Remember this every time someone accuses an atheist of being arrogant

[cleanhippie]

Remember this every time someone accuses an atheist of being arrogant — we don't claim to be speaking for a cosmic tyrant who will torture you for eternity if you don't obey us. - PZ Meyers



http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/theres_never_a_shortage_of_sma.php


--------------------------------------------------------------



Pretty spot on.

[MellowDem]

1. Atheists and theists are both arrogant...

only agnostics are the truly humble! ;-)

[BurtWorm]

3. That's because you guys don't know whether to be arrogant or not.

:hide:

[catbyte]

8. LOL

[MellowDem]

18. We're just comfortable with our ignorance

:P

[whathehell]

20. We can be comfortable

without pretending to "know it all".:P

[whathehell]

26. Or maybe it's because we know what we "don't know"

and do NOT feel the need the need for "absolutes" on the matter...Which in my opinion, speaks rather well of our sense of internal security.

[BurtWorm]

27. What an arrogant thing to say!

You bully!

:cry:

[whathehell]

30. Of course, lol..

Hi.

Hi!!

My name is Whathehell...and I'm a Bully!

Hi, Whathehell!!:rofl:

[BurtWorm]

32. Welcome to the club.

;-)

[whathehell]

35. You have a sense of humor, Burtworm!

which is more than I can say for SOOOME people here :yoiks:

[darkstar3]

4. But are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

You've answered the question of knowledge with "agnostic", now the question is "what do you believe?"

[MellowDem]

16. It's irrelevant...

I don't hold my opinions or beliefs to be knowledge. Not that that necessarily makes a person arrogant. But it can. If someone tells you your deeply held beliefs are a fairy tell or that your deeply held beliefs will cause you to suffer for eternity, both would come across as rude to me, at the least.

[darkstar3]

17. Actually, what's irrelevant is speculation on other actions.

You dodged the question.

[MellowDem]

19. Why do you want to know?

I don't see what you are trying to get at.

[darkstar3]

21. I think I made myself pretty clear.

Agnosticism is separate from the question of belief. Either you believe in something, or you do not. Either you are a theist (mono- or poly-) or you are not. And so when you throw out a statement comparing atheists and theists that attempts to plant your philosophy squarely in the middle, you are incorrect.

[MellowDem]

33. Depends on the various definitions of agnosticism...

theism and atheism you look at, which are pretty convoluted and confuising as it is. In some definitions, atheism is a belief that there are no deities. If one accepts that theists believe in at least one deity (which would leave out a lot of "religious" or "spiritual" people), it makes sense that atheists believe the opposite. Some atheists say they only have a lack of belief, or that basically they have no opinion one way or the other, which doesn't seem to fit the definition of atheism to me, but seems to be agnosticism in some form.

If you do not believe in something, I think there are at least two reasons as to why. It is because of a belief you yourself hold that contradicts that other belief, or because you do not know and therefore have no belief one way or the other about the subject. In this sense, I believe I do not know and cannot know with the amount of proof out there currently.

A belief can only be knowledge with proof to back it up. Some self-described theists and atheists I have met do claim to have enough proof to qualify their beliefs of the existence or not of deities as knowledge. I was mostly just kidding about the arrogant thing, but sometimes it can come off as arrogant in the sense that I believe there is currently not enough proof to know for sure one way or the other. Of course, many theists believe based on faith, which at least is an honest way of saying they believe something to be true without proof. I imagine some atheists do the same. I have no problem with that, but I don't personally like the logic of holding something as knowledge based on insubstantial proof, but saying that the proof is enough.

So I believe there are at least three positions to hold on the question of belief. Either you believe one proposition, you believe the counter propostion, or you believe you do not know. They are all beliefs to me, in some sense or other. I think I have sufficient proof that there is insufficient proof, as odd as that sounds. I have knowledge of (or acknowledge) my lack of knowledge on that particular proposition.

Agnosticism is not seperate from the question of belief to me. I think it is about reconciling belief and knowldge. I don't think that Agnosticism is "in the middle". It is just a third viewpoint in my opinion.

In this way, it would be impossible for me to be an agonstic theist/atheist. But, if you have different definitions of theism, atheism etc. then it will be different. Most of these discussions to tend to come down to what definitions are, as there is not a lot of clarity or consensus on that issue.

