Total Posts:182|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who is arrogant?

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

It seems to me anyone who claims there is a god whom I should worship, but cannot show this god exists, is arrogant. Anyone who claims I should reject natural explanations to how the the universe came into being and should replace it with something which has no explanatory power ("goddidit"), is arrogant. Those who claim their morals are superior because the are derived from an objective source which can not be shown to exist objectively, is arrogant.

Am I wrong?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:26:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

It seems to me anyone who claims there is a god whom I should worship, but cannot show this god exists, is arrogant. Anyone who claims I should reject natural explanations to how the the universe came into being and should replace it with something which has no explanatory power ("goddidit"), is arrogant. Those who claim their morals are superior because the are derived from an objective source which can not be shown to exist objectively, is arrogant.

Am I wrong?

I think t would be pretty safe to say that there is arrogance on both sides.

However, lets not pretend that atheists merely say, "I don't know."

When you best selling authors call religious people 'poison' (Hitchens) and 'mental health issues' (Dawkins), supporters of genocide (Dawkins refusing to debate WL Craig), of paint you Muslims as a force in need of a Crusade (Harris, Hitchens), a dire threat to the Republic in need of approbation and legs sanction, and even the 'soft atheism ' is there to eliminate religion ...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

We are saying quite a bit more than, "I don't know."

The message that many theists here is quite the opposite, that not only do atheists 'know' but they know so well that they are CONVINCED you are wrong - and very often less than human about it (rejectors of science and reason?)

That is not to say that all atheists behave this way, but with the advent of 'New Atheism' the message has been decidedly negative from that particular portion of the community.

Again, that doe snot mean that all atheists are this way, but just as you tend to notice the ones that condemn you to hell? We tend to notice the ones that state their goal is to eradicate us and our reactionary delusions from the planet.

On a personal note, one of the things that drives most theists crazy are atheists who stand there denouncing theology and assuming without proof that their assessment of theology is correct. Bad enough, but when correcting some of those atheists, the assumption that the atheist knows better than the theist his own faith is rarely the exception.

And those times I have been had an atheist denouncing my ignorance of my own faith, even as I quote it for him ... and am some how STILL wrong? Those moments feel pretty arrogant.

Again, two sides here, but I would challenge you to look at the messages being put out by two communities. I find, admittedly biased, that there are very 'few' positive atheist messages. The are there, but there are many more blatant attacks on religion and their adherents.

Again, atheists say far more than 'I don't know'.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:32:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:26:19 AM, neutral wrote:
When you best selling authors call religious people 'poison' (Hitchens) and 'mental health issues' (Dawkins), supporters of genocide (Dawkins refusing to debate WL Craig), of paint you Muslims as a force in need of a Crusade (Harris, Hitchens), a dire threat to the Republic in need of approbation and legs sanction, and even the 'soft atheism ' is there to eliminate religion ...

The best selling book in the history of mankind claims that your god is a genocidal maniac.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:39:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:32:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:26:19 AM, neutral wrote:
When you best selling authors call religious people 'poison' (Hitchens) and 'mental health issues' (Dawkins), supporters of genocide (Dawkins refusing to debate WL Craig), of paint you Muslims as a force in need of a Crusade (Harris, Hitchens), a dire threat to the Republic in need of approbation and legs sanction, and even the 'soft atheism ' is there to eliminate religion ...

The best selling book in the history of mankind claims that your god is a genocidal maniac.

Ad this is why I treat you as nothing but a mindless flame baiter.

This is you 'behaving'?

Thanks for proving your fellow atheist wrong.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:41:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:39:11 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:32:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:26:19 AM, neutral wrote:
When you best selling authors call religious people 'poison' (Hitchens) and 'mental health issues' (Dawkins), supporters of genocide (Dawkins refusing to debate WL Craig), of paint you Muslims as a force in need of a Crusade (Harris, Hitchens), a dire threat to the Republic in need of approbation and legs sanction, and even the 'soft atheism ' is there to eliminate religion ...

The best selling book in the history of mankind claims that your god is a genocidal maniac.

Ad this is why I treat you as nothing but a mindless flame baiter.

This is you 'behaving'?

