It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:12 PM

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.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I have no clue what point you were trying to make here . . . so I will explain the concept to you a little.

The first male number is the number 3 according to Pythagoras who considered it the perfect number.

2 = female = opinions (standard interpretation today).
3 = Male = Perfection

1 = the generator and 10 = culmination of all (this could be interpreted as Alpha and Omega).

Its funny you mock Carl Sagan, I was talking with one of my chemistry profs who worked for NASA and had many encounters with Sagan and found him to be just incredibly intelligent with deep knowledge in many fields which intimidated the pure materialists that were there at the time.

FYI I have studied several texts dealing with philosophy so there is no need for you insinuate my lack of experience in the field without actually demonstrating that you possess any experience yourself.
edit on 15-5-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by AmberLeaf

Some believers do kill themselves they strap on a bomb and blow themselves to bits in a busy section of town taking others with them, as a reward they get to have their way with 72 renewable black eyed virgins in paradise under a huge tree that hands them fruit..Oh ..that only work if you are male if you are female you get to be with your philandering husband and his 72 hussies..

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:17 PM
Never mind.
edit on 15-5-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:24 PM
Religions provide a sense of certainty in the absence of the actuality of it.

Questioning belief is to question their sense of certainty which they are instinctively compelled to reject by force if provoked.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by AmberLeaf

Why don't I kill myself?

1. I'm not particularly unhappy.

2. I have everything to live for, namely my children.

3. I have a nagging fear if I end this life early, I might have to repeat it.

4. Killing myself would be messy...and my family doesn't like to clean

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

You have yet to explain how that all made Pythagorus a woman hater. You can talk all you want about numbers and about how brilliant Carl Sagan is, but the jabs at Pythagorus are pathetic. That was my point. Did you not understand my point about la femme being feminine and le mystique being masculine? I didn't mock Sagan, but he is a known secular humanist.

So while he may be brilliant in a scientific materialist sort of way, it in no way makes him or Asimov an expert on Pythagorus' view of women.

I have studied several texts dealing with philosophy so there is no need for you insinuate my lack of experience in the field

I was actually referring to the authors of the book, and not you, since you cited the book for your opinion of Pythagorus as a woman hater.

When I asked you for a source, the book is what you cited. was that purely your opinion ?

As I said, I doubt Pythagorus was any more or less misogynistic than all the other males during that time. I'm not saying they weren't even, just that it is silly to single out Pythagorus.
Here's another interesting quote from a man of antiquity

"God created woman. And boredom did indeed cease from that moment -- but many other things ceased as well! Woman was God's second mistake." -Nietzsche

Here's another one:

"All psychologists who have studied the intelligence of women... recognize today that they represent the most inferior forms of human evolution, and that they are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without doubt there exist some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity as for example, a gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may neglect them entirely." -Gustave Le Bon (French Anthropologist), "Revue d'Anthropologie"

Whatever though, atheism is the topic, and Sagan and Asimov both secular humanists which means they believe in naturalism.
edit on 16-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 01:56 AM
One of these theories/religions might be right.

If you are a true atheist, then what is stopping you from reaching your true potential? You have science and logic guiding your way. You know how the universe works.

If you are a true bible freak, then what is stopping you from reaching your true potential? You have stories and a book guiding your way. You know how the spiritual being operates.

How about this, our current laws are based on a religion. Our current laws are also based on what is just for a living being.

When a govt takes either one away, then it is perceived immoral, regardless of belief.

How about this realization, We have no idea what is going on. We will always find things to back our beliefs...religion or no religion. Note: when you use pure science to back your ways, that itself becomes your religion by crude definition.

As long as we are ALL wanting to better ourselves, what makes it wrong?

Our end result should always be for the benefit of human kind. Suppression and oppression doesnt benefit any human need. A collective push to get us past our current prejudices is in order.


posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by FyreByrd

Well, thank goodness there's no insulting statements in the original article-no, really! We like it when our God is compared to Santa Claus and our beliefs are stated and responded to in such a straw-man way as to make us look like complete idiots. Oh, but it's all motivated by compassion for us. So it's cool.

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:30 AM

Originally posted by pazcat
I don't see why it would be insulting, I'd be a bit embarrassed for the person who was asking stupid questions like that in the first place.

The logic of a religious person is often so lacking in substance that they actually believe their own arguments.

