9 Questions That Atheists Might Find Insulting (And the Answers)

there may or may not be a higher force in the universe,but if there is.it certainly wont be anything to do with the bible or any other religion here on earth.
after all most religions were created to control the mass's,the only religion that has any solidarity with me is hinduism.
Thus being the oldest religion on earth,some scholars belevie it to be over 20,000 years old.

when you compare it to the fictional writings of the bible,which was made up a meer 2000 years ago.BY a bunch of murdering tyrants.

it astounds me that we can look back at how the egyptians and other ancient cultures all worshipped Gods and animals and the sky/sea.and we look at them with hindsight ''how naive'' yet its still going on in today's age.people worshipping things.its rediculous.
dont you all think we have got to the point where we know better? because i do


religion has held our civilisation back so much,even today the only thing that devides our countries besides the water between us.is different religions.

............one day,religion will be abolished from our planet.
sadly i fear not in my,or my children's life time.

hateandanger.files.wordpress.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Originally posted by Miracula
Most organized religion types versus non-organized faith types have displayed deceitfulness in supposed support of Jesus. Abusiveness.

(...)

My experience has been this when dealing with organized religion versus lay people of faith who rarely mention their beliefs and will have a drink at a bar with you, is to go to the bar, and avoid people who wear Christ on their sleeves. They more often than not would be more suited to wearing Nazi SS symbols.

As predicted by the Bible in Matthew 7:15, Acts 20:29-30, 2 Timothy 6:3-5 and 2 Peter 2:1-3 (among others).

Originally posted by totallackey
I am unaware of any religion that teaches individuals are not responsible for their own actions. There is always some outside entity sitting in judgment, not in the sky.

Calvinism teaches 'omniderigence', that is, that everything that happens is God's will, including the evil you practice yourself. There is a branch of Cristianity called "Universalism" that preaches that everyone will be saved in the end, even those that are absolutely evil.

Originally posted by totallackey
Murder is wrong because if we engaged in murder there would soon be nobody left to murder.

That doesn't make any sense. It is like saying that eating food is wrong because soon you will have no food left to eat (happens to me all the time ).

Originally posted by SaturnFX
If murder was accepted, then breeding would quickly die out. This is where principles kick in.

Doesn't follow, sorry. Or, more aptly put, it is a non-sequitur.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
If it is acceptable for me to murder you, then it is acceptable for you to murder me. I don't want to be murdered, so I won't murder and request such a rule be applied to me and enforced. Do onto others what you would have done unto yourself is a pretty basic summation of this theory overall.

If you don't want to be murdered, the more logical course of action is to murder the other person first.

Now, as a greater society, if murdering is acceptable and morally neutral, and people don't want to be murdered as part of their genetic code, they will murder those whom they believe are considering murdering them. paranoia will run rampant, murder will become uncontrolled, people will not socialize, breed, and the population will fall, extinction.

Now, considering that murdering was acceptable during great part of human history and still is in many parts of the world, and we are still here, you are wrong, sorry. You are failing to consider the difference between intergroup hostility and intragroup hostility.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Flying elephants.
I don't believe in flying elephants because of many reasons, but mostly because I have never seen one, nor has any proof come forward of flying elephants.

If I seen a flying elephant, I would believe in them. If there was undeniable proof of the flying elephant of Madagascar or something, I would believe in them.

Belief is the wrong word though. I would rather acknowledge them as real verses simply believe.

Belief *is* the wrong word. Belief has nothing to do with proof. Only knowledge requires proof.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
But the redemption aspect makes NO sense when all you need to do, in order to be forgiven and get into heaven, is to acknowledge your sins and believe in god.

There's a cop out for sinners.

It is not at all what you need to do. What you need to do is to repent the sinning behavior, withdraw it, and have faith in the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus.

Acknowledging yours sins means nothing without repentance and withdrawal.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
At no point in my life did the Bible teach me the concepts of right and wrong. It taught me the concept of control and oppressiveness. Although I agree that some of the text's contents are fun stories that have a good moral value or lesson to learn, religion is certainly not a requirement to being a healthy, balanced human being.

Then you have been studying the wrong Bible, or studying it the wrong way.

Originally posted by NorEaster
I invite you to post search me and get up to speed on what I've already revealed here. It's your choice, of course.

Empty posturing. The old shifting the burden of proof strategy oh-so-very-commonly-used by those that do nothing but empty posturing.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
And I can't - not because it isn't true but because I don't have the understanding or ability to understand something so far outside of my experience.

So you find yourself confortable enough to speculate to a point, but not further? Am I to asume that your understanding goes so far as to understand as possible creation being an emergent property of a set of constants?

