Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one cares what you don't believe.

You certainly don't.

All that matters is what and how you rationalize it.

And we've explained it to you ad nauseum.

And you can't rationalize labeling something as nothing.

Nobody does that, except you.


Atheism = unbelief of theistic claims.

Not "nothing". It's the position of unbelief of theistic claims.
It's not hard.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How dare I actually insist that the label "atheism" mean something! What cad I am!

Yes, it means "unbelief of theistic claims".

 

[F1fan]

You keep repeating this but you can't justify it. No one cares what you don't believe.

You do. You constantly misrepresent atheists and their reasoning process. That means you hear what atheists say, and disresepect it to a degree that you can impose your own thinking and terms. This thread is about arrogance, and it's amazing you don't try to avoid the arrogance of your beliefs. You are politically liberal but you have a rigid dogma as strong as creationism and MAGA where it comes to atheists as a category.

Mostly no one cares what you do believe.

But look at all the Likes that he's getting in responding to your misrepresentations. And you get none. So there is quite a bit of care felt for truth and accuracy, with you the exception.

All that matters is what and how you rationalize it. And you can't rationalize labeling something as nothing. So all you can do is keep repeating it as if anyone but you would care.

Rationalize it. Label it. You are setting the stage to minimize how atheists reason the concepts claimed by theists, you aren't addressing the reasons why atheists reject the claims, which is primarily the lack of evidence for such extraordinary claims.

 

[F1fan]

How dare I actually insist that the label "atheism" mean something! What cad I am!

It does mean something. You just don't honor the meaning by those who are in the catogory that word represents.

 

[Firenze]

You do. You constantly misrepresent atheists and their reasoning process. That means you hear what atheists say, and disresepect it to a degree that you can impose your own thinking and terms. This thread is about arrogance, and it's amazing you don't try to avoid the arrogance of your beliefs. You are politically liberal but you have a rigid dogma as strong as creationism and MAGA where it comes to atheists as a category.

But look at all the Likes that he's getting in responding to your misrepresentations. And you get none. So there is quite a bit of care felt for truth and accuracy, with you the exception.

Rationalize it. Label it. You are setting the stage to minimize how atheists reason the concepts claimed by theists, you aren't addressing the reasons why atheists reject the claims, which is primarily the lack of evidence for such extraordinary claims.

I have to say I find it quite noble how Atheists here have offered such a respite for PureX to avoid the burden of providing one whit or tittle of rational evidence for his god. He must be very grateful.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How dare I actually insist that the label "atheism" mean something!

You insist that the word atheism means something that atheists deny that it means to them. How dare you. And how good a strategy is it to do that in a thread asking about whether atheists are arrogant?

What you're not convinced of is of absolutely no relevance or concern to anyone but you. you can't rationalize labeling something as nothing. So all you can do is keep repeating it as if anyone but you would care.

Disagree. I'm interested in his opinions. And yours.

What I'm no longer interested in is your confused opinion about atheists and atheism, but I am interested in how you came to hold it and why you persist in digging yourself ever deeper. I can't imagine doing that. You know how unpopular your opinion is, your character, intelligence, and integrity are continually challenged, you get zero support from other posters (F1's comment about you getting no approbation emojis while your critics do should be meaningful to you, but you don't seem to care how you're perceived), and yet you double down. I wish I could understand why somebody would do that, but THAT's what keeps me interested in this thread and your posting. Not your opinions, but why you can't seem to process the feedback and adapt in a way that would minimize the negative blowback.

That's how minds can work and often do. I just left a post on another thread discussing the way public opinion where I live has mostly silenced MAGA types in local social media, where they receive the same kind of negative blowback that you get here, but they adapt to the unpleasantness and relent in expressing opinions that invariably garner the disapproval of others. They don't change their opinions, just when and where they express them. That's what I expect from almost everybody. But not you.

So, my task is to try to conceive (with no help from you) of what must be the case in your mind for you to choose this path. What is it necessary for one to believe and what psychological need must be present for a person to just keep banging his head into that figurative wall.

I see the brain as deterministic. It's pursuing something according to whatever logic is hardwired into it and what needs require fulfillment. For me, that's the promotion of things that make me feel good (being comfortable, happy, respected, the taste of strawberries, etc.) while trying to minimize the dysphorias in life (anxiety, rejection, the taste of Brussels sprouts). Are you that different that you don't mind being rejected like this?

