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

reply to post by totallackey

If redemption makes no sense, then we would all have life sentences or even the death penalty for all crimes.

This statement makes no sense. I wasn't arguing that there is no redemption within human society, I was stating that religious redemption, like confessing your sins and seeking forgiveness from God is nonsense because it's far too easy.

You make this statement as if it applies, carte blanche, to everyone. It does not.

Actually it does. If a piece of text contains contradictory information, then it's by definition confusing and most likely arbitrary. If you don't agree that being told two different things for the same situation is confusing, well, there's not much else to say.

Subjective use of adjectives, on which you will appeal to an outside authority for definition.

What outside authority? What does the above even mean within the context of what I stated?

~Tenth

Originally posted by Leahn


Then you must answer where did those initial set of constants came from.

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.

I don't know what the initial set-up (big bang of science or 'word' of god of religion) was and how could I be expected to and nobody else can either.

gods and religion are man-made entities that give comfort (or not in most cases) in an uncertain and uncontrollable world. I pray to the traffic, parking and technology gods on a regular basis - for my convenience and comfort. Not for a moment do I believe they are actual beings that govern, judge and control trafffic, parking and techology. But having created them for my own purposes I can imagine how first the many and more often the one god came into existance.

Whatever works is fine for me and my intent is to encourage discussion because finding the weak parts of your faith (whatever it may be and we all have one of some sort) are and you can look at them and change your faith to be more productive (or the better to manipulate others to your ideas/memes if you like).

The people I know that have a faith that works for them are always open to ideas and facts that challenge their complaciency. There faith ebbs and flows with circumstance and understanding.

Mine has changed a lot over the years.

Originally posted by Rocker2013

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.

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.

A interesting story about santa clause and my daughter. We belived in santa clause in our house in the sense that as she grew older we shared our idea that santa clause (spelling??) was in each of us. And because it existed in peoples hearts it was real.

Was I lying to my daughter - yes and no. Was I selfish in my behavior - probably - nothing is quite as fun as a young child on christmas morning. But it worked - for her too - she is a very giving young women - not because she has to - we no longer celebrate christmas - but because she wants to give and gets pleasure from it.

So yeah - god is about as provable as santa clause or aliens (more evidence for aliens IMO).

Originally posted by totallackey
There can be no such thing as atheism. It is impossible to deny that God could exist somewhere. Hence, atheists have, over the years (as scientists have done with their definition of the word evolution), moved the goalposts incrementally in an effort to feel more comfortable. However, the root of the word absolutely stands as written. A - without...THEISM - belief in a deity...

An impossible state of being, since acknowledgment of the possibility is a must.

Based on your criteria, acknowledgement of the possibility of everything is a must, including the tooth fairy.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Leahn

 

The problem with this argument is the question "what is moral?" Can you answer it?

Absolutely. The answer is inherent, and almost a golden rule amongst all religions.
"Do unto others, as you would have done to you"

Simple as that really. That's the moral constant I strive for.

Personally, I believe in living life and trying to enjoy it while we're here, because who knows whether or not "here" is all we get. I like to think it isn't, but as I don't know, I'll go with the known for now, and cross the other bridge when I get to it.

As for being "wrong" in religion, well....tough. With all of the "isms" out there, accepting ONE as the "correct" one damns all others. I can't believe that any deity would be so cruel. And if he/she is, then I really want no part of them anyhow.

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

See I find this a good 'code of conduct' but overly simplistic. How can you know that 'how you would want to be treated' is how another would.

The golden rule presupposes that you know what is good for another person. I can't judge what another would want in any circumstance unless I can read their mind or believe I know best for them. I can get closer if I ask them but many don't know what they want or need either.

I find it safer to change the golden rule around to "Don't do anything to anybody that you don't want done to you."

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The survival of our species requires we not murder each other, also that we stop others from murdering without cause. Pretty simple instinctual stuff. If you approach a bee's nest or a lions den, you aren't getting attacked due to their religion..you are a threat to their existence. No morality in play there..just natural law

This is absolutely not correct. There is a 1.8 death every second and a 4.17 birth every second. The survival of our species relies solely on more being born than dying. We could double our death rate and still do just fine.

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.

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I think my point still stands, religion is an exercise in believing that humans are hopelessly lost and require divine guidance in order to lead happy, fulfilling and successful lives.

~Tenth

Considering that most people do feel hopelessly lost and lead sad, unfulfilling lives, and religion is statistically equated with greater happiness and a greater sense of fulfilment, you might be more right than you believe yourself.

Even if God did not exist, a spiritual life *is* statistically equated with greater happiness.

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.

ATS has taught me that Atheists are more bigoted and close minded then any religious nut I have ever encountered. Every thread about religion they are always right on it shoving their 2 cents down your throat.

The fact is we can never know for certain. Any belief is just as good as another, because that's what it is, a belief. Just don't confine yourself to one space because of that belief.

