *
Jayleew,
I do not see how either the qualifier "logical" or "illogical" can be applied to emotion and intuition and insight (ie. "gut feelings").
Like said earlier, a god-like entity is easily and quickly enough inferred.
E.g. if we adhere to linear time logic and linear causality, we soon get to the question of the first cause. Here, one can honestly state that one doesn't know. But if so, one must be consistent (if one is to be a rational agent), and then make no claims about God. Which, however, seems to be extremely hard to do.
* * *
(Q),
God will lead you, if He so wills.
Unfortunately, widely spread secularized religions have sent out the message that one MUST believe in God, as if that were to be done as an act of one's own will. This is where human politics stepped into interpreting religion.
Whether you believe in God is not your own doing. But whether you are faithful to God once He has let you know about Himself, this is your doing.
Demanding that humans present proof for God is nonsensical and testifying of a confusion in what it means to know God. Humans can only point towards God, but a person's knowing God is between this person and God.
* * *
Yorda,
Not so. I see your point, but there is more to say about speaking about God.
If one speaks about God with the intent to speak about God, then God's name is not misused.
When I say "God", I mean 'God, who you know who you are, even though I may not have the right idea of you'. God is not limited by our definitions and our understanding. If we clearly acknowledge this, the we are addressing Him, albeit ex negativo.
* * *
Hapsburg,
Because you have to justify your pursuits rationally (ie. non-circular and non-selfreferential), if you are to be a rational agent.
* * *
spidergoat,
Or something god-like.
Why not?
It’s not really a question of “authority”.
The burden of proof is on someone making the positive claim. If someone tells you that flying pink unicorns exist, it’s up to them to provide some evidence to back up their claim.
Why would they have to back up their claim?
I'm not being tedius. I am simply being thorough.
There’s no need for you to disprove that flying pink unicorns exist before you decide not to believe in them.
Why all this? I find such wonderings superfluous.
What is the source of this "burden of proof" concept? Why would anyone want to prove anything to anyone? And why would anyone want to have anything proven to him?
* * *
Crunchy Cat,
For me, that would be reality.
And reality is "that which is real". Stating identities means nothing.
It must be that when you posit reality as the highest authority, you mean something particular that has to do with reality.
* * *
jayleew,
For the logical mind, God is nearly impossible to believe in.
Actually, it is the strictly logical mind that will come straight to God by its own method of rigour.
A logical mind cannot go and claim there is no God, for a negative cannot be proven. It is not a matter of who bears the burden of proof. It is a matter of the logical mind remaining true to itself. The logical mind must either refrain from all claims about God, or insist in its decision it has made about god. The only acceptable decision is that there may be a God, but there is lacking knowledge about God.
* * *
Crunchy Cat,
I cannot bypass my interpretation but I can align it. If I shake a can of soda
and then open it quicly, reality results in an explosion of soda. I can repeat
the experiment and get consistent results which can be shared, reproduced,
and understood by others.
Faith is not required at all. Reality is not seperate from me. I am a construct
that is a part of it. My perception is part of it as well and while it has
limitations, my intellect can be used to create things with reality that can
perceive reality that my biological perception cannot (ex. x-ray & infrared
detection).
Such a stance does not exlclude the existence of God.
* * *
Cris,
Explain and define how reasonableness is the highest authority there is.
Justify why all should adhere to reasonableness.
I don't understand your confusion.
The alternative is to be unreasonable.
I have no confusion.
A rational agent is, if he is to be a rational agent, able to produce a non-circular and non-selfreferential jsutification for his actions.
Even a god, if it were to exist and have meaningful value, would need to adhere to reasonableness.
Why? Justify your assessment. Why the necessity of reasonableness?
(Esp. in the light that the only reasonableness that humans know, is the human reasonableness.)
* * *
Jayleew,
No, I am merely pointing out that human emotion and gut feelings are illogical to have.
I do not see how either the qualifier "logical" or "illogical" can be applied to emotion and intuition and insight (ie. "gut feelings").
So, in order for the logical mind to believe in God, the person must experience God. Until that time, the existence of God is illogical.
Like said earlier, a god-like entity is easily and quickly enough inferred.
E.g. if we adhere to linear time logic and linear causality, we soon get to the question of the first cause. Here, one can honestly state that one doesn't know. But if so, one must be consistent (if one is to be a rational agent), and then make no claims about God. Which, however, seems to be extremely hard to do.
* * *
(Q),
Please educate the logical mind on how to experience a god? Of course, you must first identify exactly which god we are to experience amongst the hundreds available on the open market.
