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

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
I am convinced no loving all powerful being would create such a pile of # to force people to live in, then punish them beyond any rational level for ever for not being perfect in it.

The "pile of #" that you refer to is the way it is because of US.

Like the quote below says, it bears very little resemblance to the garden that God created.

"You know, everyday I get millions of complaints about this world. All the greed and selfishness poverty, starvation, the wars, the murders, the abuse of children. I hardly recognize this place anymore. It bears so little resemblance to the garden that I created for you, but it’s not hell, Nick.

Even now, there’s sunshine on a spring day, there’s a starry night and a desert sky, there’s a gentle breeze on a summer afternoon and the smell of flowers, the song of birds, There’s even people who are willing to lend a helping hand to the helpless and there’s love Nick, there’s still love." The Encounter

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

So atheists...the question is:

How do you operate as an agent of morals when right and wrong are only relative to your own perspective? In other words, how do you know that your "right" is really "right" or your "wrong" is really "wrong"?

Humans are empathetic, gregarious primates - this provides us with the principles to direct our moral compass. The source of my moral rectitude does not need to come from an archaic holy text riddled with inconsistencies or some non-corporeal entity. Sam Harris proposed a model called the "moral landscape," in which an objective measure of morality can be studied under this framework. There are personal acts of good (permissible) and bad (impermissible), and whichever act increases the net well-being of a population is ultimately what individuals should strive for.

The peaks on the moral landscape correspond to heights of human well-being and the valleys correspond to the lowest depths of misery.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
How do you operate as an agent of morals when right and wrong are only relative to your own perspective? In other words, how do you know that your "right" is really "right" or your "wrong" is really "wrong"?

Quite simple.
Principles.
On principle, I will not intentionally harm another human being unless my survival is at stake, (or other considerations such as survival of loved ones, innocent strangers, etc.).

Its that simple.

Is someone accused of being a witch? Cavorting with demons and the like? No...don't burn them, they are causing nobody harm (unless it is proven they are)...it is not a -moral- obligation to burn witches (as some religions used to do -cough-).

Principles are the biological drive of our life...the spreading and enhancing of our species...

Finally, individual respect. If what you do is not harming me, then do as you will (harming me also takes on the conditions of before...by extension my family, innocents, etc).

With this, it also means that should you steal from me, or lied about me in order to get me in trouble, etc..all of that is objectively morally wrong and correction should take place to enhance society.

It is perhaps the easiest and fully encompassing general moral biological understanding...don't need 10 commandments with lawyers trying to find loopholes. 2 rules works. respect and protect.

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun


It should be obvious, do you enjoy being stolen from? No? Then why would it be ok for you to steal?

Would you like to be killed? No? Then why would it be ok for you to kill?

Morality really is that simple, which is why the bible says do unto others as you would like done unto you.

It isn't because god said it should be so, it is simply common sense.

Morality obviously exists without your god, as your god is a very new invention as far as mans history is concerned, in fact there were many gods for many times longer than your go existed.

Yet morality has always been there.

Don't steal from your community, as you must have peace to work together functionally, if you must steal to survive, do so from others outside your community, so your community can remain cohesive.

Which is why the vikings raided and raped and stole from others, not their own.

I think the more important question would be, why modern religious types would even make such a asenine claim as morality can only stem from a religious belief, when it is a documented fact, that religions have caused most of the pain and suffering of others in modern times.

Originally posted by Murgatroid
The "pile of #" that you refer to is the way it is because of US.

Like the quote below says, it bears very little resemblance to the garden that God created.

"You know, everyday I get millions of complaints about this world. All the greed and selfishness poverty, starvation, the wars, the murders, the abuse of children. I hardly recognize this place anymore. It bears so little resemblance to the garden that I created for you, but it’s not hell, Nick.

