Why are atheists so unhappy?

[Akheron]

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.

It may seem so to you but have you considered that other people may get a different perception?

But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?.. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Your argument against God was that the world was unjust? The world is unjust, therefore God cannot exist? Why? Couldn’t God have created an unjust universe?

If there was no light in the universe and all there was was darkness, you would have no need of “discovering” a opposite concept to darkness in order to understand darkness. You would be surrounded by it everywhere. You could call darkness “matter” for instance and say there all there is is matter and it would work just as well.

Another Quote from proof that God exists.org

you should see the favorite quotes section.
very informative.

Oh, I am sorry, I thought I was reading your own thoughts.

 

[RNRobert]

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?.. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Another Quote from proof that God exists.org

you should see the favorite quotes section.
very informative.

This particular quote is from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

 

[StillWondering]

It seems like we are having a definition problem.

I do believe there are things never possible to be done, that is absolute. It is complicated but clear.

Example: If I believe I can do something that is objectionable, insulting, or against God and I do it, I have committed a mortal sin. It does not matter what this is. This is a sin against God by going directly against what I know to be for God.

Example: Taking a life unjustly, without regard to life, and ignoring the value of the life is sinful. Simple as that. Notice all the qualifiers; this is because words are inadequate to describe situations as just “kill” as someone has claimed. My answer that was not fully read includes qualifiers.

Let me explain why having qualifiers do not diminishing the “absolute”-ness of this. Imagine I say 1 + 1 = 2. It’s common knowledge right? Well it’s common for us because, by convention, we are speaking within the decimal system. If we were speaking in binary, it’s 1= 1 = 10. Well, both statements are true at the same time but it depends on the context. The sum of 1 + 1 are manifested differently in different number systems.

I hope this is clear now. If there is someone not understood, let me know. If there is error, let me know. If what I said here is ignored, in part or in whole, I would not think it is any use for me to continue to discuss here.

 

[Angel7]

God exist whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable to such a God.
Robert A. Laidlaw

This is true isn’t it? If G-d does exist (which he does) we would have to be accountable to him for everything, wether we knew him or not.

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
Heywood Broun

again true.

 

[Angel7]

proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

Again, I recommend people struggling with the acknowledgement of G-d, to answer the questions on the sight to the best of their ability, gives a total new perspective occurding to rationality, and Logic. Should be fun.

 

[Angel7]

again like I said, it is an Absolute Moral Law.

Think of violence and fighting back as a -7 on the number line like i said before.
WE are 0 at neutral point.
Say your the head of your family.
A heavily drunk man stumbles out of the Bar( you can tell he is drunk) and starts threatening you and your family. But shows no signs of doing so.
this would be onyl threats, thus it would be like a -3.
If you were to punch the man across the face, that would be wrong.

This is 1 analagy.

2nd concept.

You are a cop.
There is a bank robbery.
The Robber gets away and is hiding in the brush.
You are the only one in the area, and you search for him.
You find him, he is pointing a gun at your face.
If you did not pull out your own gun in self-defense, and stop him from taking the money, he would propably kill you.

You (Potentially) killing someone else is still a -7
However. the evil this man is commiting, (robbery, attempting to murder you, fleeing from justice, etc…) is lower -14. You would have the right to defend your right to live.

Absolute Moral truths, Are Absolute ALWAYS.

Murder in america is Murder everywhere else.
Moral truths are not individual (its true for you, but not for me, kinda thinking) but universal (they apply everywhere)

 

[RNRobert]

This is true isn’t it? If G-d does exist (which he does) we would have to be accountable to him for everything, wether we knew him or not.

This reminds me of when I briefly dabbled in tarot cards some 20 years ago. My buddy (who knew a little bit about tarot cards) told me regarding their use: “If you believe in God, you can get in trouble with the Big Guy (his words), but if you don’t believe, it’s okay.”
Even though I was an agnostic at the time, this didn’t make sense. If God was for real, then I would be in trouble regardless of whether or not I believed in Him. On the other hand, if He didn’t exist, then it didn’t matter whether or not I believed in him.

 

[StillWondering]

This reminds me of when I briefly dabbled in tarot cards some 20 years ago. My buddy (who knew a little bit about tarot cards) told me regarding their use: “If you believe in God, you can get in trouble with the Big Guy (his words), but if you don’t believe, it’s okay.”
Even though I was an agnostic at the time, this didn’t make sense. If God was for real, then I would be in trouble regardless of whether or not I believed in Him. On the other hand, if He didn’t exist, then it didn’t matter whether or not I believed in him.

