Atheists - arrogant?

[lpetrich]

“Inside the Atheist Mind” is more revealing of what’s going on in the Fox News mind - PZ Myers takes a swipe at Today's atheists are bullies -- and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence | Fox News

From the Fox News author: "There’s no polite way to say it. Atheists today are the most arrogant, ignorant and dangerous people on earth."

PZ Myers had fun with that claim, and it seems to me that such claims are projection. That should be obvious from traditional Xianity's claim to be the absolute, final truth, with all those disagreeing deserving eternal damnation.

The vast majority of human beings from all periods of time have always believed that everyone else is wrong about gods, not just atheists. Remember, Christians were once a small minority who believed that everyone else — Jews, Romans, pagans — got the most important fact in the universe wrong, and were going to be punished with eternal damnation for it.

Seems to me that that's projection of Abrahamic exclusivism on PZ's part. Pagans often considered other people's deities to be versions of theirs.

Then the subject of eminent scientists and philosophers as believers. But they are as divided as everybody else. Should we become Catholics because of all the Catholic scientists? Lutherans because of all the Lutheran ones? Anglicans because of all the Anglican ones? Jews because of all the Jewish ones? And so on down the line. Should we become Jansenists because of Blaise Pascal? Sandemanians because of Michael Faraday? Jewish Spinozist quasi-pantheists because of Albert Einstein? Ahmadi Muslims because of Abdus Salam? Hindus because of Srinivasa Ramanujan? Etc. Then there is the problem of the numerous scientists over the past century or so who have been agnostics or atheists. Even among the believers among them, many of them have likely been nominal believers.

The Fox News author's choice of Aristotle is an especially bad, because of what Aristotle's "God" is. Aristotle was at least a nominal Hellenic pagan, and he was a sort of deist. His God is pure thought that thinks only about itself, and it keeps the Universe going by attraction to it. It is an unmoved mover -- it was Aristotle who invented the First-Cause argument. Aristotle also believed that the Universe is eternal, and that God is co-eternal with it, keeping it going forever and ever and ever. From the standpoint of traditional Xianity, much of that is rather gross heresy.

As to scientists in modern times, there is the problem of social pressure against heterodox beliefs. Consider Isaac Newton. He believed that the planets' orbits are close to coplanar because God did it. He also spent a lot of time on Biblical chronology and Biblical prophecy. But he also rejected the Trinity, and he kept that belief secret to avoid hurting his career.

 

[steve_bank]

It is plane old fear mongering. Atheists are out to take away Christmas. After a thousand years of Christian power and dominance it is a real threat to their self image. They base their lives on faith, it is not just a simple belief.

Sounds like Tucker Carlson. He is a riot to watch. In general it is not just FOX. On CNN and MSNBC Chrisins profess their faith on air. It was especially apparent after the Notre Dame fire.

There is a woman on CNN who is saying thank goddess instead of thank god.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just more pablum for a target audience. Christianity loves having enemies so you gotta keep having a bogeyman. The bogeyman is out to get us. Funny stuff. I always love it when the majority cries persecution.

 

[Tigers!]

Are you asking whether atheists are arrogant - either by their own opinion or others?

 

[Brian63]

There is a woman on CNN who is saying thank goddess instead of thank god.

Who is that? I am curious to check for videos now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone remember back in time when Christians persecuted Christians in America? It was called Jim Crow. That type of Christian exists today and feels any attempt to hold them back from encoding their beliefs into law is persecution of the highest order.

 

[Politesse]

Arrogance is not a very quantifiable trait-- how could one possibly resolve the question in an unbiased fashion?

 

[lpetrich]

Anyone remember back in time when Christians persecuted Christians in America? It was called Jim Crow. ...

That was because of race, not religion. Look for some real examples, like what happened to Joseph Smith and his fellow Mormons, or how some New England colonies regarded Catholicism.

 

[ronburgundy]

Which of the following sounds more arrogant:

"I don't have any evidence and cannot make a rational argument to support it, but I have certain knowledge that X is true, so I believe it."

"I don't know if X is true, so I don't believe it."

"I have examined all the evidence and arguments I could and they imply that X is extremely implausible, so I don't believe it."


The first is reflects theism, while the second "weak" atheism and the third "strong" atheism. I'd argue that only the first, theism, rests upon arrogant assumptions, namely that one is so special that they can arrive at certain truth without requiring any information and careful analysis.
The second, weak atheism, is the epitome of humility, assuming one is not qualified to make any evaluation. The third, strong atheism, is still relatively humble, presuming that one does require evidence and careful thinking to arrive at knowledge, and merely assuming that one is minimally competent at doing so.

 

[rousseau]

I wouldn't say that atheists are dangerous, although I do often get a vibe of disrespect toward the religious.

'I'm logical, and this argument is obviously logical, and you're mistaken to hold a comforting belief and not accept my logic'

It undervalues how religion actually impacts people, in lieu of some absolute need to be right and spread one's own knowledge. I get why atheist militancy exists, because the religious do some ridiculous things, but I can also see why a person could be more sympathetic to a believer than atheists often are.

