Comment by Nelson on July 10, 2009 at 1:40am

this is either a request for clarification on something you wrote or, once you clarify what you meant, it may be a disagreement i have with something you wrote.

i'm not sure, again depending on what you meant exactly, that i can agree with your statements here:
"Then there are the groups of people within both categories who do not “claim” to know something, but rather say they personally believe/do not believe something to be true. This is the more diplomatic approach… and everyone does have a right to their own opinions."

in fact very very few atheists, a bare handful it seems to me really, would claim to Know there absolutely is no god (and you're right in saying that if they did they would be making an unjustifiable claim). but those that don't claim to Know there is no god do not "personally believe" there is no god as a matter of opinion. they live their lives as if there is no god because there is no evidence to justify believing that a god exists. it is not the case that people personally believe that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn. people are not of the opinion that there is no Celestial Teapot. most atheists, whether they know it or not, apply methodological naturalism to the question of a god's existence and find the hypothesis without merit. it isn't a personal belief or opinion, it's a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and a lack thereof.

the difference between atheists who claim Knowledge of the absolute non-existence of gods and the atheists who do not do this is that the atheists who do not make such a claim understand that the lack of evidence can only lead one to the conclusion that the probability of the existence of a god is vanishingly small, so small that it's not even worth considering, but that the possibility can't be ruled out.

understood this way it should be clear that it is really more appropriate to say "i conclude that a god probably doesn't exist, hence i am an atheist," as opposed to, "i personally believe/am of the opinion that a god probably doesn't exist, hence i am an atheist."

that may sound like semantics but i think it's an important distinction to make between the theists, a minority (most theists would tell you they Know their god exists), who claim only to believe rather than Know and the atheists, the majority, who have concluded on the basis of lack of evidence that the probability of a god existing is infinitesimally small, though not impossible, instead of claiming to Know.

Comment by Melissa on July 10, 2009 at 9:28am

It was a very big typo on my part, because that isn't what I meant. I am an atheist by the definition of "does not believe in a supreme being." I do not, however, claim there is no god. The people who I was referring to that don't pick any real side of the fence to be on usually call themselves spiritualists, or go through life thinking all religions are on the same peaceful page.

I agree with everything you said, and will probably have to fix my post to reflect my intention more. Thanks.

Comment by Nelson on July 10, 2009 at 5:18pm

ah, there we go! it was just clarification that i needed. it does indeed sound like we agree. :)

great first contribution to the forum btw Melissa. i wholeheartedly agree that atheists are often accused of being arrogant when what passes for arrogance for those making the accusations is simply the belief on the part of the atheists that truth matters, that people should be held accountable for their beliefs, that everyone's beliefs should be justifiable in order to be considered valid beliefs. according to that sad definition of arrogance i am certainly an arrogant atheist.

Comment by Jeremy Roney on July 11, 2009 at 4:16am

We go against the grain; we're the 5% minority that does not believe and that is trapped in a sea of believers. Placing myself in a theist's shoes I can definitely see how even a lack of belief in a supreme being could be seen as arrogant since it goes against several thousand years of majority belief. I might even go so far as to admit that we are somewhat arrogant, but rightly so if one accepts that evidence is required for belief. However, we're certainly no more arrogant than most theists... on average we're probably less arrogant since many of us don't actually claim that we KNOW there is no god.

Comment by Misty: Baytheist Living! on July 11, 2009 at 5:29am

I'm open to the idea of a supreme being.
However no matter how much I WANT to believe... logic, reason and science has made it impossible for me to do so. If I'm to 'have faith' when faced with temptation and doubt, isn't it the supreme being's responsibility to instill me with faith? If I have none, either that is the will of said supreme being, or it isn't supreme at all. With either case, why should I change what I'm doing now?
Arrogance is assuming you know the mind of a deity you can barely fathom. Arrogance is daring to speak for a deity that is willfully silent.
The definition of asshole is therefore anyone that doesn't agree with you and presents arguments to the counter.

Where's my scarlet A?

Comment by Melissa on July 11, 2009 at 12:21pm

Misty, I feel the same way. I am incapable of faith, as are all true atheists I'm sure. Evidence is required in order for me to even acknowledge a theory might be workable, and the case of religion is no different. IF there is a "supreme being," it would have created us with our religious deficiency. What does that say about this god? Not a whole lot.

I think humans are going through this transitionary stage right now thanks to the help of secular education, where we are realizing (slowly) that FAITH is unacceptable in every venue of life (faith wont fly an airplane or fuel your car, or keep the battery on your computer charged, etc). The more everyone's subconscious is catching on to this, the more sensitive on everyone is to confrontation on the surface. Maybe this is wishful thinking of me, but I am inclined to think that the seed of doubt has been planted in more people than we know, and religion will become the minority in just a few generations.

Comment by paddo on July 11, 2009 at 6:48pm

Guys I think your posts are absolutely spot-on.
The accusation of arrogance has been thrown at rational thinkers from Socrates on and probably before him. It is the last refuge of those who are slowly but surely losing the argument.
In my view there's nothing more arrogant than assuming the right to pollute the mind of a child with bigoted crap surrounding the petty middle-eastern politics of the bronze age. To use that same nonsense to imbue a sense of personal guilt in a child and then deny access to the light of reason is beyond arrogant: it's just fucking evil.
That is not something I've often seen an athiest do.
Thanks for the post Melissa. This one gets me on a bandwagon

Comment by Melissa on July 11, 2009 at 6:57pm

Paddo, I agree. Most atheists actually want their kids to learn about the different religions... I for one know I want my future kids to be well rounded individuals.

I don't know if you've seen this or not, but your post and grievance reminded me of a Daniel Dennett video from TED.com. Check it out if you enjoy that sort of thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTepA-WV_oE

Comment by Matthew on July 11, 2009 at 7:23pm

I agree with pretty much everything posted thus far but wanted to throw in a wrench. There are arrogant atheists out there, we're not all great and wise. I know that no one has proposed otherwise, but just thought I'd be "that guy" in this conversation.

There are precious few here on TA, but they are definitely about the place. I personally think that if all atheist communities were like TA, we wouldn't have it quite so rough in the "real" world. But maybe that's wishful thinking. And like you said in your post, Melissa, I think a lot of that arrogant/angry tone we sometimes take on is due to our generally despised position in society.

Am I making any sense here?

Comment by Melissa on July 11, 2009 at 7:33pm

Yes you are. I know several atheists who are just as irrational and obnoxious as the Kent Hovinds of the world. People will be people, I guess. I think it inaccurate to claim that the majority of our <10% minority is that way, however. A title given more out of fear than merit.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page