Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

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.

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.

The sum of what you are saying here, is simply an acknowledgement that really, there is no rational justifiable reason to accept the claim that god(s) exist(s).

You are literally saying that gods are unfalsifiable, unverifiable, untestable, unexplainable,... and thus objectively indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

So then I can only wonder why you then would consider it "arrogant" to not believe the claim that god exists...

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Yes, an unfalsified believe, which so many religious like to stuff down our thoata as truth and threaten us with hell for not believing

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

So now, that puts this god on the same shelve as the undetectable dragon that follows you everywhere you go.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

IF it turns out to be wrong.

This is the great thing about falsifiable claims.
IF they are wrong, they can be shown to be wrong and that allows you to replace them with claims that are more accurate.

This is called learning and progress.

Now consider the alternative of an unfalsifiable claim.
If it is wrong, how could you ever find out? You coudn't. By definition.
So in that case, you will be forever stuck with a wrong belief. Your ability to learn and make progress will be exactly zero.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

I do not consider it arrogant to believe in a God or Gods without objective evidence. The problem of arrogance and anger in fundamentalist Christians, and other exclusive beliefs is their negative, often aggressive, toward those who believe differently and science.

 

[Balthazzar]

It's kind of a wild concept to examine the "pathology" of someone's inability to acknowledge a scientific negative - considering that atheism is simply the belief that there isn't any god. The whole thing kind of assumes that god definitely exists and that if you don't believe god exists, that there must be something seriously wrong with you. Not a great premise. But it is an interesting and informative post.

I mean, it's possible that human beings are hardwired to believe that something greater than themselves exists and that thing is god. So atheism would mean, on that hypothesis alone, presents itself as a kind of deficiency or disorder.

That list is interesting.

And I think a lot of "learned atheism" definitely comes from places of enormous discontentment, resentment or arrogance - the last one, arrogance, being interesting because it is actually rooted in the presumption that the scientific method and ability for humans to perceive their surroundings is all that exists in the entire universe, which is pretty crazy when you think about it and enormously arrogant. Lotta atheists out there get off on the feeling of being right or the smartest person in the room and actually get off on bashing god, religion and religious people when it's really an incredibly petty thing to be thinking and doing.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that, while there isn't necessarily anything wrong with atheism or atheists (and secular public society is definitely preferrable to any conceivable alternative), it still leaves a vacuum that can lead a lot of atheists to severe existential crises or psychological issues.

When I wore atheism like a badge of honor, I was definitely arrogant, immoral, angry and even almost suicidally resentful.

Opening my mind to the possibility that there is something beyond just what human beings can observe and measure did wonders for my mental health and the way in which I decided to approach life and interact with people.

A lot of atheism is a form of severe prejudice.

Opening the mind in acknowledgment of the vast expanse existing beyond our abilities to observe is quite an eye opener. Then again, religious thought often enough suggests the same, that "God" is unknowable as is the vast breadth of the expanse we call the universe. It could be we are acknowledging the same things using different terms.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

I assume you are talking about Christians? Can you explain to me how having a belief without supporting evidence is arrogance?

 

[osgart]

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.

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.

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

I'd have to know what you mean by God to even attempt to figure out if that exists.

In defining God I usually come across all powerful, omniscient, benevolent, just, and that God has power and authority over life on earth. I can safely rule all that out.

 

[osgart]

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


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.


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.

It means I go beyond the default that lack of evidence defaults to non belief. I think the whole field of cosmology, and examining the natural world is evidence that we are not created by a God or gods.

I suppose anyone can define some sort of God that fits within the parameters of existent possibility. God as the mystery of existence, or a cold, impersonal force might have existence or that some eternal beings might have existence.

God by definition though is power and authority over a living subject. That can be ruled out.

 

[PureX]

The

I'd have to know what you mean by God to even attempt to figure out if that exists.

