Is Atheism "arrogant"?

[bbart4]

Going back to the OP, I do not think the position of atheism is arrogant, as the position itself doesn’t claim to possess the knowledge that something unobservable does exist.

Unfortunately, in reality it is quite difficult for us to express our position without hurting religionists’ sensibilities. In an article in the latest issue of SI, Chris Mooney suggested that it might be due to some of us who lack the skills of “framing:” the packaging and marketing of ideas. Yes the article is about the recent “Bright” brouhaha.

[beajerry]

I thought that the movie Contact addressed this debate quite interestingly.

[gobear]

People observed them. They even caught them on video. I stated my belief that they are not real, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. I can say it is highly, highly unlikely for a variety of reasons, but I can’t rule it out.

No, people have seen lights in the sky that turned out to be soemthing other than flying saucers. People have faked photos of “flying saucers” that have been throughly debunked. Givne the inviolability of the speed of light, there is so little chance that piloted craft have ever come here that the likleihood is as close to zero as makes no difference.

In any case, your example of schizophrenics is not conclusive. There are billions of people on this planet who are not, in fact, schizophrenic, who do believe in a form of god.

My point is that the intensity of belief does not correspond to its validity. Billions of people believe in astrology, too. Argument from popularity isn’t very useful in proving your point.

[Zagadka]

@gobear

My point is that the intensity of belief does not correspond to its validity. Billions of people believe in astrology, too. Argument from popularity isn’t very useful in proving your point.

I wasn’t arguing for popularity. You implied that all religious people are schizophrenics. I simply stated that there are billions of religious people who aren’t schizophrenics.

In any event, you can’t find proof of god using physical means, because it is simply not a physical force.

Does that prove it exists? No, not really. I never claimed it did. I have all the proof I need in my head, and nothing I can say will convince you of what I have observed. On the other hand, I never tried to convince you of what I have observed, and neither would I. I simply said that you do not know what I have observed.

So what if god is different for every individual?

What is truly observable?

Mixing science with philosophy is dangerous. Like in Ghost Busters, you mustn’t cross beams.

[agiantdwarf]

@Zagadka

Perhaps you would care to re-read my sentence more carefully one more time before saying that I am applying a “double standard”?

Perhaps you should re-read your sentence once again. You use the word “some.” By your definition, all theists (except those who believe all religions are correct, but they are a tiny minority) are arrogant. Hope this helps.

[Zagadka]

@agiantdwarf

Perhaps you should re-read your sentence once again. You use the word “some.” By your definition, all theists (except those who believe all religions are correct, but they are a tiny minority) are arrogant. Hope this helps.

One more time, for those keeping track at home:

That “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude is what make some atheists annoyingly arrogant, just as it makes some theists annoyingly arrogant.

Do you still want to argue about this, or do I need to explain some more?

[Zagadka]

Hm, on second thought, I think I just came upon another reason some atheists come across as arrogant.

Just like theists, they see what they want to see, and nothing else. Even when they read religious literature, they are reading it for errors, not to understand what it means. This lack of understanding translates poorly when the proclaim proudly that they are right and everyone else is stupid because, obviously as pointed out above, theists can’t read while atheists can.

[Darkhold]

@Libertarian

Originally Posted by Darkhold
You misunderstand atheism then (at least soft atheism). I don’t believe in god for the same reason I don’t believe in bigfoot the burden of proof hasn’t been met to my satisfaction. Doesn’t mean I claim to have special knowledge or that I’m above another person. I could be wrong on both counts.

I think the view of arrogant atheists comes from several sources.

1. bitterness. Many left their religions bitter and take it out on people.
2. Related to above many get sick of dealing with misconceptions about what type of people they are and start becoming what they hate condescending jerks.
3. I’ve noticed a vast ignorance in many believers and they hate it when I point out inconstancies in the bible or their personal faith. Because I raise questions they are ill equipped to answer because they haven’t done their research where I have I come off as a jerk that’s attacking their beliefs not someone that’s defending why I can’t buy the story they are trying to sell me

So, theists are “arrogant” because they are bitter condescending jerks who hate the fact that you’re smarter than they are? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Hmmm misunderstand much? How many times do I have to say “I could be wrong” and such before my opinion is acceptable to you? Seems like if anything atheists should be objecting to my characterizations not theists. I was replying why atheists are viewed as arrogant and why many atheists do indeed come off as arrogant. Some is valid some is projection. I said nothing about a majority of theists nor did I say anything definitive of their character. I was talking about my personal experiences.

