I have often heard creationists accuse atheists of being arrogant or ignorant. The accusation being that atheists are unable to accept the existance of a being greater than man. I however, hold that believeing in an omnipotent creator (with man being his greatest creation) requires a much greater level of arrogance (or ignorance , as the case may be).



I come to this conclusion based on what I believe to be sound , logical reasoning. I'll attempt to explain my reasoning as simply and concisely as possible.

To begin with, very few people have any grasp on the size of our solar system , much less our galaxy or the untold millions of galaxies within the known universe. The distances involved and the sheer number of stars(with accompanying planets) are so enormous, that it is impossible to really comprehend. The star (other than the sun) closest to the earth is Proxima Centauri. It takes about three and a half years for light emitted from it to reach the earth. Light travels(in a vacuum) at approx 186,000 miles per second. This means that the nearest star is approx. 20,543,997,600,600 miles away. Most stars are hundreds, thousands, or even millions of light years away. The actual size of the universe is beyond human comprehension .Here's something to help with the perspective: Imagine putting three grains of sand inside a huge cathedral, as far apart as you could place them. Think of how far apart they are in relation to their size. Now imagine that the grains of sand are three stars, and that the cathedral is a minute corner of the galaxy. The grains of sand in the cathedral would be more densely placed than actual stars in the galaxy.

Based on observations made by astronomers, planetary systems around stars is commonplace throughout the known universe.With untold billions of solar systems in existance, it is illogical to assume that the earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life (in one form or another).

The earth is merely an insignificant speck of dust in the cosmos. The question I pose is: What level of arrogance (or ignorance) would be required in order to believe that any being(if such a being could exist) capable of creating such a vast universe, would create such a universe as a habitat for mankind ? How arrogant would one have to be to believe that mankind could hold any significance to such a being ? How arrogant to believe that such a being would be concerned with each individual man ?



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 01-21-2005).]

we just don't know, so we make stuff up.

personally i believe the universe is gargantuan beyond comprehension, but until we visit other solar systems, they could just be lights hanging on strings. maybe the universe only exists as far as we can see.

if there can be a universe beyond our comprehension, why can there not be a being?

No one knows for sure, so I think it would be arrogant, and rather ignorant, to think that you know how/why the universe was created or how we got here. To say one knows with certainty is just stupid, but I don't know why it's ignorant to "believe" the things you described.

I also don't know why it is arrogant to think that each individual person is important. Every little minute thing plays a part in our microcosm of the universe. Why is thinking that some "higher being" cares about these details inane? I guess it depends on how you look at life. If you look at the universe from an impartial, outsider point of view, then you might think that one person out of 6 billion, or one planet out of the trillions of planets in the universe means nothing. If you look at it from a humanistic point of view, one might realize that people are important when you think about how they affect the lives of others around them.

I realize I'm rambling so I'll stop now.

quote:Originally posted by HandicapParking:

we just don't know, so we make stuff up.

personally i believe the universe is gargantuan beyond comprehension, but until we visit other solar systems, they could just be lights hanging on strings. maybe the universe only exists as far as we can see.

if there can be a universe beyond our comprehension, why can there not be a being?

Even if the universe only existed as far as we could see, my assertions are still valid.

By the way, I did not state that such a being could not exist. There is no way at this point in time to prove or disprove the existance of such a being. My assertion was that it requires a certain level of arrogance to think that such a being would find importance in an individual. The sole purpose of the astronomy info was to show how insignificant man is in the universe.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

No one knows for sure, so I think it would be arrogant, and rather ignorant, to think that you know how/why the universe was created or how we got here. To say one knows with certainty is just stupid, but I don't know why it's ignorant to "believe" the things you described.

I also don't know why it is arrogant to think that each individual person is important. Every little minute thing plays a part in our microcosm of the universe. Why is thinking that some "higher being" cares about these details inane? I guess it depends on how you look at life. If you look at the universe from an impartial, outsider point of view, then you might think that one person out of 6 billion, or one planet out of the trillions of planets in the universe means nothing. If you look at it from a humanistic point of view, one might realize that people are important when you think about how they affect the lives of others around them.

