Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not "some atheists" but "atheists." Not "some feel more enlightened" but " we feel."
You were originally attempting to speak for all atheists, or if not, unintentionally wrote it that way. Now you have modified it to "more often than not" which concedes that some do fit the profile I described.
At all times I have been addressing those who do fit that profile.
I've been trying to explain this to you but you don't seem to grasp it. You are still arguing against a position never taken by me.
What is relevant is your position about rejecting notions of your own superiority. You deny any such feelings, yet betray them with statements such as:
Now, when you do triumph with your intellect, doesn't that imply that your intellect was superior to that which you vanquished with your triumph? How would you know that you have triumphed without the self assumption of having offered the superior argument?
Finally, you repeated your error in stating that there is some distinction between feeling superior and feeling more enlightened. What is more enlightened if not a superior state to less enlightened? You think your language choice masks the actual dynamic, but it does not.
You are assuming that my "triumph of my intellect" has to do with overcoming ignorant people. It is not. It is about overcoming ignorance itself, not the people who profess it. Helping others obtain intellectual enlightenment is not a diss of the people any more than helping a child learn mathematics is about belittling the child.
Atheism is illogical because you are trying to maintain a NULL position where you say you don't believe in anything. Rubbish. There are very few things that can maintain a 100% airtight position of validity. For example, an atheist person will go to bed believing wholeheartedly that their spouse or children won't murder them in their sleep. There is no 100% proof that it could never happen. Yet you believe without a doubt that this would never happen.
There is at least enough evidence to support the possibility that Christianity is true yet atheists shut the door and proclaim that God is nothing more than a myth as if it was proven fact.
Straw man argument. The fact that atheists don't believe in god or religions doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. On the contrary, we believe a lot of things, particularly those things for which there is unambiguous scientific evidence, such as gravity, the speed of light, thermodynamics, and evolution. What we don't believe in is unsupported religious dogma from a 2,000 year old collection of books written by unknown tribal authors over any other ancient text written by equally unknown tribal authors. Personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am not obligated to believe in one person's personal revelation over that of another. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, god-fearing person anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that he had a conversation with the Virgin Mary in his cornfield.
You are assuming that my "triumph of my intellect" has to do with overcoming ignorant people. It is not. It is about overcoming ignorance itself, not the people who profess it. Helping others obtain intellectual enlightenment is not a diss of the people any more than helping a child learn mathematics is about belittling the child.
Very well. You are here to "overcome ignorance itself" as though ignorance somehow or other exists apart from ignorant people. Exactly how are you overcoming ignorance in general? Is it not the case that each time you encounter ignorance, it is in the form of a person you are regarding as ignorant in a particular case? When exactly have you ever encountered "ignorance itself?"
Further, in that you see yourself as overcoming ignorance, it must mean that you are viewing yourself as superior in that area, otherwise how could you possibly be qualified to overcome it?
Do you expect me, or anyone to buy this stuff you are selling here? You don't feel superior to others, you just "more enlightened" than others. You aren't overcoming the ignorance of others with your superior knowledge, you are overcoming "ignorance itself." Do you not see that you are simply using language to disguise the reality of matters?
orogenicman, you have not caught on that boasting that you are immune to feelings of superiority is establishing your superiority in at least that one endeavor...you are better at resisting that ego temptation than others, ergo, you are superior to those who give in to those temptations.
Finally, you employ yourself as the judge of your own impartiality. How do we know that you do not have feelings of superiority? Because you have examined the situation and determined that you do not. In order to do that, you must first regard yourself as a superior judge to such situations, certainly superior to me who has been telling you that you are laboring under an illusion. Why would you be arguing with me at all if you were not motivated by the idea that your concepts are superior to mine? I certainly am convinced that I have a better, superior if you will, understanding of the dynamic we are discussing. Why wouldn't I? If I didn't, why would I be trying to correct your understanding of the matter?
Very well. You are here to "overcome ignorance itself" as though ignorance somehow or other exists apart from ignorant people. Exactly how are you overcoming ignorance in general? Is it not the case that each time you encounter ignorance, it is in the form of a person you are regarding as ignorant in a particular case? When exactly have you ever encountered "ignorance itself?"
Further, in that you see yourself as overcoming ignorance, it must mean that you are viewing yourself as superior in that area, otherwise how could you possibly be qualified to overcome it?
Do you expect me, or anyone to buy this stuff you are selling here? You don't feel superior to others, you just "more enlightened" than others. You aren't overcoming the ignorance of others with your superior knowledge, you are overcoming "ignorance itself." Do you not see that you are simply using language to disguise the reality of matters?
orogenicman, you have not caught on that boasting that you are immune to feelings of superiority is establishing your superiority in at least that one endeavor...you are better at resisting that ego temptation than others, ergo, you are superior to those who give in to those temptations.
Finally, you employ yourself as the judge of your own impartiality. How do we know that you do not have feelings of superiority? Because you have examined the situation and determined that you do not. In order to do that, you must first regard yourself as a superior judge to such situations, certainly superior to me who has been telling you that you are laboring under an illusion. Why would you be arguing with me at all if you were not motivated by the idea that your concepts are superior to mine? I certainly am convinced that I have a better, superior if you will, understanding of the dynamic we are discussing. Why wouldn't I? If I didn't, why would I be trying to correct your understanding of the matter?
