Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think you mean that it requires arrogance to believe that one's perceptions of the lack of evidence in a Creator makes for the belief that there is no Creator? One believes in one's perceptions more than in a higher power. I don't think I put that very well.
I see your point, but do not agree because it assumes that there is a Creator and to assume makes an ass out of you and I.
Instead I see it this way: if a Creator gave me the ability to reason, and in using that ability I come to the conclusion that there is no Creator, it isn't arrogance, it's a Creator who wishes to remain anonymous.
mani means that he has no clue what atheism means. Why is atheism self-worship? It means that you don't believe that the gods of the bible/koran/whatever exist. What does that have to do with self-worship? That's more like ego-trippin', and we all know what big egos all the born again preachers have. You think maybe the pope has a big ego too? Constantly trying to tell people how to live and the guy's never had sex with a woman, sheesh.
A couple people have commented on this sig-line so I thought I'd start a thread about it.
What do you think I mean by this? (pos reps given for sincere efforts, right or wrong. )
Discuss.
I agree with your sig 100 percent. Without belief in a creator (in any form) the self becomes the center of the universe.
I can understand and respect peoples doubts about God and religion. But I honestly have never met an open minded atheist. Personal observation; no offense intended.
I always assumed that it was a reference to the idea that since most atheists would acknowledge our ability to reason and understand is beyond any other species, and since most acknowledge no other being with a greater mind, then we by default place ourselves at the top of some sort of order of beings like Alexander Pope's chain, and by definition the being at the top is the greatest or most revered which would be ourselves.
I don't agree that this is the case. My view of the argument is that most people agree that the Beatles were a great band. Some people may assert that there must be a better band somewhere, but they will be similar to the Beatles. If I say that there is no reason to assume there is a band out there that is better than the Beatles, then I am accused of saying that the Beatles are the best possible band, and no band could ever be better. Whereas, my response is- there could be a better band, but there is no reason to assume there is one, and if there is one, they may sound more similar to the Rolling Stones.
A couple people have commented on this sig-line so I thought I'd start a thread about it.
What do you think I mean by this? (pos reps given for sincere efforts, right or wrong. )
Discuss.