God will lead you, if He so wills.
Unfortunately, widely spread secularized religions have sent out the message that one MUST believe in God, as if that were to be done as an act of one's own will. This is where human politics stepped into interpreting religion.
Whether you believe in God is not your own doing. But whether you are faithful to God once He has let you know about Himself, this is your doing.
Demanding that humans present proof for God is nonsensical and testifying of a confusion in what it means to know God. Humans can only point towards God, but a person's knowing God is between this person and God.
* * *
Yorda,
Why do religious people use God's "name"? "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
If religious people really believed in God, they wouldn't talk about him. If they talk about him, they risk of misusing his name. If they think they know God, they must also think they are like God. No one knows God except God.
Of course, it is ridiculous to do like this: G-d
It's not the words or letters, it is God himself... you shouldn't talk about HIM. You defile his name if you don't know him. But Jesus said that people will hate him. This is probably because ignorant people (the so called "believers") keep talking about him.
Not so. I see your point, but there is more to say about speaking about God.
If one speaks about God with the intent to speak about God, then God's name is not misused.
When I say "God", I mean 'God, who you know who you are, even though I may not have the right idea of you'. God is not limited by our definitions and our understanding. If we clearly acknowledge this, the we are addressing Him, albeit ex negativo.
* * *
Hapsburg,
Yeah, still, why do we have to answer to an authority? Why must we answer to something?
Because you have to justify your pursuits rationally (ie. non-circular and non-selfreferential), if you are to be a rational agent.
* * *
spidergoat,
The highest authority on everything, the ultimate authority. That upon which an atheist calls as his justification for whatever it is he does.
You mean God?
Or something god-like.
Atheists don't believe in God.
Why not?
mouse,
Why not? Explain.
I find your statement to be very interesting. Why is *demand* to strong a word here?
It is not up to the believer to incite faith in other people. Faith in God is between a person and God, other people cannot decide about its existence. Other people may affect the way said person perceives his own faith and how much he will act on it, but they cannot influence the faith itself, neither (ideally) do they intend to do so.
* * *
stretched,
Justification of your pursuits.
For example, one of your justifications for having sex is "finding out what life can offer", or "the yin and yang". Such justifications are extremely broad, and apply to many more activities than just sex -- so the justifications for it yet has to be presented.
* * *
phlogistician,
Explain how you have reached this conclusion.
Justify why empathy is something positive and/or desirable.
In general, demand is too strong a word. No atheist, nor any other person, can effectively demand you to supply proof for your faith.
Why not? Explain.
I find your statement to be very interesting. Why is *demand* to strong a word here?
However, if you propose that God exists, one of the questions coming from a critical crowd might very well be: "why do you propose that God exists?". If that crowd happens to have enjoyed a scientific education, they are probably going to apply certain established and pragmatic criteria to your answer which you may, or may not, comply with. In the latter case though, do not be surprised if the crowd does not accept your explanation.
It is not up to the believer to incite faith in other people. Faith in God is between a person and God, other people cannot decide about its existence. Other people may affect the way said person perceives his own faith and how much he will act on it, but they cannot influence the faith itself, neither (ideally) do they intend to do so.
* * *
stretched,
Authority, Schmaurority. Why the fixation with authority?
Justification of your pursuits.
For example, one of your justifications for having sex is "finding out what life can offer", or "the yin and yang". Such justifications are extremely broad, and apply to many more activities than just sex -- so the justifications for it yet has to be presented.
* * *
phlogistician,
Without authority it's hard for less empathetic people to feel the guilt they require to punish and hate themselves.
Explain how you have reached this conclusion.
This is why right wing god fearing types seem to hate everybody different from themselves, because they have no empathy, and they hate themselves and deny themselves free thought and pleasure in the name of their god. I'm sure, in time, a treatment will be available to remove these negative feelings, so people won't need god.
Justify why empathy is something positive and/or desirable.
Water,
Then why are you stating one?
I mean reality itself. It sets and enforces all the rules.
It wasn't intended to. The existence of 'God' is excluded as a result
of claim without supportive evidence.
Crunchy Cat,
And reality is "that which is real". Stating identities means nothing.
Then why are you stating one?
It must be that when you posit reality as the highest authority, you mean something particular that has to do with reality.
I mean reality itself. It sets and enforces all the rules.
Such a stance does not exlclude the existence of God.
It wasn't intended to. The existence of 'God' is excluded as a result
of claim without supportive evidence.
Crunchy Cat said:Then why are you stating one?
*You* are the one who brought up the "Reality is that which is real" "definition".