I realize I'm rambling so I'll stop now.

The existance of mankind is unimportant to the existance of the universe. If the earth were to be hit by a comet tonight, the rest of the universe would continue without so much as a hiccup. Of course though, there wouldn't be anyone around to observe it.

I agree with you about each individual's importance from the "humanistic point of view". I simply assert that it would be arrogant to expect such a being to share a "humanistic point of view"?

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



I simply assert that it would be arrogant to expect such a being to share a "humanistic point of view"?



That's where the "We don't know" factor comes in. I don't think that we know enough to make such assertions about this. Even if we assume that there is a god, and that god created us, we still wouldn't know whether or not he really cares about the human race.

^ Just turn on to any news chanel, does it looks like he cares?

quote:Originally posted by Monochrome:

^ Just turn on to any news chanel, does it looks like he cares?

I hope you aren't serious.

napoleon_complex kinda beat me to it but:

often we make the fallacy of believing a superior being would think and reason the way we do.

quote:Originally posted by HandicapParking:

napoleon_complex kinda beat me to it but:

often we make the fallacy of believing a superior being would think and reason the way we do.



exactly, if a being as magnificent as that were to create something beyond mortal comprehension he might just see some point in our existence that we dont because we cant comprehend it... just like we can't comprehend the universe or the being for that matter

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I hope you aren't serious.

Why? If we're talking about an omnipotent being, then... you should know the rest by now.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

....... Even if we assume that there is a god, and that god created us, we still wouldn't know whether or not he really cares about the human race.



And "without knowing", how would it not be arrogant for creationists to assert, with total conviction, that such a being does exist and does recognize and hold dear, each individual man (or woman, of course)?





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 01-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

My assertion was that it requires a certain level of arrogance to think that such a being would find importance in an individual.

Not nessesarily. Have you ever been to Castle Neuschwanstein? And seen the bed room? If i remember, it took 14 sculptors, 4 1/2 years to finish the room. The detail is amazing. Does the bed think it is great, because the sculptors put so much care in their work? (well, maybe it does, but since it ain't talkin'..)

Now consider the Omnipotent Creator. He said that He created universe with us in it. He put some amazing detail into His work. He even said that He made us in His image. If He put this much care and detail into His work, does that mean that He doesnt find importance in an individual -- in the details? With this much of the story, yes, it would be arrogant for us to assume that He cares. But you know what? He tells us that He cares. He shows us (although, we tend to ignore it sometimes-- me included). He also says that if we turn our back on Him, that He would turn His back on us.

Which brings us to the next thing. I've seen quite a few posts asking why, if God is all-powerful, why would He need people to spread His word. All-powerful is not the focus to the answer of this question. The focus is, i believe, His truthfulness and faithfulness. You see, if He says He will turn His back on us, but He says He will not forsake us, then this might be the answer to the "dilemma".

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



And "without knowing", how would it not be arrogant for creationists to assert, with total conviction, that such a being does exist and does recognize and hold dear, each individual man (or woman, of course)?

Because it's a belief, just a belief. Most christians don't hold that belief as fact or undeniable truth, they believe in it and they leave it at that. I don't think it is that arrogant to believe in something that has no evidence at all to support either cause.

I could see it being arrogant if someone held a belief even after that belief was proven to be wrong, but that isn't the case here.

extreem, please. When does "He" tell us all these things? In the Bible that humans wrote to feel important and control other humans? Pssshhh, be real.

Truck Fixer, I agree with you completely. There is, however, another side to this argument that I have thought about for a while. And this is that the entire universe is created or percieved by the individual. This means that nothing exists outside of your own brain, and *sigh* with this idea, the thought that one is important is no longer arrogant but true. In fact, one is the MOST important person seeing as they are the only ones that exist.

I don't completely agree with this idea but it is something to think about.

QUOTE Originally posted by chaski86:

extreem, please. When does "He" tell us all these things? In the Bible that humans wrote to feel important and control other humans? Pssshhh, be real.

Pssshhh...the title of the topic is: "Arrogance of Creationists".

