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

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Why 'should' there be a first creator? What about creation as an emergent property of an initial set of constants? Maybe some form of Mutual Creation?

I don't believe there was any independent will or intent for creation - that would require a being beyond creation that is not part of it. I believe creation happened and certain laws, both physical and non-physical, emerged as a consequence of evolution. With ever increasing complexity in a battle against entropy. Could, if you want to, a battle of good (complexity) vs evil (entropy) in both physical and spiritual dimensions.

That my friends is a miracle.

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

You will have two options to answer this question; either you will say that those constants ever existed, or they didn't ever exist. Tertium non datur.

If they did not ever exist, then you did not solve the question of why there should be a first creator. Someone or something somewhen created those constants. And maybe another someone or something created this someone or something, but eventually, it boils down to the fact that sooner or later, you will have to put your foot down and say that someone or something ever existed that started that causal chain.

If you say that they did ever exist, then you have indeed solved the question of why there should be a first creator, by demonstrating it. You simply picked a different first creator than the religious people do. On a side note, however, you are left with another question. If an inanimate, unconscious set of constants caused the creation of an emergent property of its mere existence, and it *ever* existed, why did it take so long to create the Universe? I mean, if it is an emergent property of itself, and it is not a conscious being, it cannot choose to not to exercise it.

Hence, all proposals, when reasoned to their full extent, lead to one of two conclusions. Either you will stop questioning your proposal and say "I don't know the answer to that" or you will reach the same conclusion as religious people. That something or someone outside of the realm of our Universe was responsible for jump-starting its creation.

Mutual creation is non-sensical. The causal chain cannot ever form a loop. We have a name for when people propose a causal loop. We call them paradoxes.

You are correct that willful creation would require a being that is not a part of the Universe itself. Much more impressive it is, then, that those that wrote the Bible, unschooled as they were, also reached the same conclusion, some thousands of years ago, no?

I am late to this thread, but having read the OP, I think the answers go to just as far extremes as the questions. For example, if an atheist could prove 100% that there is no god would believers kill and steal? That is an extremist view. I think if everyone were being honest, we would commit some of the so called "lesser" sins if we knew there were no repercussions

Would you perhaps take advantage of a colleague to get ahead so as to enjoy this one life to the fullest?.Would you cheat on an exam?

Even Nietzche, a known atheist said that you can't throw God off the bridge without him taking morality with him.

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.

Originally posted by Leahn

You are correct that willful creation would require a being that is not a part of the Universe itself. Much more impressive it is, then, that those that wrote the Bible, unschooled as they were, also reached the same conclusion, some thousands of years ago, no?

What initiated the instant of existential genesis could not be something that isn't and never was part of what was initiated. The requirement of contextual commonality between interacting dissimilars can't be simply vacated in deference to a person's inability to figure out how to prevent that commonality from presenting a perceived paradox.

What brought that initiating instant into existence is threaded throughout everything that exists, and has ever existed, as would be the case for any real agent involved in such an emergence. It's not God or a primordial, consciousness that required no development of its own for it to exist and spontaneously create at will. That's just what people allow when they decide that the question is too hard and all they want to do is examine the ramifications of that instant of existential genesis. The irony is that the simplest and least convoluted that reality has ever been was when that instant of genesis occurred. And the truth of it seems almost cartoonish in its primitive simplicity when compared to the torturous philosophical constructs that have developed over the centuries by brilliant theologians, philosophers, metaphysicists and even scientists bent on hog-tying their science to traditional "wisdom" structures.

Look at what sits directly in front of you. Look at what presents itself as the most present of all that's indivisibly simple within the structure of literally everything that sits there. Eliminate everything that couldn't possibly have been present at the instant of genesis. Then, list what remains. Of course, what remains can't be material. Of course, what remains can't be a creation of the human mind (like consciousness or perception). And, of course, it must be ubiquitous regardless of what it is that you've decided to focus on that is sitting directly in front of you. Your choice can't affect the level of presence that this actor has, since it is equally present in all that exists.

I know what it is. Do you?

ps - and the whole business of primordial energy is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the Law of Conservation. Of course the reason that a perpetual motion machine can't be constructed isn't the same thing as the idea of "energy as a version of god", but it still seems to be a canard that some people insist on reaching for in puzzles like this one. As if declaring a generic "energy" as being the stuff of divine intervention somehow makes theology transform into science.

