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

I remain staunchly an atheist. I know that O'Hare has given persons like myself a bit of a smear, and I disavow her tactics, but not who I am.

0 Replies

Edgar, I know I can rely on you never to leave your post.

0 Replies

As I know the same about you.

0 Replies

limbodog wrote:

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)

Outside of the Soviet Union and China which between them probably had two thirds of the worlds population.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Hitchens is more arrogant than theists or atheists combined, but he's not always wrong.

This comment of his is not just arrogant, it's foolish.

First of all, not every religious believer believes that God-The Godhead cares all that much about the individual.

Secondly, religious beliefs are not, at all, synonymous with a desire to be supervised from cradle to grave. Even Christianity, which I suspect really ticks Hitchens off, generally doesn't hold to such a relationship between God and Man. Hitchens, apparently, has been too disgusted to read or hear about the concept of Free Will.

Thirdly, assuming there is a God-Godhead, which even a brilliant intellectual like Hitchens can't disprove, why is it arrogant to believe that he/she/it cares about each and every one of his/her/its creations. It's not arrogant, it's reasonable.

Ascribing arrogance to either belief tends, it seems to me, to be the work of those not comfortable in their own belief. Either can, if one chooses, to be interpreted as arrogant. So too can either be interpreted as a clear manifestation of humility.

We are not talking about politics here. In so narrow a human endeavor as politics we can clearly identify which side is arrogant and wrong. Cool

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

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.

A perfectly reasonable conclusion, and precisely the case argued by theists.

Ultimately it comes down to faith, which should make for an interesting after-life experience...or lights out!

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

limbodog wrote:
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)

Outside of the Soviet Union and China which between them probably had two thirds of the worlds population.

Yes, those being the communist nations I referred to.

I can understand why they'd want to get rid of sub-governments withing their countries when trying to acheive a lofty (in my opinion it is unacheivable) goal. I don't approve of it simply because I put freedom before teamwork (the freedom to not be a part of the team), but I do understand it.

But again, it seems to me the theists have a far longer track record of forcing their dogma on others than the non-theists have of the same.

Hence my decision to rank the theists a bit higher on the scale.

0 Replies

limbodog wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
limbodog wrote:
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)

Outside of the Soviet Union and China which between them probably had two thirds of the worlds population.

Yes, those being the communist nations I referred to.

I can understand why they'd want to get rid of sub-governments withing their countries when trying to acheive a lofty (in my opinion it is unacheivable) goal. I don't approve of it simply because I put freedom before teamwork (the freedom to not be a part of the team), but I do understand it.

But again, it seems to me the theists have a far longer track record of forcing their dogma on others than the non-theists have of the same.

Hence my decision to rank the theists a bit higher on the scale.

The atheists track record didn't begin until the advent of Communism.
(Do you really prefer "non-theists," and if so, why?)

The implication of your expression of comprehension of the Communists' motive is that you don't understand why some theists might not wish to tolerate atheists. Does it really puzzle you?

0 Replies

The Soviets are not representative of atheists in general. Much of the Communist population there remained Christian through it all, meaning the numbers of true atheists are in question.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The atheists track record didn't begin until the advent of Communism.

The atheists track record in the form of a government. but atheists and non-theists have been around much much longer. One could argue they were not in a position to force their views on others because the others were still in power to force their views on the non-theists.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

(Do you really prefer "non-theists," and if so, why?)

In my experience, 'atheist' is a loaded term and most seem to have decided it means one thing and only that thing. So rather than get into that argument (are atheists the so-called "hard atheists" who deem there is not nor can there be a god / are they the soft atheists who feel there is not but would accept strong evidence to the contrary / or are they the agnostics who feel we can never know) I use 'non-theist' which seems to neutrally encompass the lot.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The implication of your expression of comprehension of the Communists' motive is that you don't understand why some theists might not wish to tolerate atheists. Does it really puzzle you?