In the televised Knights of Columbus Supreme Convention Mass, the Bishop of Phoenix (I’m bad with names ^^) recalled how CS Lewis wrote how he became religious as the right thing to do, the only intellectual choice, but how he expects to fully dislike this new existence. Of course as we can see in history, he was much happier and more free in his life’s choices after the conversion.

 

[josie_L]

It is not a philosophical approach, it is twisting the meaning of words. Willfully stating an untruth is always lying, taking something that is not yours without permission is always stealing. A morally right motivation may change the moral consequences of an action, but it doesn’t change the action itself.

No it is not twisting the meaning of words but simply changing how we should apply the rules (we are not changing the rules). It is not morally wrong to take a piece of bread to feed a starving family, therefore it is not stealing as stealing is morally wrong (evil cannot be justified and as such what Valjean did is not evil, i.e., stealing).

Why is it that I, who don’t have a God to provide moral guidance, seem to have more inflexible moral values than you? If I was to steal a loaf of bread to prevent myself or someone else from starving, I would still call my action theft, stand for it because it was morally right but nevertheless face the consequences. You seem to seek a way to escape the consequences of your actions by changing the terminology. Don’t you agree that the rightful owner of the loaf of bread would still call your action theft?

The rightful owner of the loaf of bread would never know the reasons for the action committed and therefore cannot judge correctly on the matter.

 

[josie_L]

It seems like we are having a definition problem.

I do believe there are things never possible to be done, that is absolute. It is complicated but clear.

Example: If I believe I can do something that is objectionable, insulting, or against God and I do it, I have committed a mortal sin. It does not matter what this is. This is a sin against God by going directly against what I know to be for God.

Example: Taking a life unjustly, without regard to life, and ignoring the value of the life is sinful. Simple as that. Notice all the qualifiers; this is because words are inadequate to describe situations as just “kill” as someone has claimed. My answer that was not fully read includes qualifiers.

Let me explain why having qualifiers do not diminishing the “absolute”-ness of this. Imagine I say 1 + 1 = 2. It’s common knowledge right? Well it’s common for us because, by convention, we are speaking within the decimal system. If we were speaking in binary, it’s 1= 1 = 10. Well, both statements are true at the same time but it depends on the context. The sum of 1 + 1 are manifested differently in different number systems.

I hope this is clear now. If there is someone not understood, let me know. If there is error, let me know. If what I said here is ignored, in part or in whole, I would not think it is any use for me to continue to discuss here.

 

[theistgal]

Um, going back to the question title of the thread …

Some atheists are unhappy
Some are happy
Some theists are happy
Some theists are unhappy

And vice versa

End of thread?

 

[Angel7]

If I were to steal a few loaves of bread, when i had not eaten in days, (although the pnalty would be lowered to that of probably venial sin, not Mortal,- a sin if unconfessed leads people to hell-) I still would not do so, because (even if i were starving) i would not even want to be guilty of venial theft. I agree akheron, that stealing, (no matter how low the penalty is lowered) is stealing. I would rather ASK for the bread instead.

The act is still the Act. The penalty is only lowered.

 

[josie_L]

Exactly

Yes, let’s talk about definitions:

“Relativism is the philosophy that denies absolutes. Any absolutes. Everyone believes there are many relativities, that some things are relative; but relativism claims that all things are relative.”

What happens when one claims to be a moral relativist, they deny any and all moral absolutes. Therefore you Charles cannot judge me or anyone else with regard to our moral beliefs as you do not believe in any moral absolutes. Now do you understand how untenuous a stance/philosophy moral relativism is.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes, let’s talk about definitions:

“Relativism is the philosophy that denies absolutes. Any absolutes. Everyone believes there are many relativities, that some things are relative; but relativism claims that all things are relative.”

What happens when one claims to be a moral relativist, they deny all absolutes. Therefore you Charles cannot judge me or anyone else with regard to our moral beliefs as you do not believe in any moral absolutes. Now do you understand how untenuous a philosophy moral relativism is.

Isn’t reletivism self contradictory then? Is not claiming there are no absolutes, itself, an absolute? This is why reletivism is stupid.

 

[Angel7]

I don’t understand what there is NOT to believe. Seriously, truth doesn’t stare you in the face closer than when you ask wether or not G-d is there. Everything Leads to G-d. Even science points to a creator. LOGIC points to a creator. If your WILLING to acknowledge the truth, and actually think very hard about it, it all fits together.

 

[josie_L]

isn’t reletivism self contradictory then? Is not claiming there are no absolutes, itself, an absolute? This is why reletivism is stupid.

