Catholic League Wants Time Warner To Have ‘A Serious Talk’ With Bill Maher

[Newest Reality]

9. I qauesiton their

authority on any matter and their opinion is merely relative to the influence and power they currently hold.

If they find that threatening, then the burden of proof is on them to establish on what grounds they have any actual authority. If the substantiation rests on a god then tangible evidence does not seem to exist, unless they can provide it. Hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not admissible.

It they rest on ad populum arguments, then their authority is merely a logical fallacy and as convincing as the opinions about which baseball team is best. Popularity is no actual proof of authority, no matter how many people agree on an issue. If everyone agreed that gravity does not exist, they might start walking and acting funny, but that's not going to end gravity.

Most authority and many institutions rest on swampy ground. If popular opinion or beliefs change around them, they tend to hold no concrete and factual relevance or power. That is powerful and yes, it is anarchistic.

When you go by the argument of burden of proof, it is not so much about ending or eliminating various, influential institutions, (that tend to have ulterior motives and self-serving agendas) it is about relegating them to their proper place and delimiting their control of the rest of us. That is doable if we push the issue past the curtain.