The "arrogant atheist" sterotype.

Xluna

All groups have their sterotypes and imo they often don't come from no where-but it's pollitically incorrect to hold this view it seems. Arrogance is a stereotype commonly attributed to atheists. On average do you think atheists tend to be more arrogant,in general,than the rest of the population or is it an unfair branding?

monosharp

Xluna wrote: »

All groups have their sterotypes and imo they often don't come from no where-but it's pollitically incorrect to hold this view it seems. Arrogance is a stereotype commonly attributed to atheists.

Well I don't think atheism/atheists are really a group in anywhere near the same sense as religious, political etc groups.

I'm an atheist because my particular view is that "I don't know" if theres a god/gods or the supernatural. If I have anything in common with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or any of the posters here its a coincidence.

Its not a doctrine I have accepted a la religion.

Its the same as grouping people who like history togeather. I like history for reasons x, y and z. Do people who like history have some common attribute ?

On average do you think atheists tend to be more arrogant,in general,than the rest of the population or is it an unfair branding?

No. Because I'm always right.

Shenshen

Xluna wrote: »

All groups have their sterotypes and imo they often don't come from no where-but it's pollitically incorrect to hold this view it seems. Arrogance is a stereotype commonly attributed to atheists. On average do you think atheists tend to be more arrogant,in general,than the rest of the population or is it an unfair branding?

No.
I think that religious people consider atheists more arrogant because atheists on the whole tend to be less likely to extend the amount of respect that they've become used to undeservedly.

I'm not saying that there aren't any arrogant atheists around, there are plenty. But there are also plenty of arrogant religious people.

Rev Hellfire

monosharp wrote: »

Well I don't think atheism/atheists are really a group in anywhere near the same sense as religious, political etc groups.

Atheists, wolf packs of one

Obni

I think the stereotype is partially based on the contrast between, on one hand, the nature of a debate two people of different faiths or different factions of the same faith, and on the other hand the nature of a debate between an atheist and theist.
The switch from debating complex theological minutiae, aspects of spirituality, the conflict of prophecy and free will, the nature of divine intervention, to someone suddenly pointing a finger and saying "Medieval hogwash!" is a bucket of ice-water over the head.

nozzferrahhtoo

I tend to ignore the accusation. It is irrelevant.

...Someone can be arrogant, loud, quiet, soft spoken, smelly, pimply, a murderer, an atheist, a theist, an idiot, a hyper intellect or whatever else you want...

None of that is in any way relevant to whether what they are actually saying is correct or not. Useful or not. Relevant or not.

The very second one starts talking about the people that are speaking, rather than what those people are saying, then a wrong turn has been taken.

Goduznt Xzst

To quote a recent episode of Southpark, Atheists get labeled as arrogant because we are a turd in the punchbowl.

You see, the vast majority of people are happy to just live in ignorance with their beliefs, and the decorum is to just let others have whatever wacko beliefs they want also, so everyone can be happy and delusional together about whatever they want

"You believe in fairies? That's cool I believe in Jesus"
"Jesus eh? Awesome, I believe the 9/11 attacks are a cover up so that the US could move into Iraq for the Oil"
"Ah yeah, that Oil, who knows what's going on there. BTW I'm a Muslim"
"Muslims? Cool, I don't fear you by the way. I believe Unicorns shoot laser beams from their nostrils"
*Atheist walks in*
Listen guys, can't we just accept that none of us knows for sure about any of our beliefs, so can't we just ignore our own made up beliefs like we all ready ignore everyone elses made up beliefs?
...
*tsst* Sir... we have... a turd in the punchbowl

ChocolateSauce

I genuinely, honestly do not believe most atheists are arrogant, certainly not more than most religious believers. As King mob said in another thread, they make all the grand claims, tell everyone how to live and not to live their lives, both in public and in private, and they accuse us of being arrogant?

Please. It's as laughable as it is false.

