Why are atheists so unhappy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RNRobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
True! 😃

Atheists try to belittle the person who disagrees with them since they do not desire to “get it” that Someone had to create the “causes” in order for creation to happen.

A “conscience” is not “tangible, yet every person has one.” It urges us to do good rather than evil. This urge for goodness can only be given to us by a greater Good. God is Good. (Matthew 19:17)

Atheism is about self. “I will not serve anyone except myself.” What they do not understand is this: A person either belongs to God or to Satan. These are the only two possible choices for eternity. Good vs. Evil.

If a person rejects the Good (God), he accepts the Evil (Satan) either by conscious choice or by default (if he continues in self-delusion that there cannot be a God because He cannot be explained to his satisfaction).
Well said. Thank you. 👍
 
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.
Just a thought for us. Maybe I should start a new thread on this. If there is sufficient interest on the topics, solidarity and subsidiarity, perhaps that will be the way to go. But for now I’ll start off by saying that of the two complimentary truths, that man possesses an individual being, inalienable and incommunicable, and that he is by nature a member of society, unable to attain complete self-expression except through membership of a society, each in turn has been overemphasized or exaggerated, and its consequences drawn out, with frequently little regard to the complementary truth. The one extreme, the undue isolation of the individual from his necessary social enviroment, has received its obvious baptism under the name of individualism. For the other there is no recognized title forthcoming. It ought surely to be called socialism. That name has, however, been appropriated to an economic doctrine which, even if it be regarded as the economic expression of the general tendency of thought with which we are dealing, is not that tendency itself. I will nevertheless use the term socialism to designate the opposite pole to individualism. It is evident that neither line of thought is ever found pure, without admixture or correction by its compliment. Such an isolation would at once manifest its absurdity.
 
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.
Read it again, all i see is a load of unfounded speculation. Now can we discuss evidence the for your hypothesis.
 
Again why would it have to be created by a supernatural power?
Who or what, in your opinion, provided the initial components for creation if it was not a supernatural power? Is it within man’s power? No. Do you know of any intelligence higher than human intelligence whose power was great enough to create?

By default, we can assume that there is a higher “supernatural power” who can “think” of and plan the intricacies of the human eye, the chemicals needed to sustain life, the petals of flowers, etc.
 
Yep not all animals are the same you know? I could also quote killing of children by parents in the bible.
Pagans sacrificed their children to “gods.” Christians would say that it is immoral to sacrifice innocent children. A pagan or atheist would not have a problem sacrificing children for either religious reasons or for expediency for some perceived greater selfish “reason.”

A Christian would say that each person is endowed with a conscience which urges each of us to “do right” so they should have known better than to sacrifice their children.

Since they were sacrificing their children, then they were not listening to their consciences. The murder of their children for sacrificial purposes became the law of the land by the powerful over the weaker.

All atheistic and pagan cultures revert to this type of immorality. When conscience is smothered by selfish desires, all vices are let loose with no more restraints, and it becomes the powerful (those with weapons) who wield power over the weaker (those without weapons) and their collective immorality becomes the law of the land.
 
This is a great hypothesis and all, now can you provide me some empirical evidence for this. 😃
I have Jesus’ (God’s) Church’s unbroken line (hierarchy) of bishops and priests who teach me this, the first of them having been intimate friends of Jesus Himself 2000 years ago, and who died cruel deaths rather than denounce this Truth that the Son of God (Jesus) died for us to reconcile us to Him in atonement for Adam’s Sin which alienated us, in order to make it possible for all of us to inherit eternal life in heaven with Him. 👍 I have a copy of their Bible, a collection of manuscripts, which tells of God’s relationship with His creation, including even me, since I choose to believe in Him and obey Him.

Too bad you have chosen to disregard this proof/evidence. 😉
 
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?
For the last time Sweden and Japan are secular not atheist countries, furthermore, the only atheist countries I know of were communist and well, evil.
 
Morals come from empathy.

Contraception is immoral?:eek: I cant wait to here this one…:rotfl:
Is it possible for you to understand this truth with your limited ability to reason and discern spiritual things due to the hardness of your heart? 🤷

Contraception is extreme selfishness. It is the “taking” of selfish pleasure while “frustrating” the purpose for the “seed” which is the creation of new life.

Contraception can and does cause abortions.

Sex is supposed to produce new life. Surprise! Surprise!