That's just it. I think you would have to know what YOU mean by "God" to figure out if that could exist, and to figure out if you want to trust in the idea of it existing or not. I see no logical reason for you to put it all on someone else. How would they know any more about it than you or anyone else would?

In defining God I usually come across all powerful, omniscient, benevolent, just, and that God has power and authority over life on earth. I can safely rule all that out.

I see no possible way that we could rule it in or out. It's like infinity. How would a finite being such as ourselves ever verify an actual state of infinity?

I think a better description than those infinity states would be 'the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is'. I know we humans love to anthropomorphize God but it seems to me that the one thing most theists will agree on in the end is that we can't really comprehend the mystery of God. That it's beyond us. Leaving us with a question of faith, not proof.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you needed a crutch?

The problem of the (necessity) of a crutch, which inspires a negative aggressive view of many Theists towards those who do not belief, and, of course, those who believe differently.

 

[shunyadragon]

The

That's just it. I think you would have to know what YOU mean by "God" to figure out if that could exist, and to figure out if you want to trust in the idea of it existing or not. I see no logical reason for you to put it all on someone else. How would they know any more about it than you or anyone else would?

I see no possible way that we could rule it in or out. It's like infinity. How would a finite being such as ourselves ever verify an actual state of infinity?

I think a better description than those infinity states would be 'the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is'. I know we humans love to anthropomorphize God but it seems to me that the one thing most theists will agree on in the end is that we can't really comprehend the mystery of God. That it's beyond us. Leaving us with a question of faith, not proof.

I do not "believe that "knowing what one means by God or Gods" does not contribute to which God or Gods could exist.

Any description is not better than another when there is a lack objective evidence for any other one human description. I was told by my Roman Church priest when I question the Trinity, "Don;e worry just accept it, because it is a mystery."

The belief of an anthropomorphic 'hands on' God is based on the ancient world view of the Bible, and not a "love" of the idea.

 

[Nakosis]

we can't really comprehend the mystery of God. That it's beyond us.

This is my position too.
So I see no reason to worry about it.

If a God exists, their existence is beyond anything we can understand.
If they don't exist then there is nothing to worry about anyway.

One can simply go about life as if there is no God.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

I do not believe this is remotely true. Atheists may have strong disagreements with religions and religious beliefs like, rejection of science, the tribal nature of religions today, many believers believing in the necessity of Christian based Theonomy today trying to impose their morals and ethics through laws, , and the aggressive anger and arrogance of many Christians against atheists and those who believe differently. I am a Theist, and I have strong disagreements with these problems in Theistic religions today and many other problems.,

Atheists simply and predominantly do not believe in Gods, because of the lack of objective evidence of Gods, and lack of positive reasons to believe in the ancient world views of hands on anthropomorphic Gods and their archaic laws.

 

[F1fan]

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?

No, theists are assuming this, and atheists are not convinced, so challenge these common assumptions.

Why do believers assume various religious assumptions are correct? It’s what they were taught by others.

And isn't assuming this to be so a bit arrogant on your part?

Atheists avoid religious assumptions. It’s how logic works. Atheists follow evidence to valid conclusions and reject assumptions.

After all, there really isn't any way for you (or any of us) to know this.

That’s why atheists aren’t convinced. Yet you never criticize believers for declaring their version of God exists.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In the US, Canada and UK especially there's a cultural trend with a lot of obnoxious more-intellectual-than-thou atheists out there who really need to take their religious trauma to therapy instead of projecting it on every religious person they meet. And because they've stylized themselves around logic and reason as a vague conceptual value, they often miss a lot of the actual process of being logical and reasonable. Some of the most xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, climate change denying people I've met are atheists. Because they've developed a blind spot for their prejudices if they believe it comes from a place of 'reason' instead of 'religion.' People like Jordan Peterson who has the same conservative theocratic jargon but couched it in bioessentialism to make it more tasty to the irreligious.