Nobody "knows" for sure. The believers have faith that they are right. The atheists pretend not to care.
The Bible thumpers who try so hard to convert you are trying just as hard to convince themselves of what they aren't quite sure of. (IMHO)

Death is just another part of the journey. Embrace it. But have fun here too. And treat people like you want to be treated. That way, God won't be mad with you and he might not smite you and send you to eternal damnation!!!!!!

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?

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?

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Leahn

You are correct that willful creation would require a being that is not a part of the Universe itself. Much more impressive it is, then, that those that wrote the Bible, unschooled as they were, also reached the same conclusion, some thousands of years ago, no?

What initiated the instant of existential genesis could not be something that isn't and never was part of what was initiated. The requirement of contextual commonality between interacting dissimilars can't be simply vacated in deference to a person's inability to figure out how to prevent that commonality from presenting a perceived paradox.

You know that a lot of space could be saved if people that have nothing to say refrained from posturing.
Your argument is part of a common ploy used by those that want to deny the existence of a creator. You reframe and redefine the question in order to have a point.

You do know what I mean when I say "Universe", don't you? Of course, you do. Yet, you redefine the question in order to make your claim. However, redefining "Universe" as everything, including what is outside of it, does not really answer the question. Instead, it merely avoids it.

Of course, reality has ever been. We aren't, however, discussing reality. We are discussing the Universe, the physical, material Universe we live in.

In the end, you reaffirm what I just said. Something or someone need to have jump-started the genesis of the "Universe". You simply decided to pick a different agent that I did.

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.

Originally posted by Gazrok
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.

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

I disagree with your morals. I have a different set of morals I strive for.

Now what makes yours better than mine?

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by Gazrok
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.

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

I disagree with your morals. I have a different set of morals I strive for.

Now what makes yours better than mine?

By far the most logical question posed throughout this entire thread. It is what separates Kantian moralists from Utilitarians.

S+F

reply to post by FyreByrd


Foolish human you are nothing more than the top of the food chain. Where you should be in the midst of survival of the fittest we have bred ourselves to a point that we have overpopulated the planet and have really screwed up the scheme of things...

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

Why would not believing in God or Heaven make someone not want to live? That is some of the dumbest stuff I have ever read.

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.

and what would be the logical basis of your principles???
tell me why murder is wrong and don't tell me you just believe it to be wrong...
if someone believes murder is right, how would you prove to him that he is wrong through logic without appealing to emotions???

Originally posted by SaturnFX

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

His argument that "we can't know for sure whether God exists, but we feel this way based on evidence we've seen and our experiences, but we still doubt," sounds nearly identical to how I, and many of my theist friends, feel all the time. The author throws in the somewhat crazy analogy of unicorns:god, without even attempting, or maybe even recognizing, the inherent differences between the two, most important of them being the physical vs. spiritual nature of the two.Thanks for the insight!

edit on 15-5-2013 by Ryanp5555 because: (no reason given)

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

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

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

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

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

This is nonsensical, and an excuse so you don't have to admit that atheists, are, indeed, putting as much faith in God not existing as God existing. First, an interdimensional elve is not spiritual. It, again, would be a physical being. And your example of christians believing in Odin versus atheists choosing not to believe in God PROVES my point. You say: "A Christian doesn't have faith that Odin doesn't exist... they simply see no supporting evidence." Now this sentence doesn't credit or discredit Odin's existence, it merely references what a Christian believes to be true. Rather, a Christian's faith lies in Jesus, as opposed to Odin. Then you go on to say: "same with a [sic] atheist..an atheist is simply complete in their standards for supporting evidence." So, what you've essentially stated is that atheists and theists (which isn't limited to the belief in one God but God or Gods generally) have used the same logic to come to their conclusion. Although the standards for coming to their conclusion through that logic may differ, they still use the same process of thought. The only difference is that you want to label one faith and the other one something else.

Here is the bottom line: we cannot spiritual matter at this point in time. Thus, we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a God at this point in time. You can say I only believe in the measurable, however, there are billions upon billions of people who believe in the spiritual. In other words, we can measure that a large portion of people believe in something else, something spiritual. Yet, you have decided to put your foot down and say that does not exist. At the same time, these people are telling you they can see it, feel it, understand it (for the most part). The point being this: you have the majority of the world telling you, yes, yes, the spiritual exists. A portion of people which can be measured. Yet, you have decided, for your own well-grounded reasons I'm sure, that the spiritual cannot exist. In other words, you are putting faith in the spiritual not existing at all, despite, what the majority, and measurable, portion of the world believes strongly and feels.

Because you don't want to lump yourself into a group, doesn't mean you aren't a part of it.