Even now, there’s sunshine on a spring day, there’s a starry night and a desert sky, there’s a gentle breeze on a summer afternoon and the smell of flowers, the song of birds, There’s even people who are willing to lend a helping hand to the helpless and there’s love Nick, there’s still love." The Encounter

I disagree. the POS resembles exactly what was "created". Everythjing mentioned, from wars, murders, child abuse, etc (and much, much worse) is found in the animal kingdom...long before homo-sapiens started their day. We are no different than a big den of tigers or the like...the only difference between them and us is we have the capability to know better...but we also know better than to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. knowledge does not equal wisdom or desire.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

I consider myself somewhere along the Atheist/Agnostic spectrum as I don't believe in a 'being' of some sort watching over us, telling us what to do, etc. And I certainly don't believe any one has the 'ear of god' any more than anyone else. Those things said it's funny how much I believe and practise principles that people call religious. I pray (not to a god per se but to my higher self or Life as a whole) for guidance and get some answers (whether from Life or my sub/un conscious it's hard to say) The practise is calming and helpful but doesn't presuppose a belief in a higher being.

I do get a bit tired of these questions and more, often from people who aren't really interested in the answer - their eyes just glaze over when I try to explain my concept of reality. Could be me - not the ideas, but still....

What makes you think that you are atheist??

You pray to your higher self or Life as a whole? - Congratulations, you are on a good way. So you believe in something which you cannot see or touch - but it is there and it helps you from time to time.

You don't have to believe in a higher being. This is brain wash from religions to have power on their sheep. Believe in yourself and you will EXPERIENCE it (God, your higher self or what ever you want to name it).

People who claim that they are highly religious are usually the biggest hypocrites with regards to the teachings of their religion in the book.

I mean, just look at American Republicans.

Originally posted by Nacirema
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun

 

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

So atheists...the question is:

How do you operate as an agent of morals when right and wrong are only relative to your own perspective? In other words, how do you know that your "right" is really "right" or your "wrong" is really "wrong"?

Humans are empathetic, gregarious primates - this provides us with the principles to direct our moral compass. The source of my moral rectitude does not need to come from an archaic holy text riddled with inconsistencies or some non-corporeal entity. Sam Harris proposed a model called the "moral landscape," in which an objective measure of morality can be studied under this framework. There are personal acts of good (permissible) and bad (impermissible), and whichever act increases the net well-being of a population is ultimately what individuals should strive for.

The peaks on the moral landscape correspond to heights of human well-being and the valleys correspond to the lowest depths of misery.

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

I think Dr Bill Craig pretty much refuted Sam Harris in the debate. But of course, that's up to debate

I think it's interesting that thinkers such as yourself always attack the believer in God by suggesting that our morality comes from the Bible. We make no such claims. I guess some do, but I certainly don't. The question of the authority of the Bible is a different conversation from the source of morality.

You don't see the problem with your own view here though? You say that "whichever act increases the net well-being of a population is ultimately what individuals should strive for"...according to who? The net well being of the population defined by you? Or Sam Harris? You see the issue there?

And if that's the standard, then Jesus is the ultimate since he died for the sins of humanity. Totally disregarded himself for the net-well being of the population. So self sacrifice for the betterment of mankind if the ultimate act of goodness. Hmm...so we really shouldn't have kings, presidents, leaders etc...because those in power seem to make decisions that seem right to them, but looking around, they don't seem to be doing a good job.

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.

Not only that, but we are given the task of preaching the gospel to the world. How can a Christian share the good news of Christ's death and resurrection if they are dead??

Originally posted by kaylaluv

 

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.

Still, tons of them ("believers") cant wait to meet their god via killing themselves (and other "infidels") with a belt of explosives... just saying.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
How do you operate as an agent of morals when right and wrong are only relative to your own perspective? In other words, how do you know that your "right" is really "right" or your "wrong" is really "wrong"?

Quite simple.
Principles.
On principle, I will not intentionally harm another human being unless my survival is at stake, (or other considerations such as survival of loved ones, innocent strangers, etc.).

Its that simple.

Is someone accused of being a witch? Cavorting with demons and the like? No...don't burn them, they are causing nobody harm (unless it is proven they are)...it is not a -moral- obligation to burn witches (as some religions used to do -cough-).

Principles are the biological drive of our life...the spreading and enhancing of our species...

