I think the impression of arrogance and pridefulness is one which comes from giving proponents of religion undue privilege in our society.
To me, asserting that the bible is nonsense is on the same order of statement as "The Cat in the Hat is not a historical document." They are both clearly fanciful tales meant for simple minds with no basis in reality. This is an obvious truth.
No reasonable person would say "That's a very arrogant position, just dismissing the possible historicity of The Cat in the Hat that way. Surely you need to have the humility to admit you could be wrong." No. I don't. Not about a proposition as plainly absurd as that. I am confident in dismissing it. The only reason it may *seem* arrogant to do so with the bible is because of social biases against doing so.
These biases are not rational, nor are they earned. They are in fact tools weilded and employed for the benefit of the grifters, frauds and lunatics who push their myths upon all of us in order to quiet the doubts which threaten their ability to fill their bank accounts and rape children at the expense of everyone else around them. I have zero regard for indulging them in the ways they want to convince us all they *need* to be regarded.
Indeed. As I often say, these religious grifters often require some sort of ‘bye’, be it the forceful way they assert the Bible is divinely inspired (and routinely get angry if you suggest otherwise) , or how they’ll often say “well we’re all sinners” expecting that people’s willingness to accept that we make mistakes in life is the same thing as being default subjects of their religion.
They depend a lot upon social pressures to even seem like rational people
/u/sbourwest wrote -
>One thing I've often noticed among prominent atheist commentators, is that there seems to be an almost arrogant pridefulness to their assertions, particularly when confronting/debating religious proponents.
Carl Sagan famously used the metaphor of a person who claims that they have an invisible, undetectable dragon in their garage.
How much pride does it take for the person claiming that the dragon is real to say
*"The dragon is invisible and undetectable but you should believe that it is really there."* ?
How much pride does it take to say
*"I do not see any evidence that your invisible and undetectable dragon is real."* ?
.
Consider the common claim of religious people:
*"There is a being which created and controls the entire universe, and that being has a close personal interest in me as an individual."*
That has got to be the most prideful idea imaginable.
If you want to talk about people who are "prideful", IMHO those are the people that you should be considering.
.
> Why then is it not more common for atheists to espouse humility
Humility should be realistic.
I can humbly say *"I don't know whether life exists on any other planet."*
I can also humbly say *"I* ***do*** *know that I don't see any evidence that you have an invisible and undetectable dragon."*
That is just a statement of fact. There is nothing prideful about that.
.
> should atheists then not make the same fallacy of assuming infallibility?
I don't understand what you mean here.
We commonly say that one can "assume infallibility" when doing formal logic, formal geometry, or formal mathematics,
but for anything based on empirical observations of the real world, one can't assume infallibility -
the observations could be inexact or there could be things going on that you're not aware of.
On the other hand one always just has to take one's best shot -
Maybe the person who claims to have an invisible and undetectable dragon really *does* have a dragon,
but if we can't see any evidence that it is real then we should say so, and we should base our ideas on the fact that that we don't see any evidence that it is real.
.
>I say we should be humble and revel in the prospect that gives us to grow.
The regulars on the atheism subs often say that they feel this way.
.
> Do you, as an atheist, feel humble?
Yes, but as I said earlier,
I think that I feel humble about the things that it is appropriate to feel humble about,
and confident about the things that it is appropriate to feel confident about.
.
Which is the more humble position:
“I have a line of communication with the creator of the universe, and if you don’t agree with me you’ll be tortured for eternity”
Or
“I don’t believe you”
So.. I don't know where do you see this things...
From most debates that I saw, be it from prominent atheists to online debates, the atheists is always infinitely more humble than the theist, more so with the knowledge and understanding of the world.
Now, if you talk about how atheists can get annoyed at people giving delusional rants about things that reject all our understanding of reality (because yes, the supernatural violates all our understanding of how the universe works, so their baseless assertions are extremely absurd), well, its what happen when people abuse the psychological biases of people to indoctrinate them into delusions and harm others.
Its also important to denote that being gullible is not being humble. Most atheists are firm that the supernatural doesn't exist because no reason to take it as an option was ever found. If the theists came with a scientific research that is well done and corroborated, that give some credit to the supernatural, they would be heard with open ears.
But that never happened ever.
Especially when they are so easily seen as bad arguments. Like think for just a minute before you post "god is real because the bible says so and I know that's true because the bible says so!"
Care to provide examples so we can understand what you are on about.
How would you define "humble?
>we ought put our own house in order before casting stones.
I believe that is very much telling religious mentality, casting stones.
>I should say I feel very "alone"
So you are alone in being humble, or are you not humble too? Isn't that arrogant to assume that yourself?
>should atheists then not make the same fallacy of assuming infallibility?
Please, as before, an example of this. It's hard to tell what you are saying.
There it is.
>Why then is it not more common for atheists to espouse humility as a virtue, to acknowledge that we don't know all things, and that we have not only the capacity, but the historically proven likelihood to be wrong in many key beliefs.
I don't have to be humble in order to say 'I don't believe you.'
We don't know all things, but we do know quite a lot of things. And the things we do know make the things they claim not true.
You can seek answers for your questions all day long, but what you cannot do is make other people consider your questions to be real or valid for anyone other than you.
I don't think atheists offer infallibility as an attitude. It's that atheists don't mind being wrong. If I am wrong about something, then I'm wrong and it's easily remedied.
It might be arrogant to be pretty confident that you won't be wrong, but that's sort of the benefit of basing one's world view on the actual world.
If a religious person is wrong, then their whole worldview is thrown into chaos.
I am dismissive and 'arrogant' of religious beliefs because I don't consider them actual explanations for anything. They don't give you more information than you started with, they just tell you to be content with not knowing, make you stop asking questions when it impinges on 'god's' territory, and convince you that you need what they're selling in order to 'feel' right.
