Following the discussions about the FFRF’s atheist sign (see here, for instance), I just want to ask any readers of this blog the following: which of these two fictional signs (imagine them being shown to thousands, in a public place) is more “offensive”?
Sign A:
There is a God.
Sign B:
There is no God.
I’ll expand on this in the next post, naturally, but, first, I’d just like to have your answers, and, if possible, your reasoning for that answer – whether you’re an atheist or not.
Add to:
No related posts.
Subscribe to this blog
I’m an atheist, and I find A offensive, but not because it offends my atheism. Rather, it’s offensive because it represents the abusive, dominating majority asserting their abusive dominance and trying to quash any opposition.
B is necessary as a way of demonstrating that opposition exists.
Neither are offensive. Both statements offend me just as much as someone saying there is/isn’t a Santa Clause, or Zeus, or any other thousands of other fairy tale characters and creatures.
About FFRF’s sign, I don’t think that they should have put it up. And I don’t think there should be a nativity scene next to it. In fact, all the displays need to be kept out, period. I’m all for our public buildings having a sterile feel and look to them. Post the Declaration of Independence on the wall. Put up portraits of Presidents (Buddha knows most American’s have no idea who the 23rd, 32nd, or 6th President was). It’s a State House, so decorate it with State-y things, but leave all the religious BS out, and back at the church house on private property.
If one were to define offensive speech as words that are untrue, false or lies, then:
Sign A is offensive because there is no evidence for a god (or gods) so the statement is false.
Sign B is offensive because we cannot prove a negative, therefore, the statement is false.
Conclusion: Both are offensive.
The following is NOT offensive based on my definition above:
It is highly improbable that 1 or more gods exist.
For me, the content of either sign is not offensive, but can become so with context.
Go to the scene of a horrific natural disaster and erect a sign declaring, “There is a God” in the midst of the suffering victims, and I’d probably find it offensive.
Go to a church and slap a bumper sticker on the front door that reads, “There is no God,” and I’d find that offensive as well.
Context counts.
Neither statement on its own is offensive.
Neither has any particular relevance without some supporting evidence.
It is easier to accept B in the face of 4000+ years of A’s irrational fervour and complete absence of meaningful evidence.
He asked which is more offensive, not just which is offensive … Also, why are some people trying to measure offence objectively, when it cannot be measured that way? Offence is highly cultural and personal, and as Quester says, contextual.
‘There is a God’ is mildly offensive to me (and more so the longer I think about it), as it disagrees with common sense, all of the the evidence I am aware of, and it has never been proven. And it comes with all of the implied baggage that we are not masters of our own destiny but in-fact merely the play-thing of some super-being, who really likes to treat people like shit, or at best, actively turns a blind eye when they are. ‘There is no God’ I simply agree with, so personally I find no offence in it whatsoever.
So therefore I find the first more offensive.
“It is highly improbable that 1 or more gods exist.” is probably not materially more or less offensive to a deist than simply saying “There is no God” – it will amount – quite reasonably I suggest – to the same thing in their mind. It just sounds sillier. I personally find it more offensive than just saying “There is no God” – as I see it being full of weasel words for the purpose of political correctness – an overt if misguided attempt to avoid any offence. Or at best pedantry. Of course others might be more offended by the logical fallacy of saying “There is no God”, but I am quite happy to forego the nit-picking and get on with my life – and the burden of proof is on the positive side of the statement anyway, and the ‘default position’ is that there is no god.
To be honest I find it strange that some commmenters so far are driving some ‘intellectual high road’ and giving equal weight to both statements. It is not just a bunch of words put together in a sentence to be analysed using logic. Saying “God exists” means a lot more than those 2 words by themselves (depending on how you define ‘God’ – although presumably in this case it is the proper-noun `God’ of the `Abrahamic God of the desert’). Even if you cannot sanction the use of invalid logic, `A’ would surely be more offensive to anyone who calls themselves an atheist for similar reasons that `B’ would be more offensive to all deists, as it directly contradicts their own stance on the issue. And furthermore, `A’ is the statement which has the burden of proof. i.e. it is a strong logical assertion which has never been proven, whereas `B’ is merely an invalid one.
I would think even ‘There is no proof of God.’ or ‘God is unproven.’ would be quite offensive to Christians, Jews or Muslims, even if there are logically sound statements.
I don’t think either are offensive, but one of them is false.
In my daily life I rarely think in terms of gods. I don’t for example sit around and ponder whether or not there is a god any more than I ponder whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow. On occasion I will catch a news story about people killing in the name of god, or see a sign damning nonbelievers, or my favorite “my boss is a jewish carpenter” bumper sticker and wonder how people can believe in gods. I don’t believe I have ever met a jewish carpenter although I am sure that one of those exists. On the other hand, I am sure the god of the bible does not exist. I think we can safely say there is no god as gods have been defined by people but why should I be offended by someone else professing belief in a god. They are fools and I don’t care.
If someone says there is no god I must agree that I think the same thing. I take no offense. It seems funny to me that many people who consider themselves atheists are so anti-god and preoccupied with trying to spread non-belief. Why waste your time arguing about something so pointless. It is like standing in the sunshine of the desert on a clear day and arguing that it is not raining. It is obviously not raining the same way it is obvious that there is no god doing the things he is supposed to be doing according to the holy books. But as the existence of god is as obvious to them as the non-existence is to me. Some people like kiwi and some people don’t, but let’s not be offended, as long as they eat their kiwi in the privacy of their own homes.
What does offend me is people standing on the corner shaking a bible at me and yelling all sorts of nonsense as I sit at a red light. Now that offends me. I wouldn’t ever waste my time shaking the Origin of the Species at people next to the church parking lot.
Other signs that would not offend me:
There are no wizards
There are no witches (as people define them…although I know people who think they are witches)
Everyone believes in something, even atheists
Aliens exist
Those “My god is a Jewish carpenter” stickers strike me as so odd. It would take up too much room on a car bumper, but the sign should read something like, “My god is the son of a young woman who was married at the time to a Jewish carpenter, who was much older than she.”
[...] Archives « Which is more “offensive”? [...]