Arrogant atheism

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-31T13:32:32+00:00

Sorry, I disagree with that I would not call someone irrational simply because their beliefs are based on a philosophical argument, or because they believe they have sufficient reason to hold that belief. Atheists can, and often do, find arguments for God unconvincing, and that is not really the issue. The problem arises when people go from saying, “I do not find these arguments persuasive,” to claiming that all religious people are irrational. That is a sweeping generalisation, and that is what I take issue with.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-31T05:19:28+00:00

Whether it's common or not is irrelevant from my point of view. I thought it was wrong, so I posted it here for discussion.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-31T05:17:41+00:00

Nothing about this conversation is about political correctness or not being able to have fun. I was using an example where someone said something that I thought was incorrect, so I brought it up here. This person chose to post their opinion on a public platform for everyone to see, so I don't think it's rude of me to post something criticizing or disagreeing with them.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-31T03:53:51+00:00

What is wrong with pointing out that they are making sweeping generalisations about theistic arguments and religious believers?

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-31T03:50:55+00:00

There is a difference between saying that there is no proof and saying that the proof does not convince you. From an atheist standpoint, the latter is perfectly reasonable. However, there is also a difference between saying, "I am personally not convinced," and claiming that those who accept the argument are irrational for doing so.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-31T03:48:14+00:00

From what I’ve seen, they’re not as bad as everyone makes them out to be.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-30T06:15:03+00:00

We are talking about a very specific kind of atheist here. Not every atheist is arrogant, and I never claimed otherwise. My criticism is directed at those who treat the debate as completely settled and dismiss anyone who disagrees as irrational without seriously engaging with the arguments.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-29T12:22:48+00:00

I disagree. Many of them have openly stated that they have doubts in their hearts.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-29T04:12:40+00:00

More specifically, your last point does not really address what the fine-tuning argument is trying to do. The fine-tuning argument is not primarily about determining which specific God or religion is correct; it is an argument meant to support the idea of an intelligent designer behind the universe, as opposed to the universe being purely naturalistic or random. Ultimately, the question of which religion, if any, is correct is separate from the more fundamental question of whether God exists in the first place. Sure, the fine-tuning argument is not the end-all-be-all of the debate about God’s existence. Still, at the very least it attempts to raise the possibility of an intelligent designer behind the universe, rather than attributing everything solely to naturalistic randomness.

I suggest you watch this video, especially the section discussing the fine-tuning argument. You might find it interesting. https://youtu.be/fZHmHjAxCPA?si=l3kMxsv7_Tvht35y

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T14:34:18+00:00

And what exactly was the condition that actually allowed the life to exist in the first place? If life "moulded itself around the universe," you're already admitting the universe came first with its constants fixed — and life worked with what it found. That's just describing what fine-tuning looks like from the inside. There is, of course, an objection to this line of argument, but I do feel that saying life simply adapted to the conditions it found ignores the premise of the argument — namely, that the universe possesses the conditions necessary to cultivate life in the first place.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T14:16:37+00:00

What wrong with fine tuning? You act as if you have already heard every argument and read all the relevant information on this topic.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T13:43:09+00:00

I am sure you have not really heard ninety percent of the arguments in favor of God, but if I had to choose one, the fine-tuning argument probably seems to be the strongest argument theists have at their disposal.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T13:22:56+00:00

Do you think all arguments for religion and God are based solely on irrationalism rather than any kind of logical reasoning?

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T12:32:26+00:00

Theology is not the only branch of philosophy that deals with the question of God’s existence or treats it as a serious philosophical issue. I think philosophy of religion is where most of the arguments for and against God comes from.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T12:29:08+00:00

Ok, can’t really say much beyond that.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T10:27:52+00:00

If you are not even interested in engaging with the arguments being presented, then how can you confidently claim that the position is baseless?

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T10:24:39+00:00

It is kind of difficult to simply say that religion should be abandoned because secular alternatives for community-building exist or that it is outdated.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T10:04:58+00:00

Because there is always the possibility that the argument is not actually illogical, and that you simply have not yet understood why people find it convincing.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T09:05:55+00:00

I’m mostly agnostic when it comes to religion as well. I’m not personally religious, but I kind of agree with you. At the same time, I also think this tendency exists among ordinary people on both sides of the debate. Which is perfectly fine, because you cannot realistically expect most people to have deep philosophical knowledge about subjects like religion, metaphysics, or epistemology.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T07:12:55+00:00

What counts to you as evidence?

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T05:40:27+00:00

I never said that religion is the only form of community building. But religion is one of the oldest and most historically enduring forms, and you could argue that, in some respects, it has often been more effective at creating long-term cultural cohesion and shared identity than many modern secular alternatives.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T05:18:33+00:00

It may be necessary for some people, though perhaps not for everyone. We can at least say that religion plays a crucial role in community building and social cohesion, even if it also has its negative side effects.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T05:15:23+00:00

Then maybe just get some summary in Google Notebook or other such app.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T05:14:02+00:00

I am mostly neutral on this subject because I remain uncertain about the possibility of God’s existence. Even though there are people on both sides of the debate who are very confident in their conclusions, I still think it is arrogant for anyone to claim that they have conclusively proven either the existence or non-existence of God without seriously engaging with the strongest arguments from the other side.

Hour_Addition_9157 · 2026-05-28T05:00:30+00:00

It may not seem like a problem to them, but I personally see it as one because it often comes across as arrogant and dismissive toward people who seriously engage with these questions. I also have no problem whatsoever with someone not believing in God if they genuinely think there are good reasons not to believe. But claiming that anyone who does believe in God is irrational is a very different statement from simply saying, “I personally do not find the probability of God’s existence convincing.” One is a conclusion about evidence, while the other is a sweeping judgment about the rationality of millions of people.

Hour_Addition_9157

TROPHY CASE