Err, how so?
Granted.
That is as good a definition as I have heard. Regarding the topic of debate, I think it ties in more with the concept of “people” as arrogant, rather than “a belief system” as arrogant. We can clearly spend weeks going in circles just defining the definitions of “atheist” and “agnostic,” and the various levels in those… if anything, it demonstrates that one’s beliefs are entirely subjective, even when talking about supposedly objective terms, much less a non-phsyical entity. IE, what one person considers atheist, another considers flatly theist, and neither is necessarily right, in the sense that 4 inches IS 4 inches. Defining terms in how they are “mostly used” is also subjective to a tyrrany of the majority, and it does not make the use of the terms correct. We’ve had this discussion on race many times. Now, given that people can barely define the words that deal with religion, is it not arrogant for anyone to say anything concrete about god? 
On the contrary, I do consider people’s beliefs as evidence. But I don’t think you can stop there; you have to examine the source of the belief. After all, how much weight should one give to belief as evidence? Surely not 100%, unless you are prepared to acknowledge the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, psychic healing, alien abductions, ghosts, and every single other thing that people believe in. And when you examine these beliefs objectively, they just don’t hold up. If God is somehow putting these beliefs in people’s minds, then it belies the argument that He doesn’t interact with us in any way. Obviously, putting beliefs in people’s minds constitutes a form of interaction. So then the question immediately changes from “If God doesn’t interact at all, how can you know He exists?”, to “If God put belief in your mind, how do you know this is the case?” It’s now a question of examining the evidence, rather than debating whether there is any evidence. And based on a lifetime of examining this evidence, I just don’t think it holds up. If people can believe other things that aren’t true, like alien abductions, why can’t God-belief be just another example of a mistaken belief?
This whole thing is another source of frustration for atheists. Theists often seem to want to advance mutually-contradictory arguments simultaneously, i.e. saying that their belief is evidence, yet not allowing that evidence to be examined because God “doesn’t interact with us.”
But FWIW, I understand how that would feel like a Catch-22 for you. In your mind, you “know” it to be true, yet cannot prove it.
I haven’t “carelessly disregarded” the feelings of anyone. If, by stating my beliefs, I am disregarding your feelings, then surely you are guilty of exactly the same vis a vis my feelings. Surely we aren’t all that delicate? Is there not room in this world for us to disagree?
Funny, when I saw the movie, I took that as a prime example of specious reasoning.
The accusation of “trolling” was, unfortunately, made by an individual. MEB simply reminded us of what trolling is (and thus reminded us of his presence and the rules of the boards). I don’t see anything wrong with that.
As the accused, I don’t think I was trolling, merely stating my beliefs. I actually consider my position of “no group of people is necessarily anything, though individuals in that group may be” as exactly flame bait, but to each his own.
This thread, obviously, went off on tangents, but I believe we are still in the realm of discussing whether or not atheism is arrogant. In order to define that, we need to figure out if it is arrogant or not to claim that god does not exist.
**Moderator’s Note:**You’re not paid to think! I’m the Moderator–I do all the thinking around here!
Seriously, what I think is that maybe some people were starting to come close to tossing around the “T-word” in the middle of the thread, which (as the policy I quoted states) is against the rules.
All hail mighty Buckner, oh wielder of such awesome omnipotence. 
I’m sorry, that just made me laugh my ass off. By golly, I really needed some relief from the intensity of the day I just had, including this thread.
And, with that, I’m done! 
How does it make sense to claim to belive in some undefined X or to not believe in some undefined X?
If god is defined as omniscient how is that consistent with “freewill”? If god knows all, then he knows what we will will choose. If he knows what we will choose then we have no “Freewill” for we will inevetibly choose what he has seen we will choose. If he has known all along what choices we will make why are their so many biblical references to him getting pissed off at what we do? Since he knew all along what we were going to do?
It seems that that the concept of “freewill” negates the concept of omniscience. I do not claim to know, these are just questions that come to my STUPID mind. Any help in reconciling the concepts would be appreciated.
