Why are atheists so unhappy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RNRobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But you concede it has reduced much of the bible to be nothing more than symbolic.
No, not at all. God uses His own created natural elements (comet) to fulfill His own purposes such as the plagues which came upon Egypt, which resulted because of the effects of the comet, in order to free His own chosen people.
 
I have already given you an example of a country that debunks that claim. Ok lets talk about Scotland specifically. It is far less religious then the USA, and has none of what you mention above. Why are the atheists in scotland more moral then the theists in the USA?
Let’s give Scotland more time before we judge it.

Atheism eventually exalts the “self” at “others’” expense. This eventually degenerates into the “might” (guns, etc.) of some taking advantage of the “weakness” (lack of personal protection) of others. Good morals will no longer be practiced. Morality is always legislated. The people in power determine the morality (good or bad) that is legislated and enforced.

True Christianity is about serving others, treating all persons as you yourself desire to be treated.
 
Well just a few post ago you stated you didn’t know if you believed in adam and eve, and MANY on this board do. If you believe in adam and eve then you do not believe in evolution.
This is false. Adam and Eve are our first parents. If evolution is true, then God gave the first immortal “soul” to Adam. None of the previous creatures which resembled humans had an immortal soul so their souls would have been like animal souls and this type of “life giving” animal soul dies at “death.”
 
A careful reading of the verses shows that it was not God’s intention to give exact scientific information about the creation of each of these separate beings. His purpose was primarily one of teaching religious truths which we might summarize as follows:

“1. All creation is the work of God alone. With creation time begins as a means of measuring physical phenomena. Creation therefore occurs without there being any pre-existing matter. Hence the first effect of creation is the appearance of the chaotic mass previously mentioned.”

“2. This shows that only God is eternal. Everything else owes its existence to God, that is, is God’s creature, which means that God is distinct from the world and prior to it; he neither proceeds from nor depends on that initial chaos, as Babylonian or Assyrian cosmogonies make out: he transcends and is distinct from matter.”

“3. This creating, eternal, and totally transcendent being is the only true God; he cannot be confused with the polytheistic and pantheistic gods believed in at the time Genesis was written and to which the Israelites themselves were very inclined. Since God was separate and distinct from the universe he created, the Israelites were shown, in this new light of revelation, that God could not be confused with the sun or the moon or with the gods of the Assyrians: anything other than the transcendental God, the one true God, was his creation and therefore unworthy of worship.”

“4. Finally, God appears in this first creation account as almighty: “God said” . . . “and so it was.” Creation calls for no effort on his part, full of power and majesty, he provides everything with existence; and, furthermore, he maintains in existence everything he has created, by an act of his will. In creating things he communicates to them his goodness: “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). It could not be otherwise, because there is only one Creator, God, who is an infinite being and therefore infinitely good.”
👍 Please document where you got this particular quote. Thanks. 🙂
 
So how would you explain the fact human chromosome two is a fusion of two great ape chromosomes?
They’re both mammals and therefore can easily have some of the same chromosomes or even combinations of the other mammal’s chromosomes.
 
Well since i don’t believe in souls or moral absolutes i guess there isn’t anywhere we can really go from here.
Since you do not believe in “moral absolutes,” then why do you claim that Scotland is more “moral” than the USA? What do you think constitutes good morals?

Like I said previously, morals are (eventually) legislated according to the prevailing morals of the persons who gain and wield power over their “subjects.” This is why abortion is now legal in the USA and also contraception and divorce, even though when the USA was predominately governed by true Christians, these things were not legal nor considered moral.
 
You claim based on the lack of (concrete) evidence there is no God (remember you reject deism too), the thing is you will never get the evidence you seek as Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God (and you choose to disregard other means of finding truth, i.e., philosophy). There are also other claims you’ve made, i.e., morals progress (based on your worldview that there is no God).

p.s. You can deny all you want that you’ve made no claims but you could not very well argue with us if we didn’t have differing points of view (and that you argue it vociferously means you hold to certain truths).
I have never said “there is no god”. Please feel free to quote me.