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I'm sorry but you don't get that survival means more then numbers - yeah we can populate ourselves into extinction just fine. To survive we need more, need to be more, see more then the literal. To survive we must embrace change and learn to open our minds.

The pace of change over the last 100 years + has not been met with a corresponding change in our social/political and yes religious structures.

It isn't a math problem its a systems problem.

No, you are moving goalposts here. To survive, it *is* only a matter of numbers. We could, and should, strive for more than mere numbers, but that's not surviving. Surviving implies, by definition, the least possible criteria, as it means 'to continue to exist'. Anything more than that is something else than 'surviving'.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
And having a 'spiritual' life does not mean 'believing in god'. Buddhists don't believe in a creator god and are very spritual.

Having faith doesn't need a god either, nor does hope, wisdom or charity.

I never said it did. I never said "believing in god." I said "having a religion." Buddhism is still a religion. Atheism, however, is not and precludes any form of "spiritual life."

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
So, if you look up the word faith, there are several different definitions (also depends where you look) but they can pretty much be summed up in one of two ways:

1) Having confidence or trust in something; or
2) Believing in god through religious beliefs, without proof.

"Faith" means to accept something as true because of past evidence of truthful behavior. It is the only meaning that allows for expressions like "Have faith in me" and "To act in bad faith."

One is a call for confidence based on past successful experiences and the other is to abuse past truthful behavior to call for confidence in order to deceive. We all inherently know this because we all have used these expression some time or another in our lives.

Believing is *always* without proof. Once there is a degree of proof for something, it moves outside of the realm of believing and into other realms, be it knowledge, credit or faith.

Originally posted by SpearMint
Most humans have the same perception of what morality is, where do you think the "morals" taught by religion come from?

Care to prove that assertion?

Originally posted by SpearMint
So has religion disabled your ability to think hypothetically?

You question is completely different, you introduced personal loss, the whole point of the other situation is that you have no personal loss if you were to hypothetically kill the person. It doesn't put me in to the position of someone that believes something different, the other one does, it puts you in to the position of an Atheist, that's the point.

No, he simply has proposed a famous philosophical problem to you that is way over your head, it seems. It is called "The Trolley Dillema" and it is far more famous than I believe it deserves, mostly because it was studied by a female philosopher (that died a couple years ago) and people made a big deal of her work for her being a woman.

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo
As i have recently written in another thread...

I believe the theory of god in the traditional sense is very dated and unlikely. Humans are a young and not very intelligent species on the grand scale of things but we are beginning to understand the building blocks of life and how things are created, how stars and planets form, almost to the point where we can create life ourselves. we are almost able to do some of the things god did or at least understand how that are done. It makes me wonder that if we can do these things at this stage in our species' development then was god all that great? because in the future surely we will be able to do far greater things. its another thing amongst the many others that make me an atheist

I do not think you really know what you are talking about. I think you are grossly overestimating your scientific knowledge. We are nowhere near any closer to 'create life ourselves' than we were 2 thousand of years ago in Greece.

Originally posted by flana23
there may or may not be a higher force in the universe,but if there is.it certainly wont be anything to do with the bible or any other religion here on earth.
after all most religions were created to control the mass's,the only religion that has any solidarity with me is hinduism.
Thus being the oldest religion on earth,some scholars belevie it to be over 20,000 years old.

when you compare it to the fictional writings of the bible,which was made up a meer 2000 years ago.BY a bunch of murdering tyrants.

The Bible was not written 2 thousand years ago, and neither can hinduism be over 20 thousand years old as there is no surviving literature older than 6 thousand years old (stone paintings notwithstanding).

Everytime I need a good laugh I step in the religious threads and read the christian posts. Hahaha Your are pathetic, trying to justify your beliefs, with other made up nonsense. Who started this one-god-creator concept thing.... Probably it was started by bogan people in the desert, who stole a few stories and magic tricks from the already advanced egyptians. But the poor uneducated people couldn't understand much from what the egyptians were teaching so they violently changed them to their understanding and made the old testament. To feel better for themselfs they created a god that loves them more than the unbelievers polytheists of that time so they could have a hope in their full of misery lifes and feel better for themselfs having a ''powerfull god'' protecting them from their enemies
There you go... this is the story of CREATION,
The creation of god, by Man

ps Don't try and argue with my story, your bible isn't a verified history book either. hahaha

Originally posted by Leahn
I do not think you really know what you are talking about. I think you are grossly overestimating your scientific knowledge. We are nowhere near any closer to 'create life ourselves' than we were 2 thousand of years ago in Greece.

