Here are 9 questions atheists probably find insulting — and the answers

[ideologyhunter]

It matters that polls (in the U.S.) put atheists near the bottom in approval ratings of religious groups. (Yes, I realize the oxymoron there.) We're running neck and neck with Islam in most of the surveys I've seen. It matters because of court rulings, demagogic political movements, basic fairness in the military and workplace.
Agreeing with posts #18 & #19. There is no atheist equivalent of 'You deserved your fatal disease/weather calamity/societal collapse because of your basic nature.' Obviously, no atheist equivalent of the repellent notion of Hell or a people favored by a deity. I'll admit to snarkiness as a hallmark of atheism, but that won't go away as long as there are bloated Falwell-style targets in the landscape.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Atheists: If you think your minority liberal tradition should have a say in how Christianity is or is not defined, you are committing a logical fallacy.

Also atheists: *Cherry-picking literally the worst 70 Christians, as well as a few stray Odinists and atheists, and acting as though they are representative of the entire Christian faith*

And if you think that only the best Christians get to have a say in how Christianity is defined or get to be pointed to as examples of the faith, you're committing the exact same logical fallacy.

It's an umbrella term which includes those who burn people alive for witchcraft, those who humbly dedicate themselves to a lifetime of service and charity, those who want a fascist state based on Biblical commandments, those who keep Jesus in their own hearts and don't want to tell others how to live and every other possible variation.

Since its based on a fake entity, there's nothing out there to determine objectively what the "correct" version of Christianity is and the definition of what it means is based solely on the opinions of those who call themselves Christians. As atheists, we have no part in making that definition beyond believing what it is that Christians tell us they are.

 

[Politesse]

And if you think that only the best Christians get to have a say in how Christianity is defined or get to be pointed to as examples of the faith, you're committing the exact same logical fallacy.

I don't agree. Why wouldn't I want to see Christianity live up to it's best ideals, rather than the worst? If I say that Trump has an un-American attitude, I am not questioning his citizenship, nor denying that he and his millions of crazy followers exist. I'm just pointing out the contradiction between his rhetoric and its effects, and the best that America has been at other times in history.

The "correct" form of Christianity, to me, is not defined by numbers, nor by credentials of any sort, rather by internal coherence and the most positive manifestation of its ideals. I feel the same way about other faiths - they should not be judged by the products of political and social malfunction, but by the best things they have offered the world. Complaining about the worst manifestations of a neighboring faith may be satisfying in a petty way, but it only leads to war and mayhem.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And if you think that only the best Christians get to have a say in how Christianity is defined or get to be pointed to as examples of the faith, you're committing the exact same logical fallacy.

I don't agree. Why wouldn't I want to see Christianity live up to it's best ideals, rather than the worst? If I say that Trump has an un-American attitude, I am not questioning his citizenship, nor denying that he and his millions of crazy followers exist. I'm just pointing out the contradiction between his rhetoric and its effects, and the best that America has been at other times in history.

The "correct" form of Christianity, to me, is not defined by numbers, nor by credentials of any sort, rather by internal coherence and the most positive manifestation of its ideals. I feel the same way about other faiths - they should not be judged by the products of political and social malfunction, but by the best things they have offered the world. Complaining about the worst manifestations of a neighboring faith may be satisfying in a petty way, but it only leads to war and mayhem.

And it's fine for you to take that stance and say that this is what Christianity should be. It's also fine for a Muslim to stand up and say that his faith should be a religion of peace.

What's not fine is when you tell other Christians who disagree with you that they're wrong about being part of Christianity. When the Westboro Baptists protest funerals and say that the soldiers being buried died because God is telling America that he hates fags, they are basing their positions on Biblical references, so someone saying that they are not a valid representation of Christianity is incorrect. When parents sit back and let their child die from a treatable disease because their preacher was telling them about the healing power of prayer, someone saying that this is not a valid representation of Christianity is incorrect.

Every one of those people agrees with you that they want to see Christianity live up its best ideals and could all very well see your more liberal definition of the faith as a watering down of the Word of God, which is the worst thing that a "so called" Christian could do to the faith.

I agree with you that it's not about the numbers. If you're the one person on the planet who interprets Christianity in a certain way, your version of Christianity is just as valid as an opposing view agreed to by hundreds of millions. If those hundreds of millions tell that one guy he's wrong, however, they're all just as incorrect as he would be telling them the same thing.

 

[Politesse]

And if you think that only the best Christians get to have a say in how Christianity is defined or get to be pointed to as examples of the faith, you're committing the exact same logical fallacy.

