Why are some atheists so arrogant?

A lot of atheists are always looking miserable and close-minded, where priests and preachers seem the more approachable and interesting minds to gather thought from, i am not over-religious in thought, just making observation.

a rather pointless one, but okay...

Because some people are mighty arrogant, and all atheists are people. That's all there is to it.

That said, I disagree with your judgment that Hitchens and Dawkins are arrogant. In particular, I cherish Richard Dawkins as an intellectual role model. His face served as my avatar before Douglas Adams's did. But I guess these things are largely a matter of taste, and taste can't really be reasoned about.

It's hard for me to imagine any level of arrogance from an atheist that even compares to a religious zealot lecturing about what Jesus thinks and telling anyone that they are going to burn in hell for not believing.

An atheist may come down hard on your beliefs if they seem irrational. And that may seem arrogant or unkind to you. But an atheist won't threaten you with eternal damnation for having those beliefs.

He will sound really ******* smug though.

Well i feel sometimes Hitchens will try to make the religionist appear like they are childish for having their beliefs during debates like his one with Al Sharpton.

They don’t need Al Sharpton’s help, they’re doing fine on their own.

And I think you just intend to voice criticisms of atheists, without really discussing the topic and so am logging off. Have a good day.

Since the "rationality" of religious narrative is comparable to that of "fairy tales", it is little wonder that religionists who argue for rationality of the word, appear "childish". Those who would transcend "rationality" on either side are neither arrogant nor childish. But since such a move also tends to transcend psychological and sociological functions of religion (based on words held in common), it is less likely to be the subject of debate. (I use "religion" in its widest sense to include all followers of charismatic leaders.)

I disagree about the arrogance. But then again, it's not the presentation by Christian fundamentalist believers that I have a problem with. Consider the most extreme example I can think of right now: Just after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson asserted that the attacks were god's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuals, and implied that Sodom-and-Gomorrah-style carnage was upon us if we didn't change our ways. (To be fair, they later retracted their statements and apologized for them.) Was it their presentation that made those statements problematic?

I don't think so. If the Creator of the Universe was indeed out to get us, and if Robertson and Falwell sincerely believed that He was, their alarmist presentation would have been perfectly adequate to the clear and present danger they were trying to avert. Moreover, every reasonable person would then agree with their remedy, to throw gay rights under the bus. Civil rights are important, but not important enough to commit collective suicide for. So to repeat, Falwell's and Robertson's presentation was perfectly adequate, given their factual beliefs. Their only problem is that their factual beliefs were grotesquely devoid of merit.

In addition, Dawkins and Hitchens are always careful to say "there is probably no god", or phrases to that effect. I never heard an unsolicited "probably" from Christian activists or billboards. How is that not arrogant?

Many atheists are so arrogant because they're tired of whiny little snots like the one who started this thread.

Some of them r not just arrogant, but ANGRY.
In my experience, any mention of anything spiritual
(e.g., survival of the non-function of the material body)
can set off a surprize attack of flashing rage!

Its not that I care much, but it can be alarming,
like lightning striking near u, or like a LOUD dog making a lot of unexpected noise.





David

Ha! You crack me up.

That David thinks he's really slick . . .

Setanta posts as if he KNOWS
what other people THINK.
Multiple be the chuckles.





David

The truth is that religion believers are being childish in holding onto completely illogical and irrational and down right silly beliefs.

There is no way and no reason to sugar coat the fact that all religions beliefs are similar to believing is children fairy tales.

Speaking as a fellow atheist, I have partially agreed with your view in my post above. But there is a problem in the demarcation of the term "religious belief" from "beliefs in general" and "spiritual inclination" in particular. The prominent atheist Sam Harris makes this point in his book "The End of Faith".....with "faith" being a better candidate than "religious belief" as the valid target.

Point taken...............

I have no interest in anyone 's religious beliefs
(except the Moslems, who blow our stuff up, like on 9/11/1;
b4 then, thay meant nothing to me).


I will point out that people who have returned from death in hospitals
(i.e., no heartbeat, no EEG, no respiration for several minutes or about an hour),
have not supported the atheists' point of vu. Some of those same people disinherited
some of their relatives for bad-mouthing the decedent while thay
were out in the waiting room with their families, but were accurately observed
by the victim of the defamations, while his human body was in a state of death.
Thay subsequently sought out their estate attorneys.


Indeed, atheists have reported some problems,
tho its no skin off my back. I don 't care.





David

David I never knew that Timothy Mcveigh was a Muslem or Ted Kaczynski or Eric Robert Rudolph or................was Muslims.

Somehow blowing things up is not an action that some Christians are not unwilling to do on a fairly large scale in the name of Jesus.

See an example below of the results of a warrior for Jesus blowing things and people up also.