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

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
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.

Do you believe what you just wrote there?

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun

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.

The net well-being of a population isn't being defined, it's the outcome of individual acts (unless I'm totally incorrect on this).

For instance, if individuals strive to maximize health care to improve lives, that is starkly different from only allowing certain members access to improved health care while those less fortunate must suffer. This latter scenario will not result in the highest peak on the moral landscape because the entire population is not well-off. Remember, there can be multiple high peaks, not just one. I may want to improve the net well-being of a population with a particular solution, while Sam Harris may have a different solution. These two solutions can coexist as multiple peaks, as long as they increase the net well-being of the entire population, not just a select group of privileged individuals.

-

Now, if I don't believe Jesus died on the cross for my sins, I am doomed to eternal hell fire. Am I correct? Is this Jesus's way to coerce people?

A quick question about your source for morality. If the Bible was removed from the picture, from where do you receive your moral principles? You can't say the Christian god because without the Bible, there is no way for you to be informed of the existence of this particular entity. The Bible is the written word of God, or am I missing something?

The net well-being of a population isn't being defined, it's the outcome of individual acts (unless I'm totally incorrect on this).

For instance, if individuals strive to maximize health care to improve lives, that is starkly different from only allowing certain members access to improved health care while those less fortunate must suffer. This latter scenario will not result in the highest peak on the moral landscape, because the entire population is not well-off. Remember, there can be multiple high peaks, not just one. I may want to improve the net well-being of a population with a particular solution, while Sam Harris may have a different solution. These two solutions can coexist as multiple peaks, as long as they increase the net well-being of the entire population, not just a select group of privileged individuals.

It sounds to me like you are in favor of socialism. Trimming the hedges so they are all even...evenly tall, but even. I used to think the same. Forgive me if I am off on my assessment there. But it's interesting that you posit "The net well-being of a population isn't being defined, it's the outcome of individual acts"

You still need an agreement upon each individual to strive for the positive well-being of the population. Otherwise, things will continue as they are. Self interest is powerful. Are you saying everyone's self interests should align with some cosmic purpose beyond our perception?

Now, if you don't believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins, you are doomed to eternal hell fire. Am I correct? Is this Jesus's way to coerce people?

You're sort of correct. We are all doomed for eternal hell fire. Jesus died for the sins of humanity and rose again to prove his deity and show us what we have in store. Resurrection. It's like this; we were all lost in the wilderness doomed to die. Jesus decided to pay for all of us to stay at the most luxurious hotel. Our names are reserved. Some decide to accept the offer and show up to the hotel. Others choose not to.

And it's not about coercing people. And I get the Gospel is exclusive in its claim. But isn't truth by nature exclusive? And do you simply think it's not true because it makes you uncomfortable?

A quick question about your source for morality. If the Bible was removed from the picture, from where do you receive your moral principles? You can't say the Christian god because without the Bible, there is no way for you to be informed of the existence of this particular entity. The Bible is the written word of God, or am I missing something?

That's a loaded question if there ever was one. I will entertain it anyways. I would suggest that I would operate under the illusion of my own set of morals. However, I wouldn't ignore the fact that I could differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong. In that sense, it would be logical to deduce that there is some kind of external reality that is imposing this closed system we live in. When I say closed system, I mean we live in a system that forces us to make choices at every moment of our existence. We can't and don't always control the circumstances, but we can certainly control the way we respond to it. Even doing nothing is a choice. While this doesn't necessarily lead to a Christian God, I can certainly still impose an external mind who set up such a system.

I was reading this list earlier and I really enjoyed it. As an atheist many non-atheist would believe in misinformation about atheist and atheism and how we live our lives. Hopefully atheist and non-atheist alike would find something interesting from the list.

reply to post by FyreByrd


My answer to the question is pretty simple. I believe in a god, just not the god the bible tells me of. "What" I believe is not up for discussion.

We all know what is right and what is wrong. That feeling you get just before doing something "wrong" is instilled in all of us.

