Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[RestlessSoul]

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.

The point about falsifiability which often seems to get missed, especially by those for whom it is a little understood but oft cited article of faith, is Popper’s observation that it is not logically possible to verify any theory, claim or assertion. From this observation, he drew the conclusion that in the natural sciences, falsification was the only effective way of evaluating the veracity of a theory; but there is a paradox here - it is only logically possible to draw negative conclusions with confidence. It therefore follows that faith is always required in order to hold any belief, stupendous quantities of empirical evidence notwithstanding.

 

[Madsaac]

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

Fair enough, I did say some....as you have mentioned. What about people who try and make laws based on religion?

 

[Madsaac]

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

I said some people and I mean those people who people who try and influence others through their religion without any scientific basis or research to support their stance. That has a feel of arrogance about it, wouldn't you agree?

 

[shunyadragon]

Fair enough, I did say some....as you have mentioned. What about people who try and make laws based on religion?

The use of "some" remains judgemental on who the "some" would be.

There have been attempts in the past with laws concerning the teaching of Intelligent Design struck down by the Dover trial. The current change in laws concerning abortion are entirely motivated by religion. There are movements among states and in Congress for legislation concerning the rights of LGBQ persons. One of Supreme Court Justices and other conservative judges have indicated that they support this.

The movement for Christian Nationalism by the likes Representatives Mike Johnson and Marjorie Green and others in Congress as the goal to have a Christian Republican Party to Control the government.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I said some people and I mean those people who people who try and influence others through their religion without any scientific basis or research to support their stance. That has a feel of arrogance about it, wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't agree. First, if irrationality were the criteria of arrogance, you would have to say that all humans are arrogant. Second, part of freedom of religion is the freedom to share your faith (or lack of it) with others.

Arrogance is when you believe yourself unjustifiably to be better than others, that you have an exaggerated sense of your own importance or abilities. It does NOT mean you hold an opinion, rational or irrational, or that you wish to share your opinion with others.

Now if someone were to say, "Democrats (or Republicans) are stupid morons. They lack the intelligence that *I* have," that would be arrogant. Or if they said, "Mormons (or whatever) cannot be trusted to do the right thing; they are basically immoral people, unlike me, since I'm Catholic (or whatever)" THAT would be an example of arrogance.

 

[shunyadragon]

The point about falsifiability which often seems to get missed, especially by those for whom it is a little understood but oft cited article of faith, is Popper’s observation that it is not logically possible to verify any theory, claim or assertion. From this observation, he drew the conclusion that in the natural sciences, falsification was the only effective way of evaluating the veracity of a theory; but there is a paradox here - it is only logically possible to draw negative conclusions with confidence. It therefore follows that faith is always required in order to hold any belief, stupendous quantities of empirical evidence notwithstanding.

You are not so suitilly selectively misrepresenting Popper concerning his proposals to develop Methodological; Naturalism. The reason why falsification was proposed and not verification is that theories and hypothesis are not conclusively verified and are always subject to change or finding them false based on new positive information. That is how science works. Yes, according to Popper science should strive to develop theories and hypothesis that can be found false, but science can only use positive information to falsify a theory or hypothesis.

Science through falsification of theories and hypothesis can only falsify positive results of discoveries and research based on positive predictive results to support theories and hypotheses. You are misusing the concept of faith and belief to justify an agenda against science. Yes part of the goal is to punch holes in theories and hypothesis to determine it false, but again this is dependent on determining that it it fails to meet the standards required to determine validity of the theory or hypothesis. This requires positive information. The lack of positive information to determine the validity of the theory or hypothesis would result in it be found false, which the goal described by Popper.

Example the major problem with the hypothesis for Intelligent Design is that it cannot provide positive information and predictive research that supports the claim of irreducible Complexity. It only proposes the negative hypothesis that science cannot falsify that complexity in nature is the result of natural processes. It is common for advocates of Biblical Creationism for challenging the sciences of evolution for argument of "gaps" arguing from the negative "arguing from ignorance' as to claims what science does not know or as they often assert that there will always be "gaps" science cannot "prove [sic]."

