Atheists: Discuss the role of arrogance in atheist "knowledge".?

One could argue that the most intellectually honest philosophical position is agnosticism,and they would be right(to me).

On the other hand,I've read that the 'atheist' doesn't necessarily *believe* that there is NO God,he just doesn't believe that any of the entities claimed to be deities are real,that is,his assertion is really negative.

I've stopped calling myself an atheist and getting into these fashionable internet debates,because of the ambiguity of it all.

It is an assumption of some that those of us who say that all the available evidence leads reasonably to the conclusion that there is no god is in some way a close minded standpoint, and that this conclusion is an immovable position, when in fact the requirement of evidence means that we are always open to new evidence and perfectly happy to change our point of view if it is shown as reasonable to do so. Most of us do not *want* there to be a god nor do we *not want* there to be one, we only want to understand the truth as best we can.

To believe in something because it appeals to you, or because you think you should, leaves far less room for change or a better understanding, and is a far more immovable position to take.

It is not reasonable to say that if something cannot be proved to not exist then it might exist. In taking this position we would have to regard everything the human imagination has ever created as possibly existing, which would be a chaotic way of thinking and an obstacle to discovering the truth.

At this time, there is no evidence for any sort of god/s, that there is no evidence that they don't exist does not in any way indicate that they might exist, the only reasonable conclusion is that they don't exist.

If evidence ever emerges to the contrary then that situation would change, and we would have to and we would, think again:)

I can see how all of that might sound arrogant, but speaking for myself it is not meant that way, it is just a logical conclusion, perhaps it seems arrogant because it is not based on any emotional input, but it is very open to intellectual criticism, and is a working conclusion rather than fact:)

Atheist knowledge is based on secular science.

While some scientists can be personally arrogant, this means nothing when presenting a paper for peer review. If the paper is rubbish, or if the results cannot be repeated, or the analysis or conclusion doesn't make sense, then the result does not stand- it is mercilessly torn to shreds in the public arena. This is how science works.

This is the kind of scrutiny that evolution (for example) has received for 150 years now, and it has stood the test of time.

Creationists are welcome to publish scientific papers too. But when will we see one?

So far the score is Evolution: 85764, Creationism: 0

Assuming a lack of God's existence when there is a lack of evidence is not arrogant. Claiming that God exists without evidence isn't particularly arrogant either, but claiming to know God's will certainly would be very arrogant. (Your second question rests on the incorrect assumption that atheists are arrogant.)

Your question is a non-question. It is a claim that atheists are arrogant in the form of a question.

The most arrogant people on the planet are those who believe they have a direct line to Big Daddy in the Sky.

Most of those people couldn't tell you the actual scientific definitions of fact, hypothesis and theory to save their lives.

It doesn't take arrogance to not believe in magical sky dudes. It just takes being rational and not needing to make up answers. Having to have an answer even when you don't know is what is arrogant.

Are you saying that, saying there is "No God" is arrogant, but saying there IS God, is not arrogant?

When there is no proof of a god in the first place?

Read Bertrand Russel's Teapot Theory. The burden of proof should not lie on the skeptic.

Arrogance, no. Intelligence, yes. Edumacation can bridge the gap. I got me some.

>>>>what's really arrogant is someone actually believing that they have a land line on some god, and it gives them the right to judge others and condemn others to such ridiculous places like hell ... because it says so in a book they read.

arrogance?

I think this another case of a zombie worshipper using a word that they dont understand. I see it all the time, with the way they misuse "fact", "logic", "theory", "science" and such.

No, basing ones beliefs on research and education is not arrogance

Arrogance would be more like thinking that because one chooses to believe in fairy tales about talking donkeys and a flat earth, that somehow gives them the right to force their bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, genocidal beliefs on others.

Or alternately, when faced with real answers that threaten their delusion, saying "those arent answers"

Silly zombie worshippers

Well, for me a fact requires empirical evidence, and there is no such evidence for the existence of a god. When there is, I will study it, and may then believe. Until then, to me god is simply a hypothesis.

Do I sound arrogant? Think not.