While possible, it's simply not probable.

[alan1]

You contradict yourself. I said 'most'; and you said 'no'. Then you said that (only) some seek to exchange ideas with no conscious or unconscious desire to convince (which may or may not even be possible), implying that most do have such an intent, as I said..

I didn't really contradict myself, but I do stand corrected. Many do have intent to convert others. I don't.

 

[Immanuel]

The formats of a board like this promote discussion and that leads to some people feeling that others are trying to push their beliefs on others

Aren't most people on here interested in convincing/converting others to their causes and position?

Yes, but the point was that this board is not the real world. We come here to argue points of view. Some of us can do this in a pleasant tone and respect the fact that others see things differently than we do and then there are others who can not.

Judging the real world based on what you see here is going to present a false view of reality.

So yes, I believe atheists need not be arrogant, and those I know of in my own “real” (as distinguished from cyber) “community” assume nothing much differently than I do about the religious, or at least don't show it with arrogance. But then it seems that a lot of people who are irreligious want the whole world to know that they are too smart by half.

I think it is wrong to look at atheists on a board like this and then conclude that because many, most or all atheists here "argue" their beliefs here so arrogantly or adamantly that atheists are arrogant. The formats of a board like this promote discussion and that leads to some people feeling that others are trying to push their beliefs on others, when that may or may not be the case. I may think one of the atheists on this board is arrogant by the way he posts, and he may feel the same about me, but if I were to sit down face to face with him and converse about anything even religion or faith, we might see each other in completely different lights, in fact we might even become friends.

Immie

I would hope so. What I was stating was that in my real life experience I know lots of athiests as well as religious people, and I do not see a great deal of arrogance in athiests nor do I see a lot of arrogance from the religious ones. Where what appears to be arrogance shows up more dramatically is in places like this one where possibly the insecurity coming out of the posters age (mental or chronological) or their presumed anonymity plays a role allowing them to stimulate argument they would never launch into or take similar tacks in real life situations.

I see much the same thing as you do. Heck, most atheists don't even discuss their beliefs in the real world. Many of us just go on assuming that the guy sitting next to us believes in God just like we do. It can come as quite a shock to find that the guy that has been working at the desk next to you for six years doesn't consider himself to be a Christian.

Where as on a message board such as this one can feel free to say whatever he/she wants without caring whether or not he/she hurts someone else's feelings.

Immie

 

[Tinktink]

One of the first threads I started when I joined here over a year ago was whether or not it's possible to be an atheist without also being arrogant and condescending about it. The point was debated vigorously and I distinctly recall the rebuttal most often offered by atheists was that bible thumpers are equally arrogant and condescending which, of course, is no rebuttal at all. After observing the behavior of USMB's acknowledged atheists over the past year I can safely conclude that yes, it is possible. But so highly improbable as to make the sliver of possibility entirely moot.

My thanks to everyone for clearing up his vitally important matter.

Ever walk out of a church service to have a bunch of Athiests handing out pamphlets telling you, that believing in God will leave you to a eternity of being burned alive.

I can't tell you how many Braves games I walked out of to bible thumpers telling me that I will burn in hell if I don't believe.

Ever have a atheist come up to your door and tell you, you must not believe?

I can't tell you how many knocked on my door telling me to believe.

Ever walk down the street and have a atheist tell you that nothing loves you?

I have walked many a streets where a religious folks told me God loves me.

Ever had a athiest in a discussion tell you, you are not a sinner?

I have had many a religious folks tell me I am.

Now let's talk about arrogant and condensending.

 

[garyd]

MM in that case what is the point. Of course I like to change people's ideas to be more closely in synchronization with what I believe realaity to be. I do this because I cannot help but give a damn. To do so is as intrinsic to my nature as breathing. I fully understand that my chances of succeeding in more than a handful of case during my lifetime is slim to none. Still all in all if one cares, one must try.

Of course not TT but you are looking at it from the wrong perspective, and making a false comparison.
I've yet to see a Christian treat an atheist as if he were a simpleton or a child and the majority who witness to you do so not because they are playing some sort cosmic game of Gotcha but because the genuinely care about your spiritual well being even if you don't.

