Atheist Arrogance?

While reading "Micha's post":http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/03/01/good-and-hard/ it occurred to me that atheists appear to tend toward more arrogance than I see in most religious people. An excellent example is my wife's ex boyfriend, who she calls an "evangelical atheist" because he took pleasure in attacking other people's religious beliefs.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that socialism and atheism seem to go hand in hand? There must be a certain humility in believing there is a higher power than you, at least when you believe you do not know for sure what that higher power's purpose is for you, or even if it has one. Certainly some people believe that God talks to them and only to them. However, it takes a special kind of arrogance to believe that you (or any human for that matter) can direct an economy. This is the same kind of arrogance that allows one to say with certainty "there is no God" and that others should join the "reality-based community."

Do understand that I'm talking about a particular kind of atheist here. There is, of course, the Sartrian atheist, who says "Holy crap! There's no God! Now what do I do?" The same sort of humility can come from the belief that one is alone in the universe and has no set purpose as from the belief that there is someone much more powerful than you. But there is also the type of atheist who believes that he or she can be God, because the position is open. This person, in my opinion, must be watched far more closely than the Jerry Falwells of the world.

As for me, I'm an existentialist agnostic who is prone to flights of fancy. I don't believe it is possible to know whether there's a God, so I'll be skeptical of anyone who claims to know either way. Even if God calls you up on the telephone, you still have to use your own judgement to determine if it really is God, and then you have to decide whether or not "he" is crazy.

Share this

Read further. "These

Read further.

"These criteria are not without their uses, but their disparate nature makes them unsatisfactory from a number of perspectives; in fact, it is not difficult to find counterexamples and examples that require further elaboration. For example, according to the above definition, one could say:

* fire is alive. (This could be remedied by adding the requirement of locality, where there is an obvious feature that delineates the spatial extension of the living being, such as a cell membrane.)
* male mules are not alive as they are sterile and cannot reproduce.
* viruses are not alive as they do not grow and cannot reproduce outside of a host cell."

RKN, Using your definition

RKN,

Using your definition is quirky for the subject of abiogenisis. Using it would lead to the unfortunate consequence of talking about dead things evolving into higher deadforms. I really think you are not getting into the spirit of science here and are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Jason, Been very busy and

Jason,

Been very busy and don't have much time. I don't think we would agree to what "naturalism" is and what it's capabilities are. The shortest way I could thing of expressing it is "Everything except supernaturalism".

Regards,
Brian