thanks for your input. No offence meant but what you think and what is reality are 2 very different things. we are very much closer to creating life ourselves than we were 2000 years ago even though we are still very far from it. My comment was simply stating that we are not a very intelligent or advanced species because we are a very young species. But we are already beginning to understand how the things that god is supposed to have created are made. and in some cases we understand enough to be experimenting with it and provide promising results.

so I was wondering how god was so great if a species he created has evolved enough to begin figuring it all out. But someone pointed out to me in another thread that it was not his creations which were so impressive. It was the way in which everything is connected and intertwined. But then I still just think that is down to the order of nature

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo
thanks for your input. No offence meant but what you think and what is reality are 2 very different things. we are very much closer to creating life ourselves than we were 2000 years ago even though we are still very far from it. My comment was simply stating that we are not a very intelligent or advanced species because we are a very young species. But we are already beginning to understand how the things that god is supposed to have created are made. and in some cases we understand enough to be experimenting with it and provide promising results.

so I was wondering how god was so great if a species he created has evolved enough to begin figuring it all out. But someone pointed out to me in another thread that it was not his creations which were so impressive. It was the way in which everything is connected and intertwined. But then I still just think that is down to the order of nature

edit on 17-5-2013 by Silicis n Volvo because: (no reason given)

But that's exactly my point. The more we learn, the more we understand that we know nothing. The most recent developments on our knowledge of DNA showed that not only its composition is relevant, but also how it folds itself in a 3D-space when it is assembled. We have now only begun to understand how, albeit only 10% of our DNA is responsible for coding for proteins, the other 90% of it is responsible for regulating the process. And everything is so well-tuned that looks much like a orchestra guided by the hands of the finest maestro.

The first time I read about Kinesins, I was so baffled I could barely talk for a minute.

Just today I read about a scientist that managed to crank 5.5 Petabytes of data in a single gram of DNA not much bigger than a needle's pin. And that's not the limit.

There is so much we don't know that the more we study, we simply understand better how much of it is left for us to know.

Keep in mind that it was God's intention that we understood His work. That's the task He gave us. That's why we are here.

"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end." (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

I am not christian. My beliefs are quite odd by most standards. But what is up with this site and perpetual facination/assault on theists eh? Its like every other post.

Originally posted by Leahn

So you find yourself confortable enough to speculate to a point, but not further? Am I to asume that your understanding goes so far as to understand as possible creation being an emergent property of a set of constants?

I'm always willing to speculate - what was the question?

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I'm sorry but you don't get that survival means more then numbers - yeah we can populate ourselves into extinction just fine. To survive we need more, need to be more, see more then the literal. To survive we must embrace change and learn to open our minds.

The pace of change over the last 100 years + has not been met with a corresponding change in our social/political and yes religious structures.

It isn't a math problem its a systems problem.

No, you are moving goalposts here. To survive, it *is* only a matter of numbers. We could, and should, strive for more than mere numbers, but that's not surviving. Surviving implies, by definition, the least possible criteria, as it means 'to continue to exist'. Anything more than that is something else than 'surviving'.

Maybe we don't have an exact term for what I mean my survival. And I am not moving any goalposts - the 'goalposts' have been moved by evolution.

Evolution by definition implies growth and complexity. Mere numbers may have served that purpose for eons but is no longer a force for survival but against it. In order for humanity to survive, dare I say the entire planet's ecosphere, we need to conscouisly get rid of these old patterns of survival and learn new ones. This is not my idea but a growing consensus of scientists who study these things.

In fact, religions are a huge block in our colletive ability to meet the challenges of the current world by holding on to outdated ideas of growth simply to maintain their "base" of control without concern or even thought to the future of humanity.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
And having a 'spiritual' life does not mean 'believing in god'. Buddhists don't believe in a creator god and are very spritual.

Having faith doesn't need a god either, nor does hope, wisdom or charity.

I never said it did. I never said "believing in god." I said "having a religion." Buddhism is still a religion. Atheism, however, is not and precludes any form of "spiritual life."

Then if athesism precluds having a 'spritual life' how can buddhism be considered a religion

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by maes2
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

1-there should be a first creator.

Why 'should' there be a first creator? What about creation as an emergent property of an initial set of constants? Maybe some form of Mutual Creation?

I don't believe there was any independent will or intent for creation - that would require a being beyond creation that is not part of it. I believe creation happened and certain laws, both physical and non-physical, emerged as a consequence of evolution. With ever increasing complexity in a battle against entropy. Could, if you want to, a battle of good (complexity) vs evil (entropy) in both physical and spiritual dimensions.

