Does atheism promote snobbery?

Anyone who implies that they "see things" "as they are" is automatically snobbish, among other things.

Just for the record, a three-year-old "sees things" "as they are", in that, that toy is mine, not yours, therefore I am right and you are wrong.

J Bryson said:

No. However, stating "this is how things are" while disregarding alternate and contrary opinions as the result of delusion or foolishness is a major aspect of snobbery.

Click to expand...

And THAT is precisely where religion falls off the rails. Opinions are meaningless in a debate. Is it snobbery to continually point out that the means by which humans experience the physical are quantifiable whereas opinions, feeling and hallucinations are not?

It's quite simple. The theist says, "There is a god." The non-theist says, "Prove it." The theist then has to ultimately fall back on "I believe..." because he/she can offer no proof that is quantifiable.

Is it snobbery to say, "This is how we study and experience the universe. No deity has bothered to communicate with us as a species in a manner that we can all agree upon as a valid form of communication. Therefore, until such time as any deity does choose to communicate with us (not through some hyper-sensitive spiritual individual but to each of us in the same way that I am now addressing all of you) then I cannot admit that such a deity exists."? I think not.

Conversely, to insist that a deity does exist and that deity clearly has not communicated with us as a species in a manner that we can all agree upon as a valid form of communication is, by definition, irrational (e.g. "not governed by or according to reason").

Holding a certain psychological theory doesn't make one any more a snob than holding a certain Biological or Physics theory. If said theory makes some group appear foolish the group's beef is with the particulars of the theory, which they're free to rebut.

Belief in a certain theory does not a snob make. Snobs have their own psychological issues, irrespective of doctrine or theory.

J Bryson said:

Using the atheist as an example, it's the difference between the person who walks by a church on Sunday thinking "Those deluded fools" and the one who thinks "I disagree, but that's a pretty building/nice music/an interesting garden out front."

Click to expand...

In the same manner in which we all admire the architectural and botanical beauty of the insane asylum, for example? It shows more humanity to feel pity for a mental patient than to simply admire his or her surroundings.

tomspug said:

Anyone who implies that they "see things" "as they are" is automatically snobbish, among other things.

Click to expand...

How idoes holding this view about people who would say this make you any different? You are certainly implying that you see things as they really are in this context.

tomspug said:

Just for the record, a three-year-old "sees things" "as they are", in that, that toy is mine, not yours, therefore I am right and you are wrong.

Click to expand...

What if it is their toy?

tomspug said:

Anyone who implies that they "see things" "as they are" is automatically snobbish, among other things.

Click to expand...

What definition of "snob" are you using? Just having an opinion equals snobbery? Having a well-supported belief is snobbery?
We must all be snobs, then, as we all have beliefs about how things are are.

Just for the record, a three-year-old "sees things" "as they are", in that, that toy is mine, not yours, therefore I am right and you are wrong.

Click to expand...

I doubt the three year old is a snob, though. Uninformed, perhaps. Analytically incompetent, probably, but not preoccupied with social status or rank.

atotalstranger said:

What if it isn't an either/or? What if you exclude the word "fools?"

Click to expand...

*Shrug* I personally try to keep the idea "Maybe they're seeing something that I'm not" somewhere in my thoughts. This makes it easier to consider new evidence and experiences with an open mind.

slave2six said:

And THAT is precisely where religion falls off the rails. Opinions are meaningless in a debate. Is it snobbery to continually point out that the means by which humans experience the physical are quantifiable whereas opinions, feeling and hallucinations are not?

Click to expand...

So what? When did "quantifiable" become the criteria for truth?

slave2six said:

It's quite simple. The theist says, "There is a god." The non-theist says, "Prove it." The theist then has to ultimately fall back on "I believe..." because he/she can offer no proof that is quantifiable.

Click to expand...

Again, so what? Do only non-theists get to determine what is the criteria for truth (that which is quantifiable)? Who made them the definers of such things?

slave2six said:

Is it snobbery to say, "This is how we study and experience the universe. No deity has bothered to communicate with us as a species in a manner that we can all agree upon as a valid form of communication. Therefore, until such time as any deity does choose to communicate with us (not through some hyper-sensitive spiritual individual but to each of us in the same way that I am now addressing all of you) then I cannot admit that such a deity exists."? I think not.

Conversely, to insist that a deity does exist and that deity clearly has not communicated with us as a species in a manner that we can all agree upon as a valid form of communication is, by definition, irrational (e.g. "not governed by or according to reason").

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't see that at all. I think it's just as reasonable to presume that "God" would communicate to us each in the manner that we could accept and understand. And that would very likely not be uniform nor quantifiable.

J Bryson said:

*Shrug* I personally try to keep the idea "Maybe they're seeing something that I'm not" somewhere in my thoughts. This makes it easier to consider new evidence and experiences with an open mind.

Click to expand...

Okay, but do you try to keep this in mind when it comes to all views? Do you try to keep this in mind about muslims? About scientologists? What about skinheads? Where do you draw the line when it comes to keeping an open mind, and what criteria do you use to determine this? If you disagree with the skinheads' ideology, does that make you a snob?

stephenw said:

E.g. - I don't believe in God because I have used my sharp mind/I am brave enough to confront my mortality etc. etc
VERSUS
They believe in God because they're not very good at thinking/don't have the courage to face their mortality etc. etc?

Click to expand...