Galvasean

Unfair branding. Atheists are far more diverse than any religious group.

Sam Vimes

Xluna wrote: »

All groups have their sterotypes and imo they often don't come from no where-but it's pollitically incorrect to hold this view it seems. Arrogance is a stereotype commonly attributed to atheists. On average do you think atheists tend to be more arrogant,in general,than the rest of the population or is it an unfair branding?

I remember during the debates on the Lisbon treaty the same thing happened all the time, people kept coming out and saying things like they were put off by the yes side's arrogance. I remember thinking (and saying) more than once that the whole thing reminded me of talking to religious people. A lot of people had got a vague idea of treaty=bad from Libertas et al and had at best a very shaky justification for their position, it was mostly a gut feeling that had been deliberately implanted, better known as FUD. It's similar to how people have a gut feeling that a god exists and then set about trying to find arguments to justify it that are only really convincing because they've already decided there's a god.

When their whole justification was easily shown to be based on out of context quotes, made up figures and bare faced lies they were obviously embarrassed and they still had the gut feeling so they weren't going to change their mind just because every one of their objections had been dealt with. So they did exactly the same thing that religious people do at times like that, they started with ad hominem attacks that amount to little more than "it doesn't matter that everything you're saying is right, I'm still not listening to you because you said it in a mean way"

GLaDOS

I think it's arrogant to believe your belief is the correct one out of the thousands in the world and that if people don't think the same as you they're doomed for all eternity. But hey, that's just me.

Galvasean

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I think it's arrogant to believe your belief is the correct one out of the thousands in the world and that if people don't think the same as you they're doomed for all eternity. But hey, that's just me.

How arrogant of you..

Antbert

I'd rather be arrogant than wrong.

Maybe it's that kind of thing...

Galvasean

Atheists: "We're pretty damn sure we're right."
Religious folk: "We know the truth."

Which is more arrogant? Answers on a postcard.

Tim Robbins

Xluna wrote: »

All groups have their sterotypes and imo they often don't come from no where-but it's pollitically incorrect to hold this view it seems. Arrogance is a stereotype commonly attributed to atheists. On average do you think atheists tend to be more arrogant,in general,than the rest of the population or is it an unfair branding?

Yes. It's difficult to suffer fools sometimes.
One of my new tactics is to highlight the religious person's lack of scientific knowledge and the fact I can't take them seriously in any intellectual sense.

This could easily be construed as arrogance.

Dawkins comes across as really arrogant because of his tone - he sounds like a pompous upper class English colonial squire. But if you listen to what's saying he's actually a fairly gentle humane character.

Antbert

The thing is, it's the matter-of-fact tone (and, as Tim points out, the English accent) used by Dawkins when he discusses complete nonsense that makes people think he's arrogant. But what on earth is he supposed to do? The entire point is lost if he humours said nonsense on any level.

ChocolateSauce

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Dawkins comes across as really arrogant because of his tone - he sounds like a pompous upper class English colonial squire. But if you listen to what's saying he's actually a fairly gentle humane character.

As Ian O'Doherty once told me, (paraphrased;)) "Dawkins is an arrogant ass because he is a pompous upper class English colonial squire and an Oxford Dom, not because he is an atheist."

Galvasean

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As Ian O'Doherty once told me, (paraphrased;)) "Dawkins is an arrogant ass because he is a pompous upper class English colonial squire and an Oxford Dom, not because he is an atheist."

Good ol' IOD. He shall be our new poster boy for atheism. Common as muck, but loveable.

Ickle Magoo

Xluna wrote: »

All groups have their sterotypes and imo they often don't come from no where-but it's pollitically incorrect to hold this view it seems. Arrogance is a stereotype commonly attributed to atheists. On average do you think atheists tend to be more arrogant,in general,than the rest of the population or is it an unfair branding?

