Atheism and arrogance

[AliFinland1999]

Hi! I'm really sorry to bother and write this here, but I'm new and I'd like to know where can I write my own post to ask for guidance and opinions? Like a blog or something or an ask for people to comment and give me their opinion? Sorry to bother and thanks

 

[Valjean]

I disagree.
I say there is no way to judge an ethical or religious doctrine other than the results, i.e. the behavior of adherents.
And anyone who is a "claimed" adherent almost certainly is an adherent. Because there is no more objective standard for adherent.
Tom

Would you measure the validity of a physics or math concept by the behavior of their believers?
Bad behavior doesn't invalidate a fact, nor does good behavior support it.

Religious doctrine is an assertion of objective truth; fair game for criticism.

 

[Stevicus]

Hi! I'm really sorry to bother and write this here, but I'm new and I'd like to know where can I write my own post to ask for guidance and opinions? Like a blog or something or an ask for people to comment and give me their opinion? Sorry to bother and thanks

Hello, a good place to start might be to introduce yourself in this section: Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

 

[columbus]

Hi! I'm really sorry to bother and write this here, but I'm new and I'd like to know where can I write my own post to ask for guidance and opinions? Like a blog or something or an ask for people to comment and give me their opinion? Sorry to bother and thanks

Welcome to RF AliFinland1999.
Nice to meet you.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

so OPs which allow for atheists being arrogant for one of 2 reasons (and try to ringfence discussion into that binary format) are pretty odious.

I would fully expect to be called out by people if I made similar comments about theists, and would also call out others who did so if I saw the same.

It almost seems like you're suggesting that a lack of evidence makes an opinion worthy of being called out on, while at the same time, suggesting that evidence based opinions are less worthy of scrutiny? But if so, I have to disagree, because in the end, it all boils down to opinions anyway, whether we're talking atheism, Christianity or Islam... Because none of the three can ultimately be proven -therefore all three are opinion based. So all three are equally deserving of scrutiny or being called out on the same.

...Or is my argument flawed?

 

[Cooky]

because otherwise, I might suggest someone scram if they say theists (of any stripe) are typically one way or the other -- or make any sort of generalizations. But that wouldn't be any fun at all.


And by the way, I'm only observing the reactions I'm seeing, and analyzing them. Just hoping for input on the unknowns I guess. I'm weird like that.

 

[Cooky]

Would you measure the validity of a physics or math concept by the behavior of their believers?
Bad behavior doesn't invalidate a fact, nor does good behavior support it.

Interesting point.

 

[Trailblazer]

But the other qualities are at best aspirational, at worst just ... well, for example:

How could God know [he]:
─ was eternal?
─ was omniscient, be certain there was nothing [he] didn't know [he] didn't know?
─ wasn't created by an überGod?
─ didn't come into existence last Thursday, along with [his] memories and [his] environment?

God knows all that because God is only a Mystery to us, not to Himself. God alone knows God.

“No one else besides Thee hath, at any time, been able to fathom Thy mystery, or befittingly to extol Thy greatness. Unsearchable and high above the praise of men wilt Thou remain for ever.” Gleanings, p.5

And we still have the old questions eg:
Since God is portrayed as intelligent and emotional, [he]'s clearly an evolved creature. Where did [he] originate and how did [he] evolve?

No, God is not evolved and God is not a creature. Humans evolved and we are intelligent and emotional because we were made and evolved in the image of God.

That is really really really not going to work. No test will distinguish a real messenger (if there ever was one) from a fake, or confused, or self-convinced, 'messenger'. And goodness knows there's been no shortage of the latter.

You are correct, no test will do that, but with enough effort and research, "potentially" we can determine that for ourselves. Not everyone will be successful.

My view is that things are either real or purely conceptual / imaginary and there's no third option. And to be real, God would have to be found in the world external to the self, that's to say in nature, where like any other natural being [he] would have a sufficient description unique to [his] kind (Homo sapiens deus, perhaps? Or Deus sapiens homomorphus?).

God definitely is external to the self, and God can be found in nature because God is reflected in nature and in everything in existence.

“Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light.....

…From that which hath been said it becometh evident that all things, in their inmost reality, testify to the revelation of the names and attributes of God within them. Each according to its capacity, indicateth, and is expressive of, the knowledge of God. So potent and universal is this revelation, that it hath encompassed all things visible and invisible....”

Man, the noblest and most perfect of all created things, excelleth them all in the intensity of this revelation, and is a fuller expression of its glory.And of all men, the most accomplished, the most distinguished, and the most excellent are the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth. Nay, all else besides these Manifestations, live by the operation of Their Will, and move and have their being through the outpourings of Their grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 177-179

 

[blü 2]

God knows all that because God is only a Mystery to us, not to Himself. God alone knows God.

“No one else besides Thee hath, at any time, been able to fathom Thy mystery, or befittingly to extol Thy greatness. Unsearchable and high above the praise of men wilt Thou remain for ever.” Gleanings, p.5

No, God is not evolved and God is not a creature. Humans evolved and we are intelligent and emotional because we were made and evolved in the image of God.

You are correct, no test will do that, but with enough effort and research, "potentially" we can determine that for ourselves. Not everyone will be successful.

God definitely is external to the self, and God can be found in nature because God is reflected in nature and in everything in existence.

“Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light.....

…From that which hath been said it becometh evident that all things, in their inmost reality, testify to the revelation of the names and attributes of God within them. Each according to its capacity, indicateth, and is expressive of, the knowledge of God. So potent and universal is this revelation, that it hath encompassed all things visible and invisible....”

