What or whom do atheists posit as their highest authority?

[Crunchy Cat]

Jenyar,

Then this is an understanding of faith that believes it exists only in other people.

There is evidence to indicate we're not working off the same defintion of
faith. I am defining it as "unconditional trust that *something* (usually 'God')
will meet an expectation (often a fantastic one)". This definition is derived
out of the contexts that the word is used in for modern conversation.

Within the scope of this definition, my expectations are not bound to trust.

Knowledge? How did you come by this "knowledge"? You believe the "historical accounts, geological observation, and paleontological progression, and mathematical simulation", which is why you consider it knowledge. Doesn't it occur to you that what you take for common knowledge has only existed in this form for a few hundred years at most?

By learning. Historical, empirical, and modeling information are all in
agreement concerning orbital behavior. It can even be applied to many useful
things like sending satellites into orbit, calculating comet trajectory, and
predicting planetary alignment and the fact that these things work shows that
reality agrees with the knowledge.

There is no belief involved. I accept what reality is with the evidence it provides.

It's not irrelevant. Both figures are finite, which means what you consider "knowledge" today might be false tomorrow. For example, the earth's revolution is already a limited perspective, because it doesn't include all the data:

All frames moving with constant velocity relative to a given inertial frame are themselves inertial frames.
In investigating the motion of a body on earth, if the effect of the rotation of the earth can be neglected, the earth can be considered to be a fairly good inertial frame. For example, if an ice skater is pushed onto a frozen lake, in the absence of any external forces she moves in a straight line with constant speed. Sometimes the assumption that the earth is an inertial frame clearly breaks down. For example, typhoons owe their existence to the rotational acceleration of the earth. In such cases a better approximation to an inertial frame (e.g. the sun) must be used to describe the motion.​

The frame, or context you assume, may in fact be be quite relevant.

What underlies your faith is the belief that the universe acts uniformly, and this belief cannot be based on experience. You just haven't experienced the universe since its inception and seen it through to the end, to know. You just project your beliefs onto it - which happens to correspnd to the current consensus of historians, mathematicians, geologists and paleontologists.

Don't get me wrong: as I've said, this is a justifiable and reasonable faith. But it's faith nontheless. Ultimately, it's a faith in the uniformity of nature: that it will continue playing by the same rules we have observed and deduced. My point with pointing out the beginning, and the possibility of some kind of entropic end, is that the universe hasn't always played by these rules. At least not in the form you currently take for granted.

Again, this is not a matter of faith, belief, or even the notion of the universe
working uniformly. Reality is what it is. If I misinterpret the information
provided then that's ok... I can realign my interpretation. Reality is the
'highest authority' anyway you look at it.

And you are 100% certain, without a doubt, that this inflation / deflation theory is untouchable? Or is it your belief, your decision to trust it? Would you have supported the steady state theory of 50 years ago with the same confidence?

I am not 100% certain the inflation / deflation theory is true. I am 100%
certain that alot of evidence exists to support the theory and as new
supportive / contradictory evidence becomes available, the theory can
be updated.

Statistically. Which is based on a projection of our best interpretation of current data. But it's still a projection. Which you believe. It's perhaps an easy decision, because you probably will have faith in whatever science discovers. If you're wrong, at least you will share the mistake with earth's finest minds. But none of this removes the fact that it's still faith.

Such predictions are based on our current understanding of how things work.
We might be correct, incorrect, or anywhere in between. Reality ultimately
validates / invalidates any prediction.

Here's something from CS Lewis' book, Miracles:

Our observation about nature would be of no use unless we felt sure that nature when we are not watching her behaves in the same way as when we are (the Uniformity of Nature). Experience therefore cannot prove uniformity, because uniformity has to be assumed before experience proves anything. ...
Unless nature is uniform, nothing is either probable or improbable. And the assumption which you have to make before there is any such thing as probability cannot itself be probable.​

In other words, there is faith involved - or at least some assumptions that precede faith.

I don't necessarily agree with Lewis and I see expectations being substituted with faith again.

That expectation relies on faith in the patterns you have observed. You believe they will hold true.

It's not a belief. I am merely aligning my interpretations to reality.

Yes, but it's you who conform to reality, not the other way around. As a matter of fact, F=ma will not hold under certain conditions. I picked this up from a forum for physics educators:

When we teach any approximate law, we run some risk of causing misconceptions. But that's what we do for a living. Remember, F=ma is only an approximation, which we teach without feeling guilty.

We need to explain the _limits of validity_ of the laws we teach. --) It is relatively easy to say that F=ma breaks down when the velocities are not small compared to c.​

Still so confident in your faith? No doubt - because it isn't based on the specific details, but on general assumptions.