I have said countless times i lack a believe in god as i reject all the man made claims of a god. I have also said countless times there is a BIG difference between saying i can prove there is no god (which i have never said) and not having a belief in a god.

I’m sorry to say you are incorrect and unless you can find me claiming the is NO god, please do not repeat this claim of yours about me in the future.
 
Call it a super-intelligent “supernatural power” if you wish, then, because this “intelligent being” is not like us mere humans. The universe did not create itself. Some “super intelligent” supernatural power started creation in motion by providing the necessary components for its “beginning” and also knows its “ending” and also can give humans everlasting life if It so chooses because It has the power over life and death.

Some “supernatural power” did create the universe and all that is in it. We Christians, however, call this Supernatural Power “God” because He has revealed to us that it is He who is this Supernatural Power.
Again why would it have to be created by a supernatural power?
 
Thanks for the links. I have saved them on my computer. I guess that temporally ends this debate about evolution for me.

Sorry everyone for taking it on this tangent =).
Again this is just one of many equally as sold pieces of evidence.
 
Morals in animals? Did you miss that particular science class? Animals have natural instincts, not morals. 🙂 These natural instincts help to preserve the species. However, I do know of animal species that eat their young, cannibalize their own kind, and some kill their mates. Not very moral at all. :eek:
Yep not all animals are the same you know? I could also quote killing of children by parents in the bible.
 
This is false. Adam and Eve are our first parents. If evolution is true, then God gave the first immortal “soul” to Adam. None of the previous creatures which resembled humans had an immortal soul so their souls would have been like animal souls and this type of “life giving” animal soul dies at “death.”
This is a great hypothesis and all :rolleyes:, now can you provide me some empirical evidence for this. 😃
 
This type of “science” is “junk” science.

World Wide Flood:

earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide%20flood.htm

The comet and the plagues of Egypt:

henryzecher.com/plagues.htm

Perhaps our earth is less than 10,000 years old after all:

earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
You right about one thing that type of sceince is junk. I take it you don’t understrand how science works. This nonsense is not worth my time responding to.
 
Since you do not believe in “moral absolutes,” then why do you claim that Scotland is more “moral” than the USA? What do you think constitutes good morals?

Like I said previously, morals are (eventually) legislated according to the prevailing morals of the persons who gain and wield power over their “subjects.” This is why abortion is now legal in the USA and also contraception and divorce, even though when the USA was predominately governed by true Christians, these things were not legal nor considered moral.
Morals come from empathy.

Contraception is immoral?:eek: I cant wait to here this one…:rotfl:
 
so **querying ** i take it that you don’t agree with killing children and babies? Can you think of any circumstance that it would be ok?

Not that this is my position i am just curious. Say the child was going to die in a month and suffer horribly for the month, would there not be an argument for it in that case.

Or what if the kid was evil?
 
Let say i agreed with your hypothesis, which i don’t, why would the first cause have to be a god?
It follows, therefore, that the activity whereby the system of nature is produced is of a higher order than the activity of movement or change. The originating Cause of being cannot have the same limited type of activity as it gives to its products. Their changeful mode of activity depends on influence from without, but there is nothing which can change or move the First Cause, for no being other than that Cause exists on the plane of subsistent being. Nor could that Cause move or change itself, for no being, whether finite or infinite, alone can cause limitation, change, or movement in itself. It follows that the activity of this Cause is not any form of change or movement. The causal activity superior to all change must therefore be ever present in, and identical with, the very nature of the First Cause. The causation of the universe must thus represent a permanent and changeless natural activity of God as distinct from a transient or departmental change of state. The first change in matter, as well as all subsequent changes, is therefore caused by a being which is itself changeless. Movement ultimately owes its origin to a Prime Mover, himself unmoved, whom we call God.

Mutability is not an absolute perfection. On the contrary, the possibility of loss or gain denoted the abscence of perfection. Change is the transitory stage of beings while they are actualising or ceasing to actualise their capacities in conjunction with influences from their enviroment. Changeability spells incompleteness and dependence. Being as such does not necessarily involve change; indeed, change can only occur in composite being, which is limited and dependent.

