Why are atheists so unhappy?

[RNRobert]

I have a very good reason to be Atheist. God is not real and I think does more harm in the world than good. If you lived back in the day when everyone believed the Earth was flat but you and a few others knew in your hearths that it was round and that all the current science pointed to it being round. Would you not want to tell everybody what you knew and help them see the light. How much do you suppose exploration of our planet was held back because they were afraid of falling off the edge of the Earth. What would do if you thought you had the power to stop that?

Columbus’s voyage to the New World was bankrolled by Ferninand and Isabella, two devout Catholic monarchs. Gregor Mendel (the father of genetics) was a Catholic priest. Scientist Louis Pasteur was a devout Catholic. So having faith and religious belief is not incompatible with scientific inquiry .

 

[JordanSRT]

Columbus’s voyage to the New World was bankrolled by Ferninand and Isabella, two devout Catholic monarchs. Gregor Mendel (the father of genetics) was a Catholic priest. Scientist Louis Pasteur was a devout Catholic. So having faith and religious belief is not incompatible with scientific inquiry .

There are exceptions to every rule. You did not answer my question though. What you do if you knew something nobody else didn’t.

Here’s a picture I like to use. I know it’s not totally historically accurate but, it’s close.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Columbus’s voyage to the New World was bankrolled by Ferninand and Isabella, two devout Catholic monarchs. Gregor Mendel (the father of genetics) was a Catholic priest. Scientist Louis Pasteur was a devout Catholic. So having faith and religious belief is not incompatible with scientific inquiry .

St. Isidore of Seville. He’s BRILLIANT! I picked him for my confirmation saint. He helped to bring science to seminaries.

That being said, I’ve known happy and sad people, angry and not angry people. All a mix of religions and belief systems. Some of the saddest people I’ve met are those who constantly practice the religion of “me.” i.e. Meditations To Make Me Happy type new age-y practices. And they’re not necessarily atheists, but more “spiritual.” The atheists I have met are very matter of fact and practical people. Although, of all the atheists I’ve met, only 2 did not bring up religion first. All the others did. This is why I don’t think atheists are really atheists. At least, there are extremely few atheists who truly don’t have religion in any way (other than what they encounter in the world).

That being said, the most freaked out or saddest I’ve been was while I was practicing my faith as a Catholic. When I wasn’t, I was actually pretty happy as I didn’t have to worry about sin every second of the day. I’m going through a really dark time right now…

 

[JordanSRT]

St. Isidore of Seville. He’s BRILLIANT! I picked him for my confirmation saint. He helped to bring science to seminaries.

That being said, I’ve known happy and sad people, angry and not angry people. All a mix of religions and belief systems. Some of the saddest people I’ve met are those who constantly practice the religion of “me.” i.e. Meditations To Make Me Happy type new age-y practices. And they’re not necessarily atheists, but more “spiritual.” The atheists I have met are very matter of fact and practical people. Although, of all the atheists I’ve met, only 2 did not bring up religion first. All the others did. This is why I don’t think atheists are really atheists. At least, there are extremely few atheists who truly don’t have religion in any way (other than what they encounter in the world).

That being said, the most freaked out or saddest I’ve been was while I was practicing my faith as a Catholic. When I wasn’t, I was actually pretty happy as I didn’t have to worry about sin every second of the day. I’m going through a really dark time right now…

Why do you worry about sinning? God doesn’t expect to NOT sin, he expects you to TRY to not sin. As long as you give it your best shot and ask forgiveness for the times you are weak and do sin, you’re doing great.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Why do you worry about sinning? God doesn’t expect to NOT sin, he expects you to TRY to not sin. As long as you give it your best shot and ask forgiveness for the times you are weak and do sin, you’re doing great.

Thanks, Jordan.

I’m actually in a dark spot right now - I probably should not have mentioned it. But I did so to illustrate that just because someone “has” a religion, or faith, or believes in God or “a god,” it doesn’t make them any happier. The two darkest times in my life, one was when I was not practicing my faith, and one now, while I’ve been faithfully attending Mass/Divine Liturgy and availing myself of the sacraments - including confession. But this dark spot right now is beyond simply worrying about sinning.

