Why are atheists so unhappy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RNRobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charles_Darwin said:
A cell is a billion years on. RNA is not made up of the 100 elements. The ironic thing is one of us actually does believe life just “poped” into existence.

Is there really any point in discussing the science with you when its clear you don’t have even a basic understanding of the subject? I might as well go and discuss star formation with my dog.
Click to expand...
“DNA is a nucleic acid that stores the cell’s genetic information in the form of a strand, consisting of sequences of the nitrogenous bases A,G,C,T. Even for a very very small DNA strand of 100 bases - much much smaller than we find in any actual cell - the odds against getting a particular lucky combination is staggering, 4 to the power of 100 to one against. We can see the difference quite clearly between the actual probability and Dawkins’ super-optimistic odds. Dawkins believes that the odds against a propitious string of DNA arising by chance are 1 000 000 000 to one. But when we do the actual calculations we find that the odds against it are a bit over 1 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one.”

p.s. Do you believe in a multiverse as opposed to a universe?
 
SHW said:
Here also in the USA, except for the Latinos, who are having their children born here as soon as they can get over the border.

Charles Darwin prefers atheists as friends. I wonder if they are all as “unhappy” as he is? 😃

Atheists aren’t sure where they came from except to say “stardust,” don’t know for what purpose they are here on earth, and think that they will return to dust after they die and that’s the end. I’d be unhappy, too, if that is what I believed. “From nothing back to nothing.” That is why a lot of them think, “Let us eat and drink (and whatever other earthly pleasures they desire), for tomorrow we die.” (1 Corinthians 15:31-33)

I was a friend to an atheist at one time, but since our values were not the same, the friendship could not be sustained. He was an unhappy atheist, but he was not willing to believe in God because he was not willing to relinquish “control” over his own life to a God who would censor his actions. :rotfl: Like he has “control” over whether he even gets to take his next breath! Not!
Click to expand...
LOL. It seems that you find value from myth and dogma, and hey thats fine. I on the other hand would prefer to know the real answers to the questions of origins.

Let me tell you, when you actually do understand the REAL it frees your mind. What you dont realise in actual fact you have NO answers. “god did it” is NOT an answer, “god did it” is the EXACT same as i don’t know, HOW DID god DO IT???

Tell me, now that we know the sunsets are caused by the refraction of light on the earth atmosphere, and not by a sun god, does that make them any less beautiful? Just because i know the real explanations behind the origins of life, it doesn’t make is anyless special. In fact it makes it infinity more special, for i don’t believe this is just a stepping stone to the after life, where you believe the real fun begins.

I suggest you educate yourself and stop revelling in your own ignorance.
 
SHW said:
“Evidence” is evident. Only “God” or “like God” can create the original materials that are needed in order to make the Big Bang possible. The Big Bang, if correct theory, had to have the necessary “components” present in order to “explode” in a Big Bang and as a consequence birth stars. If the Big Bang theory is not correct, then the universe still had a beginning out of “nothing.” Someone created the original components. They did not create themselves.

This is elementary “science.” It takes “something” plus “something” or else something minus something in order to make a new “something(s).” Christians and Jews and Muslims believe that “God” created the “something(s)” that were necessary in order for us to be able to exist.

Only magicians and perhaps atheists can pull “live” rabbits out of “empty” hats. 😃
Click to expand...
Out of nothing? Really, i suggest you get up to date with science. We now know that spacetime breaks down under extreme gravity and quantum mechanics kicks in. Quantum mechanics** does not** evolve around nothing.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
It doqesn’t matter? I take it you totally misunderstood my post?
Click to expand...
I understood it perfectly. 😁
You still didn’t answer my question: Why does it matter whether society thrives or fails? Why does it matter if the human race continues or becomes extinct?
 
