What is the Highest Authority You Recognize?

[Ravenshire]

Actually, I was think about civil disobedience and the whole #Resistance thing. Plus it's 4/20.

I think that it was a good question.  It is interesting to see how different people think, and I think there certainly is a difference between theist and a number of atheist anyways.  The different responses are interesting as well.   Some show careful consideration and thought.  To some it seems almost foreign to consider.   And for some, a simple question invokes a paranoia and avoidance (mostly because of the source) the likes of which I've only experienced when dealing with those in a cult.

(emphasis is mine)

You dismiss the Pavlovian response to any thumper coming here to discuss authorities?

[Anomalocaris]

What is the highest authority you recognize? In other words, to what or to whom do you feel obliged to obey and why?

Any authority that has demonstrated supreme wisdom by alway agreeing unreservedly with me.

[Amarok]

Some show careful consideration and thought.  To some it seems almost foreign to consider.   And for some, a simple question invokes a paranoia and avoidance (mostly because of the source) the likes of which I've only experienced when dealing with those in a cult

So far every response seems to "show careful consideration " care to show one that is not and how would you decide how" careful" it was. This seems like projection

[GrandizerII]

What is the highest authority you recognize? In other words, to what or to whom do you feel obliged to obey and why?

There's no one absolute highest authority that I must obey at all costs. And I'd rather not blindly obey any authority. What I prefer is to acknowledge certain authorities as such (within the right contexts), and to follow their rules only if they do not clash with my core values and violate my rights.

For example, when someone kills a random stranger on the street or robs a small business shop, I acknowledge the authority of the police to go after the criminals and have them arrested. What I will not do is acknowledge their authority to arrest someone for being a Muslim or fighting for marriage equality.

When it comes to science, I generally acknowledge the authority of the official body of relevant scientists to disseminate certain scientific facts and explanations to the public, provided no misuses/abuses of the scientific method were revealed.

When I was a kid living at home with parents, I acknowledged my parents as the authority in the house so long as I was financially and emotionally dependent on them, and so long as they did not abuse me. In school, the teachers were the authority (again, so long as they were not abusive). In hospitals and clinics, doctors and medical workers. And so on.

[chimp3]

Thousands of years ago superstitious people created a god in their own image. Violent, jealous, genocidal, tyrannical, filicidal . They also were capable of caring for each other so they added love to their imaginary Sky Daddy's list of attributes. 

In the 21st century we are asked to consider this an objective framework for moral reasoning.

Strange. The more I dwell on this the stranger it is.

[Brian37]

Thousands of years ago superstitious people created a god in their own image. Violent, jealous, genocidal, tyrannical, filicidal . They also were capable of caring for each other so they added love to their imaginary Sky Daddy's list of attributes. 

In the 21st century we are asked to consider this an objective framework for moral reasoning.

Strange. The more I dwell on this the stranger it is.

It is easy in the west for skeptics to get stuck on the God/s of Abraham in Christianity, Jewish, and Islam, but the truth is tribal polytheism is what even the first of the three the Hebrews, were based on tribal Canaanites. 

What I don't like about what gets ignored is that all of antiquity back then lived under ruling families, the Ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, even China and India, everyone lived under local city/states under class rule and everyone mistook their good fortune as coming from a divine place outside human control. 

Not even the Greeks and Romans back then should be compared to our modern western governments. They didn't have back then the ability to remove their Caesar through impeachment, they either died, passed down the power to a family member or they got murdered by family or a political rival. 

Back in all of antiquity worldwide, even in polytheism, the mortality rate was much higher, life was far harder and for the person who was not at the top it was far more expected to tow the tribal line. One can only argue that there were more tolerant periods depending and less tolerant periods depending. 

But the motif of "divine right" is not unique to the gods of Abraham. Royal rule existed everywhere even in India and China and Rome and Greece.

[chimp3]

Thousands of years ago superstitious people created a god in their own image. Violent, jealous, genocidal, tyrannical, filicidal . They also were capable of caring for each other so they added love to their imaginary Sky Daddy's list of attributes. 

In the 21st century we are asked to consider this an objective framework for moral reasoning.

Strange. The more I dwell on this the stranger it is.

It is easy in the west for skeptics to get stuck on the God/s of Abraham in Christianity, Jewish, and Islam, but the truth is tribal polytheism is what even the first of the three the Hebrews, were based on tribal Canaanites. 