The more vocal atheist I've run into both here and other places treat the faithful as if they are idiots and/or weaklings. That is the very definition of arrogance, condescension, and with a healthy dose of ignorance mixed in just to make things more intolerable.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, but the point was that this board is not the real world. We come here to argue points of view. Some of us can do this in a pleasant tone and respect the fact that others see things differently than we do and then there are others who can not.

Judging the real world based on what you see here is going to present a false view of reality.

Well, yea- in real life nonoe talks about these things because it turns violent...

Theist>> We should adopt policy X or God will abandon us
Skeptic>> There's no evidence for god
Theist>> STOP PERSECUTING ME!
Skeptic>> See, this is why we hate taking to you
Theist>> ANTICHRIST!! *murder*

The more vocal atheist I've run into both here and other places treat the faithful as if they are idiots and/or weaklings.

I talk to most people like they're idiots because most people are

 

[garyd]

Nice try JB. It doesn't wash. Oh I'll grant you that there are some real idiots here at USMB and two of the worst are self confessed atheists but all in all the overwhelming majority here are not idiots.

 

[JBeukema]

Nice try JB. It doesn't wash. Oh I'll grant you that there are some real idiots here at USMB and two of the worst are self confessed atheists but all in all the overwhelming majority here are not idiots.

1)I disagree
2) I said 'most people' not 'most people on this site'


Do pay attention when reading.

 

[editec]

Most of the militant atheists I have ever met were former Christians who (generally about the time they achieved puberty) finally woke up and realized that the religious stories they'd learned as children weren't LITERALLY true.

They then just assume that all believers have the same childish beliefs about theology that they just rejected.

Naturally, since they imagine that they understand other's beliefs to be those childish literal interpretations of the Bible that they once believed, they set out to justify their newfound lack of faith.

I went though that childish militant atheist phase myself when I was in my early teens.

It's a very comforting conceit to imagine that you are really very much smarter than believers and that you, through the sheer power of your terrible intellect, pierced the tissue of lies that you'd been taught.

So basically I view militant antheism with about the same contempt I view militant religious fundamentalists.

They are basically, to me at least, different sides of the same ignorant coin.

Ah but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now.

 

[DamnYankee]

The formats of a board like this promote discussion and that leads to some people feeling that others are trying to push their beliefs on others

Aren't most people on here interested in convincing/converting others to their causes and position?

Guilty.

However, my only cause is to convince people to question the legitimacy their cause(s).

Coincidentally, having a parallel discussion elsewhere. I have no interest in changing anyone's mind, but it's greatly appreciated if my position isn't treated as foolishness -- with arrogance, as you say. That's rarely the case, but it seems that a "new voice" is willing to at least respectfully disagree. Can we ever ask for more than that?

 

[We Are They]

As an agnostic (there's likely no god, and it's not been proven at this time, but if you can actually prove otherwise, I'm open), I'm not arrogant, I'm just right until shown some actual tangible proof that I'm wrong. And you all know deep down that I'm right.

 

[DamnYankee]

As an agnostic (there's likely no god, and it's not been proven at this time, but if you can actually prove otherwise, I'm open), I'm not arrogant, I'm just right until shown some actual tangible proof that I'm wrong. And you all know deep down that I'm right.

 

[editec]

As an agnostic (there's likely no god, and it's not been proven at this time, but if you can actually prove otherwise, I'm open), I'm not arrogant, I'm just right until shown some actual tangible proof that I'm wrong. And you all know deep down that I'm right.

Well I certainly know deep down that you're either right or you're not.

And deep down you know that, too.

That's exactly why you are an agnostic.

I'm an agnostic believer, myself.

I BELIEVE that I don't know nuttin'!

I have total FAITH that I don't know nuttin', actually.

 

[del]

As an agnostic (there's likely no god, and it's not been proven at this time, but if you can actually prove otherwise, I'm open), I'm not arrogant, I'm just right until shown some actual tangible proof that I'm wrong. And you all know deep down that I'm right.

whatever, dude.

 

[We Are They]

I'm leaving the door open in case of scientific breakthrough, actual proof being shown... It's the only "logical" position to have. But as of yet, nada proof. I'm not saying that deep down, I know my position is wrong, because right now, today, it's right: there is no god to have been proven in a concrete way that even scientists can measure...