In the zealously religious such as the creationists, they often have a need to do what appears to be martyring themselves. They come onto the Internet totally unprepared to get into discussions about evolution with the scientifically literate, where they take a beating. Why? Presumably to please their god, who they think wants them to suffer for Jesus or whatever. But that doesn't describe you to my knowledge. You aren't performing for a god in my opinion. So what motivates you to figuratively self-immolate in these threads.

I've asked you about that in the past, but you never answer or even acknowledge seeing the question, so I don't expect any input from you here either, although that's another mystery to me. Why not? Why doesn't the question interest you?

No one cares what you don't believe. Mostly no one cares what you do believe. All that matters is what and how you rationalize it. No one cares about this personal kangaroo court that you are constantly trying to impose on the debate and sheds no light whatever on the question being debated (the existence of God/god's).

You seem to think that others care what you do and don't believe judging by the energy you expend expressing and defending it. Your lack of insight here is staggering.

Also, it's YOU trying to impose YOUR beliefs on others. You are frustrated that they won't agree with you about what atheism is and what atheists believe. And it's YOU holding kangaroo court. It's YOU passing judgement ("absurd," "ridiculous," "gibberish," "liar"), which invites other to judge YOU. But none of your detractors is trying to impose their beliefs on you. That's not how humanists roll, and I expect that most realize that that would be impossible even if desirable. They simply want to mitigate your misrepresentation of them as they do with the creationists and their deliberate misrepresentation of evolution science.

And you're wrong about the existence of gods being the question being debated here. The thread was originally about whether atheist are arrogant, immoral, and/or angry. It has evolved into a discussion of what an atheist is and believes. The matter of gods is uninteresting to most atheists, and not a topic they consider any more. They'll discuss their thinking, and may be interested in the reasons others give, but the issue of whether gods exist or not doesn't interest or concern me anymore and hasn't in decades.

 

[PureX]

You insist that the word atheism means something that atheists deny that it means to them. How dare you. And how good a strategy is it to do that in a thread asking about whether atheists are arrogant?

Most of the atheists here are claiming that THEIR UNBELIEF defines atheism. Not even their belief, but their UNbelief defines it. I'd say that's astonishingly arrogant. And when I dare to point out that their belief/unbelief are irrelevant to anyone but themselves, and their "definition" is just myopic meaningless gibberish, they think I'm "angry and arrogant". Especially when I provide them with the real definition of atheism.

 

[F1fan]

Most of the atheists here are claiming that THEIR UNBELIEF defines atheism.

Why wouldn’t their thinking process be consistent with the category they fall into?

Not even their belief, but their UNbelief defines it.

Yeah, not being a theist, which itself involves belief in ideas that not only have no evidence, but are also inconsistent with knowledge. Atheists have no interest in trying to juggle science with the tradition of belief that the Abrahamic religions pass on to next generations.

I'd say that's astonishingly arrogant.

Why? What’s arrogant about using reason as a tool? And then being honest and open about the thinking process in forums and books? And then agreeing with a word and meaning that accurately describes the non-believer?

Again, you don’t see your defiance against a word and its common meaning as arrogant?

And when I dare to point out that their belief/unbelief are irrelevant to anyone but themselves, and their "definition" is just myopic meaningless gibberish, they think I'm "angry and arrogant".

But you are incorrect since your participation on threads to dispute words and meanings regarding atheism indicates quite a bit of care and concern. Something has you very upset and I’m not sure you understand what it is. You are taking it out on atheists. You have strong prejudice against atheists as gets revealed in your posts.

Especially when I provide them with the real definition of atheism.

But it is your personal definition and isn’t agreed upon by anyone else. Others state the common meaning and definition. You don’t care to acknowledge it. That makes you incomprehensible in debate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Most of the atheists here are claiming that THEIR UNBELIEF defines atheism.

And they are correct. You don't accept that, but it's self-evidently true, and you can't refute it. You only dismiss it. I'm also an avampirist, by which I mean that my answer to the question, Do you believe that vampires exist is no. That's really all that there is to that "worldview," and it is defined not by what I believe, but by what I don't believe.

How about you? Do you believe that vampires exist? If not, you're also an avampirist. Do you define that in terms of what you DO believe or terms of what you DON'T believe?