I don't agree. Why wouldn't I want to see Christianity live up to it's best ideals, rather than the worst? If I say that Trump has an un-American attitude, I am not questioning his citizenship, nor denying that he and his millions of crazy followers exist. I'm just pointing out the contradiction between his rhetoric and its effects, and the best that America has been at other times in history.

The "correct" form of Christianity, to me, is not defined by numbers, nor by credentials of any sort, rather by internal coherence and the most positive manifestation of its ideals. I feel the same way about other faiths - they should not be judged by the products of political and social malfunction, but by the best things they have offered the world. Complaining about the worst manifestations of a neighboring faith may be satisfying in a petty way, but it only leads to war and mayhem.

And it's fine for you to take that stance and say that this is what Christianity should be. It's also fine for a Muslim to stand up and say that his faith should be a religion of peace.

What's not fine is when you tell other Christians who disagree with you that they're wrong about being part of Christianity. When the Westboro Baptists protest funerals and say that the soldiers being buried died because God is telling America that he hates fags, they are basing their positions on Biblical references, so someone saying that they are not a valid representation of Christianity is incorrect. When parents sit back and let their child die from a treatable disease because their preacher was telling them about the healing power of prayer, someone saying that this is not a valid representation of Christianity is incorrect.

Every one of those people agrees with you that they want to see Christianity live up its best ideals and could all very well see your more liberal definition of the faith as a watering down of the Word of God, which is the worst thing that a "so called" Christian could do to the faith.

I agree with you that it's not about the numbers. If you're the one person on the planet who interprets Christianity in a certain way, your version of Christianity is just as valid as an opposing view agreed to by hundreds of millions. If those hundreds of millions tell that one guy he's wrong, however, they're all just as incorrect as he would be telling them the same thing.

I don't tell anyone that "they're wrong about being a part of Christianity". I note that in the post you are supposedly responding to, I referred to the Westboro crowd as literally the worst Christians. I didn't say that they weren't Christians. They are, I just think they're bloody awful people, and I don't think their views should be used to make generalizations about the faith.

I do not agree that all interpretations of a perspective should be considered "equally valid" regardless of their objective merits. Should I be allowed to teach a physics class in which Deepak Chopra plays a key role in the explanations, because that's my interpretation and you have no right not to call me a phycisist?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't tell anyone that "they're wrong about being a part of Christianity". I note that in the post you are supposedly responding to, I referred to the Westboro crowd as literally the worst Christians. I didn't say that they weren't Christians. They are, I just think they're bloody awful people, and I don't think their views should be used to make generalizations about the faith.

Right, and they say that they're the best Christians and those with milquetoast, liberal, watered down versions of the faith are the worst Christians.

My point is that you don't have any kind of monopoly over them in defining what the "correct" best ideals of Christianity are. Your generalizations of what the faith should be aren't superior to their generalizations of what the faith should be and anyone who points to either would be correct, since both are just as valid as interpretations of what Christianity is.

 

[Politesse]

I don't tell anyone that "they're wrong about being a part of Christianity". I note that in the post you are supposedly responding to, I referred to the Westboro crowd as literally the worst Christians. I didn't say that they weren't Christians. They are, I just think they're bloody awful people, and I don't think their views should be used to make generalizations about the faith.

Right, and they say that they're the best Christians and those with milquetoast, liberal, watered down versions of the faith are the worst Christians.

My point is that you don't have any kind of monopoly over them in defining what the "correct" best ideals of Christianity are. Your generalizations of what the faith should be aren't superior to their generalizations of what the faith should be and anyone who points to either would be correct, since both are just as valid as interpretations of what Christianity is.

I don't want a "monopoly". When did I ever claim to be the sole authority on anything? I'm a weird, over-educated, mystically inclined Pagan-Christian-Atheist-Taoist abberation, and proud of it.

But I do not think their positions or moral, rational, or "just as good as mine", simply because they exist. Do you practice this extreme form of relativism all the time, or just with religious matters?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't tell anyone that "they're wrong about being a part of Christianity". I note that in the post you are supposedly responding to, I referred to the Westboro crowd as literally the worst Christians. I didn't say that they weren't Christians. They are, I just think they're bloody awful people, and I don't think their views should be used to make generalizations about the faith.

Right, and they say that they're the best Christians and those with milquetoast, liberal, watered down versions of the faith are the worst Christians.

My point is that you don't have any kind of monopoly over them in defining what the "correct" best ideals of Christianity are. Your generalizations of what the faith should be aren't superior to their generalizations of what the faith should be and anyone who points to either would be correct, since both are just as valid as interpretations of what Christianity is.

I don't want a "monopoly". When did I ever claim to be the sole authority on anything? But I do not think their positions or moral, rational, or "just as good as mine", simply because they exist. Do you practice this extreme form of relativism all the time, or just with religious matters?