 

[We Are They]

del, if that's so funny, prove me wrong. Go ahead, give it your best shot.

 

[editec]

I'm leaving the door open in case of scientific breakthrough, actual proof being shown... It's the only "logical" position to have. But as of yet, nada proof. I'm not saying that deep down, I know my position is wrong, because right now, today, it's right: there is no god to have been proven in a concrete way that even scientists can measure...

If you met the Buddha on the road...kill him.​

 

[del]

del, if that's so funny, prove me wrong. Go ahead, give it your best shot.

i'm afraid you don't have the requisite self-awareness to see the irony in your post that makes me laugh, but please keep it up.

otherwise, you're pretty boring.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm leaving the door open in case of scientific breakthrough, actual proof being shown... It's the only "logical" position to have.

Funny, you never included that caveat before i and a few others denounced the foolishness of gnosticism...

there is no god to have been proven in a concrete way that even scientists can measure...

As opposed to odd scientists? Or are scientists and odd class who can do things others can't? Why would you feel the need to say 'even' scientists? Why do you feel the need to exalt them so?

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm leaving the door open in case of scientific breakthrough, actual proof being shown... It's the only "logical" position to have. But as of yet, nada proof. I'm not saying that deep down, I know my position is wrong, because right now, today, it's right: there is no god to have been proven in a concrete way that even scientists can measure...

See, the problem with your "logical position" is, you would refuse to accept the evidence given while expecting others to accept yours.

Case in point, from that parallel I referred to a few posts ago (with this board's indulgence, so there's no need to type out the thoughts again):

****

You're an agnostic, I believe you said. No problem. Not here to try and change your mind or get into a debate on the "beginning of the things".

I would ask you though, how it is that non-believers always ask that believers -- those who believe simply because they have FAITH -- prove the existence of something (God) that can't be seen when it is their FAITH that allows them to SEE THE EFFECTS of said existence. The most simple analogy is this: None of us can SEE gravity -- we can only see the effects and have faith in its power. It's very easy to prove its existence by pointing out the objects that are affected by its force and power. Yet, to those without faith in God, no amount of pointing out evidence by those with faith will ever be sufficient -- because the mind has been closed to the possibility.

>>>

I am agnostic in many things, a skeptic of most claims. I have, however, taken enough of a leap of Faith to remain a Quaker. But the contemplation of God and Her impact on the Human Condition is quite apart (though not completel divorced) from Science.

Evolution is just like any science. One does not "believe" in Gravity, or Atoms, or Germs. We accept them as fact because of the preponderance of evidence, and we test our understanding through experimentation. I think that folks that single out Evolution for attack do so because of weakness in their Faith. God is big enough to include Evolution. To paraphrase Emerson: a foolish consistency in the application of ancient scriptures is the hobgoblan of a small minded individual.

>>>

And I would say that there's a preponderance of evidence that the vast universe we live in didn't simply "poof" itself into existence, yet that is questioned and attacked. Denying an evolutionary process is foolishness, but that does not mean that one must accept that the process includes the evolution from one biological species to another. If I accept that the good Lord created the universe and its inhabitants, and that Noah took two of every species into the ark to preserve them, there's absolutely no reason for me to believe God's intent was for a homo sapien to evolve from a hominoid. Hell, even if I did NOT believe that, LOGIC still would not lead me to that evolutionary conclusion.

 

[JBeukema]

there's a preponderance of evidence that the vast universe we live in didn't simply "poof" itself into existence,

Who said the universe 'poofed'?
Care to present it?

yet that is questioned and attacked. Denying an evolutionary process is foolishness, but that does not mean that one must accept that the process includes the evolution from one biological species to another.

So, you accept reality up until the point where it ceases to fit your preconceived notions? once evolution is accepted, speciation (besides being observed) is the logical conclusion

If I accept that the good Lord created the universe and its inhabitants, and that Noah took two of every species into the ark to preserve them,

On what evidence? where's the water? Where's the ship? Define 'kind'.

there's absolutely no reason for me to believe God's intent was for a homo sapien to evolve from a hominoid. Hell, even if I did NOT believe that, LOGIC still would not lead me to that evolutionary conclusion.[/COLOR]

So, absent your delusion, your contend that the logical step from evolution and observed speciation-is that evolution does not cause speciation?