Finally, individual respect. If what you do is not harming me, then do as you will (harming me also takes on the conditions of before...by extension my family, innocents, etc).

With this, it also means that should you steal from me, or lied about me in order to get me in trouble, etc..all of that is objectively morally wrong and correction should take place to enhance society.

It is perhaps the easiest and fully encompassing general moral biological understanding...don't need 10 commandments with lawyers trying to find loopholes. 2 rules works. respect and protect.

So when Jesus said, "Love God and Love your neighbors" He was right eh? So those "Christians" burning witches...were they following Jesus' mandate?

I think you have the same issue as my other reply.

You said "Principles are the biological drive of our life...the spreading and enhancing of our species..."

So, love is just illusory? A mechanism for the survival of humanity? I'll try that one with my wife next V-day "Hey babe, we should do it tonight to secure the survival of our species"

You said: "Finally, individual respect. If what you do is not harming me, then do as you will (harming me also takes on the conditions of before...by extension my family, innocents, etc)."

That's the biggest crock of ish ever. Think about it. You say others can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect you, or your loved ones etc. But isn't the whole of humanity one big family? Dysfunctional but still one big family. If someone is doing something that is harming only themselves, in effect, they are harming the "well being" of humanity. To consider otherwise is very clique-y and territorial.

Then finally you said: "With this, it also means that should you steal from me, or lied about me in order to get me in trouble, etc..all of that is objectively morally wrong and correction should take place to enhance society."

What? So if there is wrong done to you, then it's objectively morally wrong? That makes no sense to me. Please elaborate on that. Because you're contradicting yourself.

Using your logic: If someone is torturing a baby for pleasure, but it's not my baby, then let them do it. We all have our own perspectives in life. However, if it's MY baby, then you are crossing the line of objective morality and should be punished.

That doesn't make sense to me

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun

 

It should be obvious, do you enjoy being stolen from? No? Then why would it be ok for you to steal?

Would you like to be killed? No? Then why would it be ok for you to kill?

Morality really is that simple, which is why the bible says do unto others as you would like done unto you.

It isn't because god said it should be so, it is simply common sense.

Morality obviously exists without your god, as your god is a very new invention as far as mans history is concerned, in fact there were many gods for many times longer than your go existed.

Yet morality has always been there.

Don't steal from your community, as you must have peace to work together functionally, if you must steal to survive, do so from others outside your community, so your community can remain cohesive.

Which is why the vikings raided and raped and stole from others, not their own.

I think the more important question would be, why modern religious types would even make such a asenine claim as morality can only stem from a religious belief, when it is a documented fact, that religions have caused most of the pain and suffering of others in modern times.

Excuse me but did I say morality stems from my religious belief? No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I largely agree that morality is present well before Jesus. But the moral standard of which YHWH of the OT set, of which Jesus fulfilled is pretty much impossible for any human being to accomplish. That was actually the whole point of the 10 commandments etc. That discussion is for another time.

You seem to appeal to the reality of objective moral values and duties independent from any source of culture, society etc. I go back to the moral law giver.

There is evil in the world. If there is evil, then there is good. If there is evil and good, there is a moral law which is ability to differentiate between good and evil. If there is a moral law, there is a moral law giver. But you don't like that because it posits and external mind. If there is no law giver, there is no law, if there is no law, there is no good, if there is no good, there is no evil. The questions you ask at the beginning of your post is proof that no one can live apart from practicing the moral law which is the ability to differentiate between good and evil. And again I point to the reality that humans have the capacity to rationalize evil and call it good in order to carry out a given choice.

BTW, your last statement of "religions causing most of the pain and suffering of others in modern times" is the worst argument ever. I don't know why people still use that one.

The genetic fallacy. If people claimed to be "Christian" and did horrible things, does that mean the claims of Christianity themselves is wrong? No it doesn't. Using the same logic...Stalin was an atheist and killed 50 million of his own people. Does that mean atheism is wrong? No it doesn't. Mike Vick, an NFL player had a dog fighting ring and killed a bunch of innocent dogs. Does that mean all NFL players are dog killer? No it doesn't. Behavior doesn't always equal belief.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
So when Jesus said, "Love God and Love your neighbors" He was right eh? So those "Christians" burning witches...were they following Jesus' mandate?