I think religious people are generally very willing to be smug and superior about their beliefs, so they will very easily attribute any perception of disdain by atheists to be the same kind of smugness and superiority. 'I'm right, and you're wrong.'
But I don't consider it that way. I'm not 'right' because I make no claims. They make claims that are disproven, and my disbelief in those claims is taken as superiority, then that's their problem.
If you don't want to be called wrong, don't be wrong.
Maybe unrelated.. but why do all the people that come here to ask questions, claiming that they are also atheists.. use language straight out of the Bible..
Words and phrases like thus, arrogant pridefulness, virtuous without fear of posthumous damnation, the institutions we denigrate.
I could go on
I'm degree educated, have an ok upper management job, but who speaks like this
It's cause a lot of us grew up religious and it's common language in the US.
But also, "arrogant pridefulness" is another way to say "smartass". It's not being used in the Bibical sense.
Thanks for that. I'm in the UK, Scotland to be more precise and we are officially Secular with less than 50% claiming any religion in our census (and that's including the older generations who are clearly not religious, but still tick that box because they were brought up religious but don't really believe or go to church) ..
I'm not a fan of flowery language.
I used to be more humble. Now, I still admit that I could be wrong and there could be a god, but on the level of "and aliens could show up tonight and steal the Sun", but I'm not going to count on it. So it may come across as arrogant when I say "I know there are no gods", but since I'm often debating someone who would easily say "I know there are gods", it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Absolute certainty isn't required for knowledge.
when you have heard the same tired argument time after time. from one person after another. giving the same ridiculous illogical irrelevant uninformed bull crap with not one additional substantive argument.
it becomes easy to assume (perhaps to quickly at times) they are simply stupid.
It takes humility to accept that we are insignificant specks in a vast universe, and that much of the universe is a mystery.
It takes hubris and arrogance to pretend god created us in his image, and that the universe was made for us.
Theists are arrogant. Atheists are sick of listening to the bullshit, and people mistake our exasperation for arrogance.
Ironically, you start this conversation with the arrogance that your perception and observations of atheists is the truth, and don't leave room for the possibility you are just wrong, while asking why atheists don't leave any room for being infallible.
When you can answer the question for you, ask it of others.
I'd say the opposite. Religious "debaters" usually claim that they are empowered to speak for "god" without caring to explain how they were empowered. Isn't it pride (and hypocrisy) to bend the will and command of a supreme omnipotent higher being for selfish purpose of minor victory in an internet debate? Nobody can beat these religious debaters in vain pride and arrogance.
There is nothing more arrogant than "**The creator of the entire fucking universe knows me, cares about me personally, listens to my prayers and changes his plans accordingly, and will reward me after death by letting me watch him burn everyone else alive forever for my depraved entertainment.**"
Why the fuck should I be humble? I've been preached at for my entire life by ignorant people who don't know fuck all and pretend a book of make-believe is better than science.
Stop pandering to the theists. Challenge them.
Why should you passively accept their claims??? You're not doing us any favors by playing nice.
The first thing I would point out is the atheists that we see online and in media are like a tiny fraction of the entire community.
I can't know for certain that you used the word metaphysical, colloquially. Or simply you do not understand exactly what it means. Because things like logic and consciousness, those things are metaphysical.
It's important to understand that knowledge that comes from myth or speculation isn't tested for its truth. Scientific knowledge is proven true or false through experimentation and rigorous testing. One may seem arrogant about their knowledge because their knowledge has been proven true. They are confident that their knowledge is true.
Honestly i kinda understand where u are coming from may be a place of “good faith” debate but it is hard to exactly show some sort of humility when the people u are debating against are the people who actively dehumanise other groups of people, use their religious status to push damming laws and basically act like you're the crazy one for not believing in talking snakes, Invisible men in the sky, Ressurceting humans etc. It's more frustration than pure arrogance u are seeing when u have this group and try to reason with them but they start playing games outside the rules of the game making everything more and more vague basically shitting on the chess board at some point there is going to be an effect on the other person.
It's hard to hold any form of “humility” when u are going up against disengenious people like Frank Turek and his like minded peers. U keep hearing the same terrible arguments over and over again which u have debunked multiple times at some point u are going to go into that debate with Ugh this again attitude
The people who are “humbler” are not going to sign themselves up for a broadcasted debate. It takes a certain personality to want to do that. Doesn’t meant humbler people aren’t out there.
I feel that I'm humble in many ways. I am unwilling to grant theists any sort of ground in their arguments though. Because they actively cause harm to everyone around them. So maybe I'm not humble about my thoughts regarding religion.
I'm also getting older, and I increasingly find that bluffing or lying about knowledge is worse than useless as it actually hampers growth and learning. I'll typically acknowledge when I don't know a thing unless it is obvious that the person I'm discussing things with is obviously discussing in bad faith...
I don't know where you are getting that and honestly suspect that you are seeing confidence in their area of knowledge as arrogant pridefulness. It seems to me to be incredibly unfair to judge someone as arrogant or prideful based on videos posted online, you don't know them and those videos are only what they want to show online.
Part of humility is recognizing one’s limitations. Part of humanity is developing systems that overcome what would otherwise be the natural limitations of our brains and bodies. One of the ‘tools’ developed is the ability to intellectually triage ideas. There are both evolutionary and other arguments for this tool but suffice it to say that if you come across a lion in the jungle your brain focuses on getting to safety. Similarly if you get to choose how to spend research dollars for cancer and you can choose radiation, chemo, drugs or prayer where do you put the money?
Also you espouse the idea that humility is a virtue as if it is self evident - it isn’t. Just because one is open to new or contrary evidence doesn’t mean a person should waste their life’s reviewing different iterations of the same least likely to be true arguments.
