This article struck me because it employs every bad atheist cliche and it's a like a step by step playbook of the atheist ideology. It shows ever bad move philosophically, third rate logic, ridicule bad mouthing, the atheist template. It's a text book example of the athist ideology and the kind of propaganda it foments. The proper classification for this text is "propaganda." Its unimaginative, makes nothing but unsupported assertions an evokes every stereotype I've talked about.
It appears to be fashionable these days to call atheists arrogant. Over and over we read how Dawkins is arrogant, Hitchens perhaps even more so, and Sam Harris is clearly just a “know-it-all” with an attitude problem. In fact, if you read the postings on this site for a bit, you will “learn” that we un-famous atheists are arrogant, too.
My first question would be why is this person writing about which side is more arrogant? Dawkins and Harris are clearly arrogant becuase they think they don't have to know theology to call it stupid. They think they are so right they don't have to concern themselves with little details like logic or truth. I've certainly quoted enough atheists form Message boards, no one really doubts the arrogance there. Why is this such a challenging issue for this perosn? I suggest it's because WS knows that the major edifice upon which the atheist ideology rests is bravado and being snide and arrogant and belittling religious people. Now he (?) turns to the assertion that "they are picking on us because we are unpopular. This is something atheist dred wth horror. They really believe in appeal to popularity and they can't get over the fact that they are so unpopular.
Now, if expressing an unpopular opinion means that one is arrogant, then we have no defense. But, let’s look at a typical dictionary definition of the word: “Arrogant; having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability, etc.; conceited; overbearingly proud.”No expressing an unpopular opinion doesn't make you arrogant. Being a jerk and thinking you know it all even about things you don't even study makes you arrogant.
That part about “having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability,” catches my eye. Isn’t it Christians who claim they are god’s “saved?” Talk about “one’s own importance!” Isn’t it Christians who claim they KNOW which is the real god and what he wants from us? Mightn’t that be an exaggerated opinion of one’s abilities? I certainly wouldn’t claim the ability to identify a real god, with any certainty. So who is the arrogant one, here?
Of course this is a famous old saw of atheism. The attack on religoius people as arrogant becasue they dare to believe in salvation. If you don't down in the pit and wollow with the pigs then you are arrogant. the person who wants to be right with God must be mean and ei l and think they are better. That is so typical of poor self esteem. I've already published articles on studies showing that atheists have low self esteem and those who have negative God images first had negative self images. The person with low self esteem sees the desire to hold oneself in a positive light as arrogant. So the atheists is sensitive about arrogance and sees in the Christian belief and faith in the security of salvation because they have no such security.
While the Christian claims he KNOWS with certainty that Bible-god is the one true god, I humbly submit that different people have claimed thousands of different gods to be the one true god, we know for certain that thousands of those were false gods, and so I have no confidence that I could do any better spotting the real god than those people did. Do you not see the difference here? The very fact that men have followed thousands of false gods convinces me that we humans are hopeless when it comes to identifying which gods are real and which are false.Here's another thing they wont allow anyone to wonder, to investigate or to come to their own conclusions. Just the fact that Chrsitians have their own beliefs and don't accept uncritically the atheist template is grounds for reducible. Ahteists believe there's only one form of knowledge, empirical science (as long as it agrees with the atheist template, when it doesn't it's not science). So there's on form of thought that is permissible that is along the lines of the template.
But the Christian brushes all that aside, because he knows. And how does he know? Because people told him so, or he feels it, or both. The Bible tells him which is the real god, though how the Christian can tell the Bible is the real “holy” book and not one of the others, like the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc., he seems unable to explain. But, generally this doesn’t trouble him because he feels the presence of the one true god within himself. How he knows which god it is that he feels must remain a mystery.
Here we see the attempt of the atheist to evoke divide and condor. There are other religious groups than Christianity (of cousre atheism is no against them it's only a hate Christian God club). They continually try to use teh fact of other faiths as a wedge to drive doubt into the faith. How do you know those other guys aren't the true ones? Of course they have no real answer themselves. If you give them an answer they baulk because they don't care about facts they just assert on that any difference a prori invigilates Christianity. They also wont allow Chrsitians to know anything. I'm sure WizenedSage (o there's o arrogance there is there!??) would assert that I never read the Bhagavd Gita. While I would assert that WS has not read it. I have. I read it in high school the year I became an atheist myself. If the onlyk reilgion in the world was Hinduism and there were atheists rebelling agains tit they would call the Bhagavad Gita a pile of made up crap. yet they expect Christians to fear it. To be beaten by it and to laps into mistimed daze at the question "How do you know this is not true" while they themselves have no trouble assessing it as a Bull shit.