It remains a Theological hypothesis that is an attempt to support the existence of the necessity of a "Designer God" to explain the "Complexity in nature."

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

I have nothing further to add concerning your grosely false acrid generalization of atheists based on extremely biased negative observations. The problem is with yout!!!

Again . . .
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.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

I usually agree with the things you post, but I have to take exception here. For you to categorically dismiss theists as being in need of therapy or not appreciating the reasons why others might disagree with them is blatantly bigoted.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I have nothing further to add concerning your grosely false acrid generalization of atheists based on extremely biased negative observations. The problem is with yout!!!

Again . . .
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.

*shrug* suit yourself. But I'm not a theist, I'm an atheist, but I can see quite clearly that there are plenty of atheists within the demographic I've described, for the reasons I've described.

You say I generalize but I made it quite clear that I'm talking about a specific subculture prevalent on websites like these. And then you turn around and generalize all Theists.

So I repeat, maybe take your religious trauma to therapy instead of projecting your hurt and narratives onto every Theist you meet.

 

[shunyadragon]

*shrug* suit yourself. But I'm not a theist, I'm an atheist, but I can see quite clearly that there are plenty of atheists within the demographic I've described, for the reasons I've described.

You say I generalize but I made it quite clear that I'm talking about a specific subculture prevalent on websites like these. And then you turn around and generalize all Theists.

So I repeat, maybe take your religious trauma to therapy instead of projecting your hurt and narratives onto every Theist you meet.

Regardless of whether you are making a vain attempt to define a sub-culture (?). It remains a generalization of whatever group of atheists you are referring to. The same could said describing a sub-culture in any group. or belief systems and it still would a vague invalid generalization as to it would refer to.

Actually, I have the reverse experience with atheist. There is no doubt there are extremes within any group or belief system, but you nonetheless you ar emaking a false generalization. Though the wude spread and dominante problems, especially in Fundamentalist Christianity as I described in post #154. In Christianity and Islam it is not only a lot, but dominant.

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.

Not the bold in your post:

"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.

Based on what you stated above this sub-culture is pretty darn large.
'

 

[shunyadragon]

I usually agree with the things you post, but I have to take exception here. For you to categorically dismiss theists as being in need of therapy or not appreciating the reasons why others might disagree with them is blatantly bigoted.

I believe you missed the point of my post, or maybe a rewording would help. I was objecting to @ADigitalArtist generalization that strongly resemble the Theists angry arrogant view of atheists that of course need help.

 

[Madsaac]

No, I don't agree. First, if irrationality were the criteria of arrogance, you would have to say that all humans are arrogant. Second, part of freedom of religion is the freedom to share your faith (or lack of it) with others.

Arrogance is when you believe yourself unjustifiably to be better than others, that you have an exaggerated sense of your own importance or abilities. It does NOT mean you hold an opinion, rational or irrational, or that you wish to share your opinion with others.

Now if someone were to say, "Democrats (or Republicans) are stupid morons. They lack the intelligence that *I* have," that would be arrogant. Or if they said, "Mormons (or whatever) cannot be trusted to do the right thing; they are basically immoral people, unlike me, since I'm Catholic (or whatever)" THAT would be an example of arrogance.

Yes, I think you have a valid argument there, the notion of arrogance might not be best in this situation. Using the word for people on all 'extremes' is more appropriate.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You do that, and while you wait, pretend you're able to know what that evidence would look like if it came your way.

I don't need to pretend. It would be the same evidence that is there for the sun, or the wind blowing in one's face, or the rain falling on one's skin.

Such evidences would require no introduction nor proof on its own.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheists follow evidence to valid conclusions and reject assumptions.

There are a lot of atheists in Australia. They're certainly not all following evidence and rejecting assumptions.
Heck, I'd go further and suggest most aren't. They're humans, after all.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are a lot of atheists in Australia. They're certainly not all following evidence and rejecting assumptions.
Heck, I'd go further and suggest most aren't. They're humans, after all.

Yes we are humans after all.