The existence of 'God' is excluded as a result of claim without evidence.
No. This is due to your particular misunderstanding of God and faith in God.
God will lead you, if He so wills.
And if he does not, where does that leave me? Am I to go to hell merely because he chose not to lead me?
Unfortunately, widely spread secularized religions have sent out the message that one MUST believe in God, as if that were to be done as an act of one's own will. This is where human politics stepped into interpreting religion.
Are you saying we have no free will?
Whether you believe in God is not your own doing. But whether you are faithful to God once He has let you know about Himself, this is your doing.
Since he has never let me know anything, how can I be faithful?
Demanding that humans present proof for God is nonsensical and testifying of a confusion in what it means to know God. Humans can only point towards God, but a person's knowing God is between this person and God.
Since no gods have ever "lead" me or let me "know" him, how can I be sure what you say is the truth without some sort of evidence? Why should I take your word? You've already shown yourself to be incompetent with rational thought, why should anyone believe you?
And if he does not, where does that leave me? Am I to go to hell merely because he chose not to lead me?
Unfortunately, widely spread secularized religions have sent out the message that one MUST believe in God, as if that were to be done as an act of one's own will. This is where human politics stepped into interpreting religion.
Are you saying we have no free will?
Whether you believe in God is not your own doing. But whether you are faithful to God once He has let you know about Himself, this is your doing.
Since he has never let me know anything, how can I be faithful?
Demanding that humans present proof for God is nonsensical and testifying of a confusion in what it means to know God. Humans can only point towards God, but a person's knowing God is between this person and God.
Since no gods have ever "lead" me or let me "know" him, how can I be sure what you say is the truth without some sort of evidence? Why should I take your word? You've already shown yourself to be incompetent with rational thought, why should anyone believe you?
(Q) said:God will lead you, if He so wills.
And if he does not, where does that leave me? Am I to go to hell merely because he chose not to lead me?
I don't know, this is between God and you.
What you can do, on your own part, is to be true to logic and not do as if you had proven a negative.
Unfortunately, widely spread secularized religions have sent out the message that one MUST believe in God, as if that were to be done as an act of one's own will. This is where human politics stepped into interpreting religion.
Are you saying we have no free will?
No, I am not saying we have no free will.
I am the one who always steps up and says we have free will.
Whether you believe in God is not your own doing. But whether you are faithful to God once He has let you know about Himself, this is your doing.
Since he has never let me know anything, how can I be faithful?
Your question doesn't apply, unless you are not telling the truth about God having let you know His plans for you.
Demanding that humans present proof for God is nonsensical and testifying of a confusion in what it means to know God. Humans can only point towards God, but a person's knowing God is between this person and God.
Since no gods have ever "lead" me or let me "know" him, how can I be sure what you say is the truth without some sort of evidence?
This is up to you and your application of your free will.
Why should I take your word? You've already shown yourself to be incompetent with rational thought, why should anyone believe you?
I can't affect that. It is up to you whether you believe me or not.
The only thing I have "shown" to be incompetent with, is when I "failed" to live up to your particular understanding of "rationality", which mostly has to deal with a certain brand of common sense.
water said:*You* are the one who brought up the "Reality is that which is real" "definition".
I understand how this interpretation came to be and it's my fault as well.
I had defined reality earlier as "that which exists" and dictionary definition
of the word 'exists' is probably using the antiquated 'real'; hence, the identity
that you arrived at (which would be absolutely correct).
Again, my bad. Let me try an alternative defintion:
"Reality is the presence and relation of information without interpretation"
water said:No. This is due to your particular misunderstanding of God and faith in God.
This is what I find fascinating about this particular virus. We have a claim
for something without supportive evidence. The riddle attached to the virus
states that there will not be proof until the existence of 'God' is completely
accepted as true (i.e. 'belief') and unconditional trust in 'God' (i.e. 'faith')
is established. Only then will 'God' reveal itself to an individual. Over
countlesss generations, those whom could belive and establish faith were
granted social privilage and had increased chances of reproduction... and
here we are today as a society of people bred to 'believe'.
Water, sweetie, understanding and having faith in a fantasy is going to
produce mass inconsistency due to individual and societal interpretation of
illusions that cannot be observed, measured, verified, supported, etc.
The plethora of 'God's, religions, and sects within religions out there is a
validation of this.
waters qualifiers:
I don't know, this is between God and you... Your question doesn't apply... This is up to you... It is up to you...
