The absurdity of atheism

[Mike_from_NJ]

That’s because atheists don’t think about it, or try not to. This is why atheism only tends to work well among young, healthy, wealthy people who live in a free country at a time of peace. Take away any of those things and life becomes a lot harder to cope with. Unless you’re religious… somehow the belief in a perfectly just God and an afterlife tends to give people hope that they wouldn’t otherwise have. In the meantime many western atheists are spending their lives bingewatching netflix and browsing the web in order to distract themselves of how short life is and how it will all be over soon.

You may want to check out this story I saw a few days ago. It’s about a woman who passed away from cancer and her final message to her friends. It shows an amazing strength and a very real love, attributes that are much harder to come by than hope and is far more courageous than falling back on the idea of a fanciful second life.

About five months ago I attended a funeral of a woman who died of cancer at the age of 31. I recall that she was a Catholic and on her deathbed she had no fear of death. She was very joyful and had every confidence that she would be in heaven. In fact the second to last thing that she said as she was dying was that she could see the Virgin Mary.

Would it be fair to say that there have been those who in their dying minutes have seen visions of things that both you and I would say are not true?

I have decided that even if atheism and materialism were true, I would rather be religious, because to be honest religious people come out ahead in the end. If atheism is true, then yes the atheist knows the truth, but what good does it do them? I’d rather die a fool with hope than live a wise man with none.

If that is your wish. I only hope that I can be half as brave as Heather McManamy, the woman in the article I linked to above.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d rather die a fool with hope than live a wise man with none.

Ah, no, CSG.

Hope doesn’t trump everything.

Truth does. Truth with love.

 

[PRmerger]

So you don’t think that we’re an accident of natural processes?

No, I think we were created out of sheer love. By God. For God. In order for union with God.

About half of Americans think we’re here because we were especially created a few thousand years ago. You can’t really say that Christians don’t believe that.

Well, since you’re on a Catholic forum, Brad, think Catholic teaching. You need to refute Catholicism, not what you think Catholicism is…and certainly not what Catholicism isn’t.

Otherwise, we join you in refuting those folks who espouse the 6000 year old earth nonsense.

O, what fun it would be to be on Team Bradski!

 

[Rohzek]

That’s because atheists don’t think about it, or try not to. This is why atheism only tends to work well among young, healthy, wealthy people who live in a free country at a time of peace. Take away any of those things and life becomes a lot harder to cope with. Unless you’re religious… somehow the belief in a perfectly just God and an afterlife tends to give people hope that they wouldn’t otherwise have. In the meantime many western atheists are spending their lives bingewatching netflix and browsing the web in order to distract themselves of how short life is and how it will all be over soon.

About five months ago I attended a funeral of a woman who died of cancer at the age of 31. I recall that she was a Catholic and on her deathbed she had no fear of death. She was very joyful and had every confidence that she would be in heaven. In fact the second to last thing that she said as she was dying was that she could see the Virgin Mary.
I have decided that even if atheism and materialism were true, I would rather be religious, because to be honest religious people come out ahead in the end. If atheism is true, then yes the atheist knows the truth, but what good does it do them? I’d rather die a fool with hope than live a wise man with none.

Sociological studies show that being old does not cause religious feelings or beliefs. It tends to be much more closely linked to how the person felt towards religion at a younger age. They don’t just change their minds when they get near the deathbed.

Chances are, when my generation ages, we will still have the same percentage of religious and atheist people, just as it will be for Gen-X, and has been for the Baby Boomers, the Greatest Generation, the Silent Generation, and the Lost Generation.

 

[PRmerger]

Sociological studies show that being old does not cause religious feelings or beliefs. It tends to be much more closely linked to how the person felt towards religion at a younger age. They don’t just change their minds when they get near the deathbed.

I am interested in the studies which show that people don’t change their minds when they get near the deathbed.

Can you please cite your references?

 

[Bradski]

That’s because atheists don’t think about it…This is why atheism only tends to work well among young, healthy, wealthy people who live in a free country at a time of peace… In the meantime many western atheists are spending their lives bingewatching netflix and browsing the web in order to distract themselves of how short life is and how it will all be over soon.

Gracious. What a lot of young, healthy, wealthy, peaceful, web browsing, binge watching
atheists you must know.

Did you know that over 20% of women have suffered domestic violence. That over 60% of American men watch porn regularly. That 21% of pregnancies result in abortion. That 30% use Netflix. That nearly 70% of families watch TV when having dinner. That 50% of marriages end in divorce. That over 80% of people have premarital sex. That over 90% use contraception. Atheists comprise about 4% of the population.

While we’re browsing the web and trying not to think about the futility of it all, what in heaven’s name is everyone else doing?

 

[Rohzek]

I am interested in the studies which show that people don’t change their minds when they get near the deathbed.

Can you please cite your references?

One is George Vaillant’s Aging Well. I’m sure there are others, but this one comes to me first. It’s been a while since I last dabbled in gerontology.

 

[PRmerger]

One is George Vaillant’s Aging Well. I’m sure there are others, but this one comes to me first.

Do you have the study?

Aging Well is a book.

 

[Rohzek]

Do you have the study?

Aging Well is a book.

The study is the book… What exactly are you asking of me?

 

[PRmerger]

The study is the book… What exactly are you asking of me?

I am asking you to back up your claim that there are studies (plural) which demonstrate people “don’t just change their minds when they get near the deathbed.”

 

[Rohzek]

I am asking you to back up your claim that there are studies (plural) which demonstrate people “don’t just change their minds when they get near the deathbed.”