Thanks for proving your fellow atheist wrong.

Prove me wrong newt.

I'm waiting.

Have you heard of the FLOOD?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:42:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:41:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:39:11 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:32:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:26:19 AM, neutral wrote:
When you best selling authors call religious people 'poison' (Hitchens) and 'mental health issues' (Dawkins), supporters of genocide (Dawkins refusing to debate WL Craig), of paint you Muslims as a force in need of a Crusade (Harris, Hitchens), a dire threat to the Republic in need of approbation and legs sanction, and even the 'soft atheism ' is there to eliminate religion ...

The best selling book in the history of mankind claims that your god is a genocidal maniac.

Ad this is why I treat you as nothing but a mindless flame baiter.

This is you 'behaving'?

Thanks for proving your fellow atheist wrong.

Prove me wrong newt.

I'm waiting.

Have you heard of the FLOOD?

I think I will just keep reporting your flame bait.

The topic is BEHAVIOR OF PEOPLE - and if anyone wants a PERFECT demonstration of arrogant behavior - please look above.

SO - ya tracking that accusing people out of the blue of genocide might be taken as a little more than, "I don;t know"
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:48:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:42:45 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:41:05 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:39:11 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:32:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:26:19 AM, neutral wrote:
When you best selling authors call religious people 'poison' (Hitchens) and 'mental health issues' (Dawkins), supporters of genocide (Dawkins refusing to debate WL Craig), of paint you Muslims as a force in need of a Crusade (Harris, Hitchens), a dire threat to the Republic in need of approbation and legs sanction, and even the 'soft atheism ' is there to eliminate religion ...

The best selling book in the history of mankind claims that your god is a genocidal maniac.

Ad this is why I treat you as nothing but a mindless flame baiter.

This is you 'behaving'?

Thanks for proving your fellow atheist wrong.

Prove me wrong newt.

I'm waiting.

Have you heard of the FLOOD?

I think I will just keep reporting your flame bait.

The topic is BEHAVIOR OF PEOPLE - and if anyone wants a PERFECT demonstration of arrogant behavior - please look above.

SO - ya tracking that accusing people out of the blue of genocide might be taken as a little more than, "I don;t know"

Keep reporting and trying to be a man and claiming what some non believers say in their books and then going all crying to the mods when your book is shown to be even worse.

Woops it's not your book, it's your god.

I understand why you are absolutely embarrassed by reference to the god you love, the problem is that you don't.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:33:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.
There are some atheists who never seem to give religion an idle thought. They don't express like or dislike for religion. There are some atheists who express anger not at theists, but at outspoken atheists.

However, unfortunately, like with religion, there are political implications involving these subsets you're referring to. And even far less militant atheists waver in logic in certain areas.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:43:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:26:19 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

It seems to me anyone who claims there is a god whom I should worship, but cannot show this god exists, is arrogant. Anyone who claims I should reject natural explanations to how the the universe came into being and should replace it with something which has no explanatory power ("goddidit"), is arrogant. Those who claim their morals are superior because the are derived from an objective source which can not be shown to exist objectively, is arrogant.

Am I wrong?

I think t would be pretty safe to say that there is arrogance on both sides.

Arrogance is represented by the theistic position itself.

However, lets not pretend that atheists merely say, "I don't know."

When you best selling authors call religious people 'poison' (Hitchens) and 'mental health issues' (Dawkins), supporters of genocide (Dawkins refusing to debate WL Craig), of paint you Muslims as a force in need of a Crusade (Harris, Hitchens), a dire threat to the Republic in need of approbation and legs sanction, and even the 'soft atheism ' is there to eliminate religion ...

You are referring to subsets of atheism, and I agree strong theists, which make the claim, "god can not possibly exist", are arrogant because they have no more knowledge than strong theists, yet they make a knowledge claim which is just as unverifiable. However, strong atheism and anti-theism do not represent atheism as a whole. Soft atheists claiming that strong theists make claims which are unverifiable, is not arrogant.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

We are saying quite a bit more than, "I don't know."

The message that many theists here is quite the opposite, that not only do atheists 'know' but they know so well that they are CONVINCED you are wrong - and very often less than human about it (rejectors of science and reason?)

