The "arrogant atheist" sterotype.

philologos · 19-03-2010 11:21PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

Your position itself is one amongst many, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you if it is more valid that Jesus didn't rise from the dead than if He did. Totally different question altogether.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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.

I don't see how questioning isn't anything other than positive. I think the members of this forum have actually helped my faith by putting it up to scrutiny now and again.

19-03-2010 11:21PM

Jakkass wrote: »

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?

Yes you need several lines of independent evidence before a reasonable theory can be made.
Nor is evidence, proof. The evidence mounts up and excludes certain possibilities and allows good guesses of the probable events.

However you can imagine how silly it would be for someone to enter the scene and declare that the owner of the piece of clothing is the perpetrator, when there is no such piece of clothing in the room.
Or even worse declaring a guilty party and suggesting a sequence of events of the crime, when there are no signs of break in and nothing was stolen.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Yes that's the definition of evidence.

Jakkass wrote: »

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?

True, but remember evidence is both observable and testable.
When the evidence presented for God is critically examined it always crumbles away.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

You brought up the question, remember.

Jakkass wrote: »

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 didn't say you did, I asked if you can honestly say it's arrogant?

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

But when you boil it down that's exactly the beliefs you must hold to call yourself Christian.
You must believe that God created the heaven and earth in some manner (not just in creationist way.)
You must believe that God is watching us and has a divine plan.
You must believe that Jesus is the way to heaven.

These are positive statements of fact about the universe.
They are not supported by any objective evidence.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

No they are arrogant because they are making statements of fact without supporting evidence.

Jakkass wrote: »

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

There's plenty of Christians who disagree with you.

Ickle Magoo · 19-03-2010 11:24PM

I wonder if the generational differences in religious fervor have something to do with it as well? Young whipper-snappers daring to question their elders and betters, kind of thing?

There have been a raft of posts inferring atheism is some kind of new fangled fashion accessory, I think there could be more than a spot of "arrogant so-and-so's, rejecting their customs and traditions" from some quarters as well?

Blackhorse Slim · 19-03-2010 11:26PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how questioning isn't anything other than positive. I think the members of this forum have actually helped my faith by putting it up to scrutiny now and again.

Yes, the forum is useful like that. I came here thinking I was agnostic, turns out I'm actually atheist.

Ickle Magoo · 19-03-2010 11:37PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Your position itself is one amongst many, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Well, of course. Though I consider myself the neutral default.

Jakkass wrote: »

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you if it is more valid that Jesus didn't rise from the dead than if He did. Totally different question altogether.

I don't understand the question. Is it more valid? Of course not, how can anything supernatural be more valid than something that isn't? That would go against the very definition of valid.

I have no beliefs and lots of people do - but nobody has been able to convince me that they have it right so I have remained without faith or belief in any particular religion or in any particular god. As far as supernatural claims from various religions go, to me they are all much of a muchness in terms of lack of probability but without any evidence to the contrary, all religions are making equally valid supernatural "claims".

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how questioning isn't anything other than positive. I think the members of this forum have actually helped my faith by putting it up to scrutiny now and again.

Would you agree that a lot of theists don't agree with you though? Those would be the ones I am referring to.

MikeC101 · 19-03-2010 11:42PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I wonder if the generational differences in religious fervor have something to do with it as well? Young whipper-snappers daring to question their elders and betters, kind of thing?

There have been a raft of posts inferring atheism is some kind of new fangled fashion accessory, I think there could be more than a spot of "arrogant so-and-so's, rejecting their customs and traditions" from some quarters as well?

When I told my mother that I didn't believe in a god or religion, she told me it was just something I heard in school, that people said it because they thought it was "cool".

Fifteen years on, I mentioned on another forum how I didn't believe in a god or religion I was told that I was being childish, infantile and was probably a first year in college, who thought it was "cool" not to believe in a god.

I'm expecting to be told much the same thing in the future, possibly I'll be the coolest hipster in the old folks home.

It does seem to me that atheism is becoming more mainstream, or at least more present in mainstream media - and as a result, people who may not have previously identified themselves as being atheist, or thought about it all that much, are willing to be a lot more open about their lack of belief. Which may be leading to more "it's just a fad/you're just trying to be cool" accusations.

philologos · 19-03-2010 11:44PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't understand the question. Is it more valid? Of course not, how can anything supernatural be more valid than something that isn't? That would go against the very definition of valid.

I made a typo. I meant equally valid. Surely you don't believe that it is equally valid that Jesus rose from the dead than if he didn't as an atheist?