Sex is meant to be only for a man and woman who are married to each other who will sacrificially nurture the children which result from their union until they can be independent themselves.

Well, you did ask! 😃
 
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.
You reject the claims of deists as well (due to the lack of evidence for God’s existence), therefore, you are making a claim that God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence. Why is there no evidence for a God?
 
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.
But you certainly lack belief in a god for actual reasons, do you not? You do not simply point to some sort of vague non-belief, and say, ‘there is no belief in my heart, and that is that’. Assuming that you have actual reasons, and that you can articulate them, then you must not find those reasons very compelling, if you have to hide behind the common atheists semantic mantras that are used to avoid having to do the intellectual work of making and then defending a position. Such cowardice!

The problem that is met in these discussions, is that the notion of god is ultimately shrouded in such mystery, that neither position can have even a hint of arrogance as to the relationship between their position and truth. Those who disagree, I have often found, possess minds which are incapable of understanding the great nuance of all of this. Although most theists will cling to dogma, so will most atheists, whilst at the same moment claiming to be creative thinkers, and in the next once again relying upon a loophole of semantics to excuse themselves from demonstrating their creativity.

As for your remark about ‘basic science’ making the notion of supernatural creation ridiculous, I can only offer you my own life as an example of a point. I have advanced degrees in separate scientific fields, and I am certainly no simple fool, but yet I am baffled by the very basic questions which can be asked about the universe in which we live, and our minds existence within it. Perhaps some great genius permeates your brain, and you have no such problem; or perhaps your science is simply too basic, and you insist on trotting upon that youthful path of feeling your wisdom has encompassed all reality. Cowardice and little humility make for such disgusting modern men.
 
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.
But you certainly lack belief in a god for actual reasons, do you not? You do not simply point to some sort of vague non-belief, and say, ‘there is no belief in my heart, and that is that’. Assuming that you have actual reasons, and that you can articulate them, then you must not find those reasons very compelling, if you have to hide behind the common atheists semantic mantras that are used to avoid having to do the intellectual work of making and then defending a position. Such cowardice!

The problem that is met in these discussions, is that the notion of god is ultimately shrouded in such mystery, that neither position can have even a hint of arrogance as to the relationship between their position and truth. Those who disagree, I have often found, possess minds which are incapable of understanding the great nuance of all of this. Although most theists will cling to dogma, so will most atheists, whilst at the same moment claiming to be creative thinkers, and in the next once again relying upon a loophole of semantics to excuse themselves from demonstrating their creativity.

As for your remark about ‘basic science’ making the notion of supernatural creation ridiculous, I can only offer you my own life as an example of a point. I have advanced degrees in separate scientific fields, and I am certainly no simple fool, but yet I am baffled by the very basic questions which can be asked about the universe in which we live, and our minds existence within it. Perhaps some great genius permeates your brain, and you have no such problem; or perhaps your science is simply too basic, and you insist on trotting upon that youthful path of feeling your wisdom has encompassed all reality. Cowardice and little humility make for such disgusting modern men.
 
But you certainly lack belief in a god for actual reasons, do you not? You do not simply point to some sort of vague non-belief, and say, ‘there is no belief in my heart, and that is that’. Assuming that you have actual reasons, and that you can articulate them, then you must not find those reasons very compelling, if you have to hide behind the common atheists semantic mantras that are used to avoid having to do the intellectual work of making and then defending a position. Such cowardice!

The problem that is met in these discussions, is that the notion of god is ultimately shrouded in such mystery, that neither position can have even a hint of arrogance as to the relationship between their position and truth. Those who disagree, I have often found, possess minds which are incapable of understanding the great nuance of all of this. Although most theists will cling to dogma, so will most atheists, whilst at the same moment claiming to be creative thinkers, and in the next once again relying upon a loophole of semantics to excuse themselves from demonstrating their creativity.

As for your remark about ‘basic science’ making the notion of supernatural creation ridiculous, I can only offer you my own life as an example of a point. I have advanced degrees in separate scientific fields, and I am certainly no simple fool, but yet I am baffled by the very basic questions which can be asked about the universe in which we live, and our minds existence within it. Perhaps some great genius permeates your brain, and you have no such problem; or perhaps your science is simply too basic, and you insist on trotting upon that youthful path of feeling your wisdom has encompassed all reality. Cowardice and little humility make for such disgusting modern men.
Totality unrelated to your post but why are you an agnostic atheist (I still don’t understand the meaning of this term)? When you first posted I was under the impression you were Catholic (username)?
 