Sure. Jesus said lots of common sense stuff. Pity many of his followers tend to look at the OT moreso than what his instructions. They were following a religion, not the wisdom found within the religion

So, love is just illusory? A mechanism for the survival of humanity? I'll try that one with my wife next V-day "Hey babe, we should do it tonight to secure the survival of our species"

More or less, yes. But I don't recommend that line for the wife. best to just give chocolates and flowers.

You said: "Finally, individual respect. If what you do is not harming me, then do as you will (harming me also takes on the conditions of before...by extension my family, innocents, etc)."

That's the biggest crock of ish ever. Think about it. You say others can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect you, or your loved ones etc. But isn't the whole of humanity one big family? Dysfunctional but still one big family. If someone is doing something that is harming only themselves, in effect, they are harming the "well being" of humanity. To consider otherwise is very clique-y and territorial.

Harming yourself is personal freedom. harming others is criminal. You have freedom in yourself (or should). Your liberties stop where mine start. The only "harm" that should pass from person to person is knowledge that may harm a person's viewpoint...aka, learning. Otherwise..if a responsible adult wants to cut his fingers off to have mitthands...so be it...good luck holding glasses, but otherwise..your choice. If he wants to chop his neighbors fingers off for mitthands, then nope..that is not his to do.
And we are not one big family. We are individuals that live in proximity and have a common goal (usually). Respect the individual, work together to improve the goal

Using your logic: If someone is torturing a baby for pleasure, but it's not my baby, then let them do it. We all have our own perspectives in life. However, if it's MY baby, then you are crossing the line of objective morality and should be punished.

That would be harming an innocent. that is incorrect, it was covered. reread the bit (innocent strangers).

That doesn't make sense to me

Consider it like this. you got a petri dish of amoebas (as a visual example). they are all moving about doing their thing. One however is out destroying nearby amoebas...it is then in the interest of the dish community to eliminate that amoeba for purposes of prosperity (if they cannot correct the behavior anyhow). Otherwise, if an amoeba decides to swim left, right, or simply not move..or even just up and die..its that amoeba's choice so long as it doesn't harm its neighbor amoebas.

That is society.

Its not that difficult to understand.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Pretty good 101 on atheism overall. Simplistic questions, yet yes, most common questions by those whom have no concept of what an atheist is outside of some brainwashing garbage religious folks pass to one another.

I for one do believe in Jesus/God.. I really do...

And I for one would never ask such a question to anyone...

1. Many assumptions in this thread that all believers fear death.
2. Many assume all those who believe in God, we throw ourselves in with the group of believers in God that tend to finger point and offer doom and gloom advice.

I get every-bodies woes on bullet two above, I really do... I am in the same boat with these finger pointing/log in the eye people and it embarrasses me. I don't get/understand the finger pointing spit thrown at people who they say are lost. If they are lost, why push them away further? I never understood that. And it's for each and every one of those individuals to realize this... And that type of attitude really pisses me off. But it's controlled..

But I do stand in my own corner though while in the same boat with my finger pointing brothers and sisters.

I say, you walk your belief and I will walk my belief. If I see you are always one happy son of a gun, I will inquire why. If you ask me, I will share why I am happy. It's really simple. Who knows, you may just here about Jesus/God from me... Moth to a light, the light doesn't come out and force the moth, does it? and this goes both ways...

And btw: The Gospel is good news, not advise...

But that's just me...

Later

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
If people claimed to be "Christian" and did horrible things, does that mean the claims of Christianity themselves is wrong? No it doesn't. Using the same logic...Stalin was an atheist and killed 50 million of his own people. Does that mean atheism is wrong?

Although I do agree somewhat that this is a fallacy, the example given isn't a good one.

