What or whom do atheists posit as their highest authority?
- Thread starter water
- Start date
Rosnet said:
Everything is possibly a lie.
Every assertion based on empirical observation is inherently relativistic; thus, such assertions can be either true or not.
I've heard of God from other people. Yet, as a little child, like all, I have made the experience of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence (to a child, its parents are all that -- until they first fail; but the experience is there nonetheless). In religions, these qualifiers are usually those of God.
But all in all: Doubt God all you want, think God is only man's projection, but it remains that there has been something here before you, and that you didn't give yourself life.
You can try evolution and all that -- but you don't get behind the Big Bang. The mystery remains. If you think it is a worthless mystery, you'll denigrate and belittle it; if you are happy to be alive and think this mystery is somehow important to you, you'll think of God.
stretched said:
Others are rational agents too, or can be. They want to hear your justifications, to see if you are indeed a rational agent.
And geese walk.
You've said nothing.
Of course you are not concerned about the state. You are not concerned about other people.
The United States of America, The Republic of South Africa, The Russian Federation, etc.
And it is because of careless people like you that government corruption and social exploitation can take place: because the citizens simply do not care what is happening in their state, they only think of themselves. They do like they have nothing to do with what is going on in the country.
Imagine that the government would suddenly abandon all laws, and say "Life is to live", imagine the government would do like you. What do we get? Dictature, chaos, dictature, chaos, ...
The point is, that with your careless attitude, you vote for such people.
Yes.
No.
There is such a thing as reasonably possible. It is reasonably possible that the sun will explode someday in the long future. It is not reasonably possible that pink unicorns exist.
Okay. So you think there's a mystery about what happened efore the Big Bang?
I'll put it like this. There's a universe, and all the galaxies and stuff, and on Earth, there's life, and intelligent beings. All this is very complex. It's very difficult to explain this. But if there was a very powerful Creator, then it is quite possible that he created us with his powers. Here's the problem that comes up. If he created us, and he has such amazing powers, then he's actually more complex than all this that we see today. So you presume that the universe is too complex to have into existence by itself, but it is very probable that something more complex than that came into existence by itself. Maybe you argue that God didn't 'come into existence'. He always was. Still, I turn this argument aginst itself. If it is possible that God always existed, then why isn't it possible that the universe always existed in some form or other, before and after the big Bang)? Is it because he has so many powers? But if, in order for him to have existed in the first place, he had to use these powers... well, you're saying that God used his powers to create himself. You said this youself. "You don't give youself life". Explain this. Think about it...
Don't think it's lack of empathy. I used to believe in God once. And about the experiences you had, have you heard of John Nash?
Okay. So you think there's a mystery about what happened efore the Big Bang?
I'll put it like this. There's a universe, and all the galaxies and stuff, and on Earth, there's life, and intelligent beings. All this is very complex. It's very difficult to explain this. But if there was a very powerful Creator, then it is quite possible that he created us with his powers. Here's the problem that comes up. If he created us, and he has such amazing powers, then he's actually more complex than all this that we see today. So you presume that the universe is too complex to have into existence by itself, but it is very probable that something more complex than that came into existence by itself. Maybe you argue that God didn't 'come into existence'. He always was. Still, I turn this argument aginst itself. If it is possible that God always existed, then why isn't it possible that the universe always existed in some form or other, before and after the big Bang)? Is it because he has so many powers? But if, in order for him to have existed in the first place, he had to use these powers... well, you're saying that God used his powers to create himself. You said this youself. "You don't give youself life". Explain this. Think about it...
Don't think it's lack of empathy. I used to believe in God once. And about the experiences you had, have you heard of John Nash?
Maybe one day you'll get serious and get over your hate for God and theists.
I cannot hate that which I don't believe.
I don't hate theists, I pity them.
However, I can't stand theists, like yourself, who profess to 'know' god but are completely impotent to point out just how to find him, yet blather on about their so-called relationships with god. People like you who don't understand anything beyond the bible and could care less to know. People like you who would rather die than live in reality. You, and those like you, are much of the reason of what's wrong with the world today.
Hopefully, some day you'll get serious and get over the god fantasies and join reality, but I doubt it - you'll always remain ignorant.
I cannot hate that which I don't believe.
I don't hate theists, I pity them.
However, I can't stand theists, like yourself, who profess to 'know' god but are completely impotent to point out just how to find him, yet blather on about their so-called relationships with god. People like you who don't understand anything beyond the bible and could care less to know. People like you who would rather die than live in reality. You, and those like you, are much of the reason of what's wrong with the world today.
Hopefully, some day you'll get serious and get over the god fantasies and join reality, but I doubt it - you'll always remain ignorant.
