Re: Questions for Christians: Are atheists arrogant?

[aqwiz]

Atheists actually believe that they are not in control of everything, they believe that they are not the greatest thing in the universe, as there are trillions upon trillions of things bigger than we. I think you need to rethink your logic. the reason most atheists think religious people are arrogant is that they do equate religion with fundamentalism, because they do such great harm. and most atheists don't "claim to be smart" they just claim that it is silly to give up and say god did it.

[pillsburydoughboy47]

I don't like atheists; they destroyed my life.

You show remarkable restraint and maturity for someone your age.

[pillsburydoughboy47]

atheists, show me the math, or shut the fuck up.

Regarding God, Einstein actually tried; what atheist has?

[pillsburydoughboy47]

It sounds to me like atheists are simply sadistic sociopaths who question the idea of valuing others as an excuse to do harm, and no other reason.

[LordOmberus]

We also don't believe that we're "Smarter" (I do wish you'd stop using words that don't mean anything in the context of what you are saying) than believers for accepting reality the way it is. We just think we've got it right and you've got it wrong. Our reasoning being that we have plenty of evidence for our explanations.

Plenty of Atheists don't even LIKE the fact that there is no god. They just accept it because it is the only logical conclusion.

[LordOmberus]

You commit a number of logical fallacies. To wit;

Atheists do not believe they are "Smarter" than the early scientists who went before and gave us the fundamental principles of modern science, only that they are A: better informed, and B: Are aware of mechanisms through which reality could have come into being without the need for an external creator.

[TheLaserMaser]

just randomly skimming through video's n found yours. I liked it, to say the least. I believe in God, I know alot about science the theory of evolution, n all that stuff. there is not enough evidence to sway my mind from there being a higher power. I get called arrogant/ ignorant all the time because of religion, and most of the time I know more about the theories behind life than the person questioning my beliefs. anyway great vid i'll check out your others too.

[paleosmoker]

Accepting that you are number two in the universe is still pretty arrogant, the only being that Christians "humble" themselves to is god.

Fundamentalist religion is the basis for all of the watered down faiths that exist today.

To believe in a 'higher power' isn't arrogant... claiming that is power created the entire friggin universe just for you is pretty damn arrogant though. And topping it off with a self sacrifice just to help you out is icing on the cake.

[NumberNile]

God never said not to humble yourself to others, just don't worship them. If you take advice someone and follow what they say, are you not acknowledging that you're wrong and therefore humbling yourself?

I never said the universe was specifically made for me. I don't necessarily believe that alien life exists, but it very well may. Not to mention, what self-sacrifice?

[paleosmoker]

"I never said the universe was specifically made for me."

You don't have to, if you're following the bible (it says it for you).

"Not to mention, what self-sacrifice?"

The one where the MOST POWERFUL BEING IN EXISTENCE KILLED HIMSELF TO KEEP YOU FROM GOING TO HELL, that one.

Do you see why it's hard to view Christians as "humble"? The bible portrays you guys right up there with god (made in his image).. certainly not as powerful but taking all of His attention.

[NumberNile]

ALL of Humanity is "up there", my friend, and that includes you. Whether you believe or not, God is looking out for you more than you know. I'm surprised you can take something as simple as typing these comments and not see the amazing amount of work that goes into it! VERY gifted people have worked for years to generate the technology to do so, and most of them (as history shows) did not think themselves as amazing. They credited God.

By the way, no, I am not a Bible-toting Fundementalist.

[paleosmoker]

I care not whether you are a fundamentalist. The point of my comments is about Christians being humble... I've seen nothing thus far that indicates that (as a group) they are (I'm sure some withstanding).

Appealing to my sense of worth wont get you anywhere in this exchange. I may be "up there" (actually since there is no god that puts us at the top) and that's just fine... I'm not claiming to be humble.

The work put into "it" was done by man, and I'm not sure you can claim "they credited God."

[NumberNile]

True, too many people were, in reality, involved to be able to credit them all, but let's be honest, religion was quite popular not some 100 years ago.

The point of the Fundementalist comment was in regard to the fact that, for the most part, I do NOT follow what the Bible says. It has some good points, like the 10 Commandments, but otherwise I feel it was written largely to control populations.

By the way, denying any other means of understanding and saying "I'm right" sonds arrogant...

[paleosmoker]

The inventors your describing may or may not have been as humble as you're making them out to be... remember, pro football players are often both Christian and arrogant. Thanking God doesn't automatically humble anyone.

My original point (and I believe RA's) was that claiming that the creator of the entire universe sacrificed himself to save you is pretty arrogant (and just one example found in the bible).

I agree with most of the remainder of your comment (I'd slash the commandments to 3).