 

[SHW]

Here’s a picture I like to use. I know it’s not totally historically accurate but, it’s close.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2wc19ub.jpg

What an inaccurate pictorial revisionist history, but, not surprising for an atheist.

For more than a century, Dark Age scholarship has been influenced by art historians who, awe-struck by the architecture, fine art, and sculpture of classical antiquity, were deeply unimpressed by what they perceived to be a primitive and culturally deprived medieval world bereft of great art, a view endorsed by some archaeologists. Scholarly output amounted to catalogs of buildings and objects: corpuses of Anglo-Saxon churches and Early Christian churches in Rome, of Anglo-Saxon funerary pots, Byzantine ivories, and Frankish jewelry.

A number of early twentieth-century historians, however, saw the age quite differently. Marc Bloch of the University of Strasbourg and Henri Pirenne of the University of Louvain reassessed the end of the Roman world, emphasizing that in the twilight of the empire the foundations of modern European culture were laid. While original texts, mostly chronicles charting early monastic histories, described brutish living conditions of the peasants, these scholars, studying land charters and administrative records, showed that the early Middle Ages (A.D. 500-1250) were anything but primitive. They stressed the complex social organization of Europe’s new villages, reflected in planned settlements with manors and peasant dwellings, and the far-reaching effects of a new class of merchant-adventurers who were prepared to travel long distances and cross tribal borders linking Christian lands with pagan cultures to the north and east. from: archaeology.org/9809/abstracts/darkages.html

Top 10 Reasons The Dark Ages Were Not Dark

1. Agriculture Boom
2. Law Becomes Fair
3. Fantastic Weather
4. Art and Architecture
5. Algebra Arrived
6. Religious Unity (the calm before the storm)
7. Byzantine Golden Age
8. Carolingian Renaissance
9. Scientific Foundations Laid
10. Universities Are Born

Read more about these 10 at:
listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-reasons-the-dark-ages-were-not-dark/

 

[SHW]

So much has been written about Jesus, (His life is written about in our Bible which has been handed down through the years by His Church for His Church) but since it is not written by non-Christians for non-Christians, it is at least suspect, if not condemned outright, as wild imaginings by same. However, most people were illiterate and poor and most of the fragile writing materials of that age have been lost due to deterioration, so we cannot expect to (and do not in reality) find many surviving writings concerning this time period in history.

Since Christianity was a very small sect at first, started by a Jew for the Jews alone, it is not surprising that most people in the world did not know about Him until after He died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. He commissioned His apostles and disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all the NATIONS, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, TEACHING them to observe all things that I have commanded you,” shortly before He ascended into heaven during His last 40 days on earth.

I do not expect to see pagan proof of His existence since He was sent only to the Lost Sheep of Israel, the Jews. (Matthew 15:24)

So, what about Jesus’ supposed contemporaries who were also written about in the Bible? Is there historical evidence about any of them in non-Christian history compilations? How about John the Baptist? Here is what Josephus, the Jewish historian, has to say about him:

From: Antiquities of the Jews XVIII, Chapter 5.
2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him. Read more at: religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/john.html

 

[SHW]

Atheists believe themselves to each be their own “god” since they acknowledge no other “greater” than "themselves."

I remember when Shirley MacLaine, the New Ager, stated in her autobiography, Out on a Limb, “I am god.” She says she was running on a beach, exclaiming, “I am God,” and met another person running on the beach who was also declaring, “I am god,” so they wrestled to see who got to be god that day. Maybe she will be voted in as our next president.

Either a person belongs to God (Good) or they by default belong to Satan (Evil) because there are only these two choices possible.

The Law of Gravity exists regardless of whether persons believe in it or not.
They can test it out by jumping off a cliff, but I learned never to do this, since my mother always said, “if all of your friends jump off a 100 foot cliff, would you be just as stupid and jump, too?”