Ickle Magoo · 19-03-2010 11:53PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I made a typo. I meant equally valid. Surely you don't believe that it is equally valid that Jesus rose from the dead than if he didn't as an atheist?

No, of course not. I think it's highly improbable that anyone has ever risen from the dead - that's why I remain unconvinced by christianities version of events.

philologos · 19-03-2010 11:56PM

Okay then. So you're no less "arrogant" than I am:

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

MikeC101 · 20-03-2010 12:04AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Okay then. So you're no less "arrogant" than I am:

I think you're missing the point.

If you decide to believe in one particular god or religion, there's equal evidence for all other religions (ie, none), so why do you reject those? In the absence of evidence for any of them, I don't claim to have some sort of superior judgement that allows me to proclaim one as more valid than the other.

What does believing Osiris / Jesus / Asclepius / Baal came back from the dead or not have to do with that?

Or are you trying to claim that a religion that was identical to Roman Catholicism but that didn't claim Jesus came back from the dead is somehow a more valid religion?

Ickle Magoo · 20-03-2010 12:07AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Okay then. So you're no less "arrogant" than I am:

I'm not following...are you really suggesting that considering someone coming back to life after death - a miracle - as being highly improbable - something it has to be by very definition of being a miracle - is arrogant?

It goes without saying really, but I don't consider supernatural explanations to be valid alternatives to anything other than other supernatural explanations.

philologos · 20-03-2010 12:13AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not following...are you really suggesting that considering someone coming back to life after death - a miracle - as being highly improbable - something it has to be by very definition of being a miracle - is arrogant?

It goes without saying really, but I don't consider supernatural explanations to be valid alternatives to anything other than other supernatural explanations.

I'm not saying you are arrogant. Rather I am arguing that there is a double standard.

You claim that the Christian point of view is "arrogant" because it doesn't regard it's claims as being equally valid to the others.

Then you claim that my view that Jesus rose from the dead isn't as valid as your view that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

Therefore under your previous definition, you would be considered arrogant, as you don't consider your claims to be equally valid to others.

Ickle Magoo · 20-03-2010 12:27AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not saying you are arrogant. Rather I am arguing that there is a double standard.

You claim that the Christian point of view is "arrogant" because it doesn't regard it's claims as being equally valid to the others.

Then you claim that my view that Jesus rose from the dead isn't as valid as your view that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

Therefore under your previous definition, you would be considered arrogant, as you don't consider your claims to be equally valid to others.

No, the christian view point could be considered arrogant because it claims to know the unknowable. Atheism is a lack of belief in the positive position, without god, it's not a claim to know that there definitely is no god.

You think jesus definitely rose from the dead, I think it's highly improbable...you think he definitely rose from the dead despite not having any kind of empirical evidence to support such a claim, I think it's highly improbably because there has never been any empirical evidence put forward to support such a claim...surely you can see the difference between those statements...

Blackhorse Slim · 20-03-2010 12:29AM

Jakkass wrote: »

You claim that the Christian point of view is "arrogant" because it doesn't regard it's claims as being equally valid to the others.

Christianity has no valid reason to put itself above any other unsubstantiated belief system - and yet it does. Understandable, but no less arrogant for it. Christianity also has an unfortunate habit of viewing other religions as inferior, and trying to "convert" them. The whole concept of missionaries is incredibly arrogant.

Jakkass wrote: »

Then you claim that my view that Jesus rose from the dead isn't as valid as your view that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

Is my view that I have a pet leprechaun sitting beside by laptop telling me what to type more or less valid than your (presumed) view that I do not?

Ickle Magoo · 20-03-2010 12:34AM

I think Jackass either thinks, or is pushing for the definition that an atheist is the position of being convinced that god does not exist, rather than being unconvinced of god's existence...that way it is a professed claim of knowledge and can be likened to religion...at least I think that's where he's going. :pac:

ColmDawson · 20-03-2010 01:07AM

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Hang on, I didn't even say I found Christians to be arrogant.

Zombrex · 20-03-2010 02:34AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not saying you are arrogant. Rather I am arguing that there is a double standard.

You claim that the Christian point of view is "arrogant" because it doesn't regard it's claims as being equally valid to the others.

I'm not really following this thread, but if theist are arrogant about anything it is putting too much faith in their own abilities not to be wrong or mistaken or influenced by emotion.

Basically all theists arguments rest on personal assessment of evidence.

