Arrogance

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[SquirleyWurley]

It seems to me there's different temperaments people have.  But also different moods in different types of exhanges, depending on how they heat up, different moods we might have when dealing with certain questions for personal reasons.

Anyhow, one non-believer will demand more evidence, while another will simply shout "there is no God" as if they know everything, just as one believer will say they trust certain evidence and see it as demonstration enough to have faith in something, while another believer will shout "it's obvious! everything is clear and proven and nice and pat in this whole system of assertions"

I don't think this sort of thing necessarily determines which one is really arrogant or humble, per se.

But it seems to me there is something tending towards humility about an exchange over the subjects of hope and doubt, and there's something that easily tempts towards arrogance about discussions of proof and disproof.

When we believe we're really onto something, we will be bolder, and tempted to arrogance.  On the other hand, when we are aware of our limitations, errors, biases, and doubts, we may be more hesitant, accomodating, and likely to express ourselves humbly, but we don't want to be tempted to cowardice or timidity or equivocation, either.

[kwd111]

I do not think it unreasonable for someone who bases their decisions and world view on evidence, to ask for evidence to support a claim made by someone else. It is obviouisly a different approach than many theists, but it is a fairly reasonable one.

It is reasonable.. but I think everybody at one time or another accepts a claim without evidence of support.  And sometimes it is just a theory that seems like it answers a question but no evidence is yet produced.

Faith can be a reasonable and based on evidence yet not agreed by others that the evidence supports it and give their own interpretation of the same evidence.

[wiscidea]

An atheist might be said to be arrogant in the same way that various gnostics could be said to be arrogant, in assuming to know so much that they can say for certain that either there is no God/gods or that they are so 'enlightened' with their own experiences/visions as to be beyond reproach, beyond criticism, knowing the mysteries and seeing so far beyond the veil as to be super-elites 'in-the-know'

Can you provide an example of an atheist who has said there certainly is no God?

Even the most prominent atheists—Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris—have stated at one time or another that one cannot absolutely prove there is no God. And they've pointed out that, however difficult it is to imagine, that someone could possibly come up with evidence that there IS a God.

Does anyone here classify Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris as examples of atheists who display arrogance? If so, why?

[CCC460]

I don't know if this constitutes arrogance, but on a recent radio show interview with Michael Medved, he refused to discuss creationism from radio callers because he called their arguments stupid and unworthy of debate.

I was rather floored by that statement. Who knows what the reasons were, for him saying that. He was peddling his new book, so it could be that he didn't want to get bogged down in a debate, but rather was trying to sell.

maybe that's arrogance. maybe it isn't. but it did seem rather unbecoming.

[SquirleyWurley]

Can you provide an example of an atheist who has said there certainly is no God?

Even the most prominent atheists—Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris—have stated at one time or another that one cannot absolutely prove there is no God.

Then maybe they are just 'hard agnostics'... in any case their style is a bit in-your-face and with an air of certainty, unlike those who represent themselves as agnostic.

Does anyone here classify Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris as examples of atheists who display arrogance? If so, why?

By temperament I happen to like Hitchens.  He's a lush, for one, and well I don't drink anymore, for good reason.  His attitude, however arrogant at times, is the sort of arrogance I prefer to deal with, and a sort of arrogance I am likely to fall into myself when in a certain mood.  I'll take the gin-soaked literature buff over the others, maybe that's the real difference.  I identify with Hitchens on a lot of levels.

I don't like Harris' style.  The content of his attacks seems to be lacking, also, compared to Hitchins.  But it's hard for me to distinguish how much of my judgment is based on style and on certain particular stances Harris takes (doesn't he argue for torture?) rather than attitude as it concerns atheism alone.

[OmarKhayyam]

I don't know if this constitutes arrogance, but on a recent radio show interview with Michael Medved, he refused to discuss creationism from radio callers because he called their arguments stupid and unworthy of debate.

I was rather floored by that statement. Who knows what the reasons were, for him saying that. He was peddling his new book, so it could be that he didn't want to get bogged down in a debate, but rather was trying to sell.

maybe that's arrogance. maybe it isn't. but it did seem rather unbecoming.