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?
While I’m on query, I wanted to let you know I am not a supporter of capital punishment. Sometimes I can get pretty upset, but people deserve the chance to live and change. Also, I am not a support of euthanasia.
 
Totality unrelated to your post but why are you an agnostic atheist (I still don’t understand the meaning of this term)? When you first posted I was under the impression you were Catholic (username)?
When I first joined the forum five years ago, I was seriously considering conversion, and had a very good friendship with a (then) local priest who was guiding me towards such a thing. My user name was chosen to reflect this, but I have updated my public profile so that I do not mislead anyone into thinking my thoughts are Catholic thoughts. I keep my user name, not just because of convenience, but because I hope to at least behave in a way that would be pleasing to your Lord in a forum which ultimately is his.

An ‘agnostic atheist’ is indeed a bit of a silly term on first glance. All it means to imply, however, is that I have the following basic positions on the existence of a supernatural deity or deities:
  • I do not know that it is possible for me to have any mystical or intellectual knowledge about the supernatural which is beyond my own personal psychology and emotional state, or my desire to believe or not believe. My view of things may be heavily biased by my own mind, and I cannot say what the universe is like outside of my mind’s interaction with it. I have therefore seen as most rational, the choice to simply, for the present, mark certain questions as unanswerable. I feel the evidence as I currently see it, nearly equally can support many different positions on supernatural beings, and that the real triumph of one position over another is based upon selecting which position is most comfortable. These views I call agnostic.
  • Nonetheless, I do have an external life which is based upon my internal processes, and such a life is most certainly non-religious. Although there are many reasons for why I am non-religious, I feel that there is a certain emotion in my heart which tells me that my pursuit of a particular religion is the result of a desire for a universe in which such a religion is true. One of the reasons I found Catholicism to be beautiful, for example, is because of my fascination with medieval Europe, a world lit by the candles of altars. This desire to believe, once it enters the consciousness, causes me to view notions such as a monotheistic god to be silly, which in turn causes me to question why I think such an idea to be silly. When I view things in this way, I feel that some of my own basic reason is rather a bit of an atheist.
To put it in a nutshell, an agnostic atheist is a person whose natural psychology and reason are leaned towards atheism over theism, but who nonetheless is very cautious in claiming that such a leaning is a universal leaning in all men, or that it reflects the universe or superuniverse or all that exists in a true way. You might call it liberal atheism. I do not have faith, but I do not know if I am right. You may very well be right, and I might be wrong. We must understand that we both lack actual knowledge of this thing. There are also agnostic theists.
 
When I first joined the forum five years ago, I was seriously considering conversion, and had a very good friendship with a (then) local priest who was guiding me towards such a thing. My user name was chosen to reflect this, but I have updated my public profile so that I do not mislead anyone into thinking my thoughts are Catholic thoughts. I keep my user name, not just because of convenience, but because I hope to at least behave in a way that would be pleasing to your Lord in a forum which ultimately is his.

An ‘agnostic atheist’ is indeed a bit of a silly term on first glance. All it means to imply, however, is that I have the following basic positions on the existence of a supernatural deity or deities:
  • I do not know that it is possible for me to have any mystical or intellectual knowledge about the supernatural which is beyond my own personal psychology and emotional state, or my desire to believe or not believe. My view of things may be heavily biased by my own mind, and I cannot say what the universe is like outside of my mind’s interaction with it. I have therefore seen as most rational, the choice to simply, for the present, mark certain questions as unanswerable. I feel the evidence as I currently see it, nearly equally can support many different positions on supernatural beings, and that the real triumph of one position over another is based upon selecting which position is most comfortable. These views I call agnostic.
  • Nonetheless, I do have an external life which is based upon my internal processes, and such a life is most certainly non-religious. Although there are many reasons for why I am non-religious, I feel that there is a certain emotion in my heart which tells me that my pursuit of a particular religion is the result of a desire for a universe in which such a religion is true. One of the reasons I found Catholicism to be beautiful, for example, is because of my fascination with medieval Europe, a world lit by the candles of altars. This desire to believe, once it enters the consciousness, causes me to view notions such as a monotheistic god to be silly, which in turn causes me to question why I think such an idea to be silly. When I view things in this way, I feel that some of my own basic reason is rather a bit of an atheist.
To put it in a nutshell, an agnostic atheist is a person whose natural psychology and reason are leaned towards atheism over theism, but who nonetheless is very cautious in claiming that such a leaning is a universal leaning in all men, or that it reflects the universe or superuniverse or all that exists in a true way. You might call it liberal atheism. I do not have faith, but I do not know if I am right. You may very well be right, and I might be wrong. We must understand that we both lack actual knowledge of this thing. There are also agnostic theists.
If by actual knowledge you mean scientific proof, I agree, however, faith is knowledge (truth) as given to us by God through revelation (scriptural and personal). In the Catholic Church, faith and reason are both venues of truth that allow the human spirit the freedom to soar to new heights of knowledge. God bless you Inomini Domini.