I don't think arrogance is an accurate stereotype of atheists as people. I assume theists feel that atheists are arrogantly denying their lord god or some other such religious based affront - having the gall to request evidence for something theist feel should never be questioned.

You get a common group of accusations leveled at atheists; arrogance, denial, closed heart, narrow mindedness, lack of morality, etc, etc. It's all part of the theist view that atheism is daring not to believe, or even somehow refusing to believe, what is patently obvious to a theist. I think the idea that a mortal being can claim the non-existence of an omnipotent being that others place such importance in is obviously going to be viewed as an arrogance by believers - but that's a completely different kettle of fish to atheists actually being arrogant as people.

Ironically, I think claiming to KNOW their god is the right one, that their holy book is the true one, to proclaim to know what their god wants and how their god will deal with people all seems like remarkable arrogance to me. In general, I think the people knocking at my door demanding I accept their god or thrusting biblical protestations of hell at me from the street are much more arrogant than any seeker of empirical truth but in day to day life, there is no higher percentage of arrogance in atheists than in any other walk of life.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Dawkins comes across as really arrogant because of his tone - he sounds like a pompous upper class English colonial squire. But if you listen to what's saying he's actually a fairly gentle humane character.

Do people here think that say the Pope is arrogant? More or less so than Dawkins? If not, why not, he's at least as sure or himself as Dawkins is, and makes pronouncements all the time, yet very few would label him arrogant, I'm just wondering why.

pH

pH wrote: »

Do people here think that say the Pope is arrogant? More or less so than Dawkins? If not, why not, he's at least as sure or himself as Dawkins is, and makes pronouncements all the time, yet very few would label him arrogant, I'm just wondering why.

God speaks directly to him, acts as his voice on earth and leads upwards of a billion people.
He also is fabulously wealthy and lives in a palace that is also a city and a country.
Yes I would say he can't help but be arrogant.

What pisses me off is the hypocrisy of people calling atheists arrogant.

Doctor DooM

pH wrote: »

Do people here think that say the Pope is arrogant? More or less so than Dawkins? If not, why not, he's at least as sure or himself as Dawkins is, and makes pronouncements all the time, yet very few would label him arrogant, I'm just wondering why.

To be honest, arrogant would be an exceedingly kind thing to label the current pope.

philologos

It's often a reality too. Then again, you often have theists who can be arrogant. Although in all due respect, it's not as if Christians don't have numerous stereotypes attached to them.

Ickle Magoo: Interesting that you bring up the telling people about hell thing. It seems, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't in this respect. Indeed, there was a whole thread dedicated the to subject recently

Youtube video from an atheist I stumbled across recently on this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w

Antbert

Jakkass wrote: »

It's often a reality too. Then again, you often have theists who can be arrogant. Although in all due respect, it's not as if Christians don't have numerous stereotypes attached to them.

But it's not about stereotyping, it's about this specific stereotype and whether or not it's valid.

Flamed Diving

Never thought much of William Reville, myself. Not just for his anti-atheism campaign.

philologos

Antbert wrote: »

But it's not about stereotyping, it's about this specific stereotype and whether or not it's valid.

You have to ask yourself why stereotypes exist.

I'd say that stereotypes of Christians exist, because, well quite a lot of Christians act in accordance to these stereotypes from time to time.

Likewise, stereotypes of atheists exist, well because quite a lot of atheists act in accordance to these stereotypes from time to time.

It isn't rocket science. Indeed, I'm sure many of you would stereotype me based on my faith, and indeed, I think I probably fall into the same trap with some of you.

Antbert

Jakkass wrote: »

You have to ask yourself why stereotypes exist.

I'd say that stereotypes of Christians exist, because, well quite a lot of Christians act in accordance to these stereotypes from time to time.

Likewise, stereotypes of atheists exist, well because quite a lot of atheists act in accordance to these stereotypes from time to time.

It isn't rocket science. Indeed, I'm sure many of you would stereotype me based on my faith, and indeed, I think I probably fall into the same trap with some of you.