How about he didn't bother with it simply because it IS unworthy of debate?

[kwd111]

I don't know if this constitutes arrogance, but on a recent radio show interview with Michael Medved, he refused to discuss creationism from radio callers because he called their arguments stupid and unworthy of debate.

I was rather floored by that statement. Who knows what the reasons were, for him saying that. He was peddling his new book, so it could be that he didn't want to get bogged down in a debate, but rather was trying to sell.

maybe that's arrogance. maybe it isn't. but it did seem rather unbecoming.

How about he didn't bother with it simply because it IS unworthy of debate?

Well!  hmmph!  How arrogant!

PS.  Omar... it sure is good to see you posting!

[Mountain_Man]

Yes, I see that from self proclaimed christians all the time.

And every single one of your posts. 

You have just proven my point.

[Mountain_Man]

I don't know if this constitutes arrogance, but on a recent radio show interview with Michael Medved, he refused to discuss creationism from radio callers because he called their arguments stupid and unworthy of debate...

So, you are claiming that telling the truth, when it does not align with religious dogma, is being arrogant?

[Gorm_Sionnach]

I don't know if this constitutes arrogance, but on a recent radio show interview with Michael Medved, he refused to discuss creationism from radio callers because he called their arguments stupid and unworthy of debate.

I was rather floored by that statement. Who knows what the reasons were, for him saying that. He was peddling his new book, so it could be that he didn't want to get bogged down in a debate, but rather was trying to sell.

maybe that's arrogance. maybe it isn't. but it did seem rather unbecoming.

Never heard of the fellow (or maybe I have and have forgotten), anyway, one will rarely find more time ill spent then debating with creationists.

[Flitzerbiest]

Rather like playing chess with a pigeon, eh?

[Chanah]

Does anyone here classify Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris as examples of atheists who display arrogance? If so, why?

Yup.

I'm a historian of medieval astrology. I have heard Dawkins RAVE about the historical record of astrology that - well - isn't the historical record. Ptolemy did not invent astrology, nor was Ptolemy even an astrologer. And the rest of his historical timeline on the subject is equally fanciful. He made it up out of whole cloth, in other words, or listened to somebody who made it up and never bothered to check the facts.

Don't mention that to Mr Dawkins. Or to Mr Randi. Despite the stacks of historical evidence we have. They might go apoplectic - not that they don't anyway on the subject (Mr Randi is attempting to make the recording of birth times illegal to save us from this superstitious folly - o how little he knows about the subject to assume that more than 10% of it has to do with a person's birth time, since most astrology historically didn't deal with individuals), but to insist on facts that aren't facts is a bit much. And more than a bit arrogant. Not to mention needing to be saved from myself. And do read Starbaby.

If you're going to declaim that your version of history is the correct one, it's probably a good idea to read some history of the subject first. Apparently they can't be arsed even to do that.

[John T Mainer]

There is nothing wrong with arrogance, used properly.  I am an arrogant man, and use this tool to drive myself to reach the marks that I expect of myself.  On a good day, I am almost as good as I think I am.  On a bad day, I am still better than most I come up against, and certainly acheive more than most (even those who ought to be greater than I) ever dare to.

An arrogant person will state their opinions strongly, and had best be prepared to defend them.  Quickly you either learn to do your homework, or get used to losing.  In the debates from the clash of such arrogant people of disparate belief, the strong arguments will stand, the weak will be shattered, and such that survive this clash are worthy of consideration.

Science usually progresses in this fashion, for researchers who were not sure they alone were right would not dedicate decades, their professional reputation, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal education in a line of inquiry that will leave them an unemployable laughingstock, or the pioneer of a stunning new line of inquiry into their chosen field.  The greats are seldom balanced and humble, or they would not dare greatness in the first place.

Everybody dies, so everybody gets to find out the answer in the end.  Until then, it is all just conjecture from both sides.

[Gorm_Sionnach]

Boasting and success is called achievement

Boasting and failure is called hubris

[Mountain_Man]

Never heard of the fellow (or maybe I have and have forgotten), anyway, one will rarely find more time ill spent then debating with creationists.

It's the same for those that believe in astrology and homeopathy.

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC