To me the true folly of religion is that they all attempt to explain things that the human species cannot, in its current ideological, scientific and physiological state, attempt to explain.

For that same reason, I find atheists to be just as arrogant as any devoted follower of another religion, because atheists are steadfast in their belief that there is no greater being. Atheism, is in a way, just another religion. because it relies on the blind faith that one can be certain of something he cannot measure or conceive of.

I am an agnostic. Agnostics simply believe that anything is possible, with varying degrees, of course. That there is an invisible man in the sky who wants me to burn for eternity if I don't follow his rules is a long shot as I see it.

I want to stress that I do not dislike or hate anyone for what they believe. Just because I believe you are arrogant doesn't mean I want to punch your lights out. I reserve my hatred for those who act in ways I detest or who have a proclivity to act in a way I detest or disapprove of because of their beliefs. And this hatred or disapproval is proportional to how severe I detest the idea or action. For instance, if you think it's okay to rape babies, I hate you.

Have fun with this topic, people!

Is it arrogant to presume that leprechauns don't exist until we have evidence for their existence?

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he thought God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about God, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.

Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so. - Richard Dawkins.

And he raises a good point. A certain member of this board laughs every time I ask him to disprove Raelianism. He can't disprove it, but he assumes that it is a false or erroneous or even a wacky belief system. The ironic thing is that this person is a mormon, perhaps the most bizarre Christian sect that parades fraudulent history as its central tenet. Why does this deserve more respect than people who believe in leprechauns?


Atheism is a faith in the way that not collecting stamps is a hobby or that bald is a hair colour. Your statement is nonsense.

If you do not believe in Osiris, Baal, Astarte, Zeus, Jupiter, Quetzalcoatl or Spirit Guides, is that a faith position?

Not believing in leprechauns isn't arrogant (in my eyes) unless a large group of people believe in them and believe they created the universe and that they upload some sort of moral absolutism. Then I'd say you were arrogant in any case to make a statement that you perhaps have some inkling as to how any all of "this" started.

Your response is well thought out and given your quotes you are probably well studied. I am not and am just humbly expressing that I feel certain people are arrogant because of their beliefs. If you refute my opinion that people who are atheists are arrogant, I get that. But your statements have not changed how I feel. Maybe I am arrogant to you. Doesn't matter to me.

In short, I was just saying I think people with concrete belief systems in regard to the universe and its creation and any sort of morality and whether something is truly wrong or right is arrogant. I am not well studied in this area and am not looking to offend anybody but I do hope I am understood. I apologise for my ignorance and relative lack of studied knowledge in this area and my inability to articulate my thoughts concisely. I do not apologise for thinking atheists are arrogant.

A lot of people used to believe that diseases were caused by bad smells. That doesn't mean it is either a) sensible or b) true. "Argumentum ad populum" is meaningless unless it is based on actual credible evidence. Tradition is meaningless too compared to credible evidence. And look at how they twist evidence to fit their preconceived ideas, there is nothing more arrogant than to start from a presupposition and work backwards.


No, I don't think you are arrogant at all. All i am saying is that your logic is flawed in several places. I get that you think religious people are arrogant to presume that they "know" their god exists and that they equally "know" all other gods and religions are false but the same cannot be said for atheism because all we ask is that believers provide evidence, I agree because when you ask them how they know they fall back to a faith position "Ah, I don't require evidence, I know it in my heart. Besides, those who doubt are condenmed". That is pretty poor argument. Evidence is not too much to ask is it?

Perhaps our definition of atheism differs. Or perhaps I am just ignorant in its meaning. I thought atheists stood firmly in the fact that there is no greater being. Maybe I should have done some research... college was a long time ago for me.

My main stance here, to paraphrase, is that I believe that any human who believes they can know the unprovable is arrogant. Yeah, I know that sounds arrogant because I believe unfailingly in the fact that right now humanity is incapable of answering "the big question", but I am not proclaiming my lack of arrogance, I am just stating how I see things.

Regardless, just so we can have some common ground here, you're on board with the whole hating people who think it's okay to rape babies, right?

I think there are more mormons than there are people who believe in leprechauns. And I think also of importance is the level of emotional heightening a believer undergoes when his belief system is challenged or attack. I think those factors (number of believers and passion of belief) beg respect.
In an unrelated topic, do you find it silly that you are arguing semantics and logic in response to a post about how someone finds a certain group of people arrogant? A group of people that you claim to belong to?

Emotion is irrelevant. I might get emotional at a film, but that doesn't change the fact that those events are fictional. Some people hate Titanic, others love it but you don't see lovers getting upset at the haters at any criticism of their favourite film, do you?


Why? I respect people's right to believe those things but why should I respect their beliefs?

My point is that I am arguing about things that are sensible, coherent and evidence based. \The god hypothesis is none of these things.