This was a bit confusing for me. Anyways, in essence, you're wrong and I'm right

I think your now caught in some sort of loop.
but to use your words then, a atheist's faith doesn't exist in regards to deities. That's it. There is no opposing mindset all atheists decide to subscribe to. Science is not a substitute, as plenty of atheists may choose to have a belief in many other things..from a looped universe, to the universe is a holographic virtual reality and our real bodies are laying in a VR chamber, etc etc etc (you will find the common thread on the thinking atheist though is a simple reliance on science for uncovering our latest understandings of the universe.

While I don't think I understand what you're saying, I think I see where the issue is here, and perhaps this is my fault. 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.

I 100% agree that atheists do not fall into the second definition. It is the first definition to which I am referring. As in saying: I have faith in you that you can accomplish X. Just as you are saying you believe(/think/have faith/any other form of the word which shows that you are not certain of it but have a strong belief towards it) there is no God but you don't know for a fact I am saying I do believe in God but I dont know for a fact. To be clear, what I am not suggesting is that Atheists have a uniform belief structure, or anything along those lines. I am merely saying that, by definition, atheists don't believe in God, and therefore are putting their faith (their confidence or trust in something they don't know for sure) into the notion that God doesn't exist. So, lets stay on point.

Here is a better example..a nice visual representation.
a theist and a atheist are standing at the edge of a wheat field. ahead of them are 12 scarecrows. Each one is slightly different (different colored shirts mostly). The theist notes 11 of the scarecrows are not alive, but one is alive..has a soul.
The atheist agrees the 11 do not show signs of life (being made of sticks and hay and whatnot), and looks at the one the theist says is alive then. noting that outside of a different colored shirt, it is the same as the others. The theist says its alive because he has faith that it is.
The atheist points out its the same as the rest..why say its alive if the only difference in evidence is simply a different colored shirt

In this example, for the first 11. There was no faith..it was simply observing no life in the scarecrows. Same as observing no life in a rock. Faith then played in on the 12th one only on the theists part whom removed his consistency in thinking to suggest that one was alive simply due to the color of the shirt being more pleasing to him.

Okay, first off, this is a terrible analogy. I mean no offense by that. Maybe I'm not fully comprehending it's depth, but aside from it sounding like you are saying that theists cannot discern the difference between an inanimate object wearing a colored shirt and an actual living human being, this again is an example of someone trying to compare a physical being to a spiritual one. We can agree that neither scarecrow is, or was ever, alive. That's not the same as with humans.

If the argument is that faith is seeing in humans, and not some inanimate objects, a soul, then the conversation can change. What's the difference? The fact that life already exists within us. But I digress, I'll let you make your own arguments.

I also though I'd string together some of your quotes, because I'm not sure you know what you believe.

I only -accept- measurable things.

I am saying show me some proof of the claim.

But until some proof comes forward

A atheist doesn't officially weigh in on matters of ghosts, elves, etc (except for example purposes to describe no belief verses belief in none).

I also believe [...] in ghosts.

G' Day Folks

As a non believer, it is not just being offended at remarks believers make, I don't know how to put it, it's like they are from another world and it's scary at times.

I have also being in a discussion with religious folk where I have stated in the conversation that what this person (in the discussion) has done was "morally" wrong and have being immediately pounced upon with "I thought you said you weren't religious" like they've somehow caught me out, that goes for words like sin, gospel, and so on. They've been hijacked by the church I tells ya.

Instead of saying the word morals I use the word "standards" you set standards in which to live by.

What I find interesting is when you get a group of people living together in a community 60/70s hippies for-instance you soon find you need rules/laws and they turn out to be much like the ten commandments

When I do the "good work" I do it because I just want too the only reward I get is a warm and fuzzy feeling happy that I was able to help.

A believer can never say they just did it because they wanted too theres always that reward at the end or even in this life. (their brownie points)

The flying elephant story reminded me of this;
If you hallucinate or have a voice in your head men in white jackets will eventually come and take you away (you are not well in the head) but if you say god talks to you directly (in your head) or you saw mother Mary under a tree, (it is then called an "apparition" not an hallucination) people will flock to you giving you their money and hang on every word you say and you become very wealthy at their expense. Weird but it's somehow all right.
Very scary.

Cheers Aussiebloke2

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by SpearMint
It's not going to extremes at all, Atheists believe that there is no god, so if you put believers in the same position (hypothetically proving that there is no god) would they kill people? The assumed answer is no, thus proving that you don't need to believe in god to have "morals". Although even a hint of common sense would also prove this point, but then the question wouldn't be asked in the first place.

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

The problem with this argument is the question "what is moral?" Can you answer it?

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

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by SpearMint
reply to post by micmerci

 

It's not going to extremes at all, Atheists believe that there is no god, so if you put believers in the same position (hypothetically proving that there is no god) would they kill people? The assumed answer is no, thus proving that you don't need to believe in god to have "morals". Although even a hint of common sense would also prove this point, but then the question wouldn't be asked in the first place.

