Atheism and arrogance

[SalixIncendium]

Not really. I stated my belief. If I'd wanted to debate my belief I would have said, "atheists reject God out of arrogance." I didn't want to debate that...

So posting the thread in a debate forum makes perfect sense...

 

[sun rise]

The truth is, I'm having trouble going through all these not so relevant comments.

Your thread has turned into a set of disagreements including personal ones. I stopped paying attention to a bunch of the side arguments.

 

[sun rise]

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

On RF there are many different kinds of people including former atheists like me. I understand very much the "why should I believe? What evidence can you provide that you're right? Along with the firm belief that quoting some scripture by someone I don't recognize as special is not relevant." That is not arrogance but rather a fidelity to wanting to know what is provably true. That desire for what is true is to me laudable.

I did not stop being an atheist because someone attacked me and quoted their scripture at me. I stopped being an atheist when from deep inside me came the belief that there has to be more than physical existence. The rest including the conclusion that "all roads lead to the sea" followed afterwards.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Indeed. So what? You see inconsistency where consistency is. Not my problem.

...Fairness an unbiasness can often come from complaining about things.

So you were wrong to call this an unfair or biased site, because no one is being denied the right to voice their opinions.

 

[Cooky]

So you were wrong to call this an unfair or biased site, because no one is being denied the right to voice their opinions.

I never called this an unfair or biased site. But I can argue against what I perceive as a potential threat to unbiasness in general.

The site's biasness and a general sense of biasness can be viewed seperately.

 

[Piculet]

Not so! Look at the very first sentence in your OP, above. What that says, with no hint at it being only a belief, is that atheists (meaning ALL atheists) are arrogant. You give two possible "reasons" for that, but the statement is quite explicit. All atheists are arrogant.

Now, please prove that claim. Or apologize abjectly and sincerely for it.

But that's not a claim. You could say I'm implying it, but you would be concentrating on the irrelevant. I think the problem here is that you take it too personally.

Do you know that, basically, in Islam, atheists will go to hell. Now, I cannot say to an atheist, "you will go to hell." that is prohibited in Islam. Similarly, (the following is just my personal "principle") I can say, "atheists are arrogant," but I do not say to an atheist, "you are arrogant," because they are an atheist. I can say to another person, "you are arrogant," if I am confident that they have proven themselves to be arrogant.

When you're supposed to be constructive and think about the big picture, you're all busy defending yourselves. And for what? If my op is so horrible and nonsense and, in fact, I should leave, why are you so busy defending yourselves?

 

[Piculet]

their using the sins of others to make themselves feel and appear the more virtuous

You're assuming a motive.

while never a peep is uttered about the sins that they DO commit

In Islam it is generally prohibited to reveal one's sins or other people's sins for that matter.

 

[Left Coast]

Not really. I stated my belief. If I'd wanted to debate my belief I would have said, "atheists reject God out of arrogance." I didn't want to debate that so I used the wide vocabulary of the English language to form an op that makes clear — for a calm reader — what I wish to discuss.

If you want to discuss something other than atheists being atheists because they are arrogant, you haven't made that at all clear. So please, calmly clarify for everyone. What would you like this thread to be about?

Why evidence? Why can't you reason?

Evaluating evidence for a claim is reasoning. If you have no evidence for what you say, why would anyone believe it?

I didn't say everyone is arrogant. I said everyone has arrogance in them.
As for why it's relevant — that's made clear in the OP. I chose it as the topic. It being a religious forum and all. If you want to talk about something you find more relevant, you can make a thread about it.

I make threads about what I find relevant all the time, thanks.

 

[Piculet]

If you want to discuss something other than atheists being atheists because they are arrogant, you haven't made that at all clear.

I started the op with a question... Are atheist arrogant because they reject God or do they reject God because they're arrogant? That's what I wanted to talk about.

Evaluating evidence for a claim is reasoning

It can be part of reasoning but it isn't an equivalent. Reasoning doesn't have to have anything to do with evidence.

If you have no evidence for what you say, why would anyone believe it?

1.i don't care. 2.it was a question.

I make threads about what I find relevant all the time, thanks.

Then don't ask me about the relevance of mine.

 

[blü 2]

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."

The existence of a real God is a question of fact, rather than assertion, isn't it?

An entity is real if he she or it exists in the world external to the self ─ which we call objective reality, nature, the realm of the physical sciences, and the like.

If a thing doesn't exist in nature, then the only way it exists is as a concept, or thing imagined, in an individual brain.

So it matters that there's no description of God that would describe a real entity. If a sufficient description of God existed, that would give us an objective test to determine whether any real entity is God or not ─ for example, that can determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. I can tell whether or not it's a snail shell, light in the violet band, a 1957 Ford Customline and so on ─ it's none of those things. I can even tell that it's not a unicorn. But I can't tell whether it's God or not.

The fact that supernatural beings are found in all human cultures suggests that belief in the supernatural is an evolved trait in humans. Religion is part of one's identity as the member of a group, a tribe, so you share a common language, customs, stories of heroes, and of origins (of the world, its creatures, the weather, luck in fertility, hunting, war &c) and of supernatural beings who can be invoked by ceremonies and offerings to provide these things. Look at the Tanakh, where Yahweh begins as the tribal god of the Jews. Look at Allah, where Allah beings as the tribal god of Arabic people, militant against Christians in particular (and vice versa).