So, you profess that you "know" god, and profess beyond a shadow of a doubt he does in fact exist. Yet, when you're asked a few simple questions on how one might also achieve your level of "knowledge" with god, you offer nothing at all, except to say that you don't know and its up to me.
And since there are many members here who have searched most of their lives for just such a relationship with god but never found anything, one can only assume you have no relationship at all, except with your own vivid imagination
I submit to you that I demand salvation and I demand it now, and that your god must make himself known to me! I deserve to know him as equally as anyone, including you.
Therefore, I await to accept him.
I don't know, this is between God and you... Your question doesn't apply... This is up to you... It is up to you...
So, you profess that you "know" god, and profess beyond a shadow of a doubt he does in fact exist. Yet, when you're asked a few simple questions on how one might also achieve your level of "knowledge" with god, you offer nothing at all, except to say that you don't know and its up to me.
And since there are many members here who have searched most of their lives for just such a relationship with god but never found anything, one can only assume you have no relationship at all, except with your own vivid imagination
I submit to you that I demand salvation and I demand it now, and that your god must make himself known to me! I deserve to know him as equally as anyone, including you.
Therefore, I await to accept him.
(Q) said:waters qualifiers:
I don't know, this is between God and you... Your question doesn't apply... This is up to you... It is up to you...
So, you profess that you "know" god, and profess beyond a shadow of a doubt he does in fact exist. Yet, when you're asked a few simple questions on how one might also achieve your level of "knowledge" with god, you offer nothing at all, except to say that you don't know and its up to me.
Because it is up to you. I have given you some pointers, but humans can do no more.
And since there are many members here who have searched most of their lives for just such a relationship with god but never found anything, one can only assume you have no relationship at all, except with your own vivid imagination
What were they willing to find? God or just a comfortable illusion?
I submit to you that I demand salvation and I demand it now, and that your god must make himself known to me! I deserve to know him as equally as anyone, including you.
Therefore, I await to accept him.
Romans 10:13
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Call.
Crunchy Cat said:Again, my bad. Let me try an alternative defintion:
"Reality is the presence and relation of information without interpretation"
Can we be aware of anything without interpretation?
This is what I find fascinating about this particular virus. We have a claim
for something without supportive evidence.
It is essentially about a person's honesty. That is between the person and God.
There is no supportive evidence of a person's honesty. They might be good players.
The riddle attached to the virus
states that there will not be proof until the existence of 'God' is completely
accepted as true (i.e. 'belief') and unconditional trust in 'God' (i.e. 'faith')
is established. Only then will 'God' reveal itself to an individual. Over
countlesss generations, those whom could belive and establish faith were
granted social privilage and had increased chances of reproduction... and
here we are today as a society of people bred to 'believe'.
That was, and still is, mixing politics and religion.
Water, sweetie, understanding and having faith in a fantasy is going to
produce mass inconsistency due to individual and societal interpretation of
illusions that cannot be observed, measured, verified, supported, etc.
The plethora of 'God's, religions, and sects within religions out there is a
validation of this.
If they have faith in a fantasy, then this is surely likely to create a lot of problems, and it also has so far.
So, you profess that you "know" god, and profess beyond a shadow of a doubt he does in fact exist. Yet, when you're asked a few simple questions on how one might also achieve your level of "knowledge" with god, you offer nothing at all, except to say that you don't know and its up to me.
Q, as you will undoubtedly know, the religious types are very quick to spill their: "you must search for god" garbage - generally without indicating that it happens to be the hardest search imagineable. One can lift up every universal pebble and still find no sign of this being that loves his humans oh so much. Then, as you will know, they say you're not searching the right way.. you have to really open your heart to it etc. I posted the following story a while back, and it's amazing but the only response I got was: "well.. I don't know why.. god works in mysterious ways". The usual religious man's tripe. I will post the very short story in it's entirety here... Who knows, perhaps the life-confused Water can provide suitable explanation for it..
-----------
Many people have told me that in order to find God, one must seek him. To me this has always seemed somewhat a bizarre notion. The world’s most powerful, and arguably the world’s most loving being, and he resorts to hiding in the shadows. This being that many would claim is the source of light, seems more comfortable in the darkness, in the void where man cannot reach.
However, I came to the conclusion that God is somewhat similar to Bigfoot. Three hundred years Bigfoot has roamed this planet, and yet he has only been seen a dozen times. Those of us who truly seek Bigfoot must truly search for him. You don’t just wake up one day and find Bigfoot, so there’s no reason to believe God would be any different. And so eventually I found myself searching: I looked under the sofa, I shuffled through the closet, and I picked up every rock that lay in my garden for sign of this being. I bought a submarine and explored the depths of the ocean, I stole the Hubble Space Telescope to view the depths of the big black expanse above us, and I purchased a dune buggy that was on special offer in Toys R Us to search the arid desert regions. All of this ended up in futility, and having explored this planet and beyond to an extreme degree, I couldn’t even find a molecule going by the name of God.
