Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

Class, this is a psychological example of projection.i Never heard atheists believe they had superior complexes. It is the person who projects that who thinks that. It’s sort of like people project negative qualities onto beautiful people saying!” She thinks she’s so hot” they don’t say that about women they think are ugly.They don’t talk about evangelicals believing they are intellectually superior. But thanks for the left-handed compliment

 

You have to suspend all logic or do you really believe that an invisible man in the sky went “proof” one day and everything happened. In a week?You need to believe in God the same way a child needs to believe in Santa Claus. But if it makes you feel better ,so be it , but don’t put down people who don’t believe in the supernatural

 

Primarily because they have researched the Gods and could not justify belief when using logical thought. As a general rule this often pertains to many other aspects of experience as well, in that they tend to expect some type of verification to accept realities. As the theist does not they then shake their heads and wonder why, the superiority complex you express is more a perception noted by the theist when claims are challenged however.

 

Ooh. I have a question. Religious people generally believe in the authority of rulers as either divine mandate or as representatives of a holy authority (e.g. " Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that.")

As an atheist, how do you argue that the state has objectively legitimate authority to impose its dictates upon all those who live within an area it claims as jurisdiction, or even upon those people no matter where they go? Authority is no more solid than a deity, yet I've seen you call upon others to obey it much as a religious person calls upon others to obey God. Granted, the punishment by a state is real, whereas by a deity it's just an empty promise, but that doesn't make the former therefore morally right. Unless you believe that absent a deity, might makes right?

 

My country has laws and a Constitution which must be obeyed under penalty, they are tangible aspects of day to day existence and reality. There is no need for me to argue this as the Government and society do it inherently. There is reason for Christians fighting against said laws (abortion, gays, contraception ...etc...) so in actuality the opposite is true.

 

Democracy.

 

How can the right to life be inherent if your creator aliens your life and thus holds the right to it?

 

You asked for tough questions. I'm simply curious how atheists prove that the authority of the state exists. Religious people believe it comes from their deity, who directly or indirectly appoints some people to be in authority and that said authority is material so long as it serves the rules of the deity. I think it's as non-existent as that those deities and that people obey the words of proclaimed rulers out of faith that the rulers are justified in their rule. Like obeying God, it's a tautology. It's ok if you don't want to answer, it's a tough question and probably not where you expected the conversation to go.

Christians believe that the laws of their deity are supreme and any earthly law that contradicts that deity's law must be fought against. I would agree that they get it wrong, a lot, but that's the nature of rule by politics. Everything becomes political.

 

I just answered your question, but no one (Atheist or not) needs to "Prove" something that is very clear to everyone. Theists are free to believe whatever they wish in this country but are not free to impose it on others. As for justification we vote for our "Rulers" and hire enforcement agents for laws.

 

I just answered that above. It's called democracy, people vote for a government to make laws which are then enforced. It's common around the world if you look. We really don't need religious fascism.

 

50%+1 of those enfranchised to participate in a ballot make things legitimate? That sounds like ritual and about as solid as an anointed priest who says a few words in Latin then turns a piece of bread into the body of Christ.

Is religious fascism a less legitimate form of transfer of rights and authority than democracy?

 

I am unsure what aliens have to do with your question but, If I don't accept the creator you mention it is a null point.

 

YES.

 

What is clear to everyone? How is it clear that one set of humans have the inherent right, by calling themselves a government, to monopolize justice? I understand how religious people arrive at that right - it's transferred to that set of humans by God. How do atheists arrive at that inherent right?

That's a tautology. You claim authority exists because you vote for it, and you vote for it because the authority exists. A theist would claim that he believes in God because God exists.

This is why I think most atheists haven't given up religion; they've merely transferred it to statism.

 

Great. What makes it objectively valid? Some people want to live under religious fascism and want to force others to do the same. Some people want to live under democratic authority - even fascism - and forced others to do the same. From where comes the inherent right to do so? The religious fascist says God wills it. What says the atheist when pushing his authoritarian views?

 

How do you know, objectively, when 50%+1 is wrong?

Democracy, to me, requires as much faith in the "right" of people to suppress the rights of others through a vote as does belief in a deity to do the same.

 

Can you define god with any specificty. ?

 

I suggest that to allay your confusion you simply go out and break some laws, (No Violence Please) that should eke reality quite clear for you. Anarchy is frowned upon by the way.

 

The question wasn't to you, and it looks like my phone autocorrected "alien" to "aliens". And I mean "alien" as to remove or contract away something. You know, like the word "unalienable." The person to whom I responded suggested that God cannot do murder since he created life, and then mentioned the right to life. Yet a right that unalienable means it can only be held by the owner and not transferred. So either God possess the right to life, or the person does. Also, since God is supposedly omnipotent, God can revoke any right at any time, thus making rights not unalienable.

That's a problem for the religious, not the atheist.

 

It seems clear you either cannot or will not comprehend the answers you request.

Have A Nice Day

 

I have already made it quite clear that some people obey those other people who claim the right to rule and control a monopoly on justice, among other things. So, I see you have decided to chicken out of that hard question and resorted to a form of ad hominem. Thanks for playing. You can go back to picking on deity-worshipers.

 

Again, you chicken out. I was engaging in honest questions, seeking objectivity and logic from someone who seems to be claiming that they also want the same. I would have accepted a non-answer. It's a difficult philosophical question.

Apparently, that's not something you are capable of. Considering that you started this thread, I suppose it's most likely that you are projecting about me being a troll since all what you are really doing is trolling the religious people. You are as faithful as they are, and when I question your worship of government you call me a heretic.

Go back to trolling religious people; just don't pretend to be any more logical or objective than they are.

 

For that matter, who gets define what is a right and what isn't?

We have to agree to some kind of social structure and hierarchy for our society to function, but it need not work in just one particular way. To me, it is pragmatic to have a system of justice controlled by a trusted few, but who are also accountable to all of society, and in a system that is ultimately subject to the control of that society.

 

The person who holds them. I have the right to my life. Do you have a right to say otherwise, and, if so, how did you obtain that right? And, that works reciprocally.

I am trying to picture such a society. Can you name one that has existed with that sort of system? And, when you say for "society to function", what do you mean by function? I suspect many people have a different idea of what functioning is, so who gets to define what functioning means?