Why are atheists so unhappy?

[SHW]

Haha you can’t stand it eh? Atheists being more moral than the religous.

Since Christianity has stood for 2000 years, but has lost numbers to atheism in the past 200 years, especially a great number of them to atheism in the 20th century, I think 30 more years of “wait and see” for atheistic Sweden are justified since not everyone in Sweden is yet atheist. I have not researched Sweden’s morality before now:

thelocal.se/9166/20071121/

Sweden:

Demanding Social Responsibility

…This degenerated morality and lack of understanding for the real and natural order of things is also evident in areas requiring personal responsibility and respect for fellow men and women. The elderly are now treated as ballast rather than human beings and relatives. The younger generations feel they have a “right” to not take responsibility for their parents and grandparents, and therefore demand the state relieve them of this burden.

Consequently, most elderly in Sweden either live depressed and alone in their homes, waiting for death to come their way, or they have been institutionalized in public elderly collective living facilities with 24/7 surveillance so as to alleviate the burden on the younger working generations. Some of them get to see their grandchildren and relatives only for an hour or two at Christmas, when the families make an effort to visit their “problems.”

But the elderly aren’t the only one’s finding themselves in the periphery of welfare society while the state is looking after its working population. The same goes for the youngest who are also delivered to the state for public care rather than being brought up and educated by their parents.

My mother, a middle school teacher, has had to face her pupils’ parents demanding she do “something” about their stressful family situation. They demand “society” take responsibility for their children’s upbringing since they have already spent “too many years” caring for them. (“Caring” usually means dropping them off at the public daycare center at 7 am and picking them up again at 6 pm.)

They loudly stress their “right” to be relieved from this burden. The problems caused at home by disobedient, out-of-control children are to be solved in the classrooms by school personnel and at daycare centers by kindergarten staff. Children should be seen but not heard, and they should absolutely not intrude on their parents’ right to a career, long holidays abroad, and attending social events.

In order to have the adult generation working and creating wealth that can be taxed (current tax rates for low income earners are at approximately 65% of earnings), the Swedish welfare state continuously launches progressive programs to protect them from incidents and problems. Welfarist freedom is a trouble-free, responsibility-free, and benefits-rich existence created by the welfare state.

What we are now seeing in Sweden is the perfectly logical consequence of the welfare state: when handing out benefits and thereby taking away the individual’s responsibility for his or her own life, a new kind of individual is created — the immature, irresponsible, and dependent. In effect, what the welfare state has created is a population of psychological and moral children — just as parents who never let their children face problems, take responsibility, and come up with solutions themselves, make their offspring needy, spoiled, and utterly demanding.

The spoiled-children analogy is proving true in the everyday lives of people working in the public sector, facing the populations’ demands. I’ve learned it is not uncommon for young parents to reprimand teachers because homework is an “unnecessary” pressure on the young. The children have a right to knowledge, but apparently they should not be exposed to education since it requires study and effort. The role of teachers is obviously to supply children with knowledge they can consume without having to reflect on it or think about it (or even study). Having to do something yourself is “oppressive.” A “must,” even if an effect of the laws of nature, is utterly unfair and a violation to one’s right to a trouble-free life. Nature itself, along with its laws, becomes a “burden.”

From: mises.org/story/2190

Your claim for a “superior morality” for atheistic Sweden compared to Christianity is lacking credibility. 30 more years will give us an even better picture of how atheistic Sweden fares morally.

But, then what are “atheist” morals?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I gave you a reason as to why that is the case, and you refuse to see that a woman if raped would lose all chance of getting married in such a society (this was the culture they were living in back then) and therefore cared for in her later years. The way of life back then did not hold many opportunities for a woman and so she would be forced if she could not marry to prostitute herself in order to survive that is why it was decreed that she marry the man who raped her. As awful as that may sound that was her only chance of avoiding poverty and/or prostitution.

p.s. You are for someone who is supposedly “rational” very emotionally charged and as such not a very clear thinker.

Ok then say that was the ONLY options. Which i dont believe for one second it would be. One why would she still not be given the choice? And two why can we NOW see how immoral that is, if morals, like you claim, are absolute?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Aren’t “theories” proposed only when some “facts” are not known?

No. Again this shows a lack of understand of basic science.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Since Christianity has stood for 2000 years, but has lost numbers to atheism in the past 200 years, especially a great number of them to atheism in the 20th century, I think 30 more years of “wait and see” for atheistic Sweden are justified since not everyone in Sweden is yet atheist. I have not researched Sweden’s morality before now:

thelocal.se/9166/20071121/

Sweden:

Your claim for a “superior morality” for atheistic Sweden compared to Christianity is lacking credibility. 30 more years will give us an even better picture of how atheistic Sweden fares morally.

But, then what are “atheist” morals?

Sweden is just one country, all 1st world atheist countries beat the USA in crime stats. Atheism has no guide lines. Morals have nothing to do with atheism, all atheism is a a rejection of claims about gods.

 

[josie_L]

Because elements DONT interact randomly! Its BASIC chemistry. Any other grade school science you need to know?

I’m sorry you dont seem to be able to grasp this simple fact. But atheism = a-theism. I.E WITHOUT THEISM. That is it. I don’t accept your claim god exists, NO MORE, NO LESS.

Also i stand by calling you insane. IMO anyone that thinks a rape victim should be FORCED to marry the person that raped them is INSANE. If i get sensored for that then that tell me all i need to know about religion and the religious.

“But, of course, merely having the needed elements (although not all 100 elements were in existence in the earliest “days” of earth) doesn’t mean a cell automatically pops into existence, any more than having a load of bricks, lumber, glass, and shingles results results in them leaping together to automatically create a house. A necessary condition is not a sufficient condition.”

In other words getting the right chemical combination for the simplest cell is astronomically improbable (considering how old the universe is).

 

[josie_L]

Ok then say that was the ONLY options. Which i dont believe for one second it would be. One why would she still not be given the choice? And two why can we NOW see how immoral that is, if morals, like you claim, are absolute?

Rape was always immoral. And what choice would she have, could she get a job (other than prostitution), were her parents planning to live forever, was another man, apart from the one who raped her, going to sacrifice his future to marry her (and this would have to apply to every rape victim), or would being a slave be better than marrying your rapist?

 

[josie_L]

I agree with you. I’m a Christian theist and my presupposition is that “God did it” but as I’ve no idea how God did it it’s just the same as saying, “I don’t know.”

Cordially,
Mick

So you agree with him that I don’t have a basic understanding of science (not even knowing who I am or what I believe concerning abiogenesis), how kind!!

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5502057:

I agree with you. I’m a Christian theist and my presupposition is that “God did it” but as I’ve no idea how

God did it it’s just the same as saying, “I don’t know.”

Cordially,
Mick
:thumbsup:So you agree with him that I don’t have a basic understanding of science (not even knowing who I am or what I believe concerning abiogenesis), how kind!!

You’re welcome.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[SHW]

No. Again this shows a lack of understand of basic science.

If all the facts are known, there is no need to theorize.

 

[Filius99993]

I believe I said “I know it’s not totally historically accurate but, it’s close.”

humor…

So it’s supposed to be funny because it’s inaccurate?

 

[SHW]

Atheism has no guide lines. Morals have nothing to do with atheism, all atheism is a a rejection of claims about gods.

**
What guidelines are used for determining acceptable morals in an atheistic country? **

If you have two cars, and I have none, shouldn’t you be forced to have to give up one of yours so that all people can be treated equally in this atheistic socialistic country?

If I have a beautiful home, but am old and sick, should I be forced to end my life so that someone more worthy (younger) can have my home since they do not have one and want mine and because they can still contribute to the welfare state and I cannot?

If I have a child, but do not like how it looks or acts, should I be able to terminate its life at any time since it came from my own body?

Atheistic countries are still managing to be morally civil in their cultural practices/laws because the full effects of atheism on civilization take decades to come to fruition, and so far not enough time has elapsed.

 

[josie_L]

You’re welcome.

Respectfully,
Mick

“Respectfully” must be a relative term for you.

 

[josie_L]

Because there is such a thing as morals, but they are not absolutes. Morals come from interaction within a society. If morals are absolute like you cliam, than why have moral progressed with time?

I would use the word “progressed” with caution as every era has had evil and you only have to look at post “enlightened” society to see that the most atrocious evils committed by man were done so within this period. And if morals come from interaction within a society who are we then to judge the Nazis if as you say there are no moral absolutes? Morals cannot be relative otherwise there would be moral chaos (there has to be a universal moral code).

 

[Charles_Darwin]

“But, of course, merely having the needed elements (although not all 100 elements were in existence in the earliest “days” of earth) doesn’t mean a cell automatically pops into existence, any more than having a load of bricks, lumber, glass, and shingles results results in them leaping together to automatically create a house. A necessary condition is not a sufficient condition.”

In other words getting the right chemical combination for the simplest cell is astronomically improbable (considering how old the universe is).

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.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Rape was always immoral. And what choice would she have, could she get a job (other than prostitution), were her parents planning to live forever, was another man, apart from the one who raped her, going to sacrifice his future to marry her (and this would have to apply to every rape victim), or would being a slave be better than marrying your rapist?

You still don’t get it do you. No matter how limited her options she should still have the right to choose. Anyway how do you know her family would be unable to support her? How to you know a man would not love her? Only a loonie would not love someone because they have been raped.

Why didn’t go make the rule, if you rape someone then you must financially support them, WITHOUT them being forced to marry you? Why didn’t god teach that rape is wrong, instead of ENCOURAGING IT!! If that is the law of a god its morals leave ALOT to be desired.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

If all the facts are known, there is no need to theorize.

That is not what a theory is, come on people this is BASIC BASIC science.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**
What guidelines are used for determining acceptable morals in an atheistic country? **

If you have two cars, and I have none, shouldn’t you be forced to have to give up one of yours so that all people can be treated equally in this atheistic socialistic country?

If I have a beautiful home, but am old and sick, should I be forced to end my life so that someone more worthy (younger) can have my home since they do not have one and want mine and because they can still contribute to the welfare state and I cannot?

If I have a child, but do not like how it looks or acts, should I be able to terminate its life at any time since it came from my own body?

Atheistic countries are still managing to be morally civil in their cultural practices/laws because the full effects of atheism on civilization take decades to come to fruition, and so far not enough time has elapsed.

lmao ok… that nonsense doesn’t even warrent a responce.

Morals are developed as part of living in a cooperative society. Tell me if morals are set, then why, given that jesus was here 2000 years ago, did it take 1950 years for colored people to be allowed to sit on the same seats as whites? Why did it take 1950 years for christians to develop there morals on this issue, given that morals were set from day one?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I would use the word “progressed” with caution as every era has had evil and you only have to look at post “enlightened” society to see that the most atrocious evils committed by man were done so within this period. And if morals come from interaction within a society who are we then to judge the Nazis if as you say there are no moral absolutes? Morals cannot be relative otherwise there would be moral chaos (there has to be a universal moral code).

Well given that you seem so fond of the nazis. Why did the christain nation of germany support Hitler?

"Morals cannot be relative otherwise there would be moral chaos."

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.

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”.

 

[RNRobert]

Your claim for a “superior morality” for atheistic Sweden compared to Christianity is lacking credibility. 30 more years will give us an even better picture of how atheistic Sweden fares morally.

The way Europe is contracepting itself into extinction, it will probably be Muslim in 30 years…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The way Europe is contracepting itself into extinction, it will probably be Muslim in 30 years…

Not this nonsense… I know plenty of “muslims” that were born in the UK, and every one i know thinks god is a fariy tail. Anyway, muslim-christian whats the difference?