I am going to stop here, as this is one of those arguments you don't get into. Fighting about religion gets you nowhere. Both sides have their reasons for believing in what they choose as religion. I just choose no religion and still live on the side of "good".

reply to post by kaylaluv


A faithful woman that works with me says she cannot wait to die. She is ready. Suicide is a sin and would seperate the person from their heavenly goal . They substain because it is a sin not because they think they may be wrong. Me, I dont really care. If I am going to be judged then I believe I have treated people fairly even if I have not gotten on my knees too frequently in my life. So be it. I am pretty sure we've all got this whole god and heaven thing wrong anyway.

reply to post by AmberLeaf


Catholics and other christians believe if you ask for forgiveness you get it. If you kill yourself you cannot ask for forgiveness so you're screwed. Murder is a sin including self murder.
On the other hand Atheists are not morally deficient just because they dont believe in god. They still believe in jail and law enforcement and thats enough to keep most folks on the straight and narrow.

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.

What is so ignorant about it? All those that believe in some sort of paradise in the afterlife are just waiting to go there. They can't wait to go there. They're just waiting for someone else to kill them, as in the end of the world.

reply to post by FyreByrd


S&F, though I don't find these questions insulting at all. I do find them embarrassing for those asking the questions.

Originally posted by minkmouse

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.

I too wonder about that point...If you are a dying christian, one would thing you would embrace your death with open arms and joy, after all you've said your "Hail Marie's", asked to be forgiven for your sins or just flat out asked Jesus to come into your life so you're off to the great Holiday Inn in the sky...Why would one sweat that?

Wow, did mommy drop you on your head daily as an infant?

You probably have these questions because you have been educated by the entertainment industry on what the religious beliefs and practices of these people actually are.

But I know I am expecting far too much of people in thinking they might actually reference primary sources for info instead of guzzling down whatever spills from the sewage pipe.

Now, I have a question atheists might find offensive;

How can you say there is no God or gods when one of the leading theories of physics is called superposition also known as the multiverse theory in which any number of possible realities exists?

How do atheists address things such as the Hard problem of consciousness? It is quite obvious to anyone with a critical eye that with science's current understanding they have no leverage to proclaim the nonexistence of verified phenomena (aka supernatural) which contradict the purely material view of life.

Injecting Radioactive Chemicals in Spirit Mediums’ Brains. For Science!
www.redicecreations.com...

What happens when you inject the brains of spirit mediums with radioactive tracers, and then watch their brains? Apparently, you see odd changes in brain behaviour. That’s what happened when researchers took ten Brazilian mediums - half experienced, half not - and tracked their brain activity (or at least, regional cerebral blood flow [rCBF], which is closely correlated) using SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography).

The finding that surprised the researchers was that the experienced mediums showed higher complexity in their writing while in the trance state, rather than in their control - and yet there was much less activity in the frontal and temporal lobes, the parts of the brain associated with reasoning, planning, generating language...that is, exactly where they should have had more activity for more complex writing.

During psychography, all mediums reported altered states of consciousness, but to different degrees. Experienced mediums spoke of a deeper trance, with clouded consciousness, often reporting being out of the body, and having little or no awareness of the content of what they were writing. Less expert mediums were in a less pronounced trance state and usually reported writing phrases being dictated to them in their minds. ...Subjects attributed their trance writing to “spirits”.

Compared to normal writing, less expert mediums showed more activation in the same cognitive-processing areas during psychography, whereas experienced mediums showed a significantly lower level of activation. The less expert ones had to “work harder”, as shown by their relatively higher levels of activation of the cognitive processing area during psychography. Experienced mediums showed significantly reduced rCBF changes during psychography, which is consistent with the notion of automatic (non-conscious) writing and their claims that an “outer source” was planning the written content.

FYI the whole spirit thing is deeply involved in consciousness and thought, not the flying spaghetti monster commonly reported by the entertainment industry.

reply to post by Nacirema


You need something in against which to measure "well-being".

Just to demonstrate to gigantic the divide between what "well-being" can be defined as using differing measures/standards let me use the dead horse of the Nazis. They defined well-being as white with blonde hair who works hard as a cog in the political machine. The eradication of lesser peoples was viewed as ultimately for the well-being of the future race of supermen. It would free up land and resources for future generations to thrive on and by eliminating those who weren't supermen they were ending the pain and suffering the lesser beings would endure if they lived in a world of supermen.

The issue is far too complicated for simple minded discourse aimed at insulting or reconciliation.

EDIT
As to your questioning of going to hell for not believing a historic figure died for your sins, perhaps you should consult the actual text, which has been around for thousands of years FYI, as I am sure you would learn a thing or two about what the concept of heaven, hell, the accuser, nephilim (earth-born), etc actually are addressing.