p.s. I hope you seek and find the truth.
 
Hello InNomineDomini,

I think I can relate with you in a particular way. I have intellectually seek numerous different paths to try to understand about this other person that seems so real and yet I cannot see him. I think some former dissatisfied Catholics who no longer practice or reject the Church all together may relate too.

I hope you continue to consider joining the flock and in the process learn from accurate and comprehensive sources .I’m sure you would not want to learn half heartedly.

Have you ever met someone who has damage to their brain in a way that makes it impossible for them to remember days and concepts of time. They can remember short segments of isolated events but cannot tell which one occurred before another. For example, they can vividly remember the scene where a pitcher throws the fastest fast ball in his career because they were sitting just behind the dugout and that was their father. And they remember their father taking his last breath in the hospital bed. However, they cannot no for sure which event came first.

Each time they think about it, they can logically deduce, within minutes or seconds or sometimes even immediately that their father made that pitch before he was in the hospital bed. But they would have to think about it each time if anyone triggered their memory about their father during these particular times.

Without taking anything away from this wonderful connection between father and child, I suggest that this is in some ways analogous to how one can have a sense that God exists but in no way know it. It is like there is something very profound missing and one cannot truly know what that is to make up for it. But one can know there is something, just “what?”. For me, the Church provided this connection.
 
It is like there is something very profound missing and one cannot truly know what that is to make up for it. But one can know there is something, just “what?”. For me, the Church provided this connection.
Hello there.

I thank you for your thoughts, and hope you will excuse me for snipping them.

I think that there are certain needs that some folk exhibit which allow them to be fertile soil for the seeds of religious faith, and that those needs can be viewed as being the pure result of the lives which they lead, and the position within a culture they find themselves occupying.

As far as I can see into myself, I do not feel that I perceive such a need, and this is a trait which I believe that many atheists share. On the other hand, there is no question that religious folk often speak of needs which were not being met before they became religious; and I am sure anyone who, in adulthood, became more religious than they were previously, could communicate this notion.

People often speak of scientists being atheists, and wonder whether their education allows them a better vantage point in perceiving religion to be something which is they feel is untrue. Many wonder if science has ‘disproven’ the God of monotheism. From my personal experiences of scientists, and in my life as an educator of future scientists, such people who are attracted to serious study, are people who have been attracted in this way since childhood.

For them, the greatest pleasure in life is an understanding of some aspect of the natural world, say, or in understanding complex math. My best analogy is to imagine a little boy speaking ardently of dinosaurs, where they lived, what they ate, and what in the world caused them to go away. Such people, moreover, have the capacity to feel self-actualisation. Their lives have meaning in part because their great love for something has become their career, and very often, such a career is at the very least somewhat capable of supporting a comfortable lifestyle. (My sister-in-law works in medicinal chemistry, and is salaried nearly into the middle six-digit salary range. It takes a great deal of ego to accomplish something like that in life; the sort of ego that causes you to get out of bed in the morning, not narcissism. It takes ego to want good things for your family.)

How is it that such a person should feel the needs in their lives that cause them to be religious, if not tragedy? If you are a theist, this speaks well of tragedy; but to my thinking, this insinuates something more: that a life brought to its knees to worship at the altar of God, is a life which leads to yet another question which we cannot answer without first assuming a position on the existence of God. Did God permit the tragedy so that some happy person might desire to worship him? Or is the person simply religious because they ‘finally’ have a need to be? Either way, the tragedy cannot demonstrate or rule out God’s reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top