That is not to say that all atheists behave this way, but with the advent of 'New Atheism' the message has been decidedly negative from that particular portion of the community.

Again, that doe snot mean that all atheists are this way, but just as you tend to notice the ones that condemn you to hell? We tend to notice the ones that state their goal is to eradicate us and our reactionary delusions from the planet.

On a personal note, one of the things that drives most theists crazy are atheists who stand there denouncing theology and assuming without proof that their assessment of theology is correct. Bad enough, but when correcting some of those atheists, the assumption that the atheist knows better than the theist his own faith is rarely the exception.

Yes, I agree having someone from the other camp tell you what atheists...er ...theists believe, when you yourself hold that position, can be annoying.

And those times I have been had an atheist denouncing my ignorance of my own faith, even as I quote it for him ... and am some how STILL wrong? Those moments feel pretty arrogant.

Again, two sides here, but I would challenge you to look at the messages being put out by two communities. I find, admittedly biased, that there are very 'few' positive atheist messages. The are there, but there are many more blatant attacks on religion and their adherents.

Again, atheists say far more than 'I don't know'.

From my experience, most atheist are soft atheists, but as in many things, the silent majority is stereotyped by the vocal minority. However the basic atheistic position is not arrogant, and the common theistic position (supporting the issues I listed above) is.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:55:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:33:56 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.
There are some atheists who never seem to give religion an idle thought. They don't express like or dislike for religion. There are some atheists who express anger not at theists, but at outspoken atheists.

...and I would be one of those atheists. I don't find making on knowledge claim on unverifiable knowledge to be valid (if that is what you mean by "outspoken").

However, unfortunately, like with religion, there are political implications involving these subsets you're referring to. And even far less militant atheists waver in logic in certain areas.

First of all, it is either militant or it is not, and secondly this statement strikes me as arrogant since I have clearly spelled out the atheistic position is nothing more than a statement of "I don't know" on the issue of god or gods, which is completely logical given the lack of verifiable knowledge of god(s).
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:00:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:43:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


From my experience, most atheist are soft atheists, but as in many things, the silent majority is stereotyped by the vocal minority. However the basic atheistic position is not arrogant, and the common theistic position (supporting the issues I listed above) is.
But you're assuming that God doesn't exist.

If someone encounters God, and thus believes God exists (which would be logical), then it's not arrogance on the part of the believer any more than you coming into the realization that you have a new neighbor who introduced himself to you.

You're demanding that theists admit to something that could be completely illogical from their standpoint. If you claim you don't know if God exists, why do you demand theists to make that claim?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:00:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:43:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Arrogance is represented by the theistic position itself.

The conclusion that there is a God is not more arrogant, in and of itself, than the conclusion that there is not.

It is not different that the conclusion that alien life is 'real' or alien life is most likely 'not real' - neither position, in and of itself, is arrogant. Its just a conclusion.

Can either position be MADE arrogant? You bet!

I know I am right is, intrinsically, no different than I know you are wrong.


You are referring to subsets of atheism, and I agree strong theists, which make the claim, "god can not possibly exist", are arrogant because they have no more knowledge than strong theists, yet they make a knowledge claim which is just as unverifiable. However, strong atheism and anti-theism do not represent atheism as a whole. Soft atheists claiming that strong theists make claims which are unverifiable, is not arrogant.

I tend to agree with this statement, as I have often said - the premise of God is inductive - at least in tees of evidence. To state that something is so probable, or conversely improbable, that we may as well treat it as fact is not, once again, itself arrogant - particularly when we are willing to, at least intellectually, concede that there are good positions of some diversity on the subject. Agree to disagree if you will. That is, IMHO, what committed secularists do - acknowledge the indefinite finality of the question, and protect the journey of exploration to reach that 'conclusion' - it something that most people, at least in the West view as sacred.

I will also state, however, that both atheist and theists make claims about God that are unverifiable. The position presupposed that the question can be definitively answered, and that simply is not the case in terms of science.

