Which group is more arrogant, atheists or non-theists?

doglover wrote:

How can I think to answer such a deep question with you mooning me like that hodgepodge.

I partly blame myself for the question being answered incorrectly for the most part. I'll try to keep all my ideas in separate posts and I'll try to word things better also.

0 Replies

Arrogant? I'd say they run about equal if they are certain in their beliefs, since none of us can truly know.

As for your intelligent life angle; what makes you think a species technologically advanced enough to detect our presence would consider us intelligent? In order for them to have survived the dire predictions you have for us; they would have had to first evolve past the barbarism that we clearly have not. Look what we've learned in the last 100 years and consider what we might learn in a million, or billion. Idea

They may well think we're one step ahead of iguana's intelligence-wise. Like Jodie Foster said in "contact", if we are alone, that sure would be a big waste of space. I'd say the most arrogant thing in your post would be your assumption that we are the most intelligent beings in the universe.

Ps, welcome to A2K!

0 Replies

I wouldn't say that either evolutionism or creationism is arrogant. The first is on the right track, the latter on the wrong track. If there is arrogance, it is in the way we treat the other side.

0 Replies

hodgepodge wrote:

I think you guys are missing the point here.

It's

Believing that there is an infinite being that has anything to do with you

vs.

Believing that there is not an infinite being and that we evolved naturally (if you can't figure out what I mean by this, don't bother replying).

I'm not trying to ask which group is more arrogant in general (in their lives etc). I'm asking who has the more arrogant foundational belief.

Well we may be missing your point, but I doubt we're missing the point.

The point is you wanted a flood of responses telling you that you are right.

Hell, you magnanimously take the blame, in a later post, for "incorrect answers." I didn't realize this was a test and that there was a correct answer.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

hodgepodge wrote:
I think you guys are missing the point here.

It's

Believing that there is an infinite being that has anything to do with you

vs.

Believing that there is not an infinite being and that we evolved naturally (if you can't figure out what I mean by this, don't bother replying).

I'm not trying to ask which group is more arrogant in general (in their lives etc). I'm asking who has the more arrogant foundational belief.

Well we may be missing your point, but I doubt we're missing the point.

The point is you wanted a flood of responses telling you that you are right.

Hell, you magnanimously take the blame, in a later post, for "incorrect answers." I didn't realize this was a test and that there was a correct answer.

Hmmm...I guess I do want responses supporting me, but then again, who doesn't? I am, however, gaining some different insights as more people post, which is another reason I started this thread.

0 Replies

Hi Hodgie - Im a newbie too

0 Replies

It does not follow from the belief that we evolved ("naturally" as you say) that there is anything fundamental about the assumption that we are the most "intelligent" species to have evolved. Hell, we probably don't even know about many of the species' that have evolved and possibly died out on earth, let alone in the rest of the universe.

And it does not follow from the belief in an infinite being that we did not evolve ("naturally" of course).

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

It does not follow from the belief that we evolved ("naturally" as you say) that there is anything fundamental about the assumption that we are the most "intelligent" species to have evolved. Hell, we probably don't even know about many of the species' that have evolved and possibly died out on earth, let alone in the rest of the universe.

And it does not follow from the belief in an infinite being that we did not evolve ("naturally" of course).

I don't mean to say that we are the most intelligent species in time. I'm just saying as far as we know (fossil records, lack of alien contact), we are the most intelligent species. I'm sure we can safely say we are the most intelligent species in Earth's history. We have recovered a lot of fossil evidence etc etc to make an assumption like that safely.

It's true that it does not follow from the belief in an infinite being that we did not evolve. The difference is, those who believe in an infinite being claim that being caused the 1st step in our evolving, which is contrary to what non-theists believe.

0 Replies

Hi Hodgie I'm a newbie too - you obviously didn't hear me the first time.

0 Replies

boong wrote:

Hi Hodgie I'm a newbie too - you obviously didn't hear me the first time.

Sorry, hi

.

0 Replies

There are quite a few very intelligent species' in earth's past and present. And since intelligence is socially contructed anyway, I can't really see how yout could scientifically say anything about intellgence at all.

And what do you believe resulted in the first life? Let's get really specific here.

0 Replies

The whole question is based on generalisations, we are forced to perceive atheists, and 'non-theists' as two entities yet they consist of so many groups. I think what JLNobody stated was accurate. An individual who is incapable of simply dealing with the fact that another has a different religious mindset, or lacks one is arrogant, such individuals exist in both camps.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

There are quite a few very intelligent species' in earth's past and present. And since intelligence is socially contructed anyway, I can't really see how yout could scientifically say anything about intellgence at all.

And what do you believe resulted in the first life? Let's get really specific here.

I believe that we are the most intelligent species to live on the planet.

Chemical reaction gone wrong? I don't really know, if I did I would have won the Nobel Prize Laughing

.

0 Replies

I gotta go with theists. Both have great capacity for arrogance, but I've yet to see many examples of laws forcing atheism on others. (outside of communist nations at least)

0 Replies

It's my impression that arrogance usually refers to traits of individuals not groups. But if a group is characterized by having many arrogant individuals I guess we might call the group arrogant. To be a non-theist does not sound very aggressive or combative. I'm a non-theist (a word I like better than my usual term for myself: a passive atheist, one who simply turns away from theism as meaningless). Atheism, on the other hand, has acquired the image of aggression, of the activism and intolerance of a Madeline O'hare.

0 Replies

Arrogance in a foundation theory?
One ought to be more arrogant then the other?

Let's see,
(Some) theists say. Heck, I exist. I can't give any reasonable explanation for the excistence of me and everything around me. Did I evolve? From what? No, I'm created. By an infinite being.
atheists say. I exist. Pure coincidence.

this may be stating things very explicitly though. They (probably) are way more subtle then I say here.

Anyways, as long as there is no 100% solid prove backing either theory I'd say that anyone claiming to be an adherent of one of these believes, and stating in one way or another: "I know I'm right and you are wrong but I can't prove it." is arrogant.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but does an agnost by definition deny the existence of a supernatural(or divine) being?

Naj.

0 Replies

Naj, I think it is correct to say that an agnostic claims not to know whether or not there exist supernatural beings. One of our agnostics (Frank Apisa) says there is no "unambiguous evidence" for deciding with certainty either way. I reject the thesis of supernaturalism, not because I have unambiguous evidence to support atheism but because it makes no sense to me. It is not reflected in, or affirmed by, any of my lilfe experiences.

0 Replies

JLNobody,

I thought so. But in the debate above I started to bleieve that it meant denying there is such a thing as a supernatural being. I probably read wrong, I'm somewhat tired.
There are many things that exist out there that make little sense to me. This may be caused for a large part by my ignorance of many things out there. I therefor try to keep an open mind. Perhaps, someday, the senseless will become the sensible for me. Until that day, I have a long proces of learning and understanding to bridge...

Naj.

0 Replies

And I know how tiring it is to work in another language. Have a good rest. You did very well today.

0 Replies

Which group is more arrogant, atheists or non-theists?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know