I was talking about watre's supposition that it is improbable for such a complex world to have come into being wthout a creator. <I>If</I> this is the premise, then the argument makes sense. And I know it's not a very good argument that an increased complexity makes it more improbable to have come in to existence by itself. But this is an issue that has to be settled first. And asa matter of fact, there is an argument for the existence of god based on this assumption. It goes something like this.
Consider the eye of camera. It's a complex arrangement. And it was created by man. Now consider the eye of a rabbit. It's many times more complex. Thus, there must have been someone many times more comlex than man, who created the rabbit's eye.
I think I saw it referred to in 'Hyperspace', by Michio Kaku. I'm not sure. Well, since that is one of the arguments that theists use, it would be nice to turn it against them. Water's idea wasa bit different.
Consider the eye of camera. It's a complex arrangement. And it was created by man. Now consider the eye of a rabbit. It's many times more complex. Thus, there must have been someone many times more comlex than man, who created the rabbit's eye.
I think I saw it referred to in 'Hyperspace', by Michio Kaku. I'm not sure. Well, since that is one of the arguments that theists use, it would be nice to turn it against them. Water's idea wasa bit different.
That's it?
Fucking hell Water, I make a long post explaining it all in depth, and the best you can manage is to come up with a couple of meaningless sentences, once again displaying that same ignorance of you thinking you can speak for me that I asked you kindly not to do.
You don't know me, you can't speak for me, and clearly you have nothing of worth to say.
And what utter tripe it is:
A) I'm an atheist, which very swiftly negates every single of the 40 or so words you said.
B) 'god' is your illusion.
You're a complete waste of space.
You can try evolution and all that -- but you don't get behind the Big Bang. The mystery remains.
It is a 'mystery' to those who have their noses buried in the bible and refuse to learn anything else. And of course, it must remain a mystery in order to support the god fantasy, whether by ignorance or rejection of facts.
Children are getting smarter at younger ages as knowledge grows and teaching methods improve. After some time, those children will understand much of the world around them at a very young age, and will ultimately reject the ignornace of religion before they are completely indoctrinated.
It's little wonder why Christians are beginning to panic and are demanding Creationism be taught in schools. They can only amend their scriptures so long to fit current scientific understandings and will eventually have to make a stand.
They are the soldiers of Custer walking towards Little Big Horn.
It is a 'mystery' to those who have their noses buried in the bible and refuse to learn anything else. And of course, it must remain a mystery in order to support the god fantasy, whether by ignorance or rejection of facts.
Children are getting smarter at younger ages as knowledge grows and teaching methods improve. After some time, those children will understand much of the world around them at a very young age, and will ultimately reject the ignornace of religion before they are completely indoctrinated.
It's little wonder why Christians are beginning to panic and are demanding Creationism be taught in schools. They can only amend their scriptures so long to fit current scientific understandings and will eventually have to make a stand.
They are the soldiers of Custer walking towards Little Big Horn.
Have YOU prayed?
Have YOU tried it YOURSELF?
Once again, you repeat the same questions over and over all the while blatanly ignoring the answers you've already been given. And if you claim to not be ignoring those answers, then you must be incredibly, if not completely stupid.
Have YOU tried it YOURSELF?
Once again, you repeat the same questions over and over all the while blatanly ignoring the answers you've already been given. And if you claim to not be ignoring those answers, then you must be incredibly, if not completely stupid.
Rosnet,
I'm not presuming that.
No, I'm not saying that.
I discard the argument of complexity based on this outlook: Differentiation is an illusion. For something to exist as separate, it is only necessary to name it.
The perceived complexity is due to the differentiation observers project onto reality. The more parts, components, elements we identify (" "), the more complex the universe seems. (It seemed a bit less complex when the atom was still deemed non-dividable, for example.)
God's act is called *creation*. Speaking in terms of a more sarcastic logic, creation equals hocus-pocus -- but I think creation is something like that, but without the cheap mysticism.
However, when God created, this doesn't mean that everything was created the way *we* perceive it. Some of the differentiations are our product. And this is the problem: the way God differentiated is not necessarily the way we differentiate. But when we look at the creation, we project *our* differentiation on it, and without God, we have no way of knowing whether our projected differentiation is the same one as the one God made and is making.
Yes, I have more than just heard of John Nash. I have great respect for him.
But don't think I have any experiences with God of the kind like hallucinations. It is my conviction that believing in God is far far simpler than what we usually get told. It is my conviction that God makes signs to those who ask for them -- but that those signs are such that people can understand them and which prompt them to some action. This means that it is all quite plain and everydayish.
1 Cor. 13:12
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I'm not presuming that.
No, I'm not saying that.
I discard the argument of complexity based on this outlook: Differentiation is an illusion. For something to exist as separate, it is only necessary to name it.
