Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[Altfish]

Well, their constantly claiming that there is no evidence would be a pretty strong example. And when you offer them any, they will immediately declare it not to be valid, as if their personal validation is required for evidence to be evidence.

So, because atheists, who don't believe in gods; say that there is no evidence for gods, that justifies your claims about atheists being arrogant, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only God that I ever get angry at is Chthulu Chuthulu Cthuhlu Chthulhu god dang it! Google!!! Cthulhu. And you can see why.

I don't mind him....them?....because
they're fetching. That is what a god
should look like.

 

[PureX]

So, because atheists, who don't believe in gods; say that there is no evidence for gods, that justifies your claims about atheists being arrogant, etc.

Atheists setting themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence could be construed to be somewhat arrogant. Yes.

Atheists holding the evidence put forth by others up to their own personal standard of 'proof', and then rejecting it as not being valid evidence when it doesn't miraculously convince them could be considered quite arrogant I think. Yes.

Atheists demanding proof for the theist's position while just blindly proclaiming their own position as the automatic default based on nothing at all might also appear to be pretty arrogant to people. Including me.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheists setting themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence could be construed somewhat arrogant.

Evidence is defined, no need to decide

Atheists holding the evidence put forth by others up to their own personal standard of 'proof', and then rejecting it as not being valid evidence when it doesn't miraculously convince them could be considered quite arrogant.

Evidence is defined, make believe is not evidence

Atheists demanding proof for the theist's position while just blindly proclaiming their own position as the automatic default based on nothing might also appear to be pretty arrogant to people.

When one makes a positive claim one should be able to justify it.

But absolutely right, based on nothing, no evidence at all, hence the reason they are atheist

 

[Revoltingest]

So, because atheists, who don't believe in gods; say that there is no evidence for gods, that justifies your claims about atheists being arrogant, etc.

We're supposed to believe without evidence.
But I observe that approach tends to lead to wickedness.

 

[Altfish]

Atheists setting themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence could be construed somewhat arrogant. Yes.

Atheists holding the evidence put forth by others up to their own personal standard of 'proof', and then rejecting it as not being valid evidence when it doesn't miraculously convince them could be considered quite arrogant. Yes.

Atheists demanding proof for the theist's position while just blindly proclaiming their own position as the automatic default based on nothing might also appear to be pretty arrogant to people.

But why are theists not being arrogant for saying that god exists? What is the difference?

The problem that exists when claiming there is a god, is that it is an extraordinary claim.
If I say that I saw an elephant on the way home (I live in the UK), that is a remarkable claim but there could have been a passing circus, so there may be an explanation.
But, I struggle to give an explanation for the existence of a god. AND then I always will ask, "Where did that god come from?"

 

[shunyadragon]

Atheists setting themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence could be construed somewhat arrogant. Yes.

Atheists holding the evidence put forth by others up to their own personal standard of 'proof', and then rejecting it as not being valid evidence when it doesn't miraculously convince them could be considered quite arrogant. Yes.

Atheists demanding proof for the theist's position while just blindly proclaiming their own position as the automatic default based on nothing might also appear to be pretty arrogant to people.

This post and others represent an ad hominem fallacy and not addressing the issues factually as to what is "evidence" concerning the actual argument for the existence of Gods.. See post #95.

Many theists evoke what is called "subjective evidence," which is simply a circular argument of belief without objective evidence as defined in post #95..

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheists setting themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence could be construed somewhat arrogant.

We must each decide for ourselves what is cromulent evidence.
What makes you think your choices are The Truth?

 

[PureX]

But why are theists not being arrogant for saying that god exists? What is the difference?

Anyone can say whatever they want. Anyone can believe whatever they want. The question is, are they telling YOU what to say or believe? And in my experience, very few theists are actually ever doing that. Wereas many atheists are intent on passing judgment on their words and beliefs as if the embodiment of Truth Itself has assigned them that task.

And it didn't.

The problem that exists when claiming there is a god, is that it is an extraordinary claim.

Except that almost no theist is making that claim. What they are claiming is that they are choosing to believe/trust that there is a God. And that claim doesn't necessarily apply to you.

If I say that I saw an elephant on the way home (I live in the UK), that is a remarkable claim but there could have been a passing circus, so there may be an explanation.
But, I struggle to give an explanation for the existence of a god. AND then I always will ask, "Where did that god come from?"