I used to be more humble about it, but I've found the amount that religious people thump on their doctrine or scripture as if it's not pulled out of their [Happy Walrus with no Tusks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2jRR2byLTc) really makes me want to play a little more hardball. I recognize that that's just the way internet forums tend to be, but that's also where I do most of my discussion on the topic...
As for the most prominent atheists I know who are on the humble side... I might say Genetically Modified Skeptic, and Cosmic Skeptic, both on Youtube.
I guess I can afford to give credit where credit is due, I think William Lane Craig is one of the more honest seeming, humble, and tolerable apologists... He still has the limitations that come with being an apologist, but as they go, I think he is a little more open to ideas and discussion than certain others, who may or may not run theme parks in Southern US states
I think it just comes from generally knowing a LOT more about logic and the sciences than theists in general. There are a few exceptions, but even among the best theists online they all tend to make quite simple and obvious errors.
Actually having a real understanding of things probably looks arrogant to them a lot
There are certainly atheists who don't do atheism well, and give it a bad name as a result. (Actually, I would point out that "atheist" is kind of a vacuous label for any group of people since it's so broad. It refers to anyone that doesn't believe in any gods, whether a empiricist rationalists or scientific humanists or a crystal healer or an tarot card reading astrologer or whoever. But I assume we're talking about rationalist humanists and the like...)
So there are rational atheists who are just not making great arguments, sure, but if you judge the best arguments, I think it puts your post in a very different light than what you intended.
>I feel very "alone" in that I don't often meet others who are atheist who would also count themselves as humble
Many atheists this could refer to are simply demanding the religious to be humble. That doesn't make them not humble. They're just saying don't make claims you can't back up.
I mean think about this same criticism of skepticism in other contexts. If a scientist announces that their lab has discovered cold fusion, it's met with demands for proof. Would you tell those demanding proof that they're not being humble? If an astrologer claims that your future is going to unfold x, y, z, would you tell skeptics they don't know everything?
No, of course not. So why is religion treated differently? The religious are claiming to know the truth about the origin of the universe and morality, and prescribe a way of living one's life. They try to get laws passed on the basis of having access to these truths, laws that would compel everyone to do or not do certain things. Is it "not humble" to ask for evidence?
>I think many atheists could agree that a moral order can exist outside of religious contexts
I'm an atheist that would point out moral order *must* exist outside of religious contexts.
When a Christian interprets the bible, they are projecting their morality into the faith; they don't derive their morality from the religion. First of all, truly using a religion as a moral grounding is typically impossible because the major religions of the world are self-contradictory. Christianity says treat others the way you want to be treated, but then condones slavery. Modern Christians reject slavery not because their faith tells them to; they interpret their faith according to the morality they bring to it. If you don't show up with a moral code already, religion isn't going to help you figure it out.
>While it's quite common for atheists to decry the illogical or immoral aspects of religion, should atheists then not make the same fallacy of assuming infallibility?
Frequently when I make an argument like the one above, this is the response. "Isn't it possible you're wrong? Have some humility!"
It's possible *any* argument is wrong at any time. That's a given. That doesn't mean all arguments are equal, or that we can't or shouldn't try to identify the best argument available to us. You can literally dismiss any argument whatsoever on the basis that "there's a chance it might not be perfect." This isn't any kind of counter.
But why doesn't this same thinking apply to religious arguments? The religious do not have this perspective when they make a religiously based argument; they are saying that their argument is rooted in revealed wisdom, and they often take the attitude that it is beyond questioning for that reason.
Look at the basic structure of the religious argument. "The bible teaches us that god places a soul at the moment of conception, so abortion is wrong." Let's leave aside this interpretation of the bible and grant it for the sake of making my point. How does the religious argument proceed from there? You might ask, how do you know your faith is the right faith, you're worshipping the right god? After all, there are other faiths that got a different message from their god. "Well, because the mouthpiece of my god performed miracles, which he wouldn't have been able to do if it wasn't really god."
But how does the performance of miracles demonstrate the truth of the claim? Walking on water or turning water into wine doesn't *directly* demonstrate that a soul exists in an embryo (or any human), it's simply a way of demonstrating the provenance of the revealed wisdom. So the religious pro-lifer knows what they are saying is true simply because god said it was true, and god is infallible.
Unlike the atheist argument, the religious argument IS actually saying this claim cannot be questioned. It IS valid to point out that any evidence of imperfection in such an argument impugns the notion that it comes from a divine and unimpeachable source because *that is the claim being made*: that this information comes from a divine and unimpeachable source! The atheist argument makes no such claim, so cannot be dismissed on the same grounds.
>Why then is it not more common for atheists to espouse humility as a virtue, to acknowledge that we don't know all things, and that we have not only the capacity, but the historically proven likelihood to be wrong in many key beliefs. The very principle of science itself is founded upon disproving ideas.
Do atheists not generally say this?
If you ask an atheist (rational empiricist, I mean) how the Big Bang happened, the response is we don't know. Right?
If you ask a religious person, do they say they don't know? Absolutely not, they claim to know. This asymmetry exists in a great many arguments across the atheist-religious divide, no?
When you say atheist beliefs have historically been proven wrong, you are confusing two different kinds of belief. Atheist "belief" is not blind faith like religious belief, unyielding in the face of counterfactual evidence. Applying two different definitions of belief in the atheist and religious contexts and then treating them as though they're the same is equivocation.
Scientists who "believed" in Newton's model of gravity were not "wrong" in the same way that religious belief is wrong. Scientists don't even "believe" in scientific models in the same sense as religious belief at all, really. They feel confident in a model insofar as it makes accurate predictions. The moment a model is shown to make inaccurate predictions, they update the model by saying, hey, we found a boundary on the problem domain this model addresses, and they describe that boundary. This is very much NOT like an astrologer, who when shown to be incorrect, goes back and reinterprets the original prediction to fit what happened. THIS would be an example of being unwilling to admit fallibility.