You are correct. The ol' f=ma is an approximation; thus, it is not 100%
aligned with reality. The same thing is true for e=mc^2 or any number
of simple models. I can simply revise my conclusion to reality approximately
agreeing with these models. Again, no faith involved. Reality is what it is
and, as you pointed out, contradicted my original assertion.

Then you're in denial . "Faith" is a stigmatized word in your vocabulary, signifying anything that you consider nebulous or untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean the word doesn't apply in your life as well, just because your faith is so solid that you don't question it for a moment.

It's a well defined word in my vocabulary. I simply don't apply the concept
of trust or unconditionality to the same things you do.

And I hope you realize that is a circular justification.

It's not circular to align my interpretation to the thing that makes it even possible.

If not yourself, then perhaps the current consensus of historians, mathematicians, geologists and paleontologists? Who do they trust?

[/QUOTE]

This is where trust does come into play. I trust that many people in these
professions are trying hard to interpret information to the best of their
ability. I expect mistakes to be made.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Water,

Crunchy Cat,

Then why not apply the same method when it comes to seeking God?
Do it yourself.

That's analagous to asking Sanjay Abdulla-doo to prove Joe Redneck's
claim that he was abducted by alien space herpes and whipped with
red locorice on the planet zorton. Let the claimer do the proving.

God can be everywhere.
Communication with God is possible once you get rid of your illusions of God and yourself, and the world, or when you speak with recognition of these illusions.

Oddly enough 'God' seems to be everywhere but where I am. Where is 'God'
at this moment? Even approximately? It sounds like a whole new set of
beaucratic criteria to even communicate with 'God'. I take it you cut through
the red tape? Tell me about the experience. What did you and 'God' talk
about and how did communication physically take place?

Then why say:

You have spoken this as if you were speaking about a person.
Unless you are speaking about a person, it is pointless to make statements like "Anyhow there is evidence to suggest that Yorda has multiple personality disorder ..."
If Yorda is of no concern to you, then you can't speak of his/her personality.

Yorda might be a construct made by someone whose intention is to see how people respond to an entity which keeps making contradictory claims.

Yorda the person (in the flesh) simply doesn't concern me. I do find Yorda's
behavior and belief interesting as represented in text format. If Yorda is
a hoax then so be it; however, I don't find it probable given the amount
of effort and care.

 

[stretched]

Quote w:
“How?”

* It looks like bollocks, it sounds like bollocks, it smells like bollocks, hey, it MUST BE bollocks? In a nutshell:

“A God that killed God to appease God, was an expressive phrase of La Hontan, a phrase of itself sufficient to destroy the Christian religion, a phrase that will still retain its absurdity, should one hundred folio volumes be written to prove it rational.”

“God the Father judges mankind deserving of his eternal vengeance; God the Son judges them worthy of his infinite mercy; the Holy Ghost remains neutral. How can we reconcile this verbiage with the unity of the will of God?
All the evils that could possibly be committed would only merit an infinite punishment; yet, in order that we may always be terrified at the idea of Deity, the priests have made man sufficiently powerful to offend the Author of Nature to all eternity.”

(courtesy of D.Diderot)

Quote w:
“"Be like little children" does not equal "naive".
I don't know where you got this from.”

* What then is your interpretation?

Quote w:
“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.”

* Nope, people serving god in the name of religion cause division. Christianity itself is split in two.

Quote w:
“You are, without warrant, equating historic PRACTICE of Christianity with TEACHINGS of Christianity.
Do yoou think it is valid to make such equations?’

* Unfortunately the evidence available EASILY enables me to make the equation. It speaks for itself, and is occurring to this day. You are using the oldest excuse in the book. The TEACHINGS of Christianity led DIRECTLY to the Crusades. (ex. take Jerusalem back from the Muslim infidels). The TEACHINGS of Christianity led DIRECTLY to the Inquisition. (ex. Thy shall not suffer a witch to live”) Yes, yes, I know. It was the devil.

 

[Rosnet]

Water,

No when I said "Explain this", I meant, explain the existence of God. You saind that you don't give yourself life. Then how did God come into being?

 

[Jenyar]

The TEACHINGS of Christianity led DIRECTLY to the Crusades. (ex. take Jerusalem back from the Muslim infidels). The TEACHINGS of Christianity led DIRECTLY to the Inquisition. (ex. Thy shall not suffer a witch to live”) Yes, yes, I know. It was the devil.

Care to back this up with some evidence? For example - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - is that a Christian text pertaining to sin, or a Jewish law pertaining to Israel? Which inquisition do you refer to? The Spanish one? Or are you just repeating what you've heard?

 

[enton]

What or whom do atheists posit as their highest authority?

Lucifer/Satan, from my own viewpoint, is the atheists' final authority.

 

[wesmorris]

Lucifer/Satan, from my own viewpoint, is the atheists' final authority.

Which makes your viewpoint SO disgusting... from my own viewpoint. What a small, petty little mind you have.

