In need of a more humbleness. Why condemning the Theistic position makes no sense.

[The Grand Nudger]

I find it all to convenient that you dropped, "if they're right they're right" in favor of theism, but managed to construct the exact opposite for atheism in a thread about how "some" atheists ought to be more humble.

I'm an atheist for -reasons-, if I'm right....guess what....I'm right (as per the above), and I -would- know that there was no god, and that no one else "knew him".

You know I like you, but I can't help but conceive of your statement as anything other than passive aggressive apologetics and a call to silence.

[Mystic]

I find it all to convenient that you dropped, "if they're right they're right" in favor of theism, but managed to construct the exact opposite for atheism in a thread about how "some" atheists ought to be more humble.

I'm an atheist for -reasons-, if I'm right....guess what....I'm right (as per the above), and I -would- know that there was no god, and that no one else "knew him".

But the Atheist position is not that there is no God. It's that they don't believe in God. So from this stance, you would have to either claim:

1) God doesn't exist
2) If he exists, he has not made himself known to anyone.

And if you want to remain logical, you would have to prove these.

Now believers claim to know God via faith, but how does an Atheist know 1 or 2? Via faith? no. So it makes no sense.

Therefore it makes more sense to keep one's stance and keep an open mind that a Theist might have a legitimate experience.

That would be a more humble approach and it's the better one in my honest opinion.

[Zen Badger]

When theists stop claiming to know the will of their god and trying to impose it on the rest of us, I will then try to be more "humble"

[Mystic]

When theists stop claiming to know the will of their god and trying to impose it on the rest of us, I will then try to be more "humble"

I think the whole thing with will of God is just humans trying to impose morals.

Right now people trying to impose their moral view, whether they claim it's from God or not, people believe in that.

Even as an Atheist, you will condemn other moral view points, and see others as more superior to others.

I say "impose" as highly influence others to take and even legislate laws that hold those point of views. Of course, no one can force a person to have any idea.

[Mudhammam]

Therefore it makes more sense to keep one's stance and keep an open mind that a Theist might have a legitimate experience.

That would be a more humble approach and it's the better one in my honest opinion.

Ah, gotta love the soft bigotry of low expectations. Theists might have received a legitimate "revelation" so why demand the same standard of sufficient evidence and internal consistency that we would for any other claim that seeks to assert itself as authority over others? In fact, why not just give every schizophrenic and sufferer of delirium the same benefit of the doubt instead of trying to "help" them cope with the facts of reality while we're at it?

[The Grand Nudger]

But the Atheist position is not that there is no God. It's that they don't believe in God. So from this stance, you would have to either claim:

1) God doesn't exist
2) If he exists, he has not made himself known to anyone.

And if you want to remain logical, you would have to prove these.

You forgot a third option. God is a character in a book. I can prove that to you anytime you'd like. While my position is not the position of every atheist, the claim of knowledge is not the position of every theist. Nevertheless, there are theists and atheists who are comfortable making a claim of knowledge. You invoked one side of that coin in your statements - and then tried to compare that apple to an orange in the next line. It doesn't make any sense at all to keep my mind open about whether or not a character contained in a narrative jumped out and had a discussion with -anyone-. There's nothing humble in keeping my mind open to that - incredibly ignorant, sure, humble...not even close.

The legitimacy of an experience and the legitimacy of a claim -beyond that experience- are entirely separate issues. An often used example is alien abduction. Those people have clearly had a "legitimate experience" - that doesn't mean that aliens abducted them.

[tjakey]

I rarely try to talk people out of their theistic positions. This in spite of the fact that theists are constantly trying to force their particular theistic ideology on others. So, for the most part, I think the basic tenet of this thread is false. It isn't atheists who are taking the heads off of infidels, who want to impose their ideology on those who work for us, or who are denying pretty basic scientific observations because they clash with our world view or faith. That is the exclusive territory of the believer.

I think atheists have been pretty tolerant of the evils perpetrated on the world by the theists. We are not burning down churches, calling for the assassination of religious leaders, destroying priceless artifacts, condemning women to servant status, or hounding gay people with prison sentences and beatings. There are some rare moments when I wonder just why we are being so passive. Then I remember, in the human race the believers outnumber the non-believers by a factor of, at least, 50 to 1.

The fucked up world we live in is being fucked up by believers. Yet they think outspoken atheists as the problem. Amazing.

[Mystic]

Therefore it makes more sense to keep one's stance and keep an open mind that a Theist might have a legitimate experience.

That would be a more humble approach and it's the better one in my honest opinion.

Ah, gotta love the soft bigotry of low expectations. Theists might have received a legitimate "revelation" so why demand the same standard of sufficient evidence and internal consistency that we would for any other claim that seeks to assert itself as authority over others? In fact, why not just give every schizophrenic and sufferer of delirium the same benefit of the doubt instead of trying to "help" them cope with the facts of reality while we're at it?

There are certain claims that are properly basic and no one seeks proof aside from direct knowledge of them. We been through this many times. And schizophrenics are diagnosed for an illness not for beliefs. Delusions are not simply false beliefs (when it comes to medical term for schizophrenics).

[ShaMan]

I think humans don't like more neutral point of views and always feel like they have to take a fight or flight. They feel like they have to take sides.

It doesn't have to be that way.

On this point, I agree with you. Humans like labels, and they're willing to fight to define and defend them.

As I said earlier; most atheists are ok with theists having whatever belief they want, it just seems that so many (most) theistic beliefs include bigotry toward those outside the group. Atheists don't mind theists having beliefs, it's when those beliefs contain judgment that atheists speak out loudly (or 'in need of more humbleness') as your thread title states.

I am humble up until the point where someone (anyone) gets in my face (politics included) and forces their beliefs upon me - which is exactly what most theistic positions attempt to do. Once that point has been reached, I fight for my life with all of the voracity I can muster, and if that looks like a lack of humility in that circumstance, then I say "kudos for me" and anyone else who is willing to defend their right to believe as they wish without coercion.

[Mystic]

I rarely try to talk people out of their theistic positions. This in spite of the fact that theists are constantly trying to force their particular theistic ideology on others. So, for the most part, I think the basic tenet of this thread is false. It isn't atheists who are taking the heads off of infidels, who want to impose their ideology on those who work for us, or who are denying pretty basic scientific observations because they clash with our world view or faith. That is the exclusive territory of the believer.

I think atheists have been pretty tolerant of the evils perpetrated on the world by the theists. We are not burning down churches, calling for the assassination of religious leaders, destroying priceless artifacts, condemning women to servant status, or hounding gay people with prison sentences and beatings. There are some rare moments when I wonder just why we are being so passive. Then I remember, in the human race the believers outnumber the non-believers by a factor of, at least, 50 to 1.

The fucked up world we live in is being fucked up by believers. Yet they think outspoken atheists as the problem. Amazing.

I wasn't comparing Atheists to Theists. I don't know why you are.