Dude, you're the one saying we shouldn't listen to these people, not me. They represent Christianity the exact same way that you represent Christianity. When atheists point out "This is what Christians are doing in the name of Christianity", they are correct in saying that.

I'm not saying that they're as moral or as good as you - you're clearly a better person than all of them and your version of Christianity is a ethically superior one to theirs. They do, however, represent what Christianity is just as much as you do and their interpretation of the faith shouldn't be downplayed.

 

[Politesse]

I don't want a "monopoly". When did I ever claim to be the sole authority on anything? But I do not think their positions or moral, rational, or "just as good as mine", simply because they exist. Do you practice this extreme form of relativism all the time, or just with religious matters?

Dude, you're the one saying we shouldn't listen to these people, not me. They represent Christianity the exact same way that you represent Christianity. When atheists point out "This is what Christians are doing in the name of Christianity", they are correct in saying that.

I'm not saying that they're as moral or as good as you - you're clearly a better person than all of them and your version of Christianity is a ethically superior one to theirs. They do, however, represent what Christianity is just as much as you do and their interpretation of the faith shouldn't be downplayed.

Of course it should. They will destroy the entire country given the power to do so. Downplaying their interpretation of the faith is the only safe or rational course. Saying "I think terrorists and monks have equally valid points" is granting legitimacy to people who do very dangerous things with legitimacy when they get it. It is like handing a gun to a crazy person.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Of course it should. They will destroy the entire country given the power to do so. Downplaying their interpretation of the faith is the only safe or rational course. Saying "I think terrorists and monks have equally valid points" is granting legitimacy to people who do very dangerous things with legitimacy when they get it. It is like handing a gun to a crazy person.

And yet, you joined the thread to complain about atheists doing the exact same thing. When pointing out the stupid and immoral shit that Christians are doing in the name of Christianity, the rationale isn't to bitch about how stupid Christians are (that's just a side benefit), it's to shine a light on these more negative interpretations in order to have people more explicitly reject them. It's saying that these are the people being given power and letting them continue will destroy the country.

 

[Politesse]

Of course it should. They will destroy the entire country given the power to do so. Downplaying their interpretation of the faith is the only safe or rational course. Saying "I think terrorists and monks have equally valid points" is granting legitimacy to people who do very dangerous things with legitimacy when they get it. It is like handing a gun to a crazy person.

And yet, you joined the thread to complain about atheists doing the exact same thing. When pointing out the stupid and immoral shit that Christians are doing in the name of Christianity, the rationale isn't to bitch about how stupid Christians are (that's just a side benefit), it's to shine a light on these more negative interpretations in order to have people more explicitly reject them. It's saying that these are the people being given power and letting them continue will destroy the country.

Perhaps so. I don't want to get myself tangled up in a hypocritical corner, certainly, so perhaps it would be best to leave off while I'm still behind. But, I do still think the aim is a little off with "jokes" like these. It has always been my feeling that minority religious groups would do better to support one another, than buy into dichotomies peddled by would-be authoritarian sources.

 

[Lion IRC]

Atheists: If you think your minority liberal tradition should have a say in how Christianity is or is not defined, you are committing a logical fallacy.

Also atheists: *Cherry-picking literally the worst 70 Christians, as well as a few stray Odinists and atheists, and acting as though they are representative of the entire Christian faith*

And if you think that only the best Christians get to have a say in how Christianity is defined or get to be pointed to as examples of the faith, you're committing the exact same logical fallacy.

It's an umbrella term which includes those who burn people alive for witchcraft, those who humbly dedicate themselves to a lifetime of service and charity, those who want a fascist state based on Biblical commandments, those who keep Jesus in their own hearts and don't want to tell others how to live and every other possible variation.

Since its based on a fake entity, there's nothing out there to determine objectively what the "correct" version of Christianity is and the definition of what it means is based solely on the opinions of those who call themselves Christians. As atheists, we have no part in making that definition beyond believing what it is that Christians tell us they are.

I think you're being unfair to Politesse.

Your "umbrella" claim - the opposite of what Politesse is saying - is that all self-professed Christians have an equal entitlement to make whatever claims they wish about Christianity and that none are more or less correct in their doctrine.

You're effectively saying that the words heresy and orthodoxy are redundant.

...in that case, atheism is a religion, Intelligent Design is science, Pluto is a planet, bats are birds

 

[Sarpedon]

No, all they are saying that one false statement is more or less equivalent to another false statement.

 

[remez]

The article opens with a 'preachy' tee shirt that emphatically declares "There is no God"

And you wanna whine about the sceptical questions that sort of brute fact claim provokes?
LOL

I notice that yet again, you carefully avoid addressing any actual arguments in the article.