Now we’re getting somewhere! Ok, let’s start with these observations and effects. We can evaluate them. What are they?
Ah, you’re right. I think it’s b/c this issue originated w/ my observation of Christian accusations against atheists. Sorry.
You are looking at this too much as a being entrapped by time.
Did Napoleon have free will? I would answer yes, and I expect you would too. Yet since his life was in our past, we can in esscense know absoultely everything about him, every desision, every action. We could be ‘omniscient’ about his life because he is in our past, without denying the fact that he had free will.
Now take this thought and consider that God is by some definitions (maybe most) timeless, or outside of time as we experience it. Such a being could perceive our selves and our universe from any point in our time (possibly from all points in our time at once). Such a being could see our actions as a history without us ever failing to have free will.
(P.S. such thinking may be improved by medium amounts of alcoholic beverage consumption )
That is absurd. If someone drops a coin, you know it will fall to the ground. Does that mean that the coin will drop to the ground because you predetermined it?
Actually, the “all” and “every” are original with you. I did not add them. But I think I see where I mistook your meaning:
By “just” I took you to mean “exclusively”. I probably erred there. Of course, you do say “every other collection” and “every other religion”, and when you later say “it’s all fiction”, I understood you to refer to this – the entire body of world scripture. Based on your reply, I now take it that you meant that the list of examples is “all fiction”.
In English, when you write “Polish people are stupid” then you are most certainly characterizing Polish people in general, and they have a right to object to your false and slanderous claim against them. To try and weasel out of what you said will not do.
You said “Maybe atheists’ arrogant [sic] is manifested in their belief that they are their own god.” That’s no different in saying “Maybe Democrats’ evilness is manifested in their support for child rape.” To turn around and then claim you were only talking about those Democrats that support child rape (even though you have yet to produce a single example) is to shift meaning to escape the fact that your original claim is groundless.
In essence, they are metaphysical.
You have to understand, in my belief structure, god is not a being with a will of “his” own. It simply doesn’t exist on a physical dimension.
However, a more traditional theist would here argue that god created existence, and that is evidence, and a yet more traditional would argue that a god interacts daily in answer to prayers and in helping people make decisions. None of those are my bag, so I won’t claim to be able to defend them.
None of the actual Satanists I know hold such beliefs, nor do any of them believe such beliefs are necessary, however. (Very few seem to believe in Satan, either.)
Personally, I think that the choice of the word “Satanist” for their religious practices is misleading at worst and simply confusing at best, and I suspect that it was intended to be so by the founders of those religious beliefs. (Or chosen for the shock value.) (Actually, my admittedly biased opinion is that a fair number of Satanists, whether pagan-identified or not, choose that particular label because of its shock value.)
The subject came up specifically, though not very informatively, on a pagan message board I read about a month and a half ago; the thread in question is at Delphi Forums Login - Welcome! Please log in. if you want to have a look at what was said. (The OP was something along the lines of, “Why does your website list Satanism as a pagan religion? It’s not, and they get bad press.”)
Bippythebeardless
I definately agree with your last parenthatical comment.
Zagadka: I do not think you understood my comments, or I failed to express my thaughts clearly. I will think about it some more and try to come up with a better way to express what I am trying to say. Nevertheless I did not call you comments absurd, I don’t feel you are justified (yet) in saying mine are.
heh now that we’ve hashed out the differences between soft/hard atheism and agnostic. We’ve brushed by the wiccans and now we’re working on satanism.
Interesting how many ‘faiths’ are getting involved here for being mischaracterized. I guess everyone is misunderstood by someone else.
I always understood Satanism to be more skewed towards Humanism with a shock value name attached. Some magic mumbo jumbo is thrown in at the end that most Satanists simply ignore.
You’re right, you have my sincere apologies. Kneejerk reaction, gets me every time.
See my thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248279
Well, it all goes to show that generalizations and terms can’t be applied evenly.
Hell, it goes to show how arrogant we all are even discussing something as complicated as a god force when we can’t even name half of the terms. O_o