Fort the record I think the Gita is very interesting and has some great features, I like it. I don't fear it and I don't worry that it might be true faith. Having interesting features don't make it the true faith.
Now we come to the real hatred of William Lane Craig this one fo the atheist cardinal rules. Thou shalt bad mouth Craig.
William Lane Craig speaks of the “self-verification” of the Holy Ghost within himself being sufficient proof of god for him, and most Christians would buy this. Call me a nit picker, but I have a problem with anyone claiming they can feel the truth. I have first-hand experience on this issue which convinces me that these people are just fooling themselves. I once felt the presence of a god, and constantly “conversed” with this god inside my head. I no longer feel that presence. Obviously, god either exists or he doesn’t, and my feelings have never been able to prove it either way because my feelings have been on both sides of the issue. In other words, my feelings failed to prove anything. Now, who is the arrogant one? Is it Craig, who claims he can feel truth, or me, who has no confidence in his feelings as a test of truth? It seems that old adage applies here: Faith means never having to say you’re wrong.
No small wonder that this foolish person can no longer feel the presence of God. what a fool1 to know God and feel the presence of God which the greatest thing then give it up for what? third rate arguments and bad logic. bad mouthing apologists he's never read. I have to doubt that this person had a very stong sense of God's presnce. William James says that mystical experience is on a continuum at the shallow end is very tenuous feelings. This is end this person was in exclusively. No one who went into the deep end would use as justification for giving it up such shallow regurgitation of mindless pablum. There's nothing profound here. He doubts the feelings wow! original. amazing. Of cousre he is totally unread when it comes to the sources that undersign religious experience. I have 200 studies that up the profound effects. For a quick summary of what these tell us and the God arguemnts I make from them see here, and here.
Many Christians are so arrogantly certain that they have the truth that they have no interest in studying further. Many will deny evolution, although they obviously have never read anything on evolution that wasn’t written by creationists.
This is just more badmouthing. Atheist have to believe that Christians don't study. who has the 200 stuies? them or me? who went to the trouble to research them? I did. not them not the atheist they are content to lave the thinking at the surface and assert that experiences don't mean anything. I'm the one who did the research and forged ahead and found the empirical basis for God arguments.
Also, home schooling is apparently on the rise in America today. Why? Because many Christian parents don’t want their children exposed to unapproved information. Christian parents and preachers seem to be insisting that what people “knew” 2,000 years ago is more important than anything man has learned since. Most Christian congregations encourage their members to avoid marrying outside the faith, and some even frown on members even mingling with non-Christians. There is a pattern here. It appears that Christians are so sure they have the truth that they often actively avoid gaining further information. It seems to me that if one truly wants to find the truth, the real truth, then he should follow the path containing the MOST information. Isn’t this obvious?Then the author throws in a bit of irrelevant bombast about home schooling of all things. Obviously WS was from a fundie background and has been traumatized by fudies. It's mostly fundies that home school. My concept is neighborhood schooling. I would have them in homes the city would pay for real teachers and group kids by their neighborhood have small classes of 10 or so. but who cares? what does this have to do Christians being arrogant? He's gonna find a way to make it look arrogant.
I find that most of the atheists I know are hungry for information. A great many are science enthusiasts and are well read in world history. Tellingly, many atheists are also surprisingly conversant in theology. Now who are the arrogant ones? Are those who are constantly seeking more information and revising their opinions really the arrogant ones? That was a rhetorical question – no answer necessary.o yea they are so hungry for information tehy screen all source of knowledge that don't support their views. They know so much about science but only the science they can use. they bad mouth my 200 studies and have said all manor of stupid things against them. the one they have not done (apart from reading one) is to actually make a valid methodological attack. This becuase the scinece worshipers are lousy scientists. A lot of science types are actually ghettoized by their own fields they don't know much about things outside their fails. most atheist are really controlled by others in their tinging.they are brain washed to think knowledge is a narrow line of only empirical scientific facts that agree with them.
let me be clear I am not a creationist! I 'm not talking about that. They don't like social scinece because that often backs up the value of religion. They don't like anthropology for the same reason. Science gives a bunch of disconnected facts about the psychical world. It's easy to hear that without having one's world view challenged especially if that world view is materialist. It's easy to imagine on has a great fortress of facts backing up one's few just in terms of evolution, which they mistaken take to be a refutation of God.