And I provided you a study, which is a book… Do you know what to do with the citation? You look it up via your local library.

 

[PRmerger]

And I provided you a study, which is a book…

Any others?

 

[Rohzek]

Any others?

Like I said in my original post, not off hand. Read what I provided, and if it isn’t suitable or convincing for you for one or more reasons, then please get back to me. Then I would be more than happy to try to find others. Like I said also, it’s been a long time since I dabbled in gerontology, so my mind isn’t as fresh on this particularly subject as it used to be.

 

[PRmerger]

Like I said in my original post, not off hand.

Then you won’t deny us this sentiment: we shouldn’t believe what you posted, yes?

 

[Rohzek]

Then you won’t deny us this sentiment: we shouldn’t believe what you posted, yes?

Actually I will deny you the sentiment unless you can provide a detailed reason as to why one of the most long-term and well-documented sociological studies in the history of gerontology is somehow severely flawed or at least unconvincing in this aspect. I have a funny feeling due to your tone that even if I provided another citation, you would still be hostile because I burst your precious bubble of preconceived notions with a scientific study. If you can’t meet this rather simple standard, then I suggest recourse to Hume’s advice in similar circumstances: that you cast your ideas to the flames. The fact that you are not even willing to read what I provided speaks volumes of your motivations for even asking.

If you don’t want to believe me, that’s fine. Let the record stand though that I provided far more evidence thus far than you did for your position. So who should I believe? Some dude on the net who gives a personal story, or a metastudy of a cohort of people from their teens to their old age carried out by a professional academic?

 

[PRmerger]

Actually I will deny you the sentiment unless you can provide a detailed reason as to why one of the most long-term and well-documented sociological studies in the history of gerontology is somehow severely flawed or at least unconvincing in this aspect. I have a funny feeling due to your tone that even if I provided another citation, you would still be hostile because I burst your precious bubble of preconceived notions with a scientific study. If you can’t meet this rather simple standard, then I suggest recourse to Hume’s advice in similar circumstances: that you cast your ideas to the flames. The fact that you are not even willing to read what I provided speaks volumes of your motivations for even asking.

If you don’t want to believe me, that’s fine. Let the record stand though that I provided far more evidence thus far than you did for your position. So who should I believe? Some dude on the net who gives a personal story, or a metastudy of a cohort of people from their teens to their old age carried out by a professional academic?

So you can see why I have a great deal of skepticism with regard to your posts.

Bolded #1 and Bolded #2 violate the principle of non-contradiction.

Both A and Not-A cannot both be true.

You deny me the sentiment or you permit me the sentiment.

You can’t say both, (especially in the same post!) and expect me to take this seriously.

At any rate, I really have no investment in this tributary.

Suffice it to say that you stated that there were studies that support your assertion.

You cited one, and it is doubtful that it even addressed death bed conversions.

NB: no need to feverishly search the internet now to find some ostensible studies which support your assertion.

My point has been made.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You may want to check out this story I saw a few days ago. It’s about a woman who passed away from cancer and her final message to her friends. It shows an amazing strength and a very real love, attributes that are much harder to come by than hope and is far more courageous than falling back on the idea of a fanciful second life.

Except that CSG claimed that “life becomes much harder to cope with” when hope is taken away. He never denied other attributes are also required. However, this young woman is not coping with life, she is facing death. That is a different question. Is death also harder to cope with when hope is removed? Sure. But that does not deny that courage, strength and love (and faith) are required above all.

That’s because atheists don’t think about it, or try not to. This is why atheism only tends to work well among young, healthy, wealthy people who live in a free country at a time of peace. Take away any of those things and life becomes a lot harder to cope with. Unless you’re religious… somehow the belief in a perfectly just God and an afterlife tends to give people hope that they wouldn’t otherwise have. In the meantime many western atheists are spending their lives bingewatching netflix and browsing the web in order to distract themselves of how short life is and how it will all be over soon.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Except that CSG claimed that “life becomes much harder to cope with” when hope is taken away. He never denied other attributes are also required. However, this young woman is not coping with life, she is facing death. That is a different question. Is death also harder to cope with when hope is removed? Sure. But that does not deny that courage, strength and love (and faith) are required above all.That’s because atheists don’t think about it, or try not to. This is why atheism only tends to work well among young, healthy, wealthy people who live in a free country at a time of peace. Take away any of those things and life becomes a lot harder to cope with. Unless you’re religious… somehow the belief in a perfectly just God and an afterlife tends to give people hope that they wouldn’t otherwise have. In the meantime many western atheists are spending their lives bingewatching netflix and browsing the web in order to distract themselves of how short life is and how it will all be over soon.

I totally agree. I wonder what the numbers are? I would say most atheists are relatively young, healthy and worry-free. They think they are basically immortal. I remember those days in my own life. An old atheist is a bitter person (usually), more mad at God than disbelieving in God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

An old atheist is a bitter person (usually), more mad at God than disbelieving in God.

If a person believes there is a God then the person isn’t an atheist. There are terms for people that believe there is a God that also have certain attitudes towards that God. The one that seems to match what younare describing is “misotheist” from μσος (hatred) θεός (god). There is also dytheism, which is the belief that God is not wholey good.

Pardon my mistakes, sent from a mobile device.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If a person believes there is a God then the person isn’t an atheist. There are terms for people that believe there is a God that also have certain attitudes towards that God. The one that seems to match what younare describing is “misotheist” from μσος (hatred) θεός (god). There is also dytheism, which is the belief that God is not wholey good.

Pardon my mistakes, sent from a mobile device.

I agree with you, but some people claim they are atheists, when they really aren’t.