God can't be explained. So seeking an explanation is as pointless as trying to offer one. All anyone can do is explain why they choose to believe/trust in the proposition. Or not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

1. Demanding evidence for some religious fictional charactor or event is just menaingless nonsense. Regardless of who else may believe it to be fact.

Why write this stuff when we might have to choose amongst a variety of such things and which usually brings conflict along with all this? Why not just leave out the fictional bits and propose whatever else - as to such making sense?

2. What you deem to be valid evidence (falsifiable, empiracle, objective, physical) does not define what is or is not evidence.

I think I can discriminate as to what isn't good evidence - and most likely made up.

3. Demanding from others that which you cannot provide for your own default conclusion is just intellectually tawdry.

Not demanding anything - other than some honesty and a fair amount of scepticism - as to looking into the motives of those who make claims, especially of the incredible sort. And as to which so many could and do make similar claims. So what is the point?

4. Evidence is not proof. So demanding evidence and then holding it to the totally subjective standard of proof is biased to the point of absurdity.

Great for you then to believe what you like based on no evidence - apart from what you feel or perceive perhaps. Just not that beneficial as to uniting humans, when conflict is so easily brought about, and by such things. Which history shows.

5. The default conclusion that if god's existence can't be proven to you to your satisfaction then no gods exist is logically unsupportable.

You haven't been reading my posts then, given that a God existing is possible in my view - just not that probable. And all the religions and all the numbers believing such makes not one iota of difference to me.

And yet no matter how many times these objections and contradictions are pointed out to the atheists among us, they will immediately and determinedly be ignored. As if they don't exist and we're never spoken of. In fact, the willful ignorance will be so thorough and blinding that almost none of the atheists here will acknowledge that they've EVER seen any of these points mentioned on ANY threads, ever. Even though I constantly repeat them. And so have others.

Carry on as usual then.

 

[PureX]

We must each decide for ourselves what is cromulent evidence.
What makes you think your choices are The Truth?

You know that old saying, if you appoint yourself as your lawyer, you have a fool for a lawyer.

 

[PureX]

Why write this stuff when we might have to choose amongst a variety of such things and which usually brings conflict along with all this? Why not just leave out the fictional bits and propose whatever else - as to such making sense?

Because that's how they have come to understand their theism. Why do you care?

I think I can discriminate as to what isn't good evidence - and most likely made up.

As I pointed out above, when we assign ourselves to be our own lawyer, we have a fool for a lawyer. The definition of a bias is the rejection of reasonable doubt. It would be reasonable to doubt our own criteria for "valid evidence".

 

[Altfish]

Anyone can say whatever they want. Anyone can believe whatever they want. The question is, are they telling YOU what to say or believe? And in my experience, very few theists are actually ever doing that. Wereas many atheists are intent on passing judgment on their words and beliefs as if the embodiment of Truth Itself has assigned them that task.

And it didn't.

I don't know what your experience is; but if it is guided by RFs then atheists come on here to debate.
In my world, I find that theists are more likely to preach and try to influence that atheists.

Except that almost no theist is making that claim. What they are claiming is that they are choosing to believe/trust that there is a God. And that claim doesn't necessarily apply to you.

But atheists are just saying the opposite.

God can't be explained. So seeking an explanation is as pointless as trying to offer one. All anyone can do is explain why they choose to believe/trust in the proposition.

Can you start to understand why I (an engineer) and many others who are used to understanding how things work, and if they don't understand then researching how it works; are not satisfied with the "God can't be explained" answer?

 

[shunyadragon]

Anyone can say whatever they want. Anyone can believe whatever they want. The question is, are they telling YOU what to say or believe? And in my experience, very few theists are actually ever doing that. Wereas many atheists are intent on passing judgment on their words and beliefs as if the embodiment of Truth Itself has assigned them that task.

Actually in the history of Christianity and Islam is dominated by Theocracy, Theonomy and the domination of many Christian and Islamic countries that have a state religion where religious law dominates.

The current movement in the USA of Christian Nationalism proposes just that, based on their current elected spokes persons of Mike Johnson and Marjorie Green.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Because that's how they have come to understand their theism. Why do you care?