I don't expect an answer. You don't cooperate in these discussions. I'm just trying to show you what your argument looks like to others.

I'd say that's astonishingly arrogant.

I don't think you know what arrogant means, either. Do you consider yourself arrogant regarding your presumed avampirism? If not, please explain why unbelief in gods by atheists like me is arrogant but unbelief in vampires by avampirists like both of us isn't.

And when I dare to point out that their belief/unbelief are irrelevant to anyone but themselves, and their "definition" is just myopic meaningless gibberish, they think I'm "angry and arrogant"

But you are arrogant. The atheists are not.

Especially when I provide them with the real definition of atheism.

How arrogant was that comment? You don't define atheism for me. I do.

And your definition is useless to me, although it seems self-serving to you. It excludes agnostic atheists like me. I can't use a definition of atheism that wouldn't include somebody like me and most of the atheists posting here.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You should label yourself as being in agreement with atheism, or with theism, or undecided.

People who are "undecided" lack a belief in God, and are thus considered atheists, although we refer to their subgroup as agnostic atheists.

 

[McBell]

You keep repeating this but you can't justify it. No one cares what you don't believe. Mostly no one cares what you do believe. All that matters is what and how you rationalize it. And you can't rationalize labeling something as nothing. So all you can do is keep repeating it as if anyone but you would care.

I have no need, nor desire, to rationalize your baggage that I do not carry.
That you seem to honestly think that your baggage is somehow my problem is again on you, not me.

Though I do find it rather comical that with as much as you claim to not care. you spend an awful lot of time whining about it.

"Mind what people do, not only what they say, for actions can betray a lie"

 

[PureX]

People who are "undecided" lack a belief in God, and are thus considered atheists, although we refer to their subgroup as agnostic atheists.

Caterpillars also lack belief in God. So do rocks and clouds. Thus rendering your silly definition very, very non-definitive. Maybe you should be asking yourself why you are so intent on pushing a definition that doesn't define anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most of the atheists here are claiming that THEIR UNBELIEF defines atheism. Not even their belief, but their UNbelief defines it. I'd say that's astonishingly arrogant.

How is that arrogant? It's what the word means.... disbelief / unbelief / non-belief / lack of belief (whatever you fancy) of god/theistic claims.
Is it arrogant to use a word in the way it is defined?

Here's the definition from oxford on google:

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Is the dictionary "astonishingly arrogant"?
Or is it you, perhaps?

And when I dare to point out that their belief/unbelief are irrelevant to anyone but themselves, and their "definition" is just myopic meaningless gibberish, they think I'm "angry and arrogant". Especially when I provide them with the real definition of atheism.

The "real" defintion, being the strawman you like to fall back to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Caterpillars also lack belief in God. So do rocks and clouds.

Indeed they do. Although I doubt either has the cognitive capacity to "believe" anything and comprehend what "believing something" actually entails.
But sure, they lack belief in god.

Just like my couch is not a soccer player.

Thus rendering your silly definition very, very non-definitive.

Especially when you apply it to things like rocks and catterpillars. And couches.

Maybe you should be asking yourself why you are so intent on pushing a definition that doesn't define anything.

Because of people like you. You like -ism's, don't you?

 

[shunyadragon]

Most of the atheists here are claiming that THEIR UNBELIEF defines atheism. Not even their belief, but their UNbelief defines it. I'd say that's astonishingly arrogant. And when I dare to point out that their belief/unbelief are irrelevant to anyone but themselves, and their "definition" is just myopic meaningless gibberish, they think I'm "angry and arrogant". Especially when I provide them with the real definition of atheism.

Simply a belief or unbelief(?) is not arrogant in and of itself. Your problem of arrogance is directly related to what you believe, but how you relate to those who believe differently, ie atheists.

 

[McBell]

Caterpillars also lack belief in God.

As far as I know you are correct.

So do rocks and clouds.

Again, as far as I know you are correct.

Thus rendering your silly definition very, very non-definitive.

Says you.
But then with all your baggage it is near impossible to have a meaningful productive conversation with you on the subject.

Maybe you should be asking yourself why you are so intent on pushing a definition that doesn't define anything.

Except that it does have a definition that defines a position concerning deities.

The problem here is, once again, you.

 

[PureX]

As far as I know you are correct.