It's almost as if you have no valid counterarguments or rebuttals to offer, and hope that complaining about the tone will count as a counterargument.

I'll take a shot at your challenge......... from the article.......

Every marginalized group has some question, or questions, that are routinely asked of them

That lead to their first…concern…

1: “How can you be moral without believing in God?”

I have been a Christian for a long time. And I have seen this straw man numerous times. The question is “Can you be good without God?”

It has nothing to do with belief. It’s a deeper philosophical question exploring the existence of an objective morality.

It does not single out atheists. It’s a question leveled at everyone's worldview assessment of morality. There is no assumption that atheists are immoral without belief or that Christians are moral b/c of their belief. To write an article crying victim hood on these false assumptions is childish.

It’s a question challenging the existence of objective morality without God? Think about it. If objective moral values and duties do not exist then God does not exist. So not by belief, but by reason I ask you directly …………… Do objective moral values and duties exist if God does not exist?

So here is the rest of their straw man 1 parsed…………..

1: “How can you be moral without believing in God?”

The answer: Atheists are moral for the same reasons believers are moral:

I agree with the conclusion there but disagree with……………

because we have compassion, and a sense of justice.

….the poorly reasoned cause. Here was the reasoning to that............

Humans are social animals, and like other social animals, we evolved with some core moral values wired into our brains: caring about fairness, caring about loyalty, caring when others are harmed.

If you’re a religious believer, and you don’t believe these are the same reasons that believers are moral, ask yourself this: If I could persuade you today, with 100% certainty, that there were no gods and no afterlife… would you suddenly start stealing and murdering and setting fire to buildings?

That reasoning leads nowhere......observe........If I could persuade you today, with 100% certainty, that evolution were false. Would you suddenly start stealing and murdering and setting fire to buildings? And if not — why not? If you wouldn’t… whatever it is that would keep you from doing those things, that’s the same thing keeping Christians from doing them. (And if you would — remind me not to move in next door to you.)


Further ……even though God exists that does not stop Christians from sinning.

And ask yourself this as well: If you accept some parts of your holy book and reject others — on what basis are you doing that? Whatever part of you says that stoning adulterers is wrong but helping poor people is good; that planting different crops in the same field is a non-issue but bearing false witness actually is pretty messed-up; that slavery is terrible but it’s a great idea to love your neighbor as yourself… that’s the same thing telling atheists what’s right and wrong.

Categorical fallacy. You’re conflating morality and legality throughout your discourse there. Adulterers are still immoral. We just don’t legally stone them anymore. Their Biblical understanding is lacking maturity. That would be like me trying to convince you that evolution can’t be true because there are still monkeys around. The reasoning is an over simplistic straw man of Christianity and I find that offensive to reasoning.

 

[Lion IRC]

^^^What remez wrote^^^

How can you be moral without believing in God? This certainly is a straw argument / false dilemma because the bible itself says you can be moral - not because of what you call yourself (atheist, Hindu, Wiccan,) - but by virtue of the fact that you are made in God's likeness with the ability (and free will) to know that there IS such a thing as morality, right and wrong, sin and forgiveness, love and the opposite of love.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It has nothing to do with belief. It’s a deeper philosophical question exploring the existence of an objective morality.

It does not single out atheists. It’s a question leveled at everyone's worldview assessment of morality. There is no assumption that atheists are immoral without belief or that Christians are moral b/c of their belief.

Psalm 14:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Do you read your Bible?

 

[remez]

It has nothing to do with belief. It’s a deeper philosophical question exploring the existence of an objective morality.

It does not single out atheists. It’s a question leveled at everyone's worldview assessment of morality. There is no assumption that atheists are immoral without belief or that Christians are moral b/c of their belief.

Psalm 14:

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Do you read your Bible?

As I see it you overtly double cherry picked both of your quotes to force that myopic contradiction. But I’ll give you a chance to show me that you can actually match up the context of my point addressing Greta’s straw man to David’s complete context in Psalm 14. So please make your case and be mindful that Socrates wasn’t an elephant.

 

[DBT]

The bible contradicts its own moral code.

 

[remez]

The bible contradicts its own moral code.

Atheists contradict reasoning.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Psalm 14:



Do you read your Bible?

As I see it you overtly double cherry picked both of your quotes to force that myopic contradiction. But I’ll give you a chance to show me that you can actually match up the context of my point addressing Greta’s straw man to David’s complete context in Psalm 14. So please make your case and be mindful that Socrates wasn’t an elephant.

"Cherry picked". So how am I cherry picking if the Bible verse specifically mentions those who do not believe in God are vile and corrupt?