Man, the noblest and most perfect of all created things, excelleth them all in the intensity of this revelation, and is a fuller expression of its glory.And of all men, the most accomplished, the most distinguished, and the most excellent are the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth. Nay, all else besides these Manifestations, live by the operation of Their Will, and move and have their being through the outpourings of Their grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 177-179

Always a pleasure to disagree with you!

Go well.

 

[bharti]

Are atheists arrogant because they don't believe or do they not believe because they are arrogant?

I believe the latter is the correct view.

Qur'an 7:146 "Those who behave arrogantly on the earth in defiance of right - them will I turn away from My signs: Even if they see all the signs, they will not believe in them; and if they see the way of right conduct, they will not adopt it as the way; but if they see the way of error, that is the way they will adopt. For they have rejected our signs, and failed to take warning from them."

Hello.

I gave you a like for your courage.

I understand that the ignorance of being a separate (ego) self leads to all sorts of issues, including that of arrogance and disrespect. And I think that 99.9% of people (including this of course) suffer from that ignorance to a lesser or greater extent.

...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It almost seems like you're suggesting that a lack of evidence makes an opinion worthy of being called out on, while at the same time, suggesting that evidence based opinions are less worthy of scrutiny?

Nope. What I'm suggesting is that writing an OP that says 'Either arrogance leads to atheism OR atheism leads to arrogance' simply assumes atheism and arrogance are linked, and is more a position than a discussion. The OP should have the courage to write it as such, if they truly believe it, and deal with the fact that some will push back. That is not because atheism is 'protected', but because broad brushing millions of people in this way is not accurate.

If I said 'Either theism exists because of a lack of scientific knowledge, or scientific knowledge causes a lack of theism' I would hope there would be some push back.

But if so, I have to disagree, because in the end, it all boils down to opinions anyway, whether we're talking atheism, Christianity or Islam... Because none of the three can ultimately be proven -therefore all three are opinion based. So all three are equally deserving of scrutiny or being called out on the same.

Agreed. Which is why I favour secular lawmaking.

...Or is my argument flawed?

In general terms, not flawed at all. They should all be held to the same standards, or seen with the same level of subjectivity, imho. Their impact on others should therefore be minimised.

 

[Cooky]

Nope. What I'm suggesting is that writing an OP that says 'Either arrogance leads to atheism OR atheism leads to arrogance' simply assumes atheism and arrogance are linked, and is more a position than a discussion. The OP should have the courage to write it as such, if they truly believe it, and deal with the fact that some will push back. That is not because atheism is 'protected', but because broad brushing millions of people in this way is not accurate.

If I said 'Either theism exists because of a lack of scientific knowledge, or scientific knowledge causes a lack of theism' I would hope there would be some push back.



Agreed. Which is why I favour secular lawmaking.



In general terms, not flawed at all. They should all be held to the same standards, or seen with the same level of subjectivity, imho. Their impact on others should therefore be minimised.

Seems fair. Thanks for engaging. I have no further questions.

 

[Altfish]

Hmm...when you say 'football', are you talking about one of those lesser games where '6' is a decent score, or actual football, where '6' is just the opening gambit.

I'm talking about the original football, I believe you on the Trump side of the pond call it soccer

 

[Piculet]

The really nice thing is how you can claim a diverse group of people are arrogant by offering a closed loop set of choices, both of which result in them being 'arrogant', yet apparently don't recognise the arrogance in doing so.
Quite the magic trick.
Only thing missing was 'Abracadabra'.

Well, I based it on what the Quran says and the Quran is the word of God so it is rather confidence. I didn't say all atheists though. Not because I don't want to hurt your feelings, but because I don't know whom the Quran refers to and where. I don't know if it refers to all atheists. If it did, then it would be all. But it isn't clear to me so I generalise.

 

[Piculet]

I say there is no way to judge an ethical or religious doctrine other than the results, i.e. the behavior of adherents.

Then why aren't atheists judged by their behaviour? When they misbehave, the reaction is usually as though they were not part of any group even though their ethical position is quite monolithic.

 

[Piculet]

Because it is a misrepresentation of why atheists really don't believe in gods.

That's just your opinion. It's not like you can prove it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's just your opinion. It's not like you can prove it.

Much like what you post is your opinion but you back it up by what is written in a particular text - which might differ from some text that others use to back their opinions up - but yours is the true word. Yeah, well nothing new here, matey!.

 

[firedragon]

Are atheists arrogant because they don't believe or do they not believe because they are arrogant?

I believe the latter is the correct view.

Qur'an 7:146 "Those who behave arrogantly on the earth in defiance of right - them will I turn away from My signs: Even if they see all the signs, they will not believe in them; and if they see the way of right conduct, they will not adopt it as the way; but if they see the way of error, that is the way they will adopt. For they have rejected our signs, and failed to take warning from them."

Everyone is arrogant bro. And everyone is humble. Dont ever generalise any kind of personality traits or anything of the sort to any kind of people. That is the definition of bigotry.

 

[ChristineM]

Hi! I'm really sorry to bother and write this here, but I'm new and I'd like to know where can I write my own post to ask for guidance and opinions? Like a blog or something or an ask for people to comment and give me their opinion? Sorry to bother and thanks

Hi, welcome to RF, enjoy

To start you can create a new post here to introduce yourself properly
Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

It's also helpful to read the sticky threads

 

[HonestJoe]

Then why aren't atheists judged by their behaviour? When they misbehave, the reaction is usually as though they were not part of any group even though their ethical position is quite monolithic.

No it isn't. Atheism doesn't identify any ethical position, only a belief position. Atheism is the opposite of theism so it you're looking to judge all atheists as a singular group, you'd need to judge all theists as a singular group too. The reality is that there is vast, vast diversity within both (to the point that the labels are fairly pointless).