Friday, January 04, 2008

Atheism is the usurpation of God's rule

Atheism leads to the man being his own little god. Reminds me of the maxim "Pantheism is atheism." It would seem that the converse is true as well.

I can't recall a better illustration of this than this comment from the anonymous atheist commenter.

I had asked:
-This brings up a question, Anonymous, if you're still around - how do you know who deserves to live and who doesn't?

He responds:

Simple. If you care about the person, the person deserves to live. Let those people who deserve to live, live. As for the rest of the people you do not care, they do not deserve to live. Let these people do whatever they want.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

- Atheism leads to the man being his own little god
Since an Atheist would not have a God to reference to, this would be natural (if you expect any *knowledge* to have any God-like value). It is a perfectly logical statement.

On more than one occasions, I have heard you claim that it is impossible for a human being to understand God’s intent or God’s knowledge because God is so big and beyond humanity. Yet, when asked back how you can *know* what is right or wrong, you answer that you are able to know it.
Is it just me, or aren’t you making yourself a little god also ? IMHO, being able to understand what only God would know makes you less human.

Honestly speaking, I do not mind being my own little god because there apparently are no Gods available in this world to my likening (Of course I may be really a little god. It would take a God or similar existence to disprove it).

Anonymous said...

Sorry, missed your comment to previous post before replying.
-God Himself is truth, truth proceeds out of Him.
And somehow you Catholic fundamentalists are able to receive the signals without any logically explainable means (Since God cannot be explained by science, you can effectively bypass any irregularities by quoting God).

In a totally unrelated topic, I have once talked with a wise woman who claimed to know what God really is. She claimed that God is not He, God is not Her, God is not holy, God is not father. God is nothing that can be described by human language. God is just something indescribable.
She is still has Catholic faith, but her explanation sounded darn logical.

Rhology said...

I'm not Catholic, just FYI.
Just catholic.

John Morales said...

Rhology,

Either you do not know the definition of usurpation, or you are making a statement you don't actually believe true.

Tsk.

Chris Severn said...

God is meant to have created the universe, knows everything and can do what he wants.

If being an atheist means I can do all that, then that's pretty good advertising for us :) Expect a lot more people becoming atheists...

Rhology said...

Hi Anon,

You have mistaken me, and this after I've even corrected those who have misunderstood. Maybe you didn't see it.
I have nowhere claimed that God or His will or knowledge is totally incomprehensible. What I have said is that those things are not totally comprehensible; that is far from the same thing as the statement that they are totally incomprehensible.
I am thus able to know right from wrong b/c God has revealed right and wrong sufficiently.
I don't see how I could be a little god when I have submitted myself to the One True God. What do you mean?
And if you think you are a little god,
1) you know this is a lie even if you won't acknowledge it
2) you know the God of the Bible exists
3) you will face judgment for all of this.

Now, I don't know why you thought I was Roman Catholic... anyway.
You seem to be under the impression that science is the only reliable way to examine propositions and have knowledge. Is that right?
If so, how can you be sure the scientific method is reliable? Subject that statement to itself. It will fail. You take it by faith.

This lady you speak of is just pulling stuff out of the air. If her beliefs were subject to the same examination to which my friendly atheist commenters subject my worldview, it would quickly fall apart.


John,

It's either
1) I have no idea what usurpation actually means; I just threw it in the title b/c I thought it sounded like a cool word. Kind of like "laryngitis" and "serendipity". Or
2) You're not following me in what I'm trying to say.


Peace,
Rhology

merkur said...

"I am thus able to know right from wrong b/c God has revealed right and wrong sufficiently."

If God has revealed right and wrong sufficiently, then perhaps you could explain why there doesn't seem to have been universal agreement amongst Christians throughout history on key issues such as abortion, homosexuality and slavery.

Rhology said...

merkur,

It by no means logically follows from the infallibility of a source that uniformity of obedience from fallible humans will necessarily result.
That is a non sequitur, a classic fallacy.

Take 5 people and put them in 5 separate rooms with 5 Bibles. The diff opinions that come out is a good argument for not trusting people.

merkur said...

"Take 5 people and put them in 5 separate rooms with 5 Bibles. The diff opinions that come out is a good argument for not trusting people."

That's my entire point. Since I cannot trust the opinions of any given individual, whether Christian or not, human interpretations of the Bible cannot form the basis of anybody's morality even if the Bible itself contains an objective morality.

Anonymous said...

Wow.

Christian Athiesm

Rhology said...

Hi merkur,

Since I cannot trust the opinions of any given individual, whether Christian or not, human interpretations of the Bible cannot form the basis of anybody's morality even if the Bible itself contains an objective morality.

That is also a non sequitur and a false dilemma, all rolled into one. Impressive!
Just b/c people in general are fallible, that does not mean that they can't ever know ANYthing at all.
You don't believe that yourself - if you did, you would never post on blogs, you would never talk to anyone, you'd never assume that you understood what others were telling you.

