Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[shunyadragon]

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.

etc, etc. and etc.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Evidence for a proposition is that which can be shown to support that proposition. An example:

Proposition - I inherited a million dollars.
Evidence - I have over a hundred dollars in my wallet right now (shows it), and I didn't yesterday.

The "evidence" is nothing but confirmation that indeed the proposer has a hundred dollars. We don't know whether or not he had it yesterday -- that cannot be shown. It also since nothing about the provenence of such riches.

Proposition - it is possible to restore life to a dead body.
Evidence - there are a couple of Biblical confirmations of life restored to people who were dead.

Who wrote those Biblical "confirmations?" Did they see it themselves? Might they have a motive for telling a fib in order to convince others of what they may seriously believe to be true?

 

[Kenny]

I did not say it was a one way street. This statement is ambiguous

As ambiguous as yours

This is not what can be found in any group, but what Fundamentalist Christians believe and promote toward science and atheism.

Even within the Fundamentalist Christians, the vast majority would believe in science and love on atheists. They may disagree on evolution but not have a hatred of science.

In the actual documented beliefs promoted by fundamentalist Christians in terms of opposition to the sciences of evolution, and equating atheism with science, secularism in government, promoting a Christian Theonomy behind the Christian Republican Party as Mike Johnson proposes and the ongoing heavy rhetoric against atheists

Ok… now you have redefined. Fundamentalist would have an opposition to evolution but not against science in general. It did sound like you were exaggerating on your original statement.

Again… atheism equated with science? Another exaggeration? Are you saying that the fundamentalists who believe in gravitational pull, the constructs and interaction of atoms are not accepted by fundamentalists?

Promoting a Theonomy vs what?

Mike Johnson heavy rhetoric against atheists?

What is your real agenda here? Fear?

Mike Johnson's paranoid view towards atheists is very typical of fundamentalist Christians that promote Christian Nationalism:

Paranoid?

What is your real agenda here? Fear?

Louisiana Rep. Johnson Claims California Atheists Are Trying to Spy on Students - Roll Call

Rep. Mike Johnson, who represents a vast swath of Louisiana’s northwestern corner, accused California atheist groups of trying to spy on students at a school in his district by taking covert video. “WARNING TO OUR FRIENDS IN BOSSIER SCHOOLS (Please share),” Johnson wrote on Facebook Tuesday...

rollcall.com

??? Is the information false?

Pleading ignorance does not help your case.

I think if we look at the above, “ignorance” could be subjective as to whom it applies to.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Fortunately, we're talking about religion, not law.
Do you mean to say that you let others decide
for you what evidence for gods is cromulent?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Without falsification all you have is personal belief

And with falsifiability, all you have is an as yet unfalsified belief.

Which, the history of science tells us, will eventually go the way of geocentric cosmology, phlogiston, and Newtonian physics.

 

[F1fan]

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.

***Staff Edit***, and inconsistent with facts. They were indocrinated by negative religious influences in their life time, and now they are stained with a framework that they think is true. The creationists we encounter tend to be conservativesm and also adopt conservative politics thay deny science. And these people vote. These peoplke thing fertilized eggs are babies.

This is not the same thing as trying to tell other people what to think or believe.

Children will tend to adopt whatever they are exposed to through a passive phenomenon called social learning.

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.

Odd how you will see it on a debate forum but not in front of churches. Most of the discussion that involve atheists are doing so because they are responding to claims made by theists. Those claims made by theists are an invitation to deabte on a debate forum.

@MikeF and me got chastized this morning for making fun of a guy who claimed to be an atheist who made rather outrageous claims, and although he was sure his claims were logical they were not. He proselytized his new religion's website, which is against the rules. He endured a lot of harsh criticism, and he was upset about it. He ended up deleting his comments. To my mind if you are starting a new religion and can't answer questions and get upset, you need thicker skin, and real answers. Debate is debate, and no one is owed anything where it comes to ideas.

I understand completely. But God is not a machine that can be understood.

***Staff Edit*** If a person is going to claim anythin g beyond an idea then they need evidence that appeals to reason.

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?

***Staff Edit***

 

[osgart]

Does any other atheist out there positively assert that God(s) do not exist? I do. One of the reasons is that nature is brutal, and indifferent to life and morals. My positive conviction says absolutely nothing about me being arrogant, immoral, or angry. It's simply very convincing that gods don't exist.