Modern scientific philosophy has discarded Darwinism in favor of a theory of a God evolving with the universe in which he works creatively. But to require developement in God is sheer anthropomorphism.

By definition, therefore, change cannot be absolute and can have no place in ultimate being. Infinity admits of no variation. God the Primary Being is thus unique in his superiority to change. He has the perfection of which change implies the lack. In the activity of Deity there is no change, nor shadow of vicissitude. The triune life involves no subsequent realisation of capacities previously undeveloped or passive. It has always been fully actualised. Its internal manifestations share the changelessness of the essence in which they eternally originate. Deity is pure omnipotent Act excluding instability and deflection. Subsistent goodness is necessarily constant and independent, for it is the fullness of being.
 
It follows, therefore, that the activity whereby the system of nature is produced is of a higher order than the activity of movement or change. The originating Cause of being cannot have the same limited type of activity as it gives to its products. Their changeful mode of activity depends on influence from without, but there is nothing which can change or move the First Cause, for no being other than that Cause exists on the plane of subsistent being. Nor could that Cause move or change itself, for no being, whether finite or infinite, alone can cause limitation, change, or movement in itself. It follows that the activity of this Cause is not any form of change or movement. The causal activity superior to all change must therefore be ever present in, and identical with, the very nature of the First Cause. The causation of the universe must thus represent a permanent and changeless natural activity of God as distinct from a transient or departmental change of state. The first change in matter, as well as all subsequent changes, is therefore caused by a being which is itself changeless. Movement ultimately owes its origin to a Prime Mover, himself unmoved, whom we call God.

Mutability is not an absolute perfection. On the contrary, the possibility of loss or gain denoted the abscence of perfection. Change is the transitory stage of beings while they are actualising or ceasing to actualise their capacities in conjunction with influences from their enviroment. Changeability spells incompleteness and dependence. Being as such does not necessarily involve change; indeed, change can only occur in composite being, which is limited and dependent.

Modern scientific philosophy has discarded Darwinism in favor of a theory of a God evolving with the universe in which he works creatively. But to require developement in God is sheer anthropomorphism.

By definition, therefore, change cannot be absolute and can have no place in ultimate being. Infinity admits of no variation. God the Primary Being is thus unique in his superiority to change. He has the perfection of which change implies the lack. In the activity of Deity there is no change, nor shadow of vicissitude. The triune life involves no subsequent realisation of capacities previously undeveloped or passive. It has always been fully actualised. Its internal manifestations share the changelessness of the essence in which they eternally originate. Deity is pure omnipotent Act excluding instability and deflection. Subsistent goodness is necessarily constant and independent, for it is the fullness of being.
Ok lets try this again. I don’t want you to assert a load of old tosh…

I want to know why the cuase of the inflation of space time must be a “supernatural being”. I would also like you to present the repeatable evidence that led you to your hypothesis/conclusions. You saying “it must be so, becuase i say so.” means nothing.
 
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.
I was wondering when the topics of subsidiarity and solidarity would come up. They seem to be forgotten by many today. For a brief summary of them check the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Just a suggestion, though, read them in context with the great social encyclicals of Popes Leo XIII and John Paul II together with the masterpiece of Pope Pius XII, “The Mystical Body of Christ.” You will then see, maybe more clearly, how the Church has consistently taught on these topics, all politics aside.

BTW - The reason I personnaly rejected Rand was because of her belief in the sovereignity of the individual. Man is not sovereign. God is.
 
Ok lets try this again. I don’t want you to assert a load of old tosh…

I want to know why the cuase of the inflation of space time must be a “supernatural being”. I would also like you to present the repeatable evidence that led you to your hypothesis/conclusions. You saying “it must be so, becuase i say so.” means nothing.
Before going any farther, I would ask that you would please re-read what I just wrote and take a LOT of time to THINK about what I wrote.

I’ll get back to you. No problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top