[darkstar3]

34. "A belief can only be knowledge with proof to back it up."

And THERE's your problem.

[MellowDem]

37. Well that explains it... nt

[whathehell]

22. Rude, absolutely. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

50. Agnostics are either atheists or theists. Agnosticism is about knowledge;

atheism and theism is about belief.

Agnostic theist stance = "I don't know for certain, but I believe in God."

Agnostic atheist stance = "I don't know for certain; I am not sure what to believe."

[pokerfan]

58. they're truly something all right

[BurtWorm]

2. I just know you're going to get uncomprehending posts accusing you of painting with a broad brush

because their god is not a tyrant but, simply, love.

[cleanhippie]

9. Yup.

Sad, but true.

[whathehell]

23. ..Like the ones atheists might get for confusing "opinion"

with Absolute Truth?:rofl:

[jobycom]

5. Maybe, but some of us are quite arrogant, anyway.

As I'm proving with this post.

[Goblinmonger]

6. It is sentences like this one

"This is where he exposes the dementia of his chronic fuckwittedness." That make reading PZ so damned enjoyable.

[old mark]

7. Actually, arrogance is one of my best traits...nt

[Gman]

10. That's a pretty arrogant post

Why do you even bother? You can't help yourself, can you? That's what makes it so arrogant.

[cleanhippie]

11. If you say so.

I guess that makes you the authority on arrogance?

[Gman]

12. And you don't even see it

[whathehell]

25. I don't know what Ignored said but,

I did kind of plan it that way.:evilgrin:


No they don't, because for one thing,they consistently and erroneously equate Christian fundamentalism with ALL Religion..It's a joke, really.

Yup..On DU, you have a VERY simple choice: Evangelical Crazy..or Nothing

[Goblinmonger]

28. So you get to make broadbrush attacks?

Why do you see that as acceptable. The discourse before you is focused on two people talking to each other about what they, individually, do. You respond with "No THEY don't" (emphasis mine) and then you continue to indicate that all atheists do what you are stating. Do you see the irony of that when you complain that ALL atheists "equate Christian fundamentalism with ALL Religion" (emphasis yours)? I think there is a story about a plank in an eye that you may want to look up.

[whathehell]

31. Ignored said WHAT?.....

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...This is fun!

[cleanhippie]

29. I see you making much ado about nothing.

Perhaps if you had actually READ the post at the link I provided, you may (or may not) have a different opinion. But you go off half-cocked and make a baseless and ignorant statement. But hey, its a free country, right?

[Goblinmonger]

13. Did you read the blog at the link?

Or would that have offended your sensibilities too much to put another hit on the count at PZ's blog?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. Ah, the good old "I know you are but what am I" school of argumentation.

:boring:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. Everybody NEEDS to click the link in the OP and read that article. Seriously.

Best comment there:

I've always wondered why these people don't just stop and think, "Holy shit, I sound just like a Bond villain. Maybe my philosophy needs a little tweaking"

[damntexdem]

24. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not even if an Agnostic is arrogant. At least, I don't think so. ;-)

[Meshuga]

36. Anybody who accuses an atheist of being arrogant has to explain why

It is only fair. This rule applies to accusations toward any individual regardless of belief, lack of belief, or label. But who here (atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, witch, etc.) does not agree with the arrogance of the Christians mentioned in the article?

Wouldn't we have to judge arrogance on a case-by-case basis regardless of the label we or the other person carries?

[whathehell]

38. But anyone who equates the Evangelical Christians mentioned in this article

with ALL Chrisitanity, not to mention "all religion" should explain "why" as well...It's clearly incorrect.

[cleanhippie]

40. How does one tell who the "real" christians are?

I mean, a christian is a christian is a christian, right? How does one tell who is right and wrong?

[Meshuga]

41. There is no such a thing as a real Christian

Martin Luther King is a Christian but so is Fred Phelps. I would have to engage with them and/or observe their behavior and beliefs to decide whether one is a great person or a despicable piece of shit (or somewhere in between). So I also choose to make those conclusions on a case-by-case basis.

I try to be like this regardless of label but it is difficult to put it in practice, I confess. For example, if someone I don't know introduces him or herself as a Republican I automatically begin making assumptions about the person when I probably shouldn't.