After I decided I was atheists after long being on the fence and looking at all sides of the issues involved. I reached a painful conclusion. Every time I mentioned it (except in the cases of two of my friends. One supportive the other couldn’t care less) I was jumped on. Not in an honest ‘oh lets to debate your decision’ type way but a "oh you have decided to become immoral and are going to hell’ type way. This smug I know better then you attitude is wearing. Especially when you have read the bible several times and they never crack it open. When they don’t even know who Lot is and only know Moses from the movies how do you not come off as a know-it-all when trying to discuss Christianity with them (I have only a brushing knowledge with Buddhism and other religions I’m currently trying to plow through some Hindu books but it’s hard going).

[Darkhold]

@Zagadka

Hm, on second thought, I think I just came upon another reason some atheists come across as arrogant.

Just like theists, they see what they want to see, and nothing else. Even when they read religious literature, they are reading it for errors, not to understand what it means. This lack of understanding translates poorly when the proclaim proudly that they are right and everyone else is stupid because, obviously as pointed out above, theists can’t read while atheists can.

However this is just projection. It’s the theists that quote the book so often like I’m the one that can’t read and then told what it means like I’m the one that lacks comprehension. Yet when you quote the errors back you’re the arrogant one.

I also object a little to the reading the bible for errors. I used to read it because I believed in it. I couldn’t understand the errors but I gave it up to ‘faith’. After I became atheist I did indeed go back and research the bible more on the errors then anything else but that was because I was tired of being challenged daily on my choices and needed to be able to have responses other then vague replies.

[Thingol]

@Thudlow Boink

some weird things are true: see relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. for examples.

I’m glad you brought this up.

Why should we believe the counter-intuitive, often mind-bending implications of relativity and quantum mechanics?

Because the evidence that they’re true in spite of how strange they may appear to the human mind is simply overwhelming.

These theories (1) follow as inescapable consequences from known fact and valid theory, and (2) have precise, demonstrated predictive power.

So your point actually supports my view here.

There’s no reason that humans should have evolved to understand or even perceive relativity or quantum mechanics. So they seem odd to us. But they can be verified.

There are plenty of reasons why humans should have evolved to engage in religious thought (again, see “WPBWT”, as well as Steven Pinker’s work on the subject). But there is no objective reason to accept god as fact, and the theory consistently fails the predictive power test.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

Would a Christian be arrogant to say ‘Krishna does not exist’? Such a Christian is being no more arrogant than an Atheist saying ‘God does not exist’.

An atheist looks at the evidence for God and finds it lacking.
A theist looks at the evidence for God and finds it sufficient.

[blowero]

@Thingol

Please explain why the existence of god should be beyond the bounds of proof. What is it about god that makes its existence “something that cannot be known for sure”? I’m curious about that.

On the contrary, one can only determine that a claim is absurd if one takes it seriously enough to investigate. For example, the claim that “Penta Water” has been molecularly reconfigured by sound waves to go into your cells faster because it is less prone to make large clumps, is absurd. But one can only know that if one knows why such an assertion is absurd. It is not enough to say, “I don’t believe it, therefore it must be absurd”.

I cannot accept, and see no valid reason to accept, majority opinion as evidence of truth. Especially when there turn out to be good reasons why people should believe things that are untrue (I recommend “Why People Believe Weird Things”).

Well said. That first paragraph is really the crux of the Catch-22 that people try to stick us with. Theists claim that there is a God that ostensibly can interact with us in some way (otherwise, would there be any point in worshipping it?), yet at the same time want to somehow make this God immune to any kind of observation. But to know a thing exists is to have observed it in some way. If there is no tangible way to have any knowledge about a thing, then for all practical purposes, it does not exist. But somehow, when we point this out, we are labeled as “arrogant”. This is baffling.

Thudlow Boink:
No, of course majority opinion doesn’t prove that something’s true. But the more people there are who believe something—at least if they’re clear-minded, rational people whom I respect, some of whom have had a lot more experience or who have spent a lot more time thinking about it than I—the more benefit of the doubt I’d give it; I’d approach the question with more humility and would require a lot stronger argument to decisively dismiss it.

You’re really contradicting yourself here. First you say that argumentum ad populum is invalid, then you proceed to say you subscribe to it. I think the criterium should be, not how many “clear-minded, rational” people believe it, but rather how clear-minded and rational is the idea itself?