Which is something we know is deeply flawed (so flawed it is all but ignored in areas such as science)

Theists some what arrogantly assume this doesn't apply to them, that they can actually determine difficult facts about the universe themselves by simply working it out in their own mind and that their mind isn't going to run into the trouble that everyone else's mind does.

Sam Vimes · 20-03-2010 03:42AM

Jakkass wrote: »

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you if it is more valid that Jesus didn't rise from the dead than if He did. Totally different question altogether.

you're right it is a totally different question altogether. You asked

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?

and no, she wasn't suggesting that. She was suggesting what she said just before you told her you asked her a totally different question. Thanks for acknowledging you missed her point

robindch · 20-03-2010 03:46AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Youtube video from an atheist I stumbled across recently:

Good to hear you're reading up on atheism in your spare time -- you'll convert yet

checkyabadself · 20-03-2010 09:38AM

I don`t think Atheists, myself included, are inherently arrogant. I find that frustration can come across as arrogance, as atheists seem to be fighting a losing battle of common sense.

Ickle Magoo put it best "I think Jackass either thinks, or is pushing for the definition that an atheist is the position of being convinced that god does not exist, rather than being unconvinced of god's existence...that way it is a professed claim of knowledge and can be likened to religion...at least I think that's where he's going."

I`ve yet to meet an Atheist that is certain that god doesn`t exist. Atheism, by definition is a lack in a belief in deities....not a certain knowledge that there isn`t a god.

It`s funny, how most people don`t find me arrogant when I say believing in tarot cards and psychics is a load of horse s51t, but make the same comment about god and it`s game over, you`re an arrogant know it all.......coming from the person who is calling you an arrogant know it all with the argument that....they, um... unquestionably know it all.

What I find arrogant is the catholic who calls me arrogant for questioning his god but doesn`t defend peoples right to belief in psychics when I question the merits of psychics. It really pisses me off. It`s all very gutless.

Over time, I`ve become a lot more relaxed about it all, the regular "believer" doesn`t bother me anymore to a point.

I`ve said it loads of times that I learned my 2 times tables in primary school and it would take a degree of intellegence to even hear someone out, if they tried to tell me I was taught wrong all along.
I dont expect that level of intellegence from the majority of our population, just listen to Joe Duffy`s show for an hour if you want proof of the level of idiots we have in our country alone.

eblistic · 20-03-2010 10:49AM

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.

I think this thread shows that atheists are sometimes in a no-win situation when it comes to the arrogance charge as the very lack of belief that defines them can be considered arrogant. In such circumstances, no subsequent shows of humility can redeem the situation. (I'm not quite sure if the quote reflects Jakkass' own views in a roundabout way or if he's speaking for others).

Jakkass wrote: »

stereotypes seem to exist for some reason

Very often the reason isn't valid though. Anyway, stereotyping is almost always unfair on large numbers of people who don't fit the generalisation. Any stereotyping of atheists is unfair. They share one single characteristic: a lack of belief in deities. That's it. (The same can't be said of theism as the variety adhered to usually shapes the person's character and views in a big way).

PDN · 20-03-2010 11:35AM

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 a lick of evidence, are arrogant.

I picked this out at random, although there have been numerous other posts in this thread that seem to fall into the same error.

It is not arrogant to hold an opinion and to believe that your opinion is the correct one. That holds true for theists or atheists alike. If someone's belief is without evidence then that may make them mistaken, but it doesn't make them arrogant.

Nor is it arrogant to believe that other people's opinions, on one subject or many, are wrong. We disagree with other people's opinions in the area of sport or politics without being accused of arrogance, religion is no different.

So, it is not arrogant for a Christian to believe strongly in their doctrines about God, sin or salvation. Nor is it arrogant for an atheist to think that the Christian's views on those subjects are all false. It is not arrogant for either of them to state their opinions openly or honestly, or to try to persuade one another of the truth of their respective positions.

What is arrogant is to characterise everyone who holds the opposing view to yourself as being stupid, deluded, hateful, weak-minded, intellectually dishonest, uneducated, immoral etc. Most atheists, and most Christians, don't demonstrate such arrogance - but unfortunately a minority of both groups do.

Zombrex · 20-03-2010 12:05PM

PDN wrote: »

It is not arrogant to hold an opinion and to believe that your opinion is the correct one.
...
What is arrogant is to characterise everyone who holds the opposing view to yourself as being stupid, deluded, hateful, weak-minded, intellectually dishonest, uneducated etc.

That doesn't make much sense.

What if the persons opinion, which they believe is correct, is that Christians are stupid deluded hateful and weak-minded?