[whathehell]

43. And you could say the same about Muslims and Jews. n/t

[Meshuga]

47. I'm not sure about requirements for muslims

But a person is Jewish if he/she is born of a Jewish mother (well, of Jewish father works for the Reform movement) or if the person goes through the requirements for conversion. So a real Jew could be a Jew who does not follow Judaism at all or one who follows some form of Judaism. It could be a great person or a fucked up evil individual. It all depends on the person. Yes, this rule applies to anybody so there is nothing special about the labels except for the person who finds importance in their own labels.

[whathehell]

51. Islam comes in at least two varieties: Shia and Sunni.

Some also consider Sufis to be Muslim.

As to Jewishness, what your saying applies if you believe Jewishness to be an ethnicity AND a religion. I've had Jewish friends who did and others who did not, and still others who argue for the recognition of Patrilineal Judaism.

Other than that, I believe Judaism is of at least four types: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist.

The only thing "special" about labels in religion is the extent to which they accurately describe or distinguish one religion or one form of that religion from others.

There are too many here eager to equate ALL Christian belief with the most primitive right wing type.

It's prejudicial and simply incorrect. Fundamentalists do not even make up the MAJORITY, let alone the totality of Christians in this country.

[Meshuga]

55. "Judaism" is the religion, "Jewish" is the people

That is an important distinctions that makes things easier to understand. Judaism has three components: ethics, spirituality, and peoplehood (traditionally known as Torah, God, and Israel). Jews follow Judaism by following one or two or all three of these components. For example, Humanistic Jews follow Jewish ethics and peoplehood, Atheist Jews identify with the peoplehood component, and religious Jews (orthodox, conservative, reform, etc.) consider all three.

I am Jewish and all the rabbis and Jews from different movements that I have evern met understand that a Jew is a person born Jewish or a person who went through the steps of conversion.

The disagreement among the movements begins when considering "patrilineality" as valid when considering whether the person is Jewish or not. I am a Reform Jew so I tend to consider a child born of a Jewish father (and raised as Jewish) as a Jew. But an orthodox rabbi, for example, would not.

What I meant by saying that there is nothing special about labels is that we cannot define who is a good person or a bad person because of their label. But I agree with you that labels are necessary to distinguish and give us an idea of the distinctions between religions and differences within a specific religion.

Again, I personally try to distinguish people by their attitudes and beliefs rather than their label. But it is not an easy thing to do. So I won't criticize others when I make the same mistakes. Yes, it bothers me to be lumped with another group just because of my label but there is nothing much I can do to change perceptions. The truth is that I can only speak on my own behalf. So if people like me for who I am that is great. And that is what matters. If people think some belief I hold is silly then so be it. People I love hold beliefs that I think are silly and I still love them anyway.

[whathehell]

57. My Jewish friends never made that distinction,

but one learns something new every day.

In truth, I never mentioned anything about "good" or "bad"...But "Christianity" inasmuch as it is conflated with "right wing bigotry" on this board will never be taken as "good" and that is simply wrong, literally and morally.

[BurtWorm]

56. Based on some things Meshuga has said in the past, as well as what he's saying now

he might say four types of Judaism is a vast underestimation.

But let me address your main point:

The problem I have with liberal Christians is not that they believe what their right-wing brethren and sistren believe. Clearly they don't. Clearly their values and their actions are vastly more admirable than those of the idiots on the right who also call themselves Christians. But why, if you're smart enough to know Mary wasn't a virgin and Jesus didn't rise from the dead (and if you're not smart enough to know that, shame on you!), why be a Christian? It's essentially a right-wing religion, as most religions tend to be (pro-power, pro-hierarchy, conservative in many senses--meaning resistant to change). Never mind the crazy literal-minded nuts among them who think every word of the Bible is true. We ALL know those people are losers. But here at DU we get to find out why a liberal person of the 21st century would throw their lot in with the Christians. Why would they? I'm still trying to understand.

[whathehell]

59. First, I would disagree with

the characterization of Christianity as a "right wing" religion....If Jesus is all about Love, and that IS how many interpret the person and his teachings, I see nothing right-wing in that.

Secondly, not everything in the Bible (or the Torah, i imagine) is accepted by believers as "literal".

