Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DaninGraniteCity · 12-02-2004, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legend

There is no reality... only perception.

Atheists and theists are as diverse as the variety of life here on earth... there is a general definition, but that is where it ends. All have their own reasons for being as such and all have their own attitudes toward the 'opposition'

Arrogance... a flaw... so what?

Acceptance of what another is may prove to be more rewarding than opposing him in every step and arguing his very being in every turn.

Truth may be indifferent to beliefs, but beliefs are all we have... including the perception that what we know is true. But actually, we are never truly sure that it is...

No matter how sure you are, how does that affect the world?

(Just some random ideas presented in random fashion)

POSTMODERNISM

lol

Asha'man · 12-02-2004, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plognark

You've got a point there, although I still think atheistic arrogance pales in comparison to the sheer egomania exibited by those "personal relationship with God" types.

Oh, I agree with you there. There is no question that a 'Personal God' is an amazingly arrogent belief, and atheistic arrogance tends to start and stop at merely thinking for oneself.

DaninGraniteCity · 12-02-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellardoor

I never discussed one's particular choice of religion in my previous post. I don't believe following a particular religion is either right or wrong. It sounds to me like the above statements you make relate to a particular religion's belief system or more specifically the individual’s interpretation of their religion.

We all believe in the uniqueness of the individual although this cannot be proved. Many people believe in the existence of god although this cannot be proved. I believe it is sad that many atheists choose to believe in nothing just because they have no solid proof. Many great scientific minds were very spiritual people - they lived for proving theories (in the most simplistic sense), and yet just because they had no proof in the existence of a greater presence, but they still chose to believe.

Although, most of the atheists I have met are very open minded intelligent people. However most of the deeply religious people I have met are close-minded arrogant bigots. So I am undecided as to whether the belief in god and all it entails is really a positive element to the world we live in.

What does spiritual mean to you? Can an atheist hold a spirituality? What about Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Richard Dawkins?

Triple Six · 12-02-2004, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

Why atheists are so acutely aware of the Supernatural and the Natural as being two completely separate things, one being part of the physical universe and other being a product of the human imagination, is something which I.am sure someone, somewhere, is studying.

I doesn't need much study at all. There is plenty of testable evidence for the natural and none at all for the supernatural. Simple as that.

spuleeah · 12-02-2004, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prof

But...if we simply allow ourselves to "assume" or "presuppose" that our God is the true God - without having to prove it - then somehow we are absolved of arrogance when we dismiss other people's God.

Neat.

Prof.

Prove it to who, Prof? You? Everyone? Are you saying that I can't believe in God and escape your label of arrogance unless I can prove it to you first? If I am convinced of the truth of the scriptures, and require no further "proof" for my belief in them, and from them deduce that you are arrogant...how am I arrogant in doing that? My epistemology conclusively yields the belief. Would you expect a court to have to conclusively convince a criminal that he is quilty before sentencing him? The court is provided with an objective authority to convict the criminal though he never admit guilt. The theist is likewise provided with an objective authority to evaluate the behavior of the atheist. The atheist has no higher authority than his own observations and reasonings from those observations. This can not serve as an authority to condemn anyone for anything. You can never logically move from observed behavior X to the conclusion behavior X is "bad" from the information provided by observation alone. Logic never can provide knowledge content of its own...so, observational facts is all you have. So, let the judgemental atheist shut his pie hole. It's a logical consequence of his epistemological position. He has about as much place to judge the thoughts and behaviors of the theist as a blind man has place to judge a beauty contest.

pharmakos · 12-02-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proud Atheist

I doesn't need much study at all. There is plenty of testable evidence for the natural and none at all for the supernatural. Simple as that.

I think that if it were that simple, every educated person would have no belief in the supernatural. Check out the link to the article that I posted on the previous page.

Why is it that I (among many) distinguished between the natural and the supernatural at a very young age. It's not because I'm a genius (I'm not). There are more intelligent people than I that do not demarcate between the natural and the supernatural. How, with all of the testable evidence available, are there people in this forum who believe in gods? How, with all the testable evidence available, are there people who believe in ghosts? Ghosts are odd because it means that there are people who believe in a something that is nothing. If that's not a brain bender I don't know what is.

spuleeah · 12-02-2004, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Since when did it become arrogance to recognize the limitations of reason and cognition?

Since they don't recognize their limitations that they have no place from their own epistemology to affirm the arrogance of the theist. Their judgmental affirmations are untenable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Since the theist relies on these qualities in much the same fashion, your remark is remarkably... incorrect.

You're horribly wrong. I, as a christian theist, depend on scripture for knowledge. Thus, I have a wealth of knowledge that the atheist can not claim to have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

The same evidence is available to the theist and the atheist. The atheist does not move beyond the bounds of what can be objectively - and thus mutually established. The theist does. Which is more arrogant? Those who accept the world as it is? Or those who reject it in favor of their own personal revelation.

You must be kidding. All interpret their experience of "the world". No one can "accept it as it is." What an idiotic thing to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Precisely what the theist is doing, I'm afraid. Your logic applies equally well to both sides of this debate.

No it doesn't. Read it again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

The theist insists on the existence of an untestable, unobservable, unverifiable addition to that information.

Since when did "verifiability" as you define it (being verified by the senses, I'd assume) become the "objective" standard of truth? Before you make any more untenable claims about theists doing something which is arrogant, why don't you verify your source of knowledge as true first (i.e. verify sense perception is a source of truth) like you require of the believer of scripture. Then perhaps you'd stop coming off as being so arrogant yourself.

spuleeah · 12-02-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

Why would this not also apply to the theist? In other words:

Because my epistemology provides me with all the knowledge I need to conclude the atheist to be arrogant, rebellious, and a supressor of truth.

spuleeah · 12-02-2004, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristen

To define atheists as having "arrogant, deluded, inflated image of self imporance" - is quite frankly ignorant.

To demonstrate me to be ignorant. You would need to demonstrate that I don't have knowledge. You would need to demonstrate how you have knowledge that I don't have knowledge. If you can not do that, you should refrain from making such arrogant comments as this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristen

I was baptized christian as a baby - grown up and find it to be bs. Why? Not because of a "arrogant, deluded, inflated image of self imporance" - but because if you apply logic to the statements the bible makes, the bible is gibberish, contradicting itself.
.

I'm sorry you so conclusively established that scripture contradicts itself. Since I have studied it quite a bit, myself, and find no such conclusive contradictions, I find it hard to believe you are geniune in your evaluation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristen

Now i'm not an atheist per se, i'm more agnostic.

I respect you more than the atheist for taking that stance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristen

but this dosen't mean the existence of a God is refuted. Just means we still don't know.

You're smarter than many an atheist here. I can commend you for that.

greyline · 12-02-2004, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spuleeah

You're horribly wrong. I, as a christian theist, depend on scripture for knowledge. Thus, I have a wealth of knowledge that the atheist can not claim to have.

Atheists are unable to read the scriptures?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.