A fair point indeed. One could even argue that it's our arrogance that makes us insist we aren't arrogant.

To which I would respond that arrogance isn't exactly the worst trait in the world, and would then argue adamantly that it isn't actually arrogance etc. etc.

Worth contemplating though.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: Interesting that you bring up the telling people about hell thing. It seems, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't in this respect. Indeed, there was a whole thread dedicated the to subject recently

In fairness, it's you who is damned if you do or damned if you don't because of beliefs you have, since I don't share those beliefs, I don't have any time for it. It just seems to be a bit of a self-fulfilling annoyance earning theists a ned flanderesque stereo-type.

Jackass wrote:

You have to ask yourself why stereotypes exist.

I'd say that stereotypes of Christians exist, because, well quite a lot of Christians act in accordance to these stereotypes from time to time.

Likewise, stereotypes of atheists exist, well because quite a lot of atheists act in accordance to these stereotypes from time to time.

It isn't rocket science. Indeed, I'm sure many of you would stereotype me based on my faith, and indeed, I think I probably fall into the same trap with some of you.

I think there are undoubtedly some arrogant atheists but no more so than there are arrogant theists, agnostics or whatever. I think "atheism" itself gets the labeled because of what it inherently is, or more importantly what it is not, rather than because of the way individual atheists act.

Flamed Diving

Theism (Christian version): There is a God, he created the universe, and I was saved/chosen by Him.

Atheism: There is no God.


One is rather arrogant and one is ever so slightly arrogant. Which do you think?

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Theism (Christian version): There is a God, he created the universe, and I was saved/chosen by Him.

You forgot "and he looks like me" (in his image no? ;o )

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

and I was saved/chosen by Him.

According to Christianity, all can be saved by God by free grace. It's hardly an arrogant stance to claim that one can be saved, if all can be saved in turn. Indeed, I would even admit that I am not deserving of it. Hence why it is said "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."

That's arrogant?

Ickle Magoo wrote:

In fairness, it's you who is damned if you do or damned if you don't because of beliefs you have, since I don't share those beliefs, I don't have any time for it. It just seems to be a bit of a self-fulfilling annoyance earning theists a ned flanderesque stereo-type.

I meant, we as Christians. All I'm saying is, we can't win with that stereotype due to the terms you've drawn up surrounding it.

Daftendirekt

It's a nonsense stereotype. I'm pretty sure there are some very arrogant atheists out there, but I doubt that's where it comes from. I think it's more to do with the fact that being critical of someone's religious beliefs simply isn't the done thing. If you adhere to an untenable position for largely emotional reasons, what better defence for that position than to simply claim it's off-limits from criticism?

I'm not trying to say that believers are afraid to engage in debate (clearly that's not true), just that this mentality has become so deeply engrained in most people that anyone who attacks religion the same way they'd attack a political or philosophical viewpoint is pretty much automatically perceived as arrogant.

This is kind of confirmed for for me whenever I see people calling Dawkins 'arrogant' or a 'fundamentalist'.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

According to Christianity, all can be saved by God by free grace. It's hardly an arrogant stance to claim that one can be saved, if all can be saved in turn. Indeed, I would even admit that I am not deserving of it. Hence why it is said "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."

That's arrogant?

I was already aware of all of the above. Be reminded that I have been debating you guys for over a year, and reading for longer than that. I know what your position is. Irrespective of your self-esteem issues, they really only seem to be concerned with self-image relative to the deity himself, and for this price you get to consider yourself "touched" and "saved" by the ultimate being in all existence, compared to your inferior non-Christian brethren.

That, Jakkass, is arrogance.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I was already aware of all of the above. Be reminded that I have been debating you guys for over a year, and reading for longer than that.