 

[abaddon]

“Inside the Atheist Mind” is more revealing of what’s going on in the Fox News mind - PZ Myers takes a swipe at Today's atheists are bullies -- and they are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence | Fox News

Some people are going to see the OP's title "Atheists - arrogant?" and answer that. Atheists are likely to say atheism in itself is not arrogant.

The contents of the OP are more about a particular guy making an accusation that atheists are bullies and a biologist/atheist activist making a response.

So, what is the topic? Alleged atheist arrogance generally as the thread title implies? Or the Fox news guy going on about atheists as the murderers of millions, and PZ Myers responses to him?

 

[steve_bank]

It may be hard to accept, but atheists are human. Some can be downrigh5t assholes.

 

[southernhybrid]

So yes, the modern breed of atheist is arrogant, ignorant and dangerous. Too many books written in response to these pseudo-intellectual hatemongers have been altogether too nice. Too many Christian authors have tried to be kind and amiable in an effort to demonstrate that believers don’t have to sink into the mud in order to defend the faith. That tact is very charitable, but unfortunately, it just doesn’t work with bullies.

And that’s exactly what modern-day atheists are—bullies; bullies who are doing their best to intimidate the rest of us into silence.

Well, we can’t allow that to happen. As I say in my book, “Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There is No God,” there is only one way to deal with bullies, even in this politically correct world—and that is to stand up to them and fight them; to fight them in a bold, aggressive, and fearless way, and to fight them now.

I normally don't give a fuck what people like the one who wrote this horrible opinion piece say, but I do see a big problem with it now. We live in a time when there are a lot of potentially dangerous people who are easily influenced by the propaganda that they see on Fox news, or other even worse places. This type of hate and bigotry has inspired people who are apparently not far from derangement. I'm speaking of shooters who go after ethnic groups or religious groups that they disagree with. If this type of propaganda becomes more common, who is to say that the next angry, hateful shooter won't attack a group of atheists?

There are several organized atheist groups in Atlanta. At least one of them owns their own building. There is also a highly active group in a smaller city about 30 miles from me. It worries me that some nut job Christian might decide to attack one of these groups. Spreading this type of propaganda, lies and hate is potentially dangerous, regardless of which group is being demonized. Atheists aren't any better or worse than any other group of people, but it appears as if we are being demonized by some of the most hateful propaganda sites around.

Look at the quote that I posted. What is meant by the words, we need to fight them in a bold, aggressive and fearless way? That sounds like a call to action to do something violent. I find this a bit worrisome. I was discussing this with my husband last night and he agreed. We used to attend meetings on a regular basis in one of these organized group. I'm not sure I would feel totally safe if this type of rhetoric continues. Churches in my town are already hiring security guards. A black friend of mine told me she feels a little bit scared when she attends church because of the vicious attacks that have been made on religious institutions. I can understand my friend's anxiety. There is so much hatred towards those who don't fit into one's own groups these days. How long before atheists become targets?

I don't understand hate. I don't understand attacking those who are different from oneself. I've never cared what others thought or believed, but when powerful media sites put out such disgusting hate and threatening language.....I don't know what to think anymore. It just saddens me that people can be so prejudiced and hateful.

 

[James Brown]

Some people are arrogant.

What those people believe or don't believe about the supernatural is a side issue.

 

[remez]

Which of the following sounds more arrogant:

"I don't have any evidence and cannot make a rational argument to support it, but I have certain knowledge that X is true, so I believe it."

"I don't know if X is true, so I don't believe it."

"I have examined all the evidence and arguments I could and they imply that X is extremely implausible, so I don't believe it."


The first is reflects theism, while the second "weak" atheism and the third "strong" atheism. I'd argue that only the first, theism, rests upon arrogant assumptions, namely that one is so special that they can arrive at certain truth without requiring any information and careful analysis.
The second, weak atheism, is the epitome of humility, assuming one is not qualified to make any evaluation. The third, strong atheism, is still relatively humble, presuming that one does require evidence and careful thinking to arrive at knowledge, and merely assuming that one is minimally competent at doing so.

Did any one spot the ironic arrogance?

Which of the following sounds more arrogant:


"I don't have any evidence and cannot make a rational argument to support it, but I have certain knowledge that X is true, so I believe it."


"I don't know if X is true, so I don't believe it."


"I have examined all the evidence and arguments I could and they imply that X is extremely implausible, so I don't believe it."

Well Captain Arrogance ....... it's this one.........

The first is reflects theism ......

What a perfect example of an arrogant assumption that is also so ironically humorous given the context of this thread. He presents choices A, B and C and arrogantly assumes theism is choice A. He ignorantly omits the logical existence of choice D. Yes Choice D..... the ever present logical inverse of choice C.


D. "I have examined all the available evidence and arguments I could, and they infer that X is more plausible than not, so I trust it."
AKA............ following the evidence where it leads.


Thus I would respectively and respectfully submit that choice D better represents theism and is the least arrogant.
So....yes..... choice A (ron's straw man) no doubt is the most arrogant but it remains only ron's emotive arrogance that equates it to theism.

 

[ronburgundy]

Did any one spot the ironic arrogance?