There are, however, issues beyond science, and the roll of the Holy Spirit has long been spelled out. To receive confirmation from such sources, though not scientific, is confirmation nonetheless. How much of that is delusion and how much authentic? Also an inductive question ;-)


Yes, I agree having someone from the other camp tell you what atheists...er ...theists believe, when you yourself hold that position, can be annoying.

Especially when you are quoting someone like Hitchens, and noting he is a best seller ;-)

I will state that one of the problems with debating atheism is that many, again not all, will swim in the lack of certainty about atheism. Many theists have had, "We only DISBELIEVE that there is No God," and not five minutes later, we get the, "My GOD (no pun intended, well, maybe a little), how can you be so stupid and hold such asinine beliefs!" That sounds like a completely different claim altogether.

Again, not saying all, but enough that we notice. And again, we tend to notice the barbs aimed at us rather than the outgoing ones. Human nature if you will.


From my experience, most atheist are soft atheists, but as in many things, the silent majority is stereotyped by the vocal minority. However the basic atheistic position is not arrogant, and the common theistic position (supporting the issues I listed above) is.

I tend to disagree on that. I think most soft atheists assume this position, but it is not the 'soft atheism' that turned into best sellers. Its not the message of civil disagreement that theists most often encounter, but often throaty claims of the 'threat' to he Republic and the danger of corrupting science that I most often encounter.

And again, to some extent your conclusion braces that, its a position of exceptionalism that is not supportable by evidence. A negative conclusion or a positive conclusion, in and of themselves cannot be arrogant - what people do with them can very often be arrogant. In that respect, the common human failing of pride knows no particular religious boundary ;-)
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:05:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.

I disagree.

Plain Jane AGNOSTICISM is - I don't know.

Plain Jane Atheism is - Probably not.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:08:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:55:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:33:56 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.
There are some atheists who never seem to give religion an idle thought. They don't express like or dislike for religion. There are some atheists who express anger not at theists, but at outspoken atheists.

...and I would be one of those atheists. I don't find making on knowledge claim on unverifiable knowledge to be valid (if that is what you mean by "outspoken").

But isn't that what you're doing when you take your stance against the theistic position? If I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting that a theist is arrogant because they claim they know God exists. You don't see the problem there?

However, unfortunately, like with religion, there are political implications involving these subsets you're referring to. And even far less militant atheists waver in logic in certain areas.

First of all, it is either militant or it is not, and secondly this statement strikes me as arrogant since I have clearly spelled out the atheistic position is nothing more than a statement of "I don't know" on the issue of god or gods, which is completely logical given the lack of verifiable knowledge of god(s).
That position "I don't know" is not arrogant. I don't know if your neighbor is an immigrant from Australia. That's not arrogant. You claiming you know where your neighbor is from is not arrogant. I don't suggest that you don't know either. That would be arrogant.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:08:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The one who admits that there is no evidence consistent with their belief, but still insists you should believe it on the grounds that they believe it, is the epitome of arrogance. (Theists)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:09:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.

I thought "I don't know" was agnosticism.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:13:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 1:08:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
The one who admits that there is no evidence consistent with their belief, but still insists you should believe it on the grounds that they believe it, is the epitome of arrogance. (Theists)

So prove there is no God beasty .. and you can prove a negative according to logicians, so please - not that again.

In terms of evidence, to assume that everyone (all theists) are wrong without proof ... interesting subject title.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:24:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'ma a bit disappoitned in this thread; you are usually much more measured in your claims, Skepticalone. :/
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:52:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 1:13:47 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:08:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
The one who admits that there is no evidence consistent with their belief, but still insists you should believe it on the grounds that they believe it, is the epitome of arrogance. (Theists)

So prove there is no God beasty .. and you can prove a negative according to logicians, so please - not that again.

In terms of evidence, to assume that everyone (all theists) are wrong without proof ... interesting subject title.

"Prove"? Did you seriously just write "prove"... AGAIN? What does it take for you to learn anything? There is no such thing as "proof", Neutral. This has been explained to you NUMEROUS times. "Prove" to a flat-Earther than the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Go ahead!'

And when you fail to convince them, did you "prove" anything?