What I don't like about what gets ignored is that all of antiquity back then lived under ruling families, the Ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, even China and India, everyone lived under local city/states under class rule and everyone mistook their good fortune as coming from a divine place outside human control. 

Not even the Greeks and Romans back then should be compared to our modern western governments. They didn't have back then the ability to remove their Caesar through impeachment, they either died, passed down the power to a family member or they got murdered by family or a political rival. 

Back in all of antiquity worldwide, even in polytheism, the mortality rate was much higher, life was far harder and for the person who was not at the top it was far more expected to tow the tribal line. One can only argue that there were more tolerant periods depending and less tolerant periods depending. 

But the motif of "divine right" is not unique to the gods of Abraham. Royal rule existed everywhere even in India and China and Rome and Greece.

In the 21st century I am not asked by believers in Zeus or Aphrodite to explain how I have a basis for moral thought. Modern day Taoists seem to go with the flow. Krishna devotees can be annoying at times but mostly they just make bad music and invite you over for dinner.

[Brian37]

It is easy in the west for skeptics to get stuck on the God/s of Abraham in Christianity, Jewish, and Islam, but the truth is tribal polytheism is what even the first of the three the Hebrews, were based on tribal Canaanites. 

What I don't like about what gets ignored is that all of antiquity back then lived under ruling families, the Ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, even China and India, everyone lived under local city/states under class rule and everyone mistook their good fortune as coming from a divine place outside human control. 

Not even the Greeks and Romans back then should be compared to our modern western governments. They didn't have back then the ability to remove their Caesar through impeachment, they either died, passed down the power to a family member or they got murdered by family or a political rival. 

Back in all of antiquity worldwide, even in polytheism, the mortality rate was much higher, life was far harder and for the person who was not at the top it was far more expected to tow the tribal line. One can only argue that there were more tolerant periods depending and less tolerant periods depending. 

But the motif of "divine right" is not unique to the gods of Abraham. Royal rule existed everywhere even in India and China and Rome and Greece.

In the 21st century I am not asked by believers in Zeus or Aphrodite to explain how I have a basis for moral thought. Modern day Taoists seem to go with the flow. Krishna devotees can be annoying at times but mostly they just make bad music and invite you over for dinner.

Nope sorry, Taoism doesn't get a pass either, it also was started in antiquity. I really would recommend all reading this to READ Victor Stenger's "The New Atheism" to understand where our species behaviors are really coming from. Labels do not magically make the individual only do good. Not even the word "atheist" has any magic power to keep the individual from doing bad things. Our species behaviors have always been in our evolution.

Asia's history even with Buddhism and Taoism and Jainism has still had its division and conflicts among nations and back then all of them still lived under local royalty whom all mistook their rule as coming from a higher place, state or divine place. And even today those nations still have prisons like all nations do. 

There simply is no logical way you can square any of the ignorance of all of antiquity. Combine that book I mentioned with the entire 13 part series of Cosmos with Neil, and you will see, everyone made bad guesses back then.

[Sal]

What is the highest authority you recognize?

Myself.

In other words, to what or to whom do you feel obliged to obey and why?

My thoughts and desires.

Fuck the police.

[Brian37]

What is the highest authority you recognize?

Myself.

In other words, to what or to whom do you feel obliged to obey and why?

My thoughts and desires.

Fuck the police.

Bulllshit, I want police, if you want a society with no accountability try Somalia their "police" are simply those warlords with paid goons to protect their tribal gangs.

I want police but with accountability. It is fucking nonsense not to want that. If you get assault by your neighbor, you think we should be the wild west and have duels at sunrise? 

Fuck corruption sure, fuck abuse of power sure, but no that is absolute nonsense to not want police at all. Go live in a poor third world country where people have more street crime and corrupt law then come back here and tell me you don't want government to call if someone steals your shit or physically harms you.

More fucking bullshit Ayn Rand libertarian nonsense. We don't need to become Cuba or Stalin's Russia and no body wants that. But to say we should have no police at all, absurd. 

There is no way to not have government. Humans will group and form power structures and social structures every single time. You merely end up with more oppressive powers or more checks on powers, but you still end up with a power structure of some kind. There is no such thing as a utopia. No police at all? Nonsense. You can only have more corrupt government or less corrupt government. You can only have more accountability or more abuse of power. But power will arise no matter the form it ends up being be it an open society or closed society.