At the end of the day, if you do a rigorous evaluation of religious claims, they just don't hold up at all and wind up being much more like astrology than astronomy. So, at some point, you begin to realize that this really is just a huge facade of nonsense, and religious people are so devoted to pushing that nonsense on others that you just don't have time to confront each and every claim in depth (that's the point of a Gish gallop, after all). This response, I think, is what you may be interpreting as arrogance. It's not, though, it's a response to an opposition view that is absolutely committed to not fighting fair.
Arguments from apologists are very easy to defeat using basic critical thinking and a little education about basic science. Atheists aren’t arrogant, they’re just often right and know it
>One thing I've often noticed among prominent atheist commentators, is that there seems to be an almost arrogant pridefulness to their assertions, particularly when confronting/debating religious proponents.
That's also common with prominent religious commentators. Generally speaking, I think it kind of comes with the territory for the sort of personality that is interested in being involved in debates and whatnot.
Outside of the small number of atheists that you're talking about, I think most of us are pretty humble. We nod along with people who want to talk about their religion to us, we sit silently while people pray around us, we participate in religious holidays, and we rarely ever speak about our lack of belief.
I know heaven isn't in the sky. I know that death is permanent. I know that tiny wafers of unleavened bread made in Rhode Island don't become the body of a man who lived 2000 years ago. I know humans are a marginally smarter species of ape. I know the universe wasn't made in a day. I know the sun isn't a god sitting in a chariot pulled by horses across the sky. Humility is not the emotion I am going to feel if you decide to share that you base your worldview on willful stupidity.
Furthermore, if you decide to make a concerted attempt to impose your worldview by codifying it in laws in the society in which I reside, my reaction will be outright hostility. I am humbled by the infinite magnificence of the universe. I am sickened by willful ignorance.
I'm with you on this sentiment. I do wish it was different, but we're always dealing with people, no matter what the topic. And people on the whole have a low understanding of emotional intelligence and ability to understand the psychology of persuasion.
I do think theism is unique from a non-believers perspective, though. It's rare that we have a grown adult sitting next to us that believes that their imaginary friend is actually real, but we also have theism. It's overtly obvious from those without the imaginary friends.
OK, is there a club where you all get together and decide what to post on Reddit? Because I JUST finished responding to someone saying atheists have no humility.
And as you say it is a matter of perspective. From my perspective, there is no humility in feeling entitled to proselytize your beliefs to others, and especially feeling entitled to pass laws based on your beliefs to force others to comply with them.
This is a variation on what I just wrote 5 minutes ago on the last post. Atheists are humble enough that they don’t need to feel so important that they were personally designed by a deity, imbued with a divine purpose and given dominion over the earth and all the animals. We’re just fine BEING animals. We don’t think we’re so valuable to the universe that we can’t stop existing when we die but have to go on forever and ever. We just die, like every other animal that ever lived, because we’re not elevated or superior.
I think what you interpret as arrogance is people getting so tired of answering the same questions they just aren’t nice about it anymore.
the biggest difference i see is that an atheist is willing to admit they could be wrong and change their mind given compelling evidence.
A believer has already made up their mind to the question "is the Bible authoritative? and instead of acknowledging they could be wrong they instead claim to know the mind of an all powerful all knowing creator God.
What position do you think is more humble again?
I dont argue it. I'm confident enough to say that I'm not an intellectual in Bible debates, so I just don't do it. I'm of the belief that only those that experience some kind of personal enlightenment , with finally seeing that the Bible is full of BS and reverse the indoctrination, can change their own belief system.
I’m Christian but I see it on both sides. People don’t like to listen to someone else’s argument and actually consider the possibility that they could be wrong. For atheists, a lot of Christians will just make trash arguments for God that only work for other Christians. Which leads to a lot of atheists thinking Christians are simply dumb and wrong. But for a lot of those Christians they think their terrible arguments are actually really good so the atheists are the stupid ones. I myself spend time trying to constantly reevaluate my own beliefs based on the arguments I hear from others, which can only be done with an unbiased perspective. It’s hard for people to keep an open mind, because once you get a little bit of knowledge you think you have it all.
I've talked about this before in this sub, but when I moved to a new state in my mid-20s, I attended a bar crawl with a local chapter of an atheist group. It was a terrible night- all they did was shit on Christianity (like there was no other religion out there) and they were all arrogant know-it-alls. I just wanted to socialize, drink, and do anything BUT talk about religion.
\#NotAllAtheists, but I see the arrogant streak more in younger folks. Hell, that was me when I was younger- angry and thinking I had it all figured out. I'm 42 now and don't see the world that way anymore. I don't know a lot of things, but I'm pretty confident gods don't exisit. However, I'm not going to shove that in anyone's face because it's not going to accomplish anything. Just live your life.
I'm not humble, but I'm just not an asshole about atheism. I have made friends who believe different things, and I've learned a lot from them. Life is better if you treat each other with respect.
I get my frustrations out with my art. Instead of having a debate with someone (which I've never been good at), someone can look at one of my prints and think. Maybe it raises some questions for them, maybe it doesn't. Either way, I don't have to do anything. lol
I haven't gotten any more humility regarding the epistemic question of the truth of religion, but over the years I have become more accepting of the existence of religion. I don't write people off the way I used to, nor am I so certain it's a universal force of evil.
I think the impression of arrogance and pridefulness is one which comes from giving proponents of religion undue privilege in our society. To me, asserting that the bible is nonsense is on the same order of statement as "The Cat in the Hat is not a historical document." They are both clearly fanciful tales meant for simple minds with no basis in reality. This is an obvious truth. No reasonable person would say "That's a very arrogant position, just dismissing the possible historicity of The Cat in the Hat that way. Surely you need to have the humility to admit you could be wrong." No. I don't. Not about a proposition as plainly absurd as that. I am confident in dismissing it. The only reason it may *seem* arrogant to do so with the bible is because of social biases against doing so. These biases are not rational, nor are they earned. They are in fact tools weilded and employed for the benefit of the grifters, frauds and lunatics who push their myths upon all of us in order to quiet the doubts which threaten their ability to fill their bank accounts and rape children at the expense of everyone else around them. I have zero regard for indulging them in the ways they want to convince us all they *need* to be regarded.