Indeed, but your post was implying that Christians have a superiority complex. Perhaps I took it up wrongly, but I thought clarification might have been welcome.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I know what your position is. Irrespective of your self-esteem issues

I don't think anyone I know in person would come away thinking I had self-esteem issues. I'd like to hope that they wouldn't come away thinking I was over-inflated either.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

they really only seem to be concerned with self-image relative to the deity himself

I don't know where you are getting this from. Personally, I think just being concerned for God, other people and life itself is good enough, rather than obsessing about what X, Y, or Z thinks about you. I think that's an unnecessary hangup that people (including myself) get themselves into.

I've found that once one points their perspective to God, one also points their perspective to those around them. Perhaps I am wrong, but seems to have been my experience.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

, and for this price you get to consider yourself "touched" and "saved" by the ultimate being in all existence, compared to your inferior non-Christian brethren.

I don't consider you inferior to me, in fact I don't consider myself superior to anyone (or at least I hope I don't).

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That, Jakkass, is arrogance.

It is only arrogant based on the assumption that I have that perspective. If I don't we are back to the drawing board.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

According to Christianity, all can be saved by God by free grace. It's hardly an arrogant stance to claim that one can be saved, if all can be saved in turn. Indeed, I would even admit that I am not deserving of it. Hence why it is said "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."

That's arrogant?

Yes. The assertion that we need to be saved, and the assertion that you know how it's done, both presented without a lick of evidence, are arrogant.

ColmDawson

Jakkass wrote: »

"...that saved a wretch like me."

I really don't like the way religion paints humanity as a bunch of unworthy curs. My species may only be temporarily at the top of the evolutionary chain, but fuck it, I think human beings are pretty great. I'm no wretch.

[/arrogance]

philologos

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes. The assertion that we need to be saved, and the assertion that you know how it's done, both presented without evidence, are arrogant.

There is no point even discussing about evidence until we can determine what you are referring to as evidence.

There is quite a difference between one saying this, because they know this because of an active and living relationship with God, the holder of all there is to know in the universe, and saying that I know this on my own merit.

I certainly don't.

Although, if I had someone genuinely tell me they were in a relationship with God, I would expect them to know something about how He relates to them.

I suspect, that this only becomes arrogant when one disbelieves the one who is claiming it has a relationship with God in earnest, or that God exists in the first place. If you don't believe in God, then I'd agree with you, it's incredibly arrogant and delusional.

Bringing this back to atheism however, I assume, that people could find atheism arrogant, because it doesn't make these claims on any form of authority. Rather it is mere people making these claims. At least in the case of the Christian, such claims are made on God's authority.

Please take this up further though, I'm interested in your reasoning.

ColmDawson wrote: »

I really don't like the way religion paints humanity as a bunch of unworthy curs. My species may only be temporarily at the top of the evolutionary chain, but **** it, I think human beings are pretty great. I'm no wretch.

[/arrogance]

This thread's getting interesting. Now you're criticising Christianity for promoting too much humility?

Daftendirekt

Jakkass wrote: »

Bringing this back to atheism however, I assume, that people could find atheism arrogant, because it doesn't make these claims on any form of authority. Rather it is mere people making these claims. At least in the case of the Christian, such claims are made on God's authority.

Umm, no. Claims made by Christians don't rest on an authority any more than claims made by non-Christians do. The only difference is, the former simply assert that their claims are backed by God.

philologos

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Umm, no. Claims made by Christians don't rest on an authority any more than claims made by non-Christians do. The only difference is, the former simply assert that their claims are backed by God.

If one denies the authority in question, then of course they don't rest on any more authority.

The claim of arrogance in terms of Christian belief by and large begins when one starts disbelieving in God.

If one genuinely has a relationship with God, it wouldn't be arrogant in the slightest to make these claims.

If one has a fictitious or doubtful relationship with God, it's incredibly arrogant to make such claims.

The claim of arrogance begins when one sets the correct parameters for it to begin.