My guess is that most atheists who know there is a serious lack of evidence for gods and constantly affirm this position have plenty of positive convictions that reality is not at all godlike.

Human rules of logic and critical thinking aside there's plenty of reasons why God(s) do not exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

And with falsifiability, all you have is an as yet unfalsified belief.

That is pretty much the definition of "useful".
Eg, general relativity isn't "true" because it could
be replaced by a better theory. But it's not been
disproven yet, & real world testing comports
with the theory.

Which, the history of science tells us, will eventually go the way of geocentric cosmology, phlogiston, and Newtonian physics.

Exactly!
This is the great thing about science, ie, there's
continual improvement. Religion doesn't have
that. Beliefs aren't testable, & so....
"They're not only not right....they're not even wrong."

 

[F1fan]

Does any other atheist out there positively assert that God(s) do not exist? I do.

It depends on how the God is defined. I've noticed more believers are more and more vague about what they think God is, and I suspect it is a way to avoid having to answer questions about it. The more vague the claim, the less reason can assess whether it can exist or not. I think it's fair to say that the God of the Old Testament does not exist, and likely by extension the new Testament verson that has undergone a personality change.

One of the reasons is that nature is brutal, and indifferent to life and morals. My positive conviction says absolutely nothing about me being arrogant, immoral, or angry. It's simply very convincing that gods don't exist.

It's easy to confound believers in a loving God when the harsh reality of life is pointed out.

My guess is that most atheists who know there is a serious lack of evidence for gods and constantly affirm this position have plenty of positive convictions that reality is not at all godlike.

The logical default is to not believe claims at face value. Claims are treated as untrue until evidence can demonstrate they are true or likley true. Believers fall way short. Disbelief is justified.

Human rules of logic and critical thinking aside there's plenty of reasons why God(s) do not exist.

They certainly can't all exist. And by simple reasoning we can dismiss most all of them for being absurd and improbable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Does any other atheist out there positively assert that God(s) do not exist? I do. One of the reasons is that nature is brutal, and indifferent to life and morals. My positive conviction says absolutely nothing about me being arrogant, immoral, or angry. It's simply very convincing that gods don't exist.

Unless the Gods are brutal, or indifferent to life or morals...surely?

My guess is that most atheists who know there is a serious lack of evidence for gods and constantly affirm this position have plenty of positive convictions that reality is not at all godlike.

It is difficult to assert whether something is godlike when you don't believe in god. I suppose you mean reality doesn't correlate to believers views of God? But as an atheist, I already think they are all wrong (in broad terms). A 'real' God (or Gods) might not adhere to any human belief system.

Human rules of logic and critical thinking aside there's plenty of reasons why God(s) do not exist.

Not sure what this means, to be honest. You're suggesting there is evidence of God's non-existence which doesn't rely on logic or critical thinking? I'd be interested in an example of what you mean here.

 

[shunyadragon]

As ambiguous as yours

Even within the Fundamentalist Christians, the vast majority would believe in science and love on atheists. They may disagree on evolution but not have a hatred of science.

Not the way it is in reality. the polls I have posted in the past concerning the polls of the USA population most fundamentalist reject the sciences of evolution, Believing in or support of the obvious Newtonian science is NOT support for contemporary science.

Pipe dream fundamentalists do not love atheists as demonstrated in this thread, and other threads on this forum. I consider true love to be the unconditional love of all regardless of belief, culture, or sexual orientation, which mot apparent among Conservative Christian in the USA. Infact the problem is wide spread around the world except for the more secular Scandinavian countries,

In general there is considerable negative views such as distrust and dislike toward minority beliefs in the USA such as Muslims, Mormons, and atheists.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51780329_Do_You_Believe_in_Atheists_Distrust_Is_Central_to_Anti-Atheist_Prejudice