Because what people believe does tend to affect others. Not notice the ones here on RF (and which reflects a large number in the USA especially) who believe in a 6000 year old Earth - as to which no doubt they will pass this on to their children.

As I pointed out above, when we assign ourselves to be our own lawyer, we have a fool for a lawyer. The definition of a bias is the rejection of reasonable doubt. It would be reasonable to doubt our own criteria for "valid evidence".

See above, but you can't dismiss the damage that religions do so light-heartedly - like the Middle East at the moment. Atheists at least have no such basis for divisions to occur.

And we only have what is in our heads as to how we make decisions or believe whatever evidence is put before us. Just that some will not even know how or why they became biased.

 

[PureX]

I don't know what your experience is; but if it is guided by RFs then atheists come on here to debate.
In my world, I find that theists are more likely to preach and try to influence that atheists.

When someone finds a worldview that works for them, they very often want to share it with other people because they assume it will work similarly for them. This is not the same thing as trying to tell other people what to think or believe. It may sound like it sometimes, but if you ask directly, you will nearly always find that they are simply trying to share what has worked for them, with you, because they think it'll work for you, too. All you really need to say is "no thank you" and move on. But when was the last time you saw an atheists on here respond that way?

Why didn't they?

But atheists are just saying the opposite.

They're doing a lot more then that, though, aren't they. Especially when they really don't have anything to say about God at all, as they have rejected the idea of God's existence, outright. And yet they just can't say "you're wrong" loudly and often enough.

Can you start to understand why I (an engineer) and many others who are used to understanding how things work, and if they don't understand then researching how it works; are not satisfied with the "God can't be explained" answer?

I understand completely. But God is not a machine that can be understood. Nor an expression of physicality that can be tested. You can't have what you want in this instance. Certainly no human could give it to you. So now what?

 

[shunyadragon]

You know that old saying, if you appoint yourself as your lawyer, you have a fool for a lawyer.

It is ironic that a thread asking the question "Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?" is dominated by angry arrogant abusive Theists arguing with ad hominems accusing atheists of being guilty of what is well documented Theist behavior over the millennia and today.

 

[Altfish]

When someone finds a worldview that works for them, they very often want to share it with other people because they assume it will work similarly for them. This is not the same thing as trying to tell other people what to think or believe. It may sound like it sometimes, but if you ask directly, you will nearly always find that they are simply trying to share what has worked for them, with you, because they think it'll work for you, too. All you really need to say is "no thank you" and move on. But when was the last time you saw an atheists on here respond that way?

Why didn't they?

They're doing a lot more then that, though, aren't they. Especially when they really don't have anything to say about God at all, as they have rejected the idea of God's existence, outright. And yet they just can't say "you're wrong" loudly and often enough.

I understand completely. But God is not a machine that can be understood. Nor an expression of physicality that can be tested. You can't have what you want in this instance. Certainly no human could give it to you. So now what?

We are now going round in circles. We will not agree, but thanks for your thoughts.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

As an agnostic atheist, I don't feel immoral at all. In fact, I feel like a better person.
I recognize that I don't need the belief in any deities to be a good or moral person.
I don't have to believe in anything if I don't want to, and I can freely form my own
thoughts, and opinions. I am not afraid of what happens in the "next life,"
as I don't know if there is one. So, why waste my life being worried about it?
As both an agnostic and an atheist, I don't feel arrogant at all. I merely don't believe
in the existence of gods, however, this is not something I claim is an absolute 100%
truth, as there is no way of knowing and in my opinion there will never be a way to know.

 

[shunyadragon]

As an agnostic atheist, I don't feel immoral at all. In fact, I feel like a better person.
I recognize that I don't need the belief in any deities to be a good or moral person.
I don't have to believe in anything if I don't want to, and I can freely form my own
thoughts, and opinions. I am not afraid of what happens in the "next life,"
as I don't know if there is one. So, why waste my life being worried about it?
As both an agnostic and an atheist, I don't feel arrogant at all. I merely don't believe
in the existence of gods, however, this is not something I claim is an absolute 100%
truth, as there is no way of knowing and in my opinion there will never be a way to know.

The ad hominem accusation of atheists being immoral is part of a long history of associating atheists with immorality. The current trend of imposing Christian Nationalism in the USA is tha accusation that immorality in the USA has atheist roots.