So, Christians are convinced they have the truth because they have been told this (by the Bible, preachers, parents, etc.), or they feel it, or both, while atheists suspect there is no god. Now, I don’t know of any atheists who think they can prove there is no god. They merely believe that gods are extremely unlikely, like dragons are unlikely, and so they don’t believe in them.Having beliefs is what makes for arrogance, and they want to pretend "we don't have beliefs we have facts." That's just the propagandist aspect of the fortress of facts. The truth is scinece doesn't prove things. (see Karl Popper).
For myself, I don’t believe in gods because I know I cannot trust my feelings to identify the truth, and I don’t know why I should be able to tell a real god when I see one, any more than those millions throughout history who have worshipped thousands of false gods. Did I say, “when I see one?” Yes, and I meant to say that, for that is exactly the problem, you see. All gods are invisible. How convenient.What can be made of the fear of personal feelings? Most atheists have this few of them are so forthcoming about it. It's like saying "I am a sinner help me I can't trust myself." This is one of the first steps in being brain washed. When people are brain wahsed they are made to feel that they can't trust thesmelves or their own judgement so they must rely on the leader or the group to tell them what to think. This si very rue of atheist. The most amazingly huge joke is the world world is attaching the label of "free thinker" so the atheist slaves. They are s free in their thinking as moonies. This fear of feelings works by a dichotomy of psychology. They cut the human experience in half and say "the feeling part is wrong and bad and can't be trusted, but the intellectual pat is good." the reason is because they are pumping them up with false bravado by giving them a bully rush form mocking and ridiculing the opponents. they feel big, improtant, and powerful so they confuse that with feeling wise and and smart and learned. In reality this is more of an emotional response than is the feelings of God's presence. The sensitive nature of feelings presence is not emotion. It's sensitivity to a form of cognition not well understood. The feeling of being somebody because we can bully others is an emotion feeling, not a learning or intellectual feeling it invovles no intellectuality.
Atheists actually scoff at intellectuality because it often invovles more than must empirical science. They can't accept anything else as knowledge. To them literature, art, philosophy is just 'making stuff up."
In the last paragraph WS asserts that he is not arrgoant. If you are not arrogant what else woudl you ay but:
It is because I am NOT arrogant that I make this proposal. It is because I recognize that I cannot prove whether there is or isn’t a god. Think about it: why in hell should we humans suffer, generation after generation, for our gullibility - simply because some god can’t or won’t prove that he exists such that we can all agree on it?
This is the essence of arrogance. This person is pretending that He/she is somehow in possession of enough learning to understand a connection between belief in God and human suffering no one else sees. I don't see any reason why belief in God makes people suffer. I don't see how not believing would elevate suffering. It didn't wore the people under the rule of Mao or Pol Pot. The phrase "why the hell should we humans suffer...simply because some God wont prove that he exits." How does this follow? People suffer becuase they prove God exits? Or is it because they believe in God? How would God making himself known beyond a doubt make people stop suffering? The implication is that it's due gullibility. I don't really know how that works. I don't understand why the almost universal belief that God is proved (most people believe) doesn't stop it if God's discourse of himself would.
then he whines which I think is a sure sign of arrogance:
This is a lousy, unfair deal, and we should simply refuse it. And what kind of perverse, arrogant god would fault us for refusing to beat each other up over gods any longer, while he refuses to prove decisively that he exists?What is a lousy deal? What would refusing to believe in God do to stop suffering? or will it teach god a lesson? so the God isn't there can be blackmailed into stopping the pain if we refuse to believe? Could atheists really be that convoluted? How does God fault us for refusing to beat each other up? It seems t me it's the opposite. God doesn't want to beat each other up, and says so. So how are we suffering for that? Why imagine God is faulting us for it?
This article is typical of the atheist template. It asserts a lot of things as religious beliefs that most religious people don't' believe. It tries to blame religion for everything. It displays jealousy and arrogance and pride and hatred masked as a quai thoughtful lip service to love of learning.