Thirdly..Everything isn't about "smart", at least IMO, and even if it were, there are different types of intelligence, such as "emotional" intelligence for instance...I see lots of "smart" people with very low "emotional" intelligence...Frankly, I like the concept of "wisdom" better..It's much broader and more inclusive.


A "wise" person, in my opinion, would be compassionate and open-minded, among other things..Qualities that the merely "smart" needn't have.

As far as Jesus goes, you might be surprised to learn that not all who call themselves "Christian" are believers in the divinity of Christ...As far as his rising from the dead, of course that's humanly impossible, but for those who believe in his divinity..that's precisely the point -- If his nature is divine, he's not confined to human limits.....Many (and not just Christians) believe in miracles...Medicine, in fact, has been confronted sudden, dramatic healings and other things it can't explain.

As far as my own beliefs, I was raised as a Christian, but am now more of an agnostic..That being said, I don't like seeing it, along with my friends and relatives who are still believers, be so terribly misinterpreted and maligned for being something they are not.."stupid", "bigoted", etc.

Beyond that, I'm not a strict empiricist. I have experienced, for instance, mental telepathy and my spouse and a number of people I've met have experienced other forms of ESP...Not at all often, mind you, and I can't, and don't claim to control it, but it's happened a few times.

Now, you can think we're nuts or something, but the fact is there is LOTS of anecdotal evidence regarding the reality of ESP...I know people, a couple in scientific fields, who have experienced some form of it...They're "smart", sane, and successful...You simply can't convince someone that they didn't "experience" something because it doesn't conform to whatever the current scientific measure is.

So that's where I'm at, if you will...Your questions are welcome..It's nice to be approached in such an honest, respectful way. Peace at ya:hippie:

[whathehell]

42. The same way one can tell who is the "real" Jew or the "real" Muslim.

I mean a jew is a jew is a jew, right?...and a muslim is a muslim is muslim?

The study that concluded that atheists and agnostics knew more about religion than the religious, obviously didn't include you.:eyes:

[cleanhippie]

44. So all you had to add was an insult and personal attack?

Why bother responding if you are only able to act like a child?

You obviously are unable to see the bigger point being made.

[whathehell]

45. Um....No.

and if you actually read the post before responding, you'd know that...Then again, if you knew aything about religion, you wouldn't have written what I responded to..

Beyond that, Clean, I think you should put on your big boy pants and stop whining.

[cleanhippie]

46. Again, with insult and personal attack.

What the fuck, dude?

[whathehell]

48. If this were really an "insult and personal attack"...you could have the post deleted

but I really don't think it would "pass" as one.

You need to grow a thicker skin, dude.

If that doesn't work for you, you can always consider the ignore feature.

[cleanhippie]

49. Can you really be any more disingenuous?

I asked a simple question, trying to make a bigger point and you responded not once, but twice, with insults.

Yes, I could alert, but I am trying to be the more reasonable one here. Putting you on ignore, while solving my current problem, does not get the questions I posed answered, which is really all I was trying to do in the first place.

I have a very thick skin. Your sophomoric insults really don't bother me personally, but I do get irritated when I am trying to have an adult dialogue and all I get is the shit you slung at me. What gives? How about trying to have a discussion like real adults would. We can trade insults back and forth if you wish, but what would be the point of that? We can agree and disagree while both having our points validated, but your current method is not working for me.

Look, if you are not interested, just insult me again and I will ignore you. The choice is yours.

[whathehell]

52. Can YOU?

You responded to my post with a "challenging" attitude, as if you actually knew what your were talking about...But then...You didn't. That was pointed out to you, not only by me, but by Meshuga.

If I REALLY thought you were interested in a "discussion" rather than a salve to your ego, I'd attempt it. But please..You live in this country and don't "know" that all Christians are NOT alike?

I don't buy it, but if you really are THAT clueless, you can start by googling "Catholic" and "Protestant"...Maybe after that, you can go on to Greek Orthodoxy or something, but I'm not here to educate you...You need to do it yourself...and if you don't like that, my friend, I'm afraid that's too bad.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whathehell]

54. Yeah..Like sore losers will just be sore losers..

It's just in their nature..:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

39. Sounds reasonable.