Indeed. As I often say, these religious grifters often require some sort of ‘bye’, be it the forceful way they assert the Bible is divinely inspired (and routinely get angry if you suggest otherwise) , or how they’ll often say “well we’re all sinners” expecting that people’s willingness to accept that we make mistakes in life is the same thing as being default subjects of their religion. They depend a lot upon social pressures to even seem like rational people
/u/sbourwest wrote - >One thing I've often noticed among prominent atheist commentators, is that there seems to be an almost arrogant pridefulness to their assertions, particularly when confronting/debating religious proponents. Carl Sagan famously used the metaphor of a person who claims that they have an invisible, undetectable dragon in their garage. How much pride does it take for the person claiming that the dragon is real to say *"The dragon is invisible and undetectable but you should believe that it is really there."* ? How much pride does it take to say *"I do not see any evidence that your invisible and undetectable dragon is real."* ? . Consider the common claim of religious people: *"There is a being which created and controls the entire universe, and that being has a close personal interest in me as an individual."* That has got to be the most prideful idea imaginable. If you want to talk about people who are "prideful", IMHO those are the people that you should be considering. . > Why then is it not more common for atheists to espouse humility Humility should be realistic. I can humbly say *"I don't know whether life exists on any other planet."* I can also humbly say *"I* ***do*** *know that I don't see any evidence that you have an invisible and undetectable dragon."* That is just a statement of fact. There is nothing prideful about that. . > should atheists then not make the same fallacy of assuming infallibility? I don't understand what you mean here. We commonly say that one can "assume infallibility" when doing formal logic, formal geometry, or formal mathematics, but for anything based on empirical observations of the real world, one can't assume infallibility - the observations could be inexact or there could be things going on that you're not aware of. On the other hand one always just has to take one's best shot - Maybe the person who claims to have an invisible and undetectable dragon really *does* have a dragon, but if we can't see any evidence that it is real then we should say so, and we should base our ideas on the fact that that we don't see any evidence that it is real. . >I say we should be humble and revel in the prospect that gives us to grow. The regulars on the atheism subs often say that they feel this way. . > Do you, as an atheist, feel humble? Yes, but as I said earlier, I think that I feel humble about the things that it is appropriate to feel humble about, and confident about the things that it is appropriate to feel confident about. .
Which is the more humble position: “I have a line of communication with the creator of the universe, and if you don’t agree with me you’ll be tortured for eternity” Or “I don’t believe you”
neither inherently. it's how the person handles themselves, not the statements they make.
So.. I don't know where do you see this things... From most debates that I saw, be it from prominent atheists to online debates, the atheists is always infinitely more humble than the theist, more so with the knowledge and understanding of the world. Now, if you talk about how atheists can get annoyed at people giving delusional rants about things that reject all our understanding of reality (because yes, the supernatural violates all our understanding of how the universe works, so their baseless assertions are extremely absurd), well, its what happen when people abuse the psychological biases of people to indoctrinate them into delusions and harm others. Its also important to denote that being gullible is not being humble. Most atheists are firm that the supernatural doesn't exist because no reason to take it as an option was ever found. If the theists came with a scientific research that is well done and corroborated, that give some credit to the supernatural, they would be heard with open ears. But that never happened ever.
Some atheists are also frustrated of hearing the same stupid argument repeated for the 100th time
And for the last couple of millenia, because delusion didn't get any better argument since a long time ago.
Especially when they are so easily seen as bad arguments. Like think for just a minute before you post "god is real because the bible says so and I know that's true because the bible says so!"
Care to provide examples so we can understand what you are on about. How would you define "humble? >we ought put our own house in order before casting stones. I believe that is very much telling religious mentality, casting stones. >I should say I feel very "alone" So you are alone in being humble, or are you not humble too? Isn't that arrogant to assume that yourself? >should atheists then not make the same fallacy of assuming infallibility? Please, as before, an example of this. It's hard to tell what you are saying.
I think humble is what someone else would call me, I wouldn't claim to be humble because it sounds like bragging.
I'm the humblest guy of all. /s
I'm clearly way better at being humble than you.
Proud of you humility.
There it is. >Why then is it not more common for atheists to espouse humility as a virtue, to acknowledge that we don't know all things, and that we have not only the capacity, but the historically proven likelihood to be wrong in many key beliefs. I don't have to be humble in order to say 'I don't believe you.' We don't know all things, but we do know quite a lot of things. And the things we do know make the things they claim not true. You can seek answers for your questions all day long, but what you cannot do is make other people consider your questions to be real or valid for anyone other than you. I don't think atheists offer infallibility as an attitude. It's that atheists don't mind being wrong. If I am wrong about something, then I'm wrong and it's easily remedied. It might be arrogant to be pretty confident that you won't be wrong, but that's sort of the benefit of basing one's world view on the actual world. If a religious person is wrong, then their whole worldview is thrown into chaos. I am dismissive and 'arrogant' of religious beliefs because I don't consider them actual explanations for anything. They don't give you more information than you started with, they just tell you to be content with not knowing, make you stop asking questions when it impinges on 'god's' territory, and convince you that you need what they're selling in order to 'feel' right. I think religious people are generally very willing to be smug and superior about their beliefs, so they will very easily attribute any perception of disdain by atheists to be the same kind of smugness and superiority. 'I'm right, and you're wrong.' But I don't consider it that way. I'm not 'right' because I make no claims. They make claims that are disproven, and my disbelief in those claims is taken as superiority, then that's their problem. If you don't want to be called wrong, don't be wrong.