Atheists are no unhappy. If one thinks someone is unhappy, they are only projecting themselves on the other person.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Well given that you seem so fond of the nazis. Why did the christain nation of germany support Hitler?
Click to expand...
Because many supported MORAL RELATIVISM and EUGENICS (science played a big part in Nazi ideology). Furthermore, Germany did not support Hitler so much as underestimate how evil and totalitarian he really was. He manipulated the government, the people, and staged events to grab power. I don’t think the German people were aware of how far he was willing to go in terms of putting into practice his ideals (moral or otherwise).
Nope, society has to have a balancing point that keeps it stable, or else it will destroy itself. The ones that has the better balances, more successfully propagated. The societies in which there was moral choas would die off, leaving us with what seemed like moral guidlines. However one only need look at the development of morals over the last 100 years, let alone the last 2000, and it is blatantly obvious that morals within society change.
Click to expand...
No morals do not change but societies do (you confuse morals with mores) as they learn to recognize what is good and bad. Virtues like freedom, justice, sharing, honesty could not have popped up at one point in time as no society could exist without them. Those societies that so chose to be immoral died out because they refused to live according to the moral law.
In fact if you think they don’t, name me one modern society with the same moral code of 100 years ago? If it was up to people like you we would still be stoning homosexuals, how “moral”.
Click to expand...
Morals are absolute and people who do not see this are the cause of why there is so much strife in the world (and cause variations in morals because of their moral relativism). Moreover who are you to judge the morals of a society with our own when you yourself state that morals are relative? And you cannot state that morals “progress” if morals are relative because you then contradict yourself and imply that there are moral absolutes (for progression will eventually bring on perfection, i.e., moral absolutes).

p.s. If morals progress then why did we have the worst atrocities committed by man in the post enligthened era?
 
josie_L said:
I’m not saying that there are no exceptions to the rules, the priests who judged each case uniquely were allowed to I would assume on the basis of mercy (as they were expected to be by God) to grant, depending on the situation, a different outcome than that prescribed by the law.

And even If the rapist should support the woman he raped financially, it would still leave the matter unsettled in that she would remain unmarried, and moreover, unprotected once her parents died (a woman was not allowed to live alone in Jewish society). You are seeing this in modern terms and as such miss the nuances that make it hard for you to understand why this law was prescribed (without seeing that mercy was always at the fore when considering each case).

And furthermore, God was not encouraging anything as He made the laws quite clear for it was a dastardly in the eyes of the Jewish to make what is pure impure (whether directly or indirectly).
Click to expand...
Oh so society has morally progressed?

You don’t think god has encouraging rape? Do you really want to go there?
 
josie_L said:
“DNA is a nucleic acid that stores the cell’s genetic information in the form of a strand, consisting of sequences of the nitrogenous bases A,G,C,T. Even for a very very small DNA strand of 100 bases - much much smaller than we find in any actual cell - the odds against getting a particular lucky combination is staggering, 4 to the power of 100 to one against. We can see the difference quite clearly between the actual probability and Dawkins’ super-optimistic odds. Dawkins believes that the odds against a propitious string of DNA arising by chance are 1 000 000 000 to one. But when we do the actual calculations we find that the odds against it are a bit over 1 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to one.”

p.s. Do you believe in a multiverse as opposed to a universe?
Click to expand...
A basic understanding of stats would help you out on this one, stats do not work in reverse… I cant be bothered with the typing here…

youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrT

Really why is it that every objection you have can be answered at high school level. In the nicest possible why, do you have any sort of eduction?
 
josie_L said:
p.s. If morals progress then why did we have the worst atrocities committed by man in the post enligthened era?
Click to expand...
Becuase modern weapons give individual more power. Its not rocket science?

Ok lets go a question at a time.

Why did christains, ESPECIALLY in your country opress coloureds for 1950 years after christ???
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Ok lets go a question at a time.

Why did christains, ESPECIALLY in your country opress coloureds for 1950 years after christ???
Click to expand...
Why do you consider discrimination of other races (or the stoning of homosexuals, or rape) morally wrong?
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Becuase modern weapons give individual more power. Its not rocket science?

Ok lets go a question at a time.

Why did christains, ESPECIALLY in your country opress coloureds for 1950 years after christ???
Click to expand...
Sorry Darwin, but Communism and Nazism (although Nazis were socialists) were world views that were exercised long before the advent of WMDs (and other modern weapons of war).

p.s. Rn Robert asked you a question which I believe you should answer (before I attempt to answer yours).
 
The tread is so long =). I just wanted to randomly drop my own thoughts.