Um... Yeah, it does. I can understand if they don't want to tolerate the so-called 'hard atheists' who proclaim there is no god and there cannot be one. But I don't understand why one wouldn't tolerate the ones who are null-opinion on the issue saying that they'll go with the evidence and seeing no evidence for a god.

0 Replies

I like Limbodog's "hard atheism". I have always described myself as a passive atheist, a simple turning away, not moving against, theism. And I do so simply because theism does not make sense to me. Buddhism is officially atheistic in this sense. Hard atheism "believes in a No-God and worships Him." This kind of activist or aggresive atheism might best be called ANTI-THEISM, as opposed to the passive A-theism ("A" means "no").

0 Replies

jl
I almost became a Buddhist in the late 60s and early 70s. In the end, I settled for my personal atheism, that I might follow my own muse.

0 Replies

Edgar, I think that one doesn't have to be a buddhist to be a Buddhist. And I think that if one's head is packed full of fundamentalist theistic nonsense it is very difficult to appreciate the on-going flow of one's life--that is to me the essence of Buddhism, or Taoism--the same thing. My impression is that you are doing fine. You are "mellow."

0 Replies

I feel more in harmony each year. Life could not be better.

0 Replies

It shows. Same here.

0 Replies

edgarblythe & JLNobody:
You two are great, and I always enjoy your postings. These latest couple are very interesting to me because they say so much in a few words.
I am an agnostic, but that obviously doesn't prevent me from being an outright atheist, as edgarblythe states categorically that he is, and
as JLN implies that he is. JLN thinks that you can be a buddhist ,without being a Buddhist, and that well may be true, since in my particular case, I do
not accept the mystical implications of experiantialism and "awakening" requiring the non-
dualism perspective of our reality.....but in all other
non-religious respects, I go along with every position that JLN espouses.
Edgar says that he is more in harmony
each year, that life could not be better. I am in full agreement with him, and I believe this is because
of an intellectual {not spiritual), awareness ........
speaking for myself. In saying this, I am certain
that JLN wiould say the same thing....with perhaps
the addition of a "rider'.....the necessity of placing
your mental self over and beyond the burden of the dualism "reality"
What is the purpose of these observations ? Well, for one thing....there seems
to be a common objective , and happily, a common
attainment of this objective , albeit reached by different intellectual routes . It would appear that
each of us rationalizes his adopted position to suit
our ends....and the most obvious fascination is that
we are striving for that harmony with reality which is essential for making us "less unhappy" in a world
without meaning.
I really wonder how you will interpret this
posting.......I hope it is intelligible....well a wee bit, anyway! I am not even sure of the reason for posting it. At any rate, any comments?

0 Replies

alikimr
Yes, of course. It is not labels, such as agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Christian, but, rather, levels of self awareness. Inner harmony. Acceptance. What you will. I for one rarely categorize spiritual, intellectual, mystic - Just being.

0 Replies

Alikimr, you say that "we are striving for that harmony with reality which is essential for making us "less unhappy" in a world
without meaning." That seems to be what we are all trying to do. But you know, even though I do not consider it valid to claim that meanings are absolute and "given." I DO see the world--my world or our world--as very meaningful. The only difference is that all the meaningfulness of life is made by us. It's a product of our cultural heritage, a product of our language, our literature, our institutions, our philosophies and religions, our art, and on and on. The physical world, so-called objective reality, does not provide us with meaning, but it has provided us with the capacity to create meaning. That's good enough for me.

0 Replies

atheists, theists and arrogance.
Hi,

I'm an atheist - from as early as I can remember. I don't have a problem with others being theist. People should be free to believe as they see fit.

I think the issue of arrogance is down to individual personalities.

Uuffa.

0 Replies

I'm an atheist and I think I'm more arrogant than non-atheists, partly because of my personality, but mostly because atheism requires no faith...only facts...so it's easier to have confidence, i think.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know