Recent polls indicate that atheists are among the least liked people in areas with religious majorities (i.e., in most of the world). The sociofunctional approach to prejudice, combined with a cultural evolutionary theory of religion's effects on cooperation, suggest that anti-atheist prejudice is particularly motivated by distrust. Consistent with this theoretical framework, a broad sample of American adults revealed that distrust characterized anti-atheist prejudice but not anti-gay prejudice (Study 1). In subsequent studies, distrust of atheists generalized even to participants from more liberal, secular populations. A description of a criminally untrustworthy individual was seen as comparably representative of atheists and rapists but not representative of Christians, Muslims, Jewish people, feminists, or homosexuals (Studies 2-4). In addition, results were consistent with the hypothesis that the relationship between belief in God and atheist distrust was fully mediated by the belief that people behave better if they feel that God is watching them (Study 4). In implicit measures, participants strongly associated atheists with distrust, and belief in God was more strongly associated with implicit distrust of atheists than with implicit dislike of atheists (Study 5). Finally, atheists were systematically socially excluded only in high-trust domains; belief in God, but not authoritarianism, predicted this discriminatory decision-making against atheists in high trust domains (Study 6). These 6 studies are the first to systematically explore the social psychological underpinnings of anti-atheist prejudice, and converge to indicate the centrality of distrust in this phenomenon.

Proportion of participants who committed the conjunction fallacy when given a description of a criminally untrustworthy individual who could be (a) a Christian, (b) a Muslim, (c) a rapist, or (d) an atheist (Study 2). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.

Proportion of participants who committed the conjunction fallacy when given either a Distrust or Unpleasant description and either a potential Atheist or Homosexual target (Study 3). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.
…
Proportion of participants who committed the conjunction fallacy when given a description of a criminally untrustworthy individual who could be (a) Jewish, (b) a feminist, or (c) an atheist (Study 4). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.
…

Ok… now you have redefined. Fundamentalist would have an opposition to evolution but not against science in general. It did sound like you were exaggerating on your original statement.

Again… atheism equated with science? Another exaggeration?

No not an exaggeration at all. Factual by many posts over the years, and documented. Actually it has raised its ugly head in this thread,

Are you saying that the fundamentalists who believe in gravitational pull, the constructs and interaction of atoms are not accepted by fundamentalists?

No, the sciences of evolution are an intimate interrelated part of the basic sciences. To oppose the sciences of evolution and the geology of the earth and universe billions of years old is opposing science. Again belief in the obvious Newtonian science does not represent support and believe in contemporary science where the sciences of evolution,, and billions of years of geologic history of the earth, history of life and the universe are intimately a part of science.

Promoting a Theonomy vs what?

A government based on our Constitution that supports the separation of religion and state.

Mike Johnson heavy rhetoric against atheists?

Yes, and it reflects the dominant views of those that support Mike Johnson and Marjorie Green, and wide support of QAnon among Conservative supporters.

What is your real agenda here? Fear?

No agenda. I have stated the facts documented by references,

Paranoid?

Yes, Mike Johnson is paranoid toward atheists,

I think if we look at the above, “ignorance” could be subjective as to whom it applies to.

Exactly where I applied it to.

 

[Madsaac]

I just viewed and greatly enjoyed a three part video series by Matt Baker, who did his doctoral thesis on the psychology of atheism. Although all three videos are excellent, it is the third one that I wanted to share and discuss.

Christians often make certain generalizations about atheists:
1. That they are arrogant and dogmatic
2. That they prefer to be non-religious because they are selfish and religion is an inconvenience
3. That they are angry with God
4. That they either lost their father at a young age, or had a strained relationship with their father, making it more difficult to form a good relationship with the Divine Father.

Matt Bakar deals with each of these scientifically. He comes to the following conclusions:
1. None of the 4 assertions above accurately generalize about atheists
2. What DOES seem to have a high correlation with atheism is a score of TP on the Myers Briggs (video 2 deals with this in depth). This matches up nicely with other studies that correlate atheism wish low agreeability and low conscientiousness using the Big 5 personality elements. What it basically means is that atheists are twice as likely to greatly care about truth even if it costs them and be open to change.

Haven't watched the videos, so really I'm just responding to the title of the thread and video.

Some may say that some are arrogant because they think there is a God without any proof.

 

[PureX]

Fortunately, we're talking about religion, not law.
Do you mean to say that you let others decide
for you what evidence for gods is cromulent?

