I do believe the claim (that god exists) is absurd. I don’t believe that everyone who believes in god is any of the above. Almost all the persons I admire most do believe in god. Humans are obviously predisposed to religious thought, and arguably with good reason. I would hardly call Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, or my grandmothers “ignorant, delusional, stupid, [or] weak willed”.
You must be confusing me with another poster. The original posting should have made it clear that I’m not equating Christianity with religion. And I have in fact studied world religion for years. Although I’m by no means a scholar on the subject, I don’t believe in rejecting ideas one has not bothered to research. I’ve only run across the specific “arrogance” accusation in Christian sources, though.
Please, don’t take my statements on this thread as indicative of my everyday behavior. It’s actually not a subject I tend to discuss in public. It gets nowhere and only annoys people. This venue, however, is made for such discussions.
And I certainly don’t think I’m smarter than Martin Luther, Marie Curie, Beethoven, etc ad nauseum. One cannot make general statements about intelligence based on this one belief.
I don’t see where I have associated any “individual behavior” with “general beliefs”. Please quote me, perhaps I’ve made an error. If so, I apologize.
But here’s the thing… I’m asking why it should be arrogant per se to simply affirm “there is no god” without adding “I believe” or “in my opinion”. I’ve already admitted I’m a prick. That’s not the issue.
Actually, it’s not all fiction. It is not all contradicted by modern science, by any means. There’s plenty of accurate history in the Bible. Depends on the book. I don’t know of any serious historians who doubt, for example, that ancient Israel and Judea existed, that the Cyrian repatriation spawned violent conflicts, etc.
I would also be unwilling to reject the historicity of the exodus, while not necessarily claiming to accept any particular detail of the Biblical account. It is not an extraordinary claim, and in this case an “I don’t know” is perfectly appropriate.
To reject all sacred writings of the world because they are considered sacred writings is obviously to short-circuit the thinking process and a failure to carry out due diligence.
Heard the song sings - “what if god is one of us?”[/qoute]Yes because a hypothetical question asked by a religious singer is the same as an atheist believing they are their own god.
Nope, you’re right, you didn’t say that, and I did put those words in your fingers, so to speak. I think that goes to show what I’ve come to expect from atheists, especially on this board.
Well, your questions (such as “To believe that humans are individually loved by the Creator of the Universe, and that all this exists for us, and we will live forever?”) are certainly loaded towards a Judeo-Christian viewpoint. To be fair, you did at least mention that other religions exist, which takes some goading from most atheists.
Fair enough, I suppose I should apologize. Again, I’m used to people making broad declarations like “theists are ignorant,” which you did not do. However, other people in this thread (not to mention others) have done plenty of this (and the above points). I was going to say that your question was loaded in this way, but it is literally if the belief system of atheism is “arrogant,” not atheists, so I’m wrong there, too. I stand by my, “belief systems aren’t inherently anything. People can be.”
shrugs It would be arrogant for a theist to state their belief in god without the same qualifier. It is, frankly, an unknowable - because you do not have proof of something does not show that it does not exist, it merely proves that you don’t know if it exists. Can you say whether or not there is your proverbial dog in the proverbial next room? You can state that it is likely that there is not, but you can not be absolutely sure. On the other hand, a religious person may have heard barking, leading them to believe that there is a dog in the next room - though they can not be sure, either.
You know, I don’t think I’ve ever said this before, but geez: what a LAME argument. Is Joan Osborne even an atheist? Does the song have anything to do with anyone believing that they are god? Er, what?
Regardless of what anyone says, if someone believes that they are god, they are by definition not an atheist. How hard is that to understand?
Ancient Israel and Judea certainly existed, but the accounts of their histories in I and II Chronicles and ! and 2 Kings are doubtful. Archeologists have found that they did not arise until several centuries after their supposed foundings. For example, David very likely existed and founded a line of kings, but he was at best a chieftain of a few villages, not the leader of a mighty kingdom.
Sorry, but the Exodus story is not true. Not only is there no record of Hebrew slavery in Egypt, nor any mention of any of the events associated with it, there’s no evidence for any large group living in the Sinai during the supposed time of the Exodus. There’s no account of the Plagues, not the loss of the Egyptian, and so on. There may have been Semitic slaves in Egypt, but not in the organized numbers described in the Bible. Read The Bible Unearthed by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein. You don’t get to say “I don’t know” if you haven’t bothered to investigate the matter for yourself; you should say, “I’ll find out.”
I agree, so it’s a good thing I never said that. I don’t reject sacred writing because they’re sacred; I reject them as factual accounts because they invariably have little backing from external sources and are often contradicted by the evidence of archeology, textual analysis, and science.
This thread seems to highlight the double standard applied to atheists:
Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all assert that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Why atheists’ assertions that they are right are seen as “annoyingly arrogant” puzzles me.
Actually, that does not make ladydisco an atheist and she is talking about agnosticism. There are varying degrees of agnosticism, just as with atheism. All she said was that she doesn’t know, which is known as soft agnosticism. She never even said she didn’t believe, though her statement that one isn’t necessarily required to believe suggests that she does not. Therefore she would be an agnostic atheist. On the flip side, if one believes in God without claiming to know for sure of God’s existence, that would be agnostic theism (this is where faith comes in – to believe something without requiring proof, something I see quite a bit in theists who value spirit over logic).
Further, one who believes that God cannot be known by man are known as strong agnostics. Understand that what separates agnosticism and atheism is knowledge versus belief. Atheism is based on lack of belief where agnosticism is based on lack of knowledge.
Simplified by statement:
The soft atheist says, “I don’t believe in God.”
The soft agnostic says, “I don’t know if God exists.”