Again, as far as I know you are correct.


Says you.
But then with all your baggage it is near impossible to have a meaningful productive conversation with you on the subject.


Except that it does have a definition that defines a position concerning deities.

No, actually it doesn't. Which is why you're pushing it. You and the others want to pretend you have no position.

The problem here is, once again, you.

Like your silly definition of atheism, you can keep repeating it, but you can't justify it. So it's never going to convince anyone but you.

 

[PureX]

Simply a belief or unbelief(?) is not arrogant in and of itself. Your problem of arrogance is directly related to what you believe, but how you relate to those who believe differently, ie atheists.

I don't care what anyone believes. That's their own dusiness. And I don't generally believe anything, myself. I'm just responding the obvious BS I see being posted as a favor to those posting it. But they're too blinded by ego and willful ignorance to see the BS and learn anything.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Caterpillars also lack belief in God. So do rocks and clouds. Thus rendering your silly definition very, very non-definitive

Her definition specified people: "People who are "undecided" lack a belief in God, and are thus considered atheists, although we refer to their subgroup as agnostic atheists."

Maybe you should be asking yourself why you are so intent on pushing a definition that doesn't define anything.

But it does.

I would have quibbled with her definition a bit, but chose not to when I saw it. That's probably because I appreciated her (@IndigoChild5559 ) support as well as that from @SalixIncendium and @shunyadragon, none of whom are atheists I believe.

I will now. First, undecided isn't really the right word for agnosticism. It implies indecision or a sense of uncertainty. My definition is closer to unknowing. In the context of god beliefs, it is the "I don't know" answer to the question, "Do you say gods exist?" That doesn't define atheism, just agnosticism, and people can be agnostic theists if they answer yes to the question, "Do you believe in any god or gods?" What makes them an agnostic is the I don't know part of, "I believe in God, but I don't really know if God is real." An agnostic atheist says "I DON'T believe in any god or god, but I can't say that there aren't any out there."

Thus, I disagree that people who are "undecided" about gods are necessarily atheists. They're agnostic, and can be theists or atheists.

And if you want a definition of atheist that excludes rocks, caterpillars, and infants, try mine: A person who answers no to the question of whether he believes in a god or gods. This si why I call people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson atheist even though they describe themselves as agnostic:

"In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said: "So, what people are really after is what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I find a word that came closest, it would be 'agnostic' ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."

OK, Neil, but do you believe that a god or gods exist? I know his answer. It's "no." That's an atheist - specifically, an agnostic atheist.

You and the others want to pretend you have no position.

It's you that is pretending. Many of us have provided our positions. I just did. Again.

they're too blinded by ego and willful ignorance to see the BS and learn anything.

Learn from whom? You? I'm afraid that you're projecting again. It's you that is unteachable and spewing BS.

And of course, I'm not surprised that you wouldn't weigh in on the discussion of why you do this and why you don't adapt. I assure that that it is not in your best interest to let people speculate why you can't learn what an atheist is, why you persist in this unsuccessful (at two levels) campaign in the face of so much rejection, and why you refuse to discuss your motives and feelings - what you think you are accomplishing and why you do it. My best guesses are all pretty unflattering to you. None of them involves concepts like intelligence, character, or cooperation/community.

What's remarkable to me is that you don't want to have any say there. You seem indifferent to the opprobrium of others, even welcoming it. Esteem (self-esteem as well as the respect of others) is a level on Maslow's pyramid. Even if you won't discuss these matters with others, you owe it to yourself to think about them, to think about what is motivating this self-destructive behavior, to think about whether that is what you want, and if not, what to do differently to achieve what it is you're after:

 

[McBell]

No, actually it doesn't.

Yes, it actually does.
Your dislike of the definition is a you problem.
Especially seeing as it is you who constantly whines about it.

Which is why you're pushing it.

I am "pushing" a definition?
Nope.
I am merely pointing out the fact that all the baggage you attach to the word is your baggage and not anything actually attached to it.

You and the others want to pretend you have no position.

I do have a position.
My position is that you, nor anyone else, has convinced me that a deity exists outside human imagination.

Like your silly definition of atheism, you can keep repeating it, but you can't justify it. So it's never going to convince anyone but you.

I do not have to justify your baggage.

I am pretty sure I have already stated that fact.