If Stalin was killing people specifically because of some weird atheist tenant (that doesn't exist) to kill people, then yes, it would relate.
The Crusades were most certainly a religious thing, as were the salem witch burnings, and many other religion inspired murders (not to mention a couple buildings in NYC that should be standing if not for some religious nuts taking over some airplanes). Not saying that religions themselves specifically state doing these crimes, but the followers of religion use the religion as their inspiration for their crimes. Atheism is not inspirational..it is simply an observation..from that observation, people do things based on who they are.

Originally posted by syrinx2112

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Pretty good 101 on atheism overall. Simplistic questions, yet yes, most common questions by those whom have no concept of what an atheist is outside of some brainwashing garbage religious folks pass to one another.

I for one do believe in Jesus/God.. I really do...

And I for one would never ask such a question to anyone...

Well that's good. Spirituality in general is meant to be more of a personal connection to the universe moreso than some grand weapon to wield to use on the minds of any whom are different. I have no issues with believers, I do have issues with "boasters" though. Hell, I believe (sort of) in some odd stuff, but unless someone wants to discuss it, I don't question peoples very integrity if they don't believe in my wacky stuff. If what they like/believe/stand for makes them a better person for themselves, family, and society..then more power to em.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
If people claimed to be "Christian" and did horrible things, does that mean the claims of Christianity themselves is wrong? No it doesn't. Using the same logic...Stalin was an atheist and killed 50 million of his own people. Does that mean atheism is wrong?

Although I do agree somewhat that this is a fallacy, the example given isn't a good one.

If Stalin was killing people specifically because of some weird atheist tenant (that doesn't exist) to kill people, then yes, it would relate.
The Crusades were most certainly a religious thing, as were the salem witch burnings, and many other religion inspired murders (not to mention a couple buildings in NYC that should be standing if not for some religious nuts taking over some airplanes). Not saying that religions themselves specifically state doing these crimes, but the followers of religion use the religion as their inspiration for their crimes. Atheism is not inspirational..it is simply an observation..from that observation, people do things based on who they are.

"Atheism is not inspirational..it is simply an observation..from that observation, people do things based on who they are."

Can't you say that about almost every belief system though? If I based my belief's about Christianity on only the observation of others, I wouldn't be a Christian. But there came a point in my life where I had to investigate the claims for myself without worrying about what others might think of me. I lost pretty much all my friends because of my new found faith.

And are you suggesting that atheist don't get inspired by anything? Truly they do. In fact, we are all motivated or inspired by something or someone. So that's a crock to say atheism is somehow above religion because it's not "inspired". I get what you're saying in that the inspirational claims for the religious come from God or gods etc. But I don't think mankind can separate ourselves from the spiritual...I use that word loosely here.

If you look around, a lot of scientists, biologists, cosmologists etc are running out of room when it comes to materialism as the final answer for all and many are adopting a form of spirituality. I see a trend that modern science is beginning to adopt a pantheistic monism...but that's for another thread. Actually, it's going to be part of my documentary I'm working on now.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
"Atheism is not inspirational..it is simply an observation..from that observation, people do things based on who they are."

Can't you say that about almost every belief system though? If I based my belief's about Christianity on only the observation of others, I wouldn't be a Christian. But there came a point in my life where I had to investigate the claims for myself without worrying about what others might think of me. I lost pretty much all my friends because of my new found faith.

And are you suggesting that atheist don't get inspired by anything? Truly they do. In fact, we are all motivated or inspired by something or someone. So that's a crock to say atheism is somehow above religion because it's not "inspired". I get what you're saying in that the inspirational claims for the religious come from God or gods etc. But I don't think mankind can separate ourselves from the spiritual...I use that word loosely here.

Its interesting that you answer the question you pose..so your not really lost as to what I am saying.

Yes, there is no anti-deity pointing to a group of people and saying convert or kill as written in the "not really holy atheist bible". it is simply not believing in deities.
Now, inspiration cannot come from that. Inspiration then comes from a individual whom is an atheist maybe, or a vision of a built utopia, or vampire belief, or watching too many star trek episodes, etc. Inspiration can be also grabbed from a lifestyle associated with atheism..such as being inspired to make a "church" of atheism (see: coffee house).