I’m a Catholic, a learning one at that still. I’m also in love with science and math. When I talk to people I love to use multidimensional fields and allude to crazy spaces to describe myself. So I’m not an idiot nor do I not think. I’m also very perceptive of myself in terms of my functionality, emotions, and anatomy. I have to be or else I’ll go crazy with confusion because there are lots of things in my head which I will not get into here. So I’m not blind nor am I not open minded. Well that does not clearly prove it, but spend time chatting with me about any random topic in existence that at least one of us has a clue about then you’ll see a bright, inquisitive, and mature mind sitting next to you.

Given that, one man’s story is not enough as any evidence. Yet luckily there are plenty of others too, like GK Chesterton (probably one of those greatest thinking in the 20th century), Msgr. Georges Lemaître, S.J. (the physicist that developed the what is now known as big bang theory), Mozart and Haydn (two of the most wonderful composers in history), St. Thomas More (a renowned lawyer and statesmen), John Dryden (an influential poet), J. R. R Tolkien (pretty much the source of modern western mmo’s due to his creation of the middle earth fantasies), and so so many more in all walks of life that is not contradictory to the Catholic faith. Things like famous satanist or famous atheists don’t really apply if you have to get nitty gritty. Some famous atheists though converted to Catholicism.

In addition to people, Catholics created the scientific method, university systems, and are the source of if not most then a vast majority of the philosophical and intellectual thinking methods available to atheists.

Basically, if anyone says being Catholic requires you to be closed minded and must not think on the deepest levels, they are really insulting themselves for using arguments and thought processes developed by tens of thousands of Catholic thinkers through out the ages.
 
Why is empathy a good thing, you’re the one that said morals are relativistic? Maybe empathy will be considered bad one day (by a society very relativistic about morals).
Click to expand...
You know, I think you’re really just nitpicking here at this point. Everyone who doesn’t have mental problems knows the difference between right and wrong, it’s called having a concience.
 
While I am here, I would like to remind atheists that there are many many different ways of initially finding God. While you can see God’s mighty works out there in space, on earth, and in the sea, what worked for some people in finding God does not work for others. For some it is a deep look inside that will let you know God exists. Remember, God is not a zillion pieces that is everywhere. But since God created everything that is good and permitted everything on this earth for a greater good, our limited minds can use things in creation to get a feel for who God is, effectively finding his signature on everything that is good.

So if you are an atheists that has been searching for God to see if he’s really real, try searching with your mind by examining beautiful and wondering things. If that does not work, try searching with your heart.

I find God’s signature over and over in people’s stories as well as in the marvelous complexity of a wooden table. Have you ever zoomed in 10^30th time? And zoom out 10^30th time? Have you pondered the amazing complexity of matter as you zoom in and out with your mind through the macroscopic level, into the microscopic level, into the molecular level, into the atomic level, into the subatomic level, into the nuclear level, into the quantum dynamic level (oh it’s so pretty and so trippy here), into the point where matter’s existence at that zoomed in level (I’m guessing 10^-22 mm) looks like a creepy gooey mixture vibrating at greater than 10^15 repetitions per second, to the separation of the gooey mixture where matter no longer exists as we know it but is mere energy, to the possible strings (though we may represent them as strings – they can look quite different)? Now zoom the other direction towards bigger and bigger images. If this beauty does not captivate you and make you so grateful for it’s existence, you have much to think about in my humble opinion. :eek:
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Empathy??? :banghead::banghead:
Click to expand...
How do you prove empathy scientifically? How are those things wrong from a scientific point of view?

Suppose (for the sake of argument) I thought that people who were not of my race should be enslaved or treated as second class citizens, that homosexuals should be put to death and that it was morally okay to rape women as long as I married them. Suppose you told me those things were wrong. Suppose I responded by asking “Who are YOU to impose YOUR morals on ME?”
 
j1akey said:
You know, I think you’re really just nitpicking here at this point. Everyone who doesn’t have mental problems knows the difference between right and wrong, it’s called having a concience.
Click to expand...
I’ll ask you the same thing I just asked CD. If you see somebody doing something YOU consider wrong but THEY consider right, who are YOU to impose their morals on them? Slaveowners had no qualms in their conscience about owning slaves; Nazis had a perfectly good conscience when it came to exterminating Jews; homophobes have a clear conscience when killing homosexuals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top