Why are atheists so unhappy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RNRobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RNRobert said:
You feel that oppressing coloured people is wrong, that we should feel empathy. Why? If I consider them genetically inferior, if I consider them a threat to the survival of my race, why shouldn’t I oppress them.
Click to expand...
We could decide that all people with “brown eyes” are inferior and ostracize them and forbid them to reproduce. (I have blue eyes. ;)) Why don’t we? Because we, as Christians, now understand that “eye color” does not determine the worth of a human being. The fact that we are all made in the image and likeness of God is what gives us all equal worth.

Some “Christians” exploit or harm other human beings for their own personal gain, but this does not change the fact that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, their Creator, and they should all be treated as our “worthy” brothers and sisters.

Black Africans “sold” their own “race” into slavery. They sold their captured tribal enemies to white slave traders.
 
SHW said:
Black Africans “sold” their own “race” into slavery. They sold their captured tribal enemies to white slave traders.
Click to expand...
The operative word is “some”. Most were* not* sold by their own, but some were.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
… the societies with the lowest crime rates on earth are all atheist.
Click to expand...
These are but “new atheistic societies” built upon the “waning of Christian societies.” Time will judge. Abortion is not a result of Christian beliefs, it is a result of atheism, because true Christians value all human life. Atheism does not, it only values the “self” against all else.

Don’t you understand that abortion is “legal” now only because of rising atheistic influence in the past 75-100 years in the world? People who truly believe in God and hell do not abort their own children nor do they legalize abortion in order for “others” to abort their children.
 
Tomster said:
Actually it is - atheism (Gr. - without God)

Please show us how you can prove that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
Dear me, are you suggesting we must believe everything that cant be proven wrong??

The burden of proof is no those that MAKE the claim.
 
StillWondering said:
Unless my memory deceives me, I think your info tab listed Atheist before I made this post. But either way, yeah none fits how you understand religion. I’m glad you no longer cannot accept there may be a God. I hope you will soon find that God to be the just, merciful, and every present God that I have come to know, argued with, accepted, yearned for, and loved.

Best wishes to you and all you may be searching for God.
Click to expand...
Your mind very much deceives you. It has ALWAYS said none.
 
querying said:
Last but not least:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071705.html

US Pediatric Nursing Journal Toys with Condoning Infanticide

Writes countries must continue to examine the moral, medical, ethical and legal aspects of direct killing of disabled infants

July 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A professional journal for pediatric nurses has produced an article examining the ethics of infanticide according to the Dutch Groningen Protocol. The Protocol permits the killing of babies in the Netherlands on the judgement of a physician based on “quality of life” criteria. The article, appearing in the May-June 2008 edition of the Journal of Pediatric Nursing, and jointly authored by J. Catlin and Renee Novakovich, talks about the effects of the Protocol on medical ethics in the US.
However, bioethics writer and critic Wesley J. Smith is sounding a warning, saying that as soon as academics start approaching an issue of life and death with terms like “complex” and “gray areas” and “difficult,” the ground is already laid for acceptance.

On the other hand, the article implies, countries with government-supported medical systems, such as Canada, Britain and the Netherlands, will be more likely to weigh the scales in favour of infanticide as a form of “social justice” in order to make more of the public medical system available for more worthy patients. (Americans who are still undecided about government controlled universal healthcare need to focus on this last paragraph)

Next time, do a quick google search yourself.

Now I await for you to defend the killing of not only babies, but children up to the age of 12, as long as parents consent to it.
Click to expand...
Why do you think i would defend it? Like i said it is only one country, atheism says nothing about ones morals, its you that is claiming the religous are more moral. Im still waiting for you to explain why murder rates are higher in religious countries than in atheist ones?
 
StillWondering said:
A couple of pages ago I proved that any universe with a beginning immediately contradicts atheism. I asked atheist readers here including, at the time, Charles Darwin who is active on this tread, to prove the universe has no beginning. He replied that it is unprovable and so will not.

I think proving the universe has no beginning is way easier then proving God does not exists. If atheists here cannot answer my challenge by stating it is impossible, then it simply makes no sense to be atheist. That’s why CD now has none as his religion. Which is already a wonderful step.
Click to expand...
LOL i’ve always had none, and that is exactly what atheism is. Oh and you didn’t prove anything.
 
Tomster said:
Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it . . . etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe (yes, including you!), from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

Hope this helps! :hey_bud:
Click to expand...
Let say i agreed with your hypothesis, which i don’t, why would the first cause have to be a god?
 