And then my son died.
You would be amazed at how sobering the death of a son can be. You would be amazed at how many questions scurry through your mind like ants on a summer night. You would be amazed at how much you need answers. There was no anger, which comes later in the process, just a general lack of understanding. I asked the doctors, and they gave me an explanation. I asked the priest who also gave me an explanation. I asked the rabbi, the philosopher, the Buddhist, the man who painted my fence and the woman at the bus stop. All of them gave me an answer. As you will know, no human is perfect, and yet they all answered me. The one being that is perfect declined from comment. What does this say of perfection?
When I really sought an answer, everyone helped. God hid. When I really needed help, everyone tried their best, even with all their imperfections. God hid.
What do we conclude about the all loving, perfect being that seems to find hide and seek so enjoyable, even at a time when man is at his very lowest? Do we claim him loving or caring, or even all knowing when at best he cannot help when people ask, he cannot speak when people need to hear, he cannot feel when people need a shoulder to lean on?
I would of course dare one man to say I was not humble. To that man I would ask he experience the death of a son to know what humility is. To know what it is like to be powerless, and yet to seek answers, and to seek help. I did just that, and those who answered did not hide but became more visible. God just crawled further into the void. It was incredible to see all the people that came to me. They did not ask that I seek them and they did not ask that I must find or want them. They came to me without asking, and simply out of love and out of kindness. Where was God through all of this? Nobody knows. Perhaps he was vacationing in a galaxy far far away. The strange thing is though that my mother, who was vacationing far far away, still managed a response.
The very word ‘love’ becomes as worthless as a car with no wheels, and ‘perfection’ can only be seen in the imperfect. And so we have something to think about. In this case, isn’t the imperfect perfect? And isn’t the perfect imperfect? Where the perfect has failed, which goes against the very definition of perfect, the imperfect has succeeded. While we have no need to expect anything from imperfection, that luxury does not extend to perfection which by very definition does not have a choice in the matter.
I have the feeling that eventually I will meet God and ask him why he wasn’t there when I needed him most. To this he will undoubtedly respond: “Nobody’s perfect”.
I have given you some pointers
You have "pointed" to nothing at all. You just admitted you didn't know.
What were they willing to find? God or just a comfortable illusion?
I just said the were looking for god, please pay attention and stop acting dumb.
Call.
Yes, I know, you just said that above and I asked how and you said you didn't know. Please stop repeating yourself and answer the questions posed to you or shut the fuck up!
You have "pointed" to nothing at all. You just admitted you didn't know.
What were they willing to find? God or just a comfortable illusion?
I just said the were looking for god, please pay attention and stop acting dumb.
Call.
Yes, I know, you just said that above and I asked how and you said you didn't know. Please stop repeating yourself and answer the questions posed to you or shut the fuck up!
Crunchy cat said:sounds like someone's authority has temper tantrums. good thing we can predict the weather...
It wasn't weather change... have you ever seen it rain so much that the whole earth is covered with water... you know it came from the sahara desert... that's why it's so dry now... before it was a paradise. We know that the flood came 5000 years ago, and also, we know that the sahara desert became dry at at that moment.
Clockwood said:In babylonian myth the reason for the flood was just that mankind was too noisy.
In the Bible the reason is the same. Naturally, of course, since it was the same flood.
water said:We are always slaves to something or someone.
It's unfair that god made us that way. It's unfair that he made us dumb.
Last edited:
Satyr said:“Highest Authority” hints at the absolute, at a gradation of authority.
There was, is and ever will be only one authority for any individual, living creature, and that is ‘self’.
No, matter how illusionary and faulty this starting proposition is, it is the beginning and end of all consciousness, the wick from where the flame comes out of and looks back at itself.
I disagree with the idea that self is the beginning and end of all consciousness, unless you mean by 'self' personal consciousness rather than a maintained concept creating an idea of individual personality.
consciousness exists before the idea of self, and consciousness exists after the idea of self. Its flawed logic to assume that if we were to no longer process reality conceptually, and no longer maintained a sense of self or ego, that we couldnt function or that there would be nothing left to do anything. or maybe the logic isnt flawed but rather the progression is unrealistic and unproductive. Just because we cant see how a thing could be possible doesnt mean it isnt possible.