Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The "arrogant atheist" sterotype.

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    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.

    Are people who carry lobsters in their underpants not a segment of the human race?

    Or does it have to be a "huge" segment of the human race?

    Would you say that it is arrogant for an anti-abortionist Christian to characterize all abortionists (a "huge" segment of the human race) as immoral because they believe abortion is moral?
    PDN wrote: »
    I believe I've made a perfectly reasonable and balanced point

    You haven't.

    But then I guess I'm arrogant for pointing this out :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #93
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I would have thought PDN's position is straight forward enough. Some atheists, some Christians, some Jews, and some Zorastrians can be arrogant. I mean isn't that what some of you guys were arguing earlier?
    Ickle Magoo wrote:
    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.
    ChocolateSauce wrote:
    I genuinely, honestly do not believe most atheists are arrogant, certainly not more than most religious believers.

    His post is hardly remarkable.


  • Options
    #94
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would have thought PDN's position is straight forward enough. Some atheists, some Christians, some Jews, and some Zorastrians can be arrogant. I mean isn't that what some of you guys were arguing earlier?

    PDN is basically arguing that it is not arrogant to hold a certain opinion about something, but it is arrogant to hold an opinion about something if that opinion is that opinion involves believing that "huge" segments of humans are things we consider bad (ie immoral, stupid, crazy)

    I suspect what PDN is trying to say is that it is arrogant to hold a baseless assumption about large groups of people that you couldn't possibly establish in any serious sense.

    For example, it is possible that all Christians are deluded, but given the work involve to actually demonstrate that it is impossible that any one person so far would know this is the case.

    It is therefore arrogant for someone to proclaim this, since they can't possibly know this is the case. It is a baseless assertion about people. It is not that it is an opinion about people, it is that it is a baseless opinion.

    But of course PDN can't actually just say that because that is exactly the type of thing that theists do, make proclamations about things they couldn't possibly know. Which is why people here consider theism some what arrogant.

    So we have gone down this rather ridiculous road of arrogance being holding an opinion that PDN personally doesn't like.

    Which, ironically, is some what arrogant.


  • Options
    #95
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Just read through the whole thread there (I have way too much free time on my hands) and the only thing I can take from it is that a lot of people apparently don't know the definition of the word arrogant, so....

    Courtesy of Google:
    •Arrogant is the second studio album by rapper 2 Pistols. It is set to release in 2009. Confirmed guests include Young Joe, Slim & C-Ride.


  • Options
    #96
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    So we have gone down this rather ridiculous road of arrogance being holding an opinion that PDN personally doesn't like.

    Here we go again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Blackhorse Slim
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 1,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Blackhorse Slim


    PDN wrote: »
    It is certainly not arrogant to say that commiting certain acts is immoral or stupid.

    Depends on the acts in question.
    PDN wrote: »
    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.

    What about stupid people? Aren't they inherently stupid? And arrogant people - inherently arrogant? Both are fairly common traits, exhibited by substantial segments of humanity. Would acknowledging this then be arrogant?
    PDN wrote: »
    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.

    That is a reasonable point, but by no means proven or self-evident. I would agree that some atheists and some christians are arrogant. Whether they are a minority in either group is open to debate, and whether the beliefs themselves contribute to this arrogance is also open to question. That is what we are debating, and labelling us as "perceived to be arrogant" for daring to ask the question is disingenuous.


  • Options
    #98
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    You seem to be confusing yourself there.
    Not in the slightest -- you mustn't have read my post very closely, since I made a clear distinction between an act and a belief concerning an act. A subtle distinction, but an important one, especially since it was the point of the post.
    PDN wrote: »
    It is certainly not arrogant to say that commiting certain acts is immoral or stupid. [...] to characterise a huge segment of the human race [...] as being inherently immoral or stupid because if their beliefs would IMHO be arrogant.
    So, I'll ask the question in a simpler way, pace Wicknight, who's already alluded to it:

    You claim that it is arrogant to characterize a large group as "stupid" simply because they hold a belief.

    (a) Is it arrogant to call flat-earthers/anti-vaccination/homeopath/creationist groups "stupid" specifically with respect to the group's untenable belief?

    (a) is it arrogant for somebody (let's say a christian) to call a large group (let's say gay men) "immoral", because the christian believes that the belief of the gay men is immoral?