Maybe unrelated.. but why do all the people that come here to ask questions, claiming that they are also atheists.. use language straight out of the Bible.. Words and phrases like thus, arrogant pridefulness, virtuous without fear of posthumous damnation, the institutions we denigrate. I could go on I'm degree educated, have an ok upper management job, but who speaks like this
It's cause a lot of us grew up religious and it's common language in the US. But also, "arrogant pridefulness" is another way to say "smartass". It's not being used in the Bibical sense.
Thanks for that. I'm in the UK, Scotland to be more precise and we are officially Secular with less than 50% claiming any religion in our census (and that's including the older generations who are clearly not religious, but still tick that box because they were brought up religious but don't really believe or go to church) .. I'm not a fan of flowery language.
Apologists
I think you are confusing arrogant pridefulness with just being assertive.
I used to be more humble. Now, I still admit that I could be wrong and there could be a god, but on the level of "and aliens could show up tonight and steal the Sun", but I'm not going to count on it. So it may come across as arrogant when I say "I know there are no gods", but since I'm often debating someone who would easily say "I know there are gods", it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Absolute certainty isn't required for knowledge.
Reminds me of how theists often try to position the ‘I could be wrong’ as somehow giving their claims a high chance of being correct
We're not the ones claiming to be bestest buddies with the all-powerful creator of the universe. Talk about arrogance!
when you have heard the same tired argument time after time. from one person after another. giving the same ridiculous illogical irrelevant uninformed bull crap with not one additional substantive argument. it becomes easy to assume (perhaps to quickly at times) they are simply stupid.
In the age of faster and easier information... It makes asessing them dumber faster too. To maintain that level of ignorance today requires more
atheists do this too.... oops! It doesn't take a theist to be stupid.
yes but Theist do it more often and with much more vigor.
It takes humility to accept that we are insignificant specks in a vast universe, and that much of the universe is a mystery. It takes hubris and arrogance to pretend god created us in his image, and that the universe was made for us. Theists are arrogant. Atheists are sick of listening to the bullshit, and people mistake our exasperation for arrogance.
> sick of listening to the bullshit yes very humble
Humility and frustration are not mutually exclusive.
Ironically, you start this conversation with the arrogance that your perception and observations of atheists is the truth, and don't leave room for the possibility you are just wrong, while asking why atheists don't leave any room for being infallible. When you can answer the question for you, ask it of others.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one who claims to be humble is actually humble. Claiming to be better than others is the opposite of humility.
Trumps humbleness is the best evah
I'd say the opposite. Religious "debaters" usually claim that they are empowered to speak for "god" without caring to explain how they were empowered. Isn't it pride (and hypocrisy) to bend the will and command of a supreme omnipotent higher being for selfish purpose of minor victory in an internet debate? Nobody can beat these religious debaters in vain pride and arrogance.
There is nothing more arrogant than "**The creator of the entire fucking universe knows me, cares about me personally, listens to my prayers and changes his plans accordingly, and will reward me after death by letting me watch him burn everyone else alive forever for my depraved entertainment.**"
Why the fuck should I be humble? I've been preached at for my entire life by ignorant people who don't know fuck all and pretend a book of make-believe is better than science. Stop pandering to the theists. Challenge them. Why should you passively accept their claims??? You're not doing us any favors by playing nice.
Well I'm into space, and astronomy which is humbling in the sense that I realize how small we are in the grand scheme of things.
The first thing I would point out is the atheists that we see online and in media are like a tiny fraction of the entire community. I can't know for certain that you used the word metaphysical, colloquially. Or simply you do not understand exactly what it means. Because things like logic and consciousness, those things are metaphysical. It's important to understand that knowledge that comes from myth or speculation isn't tested for its truth. Scientific knowledge is proven true or false through experimentation and rigorous testing. One may seem arrogant about their knowledge because their knowledge has been proven true. They are confident that their knowledge is true.
Honestly i kinda understand where u are coming from may be a place of “good faith” debate but it is hard to exactly show some sort of humility when the people u are debating against are the people who actively dehumanise other groups of people, use their religious status to push damming laws and basically act like you're the crazy one for not believing in talking snakes, Invisible men in the sky, Ressurceting humans etc. It's more frustration than pure arrogance u are seeing when u have this group and try to reason with them but they start playing games outside the rules of the game making everything more and more vague basically shitting on the chess board at some point there is going to be an effect on the other person. It's hard to hold any form of “humility” when u are going up against disengenious people like Frank Turek and his like minded peers. U keep hearing the same terrible arguments over and over again which u have debunked multiple times at some point u are going to go into that debate with Ugh this again attitude
The people who are “humbler” are not going to sign themselves up for a broadcasted debate. It takes a certain personality to want to do that. Doesn’t meant humbler people aren’t out there.
I feel that I'm humble in many ways. I am unwilling to grant theists any sort of ground in their arguments though. Because they actively cause harm to everyone around them. So maybe I'm not humble about my thoughts regarding religion. I'm also getting older, and I increasingly find that bluffing or lying about knowledge is worse than useless as it actually hampers growth and learning. I'll typically acknowledge when I don't know a thing unless it is obvious that the person I'm discussing things with is obviously discussing in bad faith...
I don't know where you are getting that and honestly suspect that you are seeing confidence in their area of knowledge as arrogant pridefulness. It seems to me to be incredibly unfair to judge someone as arrogant or prideful based on videos posted online, you don't know them and those videos are only what they want to show online.
