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

reply to post by windword


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you know the context of that parable? Doubt you even read the whole thing.

That story is about a "Master" who entrusts his servants with his money while he goes away on a trip. He asks them to invest it and one of them just digs a hole and tosses the money in it until the master comes back. When the master asks why he just buried it the servant says you are a hard man and accept money earned from the labor of others (LoL should I make this political and compare it to welfare?).

The master then rewards the servants who invested his money with better positions and likely a much richer life. He then says the servant should have deposited his money in a bank instead of a hole in the ground.


Now as for Pythagoras you cannot possibly think a misogynist of his level could really be considered in this discussion did you? The guy thought women were the most evil thing in creation as they represented the division of the perfection of one. Also he regurgitated his ideas from the Egyptian mystery schools which he attended and later established in Greece.

You are correct in some comparisons to the order he established and the Catholic church in that they excluded all women and lived communistic lifestyles studying creation.

Buddha does have some very nice things to say but he had little to no influence whatsoever to the Europeans and Northern Africans. Lets be honest here and admit that Europeans and North Africans were the big players in ancient times.

EDIT

Luke 6:34-36 (New International Version)

34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

I think you misunderstood what I was talking about with usury. I am talking about only lending aid to others with the expectation of personal gain.

It is all about this concept called selflessness.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


What are you and the other user debating.
Can you or the other users clear it up please! Just curious.

why is atheism so hard to understand, it's simple, we don't believe in mythical beings. there is no credo, no rules,
we simply want you religious folks to stay the hell out of our lives. don't make laws that comes from a mythical god that we can go to jail or worse for disobeying, don't harm us by using teachings from a mythical god.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

What are you and the other user debating.
Can you or the other users clear it up please! Just curious.

Well windword is on some trip about Jesus supporting the practice of usury because of a parable which mentions a master telling his slave he should have put the money entrusted to him in a bank instead of (literally) a hole he dug in the ground.

Usury
www.merriam-webster.com...

1 archaic : interest
2 : the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
3 : an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

The others were talking about morals and whether they are defined for some by the Bible or are in fact a natural state of being regulated by physical mechanisms which can be influenced by nonphysical mental interpretation.

I basically pointed out a flaw in the definitions they are using for 'well-being' by pointing out that they are using it as an abstract concept which they can mold to fit whatever morals they are supporting.

Aside from that I introduced some actual science (aka the "bastion" of rational thought) into the discussion to keep them a bit more honest. Except if you have an understanding of the models and maths used to construct the modern understanding of reality you realize that science cannot be used one way or another to prove God or not with its current capabilities.

Did that help at all?

I believe in a Higher Power, but sometimes religious people take their beliefs to far and look down on other people.
This guys parody of religious extremism is spot on.



You better start believing in Jesus or your......

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Yes it did! Thanks for explaining!

reply to post by windword


Wrong. He simply uses them as an example for what he was trying to teach. Do you have any understanding?

reply to post by windword
Double post.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Lets be honest here and admit that Europeans and North Africans were the big players in ancient times.

Let us be real honest and say the Europeans and North Africans did not truly rise to prominence until WELL after the Chinese, Indian, and the Middle Eastern peoples, in terms of civilization.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by windword

 

Do you know the context of that parable? Doubt you even read the whole thing.

Yes, I know it well. The bottom line, Jesus portrays that the master's interest would have been better served if the man had put the cash in the bank to earn interest, instead of burying the cash in ground as the servant had done.

The servant gave that master all that he been given back to the master. The master wanted "interest" on his investment, That is clearly the philosophy of bankers, loan agents, and speculative investors.

The servant may have been afraid of loosing the money in loosing ventures or being robbed on that way to bank. For his effort of keeping his cash safe, he is rewarded with banishment and torment. I see little of value in this parable.

Now as for Pythagoras you cannot possibly think a misogynist of his level could really be considered in this discussion did you? The guy thought women were the most evil thing in creation as they represented the division of the perfection of one. Also he regurgitated his ideas from the Egyptian mystery schools which he attended and later established in Greece.

If Jesus associated with the Essenes, which he probably did, he would have been familiar with their Pythagorean ideas.