Yes it is stupid.

 

[Akheron]

Yes it is stupid.

Thank you for this oustanding statement summarizing your intellectual position.

How is “changing how we should apply the rules” (your words) not self-contradictory when applied to absolute rules?

Moral absolutism implies that the rules stand regardless of the context in which they are applied. If it is morally wrong to steal bread when you are not starving, then it is equally morally wrong to steal bread when you are starving, because only the context changes, not the act of taking something without permission (i.e. stealing).

Some amount of relativism seems to have invited itself in your understanding of the concept of absolute.

 

[SHW]

I would seem that if you protect yourself or others from harm with violence, you both protect a life and threatens another. You cannot threaten to harm another life, even to defend yourself, if you profess an absolute morality that requires that you absolutely protect all life all the time.

Do you see the paradox?

There is no paradox. We do not need to absolutely protect all life all the time in order to believe the moral absolute that human life is precious/sacred.
**
Human life is precious.** PERIOD. This is the moral absolute. For example: Laws were passed worldwide to protect human life in the womb with penalties attached for breaking these laws because unborn children were believed by all people to be precious human life.

However, now since moral relativism has undermined the value of the moral absolute that human life is precious/sacred, our legislative/judicial systems have made laws that make it legal to murder these defenseless human lives in the womb. This murder of innocent children is the result of moral relativism. Life is no longer believed to be precious and so we can now legally murder our own children before they are even born.

Obama while in Illinois voted to forbid nurses and doctors to save the lives of children that survived their abortions. bucksright.com/obama-campaign-admits-infanticide-vote-lie-460 They must, by law, be left alone to die. Euthanasia and suicide and infanticide are now legal in countries that once protected human life. This is all due to moral relativism. Moral relativism has undermined the moral absolute that human life is precious and so now laws favoring euthanasia, suicide, infanticide, and abortion have been passed in order to support this change in “cultural thinking.”
**
Marriage is sacred.** PERIOD. This is the moral absolute. Laws were passed to prohibit divorce, adultery, fornication, and sodomy in order to protect the sanctity of marriage. However, moral relativism has undermined the moral absolute that marriage is sacred, so now we have legalized no-fault divorce, homosexual marriage, etc.
**
Owning private property is a right.** PERIOD. This is the moral absolute. Laws were originally passed to protect private property rights. However, moral relativism has undermined the moral absolute that owning private property is a right which should/must be protected by law and so now new Eminent Domain laws have been passed to deprive private property owners of their right to their own private property. City Councils/Courts have voted/ruled to deprive them of their private property rights and have ordered them to sell their private property to private development companies so that shopping malls, etc. can be built in order to gain higher tax revenues, or for whatever other devious reasons that were decided behind closed doors. Learn about the Little Pink House at: tinyurl.com/cek4r7

Christian moral absolutes do not ever change and so we Christians are now being censured and we will be persecuted since public sentiment continues to move towards an atheistic culture.

Atheism is also anti-God and His laws and deifies “self” and “pleasure” in the end, even if it is not “consciously” believed to be anti-God, and therefore Christians will be persecuted for their belief in God and His laws because their seemingly “antiquated” beliefs and “antiquated” laws prohibit the deification of self and pleasure. “Enlightened” citizens will soon believe that Christians must be stopped from influencing others even if imprisonment or death is necessary in order to stop them. Mob rule easily follows when moral absolutes are undermined.

So-called Christians who embrace these new anti-Christian laws which undermine moral absolutes have sold their souls to the devil even though they go to church on Sundays. Unless they repent before death, they will not inherit eternal life. The “gate” to heaven is indeed “narrow” and “there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13-15)

Moral absolutes were once protected by laws in Christian countries. As the nations become less Christian, moral absolutes are undermined by moral relativism. However, by undermining moral absolutes and deifying self and pleasure in their place, instead of obtaining the intended result of “paradise on earth,” it will be chaos and anarchy that will result from this undermining of moral absolutes. God is not mocked. (Galatians 6:7)

 

[CWBetts]

WHy do you deny that some things are always wrong? We simply contest the the degree of “wrongness” changes!

 

[RNRobert]

Um, going back to the question title of the thread …

Some atheists are unhappy
Some are happy
Some theists are happy
Some theists are unhappy

And vice versa

End of thread?

As the originator of this thread, I wish I could rename it. It is true that there are happy atheists and unhappy theists.
The point I was trying to make is that many atheists don’t simply deny God, they rage against Him (see the example Fulton Sheen gave in my OP).