Proof Not All “New Atheists” Are Condescending Jerks

25 Responses to “Proof Not All “New Atheists” Are Condescending Jerks”

1. UNRR on August 31st, 2009 at 4:17 am

   This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 8/31/2009, at <a href=”http://unreligiousright.blogspot.com/”>The Unreligious Right</a>

2. Jon on August 31st, 2009 at 9:42 pm

   Actually, almost by definition Atheists are condescending.  Adopting the belief that God does not exist means that Atheists must believe that they have all knowledge, past, present and future to be able to conclusively make such a claim.  In this manner, Atheists have paradoxically made a God of themselves. 

   Christians (and those of other religions) do not have this problem because they can rely on divine revelation.

3. 40 Year Old Atheist on August 31st, 2009 at 10:40 pm

   Jon: You’re right. We must be condescending. After all, we think we are nothing – of no real significance – in the grand scheme of things. We think we live and then die and that’s it. That’s all she wrote. Yes, you are right, these thoughts of one, short life obviously must make us gods.

   Paradoxically, not only do you think you know the mind of some magical sky daddy that no one has ever actually seen, but you think daddy has a special plan for you in eternity.

   Yeah, we’re the arrogant ones.

   We don’t claim to know everything. Far from it – we base our beliefs on what is known today. Science is always provisional. If science reveals us to be wrong, we change accordingly. That’s how the scientific method operates – you are always searching for better, more complete explanations. That’s why General Relativity is a more complete theory than Newton’s Gravitation.

   You, on the other hand, know all there is to know based on a book that shows no illumination of how nature actually works.

   Yeah, we’re the arrogant ones.

   Folks, I want you to take note of the fact that I made a point with this post to show that we are not always in-your-face and aggressive as “New Atheists” are often painted. What did I get in return? A Christian telling me how we are ALL, by definition, condescending people with a god-complex. You are quite the piece of work, Jon.

4. Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 12:29 am

   Ah so john has descended into anger. He can’t succeed in converting, so now he has to start trolling just to get reactions and still he avoids adding anything constructive.
   Come on jon come on back to our conversations and share your wisdom.
   Looks like jon is still in stage 1 of accepting the truth….. hope he doesn’t start shooting abortion doctors….. or bloggers next.
   “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
   We’ll be waiting for you on the other side…

5. Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 7:59 am

   Renshia – I have not “descended” into anger.  I’m not angry.  I’m just pointing out one of the flaws in the atheist view point.  I also don’t understand or agree with your statements about truth.

   Mark – I know you don’t want to be called or thought of as condescending…but it is a shortcoming to think otherwise because that is inherent in the atheist viewpoint whether or not you claim “we are nothing….etc.”  By claiming that there is no God, you claim to have all knowledge – therefore, elevating yourself to God-like status.  It doesn’t matter if you are in-your-face or not.

   This is why I suggest you use reason and logic when developing your worldview.

6. 40 Year Old Atheist on September 1st, 2009 at 8:09 am

   Jon: Your history consists of:

   1. stating opinions
   2. providing only half answers
   3. re-stating the same opinions over and over and..

   You completely ignored most of my other points – something you have done now on most of my responses and questions.

   I was being sarcastic in my last comment so I will spell it out:

   1. Our position is that there is no god. We are not rejecting your god. We simply see NO evidence for one.
   2. Along with no god goes no afterlife. We die. There is NO plan for us. We are mortal.
   3. You, on the other hand, feel that your religion and your god is looking out for you – that he has a plan for no less than eternity.

   And, in the face for our simple request for evidence – ANY reasonable amount of evidence – and position that we are insignificant in the time and space of the universe, you get to say we are condescending and have a god-complex?

   The irony of this thread is almost too much to believe.

7. 40 Year Old Atheist on September 1st, 2009 at 8:15 am

   @Jon: You are the one who is failing to use reason and logic. The fact that something exists is not evidence that an entity created it. Secondly, we do not claim to know everything. All we claim is that there is no evidence in support of your god. You sure do like to twist things, hey?

8. Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 8:57 am

   Mark, of course I will state opinions.  If you think you are doing anything other than that, it proves my point in the first comment.

   I don’t mean to provide half answers.  I believe that I have given you answers which are complete enough to make decisions, to explore further on your own, and to have a reasaonable dialogue.

   Additionally, I think you and I both are re-stating the same opinions over and over again.  You are an atheist, you are going to state what you believe in.  I am going to state what I believe in.

   So to answer your final question, YES, I get to say that the Atheist position is inherently condescending (or pretentious) for the reasons mentioned above.  I think you are a perfectly nice person for the most part, I just don’t think you have really thought through what your beliefs mean.

   40 Year Old Atheist
   September 1st, 2009 at 5:52 pm

   By the way…
   

   I just don’t think you have really thought through what your beliefs mean.

   This may be the most arrogant thing (and that’s saying a lot) you’ve ever typed here.

   Jon, how do you know you’ve investigated this more than I have? How do you know you somehow possess more insight/intellect than I to have grasped the correct answers?

   I am not some 15 or 20 year-old with little experience, education and ability to think. I am an over 40 year old working as a policy analyst. I am a person who can see when things don’t add up.

   Also, I believe I have clearly stated that arriving at atheism was no fly-by-night process. It was brutally difficult.

   Now, here’s a question for you: Have you ever seriously entertained the idea that there is no god? Have you ever broken out of your believer box and truly assessed the other side?

   I was a believer who tried – desperately – to continue believing. After years and years of exploration, I finally entertained the thought that maybe – just maybe – I was wrong. Thus began the scariest several month long process of my life. I read CONSTANTLY. I watched video CONSTANTLY. I ate, drank and slept belief vs. non-belief until I was exhausted. It was a BRUTAL time for me. Why? Because I wanted my doubt to remain a mere doubt. I didn’t want it to be true.

   Have you put yourself through that degree of questioning? I wonder? Or, is it that you have always believed and have – each time presented with doubt – not fully explored that side, instead choosing to shore up your side of things. I wonder…

   I have drank the kool-aid from your side of the fence. Have you spent any time on mine?

9. Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 9:00 am

   Mark, I am not failing to use reason or logic.  How is the fact that something exists NOT evidence that an entity created it?  You do in fact claim to know everything if you can claim that there is no God.  If you don’t know everything, how can you claim to know there is no God?  If you claim that all you claim is that there is no evidence to support God, then you have mistitled your blog.  It should be the 40 year old agnostic.

10. 40 Year Old Atheist on September 1st, 2009 at 9:27 am

    How is the fact that something exists NOT evidence that an entity created it?

    Because you assume it is the only possible altnerate AND fail to support your alternative with evidence.

    You do in fact claim to know everything if you can claim that there is no God. If you don’t know everything, how can you claim to know there is no God?

    I have never said there is 0 probability for god. What I have said time and time again is that I have not seen evidence suggesting a good probability for his existence.

    If you claim that all you claim is that there is no evidence to support God, then you have mistitled your blog. It should be the 40 year old agnostic.

    Atheism is a statement of belief. I am saying, based on the information at hand, that I do not believe there is a god.

    Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. If I am agnostic, I say there is not enough information to know something. A pure agnostic is more or less saying there is a 50/50 chance something is true because there is no clear evidence either way.

    Jon, I am an agnostic atheist (or, on the Dawkins scale, a 6/7 atheist). This means that, based on the evidence (or lack of) at hand, I believe there is no god but that I cannot be 100% certain.

    Now, ALL THAT said, I completely drop the agnostic part of my label when it comes to discussing a PERSONAL god that listens, answers prayers and intervenes willy-nilly in the affairs of the universe. That’s simply not happening.

    With our current knowledge of the universe, it’s pretty hard to argue against deism – the idea that a god set things in motion and then walked away. Some physicists are ok with deism. For my part, I think it is possible (but highly improbable) but, if true, that kind of god is not involved anyway so he/she/it is of little concern.

    You believe in the teachings of Christianity. I am much more purely atheistic with respect to your kind of god (and other personal gods). But, even there, if compelling new evidence is presented, I would definitely weight it as part of an ongoing search for what is true.

    I hope this is clear.

11. Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    Because you assume it is the only possible altnerate AND fail to support your alternative with evidence.
    I didn’t say it was the only possible alternative.  And I have supported by alternative with evidence (see my comment “The Language of God by Francis Collins).  Additionally, if you don’t believe that your alternative is the only one possible than you must conclude that other alternatives are possible.  Therefore, you should have difficulty declaring other views ‘delusional.’  Yet, you have done so, which leads me to question why would you criticize others for doing the same thing that you have done?

    I have never said there is 0 probability for god. What I have said time and time again is that I have not seen evidence suggesting a good probability for his existence.
    If you think there is some probability for a God, and you are an evidence based person, than you must realize that there is some evidence for the existence of God.  Therefore, you must disagree with Dawkins for calling Christians delusional.  Yet, you agree.  Mark, you must be at least beginning to see that some of your worldview is troubling and contradictory.

    Atheism is a statement of belief. I am saying, based on the information at hand, that I do not believe there is a god.
    Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. If I am agnostic, I say there is not enough information to know something. A pure agnostic is more or less saying there is a 50/50 chance something is true because there is no clear evidence either way.

    Atheism is a statement about belief, and knowledge – as is Christianity, agnosticism, and what have you.  A pure agnostic is not really making a statement about probability, but saying that they don’t care to find out.

    I believe there is no god but that I cannot be 100% certain.
    If you are not 100% certain, that means on some level you believe that there may be a God.  If that is the case, what makes you 100% certain that there is not a ‘PERSONAL’ God?

     But, even there, if compelling new evidence is presented, I would definitely weight it as part of an ongoing search for what is true.
    I would as well.  Which is why I enjoy your blog.  I have not found any ‘compelling evidence’ for Atheism here on your blog, and I don’t mean that as an insult in any way, because I also know you don’t find any of my discussion ‘compelling’.  But I do appreciate your dialogue with me, and I look forward to continuing that dialogue.

12. 40 Year Old Atheist on September 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    I didn’t say it was the only possible alternative.  And I have supported by alternative with evidence (see my comment “The Language of God by Francis Collins).

    While I have not read this book (I may, but I have a number of books I haven’t got too yet), I suspect that I would probably find it among the least objectionable defenses of theism. That aside, I have read a bit about Mr. Collins and have seen him speak (in videos). He dismisses creationism and Intelligent design – great news. He accepts evolution as the method by which diversity of life arose on earth – also great news. His argument for god stems from the “god as fine tuner” argument, which basically says that the conditions for supporting life were perfectly fine-tuned for that purpose and that this fine-tuning is evidence for God.

    As you might expect, I do not agree. In my view, this whole line of thinking shows our bias as human beings born into the world we’ve been born into. Let’s explore…

    A fish is perfectly evolved for it’s environment. Does that mean that environment was fine-tuned? No! That’s the opposite of evolution. Natural selection says that, over millions/billions of years, an organism goes through millions of experiments leading to better and better adaptations that make it LOOK like the ocean was fine tuned for it.

    Similarly, all of life on earth is carbon-based. Is our planet fine tuned for carbon-based life forms? No! The life on earth evolved simply because carbon was an abundant building block for life. It is conceivable that life on another planet, with another mix of elements could result in life that was not carbon-based. It is conceivable that life on one of the moons around Jupiter could be based on methane – instead of requiring oxygen to “breathe”.

    And also similarly, the entire construction of the universe spawns the development of order from chaos resulting from the building blocks present after the big-bang. But, what of the other postulated universes that form under different physical laws? Would they not develop different structures and life forms?

    Additionally, if you don’t believe that your alternative is the only one possible than you must conclude that other alternatives are possible.  Therefore, you should have difficulty declaring other views ‘delusional.’  Yet, you have done so, which leads me to question why would you criticize others for doing the same thing that you have done?

    Again, you are reading more into the word ‘delusional’ than there is. If you feel your belief is based on evidence, and that I am not changing my view in spite of that evidence, then you have every right to call me delusional. Where we differ is in what we consider to be “evidence”. I am basing my worldview on what science and historians have to say. To date, you have suggested one book from a scientist backing up your claims. However, in choosing that book, I have to say that Collin’s version of a fine-tuned universe is a LOOOOOONNNNG ways away from providing evidence for your Christ-based belief system. In fact, Collins, in his explanation seems MUCH closer to deism – the idea that god set things up and then walked away. 14 billions years later, here we are. How PERSONAL a god is that, Jon?

    If you think there is some probability for a God, and you are an evidence based person, than you must realize that there is some evidence for the existence of God.  Therefore, you must disagree with Dawkins for calling Christians delusional.  Yet, you agree.  Mark, you must be at least beginning to see that some of your worldview is troubling and contradictory.

    Not at all. As I’ve implied, I don’t find your evidence to be compelling at all. In contrast, I am astounded at your lack of acknowledgement of the evidence against you. Therefore, I have no problem with Dawkins use of “delusional”.

    If you are not 100% certain, that means on some level you believe that there may be a God.  If that is the case, what makes you 100% certain that there is not a ‘PERSONAL’ God?

    Don’t mistake my allowance the possibility of future evidence as un-suredness/doubt/whatever else you want to call it. I am confident. Could I be wrong? Of course! But the degree of confidence I have is strong. I’d need to see compelling evidence to the contrary and I’ve seen nothing of that yet.

13. 40 Year Old Atheist on September 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Jon: I just wanted to mention – in terms of altnernate theories – that there is some evidence that we live in a holographic universe. This is certainly contrary to what I *currently* believe is the basis of reality. However, I am willing to entertain the idea as at least being possible. I am open-minded where science can demonstrate evidence.

14. Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    See jon…This is where you go all wrong…. Listen up here, this is a life lesson 101 thing……..

    I also don’t understand or agree with your statements about truth.

     
    Your statement is a blanket process of your thinking activities. You have read something you do not understand, then you go on to say you don’t agree with it.
    –
    Maybe if you spent some time thinking about it. Google it and see what the origin of this unique thought is, you might come to understand it then have a valid reason either to agree or disagree.
    But it seems that this black and white thinking you have has eroded your ability to think things through. This has been a continual problem throughout religious history. Take the Galileo incident as a precedent, or maybe the Salem witch hunts might be closer to home.. Just because something doesn’t fit into the neat little package that is your world view, doesn’t mean it is wrong. It is okay to examine beliefs and ideologies and change then according to the new information.
    –
    Hope this help to give you a slightly new perspective.

15. Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    One further thought on the thinking process that seems to rule religious  thinking is..
    As I have read your statements here I believe you think the theory of evolution is wrong.
    My first question is what is your understanding of  what the word Theory means?
    –
    Please in 20 words of less ( if possible) give me what your definition ( your understanding) of the word is…
     

16. Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Syntax

    A man staring at his equations
    said that the universe had a beginning.
    There had been an explosion, he said.
    A bang of bangs, and the universe was born.
    And it is expanding, he said.
    He had even calculated the length of its life:
    ten billion revolutions of the earth around the sun.
    The entire globe cheered;
    They found his calculations to be science.
    None thought that by proposing that the universe began,
    the man had merely mirrored the syntax of his mother tongue;
    a syntax which demands beginnings, like birth,
    and developments, like maturation,
    and ends, like death, as statements of facts.
    The universe began,
    and it is getting old, the man assured us,
    and it will die, like all things die,
    like he himself died after confirming mathematically
    the syntax of his mother tongue.

    something to mull over….

17. Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    The Other Syntax

    Did the universe really begin?
    Is the theory of the big bang true?
    These are not questions, though they sound like they are.
    Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments
    and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?
    That’s the real question.
    There are other syntaxes.
    There is one, for example, which demands that varieties
    of intensity be taken as facts.
    In that syntax nothing begins and nothing ends;
    thus birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,
    but a specific type of intensity,
    and so is maturation, and so is death.
    A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that
    he has calculated enough varieties of intensity
    to say with authority
    that the universe never began
    and will never end,
    but that it has gone, and is going now, and will go
    through endless fluctuations of intensity.
    That man could very well conclude that the universe itself
    is the chariot of intensity
    and that one can board it
    to journey through changes without end.
    He will conclude all that, and much more,
    perhaps without ever realizing
    that he is merely confirming
    the syntax of his mother tongue.

18. Jon on September 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    Your statement is a blanket process of your thinking activities. You have read something you do not understand, then you go on to say you don’t agree with it.
    Renshia, from comments you have made in other posts, you clearly do not understand the bible.  You also clearly don’t agree with it.

    So, are you sure that is a road you want to go down in terms of offering a life lesson 101?

    My first question is what is your understanding of  what the word Theory means?
    I am definitely willing to have a discussion on this word, but first I am curious to know what would be your purpose in asking.  Is it because you have assume that I believe the “theory” of evolution is wrong, and you are going to try to tell me that it can’t be wrong because its a theory?

19. Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    Not at all.
    It is simply to clarify that the syntax we use to define the word is the same. That is all. If our understanding is different then we can clear up the differences immediately and avoid disagreements simply on the syntax of this word.
    I promise you I will do my impeccable best to remove all ridicule and posturing as possible. Straight up honest discussion.

20. Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    From comments you have made in other posts, you clearly do not understand the bible.
    I would like to present an alternative to that statement which I believe is closer to the truth.
    It is not that I do not understand it, It is that I understand it differently.
     

21. Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    So, are you sure that is a road you want to go down in terms of offering a life lesson 101?

    Absolutely!!!!!!

22. Renshia on September 1st, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    I agree that is one of the most infuriating things Christians say.
    They just assume that because we see it differently we don’t understand. Hell, I was brought up with religious doctrine since I was 6 yrs old.
    I used to preach. I am the only person who is excommunicated from the JW church that was never a member (at the time it happened). According to church doctrine, it is not even allowed, but they made a special case for me because of the damage I caused from witnessing to them. I am not allowed in any of there halls. I know the bible very well. You don’t convert JW’s with out knowing your bible.
    –
    As I now hang my head in shame……..  I had the kool-aid too… to much sugar..

23. 40 Year Old Atheist on September 1st, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    testing comments

24. Paul on September 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    Jon, the only thing flawed in the Atheist viewpoint is your incomplete and inaccurate understanding of it. You keep saying that we claim to “know” that our position is the correct one, despite the fact that it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that that is not the case. You are the one who claims to “know” there is a God. Our only position is that we do not believe you are correct. But we are not the ones claiming to “know.”