By your own definition that isn't arrogant.

Sam Vimes · 20-03-2010 12:09PM

PDN wrote: »

What is arrogant is to characterise everyone who holds the opposing view to yourself as being stupid, deluded, hateful, weak-minded, intellectually dishonest, uneducated, immoral etc. Most atheists, and most Christians, don't demonstrate such arrogance - but unfortunately a minority of both groups do.

What about characterising the beliefs as stupid, deluded, hateful etc but not the people themselves?

PDN · 20-03-2010 12:12PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense.

What if the persons opinion, which they believe is correct, is that Christians are stupid deluded hateful and weak-minded?

By your own definition that isn't arrogant.

Sam and Wicknight, thank you for demonstrating my point so aptly.

Zombrex · 20-03-2010 12:34PM

PDN wrote: »

Sam and Wicknight, thank you for demonstrating my point so aptly.

Come on PDN, you are just being silly now (my own opinion! you can't say I'm arrogant!)

It is not our fault your definition is nonsensical. :rolleyes:

Someone is being arrogant if they hold an opinion without evidence to demonstrate that opinion or when they ignore evidence to the contrary.

Saying All Christians are stupid is not arrogant because it is someones opinion but because it is an opinion they obviously can't demonstrate or support (how could you know all Christians are arrogant) and they are ignoring evidence to the contrary (Christians have Nobel prizes).

It fails basic logic tests yet the person ignores this and holds the position anyway, arrogantly believing in their own ability to assess that all Christians are arrogant.

The same logic above holds to a lot of theistic belief. It isn't that it is merely an opinion, it is that it is an opinion they can't back up.

robindch · 20-03-2010 12:52PM

PDN wrote: »

So, it is not arrogant for a Christian to believe strongly in their doctrines about God, sin or salvation. [...] What is arrogant is to characterise everyone who holds the opposing view to yourself as being stupid, deluded, hateful, weak-minded, intellectually dishonest, uneducated, immoral etc.

I don't quite follow you here. You believe it's ok for a christian to believe -- for example -- that gays are acting immorally, but at the same time, you believe it's arrogant for christians to characterize as immoral, somebody who believes that gay sex is not immoral?

Does that mean that christian belief, if carried out to biblical standards, is inherently arrogant?

Agricola · 20-03-2010 12:54PM

checkyabadself wrote: »

It`s funny, how most people don`t find me arrogant when I say believing in tarot cards and psychics is a load of horse s51t, but make the same comment about god and it`s game over, you`re an arrogant know it all.......coming from the person who is calling you an arrogant know it all with the argument that....they, um... unquestionably know it all.

This is the crucial point. Its ok to question or even mock astrology, mediums, seances, etc but its not ok to do the same to religion. The main reason for this I find, especially with older people is because religion is intrinsically linked to things like, where loved ones go when they die, where we will go when we die, respect for the dead etc etc etc. When an atheist questions religion in the nuts and bolts way that they do, it is the equivilent of taking a wrecking balls to beliefs and comforts that a person may have held dear all their life. This is where the perceived arogance comes from.

Ive had numerous discussions with religious people who cant understand how a person can be comfortable thinking that there is no afterlife or chance of meeting family members again when you die. Somehow its as if its inhuman to not need beliefs like this. Religious people seem to view its as pure arrogance.

Zombrex · 20-03-2010 01:09PM

robindch wrote: »

I don't quite follow you here.

Apparently that is because you are arrogant :eek:

PDN · 20-03-2010 01:13PM

robindch wrote: »

I don't quite follow you here. You believe it's ok for a christian to believe -- for example -- that gays are acting immorally, but at the same time, you believe it's arrogant for christians to characterize as immoral, somebody who believes that gay sex is not immoral?

Does that mean that christian belief, if carried out to biblical standards, is inherently arrogant?

You seem to be confusing yourself there.

It is certainly not arrogant to say that commiting certain acts is immoral or stupid. For example, we would probably agree that child rapists are immoral, or that people who carry lobsters in their underpants are stupid.

However, to characterise a huge segment of the human race, be they socialists, atheists, Manchester United supporters or Christians as being inherently immoral or stupid because of their beliefs would IMHO be arrogant.

I believe I've made a perfectly reasonable and balanced point - that neither Christians or atheists are arrogant per se, but that a minority within each group are arrogant. The way that some want to deny and argue that rather obvious point, to be honest, should indicate why sometimes people are perceived to be arrogant.

The "arrogant atheist" sterotype.

Comments