No. I mean to say that all judgment should be tentative, and remain suspect. Especially our own.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

I will admit though that sometimes atheists can come off as arrogant. Watch the atheist
experience with Matt Dillahunty and you'll see what I mean. He's a pretty smart guy though.
I would argue also that sometimes Christians can be just as arrogant.
Per a conversation with my FIL about six months ago, "I know everything in that book is true."
He was speaking of the Bible, of course. How do you know? Did god come down and tell you?
You literally have no evidence that it's true, and in all actuality, any way of knowing it and your
god are real and true. Despite me not believing in any of christianity, I also have no way for
certain of saying 100% that it isn't true, and that no god exists, whether yahweh or some other
god that we don't know about. I think to suggest one knows things that they have no way to
have obtainable knowledge of is arrogant in of itself. That said, I believe in most cases of the
atheist vs. theist debate, an atheist will usually always have the the upper hand since obviously
there isn't any clear, solid evidence that any god exists, and obviously working with that, it's
quite hard to present any kind of evidence from the theist standpoint.

 

[PureX]

Does any other atheist out there positively assert that God(s) do not exist? I do. One of the reasons is that nature is brutal, and indifferent to life and morals. My positive conviction says absolutely nothing about me being arrogant, immoral, or angry. It's simply very convincing that gods don't exist.

But aren't you assuming that if God exists, God must be kind and caring and 'moral' and that this would be evident in the ways of the world? And isn't assuming this to be so a bit arrogant on your part? After all, there really isn't any way for you (or any of us) to know this.

My guess is that most atheists who know there is a serious lack of evidence for gods and constantly affirm this position have plenty of positive convictions that reality is not at all godlike.

Of course they do. But I think they also know that they can't justify those convictions via the same criteria that they are constantly demanding that theists must justify their faith in the existence of God. So to avoid being called on this hypocrisy, they lie and insist that they don't have any convictions about God's non-existence. Even though everything they say indicates otherwise. It's also why they are so fond of the "kangaroo court" style of debate, where they keep the theist in the examination box, while they play the judge, so they never have to be examoned, themselves.

Human rules of logic and critical thinking aside there's plenty of reasons why God(s) do not exist.

And there are plenty of reasons why that conclusion might be wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If we ask an atheist why they are atheist, most of them (here) will immediately respond with a list of grievances against religion.

That's not my experience at all.
I'ld say most of the atheists here will respond with a species of "i have no reason to believe in gods" / "there's no sufficient evidence to support the existence of gods".

Maybe you should start a poll.

So it's not that surprising that some might conclude that atheists are angry, resentful, and prejudiced against religion (as they perceive it). **mod edit** And that bias is nearly always invisible to itself, the whole picture tends to support that contention.

The only picture that tends to support that contention, seems to be the strawman picture in your own mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most atheists dismiss any evidence or reasoning that contradicts their biased beliefs

What beliefs? What evidence? What reasoning?

and then try to claim they don't believe anything and that they aren't biased

Which atheist here has ever claimed that he / she doesn't believe "anything"?

There really isn't any way to take that as anything but a willful and deceitful bias.

And what shall we call your insistence on strawmanning atheists here?

And if we call them on it they just get angry about it.

And rightfully so. Personally, I don't like it one bit when people misrepresent my position. And I get increasingly annoyed when they insist on continuing to do so after they've been corrected dozens of times already.

Yes, there comes a point that I get angry about it.
Why wouldn't I?

And when that happens, you also tend to misrepresent that anger also, pretending as if it is a result of my atheism as opposed to a reaction to your insistence on misrepresenting my views....

So ... if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

The duck I'm seeing is a duck that insists on being intellectually dishonest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

He asked you to give examples of such evidence.
He didn't ask you to merely repeat your claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet the conclusion that if no one else can prove to you to your satisfaction that God exists, then no gods exist, doesn't raise any red flags?

What about the red flags of people having to constantly correct your strawman, like the one I bolded here?

How many times must this be corrected before you'll stop arguing that?

 

[endlessvoid2018]

My experiences from being an atheist evolved from Deism. I saw Deism as a good middle ground
between no longer being a follower of revealed religions, which for me, was Christianity. But, I
came to the conclusion eventually that at least for me, operationally, Deism and atheism are about
the same. So I figured, why bother calling myself a Deist? That and some other personal things that
also dissolved my belief that there could be any kind of god at all, especially an "all loving, merciful god,"
that is proclaimed by the bible that I believe clearly doesn't exist if you look at the current state of the
of the world right now and the concept of suffering.