Since I know that I am not capable of creating anything such as the universe or even a tiny plant, even though I do see them and experience them for myself and therefore know they exist, then I also must admit that Someone greater than I did create them because this “evidence” exists continually and cannot ever be destroyed.

 

[JordanSRT]

Since I know that I am not capable of creating anything such as the universe or even a tiny plant, even though I do see them and experience them for myself and therefore know they exist, then I also must admit that Someone greater than I did create them because this “evidence” exists continually and cannot ever be destroyed.

So because you can’t create a planet it must have been god? Do you have multiple personalities? You seem to be having a conversation with yourself.

 

[SHW]

So because you can’t create a planet it must have been god? Do you have multiple personalities? You seem to be having a conversation with yourself.

Who or what do you think had the capabilities to create a planet?

Are you always so insulting? Or just when you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the discussion?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There are exceptions to every rule. You did not answer my question though. What you do if you knew something nobody else didn’t.

Here’s a picture I like to use. I know it’s not totally historically accurate but, it’s close.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2wc19ub.jpg

Looks like to me like a picture of someone with rather poor taste in shoes ​

 

[josie_L]

St. Isidore of Seville. He’s BRILLIANT! I picked him for my confirmation saint. He helped to bring science to seminaries.

That being said, I’ve known happy and sad people, angry and not angry people. All a mix of religions and belief systems. Some of the saddest people I’ve met are those who constantly practice the religion of “me.” i.e. Meditations To Make Me Happy type new age-y practices. And they’re not necessarily atheists, but more “spiritual.” The atheists I have met are very matter of fact and practical people. Although, of all the atheists I’ve met, only 2 did not bring up religion first. All the others did. This is why I don’t think atheists are really atheists. At least, there are extremely few atheists who truly don’t have religion in any way (other than what they encounter in the world).

That being said, the most freaked out or saddest I’ve been was while I was practicing my faith as a Catholic. When I wasn’t, I was actually pretty happy as I didn’t have to worry about sin every second of the day. I’m going through a really dark time right now…

I went through this dark period you refer to, but God will get out of it so do not waiver.

“. . . but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful: Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.” Hebrews 12:10-11

Offer up your sufferings to Christ for the conversion of sinners.

 

[RNRobert]

Why do you worry about sinning? God doesn’t expect to NOT sin, he expects you to TRY to not sin. As long as you give it your best shot and ask forgiveness for the times you are weak and do sin, you’re doing great.

I thought you didn’t believe in God. As an atheist, I would have expected you to say something like there was no sin, or something to that effect…

 

[RNRobert]

There are exceptions to every rule. You did not answer my question though. What you do if you knew something nobody else didn’t.

Here’s a picture I like to use. I know it’s not totally historically accurate but, it’s close.

http://i25.tinypic.com/2wc19ub.jpg

There are two flaws in your argument.

The first is that Christianity is to blame for the supposed lack of scientific progress (personally, I think the collapse of the Roman Empire was inevitable, and that the “Dark Ages” would have been a lot darker without it). Also, Christianity only existed in one part of the world at the time. There were other advanced societies on the planet at the time, such as the Chinese (who invented gunpowder) and the Mayans (who had a complex calendar). Since they were not infected with the “blight” of Christianity, they should have surged ahead of the Western world,but this was not the case.

Secondly, I get the impression that you consider scientific progress the end-all and be-all of human existence; it is (dare I say it?) your god. Now, scientific progress has provided many benefits to mankind, but it has also given mankind the ability to destroy all life on the planet. To answer your question (what if I knew something nobody else did), I think it would depend on whether that knowledge would do more harm than good. If Einstein, and Fermi, and those who worked on the Manhattan project were able to look into the future and see some of the consequences of their efforts (nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste that will be with us for centuries), would they have been so quick to build the atomic bomb? Or suppose I am in possession of knowledge that can grant long life and good health to mankind, but at the cost of the death of half of the people on the planet? I might consider that sacrifice to be worth it (depending on which half of the population I belonged to).