The difference between you and me, I think, is that I can differentiate people from what they believe. Not everyone was blessed with 9 years of higher education. I was, and count myself as humbled by my good fortune, so much so that I have always had a desire to share what I've learned with others, and so that's what I do. I don't look down on others because they lack the education, training and experience that I have. If that were the case, I would simply ignore them. I don't. My response is to help set the record straight. Now some (apparently you are one of them) may take offense at this and believe that that means that I feel superior to them, but that simply is not true. We are all different, with difference experiences, different levels of education, and different outlooks on life. I accept that that is the way it is. But that doesn't mean that I cannot or won't share what I know, nor does it mean that I must keep my trap shut lest someone be offended. If everyone did that, there would be no such thing as society. And humans are nothing, if not social animals. So perhaps your concept of superior and inferior is meaningless. Perhaps we are simply meant to interact and learn from one another, because that is how we grow and mature.
The difference between you and me, I think, is that I can differentiate people from what they believe. Not everyone was blessed with 9 years of higher education. I was, and count myself as humbled by my good fortune, so much so that I have always had a desire to share what I've learned with others, and so that's what I do. I don't look down on others because they lack the education, training and experience that I have. If that were the case, I would simply ignore them. I don't. My response is to help set the record straight. Now some (apparently you are one of them) may take offense at this and believe that that means that I feel superior to them, but that simply is not true. We are all different, with difference experiences, different levels of education, and different outlooks on life. I accept that that is the way it is. But that doesn't mean that I cannot or won't share what I know, nor does it mean that I must keep my trap shut lest someone be offended. If everyone did that, there would be no such thing as society. And humans are nothing, if not social animals. So perhaps your concept of superior and inferior is meaningless. Perhaps we are simply meant to interact and learn from one another, because that is how we grow and mature.
The above is what you do...and so do I. This discussion is about how you feel.
And you still aren't catching on....
Quote:
Not everyone was blessed with 9 years of higher education. I was, and count myself as humbled by my good fortune, so much so that I have always had a desire to share what I've learned with others
...that is a statement of assumed superiority. Because you have those years of higher education, you will condescend to help out those who do not. If those years of higher education didn't make you superior to those you believe need your help, how would you be qualified to help them? You would be one of them.
Straw man argument. The fact that atheists don't believe in god or religions doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. On the contrary, we believe a lot of things, particularly those things for which there is unambiguous scientific evidence, such as gravity, the speed of light, thermodynamics, and evolution. What we don't believe in is unsupported religious dogma from a 2,000 year old collection of books written by unknown tribal authors over any other ancient text written by equally unknown tribal authors. Personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am not obligated to believe in one person's personal revelation over that of another. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, god-fearing person anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that he had a conversation with the Virgin Mary in his cornfield.
So then you make science your god. Nothing wrong with that except that we know science is always changing, always self correcting, and with that, you have to put faith in it. Faith that a future scientific discovery won't change the scientific "facts" of today. And you can shout to the mountains that God is a myth and Jesus is dead all you want. It won't change the fact that you have absolutely ZERO proof that there is no life after death.
As for Christianity, there are numerous evidences to support it. Just the fact that Christianity is so hated, and exclusively attacked by atheists is a spiritual evidence since there is an enemy that seeks to destroy our faith. The 2,000 year old book that you casually dismiss happens to be the most important and influential book in the world.
The above is what you do...and so do I. This discussion is about how you feel.
And you still aren't catching on....
...that is a statement of assumed superiority. Because you have those years of higher education, you will condescend to help out those who do not. If those years of higher education didn't make you superior to those you believe need your help, how would you be qualified to help them? You would be one of them.
By that logic, every teacher on the planet is condescending to their students by caring enough to try to help them better themselves. I don't believe that you believe that. If you do, you don't know much about teachers or about teaching.
So then you make science your god. Nothing wrong with that except that we know science is always changing, always self correcting, and with that, you have to put faith in it. Faith that a future scientific discovery won't change the scientific "facts" of today. And you can shout to the mountains that God is a myth and Jesus is dead all you want. It won't change the fact that you have absolutely ZERO proof that there is no life after death.
As for Christianity, there are numerous evidences to support it. Just the fact that Christianity is so hated, and exclusively attacked by atheists is a spiritual evidence since there is an enemy that seeks to destroy our faith. The 2,000 year old book that you casually dismiss happens to be the most important and influential book in the world.
Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Since science is nothing if not about evidence, there is no faith involved. I said nothing about Jesus or life after death, so why you brought it up is a mystery. As for books, actually, there are tens of millions of books that have been written in the past 200 years alone. And yet the only one that makes any difference for you is a 2,000 year old book anonymously written by Middle Eastern tribesmen to get their people to forget that they didn't have air conditioning. It never cured any diseases, nor did much of anything except get people so angry that they killed each other by the millions in countless wars. Worship that? Not on a bet.
By that logic, every teacher on the planet is condescending to their students by caring enough to try to help them better themselves. I don't believe that you believe that. If you do, you don't know much about teachers or about teaching.
Guess I didn't learn anything during my 22 years as a teacher.
But...yes, absolutely yes. If a teacher did not feel superior to the students in the area being taught, why would that person be the teacher?
I have had a few teachers in my life who I viewed as less knowledgeable about the subject being taught than was I. I viewed sitting in their classrooms as an immense waste of my time.
And why do you keep arguing with me about this stuff if your ego is not invested in prevailing?
Guess I didn't learn anything during my 22 years as a teacher.
But...yes, absolutely yes. If a teacher did not feel superior to the students in the area being taught, why would that person be the teacher?
I have had a few teachers in my life who I viewed as less knowledgeable about the subject being taught than was I. I viewed sitting in their classrooms as an immense waste of my time.
And why do you keep arguing with me about this stuff if your ego is not invested in prevailing?
Because it isn't about winning. It is about learning. I would think that as a teacher, you'd have understood this by now. Get it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
