Is Theism arrogant?

It was me that made the claim that robinrohan has taken issue with. I do not think that he or she has clearly understood me. I never said that any claim that makes an assumption about what people think is arrogant. I asserted that making claims about the contents of another person's mind in the face of direct contrary information is arrogant.The key to my point is this: Is the claim being made a positive, specific statement by one person about what another thinks? Has the claimant verified with the other person what he or she thinks? Has the other person in fact informed the claimant that they do not think as the claimant says, yet the claimant persists?If the answers are yes to the first and no to the second, then the claim is unprovable and ignorant (as theism so often is). If the third answer is also yes, then it is rank, disgusting arrogance.One thing must certainly be cleared up here. What does arrogant mean? I present the following: Making exorbitant claims of estimation certainly applies here, as does the quality "assuming". So no, theism in general is not arrogant and I never claimed it was. I said that specific theists making specific claims are being arrogant.

Think what you will. You are, of course, wrong... but not arrogant. My point is very simple but you seem unable to grasp it, I will try one final time to communicate it to you. Neither are arrogant. They are stating the beliefs of the claimant as to what others should do. Not this one, either. This is not making specific claims about the state of another person's mind. Again, not arrogant in the way we are discussing. This is not making a positive claim about the state of another person's mind. It is admitting to the person's asserted state of mind (i.e. feeling the presence of God). Bingo! Here it is. This claim states that every person, each and every person in all the world, feels a certain way. The claim is that not only does the claimant know what I think (without my telling them) but also what all people think. Really? They know all that? How could they? The arrogance (using the definition I gave) is clear. It assumes a knowledge that could not really exist and makes an exorbitant claim of estimation.I said that Prophex's statement was arrogant, gave a definition of arrogance, and showed how the original claim fit it. In light of that, I will certainly not tolerate the following... I made a claim. I defended it rationally. This is merely immature harping on your part. Still, I will go to the trouble of refuting this nonsense. I quote again from your OP. I absolutely disagree with this. It is completely the opposite of my basic viewpoint and I do not find it arrogant, merely misguided. So, unless you are going to claim that you know better then I do what I think, I expect you to withdraw your accusation with apologies.

Deleted this. On rereading it was repetitive and not needed.This message has been edited by mikehager, 10-30-2005 10:49 PM

I can only respond to what I read. To add or subtract meaning to what is actually asserted without the agreement of the person making the claim makes any refutation of it a strawman and thus invalid.So all I have to work with is "Everyone feels the presence of God." This sentence (I am not a cognitive linguist but I do read and write the english language quite well {spelling is another matter}) does not mean the same thing as "Everyone is capable of experiencing supernatural-like feelings." The original is an absolute, positive statement of fact and your translation is conditional, stating a possibility. Two very different things.It may be that Prophex meant what you say he did, in which case he was not arrogant, he just didn't express himself well, and I would certainly withdraw my charge of arrogance. He has never responded on this issue so we don't know. So, as I said above, all I have to go on is what was actually said.Also, what a person is "thinking" is inaccessable to others. Want proof? What number am I thinking of right now? To continue this example, let's say that I told you that the number I was thinking of was 8675309 (DAMN YOU TOMMY TUTONE!).Then you replied, "No, the number you were thinking of was 3."I say, "No, really, it was 8675309."You say, "No, it was 3. I think of 3, everyone in the world thinks of 3, and you were thinking of 3. Just admit it."What would that make you? Bottom line, you didn't know what number I was thinking of, just as Prophex (or any of the others I have heard this from in the past) cannot know if I feel the presence of any deity. To claim knowledge that it is impossible to actually have is arrogant. Oh, and with the blue sky? I could be color blind and you would have no way to know it.This message has been edited by mikehager, 10-30-2005 11:29 PM

Perhaps a general rule can be known for all people, but what of the claim that the rule is not in fact general but universal? That is the claim I am taking issue with. I also find it interesting that you are telling me what Prophex actually meant. Have you discussed it with him? I suppose I will just have to go with what was said and the definitions of those words, until I can get any contextual variations from prophex himself. Unlike you, I am unwilling to make extended claims about someone else's meaning in their absence. No. Not at all. My argument is about specific examples of thought and opinion being accessable only to the individual. It is certainly less useful if it leads you to incorrect conclusions. The only way we can know if your speculation is accurate is to ask him, which sort of leads back to my central point, doesn't it?To restate, that central point is simply that to make the claim "All people 'feel' the presence of God" directly implies knowledge of the state of my mind on the subject, which is impossible. Claiming knowledge that it is impossible to actually have is arrogant. Yes, but an absolute is refuted by a single case, which is what I am actually doing here.

You are raving. There is nothing in your post that bears on my point at all, especially not your deceptive quote mining.You have not addressed my original point realistically at any point, in fact you have continued to mischarachterize it. So, in light of your obtuse non-argument, I must withdraw.Unless of course, you can address my actual argument. There is a nice, condensed version in an earlier reply to Ben in this thread. Till then, good day.This withdrawal is only to discussion with Robinrohan. Anyone else with a desire to address this, I am more than willling to engage.This message has been edited by mikehager, 10-31-2005 11:22 AM