The perceived complexity is due to the differentiation observers project onto reality. The more parts, components, elements we identify (" "), the more complex the universe seems. (It seemed a bit less complex when the atom was still deemed non-dividable, for example.)
God's act is called *creation*. Speaking in terms of a more sarcastic logic, creation equals hocus-pocus -- but I think creation is something like that, but without the cheap mysticism.
However, when God created, this doesn't mean that everything was created the way *we* perceive it. Some of the differentiations are our product. And this is the problem: the way God differentiated is not necessarily the way we differentiate. But when we look at the creation, we project *our* differentiation on it, and without God, we have no way of knowing whether our projected differentiation is the same one as the one God made and is making.
Yes, I have more than just heard of John Nash. I have great respect for him.
But don't think I have any experiences with God of the kind like hallucinations. It is my conviction that believing in God is far far simpler than what we usually get told. It is my conviction that God makes signs to those who ask for them -- but that those signs are such that people can understand them and which prompt them to some action. This means that it is all quite plain and everydayish.
1 Cor. 13:12
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Quote stretched:
“Can ALL humanity follow Christianity?”
Quote w:
“Yes.”
* And the Pope is Protestant.
Quote Stretch:
“Does Christianity not cause social DIVISION?”
Quote w:
“No.”
* Them pink tinted glasses have darkened somewhat. Can you still see? Have you been to Northern Ireland? (want more examples?)
“Can ALL humanity follow Christianity?”
Quote w:
“Yes.”
* And the Pope is Protestant.
Quote Stretch:
“Does Christianity not cause social DIVISION?”
Quote w:
“No.”
* Them pink tinted glasses have darkened somewhat. Can you still see? Have you been to Northern Ireland? (want more examples?)
What prevents anyone to follow Christ, in your opinion?stretched said:
Have you been to Northern Ireland? If so, you would know that people cause division, and such examples are lapses of Christianity. Aggression is an example of unforgiveness, not forgiveness.
PS. [Off Topic]
As with our previous discussion on the Crusades, and how "peaceful" the Middle East was before Christianity, I looked up this article on the history of Irish Terrorism. You don't always seem to appreciate the politics and secular history involved. Here's an extract:
Following the Roman withdrawal from Britain, around 400AD, the Celtic population which had been settled in the British Isles for several centuries was mostly driven out of England by the Anglo-Saxons. However, in Scotland, Wales and Ireland the Celtic Race survived. Around this time Ireland was converted to Christianity and became the "Land of Saints and Scholars" in a Western cope swept by barbarism, as the Dark Ages descended on the remnants of the Roman Empire. (9: 196)
In 1171, a century after the Norman conquest of England in 1066, Norman barons invaded and settled parts of southern and eastern Ireland. They rapidly blended with the native Irish chiefs, losing their allegiance to the King in England, and thus Ireland remained a federation of quarreling earldoms. (9: 319-330)
In 1171, a century after the Norman conquest of England in 1066, Norman barons invaded and settled parts of southern and eastern Ireland. They rapidly blended with the native Irish chiefs, losing their allegiance to the King in England, and thus Ireland remained a federation of quarreling earldoms. (9: 319-330)
Last edited:
Quote J:
“What prevents anyone to follow Christ, in your opinion?”
* Well, if I was born into a Muslim family, that would be a REAL preventative factor. But you are right, broadly speaking, there is nothing essentially obstructive if one WANTS or NEEDS to follow the path. But, I can further say that in applying logic and rational thought to the Christian religion, that in itself would create an obstacle. The counter argument is “be like little children, remain naive”. No can do.
Quote J:
“Have you been to Northern Ireland? If so, you would know that people cause division, and such examples are lapses of Christianity. Aggression is an example of unforgiveness, not forgiveness.”
* Steady on, I am sure you are tired of this approach, but it is entirely valid.. People, via human nature do cause division. But that is a cop out as these examples that follow have no legs without religion. I agree that the cause of the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland are multi-faceted, but whatever “history”, “man” and “politics” (unionist, loyalist, etc.) you add to this equation, if you remove the Catholic and Protestant faiths, you thereby largely resolve this particular conflict. There is division and conflict DIRECTLY related to religion.
Quote from: http://allfreeessays.com/student/Northern_Ireland_Conflict-Religion_vs_Politics.html
“This town (Belfast) is governed by Protestants, but the bone and sinew of the town is Roman Catholic."(Brewer & Higgins 1998).
“To the Irish, their identity was rooted in the Church and the Land. British imperialism saw the implementation of land lordship in Ireland. Protestant landlords rented land to Catholic tenants, turning an economic system into one wrought with deep religious animosity.”
“While both Protestantism and Catholicism are forms of Christianity, the beliefs surrounding how society should be structured can lead to political conflict.”