And instead of working on effectively challenging their own views, listening to learn instead of listening to respond, or approaching people with actual curiosity about how they got to their conclusions, they just have the same 10 pointlessly circular debates with creationists over and over instead. Learning nothing and growing not at all.

And I say this as an atheist who has had this phase, along with a lot of other atheists with religious trauma.

That said, atheists are people like all other people. We are not all one thing or another. And it is entirely possible to break this cycle and grow. And the same goes for those religious people who get into similar cycles.

 

[shunyadragon]

In the US, Canada and UK especially there's a cultural trend with a lot of obnoxious more-intellectual-than-thou atheists out there who really need to take their religious trauma to therapy instead of projecting it on every religious person they meet. And because they've stylized themselves around logic and reason as a vague conceptual value, they often miss a lot of the actual process of being logical and reasonable. Some of the most xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, climate change denying people I've met are atheists. Because they've developed a blind spot for their prejudices if they believe it comes from a place of 'reason' instead of 'religion.' People like Jordan Peterson who has the same conservative theocratic jargon but couched it in bioessentialism to make it more tasty to the irreligious.

And instead of working on effectively challenging their own views, listening to learn instead of listening to respond, or approaching people with actual curiosity about how they got to their conclusions, they just have the same 10 pointlessly circular debates with creationists over and over instead. Learning nothing and growing not at all.

And I say this as an atheist who has had this phase, along with a lot of other atheists with religious trauma.

Aberrant psychoanalysis gone to outrageous amateur extremes, which reflects the paranoid view of many Theist concerning atheists.

It is Theists that need therapy to help them learn to treat others beliefs in a more objective basis as simply that other people believe differently based on many normal rational reasons.

That said, atheists are people like all other people. We are not all one thing or another. And it is entirely possible to break this cycle and grow. And the same goes for those religious people who get into similar cycles.

If the above is what you believe you apparently do not agree with this. contradictions and 'other' personal motives abound here.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Aberrant psychoanalysis gone to outrageous extremes, which reflects the paranoid view of many Theist concerning atheists.

Or, it's an observation of behavior I come across on a regular basis. Indicative of a specific subculture within a group, of which I was a part of and participated in. And have since seen it reinforced by a minority but very much existing group which I've had to regularly moderate over the years. You can even read about it within atheist specific social media, such as 'brights' or aforementioned Jordan Peterson fans who are atheist. Or see it here, if you look for it.

If the above is what you believe you apparently do not agree with htis.

Why do you think so? The above is talking about a specific subgroup, the below is talking about the group as a whole. You can have bad faith actors in any group, atheists are no exception. And people can eventually get over their bad faith assumptions they make about their perceived enemy group.

 

[PureX]

No, theists are assuming this, and atheists are not convinced, so challenge these common assumptions.

That makes no sense at all. Theists are trusting in an idea they hope to be true because they find it helps them live a better life. Atheists choose not to do that. End of story. So what’s the “challenge” for? Who cares what ideas theists trust and what ideas atheists don’t? What business is it of anyone’s?

Why do believers assume various religious assumptions are correct?

They want their idea of God to be true. And in wanting that, they can maybe help it to become true. At least for them.

It’s what they were taught by others.

So what?

Atheists avoid religious assumptions.

So what. Theist sometimes make religious assumptions. It’s how faith works.

It’s how logic works.

Theism IS logical.

Atheists follow evidence to valid conclusions and reject assumptions.

Theists follow results to enrich their faith.

That’s why atheists aren’t convinced.

No one cares that they aren’t convinced.

Yet you never criticize believers for declaring their version of God exists.

Why would I?

 

[PureX]

This is my position too.
So I see no reason to worry about it.

I doubt most theists are “worried about it”. I think they find their idealization of God helpful to the living of life.

If a God exists, their existence is beyond anything we can understand.
If they don't exist then there is nothing to worry about anyway.

Who is worried?

One can simply go about life as if there is no God.

Or one can contemplate what the ideal God might be, and use that idealization to help them live a better life.