(And some weird things are true: see relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. for examples.)

But can’t you see the difference? We only believe relativity and QM to be true because that’s what we have observed. It’s really the opposite of God-belief, where one clings to ones preconceived notions in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary. In physics, scientists have actually had to discard their preconceived notions in the face of empirical evidence. Einstein would have gotten nowhere if he had not been willing to discard the idea that time is absolute (which, BTW, almost every “clear-minded, rational” person believed at the time), but it was the only explanation that fit the data.

[Dob]

Like any argument, both sides come across as arrogant it their argument is taken to far to either end of the spectrum. Atheists who say “I do believe the claim (that god exists) is absurd”, or “There is no God” will be seen as arrogant by those who claim “God exists, and you will go to hell for not believing so”.

It is a loss loss argument. The better arguments are with agnostics and, I will say, “soft” Theists. Both have different views, but yet both are open to new views and ideas.

Try talking theism with a hard atheist and your a freaking moron. Talk evolution, and Big Bang with a fundamentalist Christian, and your a hell bound sinner. So I will refute what someone had asserted earlier, it IS the belief that causes arrogance, not the person. Of course, some people are just dicks, not matter what they believe.

[Zagadka]

@Darkhold

However this is just projection. It’s the theists that quote the book so often like I’m the one that can’t read and then told what it means like I’m the one that lacks comprehension. Yet when you quote the errors back you’re the arrogant one.

Not always. Some Christians are stupid, and don’t know what is in their own bible. That’s just how people are. It is unfortunate.

I mean things like, where atheists stomp around horribly mauling what is written in a bible, or misrepresenting religious ideology. I’m not saying there aren’t many theist-educated atheists. There are a lot of ex-Christians, for instance. I’m jsut saying that many atheists cite themselves as knowing everything about religion, when they understand very little about why something is done the way it is.

For instance, some Wiccans believe quite literally that they can cast spells to make money appear, or see into the future. Most call those people “idiots,” and they are generally caught up on feeling cool calling themselves a “witch.” They are on the same level as Christians who don’t what the fish symbology represents. They also usually don’t last for very long, viewing it as a fad.

They are also usually atheists.

Unfortunately, most people (atheists and Christians alike) look at them as a representation of what paganism is all about, which is completely unfounded. Serious pagans use divination to look into themselves, not into the future, and use magic to focus or alter their emotional state, not create something from nothing. Many people take the concept of a “moon goddess” literally, and think that all pagans believe that the moon is a god form, which is absurd. It is symbology. Nonetheless, illiteracy abounds on all sides. Look at how the pentagram is viewed by society, for instance. Even atheists treat it with scorn, which is, frankly, sad. You think you get stoned to death for being an atheist? Try beign a pagan. People either think you are some stupid heavy metal “satanist” type, some whiney goth kid, or absolute evil. You think many true pagans appreciate have the pentagram being spit on in popular culture? Or being used to represent Satanism? Or used by atheists to represent their personal rebellion against Christianity? You’d be amazed how many people come into pagan circles just because they have a chip on their shoulder over Christianity. The first words in most books on Wicca and other pagan religions are usually something like, “if you are here because you have a chip on your shoulder with Christianity, this isn’t for you.” The first few chapters are usually dispelling the popular concepts and misconceptions before you can even begin discussing any theology.

Then, on top of it all, some atheist comes along and says you are stupid and ignorant for believing in Creationism because you’re a theist. Super.

So yea, like I said, I have a chip on my shoulder about atheists, just like atheists frequently have chips on their shoulders about Christianity. They generally think they understand everything about religion, when they understand very little about the basic concepts, and they take to generalizing and demonizing everyone in the image of Christianity, which is unfair.

I have nothing against atheists. To each his own. I don’t feel the need to have anyone else believe like I do. I have something against atheists who feel like they need to force their opinion on everyone else, and behave in a prejudiced manner towards me. Atheists aren’t any better or worse than anyone else. They need to accept that.

[blowero]

@Darkhold

However this is just projection. It’s the theists that quote the book so often like I’m the one that can’t read and then told what it means like I’m the one that lacks comprehension. Yet when you quote the errors back you’re the arrogant one.

Not only that, but I think there’s a very specific reason why some atheists have pointed out the errors in the Bible: because there is a very vocal group of Christian fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. If someone claims that a thing is inerrant, the obvious response would be to point out where it is in error. So while I’m not personally into that myself either, I can understand the argument.