Being a creationist, means that you take the Bible as the Literal Word of God. Which i do. Which to date, no one has shown me a viable reason not to (and that statement has nothing to do with my Faith), and that includes your "perception" idea. Your idea would basically be saying that, if there are other things besides yourself, there is no contact with them, so in effect..even if everything you perceive is made up from your mind, then you are the only being that exists and our discussion right now is just a form of your doubt.

Actually, there have only been two arguements so far that, to me are a stumbling block. A stumbling block does not mean i doubt, just that they are difficult questions. The first is Rust's omnipotence/omniscients vs. freewill. But as i have said, i have seen counter-arguements to this, and i am working on a concise illustration to "toss" at Rust. (i think i'm close to it).

the second tough question/arguement is creationist time of universe (about 6000 years) vs. starlight time/universe size. I have seen very good explainations (frame of reference... i think the explaination is Gerald L. Schroeder's, but it might have just been in his book, but not his idea) to this, but they miss the mark (in my opinion), on one very basic tenent, frame of reference means light, from the perspective of the light source (stars) would still have to be billions of years old vs. the Genesis account of creation.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Because it's a belief, just a belief. Most christians don't hold that belief as fact or undeniable truth, they believe in it and they leave it at that.

No offense intended, but that statement was ludicrous.The entire Christian religion is based on this belief.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

No offense intended, but that statement was ludicrous.The entire Christian religion is based on this belief.



So? If you don't agree with the religion, then don't practice. If you want to disagree, then disagree. But since there is no evidence, you can't call the religion(or the belief system) wrong.

Napoleon, you are right about one thing. We cannot conclusively proove that God does or does not exist. But this is true for all things - I cannot conclusively proove that I am sitting here right now or that I am typing on the computer. The only thing we can do is proove these things to the best of our ability.

This means that, if anything can be prooven wrong (or supported) by the best means that we find are possible, then Christianity can easily be shown to be false. I offer this up but do not intend to give any proof for now as it would be much to long and wouldn't register with most Christians due to their unwillingness to accept it.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So? If you don't agree with the religion, then don't practice. If you want to disagree, then disagree. But since there is no evidence, you can't call the religion(or the belief system) wrong.



You completely missed the point. He asked :



1. He's arguing that the arrogance derives from them not knowing and automatically believing it is that way (i.e. that we must be the creation of an omnipotent being).

So if the religion is completely centered around that, (i.e.that we must be the creation of an omnipotent being) then his argument is complete supported!

2. He never called it "Wrong" so , "But since there is no evidence, you can't call the religion(or the belief system) wrong.", has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

I have often heard creationists accuse atheists of being arrogant or ignorant. The accusation being that atheists are unable to accept the existance of a being greater than man. I however, hold that believeing in an omnipotent creator (with man being his greatest creation) requires a much greater level of arrogance (or ignorance , as the case may be).



I come to this conclusion based on what I believe to be sound , logical reasoning. I'll attempt to explain my reasoning as simply and concisely as possible.

To begin with, very few people have any grasp on the size of our solar system , much less our galaxy or the untold millions of galaxies within the known universe. The distances involved and the sheer number of stars(with accompanying planets) are so enormous, that it is impossible to really comprehend. The star (other than the sun) closest to the earth is Proxima Centauri. It takes about three and a half years for light emitted from it to reach the earth. Light travels(in a vacuum) at approx 186,000 miles per second. This means that the nearest star is approx. 20,543,997,600,600 miles away. Most stars are hundreds, thousands, or even millions of light years away. The actual size of the universe is beyond human comprehension .Here's something to help with the perspective: Imagine putting three grains of sand inside a huge cathedral, as far apart as you could place them. Think of how far apart they are in relation to their size. Now imagine that the grains of sand are three stars, and that the cathedral is a minute corner of the galaxy. The grains of sand in the cathedral would be more densely placed than actual stars in the galaxy.

Based on observations made by astronomers, planetary systems around stars is commonplace throughout the known universe.With untold billions of solar systems in existance, it is illogical to assume that the earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life (in one form or another).