The figure of Jesus was so incredibly revolutionary because it was a message which had not entered the consciousness of the people of the world. It is similar to Shakespeare's introduction of ideas previously restricted to the leisure classes to the masses of peasants which helped changed the face of society at the time. In this case Jesus brought about the idea that the creator of everything came to this dimension to teach people to love and care for one another and not engage in usury (aka loans, and much of modern banking) or evil deeds against your fellow man.

Of course a likely response to this involves all the tragedies men and women have wrought on each other with the excuse of religion. Its just a straw man argument because far more horror has resulted from non religiously motivated actions which plays into the Christina belief that man is corrupt and doomed to lead themselves straight to hell (ie the whole reason God would be offering redemption through his own sacrifice because mankind has proven over and over that it is incapable of saving itself from itself).

Peace

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

FYI the whole spirit thing is deeply involved in consciousness and thought, not the flying spaghetti monster commonly reported by the entertainment industry.

Plenty of atheists believe in ghosts, reincarnation and mysticism. Evidence of the supernatural or spiritual is not proof of the existence of a god.

I believe in reincarnation, angels, ET's and spiritual entities but I don't believe in a guy in the sky creator god, watching our every move and thought, judging and/or loving us. I don't believe that Jesus was the son of said god, died for the "sins" of humanity or rose from the dead.

I think that someday science with make discoveries that explain the existence of telepathy, astral projection, precognition and consciousness.

Originally posted by Nacirema

Now, if I don't believe Jesus died on the cross for my sins, I am doomed to eternal hell fire. Am I correct? Is this Jesus's way to coerce people?

A quick question about your source for morality. If the Bible was removed from the picture, from where do you receive your moral principles? You can't say the Christian god because without the Bible, there is no way for you to be informed of the existence of this particular entity. The Bible is the written word of God, or am I missing something?

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

Please forgive me for jumping in the middle of your debate with FaceLikeTheSun (and I ask you, Face, to forgive me too) - for I am about to disagree with both of you.

First, I will say outright that I am a Christian. Maybe I should call myself a NeoChristian - meaning I can see the obvious glaring flaws, misinterpretations and outright lies of the religion of Christianity (but not in the words of Christ). There is not one single mention of some place of eternal burning torment for "sinners" in the original languages of the Bible (i.e. Greek, Hebrew). There is no hell! Hell was invented by the church through a deliberate mistranslation of the Hebrew word "sheol" and the Greek words "hades, gehenna and tartaroo". All of these words were deliberately mistranslated into some eternal burning damnation when the more accurate translation of sheol and hades would be "grave" or "pit" - as in the place where you put a dead body. "Hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament and every instance of the word is the mistranslation of the Hebrew "sheol" or grave/pit. NOT burning fiery torment. The same EXACT word, "sheol", is also translated 31 times in the Old Testament into the word "grave". Why would the same exact word be translated equally into two completely different words? Sheol and it's Greek equivalent "hades" are both used (and deliberately mistranslated) in the New Testament as well.
Another word in the New Testament to be deliberately mistranslated into "hell" is the Greek word "Gehenna". Gehenna actually is the Grecian spelling of the Hebrew words which are translated as "Valley of Hinnom". This is an actual place where the sewage, garbage and etc was tossed out and burned. The fires here were kept "eternally burning" with the addition of sulpher/brimstone so as to utterly consume whatever was thrown into it. Now for some highly offensive crimes, after the criminal was executed he was deemed "unfit" for a proper Jewish burial and his dead body would be cast into "Gehenna" - literally an eternal fire! So there are some passages in the New Testament where one would be "in danger of hell (Gehenna)" - as in Matthew 5:21,22 "...but whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell (Gehenna) fire." This is not saying that your soul is going to a place of eternal torment when viewed in the eyes and language of the time.

Anyhoo - I didn't mean to get so long winded here. My point, I guess, is that I can completely understand the animosity towards the majority of Christians as they (and me too not too long ago) really just accept what the church tells them without any fact checking. The church deliberately lied in order to scare people (and more importantly their money or "tithes") into obedience. After all, why would people come to church if they found out the truth - that all of humanity, regardless of how all people (whether Christian or not) hypocritically judge others, all of humanity gets into Heaven/paradise/The Source/whatever you want to call it. We all go and NO ONE is damned to eternal suffering. God (or whatever you want to call Him/Her/It) is not petty like humanity. We all bring our experiences back to the whole...even if you don't believe.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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.