But if a real supernatural being existed out there, all the humans would have the same perception of it, wouldn't they? There wouldn't be the thousands and thousands of gods and supernatural entities we find in history and in the world. It makes much more sense as a factor in tribal/cultural solidarity.

Is it arrogant to approach these questions rationally? I don't think so.

Is it arrogant for believers of any religion to tell everyone else they're wrong?

 

[Left Coast]

I started the op with a question... Are atheist arrogant because they reject God or do they reject God because they're arrogant? That's what I wanted to talk about.

Oh, okay, so you do want to talk about atheists being atheists because they're arrogant. Thank you.

It can be part of reasoning but it isn't an equivalent. Reasoning doesn't have to have anything to do with evidence.

If you want to reason about things outside your head, you're going to have to collect some data. That data, when applied to an idea you have about the world, is called evidence. When someone makes a claim, you employ reason to evaluate their evidence.

1.i don't care.

Ah okay. Well then that's my cue to exit. If you're just going to make random baseless claims and don't care to back them up with evidence, you've left reasonable discourse behind. Have a nice day.

 

[George-ananda]

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

Even as a non-atheist myself, I would answer generally it is neither of those two options. They just don't see the evidence for God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But that's not a claim. You could say I'm implying it, but you would be concentrating on the irrelevant. I think the problem here is that you take it too personally.

Sorry, but it is most definitely a claim. Read your own sentence again -- it sets up precisely two (2) possibilities, both of which claim that atheists are arrogant. Period, end of story. It's got nothing to do with whether I take it personally or not. It is what you said -- personally. Now, I think that if you were honourable, you would either defend that claim, or apologize for it. Right now, you are doing neither.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I started the op with a question... Are atheist arrogant because they reject God or do they reject God because they're arrogant? That's what I wanted to talk about.

See? You even repeated it yourself -- two options, both of which assert that atheists are arrogant. Show your evidence, or retract.

 

[Polymath257]

I started the op with a question... Are atheist arrogant because they reject God or do they reject God because they're arrogant? That's what I wanted to talk about.

And the answer is no, neither. SOME atheists are arrogant because they are human. But, for the most part, they reject deities because there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in them. That is neither rejecting because of arrogance nor is it arrogance because of rejection. The two are independent aspects of the personnality.

It can be part of reasoning but it isn't an equivalent. Reasoning doesn't have to have anything to do with evidence.

1.i don't care. 2.it was a question.

Then don't ask me about the relevance of mine.

And the question was based on faulty assumptions. Furthermore, the quote you gave from the Quran and the explanation given show a complete lack of understanding of the atheist position.

Instead of arrogantly assuming you understand why another has the views they do, maybe you should politely ask them and listen to what they say?

 

[Polymath257]

Hi. It's annoying, isn't it? I didn't complain. I made a statement. I didn't make a claim. I asked a question. It's not my problem if apparently no one is willing to get past one thing or recognise that arrogance is normal. Basically everyone has arrogance in them. I don't know why you people get so worked up about this.. The truth is, I'm having trouble going through all these not so relevant comments.

You asked a question based on a faulty dichotomy and that made an assumption that was not in evidence.

So, if arrogance is normal, why single out atheists?

And why assume that the normal arrogance has anything to do with belief or disbelief in a deity?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hi. It's annoying, isn't it? I didn't complain. I made a statement. I didn't make a claim. I asked a question. It's not my problem if apparently no one is willing to get past one thing or recognise that arrogance is normal. Basically everyone has arrogance in them. I don't know why you people get so worked up about this.. The truth is, I'm having trouble going through all these not so relevant comments.

I don't know how you can make this claim, when you yourself said -- again, I'm quoting you directly -- " I have not seen anyone who truly believes in one God and worships Him, being arrogant." Yet you describe yourself as just such a believer.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, at least we are not arrogant enough to believe that an almighty being created the whole Universe for us.

Ciao

- viole

I'll second that.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find atheists to be much more humble than many theists:

Me too, and I am a theist.

 

[ManSinha]

This thread is really interesting - I have found most atheists (particularly those that identify with secular humanism) to be kind, decent and friendly humans willing far more than some theists (listen to sermon first and then you can eat) to help their fellow creatures in need. In fact at one point in my life I was very close to embracing them - what stopped me - if anyone is interested I can provide the answer - not sure it is relevant

Gonna say something that may offend - so apologies in advance

IMHO I find a portion of atheist outlook is very similar to the Hindu astika school of Samkhya - in that there is a portion of reliance on three principles of pratyakṣa (perception), anumāṇa (inference) and śabda (āptavacana, word/testimony of reliable sources)

From Wikipedia - The existence of God or a supreme being is not considered relevant by the Samkhya philosophers. Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God)

My personal beliefs are different but I smile to myself when I see how close some of the atheist reasoning comes to what is enumerated above

That is just one layperson's POV - I do not claim any scholarly knowledge - just someone that picks up the shiny pebble on the internet and tries to study it with my limited intelligence and perception

[EDIT] My deepest apologies to OP for the off track post