The Atheism Thread

[Flattop]

But do you agree with woot that there are a great many arrogant theists for every one such atheist? (There is a case to be made that atheists are more humble by virtue of the very nature of unbelief.)

On the one hand, sure, and they are probably the some of the same folks who think that I am not a Christian.

On the other hand, while the nature of unbelief may or may not encourage humility, if your a Christian and not humble, then something has gone badly wrong. While I don't know about the humility aspect of atheism, I do know that Christianity teaches the need for humility.

Edit: Btw, it seems to me that the only thing required for a person to be self righteous is that they believe they have a morally superior position. Thus, even an atheist could be self righteous.

[woot]

On the one hand, sure, and they are probably the some of the same folks who think that I am not a Christian.

On the other hand, while the nature of unbelief may or may not encourage humility, if your a Christian and not humble, then something has gone badly wrong. While I don't know about the humility aspect of atheism, I do know that Christianity teaches the need for humility.

Edit: Btw, it seems to me that the only thing required for a person to be self righteous is that they believe they have a morally superior position. Thus, even an atheist could be self righteous.

And many atheists certainly are self-righteous. I don't know that the percentage of douche bags among atheists would be any lower than that among theists. I do think, however, that by definition, atheism/agnosticism is a more humble position to take. Being willing to say "I don't know" or perhaps "we're working on it" is a much more respectable position than "the creator of the universe told me..." or "a book delivered to us by god says..."

Again, that's not to say that everyone can be characterized so neatly. Lots of atheists are irrational in their judgments, or lack understanding of the proper relationship between evidence and confidence, just as lots of religious folk are humble in their beliefs despite what could be termed the arrogant nature of the beliefs.

[Flattop]

And many atheists certainly are self-righteous. I don't know that the percentage of douche bags among atheists would be any lower than that among theists. I do think, however, that by definition, atheism/agnosticism is a more humble position to take. Being willing to say "I don't know" or perhaps "we're working on it" is a much more respectable position than "the creator of the universe told me..." or "a book delivered to us by god says..."

Again, that's not to say that everyone can be characterized so neatly. Lots of atheists are irrational in their judgments, or lack understanding of the proper relationship between evidence and confidence, just as lots of religious folk are humble in their beliefs despite what could be termed the arrogant nature of the beliefs.

Just because an individual lacks knowledge of something, that does not mean they are humble.

Just because an individual has knowledge of something, that does not mean they lack humility.

Rather, IMO, it is the attitude of the individual about what they do or do not know. Believing that one is superior because of what they know or do not know would seem to be a better indicator of whether they are or are not humble.

An individual who believes that they are superior because they know probably lacks humility. Example, "Because God told me, I am superior."

On the other hand, an individual calling themself a "free thinker" because they lack knowledge regarding god(s), is probably not an example of humility.

[CardiacCoug]

Just because an individual lacks knowledge of something, that does not mean they are humble.

Just because an individual has knowledge of something, that does not mean they lack humility.

Nobody has "knowledge" of God. People who say they "know" God exists are either lying or confused.

[Slim]

Nobody has "knowledge" of God. People who say they "know" God exists are either lying or confused.

As a teenager, I once had a conversation with my parents where I was expressing my frustration over how difficult it was for me to accept things on faith. Eventually my father said something close to what you wrote. It looked, at that point, like my mother was about to punch him.

The only other time I saw her look at him like that was once during a birds and bees conversation as a requirement for some scout merit badge. After my mom went through the whole required abstinence thing my dad chimed in at the end "but if you do end up doing it, be sure and use protection".

[Flattop]

Nobody has "knowledge" of God. People who say they "know" God exists are either lying or confused.

Nothing arrogant about that at all.

[CardiacCoug]

Nothing arrogant about that at all.

Yep. I have a deep and abiding testimony that God's existence is unknowable -- I would even say that I know it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[RobinFinderson]

This is probably a fine distinction. I would only point out that Dawkins and Hitchens have repeatedly said, and in fact have made it a prominent component of their arguments, that they are absolutely fine with people believing whatever they want to. They only speak out because of the insidious influence of religion on public policy as believers continually attempt to force nonbelievers, or those who hold to other creeds, to live according to policies and laws based on religious beliefs they do not hold.

I think I have demonstrated that I feel similarly. I was appalled by prop 8 and spoke out accordingly, and tend to not respond kindly to statements of faith used as evidence in a rational argument, but I try my hardest, and generally succeed, to avoid speaking out against sincere expression of personal faith. When I do, it is either due to policy implications of said belief, for the purpose of respectfully inviting discussion, or, very rarely, because I think it'd be fun to pester somebody with whom I've battled in the past.

It's very easy to paint Dawkins, for example, as arrogant, or as trying to force his ideas onto others, but in reality he is generally a quiet and mild-mannered British gentlemen. If he were discussing politics in America he would probably fall toward the humble end of spectrum. But because his subject matter is so personal to so many, and because the social conventions regarding the discussion of religion and the discussion of politics are so very different, he is labeled a troublemaker. It's understandable, but it's not necessarily a fair characterization.

Woot! Woot! Woot!

[RobinFinderson]

And many atheists certainly are self-righteous. I don't know that the percentage of douche bags among atheists would be any lower than that among theists. I do think, however, that by definition, atheism/agnosticism is a more humble position to take. Being willing to say "I don't know" or perhaps "we're working on it" is a much more respectable position than "the creator of the universe told me..." or "a book delivered to us by god says..."

Again, that's not to say that everyone can be characterized so neatly. Lots of atheists are irrational in their judgments, or lack understanding of the proper relationship between evidence and confidence, just as lots of religious folk are humble in their beliefs despite what could be termed the arrogant nature of the beliefs.

Seriously, woot, your killing it. Some very fine work here today.

[Flattop]

Yep. I have a deep and abiding testimony that God's existence is unknowable -- I would even say that I know it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does exist.

[Jacob]

Nobody has "knowledge" of God. People who say they "know" God exists are either lying or confused.

That statement seems quite ridiculous. How could you have obtained such knowledge?

[SoonerCoug]

And I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does exist.

How do you know?

[SoonerCoug]

That statement seems quite ridiculous. How could you have obtained such knowledge?

Because it's not testable. No one can have knowledge of something that can't be tested or demonstrated. Saying you know that God exists is like saying you know there is a ghost in your attic.

[Jacob]

Because it's not testable. No one can have knowledge of something that can't be tested or demonstrated. Saying you know that God exists is like saying you know there is a ghost in your attic.

I'm not sure you understood my point. I mostly agree with your statement.

I'm humble enough to admit that someone else can know something that I don't believe. I don't believe in ghosts. But if they do exist, and if someone actually saw one, then he would know that they exist, even though the proposition remains untestable to you and me. But despite the many testimonies of such ghostly knowledge, I continue to believe that they don't exist. I also think the believers are foolish.

[Flattop]

How do you know?

Because I have real, practical experience with God.

I can't prove to others that he exists, and I wouldn't even try. But I know what I have experienced and what it means.