Different people are atheists for very different reasons. The three above are mine.

Nobody goes to war over films. Few sane people get as excited about a film as they do religion. You are kind of underplaying the whole "emotion" thing by comparing one's emotional response to a film to one they might feel about religion. How many nations have annexed territory in the name of Titanic?

Emotion may be irrelevant to you, but it is not to me. It can never be irrelevant in any situation no matter how illogical because it is a major factor in the human condition. As corny as that sounds.

For instance, I suspect your views on atheism are all based on emotional experiences even though you think you have logical reasons to refute Christianity and divine design, I am guessing there was some problem in your life or some negative affect that sparked your disagreement with religion. Perhaps if your past had been differently you would be arguing just as logically and intelligently for the case of God.
In fact, I can tell you are feeling great emotion, right now. You want to make out with me, don't you? You arrogant, sexy man you.

What exactly are we talking about here, though? A lot of people when they say they are agnostic rather than atheist, tend to mean that they are uncertain of the origin of the universe. What do you believe to be the 'big question'?

If we're talking about the origin of the universe, then this really is small beer as far as a concept like religion is concerned. Say you believe that an intelligent entity created the universe. I'd say, fair enough, there is little probability of science ever finding out what existed before the unvierse. Would this then justify all of the other supernatural elements of religion?

Not at all. No offense, but this smacks of religious arrogance, to assume that anyone who does not hold supernatural beliefs necessarily has some kind of chip on their shoulder, and only settled on their atheistic 'beliefs' in opposition to a rejected supernatural belief. On the contrary, it never occurred to me that religion was valid. As a kid I read about dinosaurs before I read about God. To me something like Noah's ark was just another story along with legends like Pandora's Box, other classical myths and fairytales.

I think you miss my point. Emotion is irrelevant to whether something is true or not. And it is. How can argumentum ad populum be relevant? How can one's emotional response to any hypothesis have any bearing on whether it is true or not?


No. I find the god hypothesis absurd when science explains so much.


Not at all. Why must any disagreement with religion be put down to some bad experience? My rejection of religion is based on
* False claims about science
* False claims about history
* The refusal to prove its claims
* The methods by which it perpetuates itself


That is a pretty big assumption you make there. I never found the god hypothesis to have legs, there really is nothing more to say. Now you ARE being arrogant in assuming that my rejection of religion is because of some emotional trauma. You know nothing of my past.

That is still irrelevant. Read up about Mormon claims about history, it's ridiculous! Not only is there no evidence to support the historical claims in The Book of Mormon, there is tonnes of evidence to contradict them yet there are still probably a few million Mormons worldwide. Lots of people used to believe in geocentrism but that didn't make it true, did it? Or do you think that such a belief is valid despite being demonstrably false?

You are bizarre to me. You haven't refuted the point I made yet you keep trying to argue with various pieces I have typed. I'm guessing you like discussing this stuff. I'm just here to post pictures of chicks. Guess I shouldn't have strayed into this forum, huh?

Do you often get accused of straying from the point?

Just because you claim your atheism isn't sparked by some emotional history doesn't mean its not. I am not calling you a liar, I just think you are deluded or in denial. But that's okay, everyone is. There are some schools of thought that think that all rational thought about a subject is just a response to some gut reaction they have had.

Just keeping you busy!

What does this ----> mean? Does it mean you are thinking the same way I am. You want to make out, right?

It's okay, big fella, these feelings are normal.

I am familiar with the mormons belief. Yeah, it's sheer fantasy but have you ever met a mormon chick? They are hot. All of 'em. I'm not kidding. Do you think it's all that salt in the water in Utah or the belief system that does that?

The reason I keep bringing you back to specific points is that you make statements and fail to back them up. I'm dragging you back to them because you keep running away from them. That's the sort of guy I am: if you can't back it up, take it back.

You keep running away from those points, do you get accused of that a lot?


But you don't know me so how do you know my rejection of the supernatural is an emotional response?


It means that I find you a bit odd.

Alright alright I'll try and back something up here. All this quoting and [censored] is WORK, man.

I agree. How many people believe in something has no bearing on its likelihood to be true. But when I mentioned that I was referencing my original point that atheists are arrogant (don't forget this is my POV ( full of corruption; my definition of arrogance and the degree to which arrogance upsets me) so the fact that we are arguing it is fukt). You defended atheists by saying that they are not arrogant. Your example went something like "blah blah so people who don't believe in leprechauns are arrogant." I mentioned that there is a little more gravity to believing in religion than believing in leprechauns (getting so sick of writing the word leprechauns). I wasn't talking about whether or not religion is true, I was saying that because so many people believe in religion that it is a sensitive topic and therefore this carries more weight than believing in leprechauns.