Christian Athiesm

It's "atheism".
Remember, "i" before "e" except after c and "th" in "atheism". ;-)
Weird! I talked to this guy personally! That's so funny.
I went to Speakers' Corner in London in June 2000 and saw this guy. Most of the action was centered around the Marxist and Muslims there, but my friend and I talked to him for awhile.
Small world!
The very notion is absurd, of course. Mostly he advocates social action and being nice to others like Jesus told us to in some parts of His earthly ministry. He conveniently forgets that 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that if Christ is not raised, Christianity is completely pointless and worse than a waste of time, among other things he forgets.

And as a side note, I *loved* Speakers' Corner. If you're ever in London, you have to go. It's some of the most fun I've ever had.

Peace,
Rhology

merkur said...

"That is also a non sequitur and a false dilemma, all rolled into one."

It is neither a non sequitur or a false dilemma. You said

a) "I am thus able to know right from wrong b/c God has revealed right and wrong sufficiently."

b) "Take 5 people and put them in 5 separate rooms with 5 Bibles. The diff opinions that come out is a good argument for not trusting people."

So you are able to know right from wrong because God has revealed it sufficiently - yet those 5 people will not be able to agree on what it is that God has "sufficiently" revealed?

So how do you know that God has revealed right and wrong "sufficiently", Rhology? What exactly are you measuring it against?

Rhology said...

Anyone can see that a) and b) are not contradictory statements, especially given what I've just explained. You're just repeating the same non-sequiturs.

I know God has done so b/c He said so. There is nothing higher against which to measure God or His revelation.

merkur said...

"Anyone can see that a) and b) are not contradictory statements, especially given what I've just explained. You're just repeating the same non-sequiturs."

1. Contradiction != non-sequitur. They are different things.

2. I didn't claim that they were contradictory statements.

3. You say that any 5 Christians will have 5 different opinions on what the Bible says. You have previously claimed that there is no other standard for working out moral truths apart from that same bible that they have used to reach those opinions.

I am merely pointing out that an external observer, e.g. not one of the 5 Christians, has no way of knowing whose interpretation of the Bible is right unless there is a third-party standard to compare it to.

You tell me, "Rhology", which of the 5 Christians in their 5 rooms should I listen to? And don't tell me to study the Bible, because all you will have is 6 Christians with 6 different opinions, and still no way to tell who is right.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm starting to worry that you have been simply parroting apologetics texts which you've read, and that you're not actually able to mount discussions on your own terms. Please prove me wrong.

Rhology said...

merkur,

Yes, contradictions and non sequiturs are different.
You were TRYING to show a contradiction.
I demonstrated that, in doing so, you made non sequiturs.

I didn't claim that they were contradictory statements.

This is not a claim of contradiction?
So you are able to know right from wrong because God has revealed it sufficiently - yet those 5 people will not be able to agree on what it is that God has "sufficiently" revealed?

Oh OK, whatever.
What is it, then?

You have previously claimed that there is no other standard for working out moral truths apart from that same bible that they have used to reach those opinions.

the SAME non sequitur, AGAIN.
I'm not even going to respond anymore when you make the same errors over and over again.

You tell me, "Rhology", which of the 5 Christians in their 5 rooms should I listen to?

The one who is not misusing the text, who is performing proper exegesis, taking into acct the context, etc.

Peace,
Rhology

Chris Severn said...

Rhology,

I live in London, and get to speaker's corner when I can. It's always interesting.

There are a lot of muslims, but lots of Christians too.

My favourite bloke is a black guy who often wears horns on his head. He talks about nothing in particular but is very funny.

All the political and religious people there have their own points they're trying to get across, and rarely acknowledge any other points of view, or if they do, they forget about them by the next week.

Like the Muslims who try to convince you about Islam being all warm and fuzzy, and respectful of women. There's a socialist who still thinks that socialism works.

And of course the Christians all peddling something different, using the same ancient book as their inspiration.

The Christian Scientists are a hoot. I met one who was totally convinced that the Shroud of Turin was real.

The best is this short obnoxious woman who I can never quite figure out. She just generally yells at people and tells us how bad we all are..

Cheers,
Chris

Rhology said...

Chris,

Have you ever seen a guy from Nigeria mumbling something about Leader Olumbe Olumbe Obu?
I saw him there, wearing a white robe, swaying back and forth. He wouldn't respond to you at all, he'd just mumble about Nigeria=New Jerusalem or something, and he was standing on a stool that looked like it might give way any moment, and those spiky fence posts were right behind him. I was seriously afraid he'd fall and impale himself.
Man, I wish I could go back! Fun stuff.
Ever read about the converts to Christ from Islam who've testified there and then been beaten up and received death threats from Muslims? That's not quite as fun...

Chris Severn said...