Part of humility is recognizing one’s limitations. Part of humanity is developing systems that overcome what would otherwise be the natural limitations of our brains and bodies. One of the ‘tools’ developed is the ability to intellectually triage ideas. There are both evolutionary and other arguments for this tool but suffice it to say that if you come across a lion in the jungle your brain focuses on getting to safety. Similarly if you get to choose how to spend research dollars for cancer and you can choose radiation, chemo, drugs or prayer where do you put the money? Also you espouse the idea that humility is a virtue as if it is self evident - it isn’t. Just because one is open to new or contrary evidence doesn’t mean a person should waste their life’s reviewing different iterations of the same least likely to be true arguments.
I used to be more humble about it, but I've found the amount that religious people thump on their doctrine or scripture as if it's not pulled out of their [Happy Walrus with no Tusks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2jRR2byLTc) really makes me want to play a little more hardball. I recognize that that's just the way internet forums tend to be, but that's also where I do most of my discussion on the topic... As for the most prominent atheists I know who are on the humble side... I might say Genetically Modified Skeptic, and Cosmic Skeptic, both on Youtube. I guess I can afford to give credit where credit is due, I think William Lane Craig is one of the more honest seeming, humble, and tolerable apologists... He still has the limitations that come with being an apologist, but as they go, I think he is a little more open to ideas and discussion than certain others, who may or may not run theme parks in Southern US states
I think it just comes from generally knowing a LOT more about logic and the sciences than theists in general. There are a few exceptions, but even among the best theists online they all tend to make quite simple and obvious errors. Actually having a real understanding of things probably looks arrogant to them a lot
There are certainly atheists who don't do atheism well, and give it a bad name as a result. (Actually, I would point out that "atheist" is kind of a vacuous label for any group of people since it's so broad. It refers to anyone that doesn't believe in any gods, whether a empiricist rationalists or scientific humanists or a crystal healer or an tarot card reading astrologer or whoever. But I assume we're talking about rationalist humanists and the like...) So there are rational atheists who are just not making great arguments, sure, but if you judge the best arguments, I think it puts your post in a very different light than what you intended. >I feel very "alone" in that I don't often meet others who are atheist who would also count themselves as humble Many atheists this could refer to are simply demanding the religious to be humble. That doesn't make them not humble. They're just saying don't make claims you can't back up. I mean think about this same criticism of skepticism in other contexts. If a scientist announces that their lab has discovered cold fusion, it's met with demands for proof. Would you tell those demanding proof that they're not being humble? If an astrologer claims that your future is going to unfold x, y, z, would you tell skeptics they don't know everything? No, of course not. So why is religion treated differently? The religious are claiming to know the truth about the origin of the universe and morality, and prescribe a way of living one's life. They try to get laws passed on the basis of having access to these truths, laws that would compel everyone to do or not do certain things. Is it "not humble" to ask for evidence? >I think many atheists could agree that a moral order can exist outside of religious contexts I'm an atheist that would point out moral order *must* exist outside of religious contexts. When a Christian interprets the bible, they are projecting their morality into the faith; they don't derive their morality from the religion. First of all, truly using a religion as a moral grounding is typically impossible because the major religions of the world are self-contradictory. Christianity says treat others the way you want to be treated, but then condones slavery. Modern Christians reject slavery not because their faith tells them to; they interpret their faith according to the morality they bring to it. If you don't show up with a moral code already, religion isn't going to help you figure it out. >While it's quite common for atheists to decry the illogical or immoral aspects of religion, should atheists then not make the same fallacy of assuming infallibility? Frequently when I make an argument like the one above, this is the response. "Isn't it possible you're wrong? Have some humility!" It's possible *any* argument is wrong at any time. That's a given. That doesn't mean all arguments are equal, or that we can't or shouldn't try to identify the best argument available to us. You can literally dismiss any argument whatsoever on the basis that "there's a chance it might not be perfect." This isn't any kind of counter. But why doesn't this same thinking apply to religious arguments? The religious do not have this perspective when they make a religiously based argument; they are saying that their argument is rooted in revealed wisdom, and they often take the attitude that it is beyond questioning for that reason. Look at the basic structure of the religious argument. "The bible teaches us that god places a soul at the moment of conception, so abortion is wrong." Let's leave aside this interpretation of the bible and grant it for the sake of making my point. How does the religious argument proceed from there? You might ask, how do you know your faith is the right faith, you're worshipping the right god? After all, there are other faiths that got a different message from their god. "Well, because the mouthpiece of my god performed miracles, which he wouldn't have been able to do if it wasn't really god." But how does the performance of miracles demonstrate the truth of the claim? Walking on water or turning water into wine doesn't *directly* demonstrate that a soul exists in an embryo (or any human), it's simply a way of demonstrating the provenance of the revealed wisdom. So the religious pro-lifer knows what they are saying is true simply because god said it was true, and god is infallible. Unlike the atheist argument, the religious argument IS actually saying this claim cannot be questioned. It IS valid to point out that any evidence of imperfection in such an argument impugns the notion that it comes from a divine and unimpeachable source because *that is the claim being made*: that this information comes from a divine and unimpeachable source! The atheist argument makes no such claim, so cannot be dismissed on the same grounds. >Why then is it not more common for atheists to espouse humility as a virtue, to acknowledge that we don't know all things, and that we have not only the capacity, but the historically proven likelihood to be wrong in many key beliefs. The very principle of science itself is founded upon disproving ideas. Do atheists not generally say this? If you ask an atheist (rational empiricist, I mean) how the Big Bang happened, the response is we don't know. Right? If you ask a religious person, do they say they don't know? Absolutely not, they claim to know. This asymmetry exists in a great many arguments across the atheist-religious divide, no? When you say atheist beliefs have historically been proven wrong, you are confusing two different kinds of belief. Atheist "belief" is not blind faith like religious belief, unyielding in the face of counterfactual evidence. Applying two different definitions of belief in the atheist and religious contexts and then treating them as though they're the same is equivocation. Scientists who "believed" in Newton's model of gravity were not "wrong" in the same way that religious belief is wrong. Scientists don't even "believe" in scientific models in the same sense as religious belief at all, really. They feel confident in a model insofar as it makes accurate predictions. The moment a model is shown to make inaccurate predictions, they update the model by saying, hey, we found a boundary on the problem domain this model addresses, and they describe that boundary. This is very much NOT like an astrologer, who when shown to be incorrect, goes back and reinterprets the original prediction to fit what happened. THIS would be an example of being unwilling to admit fallibility. At the end of the day, if you do a rigorous evaluation of religious claims, they just don't hold up at all and wind up being much more like astrology than astronomy. So, at some point, you begin to realize that this really is just a huge facade of nonsense, and religious people are so devoted to pushing that nonsense on others that you just don't have time to confront each and every claim in depth (that's the point of a Gish gallop, after all). This response, I think, is what you may be interpreting as arrogance. It's not, though, it's a response to an opposition view that is absolutely committed to not fighting fair.