Believing in leprechauns does not carry with it the belief in knowledge of the existence of the universe moral absolutism etc. and therefore does not have much bearing on arrogance to me. I hope I managed to convey my point. I am getting a good buzz now so forgive my crude language.

You keep running away from some of my points too... like raping babies and hot Mormons so give me a break, man!

Oh, some of your vocabulary is beyond me. I'd ask you about it, but you'd probably tell me to look it up and i won't. And if you didn't tell me to look it up you'd explain it to me which actually seems even worse considering how early in the morning it is!

I am a hedonist so sadly knowledge is low on m priority list. Sorry!

Shall we change it to werewolves then? The point I was making was that many people disbelieve in werewolves and make an assertion about their existence that is on a par with atheists assertions about the existence of any god. What gravity is there? Time? Tradition? We already established that argumentum ad populum is irrelevant to what is actually true, didn't we? It isn't arrogance at presuming ourselves the pinnacle of existence, but a claim based on all evidence to the contrary.


But why does it and why should it? People used to believe that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. That was popular. Are people who presumed otherwise, and had evidence to suggest otherwise, arrogant?

By the way, I am open minded about the existence of a creator, but it must be demonstrated to have a sound basis.

I see. There's no need to be embarrassed or apologetic.

Well, knowledge is not a low priority for me considering my lifetime interest in the sciences and my professional interest in history.

To be fair, though, replace the belief in leprechauns with any major faith on the planet and you indeed have an arrogance, a belief in a moral absolutism. For very few people are simultaneously Hindu, Buddhist, Chinese Traditionalist, Wiccan, Christian, and Muslim.

There's no need to restrict ourselves to leprechauns and werewolves, someone just pick one of the above that not a single frequenter of the religion section believes in. Then we might have ourselves an interesting discussion, hmm?

Hello majin, first I just want to say a nice howdy and welcome aboard to SP!

Concerning the certain member matt is referring to would be me. And yes there are mormons then there are leprechans.

Anyhow, if matt thinks mormons happen to be the most bizarre christian sect that parades fraudulent history...well, that's his problem not mine.

I do know this...none of us were there when Joseph Smith saw what he said he saw,pertaining to the First Vision. There was at least 8 witnesses who saw the plates of brass which contained the record of the Nephites, an ancient people of the Americas and also there is the Inca and Aztec legend of the "White God", (Quixacalthal?), likely not the right spelling.

Then you have scriptures in the bible pertaining to events that describes the life and times of the ancient prophets and of Jesus himself. There were more than enough who did see and witnessed.

What I am trying to say that sometimes we need to look beyond our natural senses and believe...for me faith, is one of the main reasons why we are here.

Personally I have no problem in discussing whether or not God exists to agnostics or even atheists, so long it is a respectful matter, which the vast majority do.

But I am glad you did touch on the matter of trying to engage in a meaningful debate without it degenerating into frivolous hair-splitting.

I'd give you a passage by passage analysis of the historical inaccuracies in that book but I don't think you would be interested.

And the Kinderhook Plates issue was a little embarrassing for the early LDS church. Why don't you ask your Minister/Priest (or whatever the equivalent is) about them?

Holy freakin' sh!t. There is a mormon in here. HEEEEEELP! Let me out!

Do you two (matt and oldminer) just pick topics and steer them to where you need them to be to go to war? Holy freak town, I'm in the middle of angryville.

Well, Matt, it's been a slice. You're fun guy to chat with (even if you are arrogant {:P)

No offense intended Oldminer, just keep truckin' and stick with what you know if it makes you happy. Are you blonde? Can I have your sister's number?

I agree, Cobalt, I am being arrogant when I say that all atheists or in fact anyone (including myself) who boubts the existence of God to have this belief's foundation resting solely on a negative instance in history. I stand by this assumption. I do not care if I am arrogant. But don't correlate that belief with "religious" arrogance. Just arrogance will do if you don't mind.

mmmmmm... beer

Frankly that assumption would be better described as a groundless prejudice.

Yeah. I like that a lot better. Thanks, Cobalt!

No, he is just takes offence at everything I say and can't help bitching at me. I have offered to stay out of his way so long as he stays out of mine and he's unable to do that.


Come back any time!

You don't have the story quite right matt...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates

The Kinderhook Plate Incident was one of many attempts to prove that Joseph Smith was a fraud.It was claimed that Joseph Smith did hear about stories pertaining to more reformed egyptian artifacts,and wanted to study these so-called plates which the official magazine of the Church ran an article in 1981 citing that Kinderhook Plates were indeed a hoax.

The article also states that there was no proof that the Prophet made any attempt to translate those plates nor was there any evidence as far it is known that Joseph Smith took the matter of the plates as he did when working on translating other plates into the Book Of Mormon.