I'm not sure about the Nigerian guy. There is someone who you might mean, who is hard to figure out what he's saying.
I thought his main point was that we are all descended from africans, so we shouldn't be racist. He was happy when I agreed with him on that. But, he's it's possible that was only a side point, and his other mumblings were about Nigeria being New Jerusalm...

I haven't seen any violence or death threats. There are two blokes, a Christian and a Muslim who always stand together, and argue with each other about who's right.

Recently there's been a few people offering "free hugs". I haven't felt the need to take them up on it yet.

A few months ago there were people from "Way of the Master" there handing out little "billion dollar" notes with their info on it, and standard drivel. I didn't get a chance to chat with them at length about what they were doing in London.

merkur said...

"This is not a claim of contradiction?"

No. The two statements fit each other perfectly, but the conclusion that they lead to isn't the one that you want. However I sense there's little point in trying to persuade you of this: it appears to be yet another word for which you possess a definition slightly different to the rest of the English-speaking world.

My point is this. You claim to be able to know right from wrong because God has revealed it sufficiently. I am perfectly certain that those 5 people in your example will claim exactly the same thing. I have no reason to doubt any of you.

However I also have no reason to accept that any of you are "right", since you all appear to disagree with each other. You say that I should listen to "the one who is not misusing the text, who is performing proper exegesis, taking into acct the context, etc".

This is of course exactly the answer that I warned you against, since it just creates yet another person with another interpretation of the Bible. Oh, that interpretation might fit with yours (which you have no doubt is the correct interpretation, obviously) but that doesn't mean that it's right.

You have said that the "diff opinions that come out is a good argument for not trusting people", and I entirely agree. Yet they are all using the same bible, and all believe that their conclusions are correct; so clearly God was not sufficiently clear in his instruction, as you claim.

You really don't see it, do you? This is fascinating.

Rhology said...

Chris,

I haven't seen any violence or death threats.

Well, all the better! I wouldn't want to see any either, that's for sure.
Just so you're aware it does happen.

Recently there's been a few people offering "free hugs". I haven't felt the need to take them up on it yet.

Haha, I've seen that on YouTube.
Reminds me of one of the founders of a sales company I'm familiar with. He's very rich and so just for his own personal research he goes door-to-door offering to exchange a dollar bill for a $20 bill or something like that.
No catch, he lets people examine the $20 bills he's offering, asks for nothing else, no personal info, nothing. He found that the ratio of people who accepted it was similar to the ratio of people who accept most any given sales pitch...

"Way of the Master" there handing out little "billion dollar" notes

Oh, I have and use those too! I keep 'em in my wallet.
I think they're brilliant. :-D


Merkur,

I am perfectly certain that those 5 people in your example will claim exactly the same thing.

Which should lead any rational person to conclude that the answer does not lie in the sincerity of the person making the claim.

I also have no reason to accept that any of you are "right", since you all appear to disagree with each other.

Which is the genetic fallacy. Whether we agree is irrelevant to if one of us is right. It only speaks to whether more than one of us could be right.

This is of course exactly the answer that I warned you against, since it just creates yet another person with another interpretation of the Bible.

1) Not all interpretations are created equal.
2) You're about to take the plunge into a complete agnosticism about ANY text. You don't want to do that since it undermines anything you say or write yourself by necessary consequence.

I don't "see" what you're saying b/c it takes you so many fallacies to say it. It's not a good education.

Peace,
Rhology

Chris Severn said...

I went back to speaker's corner today, and had a good look around. Much the same as usual, I didn't see the Nigerian guy you were talking about. It was nice and cold today though, which I think kept a few people away.

I saw the guy from "Way of the Master" and got a new million dollar bill from him. When I rocked up he was doing the "Have you lied ? Stolen etc ? Then you're a lying thief who has to face God on judgement day"..

I got a photo of him, and took one of his million dollar bills. Then had a good chat where he tried to convert me. He tried the "something made must have a maker", "painting must have a painter". "How do you know the building has a builder". Argument from first cause. Argument from design of the human body (we were both wearing glasses - which I pointed out to him among other things). He moved on from one of these to the other very quickly after I pointed out the errors in his thinking.
He ended by running out of arguments, giving up and shaking my hand before leaving.
I'm quite sure that the guy has on ly got a superficial understanding of the arguments of the organisation he represents. Hopefully he went home to have a good think about our discussion... I can hope :)

Rhology said...

Man, I wish I could go there whenever. That'd be sweet.

What does wearing glasses have to do with the argument from design? Will you argue that the human body is poorly designed? Says who, you? What would be your argument that your body is not in fact designed to need glasses?

Chris Severn said...

Yes, my point is that the human body isn't as well designed as it could be. The need for glasses was one example. Of course, if you want to claim that God designed us to have eyes which deteriorate easily, then I can't argue with that line of reasoning. It's the same guy who invented all manner of parasites and diseases afterall.