But as you already answered..no deity, no divinity within any of the inspiration that derives from a non belief. I don't believe in goblins, that doesn't then mean I am inspired by my disbelief in goblins to kill my neighbor due to him always keeping the stereo too loud at night...its not considered a agoblin crime...its just a crime inspired by loud music. But, if I kill my neighbor strictly because he does believe in goblins, then sure..it is a agoblin crime. So far, not a lot of a--- crimes happen though.

I guess this whole debate makes no sense to me. It is like putting a name to something and then saying you don't believe in that something. If I said I don't believe in goolexcipal, does that make goolexcipal real because I don't believe in it? If you ask me why I don't believe in God, it is not that I don't believe in God, it is just an invalid question to begin with.

Even the act of 'not believing' gives credence to that thing. Believing or not believing in God just doesn't make any sense to me to begin with. You may as well ask me why hiopwer doesn't kwoertlx the goolexcipal. It isn't a matter of not believing in God, it is a matter of there being nothing to believe or not believe in, in the first place.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
"Atheism is not inspirational..it is simply an observation..from that observation, people do things based on who they are."

Can't you say that about almost every belief system though? If I based my belief's about Christianity on only the observation of others, I wouldn't be a Christian. But there came a point in my life where I had to investigate the claims for myself without worrying about what others might think of me. I lost pretty much all my friends because of my new found faith.

And are you suggesting that atheist don't get inspired by anything? Truly they do. In fact, we are all motivated or inspired by something or someone. So that's a crock to say atheism is somehow above religion because it's not "inspired". I get what you're saying in that the inspirational claims for the religious come from God or gods etc. But I don't think mankind can separate ourselves from the spiritual...I use that word loosely here.

Its interesting that you answer the question you pose..so your not really lost as to what I am saying.

Yes, there is no anti-deity pointing to a group of people and saying convert or kill as written in the "not really holy atheist bible". it is simply not believing in deities.
Now, inspiration cannot come from that. Inspiration then comes from a individual whom is an atheist maybe, or a vision of a built utopia, or vampire belief, or watching too many star trek episodes, etc. Inspiration can be also grabbed from a lifestyle associated with atheism..such as being inspired to make a "church" of atheism (see: coffee house).

But as you already answered..no deity, no divinity within any of the inspiration that derives from a non belief. I don't believe in goblins, that doesn't then mean I am inspired by my disbelief in goblins to kill my neighbor due to him always keeping the stereo too loud at night...its not considered a agoblin crime...its just a crime inspired by loud music. But, if I kill my neighbor strictly because he does believe in goblins, then sure..it is a agoblin crime. So far, not a lot of a--- crimes happen though.

I would disagree with you. I think most "crimes" as you put it comes from a more fundamental human problem. It's never a one to one ratio of "God told me to do it" or "Goblins told me" etc. There is almost always an internally motivated reason. Humans are really good at rationalizing so much so that we justify to ourselves something we might know is wrong for short term benefit, or necessity etc. In fact, such reality reflects the Biblical explanation of life, that we are living in a fallen state.

As it related to "religious crimes" especially when we're talking about crusades and the inquisitions etc, they were carried out as an order from the Papacy. Any time there is an organized institution, it always comes from the top. I think you know this without me elaborating on this. Now don't get me started on the Papacy and Rome. This could easily get into the semantics of the word "Christian".

Now when it comes to anti-deity for inspiration, let me ask you this. Let's say you come up with a brilliant idea. How do you know for certain that the idea came only from you? You don't and you can't. Not to suggest that therefore there is some external mind influencing you, but just to point out that it's not always true that our thoughts are our own, and that there is no way to test if it's our own or not.

In fact, the history of inventions sort of reflects this possibility that there is some kind of external consciousness that exists beyond the scope of our perception. I know that sounds new agey, and I won't get into it here, but there are people who have shown this phenomenon. A book by Kevin Kelly (co-founder of Wired Magazine) in his book "What Technology Wants" documents this process.