Also, who ever wrote the caption for your chart (“Just think, we could have been exploring the galaxy by now”) has been watching way too many Star Trek episodes. All it would mean is that we’d be finding new worlds to pillage and pollute and new races to enslave and exploit.

 

[RNRobert]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Actually, it makes perfect sense (sorry for not responding to this one sooner). I’ve noticed many atheists such as yourself, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the myriad of atheist websites on the net spend their time cataloging the sins (real or imagined) of religion in general and Christianity in particular. They blame Christianity for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the heartbreak of psoriasis (well, maybe not that one), and their argument is that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) caused all these wars, persecutions, etc, and that we would be better off if we discarded. So, if we take a look at a society that embraced atheism as its creed (the Soviet Union, North Korea, People’s Republic of China, Cuba, etc.), we should expect to find a society that is more enlightened, advanced, tolerant, etc. However, if we look at the evidence, we find that they are just as oppressive, cruel and violent as societies that embrace some form of religion (if not more so).

 

[AnAtheist]

I’ve noticed many atheists such as yourself, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the myriad of atheist websites on the net spend their time cataloging the sins (real or imagined) of religion in general and Christianity in particular. They blame Christianity for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust,

Perhaps they are happy that those times are over.

 

[RNRobert]

Perhaps they are happy that those times are over.

If they’re so happy, then why do they keep harping on them so monotonously? I would never spoil my present happiness by dwelling on past misfortunes.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Actually, it makes perfect sense (sorry for not responding to this one sooner). I’ve noticed many atheists such as yourself, Dawkins, Hitchens, and the myriad of atheist websites on the net spend their time cataloging the sins (real or imagined) of religion in general and Christianity in particular. They blame Christianity for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the heartbreak of psoriasis (well, maybe not that one), and their argument is that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) caused all these wars, persecutions, etc, and that we would be better off if we discarded. So, if we take a look at a society that embraced atheism as its creed (the Soviet Union, North Korea, People’s Republic of China, Cuba, etc.), we should expect to find a society that is more enlightened, advanced, tolerant, etc. However, if we look at the evidence, we find that they are just as oppressive, cruel and violent as societies that embrace some form of religion (if not more so).

Why look at dictatorships, when this is clearly not a relevant comparison? Why not look at modern democratic atheist countries like Sweden, or Japan? I think i know that answer to that

 

[antunesaa]

Because happiness requires self-deception. For the serious person, being an atheist sucks, and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, because it leads to meaninglessness. Some people can get away with pretending to believe in nihilism (if you ever probe them far enough, however, you will likely discover that their nihilism is a fraud) and still be happy. I cannot.

The problem with atheism is that it also implies self-deception. If you’re an atheist, you believe that you’re just the result of randomness and natural laws. Therefore, you lack any kind of meaningful autonomy - your actions are either deterministic or random or both, but never the product of free-will. Therefore, when you make a “decision” you have to deceive yourself into believing you’re actually deciding something by yourself.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Secondly, I get the impression that you consider scientific progress the end-all and be-all of human existence; it is (dare I say it?) your god. Now, scientific progress has provided many benefits to mankind, but it has also given mankind the ability to destroy all life on the planet. To answer your question (what if I knew something nobody else did), I think it would depend on whether that knowledge would do more harm than good. If Einstein, and Fermi, and those who worked on the Manhattan project were able to look into the future and see some of the consequences of their efforts (nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste that will be with us for centuries), would they have been so quick to build the atomic bomb? Or suppose I am in possession of knowledge that can grant long life and good health to mankind, but at the cost of the death of half of the people on the planet? I might consider that sacrifice to be worth it (depending on which half of the population I belonged to).

Also, who ever wrote the caption for your chart (“Just think, we could have been exploring the galaxy by now”) has been watching way too many Star Trek episodes. All it would mean is that we’d be finding new worlds to pillage and pollute and new races to enslave and exploit.

Its not usually the scientist that uses the knowledge for distruction, it’s normally religious or power hungry extremists.