That’s pretty much correct.
I have met believers who are incredibly arrogant and believers who are incredibly humble. I have met non-believers who are incredibly arrogant and non-believers who are incredibly humble. And all sorts in-between.
In my experience religion doesn’t make people good or bad, arrogant or humble. Religion is a catalyst to drive whatever is there already; it does not convert assholes to saints or vice versa. And atheism is no shield to self-righteousness, nor is it the path to wild hedonism.
TL; DR version: people are people.
I agree 100% with your first paragraph.
As for your second paragraph, if you’re saying that religion doesn’t, as a general rule, always change people in a particular, consistent way, I agree with that too. If you’re saying that people never change (neither suddenly nor gradually), or that religion is never an agent in such change, I think that’s too blanket a statement.
Eh, a mixed bag among Christians. In my travels the most arrogant Christians are the wives of the clergy. Reverend Lovejoy’s wife is a spot-on stereotype for several pastors wives I have known - gossipy, judgemental and arrogant.
And in my travels, clergy wives, are not at all arrogant, gossipy, or judgmental. The ones I’ve known anyway. Yeah, people are people.
And anecdotal evidence is… of limited value.
Is this anecdotal evidence?
Yep. 
I did say “of limited value,” not “of no value.”
Anecdotal evidence is bad for establishing general rules (“All X’s are Y’s,” or “X’s are usually Y’s” or “X’s are more Y than Z’s are”), like “All religion is arrogant” or “clergy wives are arrogant” or “clergy wives are humble.”
Anecdotal evidence is good for refuting general rules by providing counterexamples. Which is how you were using yours (“Not all clergy wives are arrogant, because I’ve seen some that aren’t”) as well as how I was using mine, so I’m not telling you anything you don’t know. I just thought it interesting that Mr. Doremro’s post and yours together demonstrated the dangers of generalizing from limited data.
In my experience it’s not being a believer or not that makes someone arrogant. It’s been extremely sure in that opinion and determined to let everyone know they’ve discovered THE TRUTH, which says more about their personality than their beliefs/lack there of. I’ve meet very abrasive atheists and very abrasive Christians. But lots and lots more atheists and people of several faiths who are not at all insufferable.
I have been an atheist all my life simply because religion is not a scientific interpretation of reality. I know and respect many observant Jews, Christians, Muslims and people who think there is a “higher power”
There has arisen a movement of “New Atheists” who wear their atheism on their sleeves. For them, it is almost like a religion. Talk about arrogant. In fact, the most militant ones I have met are reformed fundamentalist Christians. One in particular would go confront people at fundamentalist churches on Sundays. For these people, Sam Harris is God. They also have tended to effortlessly slip into Islamophobia which REALLY puts them on the wrong side of history.
So yeah, these people are definitely insufferable. I’ll take the Mormons and the JW anyday.
Thanks for the responses. I am starting to believe, as some others have stated, that religion can amplify one’s own arrogance, as opposed to being an arrogant endeavor in itself. It is important to live and let live, imho. But problems arise when morality enters into it. Do you have to respect a religion you find personally repugnant? My first instinct is yes. I don’t want to be the arrogant one who says my morality is right and yours is wrong. I don’t want to claim my ethics and morality are superior when I know I have my own moral and ethical failings.
That said, I am not sure how to reconcile this with, for example, Fundamentalists of any stripe murdering in the name of religion. Morality is I think best used as a guideline. But when even murder is considered moral by someone, it makes me want to avoid trying to define my own, let alone try and convince others of the correctness of my morality.
Not sure where to go from here.
Well, you said it – live and let live. Respect others’ beliefs and values. Sure we can discuss differences, and be enlightened by them. I like that COEXIST bumper sticker. But I’ve been in bible studies where others politely disagree – I say I like the bumper sticker, but people don’t say yes, me too. They are politely quiet. I think they may struggle with reconciling the bumper sticker’s message with John 14:6 where Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Some Christians use that verse to insist that others have to adopt Christianity, and they work on changing that person.
you mean they aren’t apologetic enough about not believing?
I’ve never come across an atheist who treats it like a religion, they may exist, I’ve never encountered it so I suspect it is very, very rare but because it has always been assumed that religions should be above question (arrogant in itself) any small criticism can been seen as an affront.
I suggest they are a vanishingly small proportion of atheists.
If you mean they crticise the tenets of Islam then that is not in any was Islamophobia. And Sam Harris is certainly not.
The only sense that I could agree with the OP is the fact that in many parts of America, the great majority of people are Christian. This can lead to the tacet assumption that everyone is Christian. And I could see how that could lead some people to feel condescending towards atheists and other non-Christians.
I don’t see that as a result of religion, as much as a result of cultural hegemony: I’m sure that a conservative Christian would feel outnumbered in, say, the philosophy department at Berkeley, and might encounter a similar condescension from the majority culture there.
I do have a problem with religious people who KNOW there is a god and KNOW their religion is the only true, right one endorsed by him. No, you may believe these things, but you cannot know them. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts.
I agree, that’s arrogant—although that kind of arrogance isn’t limited to religion.
Yes I do, and you are confused. And wrong. Conflating all sorts of things together into a mishmash.
The CHURCH of a given religion may cease to exist, but the religion doesn’t, once it exists at all. It may only exist in memory or historical documents, but it still exists.
Yes.
As we can see from this thread, it is the height of arrogance for a non-believer to openly state his non-believe. We have heard plenty here about all the arrogant atheists out in the world offending all those long suffering Christians who only ask to be left alone to practice there beliefs. Considering how low the bar has been set by religious believers, they can’t honestly be surprised to all find themselves in the ‘arrogant’ category.
A couple of green as grass young men stopped by my house just the other day just to point out what a bad person I am and to inform me that if I don’t mend my ways and do as they say then their god was going to punish me, FOREVER. Maybe there’s another word for that kind of arrogance. Delusional?
Sometimes, it depends on the religion.
In some religions it is actively taught that if you belong to their specific doctrine you are one of the few chosen ones who are blessed to know the truth. Members are actively encouraged to feel superior to all those heathen of other faiths and to show that arrogance publicly.
Other religions tend to frown on this and instead teach humility.
This is actually probably better than in previous century where clerical arrogance was a given and expected.