At any rate, it’s rather hypocritical to criticize atheists for pointing out problems in the Bible, when I see so many Christians pointing out that “The Koran says this and that and incites violence, etc.” I could certainly level the same criticism at them. They’re not trying to understand the Koran.

[Zagadka]

@blowero

Theists claim that there is a God that ostensibly can interact with us in some way (otherwise, would there be any point in worshipping it?)

This sentence belies basic ignorance about what religion is. It isn’t worshipping someone to get something manifest out of it.

yet at the same time want to somehow make this God immune to any kind of observation. But to know a thing exists is to have observed it in some way.

God is not immune to observation. It affects us every day - just not physically.

Can you touch time? Can you see it? Can you smell, taste, or hear it?

What makes you think that the senses from one “dimension” work on antoher “dimension?”

When you’re discussing religion, you’re talking metaphysics, or even philosophy - or perhaps psychology, if you really like - but you aren’t talking chemistry and calculus.

[Darkhold]

For instance, some Wiccans believe quite literally that they can cast spells to make money appear, or see into the future. Most call those people “idiots,” and they are generally caught up on feeling cool calling themselves a “witch.”

Heh I’ll probably reply to the rest of your post in a second but my Wiccan friend would go through the ROOF if you told her Wiccans believe they can make money appear through spells. To her (and all of those that follow her sect) view spells as mediation for clarity and focusing their minds and spiritual powers. It’ll help you achieve your goals it won’t make them happen for you.

[Dob]

from Blowero

But to know a thing exists is to have observed it in some way. If there is no tangible way to have any knowledge about a thing, then for all practical purposes, it does not exist. But somehow, when we point this out, we are labeled as “arrogant”. This is baffling.

Here is the “catch-22” in the athiest argument. You want “tangible knowledge”, to Thiests(well me at least), my belief and what I feel is tangible. I dont think there is a God, I know it to be true, He is tangible to me. However, I cant get you a picture, nor a DNA sample. No one is labeling you as arrogant because you want proof, I would lable you arrogant because you would so carelessly disregard the feelings of over a few billion people on this planet, because they cant make it “tangible” for you, what they feel.

Contact had the best line it: “How can I trust someone who honestly believes the rest of the world is deluding themselves?”(or something to that effect)

[Zagadka]

@Darkhold

Heh I’ll probably reply to the rest of your post in a second but my Wiccan friend would go through the ROOF if you told her Wiccans believe they can make money appear through spells. To her (and all of those that follow her sect) view spells as mediation for clarity and focusing their minds and spiritual powers. It’ll help you achieve your goals it won’t make them happen for you.

Exactly. The sad part is, I’ve seen books proclaiming that they teach spells on how to make money, which is sad. That’s exactly like selling a book on how to pray for money… O_o That is a basic misunderstanding of the religion. Unfortunately, all too common.

Then again, I’ve seen Wiccan books start out with the author being led into another dimension by a unicorn on a rainbow, and I don’t believe that they were being 100% metaphorical, so… some are nuttier than others

[Thudlow_Boink]

@blowero

You’re really contradicting yourself here. First you say that argumentum ad populum is invalid, then you proceed to say you subscribe to it. I think the criterium should be, not how many “clear-minded, rational” people believe it, but rather how clear-minded and rational is the idea itself?

No, I really don’t think I am contradicting myself.
Bad reasoning: “Many clear-minded, rational people believe this, therefore it’s true.”
Good reasoning: “Many clear-minded, rational people believe this, therefore it is not an inherently absurd thing to believe, and it merits serious consideration.”
Can’t you see the difference?

We only believe relativity and QM to be true because that’s what we have observed. It’s really the opposite of God-belief, where one clings to ones preconceived notions in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary.

What “empirical evidence to the contrary”? Do you really have evidence that there is no God, as opposed to lack of evidence that there is a God?

I can give evidence of God which to me seems reasonable (see the recent GD thread), but I can’t give evidence for which God is the only possible explanation. I can’t observe God directly (any more than I can prove by direct observation whether Hitler was gay or whether Bob’s wife loves him). I can see what God has done (the universe he created, for one), though I can’t prove it was God who did it. I can interact with God: I can pray, I can live my life as I believe God wants me to, and I expect that God will respond in some way—but not in a way that I can point to and say unambiguously, “That’s God.”