    If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", then you have disproved your (admittedly bad) thesis, having failed to notice that having a belief constitutes an act too.
    PDN wrote: »
    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.
    Nobody's denying that, since it's self-evidently true as you and I know daily from our joint experiences as moderators.

    But that's not the final point in your original post.


  • Options
    #99
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    Not in the slightest -- you mustn't have read my post very closely, since I made a clear distinction between an act and a belief concerning an act. A subtle distinction, but an important one, especially since it was the point of the post.So, I'll ask the question in a simpler way, pace Wicknight, who's already alluded to it:

    You claim that it is arrogant to characterize a large group as "stupid" simply because they hold a belief.

    (a) Is it arrogant to call flat-earthers/anti-vaccination/homeopath/creationist groups "stupid" specifically with respect to the group's untenable belief?

    (a) is it arrogant for somebody (let's say a christian) to call a large group (let's say gay men) "immoral", because the christian believes that the belief of the gay men is immoral?

    If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", then you have disproved your (admittedly bad) thesis, having failed to notice that having a belief constitutes an act too.Nobody's denying that, since it's self-evidently true as you and I know daily from our joint experiences as moderators.

    But that's not the final point in your original post.

    So you want to reserve the right to call all those who don't share your atheism 'stupid', but it's unfair if anyone calls that 'arrogant'.

    Nuff said. I'll leave you all alone to discuss how unfair everyone else is towards you, and that it's only because the rest of the human race can't bear having our beliefs challenged or having anyone disagreeing with us.

    Have a nice day.


  • Options
    #100
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    Sam and Wicknight, thank you for demonstrating my point so aptly.

    Eh? I can only assume that you think homosexuality is immoral and that you don't consider that opinion arrogant. What's the difference if I consider the belief that some Jewish guy rose from the dead stupid? Neither of us are making a personal attack in that case, in boards speak we are both "attacking the post, not the poster". Many very smart people believe some very stupid things but that doesn't make them stupid


  • Options
    #101
    poisonated
    Registered Users Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭poisonated


    Well it might just be me but the ones that I have met have snarled at the fact that I have faith.Having said that, I am not particuraly religious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    tech77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭tech77


    Antbert wrote: »
    I'd rather be arrogant than wrong.

    Bit arrogant to think the two are mutually exclusive (IF that is what you're doing)? :p


  • Options
    #103
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    So you want to reserve the right to call all those who don't share your atheism 'stupid', but it's unfair if anyone calls that 'arrogant'.

    Er, no.

    You are defining arrogant in a particular way so your religion can proclaim entire groups of people to be something (say freely practicing homosexual men as immoral) without this fitting your own definition of arrogant, but you want to reserve the right to call someone who says Christians are stupid as being arrogant.


  • Options
    #104
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    So you want to reserve the right to call all those who don't share your atheism 'stupid', but it's unfair if anyone calls that 'arrogant'.

    Nuff said. I'll leave you all alone to discuss how unfair everyone else is towards you, and that it's only because the rest of the human race can't bear having our beliefs challenged or having anyone disagreeing with us.

    Have a nice day.
    With that as a response to robindch's post you seem to be saying that the specific opinion being put forward doesn't actually matter and that if you call a particular opinion stupid (or call someone stupid for having a particular opinion) you're arrogant. What if the opinion being put forward is actually stupid/immoral/hateful etc etc etc?

    You say it's ok to think that someone else's opinion is wrong.

    You say it's ok for a christian to believe christian doctrines which require you to believe that a great many opinions are not only wrong but objectively immoral and rightly draw the wrath of the creator of the universe.

    But you think it's arrogant to think that a particular opinion is stupid.

    Or is it just arrogant to call someone stupid for having an opinion that you consider stupid? You didn't answer that question earlier


  • Options
    #105
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    With that as a response to robindch's post you seem to be saying that the specific opinion being put forward doesn't actually matter and that if you call a particular opinion stupid (or call someone stupid for having a particular opinion) you're arrogant. What if the opinion being put forward is actually stupid/immoral/hateful etc etc etc?

    You say it's ok to think that someone else's opinion is wrong.

    You say it's ok for a christian to believe christian doctrines which require you to believe that a great many opinions are not only wrong but objectively immoral and rightly draw the wrath of the creator of the universe.

    But you think it's arrogant to think that a particular opinion is stupid.