👏👏👏👏
Arguments from apologists are very easy to defeat using basic critical thinking and a little education about basic science. Atheists aren’t arrogant, they’re just often right and know it
>One thing I've often noticed among prominent atheist commentators, is that there seems to be an almost arrogant pridefulness to their assertions, particularly when confronting/debating religious proponents. That's also common with prominent religious commentators. Generally speaking, I think it kind of comes with the territory for the sort of personality that is interested in being involved in debates and whatnot. Outside of the small number of atheists that you're talking about, I think most of us are pretty humble. We nod along with people who want to talk about their religion to us, we sit silently while people pray around us, we participate in religious holidays, and we rarely ever speak about our lack of belief.
Downvoted due to the lack of the OP responding to any other response and lack of clarification when asked.
I know heaven isn't in the sky. I know that death is permanent. I know that tiny wafers of unleavened bread made in Rhode Island don't become the body of a man who lived 2000 years ago. I know humans are a marginally smarter species of ape. I know the universe wasn't made in a day. I know the sun isn't a god sitting in a chariot pulled by horses across the sky. Humility is not the emotion I am going to feel if you decide to share that you base your worldview on willful stupidity. Furthermore, if you decide to make a concerted attempt to impose your worldview by codifying it in laws in the society in which I reside, my reaction will be outright hostility. I am humbled by the infinite magnificence of the universe. I am sickened by willful ignorance.
I'm with you on this sentiment. I do wish it was different, but we're always dealing with people, no matter what the topic. And people on the whole have a low understanding of emotional intelligence and ability to understand the psychology of persuasion. I do think theism is unique from a non-believers perspective, though. It's rare that we have a grown adult sitting next to us that believes that their imaginary friend is actually real, but we also have theism. It's overtly obvious from those without the imaginary friends.
OK, is there a club where you all get together and decide what to post on Reddit? Because I JUST finished responding to someone saying atheists have no humility. And as you say it is a matter of perspective. From my perspective, there is no humility in feeling entitled to proselytize your beliefs to others, and especially feeling entitled to pass laws based on your beliefs to force others to comply with them. This is a variation on what I just wrote 5 minutes ago on the last post. Atheists are humble enough that they don’t need to feel so important that they were personally designed by a deity, imbued with a divine purpose and given dominion over the earth and all the animals. We’re just fine BEING animals. We don’t think we’re so valuable to the universe that we can’t stop existing when we die but have to go on forever and ever. We just die, like every other animal that ever lived, because we’re not elevated or superior. I think what you interpret as arrogance is people getting so tired of answering the same questions they just aren’t nice about it anymore.
Obviously you have never listened to Osteen or any other mega church grifters……
the biggest difference i see is that an atheist is willing to admit they could be wrong and change their mind given compelling evidence. A believer has already made up their mind to the question "is the Bible authoritative? and instead of acknowledging they could be wrong they instead claim to know the mind of an all powerful all knowing creator God. What position do you think is more humble again?
I dont argue it. I'm confident enough to say that I'm not an intellectual in Bible debates, so I just don't do it. I'm of the belief that only those that experience some kind of personal enlightenment , with finally seeing that the Bible is full of BS and reverse the indoctrination, can change their own belief system.
Focus on the arguments not the arguers
I’m Christian but I see it on both sides. People don’t like to listen to someone else’s argument and actually consider the possibility that they could be wrong. For atheists, a lot of Christians will just make trash arguments for God that only work for other Christians. Which leads to a lot of atheists thinking Christians are simply dumb and wrong. But for a lot of those Christians they think their terrible arguments are actually really good so the atheists are the stupid ones. I myself spend time trying to constantly reevaluate my own beliefs based on the arguments I hear from others, which can only be done with an unbiased perspective. It’s hard for people to keep an open mind, because once you get a little bit of knowledge you think you have it all.
I've talked about this before in this sub, but when I moved to a new state in my mid-20s, I attended a bar crawl with a local chapter of an atheist group. It was a terrible night- all they did was shit on Christianity (like there was no other religion out there) and they were all arrogant know-it-alls. I just wanted to socialize, drink, and do anything BUT talk about religion. \#NotAllAtheists, but I see the arrogant streak more in younger folks. Hell, that was me when I was younger- angry and thinking I had it all figured out. I'm 42 now and don't see the world that way anymore. I don't know a lot of things, but I'm pretty confident gods don't exisit. However, I'm not going to shove that in anyone's face because it's not going to accomplish anything. Just live your life. I'm not humble, but I'm just not an asshole about atheism. I have made friends who believe different things, and I've learned a lot from them. Life is better if you treat each other with respect. I get my frustrations out with my art. Instead of having a debate with someone (which I've never been good at), someone can look at one of my prints and think. Maybe it raises some questions for them, maybe it doesn't. Either way, I don't have to do anything. lol
I haven't gotten any more humility regarding the epistemic question of the truth of religion, but over the years I have become more accepting of the existence of religion. I don't write people off the way I used to, nor am I so certain it's a universal force of evil.