He also accounts for the similarity which is observable between the Pythagoreans and the Essenes by the fact that the members of the latter sect among the Egyptian Jews, under the name of Therapeuts, necessarily came in contact with the mental tendency which distinguished the Grecian sect. By this means he considers it possible that the peculiar doctrines of the Pythagoreans may have found their way into Judea, unless, he says, "we prefer to suppose that already in the time of the amalgamation, the education and p. 7 cultivation which took place under the Seleucidæ, the Pythagorean system found an echo in Palestine, this tendency being only strengthened and further developed by subsequent contact with the Egyptian Therapeuts."
www.sacred-texts.com...

Remembering what we have learned so far, let us not forget that it would be these Essenes of first century A.D. which would, after the crucifixion of Jesus, identify Jesus with their theological Angel-Messiah which was likewise crucified in the heavens. Thus, we find this group of Pythagorean-Buddhists, who are today labeled "Essenes," gravitating toward the Jesus Movement in Palestine. These Essenes brought with them their syncretistic religious beliefs which were an amalgam of Indian, Buddhist, and Pythagorean religious beliefs which were immersed within Second Temple Judaism. Today we call these religious beliefs "Christianity.
essenechristianity.com...

.

Buddha does have some very nice things to say but he had little to no influence whatsoever to the Europeans and Northern Africans. Lets be honest here and admit that Europeans and North Africans were the big players in ancient times.

Europeans and Northern Africans have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, which echo many of the tenets of Buddhism. His teachings were not the first of their kind.

Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:31
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." Dhammapada 10:1

Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." Luke 6:29
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." Majjhima Nikaya 21:6

Many more parallel sayings here: www.beliefnet.com...

The influences of Buddhism were brought to the area of Jerusalem and Judea by Alexander the Great.

As an atheist, I'm never bothered by questions from the devout, because at least they're asking them and trying to understand. I'm willing to help them understand atheism, just as I'm willing to help them understand their own religion, since I find that the deeply religious often don't have a very good understanding of what they profess to believe either.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

What are you and the other user debating.
Can you or the other users clear it up please! Just curious.

I am challenging this statement:

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.

1) The teachings of Jesus weren't that unique, they echoed Buddha and Pythagoras.
2) Jesus did indeed support usury. The only way banks are able to pay interest on your savings is by lending your money out for a higher fee than they are paying you.

You argument against Jesus' teachings being revolutionary are absurd. Yes there were similar teachings in other areas of the world at much earlier times and yet they were not the same teachings. Jesus talked about forgiveness and everlasting life.

Pythagoras and Gautama spoke of controlling your reincarnations and being free of material burdens.

If I follow your interpretation of originality then we should just go slap that plagiarist Robert Boyle for pushing corpuscularianism and instead only refer to the Nyaya, Leucippus, or Democritus when discussing the atom as they had a similar idea ages earlier . . . .

-Windword

That parable has nothing to do with selflessness. I has everything to do with God's expectation of us, earning him a profit by exploiting our "gifts", that are on loan to us, during our lives. He wants them back, with interest!

As far as Jesus and Buddha both being spiritual teachers......No, that doesn't prove the existence of GOD. It proves the existence of human altruism.

Ahh so the truth comes out!

Either your argument or your composure is crumbling here. If there is no God then how can he loan us something to get interest on it? Even further how can anything be ours in the first place if it was gifted to us by another in the first place?

The parable is about being selfless in this world because it, like your life, your possessions, are not yours they were gifted to you and so you should share that gift for the benefit of others just as they should do for you.

You really just come across as very very bitter.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


That parable has nothing to do with selflessness. I has everything to do with God's expectation of us, earning him a profit by exploiting our "gifts", that are on loan to us, during our lives. He wants them back, with interest!

As far as Jesus and Buddha both being spiritual teachers......No, that doesn't prove the existence of GOD. It proves the existence of human altruism.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Interesting answer. I haven't gone through the whole thread, but here's my take on it.

But let's dig in deeper. When it comes to choices, we live in a closed system.

That tells us a couple of things. One, that our own judgment is not always sound. Two, there has to be an objective moral values that are independent to any individual/culture/nation that humanity shares.

Thanks for your response but by not going through, even, the entire quote that I posted, it takes effort to read your post.

First - the only "Closed System" in creation is the totality of creation itself. I don't understand what you mean by "When it comes to choices we live in a closed system" Can you define the system and it's boundaries for me?