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Leahn

You are correct that willful creation would require a being that is not a part of the Universe itself. Much more impressive it is, then, that those that wrote the Bible, unschooled as they were, also reached the same conclusion, some thousands of years ago, no?

What initiated the instant of existential genesis could not be something that isn't and never was part of what was initiated. The requirement of contextual commonality between interacting dissimilars can't be simply vacated in deference to a person's inability to figure out how to prevent that commonality from presenting a perceived paradox.

You know that a lot of space could be saved if people that have nothing to say refrained from posturing.
Your argument is part of a common ploy used by those that want to deny the existence of a creator. You reframe and redefine the question in order to have a point.

You do know what I mean when I say "Universe", don't you? Of course, you do. Yet, you redefine the question in order to make your claim. However, redefining "Universe" as everything, including what is outside of it, does not really answer the question. Instead, it merely avoids it.

Of course, reality has ever been. We aren't, however, discussing reality. We are discussing the Universe, the physical, material Universe we live in.

In the end, you reaffirm what I just said. Something or someone need to have jump-started the genesis of the "Universe". You simply decided to pick a different agent that I did.

The universe? Which universe?

The real question of genesis isn't the launch of this one universe. The real question is what brought EVERYTHING into existence. And if you do a post search on me, you'll discover that I don't posture. In fact, I'm nothing if not painfully specific. Something did "jump start" reality. Our little universe came along much later. What "jump started" reality exists within our little universe, just like it exists within all universes and if there are more than 4 dimensions (beyond the confines of human imagination) then it exists as fundamental to each of them as well.

Your god doesn't exist beyond your own imagination concerning it. Nothing physical (material or otherwise) simply exists as having always existed. But yeah, I'm in no hurry here.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz

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

Why would not believing in God or Heaven make someone not want to live?

That is some of the dumbest stuff I have ever read.

Agreed. It only shows intolerance and bigotry towards people that do not share your opinion. Now, I may not share your opinion, but I do respect your right to one.

Originally posted by therationalist
and what would be the logical basis of your principles???
tell me why murder is wrong and don't tell me you just believe it to be wrong...
if someone believes murder is right, how would you prove to him that he is wrong through logic without appealing to emotions???

He declared those things to be "objectively morally wrong." There is your basis, right there.

Originally posted by NorEaster
The universe? Which universe?

The one we live in.

Originally posted by NorEaster
The real question of genesis isn't the launch of this one universe. The real question is what brought EVERYTHING into existence.

No, it is not. As I said, you are simply reframing the question in order to avoid answering the question.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Our little universe came along much later. What "jump started" reality exists within our little universe, just like it exists within all universes and if there are more than 4 dimensions (beyond the confines of human imagination) then it exists as fundamental to each of them as well.

Ok, I will bite. Prove.

Originally posted by AmberLeaf

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

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

You could not be more wrong then what you are here. and TBH this comment was very childish. you going to toss your self on the floor and start kicking and screaming next? But to tell them to kill themselves just because they believe something that you do not. i myself is still undecided. what i will say i believe in is to keep ALL doors open and be willing to lessen then asset and draw my own conclusions but to just tell them to kill themselves? If you had any kind of open eyes at all. You might discover that most religions will tell you if you kill your self that you will be sent to hell or the bad place.

I also will say i believe that "some people" need to have that belief system in place to function. It gives people a feeling of safety that somebody is watching out for them also gives a sense of hope. And you know what it does not hurt me that they believe in god or allah or whatever as long as you keep your business in your house and out of mine i do not have a issue with it. now once you start tossing people off roof tops or telling everyone to kill themselves just because they do not believe in what you believe. NOW i do believe in freedom of choice. You can choose to believe or not to its all up on you. but i feel if you want out of a religion then you have the choice. if you are not allowing that choice then that is a person not allowing you to have your freedoms. This is my main issue with Muslims they do not allow the choice of there children/Women to be muslim or not. Sorry getting off topic kinda i guess.

I use to believe in treating people as i wanted treated. What this turned into was me turning into a road for everyone to walk on. now i believe in treating people the way THEY treat others NOT just me! you want to take away peoples freedoms you should be the first to loose yours. you want them to "kill themselves" may you blindly walk off a cliff. you want to call out hypocrites wile you say nobody should have the right to religion.. hmm you see it yet?

Originally posted by therationalist
and what would be the logical basis of your principles???
tell me why murder is wrong and don't tell me you just believe it to be wrong...
if someone believes murder is right, how would you prove to him that he is wrong through logic without appealing to emotions???

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

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.