* I am simply responding to water`s denial that Christiianity causes social division. Some more examples are the Christian-Muslim conflict in Nigeria, and the below.
“The conflict in the Malaccas where, in the past two years, about 4,000 people have been killed in Christian-Muslim fighting, and about 500,000 displaced, according to Indonesian Red Cross figures.”
(http://www.asiasource.org/asip/sidneyjones.cfm)
* But of course Christianity does not cause division or conflict. I am just misunderstanding everything.
“What prevents anyone to follow Christ, in your opinion?”
* Well, if I was born into a Muslim family, that would be a REAL preventative factor. But you are right, broadly speaking, there is nothing essentially obstructive if one WANTS or NEEDS to follow the path. But, I can further say that in applying logic and rational thought to the Christian religion, that in itself would create an obstacle. The counter argument is “be like little children, remain naive”. No can do.
Quote J:
“Have you been to Northern Ireland? If so, you would know that people cause division, and such examples are lapses of Christianity. Aggression is an example of unforgiveness, not forgiveness.”
* Steady on, I am sure you are tired of this approach, but it is entirely valid.. People, via human nature do cause division. But that is a cop out as these examples that follow have no legs without religion. I agree that the cause of the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland are multi-faceted, but whatever “history”, “man” and “politics” (unionist, loyalist, etc.) you add to this equation, if you remove the Catholic and Protestant faiths, you thereby largely resolve this particular conflict. There is division and conflict DIRECTLY related to religion.
Quote from: http://allfreeessays.com/student/Northern_Ireland_Conflict-Religion_vs_Politics.html
“This town (Belfast) is governed by Protestants, but the bone and sinew of the town is Roman Catholic."(Brewer & Higgins 1998).
“To the Irish, their identity was rooted in the Church and the Land. British imperialism saw the implementation of land lordship in Ireland. Protestant landlords rented land to Catholic tenants, turning an economic system into one wrought with deep religious animosity.”
“While both Protestantism and Catholicism are forms of Christianity, the beliefs surrounding how society should be structured can lead to political conflict.”
* I am simply responding to water`s denial that Christiianity causes social division. Some more examples are the Christian-Muslim conflict in Nigeria, and the below.
“The conflict in the Malaccas where, in the past two years, about 4,000 people have been killed in Christian-Muslim fighting, and about 500,000 displaced, according to Indonesian Red Cross figures.”
(http://www.asiasource.org/asip/sidneyjones.cfm)
* But of course Christianity does not cause division or conflict. I am just misunderstanding everything.
stretched said:
How?
"Be like little children" does not equal "naive".
I don't know where you got this from.
People who are not serving God want division, for this is how they can find and make their place in the world. They will pursue it in the name of whatever comes handy, be it religion or politics.
Drop the cynical tone.
You are, without warrant, equating historic PRACTICE of Christianity with TEACHINGS of Christianity.
Do yoou think it is valid to make such equations?
Authority??
What is authority?
Authority is necessary in human relations, to keep anarchy at bay. It's a construct representing an amalgum of the will of the representatives of the people. It's what we allow people who enforce laws and such.
Of course an "expert" has "authority" as well, when he can demonstrate his expertise and gain acceptance (consensus) in his genera.
Authority is the end result of "might is right" applied within a social arrangment. "We lend our might to this guy." or he takes it from them with is own "might is right".
But of course you're talking about using your sky-daddy as a mentor. Funny how people project themselves into some meme-complex and then call it an entity separate from the life they give it, as if your conception of "boss" is somehow separate from yourself. That is delusion.
If you claim otherwise, please demonstrate how your conception of 'god' is more than a projection of yourself.
You know damned well you can't.
So does anyone of reasonable intellect.
Yet you persist.
You bunch of mental bitches.
There is no "highest authority".
Oh no wait. Yeah I got it.
The universe is the highest authority. The tao.
What is authority?
Authority is necessary in human relations, to keep anarchy at bay. It's a construct representing an amalgum of the will of the representatives of the people. It's what we allow people who enforce laws and such.
Of course an "expert" has "authority" as well, when he can demonstrate his expertise and gain acceptance (consensus) in his genera.
Authority is the end result of "might is right" applied within a social arrangment. "We lend our might to this guy." or he takes it from them with is own "might is right".
But of course you're talking about using your sky-daddy as a mentor. Funny how people project themselves into some meme-complex and then call it an entity separate from the life they give it, as if your conception of "boss" is somehow separate from yourself. That is delusion.
If you claim otherwise, please demonstrate how your conception of 'god' is more than a projection of yourself.
You know damned well you can't.
So does anyone of reasonable intellect.
Yet you persist.
You bunch of mental bitches.
There is no "highest authority".
Oh no wait. Yeah I got it.
The universe is the highest authority. The tao.