Also, there are no truly objective observations of anything. Are you implying that a god is the objective observer? Even the term 'moral' inplies a judgement, usually by our peers.

A less judgemental way of looking at morals/ethics is to group by = actions/thoughts that history/tradition/culture tell us work for the good of all and those actions/thoughts that don't.

I do wish you would read the original article in it's entirety.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

I just find it extremely disturbing that "believers" would imply the only reason they don't steal kill rape etc..

Is from fear of their god.

I am not a believer, though I am not exactly a denier either, I don't know either way, some days I think it a possibility, others, 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.

Having said that, it just seems to me believers saying nonbelievers can't be moral without a fear of god, is the same as saying, people are all criminals without the law, this is not very smart to me....no sir, not very smart at all.

The answer to the question, question number one, did not imply that at all. It asked, as part of it's answer, why believers were moral and did they beleive that, were they to lose there beliefs they would become immoral.

Most would not because of the reasons stated by the atheist as his reasons for being a moral person without benefit of religion.

reply to post by totallackey

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...

The motivation is not to do so for our own sake however, but to do so for God's sake. That's where the problem lies. It also assumes that anything and everything is pre-planned, which makes freedom of choice an illusion and is an easy scapegoat to fall back on when we act like sub humans.

Religion doesn't allow for expansion and growth beyond the divine. It assumes that above all else, the fear of a bad afterlife, will deter violence and create peace. Or a similar fear of disappointing one's creator etc.

Atheism or Agnosticism on the other hands assumes that human beings are responsible for their own futures, their own actions and their own success or failures. There's nobody in the sky judging you and telling you how to life your life.

There's simply right and wrong and you live the life that you choose to lead, not the one that some arbitrary 3000 year old text tells you to lead.

~Tenth

What I don't get about the whole 'atheists' deal is:

Why do they even care what others believe in?

They don't so because they don't so one else should?

Atheist's need to tread carefully because of that first amendment.

People are free to believe in what they want to that means 'believers' and 'non believers'.

There is a big difference between what 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom from religion' the latter is what Atheism is all about.

Atheists want respect?
Christian's want respect?
Other relgions want respect?

Show it then maybe you will get it in 'kind'.

Seems quite of few people relgious/ and non religious have epically failed at 'turning the other cheek'.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by totallackey

 

Religion doesn't allow for expansion and growth beyond the divine.

What is your definition of divine? ( www.merriam-webster.com... : definition).

If it means stemming from God (or gods) then you must derive the definition of divine from the qualities of the being with divinity attributed to it.

So what qualities do you attribute to deity?

These is are the definitions I get from merriam webster

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3 : a person or thing of supreme value

4 : a powerful ruler

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
You argument against Jesus' teachings being revolutionary are absurd. Yes there were similar teachings in other areas of the world at much earlier times and yet they were not the same teachings. Jesus talked about forgiveness and everlasting life.

So did Buddha.

/Pythagoras and Gautama spoke of controlling your reincarnations and being free of material burdens.

So did Jesus.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth , and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so it is with every one that is born of the Spirit.

"So it is with every one that is born in the spirit." That means there were people who were "born in the spirit" before his supposed death and resurrection. These spiritual beings are free as the wind, to reincarnate or not, according to Jesus.

Jesus and Buddha both taught that we are all eternal spiritual beings, that pre-existed and will persist even after death.

That parable has nothing to do with selflessness. I has everything to do with God's expectation of us, earning him a profit by exploiting our "gifts", that are on loan to us, during our lives. He wants them back, with interest!

As far as Jesus and Buddha both being spiritual teachers......No, that doesn't prove the existence of GOD. It proves the existence of human altruism.

Ahh so the truth comes out!

Either your argument or your composure is crumbling here. If there is no God then how can he loan us something to get interest on it? Even further how can anything be ours in the first place if it was gifted to us by another in the first place?

The parable is about being selfless in this world because it, like your life, your possessions, are not yours they were gifted to you and so you should share that gift for the benefit of others just as they should do for you.

You really just come across as very very bitter.

Let me be clear. I don't believe in the Biblical God, that Jesus was the son of said God, that he died for my sins or that he rose from the dead. I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God or that even depicts a correct interpretation of the person who was Jesus, the son of a carpenter.

Please don't take my citations from the Bible and comments about it's God to represent my belief in their truth.