Prove there isn't a 1966 Ford Mustang sitting on the dark side of the moon. But be prepared for the same kind of ridiculous arguments theists provide to disavow the obvious conclusion that God doesn't exist.

- The car is invisible
- The car refuses to be tested
- If you don't believe it exists, you'll never find it
- The car is naturally different to all who have seen it
- You're automotively dead and therefore, can never find the car.
- The car isn't physical so of course you won't find physical evidence for the car.
- You have ridden in Chevrolets and are therefore separated from the car.


Each time we provide another sound argument to support the obvious conclusion that God does not exist, you come up with an excuse worthy of a 6-year old child making up a bad lie as he goes.

God is claimed to grant prayer and to affect the physical. There are no physical affects unattributable to natural mechanisms. The claim that the universe, Earth and life itself, demonstrates intelligence is false. All of these things are consistent with the outcome of non-intelligent mechanisms. None of them indicate intelligence. Dozens of studies on prayer demonstrate that prayer offers no ability to alter outcomes.

That all provides a fully supported conclusion that God doesn't exist. Using the standard childish excuses only demonstrates the theist's lack of honesty, and inability to accept what they do not wish to be true.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:53:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 1:00:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:43:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:


From my experience, most atheist are soft atheists, but as in many things, the silent majority is stereotyped by the vocal minority. However the basic atheistic position is not arrogant, and the common theistic position (supporting the issues I listed above) is.
But you're assuming that God doesn't exist.

Am I? I don't believe I am, nor has anything I stated suggestive of that.

If someone encounters God, and thus believes God exists (which would be logical), then it's not arrogance on the part of the believer any more than you coming into the realization that you have a new neighbor who introduced himself to you.

I never claimed the theistic position is illogical. However, you claimed the atheistic position is illogical. That is arrogance based on your presupposition that a god actually exists. I have no knowledge of the existence of god, but I am open to the possibility should verifiable evidence be presented. You have accepted god exists because of subjective evidence which is good enough for you personally, but means absolutely nothing to me.

You're demanding that theists admit to something that could be completely illogical from their standpoint. If you claim you don't know if God exists, why do you demand theists to make that claim?

I don't demand theists admit a god does not exists, but to pretend the evidence is of a standard as great or greater than that of our shared reality is fallacious. (And arrogant)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:53:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, I wish "arrogant" was the end of it for some of them Atheists, add "irrational" to the list.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:56:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 1:09:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.

I thought "I don't know" was agnosticism.

"One cannot know" is agnosticism.
"I don't know" is honesty.
"I don't know, but do not believe in any gods", is atheism.
Theists often claim to "know" but misuse the word. They do not "know" but they believe in a god or gods.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 2:07:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 1:56:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:09:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.

I thought "I don't know" was agnosticism.

"One cannot know" is agnosticism.

Agnosticism also claims "I don't know, whether it is possible to know or not." As such, an agnostic could be a theist - or he could be an atheist.

"I don't know" is honesty.

No, it's agnosticism.

"I don't know, but do not believe in any gods", is atheism. No, it isn't. It's "agnostic atheism."

"I do not believe in any gods" is atheism.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 2:47:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 1:56:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:09:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.

I thought "I don't know" was agnosticism.

"One cannot know" is agnosticism.
"I don't know" is honesty.
"I don't know, but do not believe in any gods", is atheism.
Theists often claim to "know" but misuse the word. They do not "know" but they believe in a god or gods.

Agnostics often take that as some permanent position. However, this implies that it is impossible to reach a valid true-false conclusion. Any argument of why this is beyond deductive logic and it is impossible to reach a valid conclusion? Where did this knowledge come from?

The "Atheist" position is amusing.

1- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other stuff that can't gain knowledge don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

2- People who never heard of the proposition don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

3- People who heard of the proposition and understands it but completely forgets it don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

4- People who hears the proposition and understands it but don't care, don't care to engage or discuss it.

5- People who hears the proposition and don't understand it remain bewildered by it, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

Oh please tell me, what is the Atheist position?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 3:39:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 2:47:57 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:56:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:09:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.

I thought "I don't know" was agnosticism.