Depends on how its asked. Sometimes it is simply informative..a person truly wants to know because they haven't considered it much outside of how they were taught.

You are exactly right and it a genuine case of a frank discussion in order to gain insight about another's views then I wouldn't react how I did in my post.
Had it been worded differently my response would most likely of been different, I feel that there is too much agenda being pushed from both sides, always a snide comment instead of trying to understand better where each are coming from.

That said it is easy to see beyond what is presented sometimes and I guess that is what draws out a reaction, even a snide comment on my behalf.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

being religious is something more than being moral.
monotheistic religions are a choice. a choice to explore what wisdom is asking day and night. that:
1-there should be a first creator.
2-why am I created.
3-do I end with death.
however , monotheistic religions can be altered by corrupted clerics. fortunately humans are created so that they have embedded tools to know what is good or bad, unless corrupted clerics would say oh people do kill and ....

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

The figure of Jesus was so incredibly revolutionary because it was a message which had not entered the consciousness of the people of the world.

Nonsense! The teachings of Buddha and Pythagoras are echoed in the teachings of Jesus.

It is similar to Shakespeare's introduction of ideas previously restricted to the leisure classes to the masses of peasants which helped changed the face of society at the time. In this case Jesus brought about the idea that the creator of everything came to this dimension to teach people to love and care for one another and not engage in usury (aka loans, and much of modern banking) or evil deeds against your fellow man.

Jesus seemed to like the idea of banking and usury.

Matthew 25: 26 But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest!

28 Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. 29 For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’”

Jesus supported the "rich get richer" philosophy.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Religion assumes that ALL humans are entirely incapable of governing themselves, without fear of some eternal damnation. It proposes that without having a set of rules, which the consequence for not following them is an eternity of pain and suffering, human society would fall apart.

Au Contraire mon frere...The Old Testament is very specific when it states that humanity has been given DOMINION over the Earth...does not sound like an inability to govern themselves...

As far as following rules, last time I checked every single endeavor has rules/guidelines...consequences of following the rules/guidelines are generally GOOD, while consequences for disobedience to rules/guidelines are generally BAD...

Human society would fall apart without rules or guidelines...we are barely holding on despite the fact we have them...

reply to post by windword


Seldom have I seen such a sorry display of interpretation and understanding of Scripture such as the garbage you just trotted out in front of the membership here...

reply to post by totallackey


In the parable I cited, Jesus clearly supports banking and interest, which is usury.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
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".

Right, but I am not really pointing at the papal states and the politics behind crusades. on a more base level, the knights and soldiers that fought against the heathens (whomever it was decided was the heathens of the day) did so because of their religious determination to purge the land and do what they believed was ordained by a god. Politics is always at play, but the grunt doesn't have a head for such things..they simply accept God said go kill them, so they went and killed them for blessings and such by the deity in question. Call it what you will...the agenda of the mighty doesn't work unless there is compliance with the meek.

Let's say you come up with a brilliant idea. How do you know for certain that the idea came only from you?

My thoughts tend to agree with me...like 100% of the time. Therefore, I can safely assume that my thoughts are pretty much my own....or I could be a deity..but chances are its the former.

A book by Kevin Kelly (co-founder of Wired Magazine) in his book "What Technology Wants" documents this process.

That is hitting on a different aspect though. universal order...that sort of thing. Good topic, but not really relating to this one (religious interpretations of deity(s)) Is there a order in the universe? I would like to think so. Such an order though, if exists, is so far outside of my scope that I don't even bother trying to contemplate its attributes with any degree of accuracy (don't try to identify God, because no matter where you start, it is more than likely profoundly, almost insultingly small). Like a child suggesting Bill Gates is soo rich, he has maybe close to 3 dollars!!! (wow). Where the concept of a order annoys me is that, using the Gates example, we all have a bill gates whom watches every penny we have(literally...very literally watching every penny) and we must shine each penny else Gates will become angry and hit us with a wooden nickel and all sorts of absurdities...manmade religion is comical..pity people kill each other over it.