Quote:The chief stumbling block to one overbalanced in wisdom is a basic attitude with which this instrument is familiar that she calls pride. When she sees this element of character within herself, she confesses her pride.

However, we would perhaps use the term arrogance rather than pride. In pride, there is a conscious element: one is proud of something. There is a quantitative aspect to this concept of emotive structure. We do not wish to indicate that there is any conscious aspect to the structure involved in those who are wise at the expense of love. Therefore, we suggest the term arrogance, for arrogance is an unconscious attribute carried by those who are aware of the efficacy of their thinking processes.

We would say to those whose profile matches this distortion that it is time to become willing to be grounded in humility.

(05-07-2013, 02:11 AM)Meerie Wrote: Interesting ideas, being certain of one's beliefs, regardless of whether there is evidence one has, and you are linking it to a defense mechanism...
I noticed sometimes people who act very sure of their beliefs get defensive when someone else questions those.
Like Ra apparently said never to take what they say as gospel but still many do.. someone even mentioned "I don't care if it is truth or not because I believe it" the other day.
I guess it is normal in a way.
But where does "defensiveness" then come into play? if one is really so sure about their beliefs it should not matter whether someone else questions them.
Doesn't that actually mean they are not sure and therefore react to others questioning them?
And could what sometimes translates as arrogance then simply be an attempt to mask that insecurity?

(05-07-2013, 01:57 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: Is it arrogant to correct someone else's grammar? Especially if English might not be their first language.

(05-07-2013, 01:49 PM)MarcRammer Wrote: I had a conversation with a Christian the other day... They were wondering what my beliefs were. I shared, and didn't shy away from exposing the fear based doctrine of hell. As they defended hell I proceeded to show through careful studying how the bible mentions no such thing. In my explanation, my wife said I seemed prideful.

There are lines, I believe: there are personal beliefs which cannot be proven or disproven, and there are facts on the outside which are necessarily true. I do not try to change beliefs, but if there are faulty facts that one wishes to impose on me, could I not offer my services in shedding light on the fault? To cross the line into changing another's belief is an abridging of free will, but to share reason and clear data and facts, is that?

Socrates' life seems to show a life of love for people. He loved people so much that he would shed light on illogical thought patterns and unreasonable ways of living. His service to mankind was not liked and, to me, he came across as arrogant at times. But after he was tried and killed, the world grew in reason and pursuit of truth. Was his way arrogant or an abridging of free will?

(05-07-2013, 04:12 PM)MarcRammer Wrote: For me, discovering that hell wasn't in the bible is what freed me from viewing it as an authority. It takes away the fear from exploring spirituality. Most all of Christian philosophy and theology is based on hell and if you take out hell, the teachings are very very much different. It releases people to the love of the creator instead of the fear of it. Also, if people stake everything they believe on a certain book, its probably a wise thing to know what it truly says and the whole history behind it coming into 'authority'. I like to come to a certain level to exchange views that are a common denominator. Although Jesus was very different than Jews, he used their existing mythology to share his wisdom. I've learned to speak the language of the people I talk with instead of trying to teach them my language, its a bit more efficient.

And I agree, the person must ask for me to share.

(05-07-2013, 06:20 PM)MarcRammer Wrote: He only referred to karma, not eternal damnation.

(05-07-2013, 02:11 AM)Meerie Wrote: Interesting ideas, being certain of one's beliefs, regardless of whether there is evidence one has, and you are linking it to a defense mechanism...
I noticed sometimes people who act very sure of their beliefs get defensive when someone else questions those.
Like Ra apparently said never to take what they say as gospel but still many do.. someone even mentioned "I don't care if it is truth or not because I believe it" the other day.
I guess it is normal in a way.
But where does "defensiveness" then come into play? if one is really so sure about their beliefs it should not matter whether someone else questions them.
Doesn't that actually mean they are not sure and therefore react to others questioning them?
And could what sometimes translates as arrogance then simply be an attempt to mask that insecurity?

(05-08-2013, 05:45 PM)turtledude23 Wrote: I said defence mechanism: being "arrogant" protects yourself from beliefs you consider untrue.

(05-08-2013, 05:45 PM)turtledude23 Wrote: I ask because I was accused of confirmation bias for believing in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know everyone has confirmation bias so basically I was accused of being imperfect. Frankly the person who attacked my beliefs did so in an emotional and unwarranted manner leading me to believe that they have some unresolved issue tied to the topic. I took it as catalyst to process and momentarily challenged my beliefs but they still held up to my internal logic. Does that come across as arrogant?

(05-08-2013, 11:02 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(05-08-2013, 05:45 PM)turtledude23 Wrote: I said defence mechanism: being "arrogant" protects yourself from beliefs you consider untrue.

I would say being closed-minded does that. But one can be closed-minded without being arrogant, and vice versa.

There is usually fear hiding being arrogance.

(05-08-2013, 05:45 PM)turtledude23 Wrote: I ask because I was accused of confirmation bias for believing in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know everyone has confirmation bias so basically I was accused of being imperfect. Frankly the person who attacked my beliefs did so in an emotional and unwarranted manner leading me to believe that they have some unresolved issue tied to the topic. I took it as catalyst to process and momentarily challenged my beliefs but they still held up to my internal logic. Does that come across as arrogant?

Standing firm in your beliefs, after examining them and finding the valid, isn't arrogant. You did good to momentarily challenge your own beliefs, to see if they held up. That isn't arrogance; it's humility. You were willing to change your stance and that's commendable! It just so happened in this case that it wasn't necessary to change your stance, because your beliefs held up.

Those who lash out or ridicule conspiracy theorists usually have a lot of fear. For example, they cannot process the idea that their own government attacked its own citizens - it would shake up their cherished concepts of exceptionalism and elitism so prevalent in religion and politics - so they shut their minds to the glaring, irrefutable evidence. Either that or they have something to gain by perpetuating the lie.

In any case, if you've examined your beliefs and found them logically sound, but the other person chooses to attack or ridicule you because of them, to stand firm isn't necessarily arrogant. It might be foolish (since you're probably wasting your time trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced) and it might even be imposing on their free will (depending on the situation), but those are separate issues/catalysts and not necessarily arrogance.