Well Captain Arrogance ....... it's this one.........

The first is reflects theism ......

What a perfect example of an arrogant assumption that is also so ironically humorous given the context of this thread. He presents choices A, B and C and arrogantly assumes theism is choice A. He ignorantly omits the logical existence of choice D. Yes Choice D..... the ever present logical inverse of choice C.


D. "I have examined all the available evidence and arguments I could, and they infer that X is more plausible than not, so I trust it."
AKA............ following the evidence where it leads.

I excluded that option because it does not exist. I do not arrogantly assume that is the case. It is a logical conclusion based upon fact. Many centuries of philosophy have failed to produce a single rational, evidence-based argument for God. All have been shown to be seriously flawed. Rational examination of the the evidence only leads to the conclusion that God is infinitely improbable. That is why monotheism so strongly promotes the virtue of faith, which is the polar opposite of examining the evidence. This is also why as science has yielded more and more facts about the world, theism has retreated further and further and only flourishes where scientific literacy is lowest. It is why those who wanted to create a new world society ruled by reason sought to ensure that it's governance would be kept separate from the inherent irrationality of theistic religion. Theism can only be based upon faithful ignoring of the available evidence. Thus, option D of concluding that God exists based upon the evidence is not plausible, and thus does not describe any theists whereas option A does. And believing that the world just happens to be whatever you personally would prefer it to be and that you can know this without evidence (the definition of faith) is the epitome of arrogance.

 

[James Chapman]

"Arrogant" is a deliciously powerful (if meaningless) word. You can use it to weaponize almost any statement, as in:

They arrogantly proclaim that the Earth is a spheroid, denying what we all know, that it is actually flat.

 

[remez]

Did any one spot the ironic arrogance?



Well Captain Arrogance ....... it's this one.........

The first is reflects theism ......

What a perfect example of an arrogant assumption that is also so ironically humorous given the context of this thread. He presents choices A, B and C and arrogantly assumes theism is choice A. He ignorantly omits the logical existence of choice D. Yes Choice D..... the ever present logical inverse of choice C.


D. "I have examined all the available evidence and arguments I could, and they infer that X is more plausible than not, so I trust it."
AKA............ following the evidence where it leads.

I excluded that option because it does not exist. I do not arrogantly assume that is the case. It is a logical conclusion based upon fact. Many centuries of philosophy have failed to produce a single rational, evidence-based argument for God. All have been shown to be seriously flawed. Rational examination of the the evidence only leads to the conclusion that God is infinitely improbable. That is why monotheism so strongly promotes the virtue of faith, which is the polar opposite of examining the evidence. This is also why as science has yielded more and more facts about the world, theism has retreated further and further and only flourishes where scientific literacy is lowest. It is why those who wanted to create a new world society ruled by reason sought to ensure that it's governance would be kept separate from the inherent irrationality of theistic religion. Theism can only be based upon faithful ignoring of the available evidence. Thus, option D of concluding that God exists based upon the evidence is not plausible, and thus does not describe any theists whereas option A does. And believing that the world just happens to be whatever you personally would prefer it to be and that you can know this without evidence (the definition of faith) is the epitome of arrogance.

parsed.........

And believing that the world just happens to be whatever you personally would prefer it to be and that you can know this without evidence (the definition of faith) is the epitome of arrogance.

You mean like this................

I excluded that option because it does not exist.

and this......

Many centuries of philosophy have failed to produce a single rational, evidence-based argument for God. All have been shown to be seriously flawed.

The option does not exist because you have this blind faith (real distinction of faith) that all rational arguments have been defeated. Just as easily as you can say they have been defeated I can express they have not. And I can support it with a sweeping statement like this........... Time and time again through the centuries your defeaters have been defeated. Your statement is nothing more than the way you want the world to be. A belief you hold without evidence. (the actual definition of blind faith)

Rational examination of the the evidence only leads to the conclusion that God is infinitely improbable.

What reason have you provided thus far to prove that your examination was rational? Just because you want it to be?

That is why monotheism so strongly promotes the virtue of faith, which is the polar opposite of examining the evidence.

Another atheistic belief without evidence.

This is also why as science has yielded more and more facts about the world, theism has retreated further and further and only flourishes where scientific literacy is lowest.

Atheistic fantasy based upon an overt categorical fallacy. And you call yourselves the bright ones.

It is why those who wanted to create a new world society ruled by reason sought to ensure that it's governance would be kept separate from the inherent irrationality of theistic religion.

Seriously flawed historical revisionism.

Theism can only be based upon faithful ignoring of the available evidence. Thus, option D of concluding that God exists based upon the evidence is not plausible, and thus does not describe any theists whereas option A does.

I'm a theist following the evidence where it leads. My theism is supported by philosophy, evidence and your fave....science. If I did not have those I would not be a theist. And I'm certainly not the only one. Thus you are ignoring the evidence to believe in your straw man fallacies about theism.

 

[yyr123]

The Devils Delusion

Super cool book about this very topic - sort of....I am almost 1/2 thru

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not arrogant and I'll have one of my under-butlers go and whip some manners into this cretin for his insolence in saying that I am.