The earth is merely an insignificant speck of dust in the cosmos. The question I pose is: What level of arrogance (or ignorance) would be required in order to believe that any being(if such a being could exist) capable of creating such a vast universe, would create such a universe as a habitat for mankind ? How arrogant would one have to be to believe that mankind could hold any significance to such a being ? How arrogant to believe that such a being would be concerned with each individual man ?





Read the bible your ill informed on who and what God actually is.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You completely missed the point. He asked :



1. He's arguing that the arrogance derives from them not knowing and automatically believing it is that way (i.e. that we must be the creation of an omnipotent being).

So if the religion is completely centered around that, (i.e.that we must be the creation of an omnipotent being) then his argument is complete supported!



According to your example, nearly every belief system in the world is arrogant. Atheists, Buddhists, Hinduists, Christians, and Jews are all arrogant because they assume things that can't be proved to be true. Do you agree that it would be arrogant for those faiths also?

Everyone assumes things, but I don't call people arrogant over it.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

According to your example, nearly every belief system in the world is arrogant. Atheists, Buddhists, Hinduists, Christians, and Jews are all arrogant because they assume things that can't be proved to be true. Do you agree that it would be arrogant for those faiths also?

Everyone assumes things, but I don't call people arrogant over it.

Then you're reading my example wrong.

The simple act of assuming something isn't what calls for the label of "arrogant". It is the the underlying theme of the assuption, in this case being, that an omnipotent and omniscient being devoted a single six days to our creation, when he has absoloutely no need to do so. That's what seems arrogant.

Okay...

Let's look at the nature of religion - what it is now and what it once was. Religion as we know it is the product of ignorance. Ignorance of the physical world and ignorance of the spiritual world. Originally people looked to religion to explain the natural world... the rain or the tides, or the very thing we still argue about today, human existence. Much of this has been explained through other means (with the notable exception of existence), so religion isn't as useful here. On the other hand, people knew some things were bad and other things were good, but they didn't know how to determine either. They made religion the center of their moral standard, and this is what generally persists to day.

In regards to the arrogance of creationists believing God actually gives a shit about us, I ask what makes everyone else so arrogant as to think he actually doesn't? I'd like to focus on the moral concept which I posed above, namely in regards to what is right and what is wrong, because that's really the only thing we can focus on here. You can't argue with any certainty that God created the universe or didn't, but you can analyze the idea of whether or not morality is purely humanistic or not.

For example, the lack a divine moral code (or a divinely implanted capability to determine one), would shift the responsibility of that code to humanity alone. Assuming there is a notion of right and wrong (which I believe exists), the non-existence of God would lay the burden of determing all that is good and all that is bad in the universe on mankind. In other words, that man is for all intents and purposes his own God. This itself seems quite arrogant by its very nature. Especially if you take it on the individual level rather than the collective.

quote:Originally posted by LostEquation:

.......In regards to the arrogance of creationists believing God actually gives a shit about us, I ask what makes everyone else so arrogant as to think he actually doesn't?........



How could one be considered arrogant for not believing that a being powerful enough to create the universe would find mankind of little or no consequence?



quote:.......Assuming there is a notion of right and wrong (which I believe exists), the non-existence of God would lay the burden of determing all that is good and all that is bad in the universe on mankind. In other words, that man is for all intents and purposes his own God. This itself seems quite arrogant by its very nature. Especially if you take it on the individual level rather than the collective.

Man is not a god. He is simply a product of the world he inhabits. Defining one's own morality would not make him a god. Accepting that one holds the responsiblity for his own actions does not require arrogance. Merely intelligent reasoning.

[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 01-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Then you're reading my example wrong.

The simple act of assuming something isn't what calls for the label of "arrogant". It is the the underlying theme of the assuption, in this case being, that an omnipotent and omniscient being devoted a single six days to our creation, when he has absoloutely no need to do so. That's what seems arrogant.

I guess him and I have different opinions of what constitutes as arrogant. I don't really think that believing something like that is arrogant, atleast until it is disproven.

Well, then we most certainly do. I don't see how someone believing something after it has been disproven, could be labeled as arrogant. "Tremendously stupid"? Of course, but not "arrogant", unless of course it was arrogant to begin with (as in, before being proven false)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-26-2005).]