[LordOmberus]

The ten commandments are mostly drivel. The first three are just an injunction against heresy, as though God is such an insecure person that he'd be hurt and offended if people looked to places other than him for anything, and most of the others either don't apply to the modern world, or are repetitions of the same idea.

When you narrow it down, all the useful rules you get out of it are "Don't Murder" and "Try to be honest and loyal." two out of ten isn't a good record.

[NumberNile]

Really? I'd argue for, bare minimum, 5/10.

Commandments 5-10 go as follows:

5. Honor thy father and thy mother

6. Thou shalt not kill

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery

8. Thou shalt not steal

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife/goods

You mean to tell me that you can disagree with those? And perhaps the first three were set in place because God WANTS you to believe in him and be with him. Just saying

[LordOmberus]

I would contend that most mothers and fathers do not deserve to be honored, and that honor and respect are earned by those who want them.

That's "Thou shalt not murder." killing is fine, Murder is not.

Adultery is the business of those who commit it. I'll admit that perhaps it could be argued that it harms the other person in the relationship, so I'll let it stand.

Stealing is bad, falls under honesty, moving on.

False witness, lying, honesty again.

Coveting, that I argue against.

[LordOmberus]

Coveting your neighbors goods is not only a good thing, it's necessary to the functioning of our economy. We HAVE to want things that others have, or the whole system collapses. Coveting drives industry, fuels progress.

Without it, millions would lose their jobs, hundreds of thousands would die.

[NumberNile]

Coveting in the sense that you don't go and get one for yourself, you take his/her's. Selfishness does in part fuel our economy, but so does the simple need for things such as food, shelter, etc.

Did you just say killing is fine? But murder isn't? Where does one make that distinction? And who is it up to who's distinction is correct?

Respect is earned by those who do a service for you (or others). Raising a child is by no means easy.

[LordOmberus]

I never said raising a child was easy, I just said that most parents didn't deserve any respect.

No one made them become parents, they did it all by themselves, it's their responsibility to raise their child to be a competent, reasonable member of society, and most parents fail at this pretty badly.

[NumberNile]

No, I will not. Saying that it fails dispels any possibility that the Commandments have something valuable to say, perhaps we can take the good things from the Commandments and leave out the bad, I'm all for that

[LordOmberus]

At that point, you might as well take the "Good Parts" of any set of ethical or moral principles and abandon the negative baggage.

Which, by the way, is pretty much what Secular Humanism does.

[NumberNile]

Which is what any decent human being does, regardless of their belief or lack thereof in God.

[LordOmberus]

So then, why is God necessary?

[NumberNile]

It's not a question of necessity, it's one of whether or not it can be said that a god exists, and I think it can. Plus, morality deals only with our HUMAN ideals, not supernatural or posthumous ideals.

[LordOmberus]

You believe these ideals exist, despite there being no evidence that they do.

You believe that the supernatural exists at all, despite no evidence to support the idea.

You even believe that a purely human concept like morality or ethics can exist for someone after they're dead, and they lack a brain to think about them with.

I just have to know, why?

[NumberNile]

As I discussed in my other video, something beyond sensory perception will never be available to our senses.

As for why, I'll sum it up in a nutshell: Mortimer J. Adler's argument for contingency. It's a very good read.

[LordOmberus]

Then don't USE our senses. There are plenty of ways we have for verifying the existence of things which we cannot directly interact with.

[NumberNile]

Exactly, which is where Adler's treatise comes into play. He uses logic.

[LordOmberus]

Logic doesn't come into play until you have evidence to extrapolate from.

Look, I'm not going to find and read this, so can you summarize the point you're trying to get across?

[NumberNile]

Did you just say killing is fine? Murder isn't? Who gets to make that distinction and what makes them right? You can't avoid imposing morals upon others in that situation.

Respect is earned by doing things for others, and raising a child is by no means easy.

Selfishness does partially drive the economy, but so does the need for things such as food and shelter. Coveting in this sense means wanting something to the point that you don't go and get your own, you take your neighbor's.

[LordOmberus]

I'm sorry, did you just say Coveting is only Coveting if it gets to the point where you steal? Who gets to make that distinction and what makes them right?

See, I can do that too.

I'm merely making the distinction that the original hebrew does, and in the original hebrew, "Killing" is permitted. It's only murder if you kill another hebrew. This is why it was perfectly fine to slaughter the Midianites, at least according to God.

[NumberNile]

I'd say that they were wrong. I don't care what the original Hebrews thought and it shouldn't matter now. Killing is wrong in every convention imaginable.

[LordOmberus]

Really? Even of food animals, pests, and microorganisms? I hate to break it to you, but you're killing every second of every day without even thinking about it.