    Or is it just arrogant to call someone stupid for having an opinion that you consider stupid? You didn't answer that question earlier

    Nail. Head. On

    Well put :pac:


  • Options
    #106
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    PDN wrote: »
    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.

    As others have pointed out, the opinion itself can be arrogant, if it is unfounded and presumptuous.


    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.
    This is very true and I believe is an important point. If, for example, Christopher Hitchens restricted his commentary only to (non religious) political matters, I imagine that no one would worry a bit about his confrontational tone and aggressive debating methods. Indeed, he would probably be celebrated for it (even by opponents). It is only when he applies the same style to matters religious that the accusations of arrogance come out. Why is that?

    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.
    I agree with all of the above. However, you have not exhausted the possibilities. There are more ways of being arrogant than those that you mention. For example, I do believe that asserting that morality can only come from God is an astonishingly arrogant claim that is made by a significant number of religious believers.


  • Options
    #107
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You are defining arrogant in a particular way so your religion can proclaim entire groups of people to be something (say freely practicing homosexual men as immoral) without this fitting your own definition of arrogant, but you want to reserve the right to call someone who says Christians are stupid as being arrogant.
    A definition which is also carefully applied to the words "intolerant" and "bigot".
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You say it's ok to think that someone else's opinion is wrong. You say it's ok for a christian to believe christian doctrines [...] But you think it's arrogant to think that a particular opinion is stupid.
    That's it in three short sentences. The religious can't have it both ways -- either it's ok to say that ideas are dumb, or it's not.

    On this side of the fence, we think that ideas should be criticized, especially if they're dumb. The religious disagree. No surprises there!


  • Options
    #108
    MikeC101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    PDN wrote: »
    So you want to reserve the right to call all those who don't share your atheism 'stupid', but it's unfair if anyone calls that 'arrogant'.

    That's not really what anyone said though....they're merely calling you on the reasoning you're using.
    PDN wrote: »
    Nuff said. I'll leave you all alone to discuss how unfair everyone else is towards you, and that it's only because the rest of the human race can't bear having our beliefs challenged or having anyone disagreeing with us.

    Ah. I see. So your plan was :
    1. Make your point, giving your reasoning.
    2. Respond to anyone pointing out what they think are the flaws in your reasoning to with a world weary "Here we go again"
    3. Leave, sighing to yourself, with a snide dig about how the atheists really just want to whine to each other about how victimised they are, without you even bothering to attempt to address responses to you.

    You really appear just to be here to confirm your bias.

    Why not just post this emoticon :rolleyes: ad nauseam? It's on about the same level of engagement, and far more honest.
    PDN wrote: »
    Have a nice day.

    For the record, I don't think the average Christian is any more arrogant than the average atheist. I tend to assume people who call me arrogant because I'm an atheist simply lack the ability to engage in any kind of meaningful debate - I don't equate that with Christianity in anyway.


  • Options
    #109
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    MikeC101 wrote: »
    Ah. I see. So your plan was :
    1. Make your point, giving your reasoning.
    2. Respond to anyone pointing out what they think are the flaws in your reasoning to with a world weary "Here we go again"
    3. Leave, sighing to yourself, with a snide dig about how the atheists really just want to whine to each other about how victimised they are, without you even bothering to attempt to address responses to you.

    I see you've played knifey spoony talked to PDN before :P


  • Options
    #110
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    MikeC101 wrote: »
    For the record, I don't think the average Christian is any more arrogant than the average atheist. I tend to assume people who call me arrogant because I'm an atheist simply lack the ability to engage in any kind of meaningful debate - I don't equate that with Christianity in anyway.

    Indeed


  • Options
    #111
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    PDN wrote: »
    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..

    Ah, but that's not what I said. You can believe whatever the hell you want, as far as I'm concerned. But coming out in public and proclaiming it as truth without anything to support it is what I'm talking about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Ah, but that's not what I said. You can believe whatever the hell you want, as far as I'm concerned. But coming out in public and proclaiming it as truth without anything to support it is what I'm talking about.

    Your so arrogant.:pac:


  • Options
    #113
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Ah, but that's not what I said. You can believe whatever the hell you want, as far as I'm concerned. But coming out in public and proclaiming it as truth without anything to support it is what I'm talking about.