 

[SnakeLord]

Lucifer/Satan, from my own viewpoint, is the atheists' final authority.

But that clearly isn't possible considering 'he' doesn't exist.

There goes your argument down the shitter.

 

[(Q)]

Lucifer/Satan, from my own viewpoint, is the atheists' final authority.

I've never spoken to him, by which name does he respond?

Can you point him out to me? Does he have an e-mail address or blog? What does he look like?

And of course, will he confirm to me gods exist?

 

[Cyperium]

myself, my own sense, reason, and intellect, my morality is soli down to me there is no higher power then humanity.

Of course your morality is up to you, no one has stated otherwise - that I know of, and if he did...well then that's up to him

But the fact is though, that there are other things than you that influences your morality. Sure it's ultimatly up to you, but society, friends, parents, etc. influence you. Which in western society to a degree has been influenced by christians, since it is our religion.

Our morality is of course ultimatly up to ourselves. The way God influences us and thus our morality on a deeper level (or a wider level) is hard for me to deduce, but I believe that it is so.

who else did you expect, an alien, a spotted pink unicorn or santa claus.

Did you really think he expected that? Imagine that there really was a santa, would you then expect him to ride on flying reindeers? Couldn't it be a more real santa? Actually, santa exist but only as certain as far as the costume which actually allows "him" to deliver presents around the world pretty much at the same time hmm...maybe that makes us the reindeers...

I do good because it's the right thing to do, not because a god tells me, and certainly not because it would put be in good stead for a after life. which I know theres not.

It's allways more truthful to say that you don't believe in a afterlife, instead of saying that you know there's none. How could you know? No, you see, you don't know. Are you lying or don't you know better? If your standard is your intelligence/etc. then you should know better than saying you know something you don't. Shouldn't you?

 

[SnakeLord]

But the fact is though, that there are other things than you that influences your morality. Sure it's ultimatly up to you, but society, friends, parents, etc. influence you. Which in western society to a degree has been influenced by christians, since it is our religion

But then by that token christianity was influenced by earlier religions which were influenced by even earlier religions. As a result of that morality has come from the Sumerians, (or earlier people with religious beliefs)..

 

[KennyJC]

Lucifer/Satan, from my own viewpoint, is the atheists' final authority.

This guy is such a dumb extremist, but he makes me laugh... So gays and athiests are going to hell according to your idiocy. What I would actually find even funnier is if there really WAS a God and a Satan, and God found your distorted views of so offensive that he sent you to hell and all us nice athiests/agnostics went up to heaven

 

[the preacher]

cyperium:I know theres no afterlife also, because no ones has ever come back, or shown with evidence there was an afterlife.
now the onus is on you, as you assert there is an afterlife to prove it.
put up, or shut up.

 

[the preacher]

Lucifer/Satan, from my own viewpoint, is the atheists' final authority.

I'd rather have a lucifer/satan, then the evil cruel callous sadistic god of the bible/quran.
theres just over 50 things in the bible in regard to satan, and none kill anybody.
cant say the same about god.

 

[Cyperium]

cyperium:I know theres no afterlife also, because no ones has ever come back, or shown with evidence there was an afterlife.
now the onus is on you, as you assert there is an afterlife to prove it.
put up, or shut up.

hehehe...sorry, I believe that there is a afterlife, he said he knew there was none. Should I have to prove my belief? My actions is the proof of my belief.

It's only up to you, do you really have to prove it to somebody else?

 

[Cyperium]

But then by that token christianity was influenced by earlier religions which were influenced by even earlier religions. As a result of that morality has come from the Sumerians, (or earlier people with religious beliefs)..

Well, it really doesn't matter since the message is the same, and so is the need for the message.

We are becoming too accostumed to the wellfair of society. We put away those who are dangerous to us. But the fear grows. Cause now it's a monster in the closet instead of the monster visible to all.

 

[kenworth]

What or whom do atheists posit as their highest authority?

my mummy

 

[Oli]

Should I have to prove my belief? My actions is the proof of my belief

Agreed your actions are proof of your belief, not proof that the object of your belief exists.

 

[c7ityi_]

cyperium:I know theres no afterlife also, because no ones has ever come back, or shown with evidence there was an afterlife.

Everyone has come back, but since the body (and person) dies we cannot remember our past lives. Though, there are spiritual people and some children who remember.

I know I can never die because I don't remember my birth. The "afterlife" is the presence, which has always existed. If I could die, I would have already died millions of years ago.

---

Satan is the negative side of God... it is the "spirit of matter". Spirit is life.

 

[Kotoko]

In the name of what do atheists demand that theists present proof of God?
What gives them the right to demand such proof?

Laws are written, judgments are made, and punishment handed down according to religious laws and according to religious faith in almost all countries. Atheists have a right to question because of this. An atheist should not be forced to live by a law given by a God that isn't proven to exist.