"One cannot know" is agnosticism.
"I don't know" is honesty.
"I don't know, but do not believe in any gods", is atheism.
Theists often claim to "know" but misuse the word. They do not "know" but they believe in a god or gods.

Agnostics often take that as some permanent position. However, this implies that it is impossible to reach a valid true-false conclusion. Any argument of why this is beyond deductive logic and it is impossible to reach a valid conclusion? Where did this knowledge come from?

The "Atheist" position is amusing.

1- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other stuff that can't gain knowledge don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

2- People who never heard of the proposition don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

3- People who heard of the proposition and understands it but completely forgets it don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

4- People who hears the proposition and understands it but don't care, don't care to engage or discuss it.

5- People who hears the proposition and don't understand it remain bewildered by it, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

Oh please tell me, what is the Atheist position?

The atheist "position" is that no gods exit. Why is that so difficult for you? It has nothing to do with rocks and mud lacking the capacity for knowledge.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 3:42:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 3:39:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 2:47:57 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:56:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:09:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.

I thought "I don't know" was agnosticism.

"One cannot know" is agnosticism.
"I don't know" is honesty.
"I don't know, but do not believe in any gods", is atheism.
Theists often claim to "know" but misuse the word. They do not "know" but they believe in a god or gods.

Agnostics often take that as some permanent position. However, this implies that it is impossible to reach a valid true-false conclusion. Any argument of why this is beyond deductive logic and it is impossible to reach a valid conclusion? Where did this knowledge come from?

The "Atheist" position is amusing.

1- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other stuff that can't gain knowledge don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

2- People who never heard of the proposition don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

3- People who heard of the proposition and understands it but completely forgets it don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

4- People who hears the proposition and understands it but don't care, don't care to engage or discuss it.

5- People who hears the proposition and don't understand it remain bewildered by it, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

Oh please tell me, what is the Atheist position?

The atheist "position" is that no gods exit. Why is that so difficult for you? It has nothing to do with rocks and mud lacking the capacity for knowledge.

Oh... So it is an intellectual position and they DO know and have a God theory. Well, what is the reasoning/logic/argument/evidence that lead to that conclusion?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 3:45:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 3:42:52 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/10/2014 3:39:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 2:47:57 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:56:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/10/2014 1:09:01 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:17:39 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:33:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:03:08 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...atheists or theists?

It is fairly common to hear the claim from theists that atheists are arrogant. Are atheists more arrogant than theists?

Why are atheists arrogant? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to the question of god? Because they are willing to say, "I don't know" when it comes to how the universe came into being? Or is it because they are willing to say, "I think morals are subjective".

I don't know if that's exactly what they are saying.

Plain Jane vanilla atheism's position on god is, "I don't know". Certainly, you can find subsets of atheism which state, "there is no possibility a god exists" (strong/militant atheism) or, "religion poisons everything" (anti-theism), but those are positions that go beyond mere atheism.

I thought "I don't know" was agnosticism.

"One cannot know" is agnosticism.
"I don't know" is honesty.
"I don't know, but do not believe in any gods", is atheism.
Theists often claim to "know" but misuse the word. They do not "know" but they believe in a god or gods.

Agnostics often take that as some permanent position. However, this implies that it is impossible to reach a valid true-false conclusion. Any argument of why this is beyond deductive logic and it is impossible to reach a valid conclusion? Where did this knowledge come from?

The "Atheist" position is amusing.

1- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other stuff that can't gain knowledge don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

2- People who never heard of the proposition don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

3- People who heard of the proposition and understands it but completely forgets it don't know, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

4- People who hears the proposition and understands it but don't care, don't care to engage or discuss it.

5- People who hears the proposition and don't understand it remain bewildered by it, thus they don't believe a God exists and don't believe that no God exists. They have no God theory.

Oh please tell me, what is the Atheist position?

The atheist "position" is that no gods exit. Why is that so difficult for you? It has nothing to do with rocks and mud lacking the capacity for knowledge.

Oh... So it is an intellectual position and they DO know and have a God theory. Well, what is the reasoning/logic/argument/evidence that lead to that conclusion?

It's a God "theory" only to the degree that your disbelief in fairies is a "fairy theory". And the evidence is exactly the same.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire