What Makes Christians In General So Arrogant And Intolerant?

[Ravenstar]

Did you actually read the posts?

 

There are a plethora of examples

[OrdinaryClay]

 

What does a person have to say in order to be judged arrogant? How do you tell the difference between confidence and arrogance?

 

Confidence doesn't go shoving its views in your face.

 

Confidence doesn't knock on your door to tell you its opinions.

 

Conficence doesn't smirk when it comes up with something it thinks is clever.

 

Confidence doesn't feel threatened by differences of opinion.

 

Confidence doesn't go around telling people they should just "have faith" and not examine facts.

 

Confidence doesn't fear that certain numbers or forms of music or literature are so evil that they must simply be avoided.

 

Confidence doesn't feel the need to believe that anyone who disagrees with it deserves to burn for all eternity.

 

Confidence isn't so fragile that it fears that demons or devils are constantly trying to trip everybody up.

 

There you go. Just for starters.

 

Subjective on your part.

 

This makes no sense. I get people who knock on my door asking to sell things or trying to get me to sign petitions and I don't think they are arrogant. That's silly.

 

Subjective on your part.

 

Subjective and pure guessing on your part.

 

Confidence does in fact tell people to believe in faith. That is the very essence of confidence. A doctor confident in his medical expertise expects me to believe him based on nothing more than his word.

 

Confidence has no fear of telling others what it believes to be true

 

 

 

You've assumed your position to be true. Now that in and of itself is okay for arguments sake but where you error is that you then use that assumption to determine when someone else is confident completely ignoring the fact that the other person may believe their position to be true.

 

You see, confidence does not build caricatures and strawmen to rail against. I don't think you thought through your words. You simply wanted to eject anti-Christian insults.

[OrdinaryClay]

There are a plethora of examples

You imagine this to be the case.

[MerryG]

You see, confidence does not build caricatures and strawmen to rail against. I don't think you thought through your words. You simply wanted to eject anti-Christian insults.

 

 

What caricatures and strawmen? I'm talking about people with whom I've had experience.

 

Your conclusion that I "simply wanted to eject anti-Christian insults" is a perfect example of precisely the kind of arrogance we've been talking about here.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

You see, confidence does not build caricatures and strawmen to rail against. I don't think you thought through your words. You simply wanted to eject anti-Christian insults.

 

 

What caricatures and strawmen? I'm talking about people with whom I've had experience.

 

Your conclusion that I "simply wanted to eject anti-Christian insults" is a perfect example of precisely the kind of arrogance we've been talking about here.

 

Please reread my post and tell me how someone knocking on your door demonstrates a lack of confidence. That is utterly silly.

 

Tell me how you can tell I'm arrogant as opposed to confident?

[centauri]

 

Confidence does in fact tell people to believe in faith. That is the very essence of confidence. A doctor confident in his medical expertise expects me to believe him based on nothing more than his word.

If the doctor tells you that his opinion is the only correct one and that all other expertise is wrong, without ever actually demonstrating it, does that qualify as being arrogant?

 

Confidence has no fear of telling others what it believes to be true.

However, confidence doesn't have to equate to truth.

If confidence leads someone to boast that their version of truth must be believed, without ever establishing that it is true, is that arrogant?

Doesn't Christianity claim to be the exclusive conduit to higher knowledge and "salvation" and that all other conduits are false?

When does boasting go beyond being confident and become arrogant?

[mymistake]

Well it's a good thing OC came by to demonstrate how Christians in general are arrogant and intolerant.  Perhaps his example will help in our search for the why.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Confidence does in fact tell people to believe in faith. That is the very essence of confidence. A doctor confident in his medical expertise expects me to believe him based on nothing more than his word.

If the doctor tells you that his opinion is the only correct one and that all other expertise is wrong, without ever actually demonstrating it, does that qualify as being arrogant?

 

Confidence has no fear of telling others what it believes to be true.

However, confidence doesn't have to equate to truth.

If confidence leads someone to boast that their version of truth must be believed, without ever establishing that it is true, is that arrogant?

Doesn't Christianity claim to be the exclusive conduit to higher knowledge and "salvation" and that all other conduits are false?

When does boasting go beyond being confident and become arrogant?

 

Does a doctor who tells you a shaman's diagnosis is wrong demonstrate arrogance? Or do I need to apply more subjective qualifiers?

 

Obviously, confidence may coincide with truth.

 

Does atheism claim that Christians are wrong? Does science claim that it is the conduit through which material knowledge must be acquired.

 

When does expressing views and opinion become boasting?

 

 

 

Inserting qualifiers and adjectives does not magically make the confidence a Christian has arrogance. You are at this moment claiming I'm categorically wrong and then claiming yourself to be confident and not arrogant. The silliness that sometimes passes for reason on this forum is sad, very sad. People on here really believe that they are applying critical reasoning.

 

Hey, maybe if you just add more adjectives and qualifiers you will become right all with out being arrogant.

 

[Ravenstar]

Atheism does not 'claim' christians are wrong... it is simply a position that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis of god for that particular person.

 

Actually, it's not even that, it's the position of the person who calls themselves an atheist that they do not (or can not) believe in a god, or gods (for whatever reasons, each person would have their own).

 

Atheism is NOT the opposite of christianity.. it is the opposite of theism in general. Hence the 'A'.

 

I, however, am also an anti-theist... I AM against religion, and christianity in particular because it's what I have to live in, culturally and politically, and I see it as harmful. (Though Islam comes a very close second) My personal atheism is a separate issue.

 

It's called English... and prefixes have definite meanings. 

 

 

Arrogance is a world view that sets one person, or group, above another. It's elitism. The Judeo-christian religions most definitely do this... it's ALL ABOUT this. As soon as the Bible states that one person, or group of people were 'favoured' by god it began...(probably much earlier in older religions - but these are the ones we have to deal with now) and has continued throughout history, it is the basis for all the atrocities carried out by the church for ages. It's responsible for the slaughter of millions, for Colonialism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquest of the new world, the 'conversion' of millions of indigent peoples which effectively wiped them out, the Reformation (which was incredibly bloody and continues to this day). It's the basis for the violence in the middle-east, for the violence here over 'moral' issues. It's the basis for most wars and terrorism and hatred of one religious group for another, or those who have no religion. It's the basis for the suppression of science and knowledge and LITERACY. It's the basis for having an 'elite' section of people who have a 'line to god' (the priestly class - you call them pastors now) who have been shown throughout history to abuse their authority, again and again and again - bleeding the masses dry emotionally, spiritually, financially and morally.

 

Arrogance is believing that one is a (also generally special or privileged) favourite child of god, and because of that are somehow, 'better than'. As soon as one thinks they are 'above' another it opens the door to abuse.

 

Fuck religion, it's a sick pervasive social illness with no basis in reality. It may have served a purpose early in our history, before we had the knowledge to explain the world... but now it's just a convenient (and in most cases subconscious) excuse for some people to feel morally superior to others and to culturally (and politically) justify their own projected fears of death, and life even, (anything that is different is scary!!!!) on the rest of us, without even being able to give us anything solid to support their position other than some old books, ancient syncretistic myths, twisted explanations and personal subjective anecdotes, and then tell US we are going to be tortured for all eternity because we can't buy it - but you'll be in Heaven with dear daddy showering love and puppies on you and singing songs while that happens. Fuck that. If that isn't arrogance, if that isn't actually narcissistically psychopathic - I don't know what is.

 

 

SCIENCE is a method. That's it, that's all. It's the best method we have to explain the natural universe. We know this because it has proven itself, time and time again to work. SCIENCE is not a philosophy... let me say this S L O W L Y.. SCIENCE is a METHOD, NOT A PHILOSOPHY.

 

One doctor does not qualify as truth. Many people in many disciplines, experiments, proven hypothesis, and verified and falsified results constitute as maybe a conclusion that is correct. A doctor is... a scientist, of human physiology... but he's just one voice.

 

A Shaman may be right about something..(who knows?). doesn't matter what one doctor says (though his education may give his words a little bit of weight - he would still have to show that his conclusion is not an unfounded opinion)... but if the SCIENCE (again, by many people, in many disciplines, experiments, results, etc...) can show that he is wrong, that's a different issue. 

 

This is the problem I have with the religious minded... they are (unwittingly) addicted to authority.(and thus susceptible to being easily misled). They don't get how science or even logic works... they don't get that rational thinkers NEVER take the word of just one, or even several people as truth. That's just not good enough..hence the scientific method. THAT's why they don't understand when we ask for EVIDENCE.. we are not willing to accept the unverified opinion of anyone. Or as my grandpa used to say, "opinions are like assholes...everyone has them.

 

Here's an experiment... spend some time identifying your own confirmation biases, cultural belief matrices and social programming.

[MerryG]

 

 

You see, confidence does not build caricatures and strawmen to rail against. I don't think you thought through your words. You simply wanted to eject anti-Christian insults.

 

 

What caricatures and strawmen? I'm talking about people with whom I've had experience.

 

Your conclusion that I "simply wanted to eject anti-Christian insults" is a perfect example of precisely the kind of arrogance we've been talking about here.

 

Please reread my post and tell me how someone knocking on your door demonstrates a lack of confidence. That is utterly silly.

 

Tell me how you can tell I'm arrogant as opposed to confident?

 

 

I did not say that knocking on someone's door demonstrates a lack of confidence. I just said (in answer to your question of confidence vs arrogance) that knocking on someone's door for the sole purpose of pushing your opinion at them is not a sign of confidence.

 

People who are truly confident don't feel a need to show up at other people's houses for the purpose of announcing, "Hi, stranger. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm here to fix you."

 

Oh, they may have the superficial confidence that a door-to-door salesperson (of any product) adopts as a survival mechanism. But the purpose that sends them out to do the door knocking is the height of arrogance.

 

And BTW, I said your statement about my motives was arrogant because you presume not only to know my motives, but to inform me of them when you actually  have no  idea what motivates me.

[midniterider]

 

There are a plethora of examples

 

You imagine this to be the case.

You imagine Jesus Christ.

[midniterider]

 

 

You see, confidence does not build caricatures and strawmen to rail against. I don't think you thought through your words. You simply wanted to eject anti-Christian insults.

 

 

What caricatures and strawmen? I'm talking about people with whom I've had experience.

 

Your conclusion that I "simply wanted to eject anti-Christian insults" is a perfect example of precisely the kind of arrogance we've been talking about here.

Please reread my post and tell me how someone knocking on your door demonstrates a lack of confidence. That is utterly silly.

 

Tell me how you can tell I'm arrogant as opposed to confident?

Are faiths other than Christianity correct or incorrect?

[midniterider]

 

 

Confidence does in fact tell people to believe in faith. That is the very essence of confidence. A doctor confident in his medical expertise expects me to believe him based on nothing more than his word.

 

If the doctor tells you that his opinion is the only correct one and that all other expertise is wrong, without ever actually demonstrating it, does that qualify as being arrogant?

 

Confidence has no fear of telling others what it believes to be true.

 

However, confidence doesn't have to equate to truth.

If confidence leads someone to boast that their version of truth must be believed, without ever establishing that it is true, is that arrogant?

Doesn't Christianity claim to be the exclusive conduit to higher knowledge and "salvation" and that all other conduits are false?

When does boasting go beyond being confident and become arrogant?

Does a doctor who tells you a shaman's diagnosis is wrong demonstrate arrogance? Or do I need to apply more subjective qualifiers?

Obviously, confidence may coincide with truth.

Does atheism claim that Christians are wrong? Does science claim that it is the conduit through which material knowledge must be acquired.

When does expressing views and opinion become boasting?

Inserting qualifiers and adjectives does not magically make the confidence a Christian has arrogance. You are at this moment claiming I'm categorically wrong and then claiming yourself to be confident and not arrogant. The silliness that sometimes passes for reason on this forum is sad, very sad. People on here really believe that they are applying critical reasoning.

Hey, maybe if you just add more adjectives and qualifiers you will become right all with out being arrogant.

Do you get your critical thinking skill from Jesus ?

[centauri]

 

 

Confidence does in fact tell people to believe in faith. That is the very essence of confidence. A doctor confident in his medical expertise expects me to believe him based on nothing more than his word.

If the doctor tells you that his opinion is the only correct one and that all other expertise is wrong, without ever actually demonstrating it, does that qualify as being arrogant?

 

Confidence has no fear of telling others what it believes to be true.

However, confidence doesn't have to equate to truth.

If confidence leads someone to boast that their version of truth must be believed, without ever establishing that it is true, is that arrogant?

Doesn't Christianity claim to be the exclusive conduit to higher knowledge and "salvation" and that all other conduits are false?

When does boasting go beyond being confident and become arrogant?

 

Does a doctor who tells you a shaman's diagnosis is wrong demonstrate arrogance? Or do I need to apply more subjective qualifiers?

 

 

Are you subjectively equating Christianity to some sort of superior expertise?

Once again, when does boasting, which is what Christianity engages in, become arrogance?

Be specific as to exactly what makes one arrogant rather than confident.

 

Obviously, confidence may coincide with truth.

 

Does atheism claim that Christians are wrong? Does science claim that it is the conduit through which material knowledge must be acquired.

Neither atheism or science claim that one MUST accept their assertions or suffer eternal damnation.

Christianity on the other hand, uses these threats to coerce and manipulate people.

 

When does expressing views and opinion become boasting?

So the doctrines of Christianity are just opinions instead of being universal absolute truth?

 

Inserting qualifiers and adjectives does not magically make the confidence a Christian has arrogance. You are at this moment claiming I'm categorically wrong and then claiming yourself to be confident and not arrogant.

When did I ever state that my theological opinions were binding on all others if they wanted to avoid damnation?

Isn't this the position of Christianity, that their way is the only way?

Or is it that Jesus is not the only way but only a possible way?

 

The silliness that sometimes passes for reason on this forum is sad, very sad. People on here really believe that they are applying critical reasoning.

Hey, maybe if you just add more adjectives and qualifiers you will become right all with out being arrogant.

From what I've seen of your apologetics, you're a master at adding qualifiers to text in order to make it mean what you want it to mean. Take the beam out of your own eye before castigating others.

 

If a mental patient said this, would it be confidence, delusion or arrogance?

 

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

How about this?

 

He that believeth [in me] and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

 

Please explain why the boastful words attributed to a dead cult leader should be treated as magical absolute "truth" rather than spiritual silliness.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

I, however, am also an anti-theist... I AM against religion, and christianity in particular because it's what I have to live in, culturally and politically, and I see it as harmful. (Though Islam comes a very close second) My personal atheism is a separate issue.

Your personal atheism? How is your atheism different from an atheist's atheism? lol

[Ravenstar]

Because I can only speak for myself... my reasons for being atheist are my own, others may have their own reasoning.

 

Do you have comprehension problems?

[bornagainathiest]

What does a person have to say in order to be judged arrogant? How do you tell the difference between confidence and arrogance?

 

The first question is easy answer.

 

A person can be considered arrogant if, over many years they've posted many thousands of messages across many different internet forums and, in all that time, they've never once admitted that they might have been mistaken about anything, never once admitted to misunderstanding anything and never once admitted they might have presented a fallacious argument.  Such a person can be fairly and reasonably judged to be arrogant, because nobody can be always right about every subject they debate and about every issue they discuss... all the time.  That's simply NOT humanly possible.

 

Also, if they believe they can always be right, all the time that belief is an arrogant one.

 

Secondly, there is no real difference between confidence and arrogance - if the person in question believes that they are always right, all the time.  Absolute conviction (confidence) is indistinguishable from arrogance, if the arrogant person never, ever admits that they could be wrong.

 

Thus arrogance masquerades as confidence.

The confident man admits that he is fallible and could be wrong. The arrogant man can never and will never do so.  His perfect track-record is not a record of his confidence at work, nor is it a faithful record of him always being right, all the time.  No.  The arrogant man's perfect track-record stems from his stonewall refusal to admit a mistake, when he makes one.  That's all.

 

So, if we see someone always being right, all the time, about everything - we should judge that person arrogant, not confident.

 

BAA

[OrdinaryClay]

Because I can only speak for myself... my reasons for being atheist are my own, others may have their own reasoning.

 

Do you have comprehension problems?

I thought the whole atheist thing was simply a lack of belief. So you have specific reasons for not believing as opposed to lacking bielf?

[Ravenstar]

You have not understood a single thing I have written so far and your (arrogant) sarcasm does not deserve a considered reply.

[MerryG]

 

I thought the whole atheist thing was simply a lack of belief. So you have specific reasons for not believing as opposed to lacking bielf?

 

 

I agree with Ravenstar. OC, that statement/question you just laid out there doesn't even make sense. It's a combination of words and "thoughts" no reasoning person would come up with.

 

I seldom ever venture into the Lion's Den and I'm taking myself out of here ASAP. Differences of opinion can be challenging, educational, instructive, and a world of other good things. But the major reason I generally avoid debating with christians is that the ones who most want to engage are so utterly incapable of logic and so often come up with "arguments" that are the verbal equivalent of leftover mush. That quote right up there is a classic example.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

I thought the whole atheist thing was simply a lack of belief. So you have specific reasons for not believing as opposed to lacking bielf?

 

 

I agree with Ravenstar. OC, that statement/question you just laid out there doesn't even make sense. It's a combination of words and "thoughts" no reasoning person would come up with.

 

I seldom ever venture into the Lion's Den and I'm taking myself out of here ASAP. Differences of opinion can be challenging, educational, instructive, and a world of other good things. But the major reason I generally avoid debating with christians is that the ones who most want to engage are so utterly incapable of logic and so often come up with "arguments" that are the verbal equivalent of leftover mush. That quote right up there is a classic example.

 

The position of modern atheism is that atheism is a lack of belief and not a positive act of disbelief. If you think that makes no sense, I agree, which is one of the reasons I think modern atheism is often incoherent. She seemed to be saying she engaged in active disbelief meaning she had specific defensible claims of disbelief.

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

I thought the whole atheist thing was simply a lack of belief. So you have specific reasons for not believing as opposed to lacking bielf?

 

 

I agree with Ravenstar. OC, that statement/question you just laid out there doesn't even make sense. It's a combination of words and "thoughts" no reasoning person would come up with.

 

I seldom ever venture into the Lion's Den and I'm taking myself out of here ASAP. Differences of opinion can be challenging, educational, instructive, and a world of other good things. But the major reason I generally avoid debating with christians is that the ones who most want to engage are so utterly incapable of logic and so often come up with "arguments" that are the verbal equivalent of leftover mush. That quote right up there is a classic example.

 

The position of modern atheism is that atheism is a lack of belief and not a positive act of disbelief. If you think that makes no sense, I agree, which is one of the reasons I think modern atheism is often incoherent. She seemed to be saying she engaged in active disbelief meaning she had specific defensible claims of disbelief.

 

 

So?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

I thought the whole atheist thing was simply a lack of belief. So you have specific reasons for not believing as opposed to lacking bielf?

 

 

I agree with Ravenstar. OC, that statement/question you just laid out there doesn't even make sense. It's a combination of words and "thoughts" no reasoning person would come up with.

 

I seldom ever venture into the Lion's Den and I'm taking myself out of here ASAP. Differences of opinion can be challenging, educational, instructive, and a world of other good things. But the major reason I generally avoid debating with christians is that the ones who most want to engage are so utterly incapable of logic and so often come up with "arguments" that are the verbal equivalent of leftover mush. That quote right up there is a classic example.

 

The position of modern atheism is that atheism is a lack of belief and not a positive act of disbelief. If you think that makes no sense, I agree, which is one of the reasons I think modern atheism is often incoherent. She seemed to be saying she engaged in active disbelief meaning she had specific defensible claims of disbelief.

 

 

So?

 

Sorry, it seems self explanatory.

[RankStranger]

 

 

 

 

 

I thought the whole atheist thing was simply a lack of belief. So you have specific reasons for not believing as opposed to lacking bielf?

 

 

I agree with Ravenstar. OC, that statement/question you just laid out there doesn't even make sense. It's a combination of words and "thoughts" no reasoning person would come up with.

 

I seldom ever venture into the Lion's Den and I'm taking myself out of here ASAP. Differences of opinion can be challenging, educational, instructive, and a world of other good things. But the major reason I generally avoid debating with christians is that the ones who most want to engage are so utterly incapable of logic and so often come up with "arguments" that are the verbal equivalent of leftover mush. That quote right up there is a classic example.

 

The position of modern atheism is that atheism is a lack of belief and not a positive act of disbelief. If you think that makes no sense, I agree, which is one of the reasons I think modern atheism is often incoherent. She seemed to be saying she engaged in active disbelief meaning she had specific defensible claims of disbelief.

 

 

So?

 

Sorry, it seems self explanatory.

 

Do you expect every single individual's personal beliefs to strictly adhere to some arbitrary dictionary definition of the label they reckon fits them best?

 

That's fucking stupid.

[AgnosticExChristianTB]

Sorry for not replying earlier to this thread which I started.

 

I have been in a process of trying to adapt to my agnostic condition, and so far what I can conclude is that Christianity is indeed a religion that as practiced today, it promotes arrogance.

 

There is no confidence in the attitude of most Christians, on the contrary. Their rude response to people who question their faith tells me they are overwhelmingly insecure.

 

I have to be honest, I don't trust any Christian. The word Christian has eventually meant to me nothing but disappointment, arrogance, intolerance, bigotry, hypocrisy, falsehood, weakness and naivete.