4 ms·

Arrogance, self-centeredness, "militancy" (laughable when applied to elderly armchair thinkers who call for no-one's death) are all criticisms of humans and hav

by mrkeen 5mo ago

Arrogance, self-centeredness, "militancy" (laughable when applied to elderly armchair thinkers who call for no-one's death) are all criticisms of humans and have nothing to do with objective reality. But while we're looking at it, > The idea that human beings are the end-all to reality, the highest form of consciousness and most powerful being, just seems hopelessly self-centered to me It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that they were made in God's image. It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that He made the world just for us, and put us above all animals. It is hopelessly self-centered to literally centre the Earth, and have the Sun rotate around us. The atheist position is that there's nothing special about us. We're a growth on a wet rock that's nowhere in particular in space. We lucked out with opposable thumbs and language and have been burning through our resources ever since. No intervening supernatural third party is coming to rescue us.

aristofun 5mo ago
> It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that they were made in God's image. Much less self centered than assume we’re developed from a mud on our own, without any external intervention. > It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that He made the world just for us, and put us above all animals. Not a bit more than think that we’re ultimate authority to judge and decide who is above who > It is hopelessly self-centered to literally centre the Earth, and have the Sun rotate around us. Geometrically it is an arbitrary choice of the coordinates system. Cosmologically and historically it was only an intermediate view held by many nations regardless of their religious views. Generally, the Earth is a truly unique planey unless found otherwise.
- mrkeen 5mo ago
  > Much less self centered than assume we’re developed from a mud on our own, without any external intervention. No. "From mud" is strictly less egocentric than "in God's image" for any possible interpretation. > Not a bit more than think that we’re ultimate authority to judge and decide who is above who No such thought necessary. > Geometrically it is an arbitrary choice of the coordinates system. It is absolutely not. Have a quick peek into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle. If you put Earth in the middle, then all the other planets move along squiggly lines and do not travel on the clean ellipses prescribed by gravity. Atheists joke about 'why not intelligent falling?' in response to 'intelligent design', which I think is a bit much. But yeah, put us back in geocentrism and you do need something like intelligent falling to fill in the gaps.
keiferski 5mo ago
I really don't get the point of comments like this. You didn't engage with anything I wrote in a meaningful way and instead just used the opportunity to blather on about your own opinion. Just like the top voted commenter in this topic, who clearly didn't read the initial question. Reminder to self: never discuss religion on HN, you won't get any intelligent answers.
- mrkeen 5mo ago
  I will try harder to connect the dots more explicitly. Do you think an idea being 'self-centered' has any bearing on whether that idea is true or false? What are the typical atheist arguments from Dawkins, etc.? Why are they not actual thinkers?
  - keiferski 5mo ago
    1. Maybe I was unclear. To me the idea that human beings are somehow the most intelligent life form in existence, is only an idea that can come from a very self-obsessed mind. This is a common attitude for people, as a society species wide thing. So I find the typical atheist attitude toward “higher powers” to be very lacking. Agnosticism is a much more rational position. 2 and 3: I’m not going to answer these for you, just google it for 5 minutes or ask an LLM. No one with knowledge of the philosophy of religion takes the New Atheists very seriously. They were pop culture writers with mostly bad or oversimplified arguments.
sbayg 5mo ago
> a growth on a wet rock that's nowhere in particular in space Atheist don’t think life is special, let alone miraculous is a good reason to reject atheism. A better way to live is to see everything as special, worthy of deeper inspection because the glitter of divinity sparkles everywhere one looks for it. Think of how that orientation drove so much of our scientific discoveries. Is it really bad to think of oneself as a little bit special (yet prone to sin from which we are too animalistic to extricate ourselves from). Perhaps you are the one who is too self aggrandizing in your sense of certainty about what is alas unknowable in the typical sense?

by mrkeen 5mo ago

aristofun 5mo ago

> It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that they were made in God's image. Much less self centered than assume we’re developed from a mud on our own, without any external intervention. > It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that He made the world just for us, and put us above all animals. Not a bit more than think that we’re ultimate authority to judge and decide who is above who > It is hopelessly self-centered to literally centre the Earth, and have the Sun rotate around us. Geometrically it is an arbitrary choice of the coordinates system. Cosmologically and historically it was only an intermediate view held by many nations regardless of their religious views. Generally, the Earth is a truly unique planey unless found otherwise.

mrkeen 5mo ago
> Much less self centered than assume we’re developed from a mud on our own, without any external intervention. No. "From mud" is strictly less egocentric than "in God's image" for any possible interpretation. > Not a bit more than think that we’re ultimate authority to judge and decide who is above who No such thought necessary. > Geometrically it is an arbitrary choice of the coordinates system. It is absolutely not. Have a quick peek into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle. If you put Earth in the middle, then all the other planets move along squiggly lines and do not travel on the clean ellipses prescribed by gravity. Atheists joke about 'why not intelligent falling?' in response to 'intelligent design', which I think is a bit much. But yeah, put us back in geocentrism and you do need something like intelligent falling to fill in the gaps.

keiferski 5mo ago

I really don't get the point of comments like this. You didn't engage with anything I wrote in a meaningful way and instead just used the opportunity to blather on about your own opinion. Just like the top voted commenter in this topic, who clearly didn't read the initial question. Reminder to self: never discuss religion on HN, you won't get any intelligent answers.

mrkeen 5mo ago
I will try harder to connect the dots more explicitly. Do you think an idea being 'self-centered' has any bearing on whether that idea is true or false? What are the typical atheist arguments from Dawkins, etc.? Why are they not actual thinkers?
- keiferski 5mo ago
  1. Maybe I was unclear. To me the idea that human beings are somehow the most intelligent life form in existence, is only an idea that can come from a very self-obsessed mind. This is a common attitude for people, as a society species wide thing. So I find the typical atheist attitude toward “higher powers” to be very lacking. Agnosticism is a much more rational position. 2 and 3: I’m not going to answer these for you, just google it for 5 minutes or ask an LLM. No one with knowledge of the philosophy of religion takes the New Atheists very seriously. They were pop culture writers with mostly bad or oversimplified arguments.

sbayg 5mo ago

> a growth on a wet rock that's nowhere in particular in space Atheist don’t think life is special, let alone miraculous is a good reason to reject atheism. A better way to live is to see everything as special, worthy of deeper inspection because the glitter of divinity sparkles everywhere one looks for it. Think of how that orientation drove so much of our scientific discoveries. Is it really bad to think of oneself as a little bit special (yet prone to sin from which we are too animalistic to extricate ourselves from). Perhaps you are the one who is too self aggrandizing in your sense of certainty about what is alas unknowable in the typical sense?