I'd suggest that this kind of "snobbery" is exactly the kind of thing that's at work when one creates a thread asking whether atheism promotes snobbery. Only the target is different.

atotalstranger said:

Seeing things as they really are has served me well in every aspect of life. . .

Click to expand...

:yes: So it does, everyone. We are all The Fool.

Smoke said:

I'd suggest that this kind of "snobbery" is exactly the kind of thing that's at work when one creates a thread asking whether atheism promotes snobbery. Only the target is different.

Click to expand...

Excellent insight.

Smoke said:

I'd suggest that this kind of "snobbery" is exactly the kind of thing that's at work when one creates a thread asking whether atheism promotes snobbery. Only the target is different.

Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to second that Smoke- or third it since I see ATS did as well...

Jeremiah said:

There is nothing wrong with rejecting an idea because it is foolish or delusional when it is foolish or delusional.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and nothing snobbish about demanding support for an opinion whether it's philosophical or otherwise.

I nearly spilled my snifter of brandy while trying to find my monocle that fell when I read the OP.

Smoke said:

I'd suggest that this kind of "snobbery" is exactly the kind of thing that's at work when one creates a thread asking whether atheism promotes snobbery. Only the target is different.

Click to expand...

Maybe. But I don't think so. I was watching a link to Sam Harris in a thread by Sunstone. It seems to me that Harris thinks those who believe in God(s) are idiots. I get the same impression from Dawkins.
These two have quite a following and I wonder do their followers believe as I outlined in the op. It seems to me that such ideas are promoted e.g.

t often appears as though Dawkins and his followers – often dubbed the New Atheists, though some object to the term – want to change the country's science community in a lasting way. They'd have scientists and defenders of reason be far more confrontational and blunt: No more coddling the faithful, no tolerating nonscientific beliefs. Scientific institutions, in their view, ought to stop putting out politic PR about science and religion being compatible.The New Atheists win the battle easily on the internet. Their most prominent blogger, the University of Minnesota biologist PZ Myers, runs what is probably the web's most popular science blog, Pharyngula, where he and his readers attack and belittle religious believers, sometimes using highly abrasive language. Or as Myers put it to "fanatical" Catholics at one point: "Don't confuse the fact that I find you and your church petty, foolish, twisted and hateful to be a testimonial to the existence of your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god."
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/aug/24/atheism-dawkins-science-evolution

Click to expand...

Nepenthe said:

I nearly spilled my snifter of brandy while trying to find my monocle that fell when I read the OP.

Click to expand...

Haha... that actually made me lol.

stephenw said:

E.g. - I don't believe in God because I have used my sharp mind/I am brave enough to confront my mortality etc. etc
VERSUS
They believe in God because they're not very good at thinking/don't have the courage to face their mortality etc. etc?

Click to expand...

That may be true for some, but definitely not for the majority. At the same time, there are few religious "snobs" who feel their faith makes them better.
So I would answer no to the OP- that atheism doesn't cause snobbery. People become snobs for different reasons.

PureX said:

So what? When did "quantifiable" become the criteria for truth?
Again, so what? Do only non-theists get to determine what is the criteria for truth (that which is quantifiable)? Who made them the definers of such things?

Click to expand...

I do not debate "truth" but reality. Truth is entirely too subjective and therefore most people not only cannot agree on the ground rules, they often can't agree to be in the same arena.

There may be a deity. I don't know. I do know that no deity has not bothered to communicate with us as a species in a manner that we can all agree upon as a valid form of communication. For all intents and purposes then, what does it matter if a deity exists or not? Certainly I cannot find reason to justify centering one's life around a non-entity or a disinterested possibility.

slave2six said:

I do not debate "truth" but reality. Truth is entirely too subjective and therefore most people not only cannot agree on the ground rules, they often can't agree to be in the same arena.

There may be a deity. I don't know. I do know that no deity has bothered to communicate with us as a species in a manner that we can all agree upon as a valid form of communication. For all intents and purposes then, what does it matter if a deity exists or not? Certainly I cannot find reason to justify centering one's life around a non-entity or a disinterested possibility.

Click to expand...

But it is logical that a deity might communicate with people in whatever way they could understand. So that "God" to one person would be different from "God" to another. The fact that people don't agree on what constitutes a message from "God" would not, then, indicate that there is no God. That's all I meant to point out.

Also, if you have not received such a message it may be because you have already convinced yourself that such a message cannot occur. And having convinced yourself, you've made it so, as you have closed off all the possible ways for God to communicate with you.

My point, here, is that you are defining what you will accept as "reasonable evidence" for what is real and what isn't. And having done so, you have eliminated all other possibilities in advance. This is the same thing the theist does when he uses his own subjective experience as his evidence.

The idea that your vision of reality is more accurate than someone else's simply because it's based on what's "really there" is just as intellectually circular as the theist's assertion that God exists because he believes that God exists.

stephenw said:

It seems to me that Harris thinks those who believe in God(s) are idiots. I get the same impression from Dawkins.

Click to expand...

I don't think that impression is justified in either case.

PureX said:

Also, if you have not received such a message it may be because you have already convinced yourself that such a message cannot occur.

Click to expand...

That's just plain silly. I might deny that you are unable to communicate with me but that would only last until you got in my face and punched me in the eye. Even a rattle snake knows how to get someone's attention. All your argument means is that god is all in your head and my inability to read your thoughts is entirely my fault. No real thing has trouble making its presence known if it wants to.