Mind you claiming Christianity is a delusion is about as arrogant again, as it assumes that you have some form of distinct knowledge that it is a delusion. If I don't believe that you have this distinct knowledge, well you're arrogant of course. If I do believe you have this distinct knowledge, then you're not. My claim of arrogance begins, when I don't believe you.

ColmDawson

Jakkass wrote: »

This thread's getting interesting. Now you're criticising Christianity for promoting too much humility?

There's a difference between humility and self-loathing (not that I actually mentioned Christianity).

On topic: I think Daftendirekt got it pretty much right.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no point even discussing about evidence until we can determine what you are referring to as evidence.

I'll give you a hint: philosophical arguments, unverifiable personal experience and discoveries that may or may not support some of the natural claims of the bible are not evidence

philologos

Define evidence?

ColmDawson: That's precisely the point, of course you think he's right. You both have it in common that Christians can't have a personal relationship with God, precisely because you don't believe God exists. It is through the assumption of disbelief that one holds that Christians are arrogant for stating such. The problem only begins when one frames the situation in a way that it can.

Daftendirekt

Jakkass wrote: »

If one denies the authority in question, then of course they don't rest on any more authority.

The claim of arrogance in terms of Christian belief by and large begins when one starts disbelieving in God.

If one genuinely has a relationship with God, it wouldn't be arrogant in the slightest to make these claims.

If one has a fictitious or doubtful relationship with God, it's incredibly arrogant to make such claims.

The claim of arrogance begins when one sets the correct parameters for it to begin.


Mind you claiming Christianity is a delusion is about as arrogant again, as it assumes that you have some form of distinct knowledge that it is a delusion. If I don't believe that you have this distinct knowledge, well you're arrogant of course. If I do believe you have this distinct knowledge, then you're not. My claim of arrogance begins, when I don't believe you.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

'The claim of arrogance in terms of Christian belief by and large begins when one starts disbelieving in God.' I'm probably taking you up wrong, but this sounds like you're saying claiming Christianity is true is OK, but claiming it's a delusion is arrogant?

Or are you saying 'arrogant' is essentially just a word thrown around to put down people who disagree with you?

philologos

Daftendirekt: The situation only becomes one of arrogance if one postulates a disbelief in God.

If God exists, and is as Christian belief describes. Then it is entirely reasonable that one would know these things, because there is an all powerful God revealing these things to you. You are not finding out these things on your own merit.

If God does not exist as Christian belief describes. Then it is entirely reasonable why one would find a person arrogant, and indeed more than arrogant, deluded, precisely because they are coming up with this on their own merit, without any reason to do so.

It's a ring-a-ring a rosy discussion. One makes assumptions, and those assumptions inform the stance they are going to take in this issue. That is unless one challenges their philosophical assumptions. Only then can one in earnest consider the other.

Your claim that Christians are arrogant, begins when you take the stance of disbelief in relation to God, and is entirely hinged on that disbelief. Unless the assumptions you hold change, your position on this definitely won't.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Define evidence?

I define evidence the same way I'm sure you do in every area of your life except your religious beliefs. It's the type of thing that would be acceptable in a lab or a courtroom. None of the things I listed above fit that criteria. The philosophical arguments are the most pointless since they try to use nothing but logical inference to come to a conclusion about a space and time where the laws of our universe didn't even apply, not even necessarily cause and effect as we know it, since cause and effect as we know it requires linear time

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

I meant, we as Christians. All I'm saying is, we can't win with that stereotype due to the terms you've drawn up surrounding it.

No, not because of the terms I've drawn up, because of the terms you have convinced yourself you must follow - me, I think it's just a simple exercise in basic manners not to tell people they are going to burn in hell for not believing in one of the many gods of the world, none of which can be verified.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

If God exists, and is as Christian belief describes.

^^I think you'll find that's what folks find the arrogant bit...that assumption when there are so many equally valid alternatives...^^

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Daftendirekt: The situation only becomes one of arrogance if one postulates a disbelief in God.