Tomster said:
If there is no first cause, as you believe (“believe” this implies faith by the way), then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car’s motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.
Click to expand...
Is this nonsense for real???
 
Tomster said:
I had a brief flirtation with Rand’s works many, many years ago. Her ideology did not measure up to our Lord’s teachings. After comparing the two I decided Rand had to go. It was a very easy choice for me.

Personnally, I am into subsidiarity and solidarity.
Click to expand...
I still have some Ayn Rand books that I have yet to read. I am comfortable reading them as mental excursions, so long as I do not take them any farther than that.

Particularly subsidiarity is a Catholic concept. And the values of it does not by its own merits interfere with moral understanding. However, within individual minds, the concept can become faulty and deranged. This is one of the core issues between Republicans and Democrats within the US. Republicans do not with to abolish federal autherity nor do the Democrats wish to remove state individuality and soverign. However, they vie for power between the two systems as if they polarities and argue subjectively about the balance of power. The pure teachings of subsidiarity is not subjective, it is objective. There is a balance. The individual situations will call for different balances, but the balance itself is true and effective. This is my understand and interpretation of subsidiarity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

Personally for me, solidarity is a human trait and solidarity movements are manifestations of that innate desire to commune with each other. Since I am referring to a non tangible concept and can only relate to it on an individual basis, subjective views of individual solidarity movements are beyond my grasp.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_solidarity

I support you on your values. Having morals, values, and a searching mind are all virtues in my humble opinion.

Edit: As I stated in a previous post, I do not subscribe to Objectivism. This edit is here in case anyone did not read my previous posts on this topic would be between page 20-22.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Why do you think i would defend it? Like i said it is only one country, atheism says nothing about ones morals, its you that is claiming the religous are more moral. Im still waiting for you to explain why murder rates are higher in religious countries than in atheist ones?
Click to expand...
My, you clearly are one of the less sharper atheists I’ve head the displeasure of debating with. Charles Darwin, you are not…

When atheist countries refuse to define snuffing out the elderly, the disabled, baby killing and killing children up to the age of 12 year old as “murder”, then common sense dictates their murder statistics cannot be fairly compared to the murder statistics of countries which class the aforementioned crimes as “murder”.

Yet you persist in making the claim atheist country murder rates are lower.

And no, this is not just one country, but several surrounding the Netherlands area.

Comprende? Si, no?
 
querying said:
**We NOW know and can see the genetic defects **which occur when people of close family origin procreate, therefore it is immoral to intentionally conceive children who will be disfigured and suffer much pain in life.
Click to expand...
Oh you accept modern genetics? Therefore you must accept evolution.
 
josie_L said:
No, it’s YOUR lack of thinking logically that makes arguing with you difficult. I have argued with many an atheist and I have never had them tell me as you have that I am ignorant. I think you are so narrow-minded in your views that you fail to see the obvious.
Click to expand...
I didnt say you were ignorant, i said you were ignorant of the sciences, and you clearly are.
 
josie_L said:
What do you mean by evidence when it was explained to you that science can neither prove nor disprove God?

p.s. You’re better off calling yourself an agnostic as you have no real way of knowing that God doesn’t exist (whether that God is the God of theists or deists)?
Click to expand...
Agnostic deals with knowledge, atheism deals with believe. I am both.
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Dear me, are you suggesting we must believe everything that cant be proven wrong??

The burden of proof is no those that MAKE the claim.
Click to expand...
So you come to CAF stating you make no claims but yet engage us in conversation telling us why our God is evil, then when we attempt to explain things to you, you claim we are either ignorant or insane. When we attempt to understand your position on theism and/or deism you state there is no evidence even though evidence, the kind of which you expect, is impossible as science can neither prove nor disprove God. But if science can neither (concretely) prove nor disprove God then we must find other means by which to build a case for God, but you are not interested in anything outside of science. So we run around in circles because you deny everything we say that doesn’t vibe with your understanding of the world, but of course, all the while stating you make no claims. :rolleyes:
 
SHW said:
It is not “ignorance” to believe in God as you so ignorantly claim. 😃

I know that the universe did not create itself out of “nothing.” Someone did this creation of all that I see, including me, by either direct cause or indirect cause. But, this creator is not me nor any other human being of like intelligence. It has to be Someone who has a greater intelligence and power than I or we have. This is elementary reasoning/logic.
Click to expand...
Really what evidence have you gathered from before the inflation of space time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top