[NumberNile]

It's what coveting means? The folks who defined the original word get to decide

[LordOmberus]

You say before that you don't care what the original hebrews who defined the laws thought, then turn around and say that people who invent words get to decide what they mean.

To "Covet" means to desire something for yourself. That's everything and all that it means. Wanting it enough to steal it isn't part of the definition, and besides, we ALREADY have a commandment against stealing, why add another one to prohibit people from even THINKING of stealing it? It's yet more redundancy.

[NumberNile]

Would it not make sense that the gist of the commandment is don't take your neighbor's stuff? I think that's more or less what it's saying. Perhaps it's redundant, but hey, I didn't make 'em up.

The Hebrews didn't invent the word kill, so I could give a damn what they had in mind.

[LordOmberus]

My point is that the Commandments don't actually make much sense.

You'll notice that later, in the New Testament, when Jesus was asked what commandments should be followed... he only listed five.

And that was two thousand years ago, now we're left with "Don't murder" and "Don't lie or steal."

I just prefer to phrase the second one as "Be honest."

[NumberNile]

The writers of these things weren't very concise, I agree, I think they just wanted to hammer home the fact that you REALLY shouldn't be doing that stuff.

[LordOmberus]

If that was true, I'd imagine that they'd have changed the first three, meaningless commandments to "Don't Murder", "Don't Murder." and "DON'T MURDER!."

They might have even had room to put in something about not raping or molesting either, but both of those things are conspicuously absent.

Look, just admit it fails as a moral code.

[Alivefornow]

As an Atheist I do not think I am smarter then Newton. I don't think any atheist I know believes that they (sic) are smarter then Newton. But still we know things that newton didn't know like relativity. I'm not smarter for knowing relativity just like I not smarter for knowing that god doesn't exist (I would rather say it's pointless for god to exist). However there was a test that proved that the average Atheist is smarter than the average theist.

[MortalTodd]

And by that, of course I mean that the compiling pounds of evidence have been so thoroughly stacked against any "god" are just to blatant to continuously be ignored, especially by religious people.

Now, my only doubt is the inability to explain how everything began. Before time. I know that neither side can prove this. This can be argued until the end of humanity, and no one will actually win. I wouldn't call religious people arrogant. No. Just ignorant.

[MortalTodd]

According the the definition of arrogance, either side in this debate of god being real or not is arrogant... IF they "claim" that their opposition is wrong and that they are right. However, you could say two children arguing over whether or not 2 + 2 = 4 or 5 would then be arrogant. The exception is that the child who can prove that 4 is the right answer, is no longer arrogant, but correct.

In this debate of whether god is real or not, it is overwhelmingly fair to say that logic has triumphed.

[NumberNile]

I didn't talk about who is right because I didn't wish to start that conversation. If you want to start it, go for it. Just show me all of this "evidence" I've been told about time and time again. And please, for the love of all that is good, don't give me ANYTHING about religion. We're talking about God.

[leftknut]

In all fairness I've only seen about a minute of your video so far, so maybe you explain it later, but what's with the SM background?

[NumberNile]

It's answered in the description.

[NumberNile]

...

I CAN argue from a logistical standpoint, but I WON'T because that's just silly. I make use of sarcasm relatively often.

[NumberNile]

Hypothesis, not faith. I could argue that faith is merely belief in an unproven fact, which evolution was.

I don't want religion in the lab. I'm secular in everything except belief.

[NumberNile]

It is just faith. I've never denied that.

The God of Abraham, but also follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. I forgot to mention that.

[NumberNile]

I am an agnostic in the sense that I do not claim to know. Agnostic, the way I understand it, is without definitive proof. Adler called it "Paganism", and I think it's a good position to adhere to. In my mind, a Christian is someone who believes in God (by the way, Allah and "God" are the same God. Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in the same God, which is cool if you think about it), and I do. Therefore, I am a Christian Pagan as you are an Atheist Agnostic.

[NumberNile]

My bad. Definition crossing isn't fun for anyone. Postulation is a bit of a synonym for hypothesis, no? Well, without hypothesis we wouldn't have science. Darwin thought he was right without having proved his theory, so what? There's more evidence for it today, yes, but if nobody believed anything, what motivation would we have to study the subject?

[NumberNile]

Well, I can critique on a logistical standpoint and say that you cannot provide any evidence against God (cite my video "Can Science Prove God's Existence?").

Or I could say that you're right. However, I found Adler's, Kant's, and Aristotle's works very convincing.

[NumberNile]

Higher Power can mean more than God, and trust me, I know what I'm saying. I enter my Agnosticism with the predisposition that there's something out there. Now, if I encounter a good argument against something, even if it's a higher power, I'll reject that higher power.

[NumberNile]

"So what?".