That's not actually true. Even if someone does eventually turn out to be right about something, if they assert it before there is sufficient evidence to do so they are arrogant because they're claiming to know something that they cannot know

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Define evidence?

An empirical, verifiable and objective observation.

How are you defining it?

Also can you explain how "I have not seen any evidence for the existence of any god" is arrogant exactly?

Then can you explain how "I know the purpose and reason behind the universe and that salvation is only achievable through my particular system." is not arrogant, especially when there's not a jot of evidence for that statement?

Daftendirekt

Jakkass wrote: »

Daftendirekt: The situation only becomes one of arrogance if one postulates a disbelief in God.

If God exists, and is as Christian belief describes. Then it is entirely reasonable that one would know these things, because there is an all powerful God revealing these things to you. You are not finding out these things on your own merit.

If God does not exist as Christian belief describes. Then it is entirely reasonable why one would find a person arrogant, and indeed more than arrogant, deluded, precisely because they are coming up with this on their own merit, without any reason to do so.

It's a ring-a-ring a rosy discussion. One makes assumptions, and those assumptions inform the stance they are going to take in this issue. That is unless one challenges their philosophical assumptions. Only then can one in earnest consider the other.

Your claim that Christians are arrogant, begins when you take the stance of disbelief in relation to God, and is entirely hinged on that disbelief. Unless the assumptions you hold change, your position on this definitely won't.

(FYI, I didn't and don't claim that Christians are arrogant.)


Ah, I think I get you now. I think I'm in agreement. It's not reasonable to dismiss someone as being 'arrogant' just because they don't hold the same basic assumptions as you. If God doesn't exist, it wouldn't make a Christian arrogant for believing in him. If he does exist, it wouldn't make an atheist arrogant for not believing in him. Either the Christian or the atheist are wrong, but simply being mistaken doesn't make one arrogant

To me anyway, arrogance implies an utter refusal to even entertain the possibility that you could be mistaken. It isn't inherently linked to any particular viewpoint, and the word is generally just tossed around as a pointless ad hominem.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no point even discussing about evidence until we can determine what you are referring to as evidence.

Anything at all other than personal experience and demonstrably false miracles. Personal experience is flawed because people are very easily misled by their own senses, as any magician or writer of crime fiction (novels or films) can tell you. As for miracles, they are generally highly explicable by the power of coincidence.

There is quite a difference between one saying this, because they know this because of an active and living relationship with God, the holder of all there is to know in the universe, and saying that I know this on my own merit.

I certainly don't.

Yes, but until you can back it up, you're saying it without evidence, including the part about an "active and living relationship with God."

Although, if I had someone genuinely tell me they were in a relationship with God, I would expect them to know something about how He relates to them.

I suspect, that this only becomes arrogant when one disbelieves the one who is claiming it has a relationship with God in earnest, or that God exists in the first place. If you don't believe in God, then I'd agree with you, it's incredibly arrogant and delusional.

It's not the claim itself that's arrogant, though, and neither is the claim delusional. (I never mentioned delusion, fwiw.) Again, if religious people could supply physical evidence of their claims, they would be easier to take. If they could say "well, I'm pretty sure I'm right, but there's still a chance I'm wrong" or "I'm aware that there are flaws with the way I see and understand God, but I'm content that the evidence I have is enough," even that would be a humbler position to take. But it's the assertion of absolute correctness, and of absolute certainty, that I find arrogant.

Bringing this back to atheism however, I assume, that people could find atheism arrogant, because it doesn't make these claims on any form of authority. Rather it is mere people making these claims. At least in the case of the Christian, such claims are made on God's authority.

What good is God's authority, though? Not even to an atheist, but to a Buddhist or Hindu?

Atheists' claims are generally made on a foundation of reason. If no evidence for a god exists, it's reasonable to assume that none does.