My signature is an example.

Written by someone on ATS. True story.

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Bisman
why does a person of religous faith need to be TOLD to be moral? i find that kind of scary that they couldnt have the common sense otherwise.

They don't have the mental bus fare to travel alone.

It's the same reason why religion can claim to allow 72 virgins in paradise if you managed to leave your head and your toes in a different part of the street.

Or any number of ill educated reasoning that causes a numpty to 'in the name of god'... or 'jesus told me to'..

Religion is a chain, that keeps the herd in place. All good sheep go to heaven. The naughty ones get eaten by the foxes.. for eternity!

But as the sheep started to realise that the fence was broken all along, and still there were no foxes.. some are still too afraid to even think about life outside of the farm...

Sure, if someone wants to devote their life to reading a book and sitting on the front of the waiting list to gods groovy gates, no skin off my nose.

I saw an adult lady the other day, probably in her 20's. Not too bright, she appeared to have learning difficulties I think... but not a front bus patron, and she was carrying with her a very very big book.. called "The bible for children."

I felt really sad for her..

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:53 AM

Originally posted by boncho
Doesn't mean you can't take up religious skydiving, jesus base jumping, bible biomedical weapons testing... etc...

Ahahahha.. I love it.

Religious skydiving. No parachute required.

Jump out of the plane and into heaven your one hop no stop shop to paradise.

*imagines a congregation lined up in a plane, bibles in hand, jumping one after the other*

Good grief, it's not beyond reasoning... lets not give them ideas.. Oo

edit on 16-5-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 02:55 AM

Originally posted by denybedoomed
reply to post by boncho

This is the best reply. Thanks for that.

How about Christ roulette?

Or the agnostic one,

Christ - cant roulette out!

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
So in other words, yes, not believing in God takes just as much faith as believing in God. That was a cop-out answer, and no answer at all. It merely affirms that it takes as much faith. The author tries to justify his stance by quickly switching to the topic to "most atheists," as opposed to atheists as a whole. Not only is it highly speculative of the author to assume he knows how "most atheists" feel, he also acts as if most theists don't feel the same way.

His argument that "we can't know for sure whether God exists, but we feel this way based on evidence we've seen and our experiences, but we still doubt," sounds nearly identical to how I, and many of my theist friends, feel all the time. The author throws in the somewhat crazy analogy of unicorns:god, without even attempting, or maybe even recognizing, the inherent differences between the two, most important of them being the physical vs. spiritual nature of the two.Thanks for the insight!
edit on 15-5-2013 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)

I am thinking you didn't comprehend what was said.
unicorns is an example. another example is interdimensional elves that sneak into your room at night and sit on your chest to count your nosehairs as you sleep. They are spiritual by nature
Do you believe in them? yes or no?
If you say it on faith alone that you don't believe, or do you simply have no evidence to support such a claim as interdimensional elves sitting on your chest?

That is a it Zeus, Yehweh, Shiva, or the green mammoth from seseme street. A hypothetical invisible creature someone suggested then have decided to not believe in 99% of deities drummed up in the past and chose one, with equal supporting evidence as all the others, as something to believe in.

A atheist and a common theist are almost exactly the same..the atheist simply doesn't believe in one more god than the typical theist...but both atheist and theist don't believe in a whole host of other deities...Jupiter, Ares, Odin, etc...

A Christian doesn't have faith that Odin doesn't exist..they simply see no supporting evidence. same with a atheist is simply complete in their standards for supporting evidence.

You can choose not to understand...but deep inside, I suspect you do, and really just want to deny the sensible outlook due to potentially having already invested in a mindset. People hate to reevaluate their stances...even when they know they probably should.

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 04:19 AM
A great article, although I think the first answer should include the fact that Atheists don't obey morals (or rather the general consensus of what morality is) because they are threatened by what they believe. We know that if they kill, rape and steal we won't go to hell. and we know we're not going to heaven anyway, but we don't do it. That's genuine morality, no incentive or threats. So an Atheist is potentially the most moral person there is, it's such a stupid question.

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 04:24 AM

Originally posted by the_philth
There's one thing more annoying than Bible-thumping Christians...

edit on 5/15/2013 by the_philth because: (no reason given)

That's like me saying all Christians are Bible thumpers. Can you justify your opinion?
edit on 16-5-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 04:34 AM

Originally posted by the_philth
There's one thing more annoying than Bible-thumping Christians...


