The "arrogant atheist" sterotype.

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 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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

You're missing the point here.

If God indeed exists, and if hell indeed exists. It is only compassionate to tell people that God exists, and that there is a way to true salvation in Him. I personally would advocate people talking about God to those that they know, but in a compassionate manner.

Telling people they are definitely going to hell, isn't the case. There is always the likelihood that one can choose salvation.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

The bold text, is your assumption. It depends entirely on whether or not one regards all alternatives to be equally valid. I don't think anyone even on this forum regards every alternative as being equally valid.

I don't regard atheism as being equally valid to Christianity, because if I did, I wouldn't be a Christian.

Likewise, most atheists, if not all, do not see Christianity as being equally valid to their own views.

By that note, if I am to hold your assumption, and if it is true that you don't regard my views or any other views of any other faith in the world as being equally valid to your atheism. You are about as "arrogant" as I am.

King Mob wrote: »

An empirical, verifiable and objective observation.

It depends on what kind of evidence you are dealing with. Evidence at a crime scene on a first glance can be doubtful. If an item of someones clothing is found at the scene of a theft, one would rightfully assume that the person who owned that item of clothing might have had some role in the theft, based on that evidence. It would certainly be evidence. However, in this case evidence is surely not the same thing as proof?

Rather, evidence in this case is something that suggests that a hypothesis may be true.

That's the best we can do in demonstrating why one believes that God does or does not exist. Provide evidence that serves to suggest that something is true. As one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God?

I think before we even begin to discuss evidence, we need to have agreed terms as to what we are talking about.

I think that's fairly sane thinking?

Mind you I think this in essence is well well off the topic we are actually discussing.

King Mob wrote: »

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

Have I said this? - I'm saying in some cases that atheists could be perceived as being arrogant, in the same way as in some cases that theists could be perceived as arrogant.

I brought up the example of regarding someone as deluded. That's rather different to the claim of not having seen evidence. I don't think I would chastise anyone for holding that position.

King Mob wrote: »

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?

I've already explained, not only why you or other people regard this as arrogant in the first place.

The second one postulates disbelief in God, anyone who claims to have any relationship with Him, and anyone who claims to have gained an understanding as a result of this relationship is arrogant. They are arrogant precisely because you don't believe what they are saying.

Mind you, I don't think Christian belief is exclusive in the slightest. At least not from my experience of it thus far.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, you're missing the point - to everyone else it's just bad manners.

I'm not so sure. A lot of the conversations I've had with people tend to start from people asking me questions about my faith. Although most haven't been on the topic of hell, it has come up from time to time. I don't see how it is bad manners to talk about God with people. I think it's more than talking about God you are talking about though.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

IF god exists, IF hell exists - massive assumption, the knowledge that others don't feel the same way and they could also be right about their own beliefs or lack of, it's just really, really rude to be claiming that you have all the answers and KNOW this or that - telling them they should be doing X, Y & Z to ensure an afterlife nobody has any idea actually exists or not.

God, hell and anything else are open to consideration.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I only view someone telling me to do something as compassionate if the information offered is done with knowledge, otherwise it's just harassment.

I meant compassionate in the sense of being honest rather than claiming that people will definitely go to hell. It is far better in my view to tell people about what Jesus can do for people rather than what he can't do. I do think it's a bit of a stretch to say that you can't discuss about hell compassionately.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The difference being is I lack positive belief, it's not that I don't think they are as equally valid, I think they are ALL as valid, ALL possible, ALL as invalid, ALL as impossible - that's why I haven't picked one, I don't know if one or all are right or wrong. Do you really think saying "I don't know, I have no reason to believe one over the others, I'm not assuming anything" is being arrogant?

Why are you an atheist then if you believe they are all equally valid?

I mean you're not seriously suggesting that it is equally valid to say that Jesus raised from the dead than that he didn't?

Edit: To get back on topic. Why do you think that the stereotype exists?

Jakkass wrote: »

Why are you an atheist then if you believe they are all equally valid?

Until one is proven and the rest disproven then all religious claims are as valid as the next one. I'm an atheist because I lack faith in god/s.

Jakkass wrote: »

I mean you're not seriously suggesting that it is equally valid to say that Jesus raised from the dead than that he didn't?

No, I think it's no less a valid claim that jesus raised from the dead than we will be reincarnated after we die. They both seem equally as likely, or unlikely, to me.

ETA

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: To get back on topic. Why do you think that the stereotype exists?

I think some theists see anyone questioning their personal beliefs as an absolute affrontage and abomination and anyone who dares to remove the god-link from everything we do must be arrogant to assume we function without a god or without any of the things theists tell us god brings.