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

I beg to differ. This is textbook situational ethics at it's best. The question is offering an extreme act in a particular situation- would a Christian "kill" if God were disproved. Our culture has so conditioned us that most people with a shred of common sense consider murder a heinous act. So why choose killing as the act committed by newly changed religious people? Because that is considered an extreme- that is why.

Why not say would you consider backstabbing a peer in order to gain promotion at your job once God is disproven? Because this situation does not hold equivalent weight with common people- that's why.

Situational ethics. It is the runaway train thought experiment here.

You control the swithcher on the track of a runaway train. You cant stop it from crashing but you can control the direction of the crash. One way will kill 10 people and the other 1000 people. which way do you choose? Any person with common sense chooses the lesser.

But, add that the 10 people include your significant other and children- now which do you choose? See the extreme now? See the situational ethics?

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.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Spider879

Originally posted by totallackey
There can be no such thing as atheism. It is impossible to deny that God could exist somewhere. Hence, atheists have, over the years (as scientists have done with their definition of the word evolution), moved the goalposts incrementally in an effort to feel more comfortable. However, the root of the word absolutely stands as written. A - without...THEISM - belief in a deity...

An impossible state of being, since acknowledgment of the possibility is a must.

Huh?????

I think what totallackey is trying to say is: "How can you not believe that GOD lives in that volcano when you can see it erupting with your own eyes!"

Interesting vid never heard that theory before.

reply to post by Gazrok


So what if I'm a masochist and I love to be beaten? Would it then be moral for me to beat others since I like it?

And just for the record, no, I am not a masochist, just playing Devil's advocate.

reply to post by Spider879


Yes, it is an interesting theory. I posted it because, in my opinion, primitive man saw things of awe, and ascribed these awesome things to something greater than themselves, a deity. All the things that couldn't be understood were some deity's capricious will. They developed ideas that perhaps they could appease these aspects of nature, (deities), that they couldn't control, with gifts and sacrifices.

I don't think the Christian God is a volcano, but I do think that their God concept evolved from those things that primitive man couldn't understand, that affected them greatly, The more we learn about nature and science, the more complicated and large the idea of a supreme deity in control of everything becomes. But the idea of a supreme creator god is no different than primitive man ascribing a deity to a volcano, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Okay, first off, this is a terrible analogy. I mean no offense by that. Maybe I'm not fully comprehending it's depth, but aside from it sounding like you are saying that theists cannot discern the difference between an inanimate object wearing a colored shirt and an actual living human being,

Ya, you more or less missed the point there. I could have easily said 12 points of nothing and the theist said there is nothing at 11 spots, and a spirit at the 12th spot just as easily and without the confusion..but same principles..nothing is different between the first 11 spots of nothing but air and the 12th..etc.

I also though I'd string together some of your quotes, because I'm not sure you know what you believe.

I only -accept- measurable things.

I am saying show me some proof of the claim.

But until some proof comes forward

A atheist doesn't officially weigh in on matters of ghosts, elves, etc (except for example purposes to describe no belief verses belief in none).

I also believe [...] in ghosts.

edit on 16-5-2013 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2013 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)

You missed the context for the first one (in regards to deities....)

As far as the second to last one...they don't..not under the guise of atheism..atheism has no opinion on ghosts, elves, pizza toppings, politics, or anything else..it is a simple stance of observations about God(s).

As far as the last bit..I got personal subjective proof...but I wouldn't demand everyone believe my account..they shouldn't. I simply experienced something that is best identified as a "ghost"..whatever that is. and due to a lack of vocabulary, then I use what is already established.

Originally posted by U4ea82
reply to post by Gazrok

 

So what if I'm a masochist and I love to be beaten? Would it then be moral for me to beat others since I like it?

And just for the record, no, I am not a masochist, just playing Devil's advocate.

If you are a masochist, then its your choice/desire to be beaten.
But if you beat someone whom doesn't like/allow it..then no...you are not respecting their rights and desires, and overstepping your liberties.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Spider879

 

Yes, it is an interesting theory. I posted it because, in my opinion, primitive man saw things of awe, and ascribed these awesome things to something greater than themselves, a deity. All the things that couldn't be understood were some deity's capricious will. They developed ideas that perhaps they could appease these aspects of nature, (deities), that they couldn't control, with gifts and sacrifices.

I don't think the Christian God is a volcano, but I do think that their God concept evolved from those things that primitive man couldn't understand, that affected them greatly, The more we learn about nature and science, the more complicated and large the idea of a supreme deity in control of everything becomes. But the idea of a supreme creator god is no different than primitive man ascribing a deity to a volcano, in my opinion.

Agreed looking at the awesome power of nature even today some folks educated?? and in media (Bill O'Reilly) don't even know why the tides go in and out our ancestors can be pardoned for filling in the blanks with guesses because they had just started gathering knowledge but not us in the most technologically advanced civilization that I am a where of there can be no excuse.

reply to post by FyreByrd


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