    This is also based on an assumption that people proclaim the Gospel without providing indicatory evidence.

    In reality, they have done in numerous books, and in numerous speeches people have given on the subject.


  • Options
    #114
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is also based on an assumption that people proclaim the Gospel without providing indicatory evidence.

    In reality, they have done in numerous books, and in numerous speeches people have given on the subject.

    I refer you to my previously mentioned list of things that religious people tend to think are evidence* but are actually not


    *but only where their beliefs are concerned. In other areas of their lives our definitions of evidence are the same but under the normal definition of evidence they have precious little so they came up with a new one, much like how creationists want to redefine science to allow supernatural explanations so that "I don't know so it must be god" can be considered scientific


  • Options
    #115
    clearz
    Registered Users Posts: 880 ✭✭✭clearz


    I would consider myself the 'indifferent atheist' if there is such a thing. I never get into debates or arguments over the subject matter because I simply do not care. You can be whatever you want to be and I'll be whatever I want to be and if you got a problem with that I simply do not care either.


  • Options
    #116
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    monosharp wrote: »
    Your so arrogant.:pac:

    >.< You're.

    But yes, perhaps.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is also based on an assumption that people proclaim the Gospel without providing indicatory evidence.

    In reality, they have done in numerous books, and in numerous speeches people have given on the subject.

    Evidence, please. Not just people talking about it and writing about it. That's just more of the same proclamation.

    Books and speeches have been written proclaiming the truth of every religion under the sun.


  • Options
    #117
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Books and speeches have been written proclaiming the truth of every religion under the sun.
    Even if we could know accurately that even just one book or speech was fully accurate, the amount of books and speeches that have been produced would suggest that the chances of picking the right one are, effectively, zero.

    Alternatively, the more rational view is to bear in mind that while not all religions can be right, they can all be wrong.


  • Options
    #118
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Erren Music


    MikeC101 wrote: »
    That's not really what anyone said though....they're merely calling you on the reasoning you're using.



    Ah. I see. So your plan was :
    1. Make your point, giving your reasoning.
    2. Respond to anyone pointing out what they think are the flaws in your reasoning to with a world weary "Here we go again"
    3. Leave, sighing to yourself, with a snide dig about how the atheists really just want to whine to each other about how victimised they are, without you even bothering to attempt to address responses to you.

    You really appear just to be here to confirm your bias.

    Why not just post this emoticon :rolleyes: ad nauseam? It's on about the same level of engagement, and far more honest.



    For the record, I don't think the average Christian is any more arrogant than the average atheist. I tend to assume people who call me arrogant because I'm an atheist simply lack the ability to engage in any kind of meaningful debate - I don't equate that with Christianity in anyway.

    Well said. If you had posted this on the other forum you would have got a ban.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I see you've played knifey spoony talked to PDN before :P
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is also based on an assumption that people proclaim the Gospel without providing indicatory evidence.

    In reality, they have done in numerous books, and in numerous speeches people have given on the subject.

    Jackass.

    Tell us the names of the people that wrote these gospels.

    What were the qualifications of the scribes who copied it.

    Tell us how many gospels were not used.

    Were there any issue's lost in its translation.


    Finally

    What sane person would believe a fictional book of unknown authorship, and use it as a method to live their life by.


  • Options
    #119
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Erren Music


    robindch wrote: »
    Alternatively, the more rational view is to bear in mind that while not all religions can be right, they can all be wrong.


    This is what I do not understand.

    In your own belief structure at any time over 70% of you are wrong about the religion you believe.


  • Options
    #120
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Erren Music wrote: »
    Well said. If you had posted this on the other forum you would have got a ban.
    Discussion of the moderation policies of other forums is for the Feedback forum only.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    I think perhaps those accusing atheists of arrogance and those defending atheists as not being arrogant are looking at the issue from the wrong angle. It's not about arrogance from atheists, it's about a lack of respect for other religions from the religious. Atheism is a faith. It's a faith in logic, in rationality, in common sense. If those who have a faith in another religious belief encounter that, there is a tendency to dismiss it as being a lack of faith in a god/gods. That's not a problem with the atheist in question; it's a problem with the theist issuing the complaint.

    If the religious could live and let live instead of binding themselves to the (usually) first tenet of their religion (which says "we're right, the others are wrong" when paraphrased), this "problem" wouldn't exist.


Advertisement