I would have to disagree.

It's not the Atheist who...
Knocks on my door trying to sell me their brand
Influences government
Forces nonsense laws
Meddles in education
Restricts my freedoms
Tells me I'm not equal
Forces the terminally ill to suffer
Supports the spread of Aids in Africa
Cons people out of their cash on TV
Convinces people that "prayer" will cure Cancer

Yeah, when I think of all the disgusting things the religious do to society, in comparison to Atheists, I know exactly who is more annoying.

As for the OP, very good example right there of the nonsense the religious like to preach when it comes to morality. Christians generally seem to think they have ownership of things, like morality, and marriage too. They seem to think they "invented" both, when they actually invented nothing more than elaborate ritual based on their fairytale.

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Snsoc
We like it when our God is compared to Santa Claus and our beliefs are stated and responded to in such a straw-man way as to make us look like complete idiots. Oh, but it's all motivated by compassion for us. So it's cool.

The thing is, it'll always be presented like that from logical and scientific people, because believing in God is indeed like believing in Santa Clause.

This is not an insult, it is fact. Sure, it can be taken as an insult, but there is as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, or any other mythical being from a story. There is no evidence for either God or Santa Clause. Both are considered mythical beings from a scientific perspective. They are stories with no basis in reality other than the believers willingness to believe.

My assertion of this is not based in compassion at all, it's based in the desire to defend myself and do what little I can to change society for the better, and one day rid us of those believers dictating government policy, education, medical care and our legal system.

People can believe whatever they want to believe, but when it's used to try to control others and restrict their rights and freedoms - when the freedoms of those people have no bearing on the religious - that is when we have a problem.

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 05:43 AM

Originally posted by AmberLeaf

"If you don't believe in God or heaven, why don't you just kill yourself?"

If there is a heaven which is so much better than here, why dont they kill themselves?? Ahhh because they think they could be wrong lol!!! I find most people of religion are hypocrites, especially the ones who hold power and rape and fiddle with little boys.

Your right. But if God is real and religious people are idiots,does that make God less real?

By the way, God hates religion, he all for relationship which is what these hypocrites don't have

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 05:58 AM
reply to post by RedBeardRay

did you know that suicide was NOT consider sin until there were too many early christians taking ther lives to be with Christ?

Early Jewish/Christian Struggles

During the early years of Christianity, many believers chose suicide over the difficult life of religious persecution. In fact, some early Christian writers maintained that a self-chosen death was a goal for the genuinely pious to aspire. The number of Christian martyrs and mass suicides rose so quickly that the ruling Jewish faction decided to forbid eulogies and public mourning for those who died by their own hand. This action began the stigmatization of suicide in Judeo-Christian culture. The first church-led condemnation of suicide occurred when Jewish leaders refused to allow the bodies of Christian suicide victims to be buried in hallowed ground. The few Christian condemnations of suicide came from the notion that suicide was to be despised because it was the action of the betrayer of Jesus. Thus, suicide developed a “guilt by association” because of Judas’ death by hanging.

Christian Condemnation

The first Christian to publicly denounce suicide as a sin was St. Augustine in the 4th Century. The basis of Augustine’s condemnation was the ubiquitous acts of suicide among Christians. Augustine’s influence on church doctrine resulted in a series of conciliar developments. In 305AD, the Council of Guadix purged from the list of martyrs all who had died by their own hand. Using the pretext of piety, the 348AD Council of Carthage condemned those who had chosen self death for personal reasons and the 363AD Council of Braga condemned and denied proper burial rites for all known suicides. Although meant as a preventative measure, Church condemnation festered the stigma introduced by Jewish authority years earlier. The act of suicide became immersed in shame and fear, remaining so for the next nine decades. In the 13th century Thomas Aquinas fortified the Church’s official position against suicide. Unlike Augustine, who acted to quell the surge of suicide among Christians, Aquinas was motivated by a need for intellectual understanding. Aquinas completed a comprehensive and systematic review of Christian theology, entitled Summa Theologiae. In this work, Aquinas vilified suicide as an act against God (much like Socrates) and denounced suicide as a sin for which one could not repent. Aquinas’ admonition resulted in civil and criminal laws to discourage suicide.

new topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in