The strong atheist, “I don’t believe in God because there is no evidence of God.”
The strong agnostic says, “I don’t know if God exists because man cannot know of God’s existence.”
The agnostic atheist says, “I don’t believe in God because I don’t know if God exists.”
The gnostic atheist says, “I don’t believe in God because I know there is no God for there is evidence to the contrary.”
The agnostic theist says, “I believe in God, but I have no knowledge of God’s existence.”
The gnostic theist says, “God exists because there is evidence of God’s existence.”
In regards to the preceived arrogance of atheists:
Firstly, as an agnostic, I find it arrogant that one cannot accept the limits of man’s knowledge. Can man know all there is to know? I think not. Whether we may in the future does not mean we do now.
Secondly, I find it arrogant when atheists pigeonhole all agnostics into a limited, dogmatic aggregate, especially when they don’t understand agnosticism. We agnostics are varied in our philosophy, as well.
Finally, what I find arrogant of theists and atheists alike are those who feel there’s no validity in the opposing belief. Belief, as in faith, is not corporeal; rather it’s intangible.
I wanted to include this quote in my previous post because I think furt’s statement was a bit misleading and Apos added to the confusion.
Soft atheism and agnosticism are not interchangeable. Additionally, there’s a middle ground between believing and not believing. That is uncertainty of belief (Yes/No/Unsure). Since agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief, an agnostic can claim have no knowledge of God, but still be uncertain as to whether to believe in God. The question then becomes, can I believe in God without knowledge? Do I require evidence or can I simply accept it as faith in something unknowable. This search for belief may lead an agnostic to belief (theism) or disbelief (atheism), or one can simply move on to other things in life, such as perfecting their tennis game, leaving said questions unanswered.
That being said, I don’t think either poster was arrogant in their statements, just misinformed…
Yeah, as a matter of fact, gobear, you did say that. Here’s what you wrote:
You clearly state here that the Bible is only a collection of myths contradicted by science, that the same is true of all sacred writings, and that it’s “all fiction”. You clearly do not write that the Bible is largely fiction or that most scripture is mythological. Like my granddaddy used to say, “If you’re gonna piss in my ear, at least don’t try to tell me it’s raining.”
As for the rest, sure. No prob. Tho I should have been clearer about my point re the exodus. The Biblical account certainly is extraordinary and has enough scholarship against it to consider it debunked. Could there have been a group of Hebrew slaves who left Egypt before settling farther north? That notion to me is not out of bounds. That was what I was trying to say (but did a sorry job).
As a matter of fact, until one investigates sufficiently for an answer, one is obliged to say “I don’t know”. “I’ll find out” is great, but there’s not enough time in this life to find out everything there is to know.
The Bible being “all fiction” does not mean that it doesn’t include historical facts. Gone With the Wind is all fiction, but the Civil War still happened. The Iliad is a myth, but Troy existed. It would be quite a trick to write something and get it all wrong, though the Bible gets more wrong than one would think. Back then, the purpose of the book was more important than the truth, so the writers of the Bible were no worse than your average campaign speechwriter.
Unfortunately, Zagadka has gotten caught in the crossfire. AGD’s comments spun off of Z’s, but the point is this…
Believers in many religions do, in fact, assert that God exists, and more, as incontrivertable truth. Implicit in this notion is the necessary conclusion that atheists – and, often/usually, adherents of other religions – are wrong. And not wrong on a matter of opinion, like what’s the best episode of Sienfeld, but wrong in a matter of objective reality.
True faith means “I believe”. Not “Well, maybe”.
This is the double standard I indeed see operating all the time: That it’s rude to tell believers that their beliefs are incorrect, or to object when they do as much to you. In fact, you should supposedly admire the faithful for their faith, yet intentionally obscure your own views by pretending that you think the existence of god is an issue worthy of real debate – which is implicit in having to say “I don’t believe in God” rather than the supposedly arrogant “There is no god”.
Well, yeah, claiming that man’s knowledge has no limits or that one knows all… that would certainly be arrogant. But what’s that got to do with asserting that yogic flying, alien architects, and gods don’t exist?
I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to signify – does anyone believe that ideas are tangible? But as for the first part, it ain’t arrogant to call a shovel a shovel, to say the emperor has no clothes… to call bullshit on an unsupported idea whose only justification is that a lot of people believe it.
My take on the OP: this is a matter of cultural baggage. If you were brought up in a country steeped in Judeo-Christian beliefs, and take it for granted that these beliefs are true, it is very jarring to hear someone deny those beliefs, no matter how politely that disbelief is stated.
As a person brought up in a non-religious environment, I think it’s odd to call either religious or non-religious people arrogant. Cultural baggage, man.
How can there be a middle ground between having a belief and not having a belief? If you are unsure whether to jump off a cliff, then you haven’t jumped yet, and you are standing on the side of “not jumping off cliff.”
…but I’m an insomniac. I’ll leave it alone after this.
Point taken. One twist, though. GWTW was intended as fiction. Much of the Bible probably was too. And as you say, a heckuva lot of it was probably intended as something that doesn’t fit very well into modern conceptions of fiction/nonfiction.
But parts were certainly intended as history. It doesn’t take a genius, though, to see that Joshua and Judges, for example, differ materially on very important points. So to take even the “historical” sections of the Bible at face value would be… let’s say “bad scholarship”.
But In the case of ancient scripture and other ancient writings, even exaggerated and erroneous accounts of history can often be of significance if some of the basics (the mention of Cyrus, for example) serve to corroborate other evidence of an event.
We’re way off-topic here, I’m afraid. I guess gobear just kinda yanked my chain w/ the blanket statement. The question often isn’t “Is this account accurate?”, but rather, “What truth can be gleaned here?”