I believe that most atheists are simply materialists and do follow the objective verifiable evidence of the nature of our physical existence. Their belief is based on the lack of objective evidence of Gods. It is most common for atheist assert: "There is no reason to believe in Gods," because of the lack of evidence." Yes they reject the assumptions of the Theists.

Theists on the other hand believe for the most part based on the traditions and the beliefs of their parents and peers, without following the objective evidence concerning not only the existence of Gods, but the problems clinging to ancient tribal texts and beliefs no longer verifiable today.

 

[F1fan]

There are a lot of atheists in Australia. They're certainly not all following evidence and rejecting assumptions.

This is a vague claim. In what way way aren't atheists in Australia not following evidence and avoiding assumptions?

Heck, I'd go further and suggest most aren't. They're humans, after all.

So all of a sudden it goes from some to most, and still no evidence of how you calculate this claim.

Could it be you are making it up?

I find your statement odd, because what would make an Australian atheists different than atheists anywhere else? We are all dealing with the same religious claims, and the same lack of evidence for those religious claims. So explain.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, I think you have a valid argument there, the notion of arrogance might not be best in this situation. Using the word for people on all 'extremes' is more appropriate.

Again, you seem to be trying to attach arrogance to beliefs. It's not. It is quite specifically having an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities. Do I think extremism is a problem? Yes, I do. But it is not the same problem as arrogance.

 

[PureX]

Again, you seem to be trying to attach arrogance to beliefs. It's not. It is quite specifically having an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities. Do I think extremism is a problem? Yes, I do. But it is not the same problem as arrogance.

Belief IS a form of intellectual arrogance. Especially when it's being applied to opinions about truth and reality that we cannot possibly know to be true or real. Like God. Which is exactly the kind of thing we apply it to. Belief is just our telling ourselves that we are right about whatever it is we are choosing to "believe in" even though we don't actually know that to be so.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Belief IS a form of intellectual arrogance.

No. I think what I'm seeing here is simply the anger and frustration of some people lashing out. I do not see a fair assessment of the relative humility or arrogance of believers.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Regardless of whether you are making a vain attempt to define a sub-culture (?). It remains a generalization of whatever group of atheists you are referring to. The same could said describing a sub-culture in any group. or belief systems and it still would a vague invalid generalization as to it would refer to.

Actually, I have the reverse experience with atheist. There is no doubt there are extremes within any group or belief system, but you nonetheless you ar emaking a false generalization. Though the wude spread and dominante problems, especially in Fundamentalist Christianity as I described in post #154. In Christianity and Islam it is not only a lot, but dominant.

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.

Not the bold in your post:

"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.

Based on what you stated above this sub-culture is pretty darn large.
'

A lot, yes, I'd agree with that. Atheists who peddle intellectual and logical superiority complexes and try to deconvert others to atheism in a proselytic nature is something I come across *a lot* on this forum and in other religiously centered forums.

Not all, not most, a lot. Which is why I said subculture.

I'm more aware of it here because it's where I moderate and proselytizing even by atheists is against the rules.

It's a toxic behavior and should be called out just as frequently as the proselytic fundamentalists they fight with (instead of working on their own religious trauma.)

I have no problem with atheists who are merely atheists because they don't believe in gods, I'm one of them. I have a problem with atheists who are so, as I said, more-intellectual-than-thou, that they believe the only reason theists are theist is because they lack some intellectual capability.

Because that is behaving arrogantly. No different than fundamentalists who believe atheists are atheist because they lack some moral quality.

Which is also a subculture within theism. Fundamentalism is still a minority where theism is concerned, globally. But it is more prevalent in English speaking social media websites like this one. Because sites like this bring both the most interesting, educated, nuanced debaters and the ones for whom have much more quantity over quality of debates.

And, as I said, this idea that thise atheists or those theists taught themselves that they are innately more logical or more moral means they often miss their own prejudices because of that a priori assumption that their biases must not really be baises because they are logical or moral. Two sides of the same coin.

Which is why I pointed out those among Brights or JP fans so often come with other social stereotypes and biases. The atheists there have just convinced the biases are supported by logic (usually in the form of bioessentialism.)

Anyway, I've repeated myself enough now.