That my friends is a miracle.

accident does not have any scientific root. we call those events which we do not know their causes, as accidents. but this does not mean that they do not have causes. Big Bang. a big disorder.
humanity is weak and our knowledge is really limited.
regarding entropy, this amazing universe but the atoms, which are full of order. such order can not be created by disorder. it is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. it needs a work. it needs a creator.
however I am not sure what I am saying.
this concept is much more simple. when we see a wheel, we confess that it needs a creator.
and about mutual creation. it is not logical. how can nothing creates anything.
need of first creator, which is beyond the creation chain, is purely logical. it is independent of Bible and monotheistic religions.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by Leahn
So you find yourself confortable enough to speculate to a point, but not further? Am I to asume that your understanding goes so far as to understand as possible creation being an emergent property of a set of constants?

I'm always willing to speculate - what was the question?

Where did the constants come from?

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Maybe we don't have an exact term for what I mean my survival. And I am not moving any goalposts - the 'goalposts' have been moved by evolution.

Evolution is a fad that is slowly being abandoned by the serious biologists. It is gonna take a couple decades more but I will see the end of this fad in my lifetime. And so will you.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Then if athesism precluds having a 'spritual life' how can buddhism be considered a religion

Because Atheism has an a priori commitment to materialism. Buddhism doesn't.

Originally posted by Leahn

Where did the constants come from?

I've no idea. Neither I or you have the mental capacity to truly conceive of Void or Infinity. Another poster sugguested 'an accident' which is just as reasonable as a creator or a system (or maybe a non-system emerging into a living system - I think that is a better way to phrase it.).

Evolution is a fad that is slowly being abandoned by the serious biologists. It is gonna take a couple decades more but I will see the end of this fad in my lifetime. And so will you.

[/quote]

Evolution is a fad in the same way specific religions are fads. The basic concept of either is sound, in it's own domain, but neither is without flaws.

Evolution a fad. That's just plain funny. I like it and will use it. And the earth (or is it the universe) is only 6000 years old and god put fossils in the ground to test believers faith.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Then if athesism precluds having a 'spritual life' how can buddhism be considered a religion

Because Atheism has an a priori commitment to materialism. Buddhism doesn't.

edit on 17/5/2013 by Leahn because: (no reason given)

You are misusing the term 'a priori'. Which in fact means knowlege acquired without need of experience or proof.

What is an 'a priori commitment' to materialism or any other ism.

You speak as though Atheists deny the non-material and that is simply false. Religion doesn't have a proprietary patent on the non-material - in fact I would say science can and will tell us more about the non-material then religion every can.

The Buddha says: Don't believe anything anybody tells you, including anything I tell you, unless it agrees with your own experience and your own common sense.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I understand what you're saying now. Thank you for clarifying that for me, I'm much obliged.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I've no idea. Neither I or you have the mental capacity to truly conceive of Void or Infinity. Another poster sugguested 'an accident' which is just as reasonable as a creator or a system (or maybe a non-system emerging into a living system - I think that is a better way to phrase it.).

An accident requires a cause outside of itself, since it cannot be self-caused. A system requires an external input of the initial energy since such energy cannot be self-generated. No, they are not "just as reasonable" as a creator, since they also require violation of known laws of Physics.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Evolution is a fad in the same way specific religions are fads. The basic concept of either is sound, in it's own domain, but neither is without flaws.

Which basic concept is sound? Natural selection? The accumulation of small mutations over time? Please, state what is sound about evolution.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
You are misusing the term 'a priori'. Which in fact means knowlege acquired without need of experience or proof.

What is an 'a priori commitment' to materialism or any other ism.

You speak as though Atheists deny the non-material and that is simply false. Religion doesn't have a proprietary patent on the non-material - in fact I would say science can and will tell us more about the non-material then religion every can.

Atheists deny the non-material. The words are not mine. They said so themselves.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdidy of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin

"I am optimistic that the two theories [E.N.: Biology and Physics] together will furnish a totally satisfying naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything that's in it including ourselves. And I am optimistic that this final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue deathblow to religion and other juvenile superstitions." - Richard Dawkins

"The basic assumption of science is that the world can be explained entirely in physical terms, without recourse to godlike entities." - Massimo Pigliucci

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by RedBeardRay
reply to post by AmberLeaf

 

What an Ignorant response. "Believers" don't kill themselves because they believe it is wrong, and a sin, not because they are scared they might be wrong. Some of them might think they are wrong, but those individuals have a lack of faith.

Devout believers may not kill themselves, but most of them are just as scared of dying as the rest of us. I've always wondered why that was, if they know for a fact that a glorious heaven exists.