Umm... That's what the Bible is there for, haha. It's not meant to be taken literally.

"You haven't studied atheism enough". What's there to study? It's not a religion, right? It's simply a disbelief in God(s). What do I need to study? Unless you're willing to admit that it's a religion, in which case I will.

[NumberNile]

Newton and Galileo probably were educated in Biblical interpretation, history, application to real life, etc. Dawkins... Well, he finds a couple verses, reads them with absolutely no context, and think that's good enough.

[NumberNile]

Higher Power doesn't necesarily mean "God". I can distinguish between God and gravity, no? Both are powers beyond our control, unless we go into space, which is where God and gravity differ. Again, see my comment about being an Agnostic.

[NumberNile]

"This just proves that many people can and have been wrong".

One example. Another would be that video of your's titled "EVIDENCE FOR GOD".

[NumberNile]

I think you can refute God, but I can believe. We are both arrogant in that sense. I think Agnosticism is the only way to truly humble yourself, and I try to, as often as I can, approach things without a Christian bias.

[NumberNile]

Or some can be existent and others not so much...

What I'm saying is, it's arrogant to assume that you are correct. Maybe you should watch the video in its entirety, no? I have NEVER, and will NEVER in my life say "I know that God exists". I have and will more than likely forever say that "I believe God exists". The YouTube atheists, including RabidApe, somehow "know". That's where my entire argument lies, claiming stake to knowledge you don't have.

[NumberNile]

Back when Newton and Galileo lived, they were RECQUIRED to know a lot about religion. They were exposed to it 24/7, and I think they knew, after a lifetime of studying both religion and the sciences, more than Dawkins knows about religion. Send a message to a guy named xSpectatoronex and try to defend Mr. Dawkins :)

[NumberNile]

Who? Dawkins? Harris? That's laughable. And you assert with such authority that God doesn't exist, I don't assert that he does, I believe it. Arrogance?

And yes, there are atheist theologians, but there are Christian ones to, this proves nothing.

[NumberNile]

Again, I do not trust Dawkins to tell me what the Bible says, because he is a biologist. Not only is he biased to begin with, but if he is as good as they say he is at biology, I doubt he's read into the subject as much as other people have. I don't trust a theologan with my astrology for those same reasons. See what I'm saying? You have a life, a job, maybe a family, and those take time. I'm young enough where I don't have much hindering me, and I choose to spend my time doing this.

[NumberNile]

Here's the problem: People who do have enough knowledge don't refute it. I can cite Mortimer J. Adler, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, etc.

[NumberNile]

I know more about the shape of the earth than the authors of the Bible, yes. Is that such an arrogant thing to say? No, I don't think it is.

Read my response to my first comment, you interpreted the cliche all wrong, I meant to say that you think you know more about religion than those people. And I very well might know more about God/religion than Einstein. He dealed with the sciences, which is respectable, and I like that to an extent. I don't want religion in the science lab.

[NumberNile]

Then you've been hearing it wrong. I think that you believe you know more about religion that Newton or Galileo, not necesarily that you think you are smarter in general. If those two didn't know enough about religion to refute it, what makes all these youtube atheists think they do?

[NumberNile]

Comments like your's are the premise for this video by the way.

[wolfgar45]

i think the logic junkie saw this right before he made that "god the scapegoat" video.

[NumberNile]

If he did, let me know. I'd like to talk with him.

[NumberNile]

Care to elaborate as to why?

[wolfgar45]

who are those guys?

[NumberNile]

Who?

[wolfgar45]

in the last picture.

[NumberNile]

Streetlight Manifesto

[justin412]

well i dont want to hate too much on what you are saying because you make valid points

but what are you tring to accomplish by calling another person arrogant?

if you are a christian, which i am assuming you are, it wouldnt be intelligent to insult someone that inst a christian.

[NumberNile]

Very true, but understand that premise of the video I'm responding to is just this video reversed. RabidApe called Christians arrogant, so I simply made a video to tell him that he's mistaken in believing that it's the belief of a person that makes him/her a certain way.

[shedininja001]

I'm not sure saying someone is arrogant is an insult more then an observation, but, the point made here is that its just silly to call (anyone) arrogant based on what they belive. There are arrogant people - true, but the defention of the word itself is called out here.

[NumberNile]

It could be both.

[shedininja001]

very good points.

[NumberNile]

I'm just an AVGN rip-off...

[RyanDrummoud1234]

no your not!!!

[shedininja001]

yeah, i've desided to block a serten some one for trolling.

this video should not get distracted by odd comments. so.. yeah good points as I said.

[wolfgar45]

what's trolling?

[NumberNile]

Following what we do on YouTube and commenting on our videos to get attention...

[RyanDrummoud1234]

well hes still not an avgn ripp off