Further analysis of one of the plates done by the Chicago Historical Society along with BYU University and Northwestern University independantly of one another concluded that the craftmanship of the plates was likely a product of 19th century blacksmith craftmanship.

None taken...

I'm not exactly a blonde and no you can't have my sister's number but nice try ....anyhow, you'd be quite surprised to know that the greatest concentration of new converts to the Church happen to be hispanics.

And yes majin, you are most welcome to visit any one of meeting houses nearest you if you so desire.

Visitors are always welcome.

Hardly matt, I don't take any offence from anything you attempt to say.I merely wanted to clarirfy something you erronously said about the mormon church and of myself to majin.

Given that you indirectly mentioned me to him, it would seem that you have a hard time staying out of my way..or anyone else's.

Arrogance or overconfidence in one's beliefs, being a master of persuasion, or ridiculing beliefs of others does not mean one's beliefs are true. To see something with your own eyes does not mean it's true. To come up with a great logical argument favoring a belief does not make it true. Truth is more elusive than one would imagine.

As someone with a background in psychology, I have seen many people rationalize and intellectualize, to come up with one way or another of defending a core belief, often as a way of controlling or managing deep-seated emotions.

Of course some people do not think much of psychology so they might view this as nonsense. There are also those who do think highly of psychology but think that the opposite of what I say is true, that it is particular thoughts and beliefs that create emotional reactions, not the opposite.

In any case, this is what I think.

What's more, it seems easier to accept (and some atheists actually agree) that belief in religion is one way to comfort our existential anxiety, what some atheists view as an immature and childish way of dealing with intense feelings of loneliness, futility, and thoughts of death, common to us humans.

Yet I am often faced with resistance and denial, when making the same argument, this time targeting atheists. There is this sense of arrogance about having a "more mature" and "realistic" view, and a condescending attitude towards the religious. They fail to observe or simply hide their own existential anxiety and how logic/science falls terribly short of being comforting to them either. Science is functional in this world but very limited in terms of answering existential questions.

These atheists will speak from the same haughty positions, are irritatingly argumentative and persistent, dogmatic and uncomprimising, as the very people they despise, the patronizing religious people. Both are terribly sure that they have found the truth.

This, of course, does not describe all atheists I have debated. Similarly not all religious people are like this. And I am not exempt from this either. My emotions play a major role in what direction my arguments take and how stubborn I am sometimes.

As Pascal once said: “The heart has reasons that reason cannot know.”

Excellent post, Juicy.

In my experience, there is such a thing as absolute truth. The problem is that people, being flawed as we are, are incapable of knowing that truth absolutely. No matter what it is you believe, whether atheist, agnostic, or religeous, I can promise you, you have missed something. Somewhere along the line, every person has formed some belief that was based on a faulty assumption, incomplete information, emotional backlash from some previous event, hazy memory, or simple inability to correctly interpret the information.

It's like a detective trying to solve a crime with eyewitness testimony: everyone sees the crime from a certain point of view, but rarely does any one witness see the entire crime from start to finish. The detective has to piece together the event from multiple witnesses, each of which sees only a part of the crime. When the witnesses give their statements, they relate their own (probably flawed) interpretations of what they remember of the crime. The absolute truth will almost certainly lie "in the middle" somewhere (though some of those witnesses may be awfully darned close).


It is the absolute height of arrogance to casually disregard (especially in a condescending manner) the possibility that a person could be wrong, no matter what your belief system is. You are either flat out wrong or simply mistaken about something. So am I. So is everyone else.

Fair enough, but what you're talking about are essentially psychological mind games, and humanity's ongoing interest in trying to justify its existence. I don't think I personally have ever dismissed the therapeutic potential of religion in this regard. It is probably one of the most powerful forms of therapy ever devised, and that function probably explains some of its enduring populariy.

These questions are 'existential' in the sense that they relate to humanity's concept of itself, and what it means to be human. But they aren't 'existential' questions in the literal sense of "By what processes did humankind and the world come to exist?"

Now again, maybe it is the case that the 'therapy' is only effective if you are willing to pretend that some of the associated supernatural dogma is also true. In other words, you agree to ignore the man behind the curtain for your greater personal good.

Dbl never really substantiated his grand argument that "society will decline without religion" etc., but in this vein I do not pretend that atheism is any guarantor of social harmony and cohesion. Just because a godless worldview is scientifically correct, it does not necessarily follow that it will contribute to our well-being or happiness.





Yes, we should always question the things we take to be true and be able to find evidence to support them. Such scrutiny is the basis of all good science.

Of all truth.

Thank you Juicy juice, for clarifying a few things. A well thought out post. Unlike my frivolous yet well contested one.

You're welcome. Just my opinion. By the way, like your sig.