That must be fun to have the ability to prance about through people's minds, reading their thoughts at will and gaining access to their deepest fears...

I mean, for any normal person it would be considered idiotic in the deepest sense to assume that you know what people are afraid of...but luckily this is you we are talking about, not just some normal human...and then to take it a step further and admit that not only do you know what they are afraid of, but that you actually have ALWAYS wondered why they are afraid of it... to actually admit you've spent actual TIME out of your LIFE pondering about something you basically just made up in your mind and has no bearing on reality whatsoever...well that would just be embarrassing... But yeah... You have special powers.

If one did not know about your secret powers, one might be inclined to accuse you of allowing your prejudice against religious people to lead you to create a nice comforting thought for yourself... "I bet most of those religious people are just as afraid of dying as everyone else...yeah...I like that thought...it allows me to perceive religious people as being hypocritical and foolish...not like me...yes, in fact, I like that thought so much, I'm just going to go ahead and accept that as fact...maybe ill even spread it around as if it were a fact...maybe nobody will notice that its impossible for me to go inside someones mind to know if they are afraid of death or not...I'm pretty sure it will be accepted...look how quickly I accepted it...most people are idiots anyway...which is fine, because it makes it much easier for a mediocre mind such as my own to appear to be clever and deep...". Yes, if one did not know better, then they just might be tempted to make such an evaluation of your actions.

So tell me... On those late nights that you spend pondering the reasons why most religious people are afraid of dying, did it ever occur to you that maybe people feel differently at different times of their life? For example, I could wake up this morning, read this thread, and tell myself "well gosh, I actually am afraid of dying! I'm just not ready..." and then later that afternoon, I might witness a crime and leap into action, snatching the gun out of the bad guys hand, getting shot in the process, and I might sit there in the ambulance being rushed to the hospital thinking to myself how I'm glad I saved that little girl and her mommy, and I realize there are more important things than living and I realize I'm not afraid of death at all and if I die, it was worth it. Or, I could wake up feeling all macho or just at peace with myself so I feel like I'm not afraid of death, but later that night, my girlfriend looks at her phone while driving and swerved into the oncoming lane for a second and I might scream like a girl and realize how afraid I am of dying.

It's not really a constant thing. And I don't really appreciate your broad sweeping statement. It reeks of ignorance. It's people like you who give Atheists and other non heaven believers a bad name.


Oh and I noticed another problem with your statement. Even if there's a glorious heaven awaiting, do their relationships here on Earth mean nothing? What kind of greedy bastard laughs at death in the face, raving on about how he doesn't give a rats ass if he never sees his wife or daughter again because he's going to seize his glorious mansion in heaven, all for himself! Hahaha!! Who cares if my family will have to fend for themselves without me?? I'll be living it up in paradise!!!!!!!!

Ummmm yeah... You don't seem to have a strong grasp of what some religions are all about...at least, you don't seem to grasp the point of it the way I do...

First of all, you don't know if someone fears death. And second, even if you did, those fears may not be as illogical as you thought... And third... Excuse the hell out of me if everyone who believes in heaven isn't some fearless maniac, running around all crazy like on Mad Max! Fear can be a good thing. Don't expect someone to behave like a lemming just because they believe in heaven. It doesn't mean they've lost all common sense. It just means they believe in heaven. That's all. Oh and I know Buddhists who believe in heaven, just in case someone was interested to know that.

When it comes down to it, we all have different interpretations of what heaven means. And we all have different interpretations on how a religion should be followed. Essentially, we all have our very own belief system. Even in a church full of hundreds of people who all claim to follow the same religion, each person has their own moral compass... To some people, if you even say a sweat word, you're in danger of hellfire. To others, swearing is fine, so is drinking and gambling. Others will find justification for murder. So, with so many variables, each person is bound to have a slightly different interpretation on at least ONE aspect of their religion compared to the next person. Doesn't this slight difference, in essence, make it an entirely new religion? We all have different priorities based on our different beliefs, and so we will strive toward different goals.

If you're a Buddhist who believes in heaven and a god, are you still a Buddhist? How far do you have to go, in any religion, before you are considered a different religion, or a different branch of the same religion? Who decides?

Originally posted by RedBeardRay
reply to post by AmberLeaf

 

What an Ignorant response. "Believers" don't kill themselves because they believe it is wrong, and a sin, not because they are scared they might be wrong. Some of them might think they are wrong, but those individuals have a lack of faith.

Many believers attempt many times, but above does not allow, and they are sent back. Above has to fix many things because others did not want to endure.

When many emotions are involved, judgement is clouded.

reply to post by AmberLeaf


So do you believe that when you die nothing happens?