Why are atheists so unhappy?

[Leela]

So in your words, your okay with Mediocracy when it comes to Morality. You can let soem evil slide here and there, right?

In my words??? Those are definitely your words and have nothing to do what what I’ve said.

 

[Angel7]

In my words??? Those are definitely your words and have nothing to do what what I’ve said.

I’m sorry, but it seemed to me your okay without Perfect Happiness, is this the message you are getting at? I interpreted as, your okay with a “decent” system of Morals.

 

[SimonArizona]

But it doesn’t change the fact that those who are comparing do so with the understanding that they are morally “superior”, i.e, that their standard of good is better than anothers, and such a thing is impossible for a moral relativist to do, as they believe in no moral absolutes. How then can such comparisons be valid (it is mere opinion rather than objective truth)?

I believe man is so lost that we have no idea of what “good” is without our revelation from God. Ten Commandments for example.

See, I could say I believe that my personal moral code of ethics, originating from Jesus Christ, is better for mankind than say radical Islam, because mine causes less death and destruction to mankind. But that does not prove it to be the absolute moral truth, only that it has more desirable results to me. Radical Islamists are producing their most desirable results and they believe it is absolute that God approves of violence. so how do you decide which is true?

Exactly.

But the question is, are they correct? depends on personal opinion

 

[Leela]

I’m sorry, but it seemed to me your okay without Perfect Happiness, is this the message you are getting at? I interpreted as, your okay with a “decent” system of Morals.

No. I’m saying that we can work for a better world and recognize our progress in working for a better world without spending any time thinking about what a “Perfect World” could possibly mean just as we can compare “pretty hot” to “really hot” even if we can’t make any sense of “perfectly hot.”

 

[Angel7]

No. I’m saying that we can work for a better world and recognize our progress in working for a better world without spending any time thinking about what a “Perfect World” could possibly mean just as we can compare “pretty hot” to “really hot” even if we can’t make any sense of “perfectly hot.”

My point is, If we Aim for Heaven, we Help Perfect the World while we’re here.
If we aim for Earth, we lose them both.

I got that from a quote to

If you aim for Heaven and Leave the Earth, you will gain both.

If you aim for Earth and Leave Heaven, you will lose both

 

[SimonArizona]

No. I’m saying that we can work for a better world and recognize our progress in working for a better world without spending any time thinking about what a “Perfect World” could possibly mean just as we can compare “pretty hot” to “really hot” even if we can’t make any sense of “perfectly hot.”

what do you mean by a better world? what if half the population of the planet believes a better world is death to all non-muslims (kaliph) is that a better world? how can you say they are wrong? because you disagree? What code of ethics do you point at to prove they are wrong? if none, how can you say they are not right?

 

[josie_L]

I believe man is so lost that we have no idea of what “good” is without our revelation from God. Ten Commandments for example.

See, I could say I believe that my personal moral code of ethics, originating from Jesus Christ, is better for mankind than say radical Islam, because mine causes less death and destruction to mankind. But that does not prove it to be the absolute moral truth, only that it has more desirable results to me. Radical Islamists are producing their most desirable results and they believe it is absolute that God approves of violence. so how do you decide which is true?

Exactly.

But the question is, are they correct? depends on personal opinion

But it’s not your personal moral code we are refering to (nor anyone else’s), but the natural (universal) moral law (moral absolutes exist independently of religion). Conscience is a means by which God reveals morality it is why all people can agree on many things as being good or bad, even those who are irreligious can live morally upright lives. There is an objective truth as well as objective morality (if you believe in God you cannot state otherwise). Those who differ in conscience (from other people) in an extreme manner are either insane, brainwashed, or lack a properly formed conscience. Through logic alone one can perceive there are moral absolutes.

 

[CWBetts]

Perhaps if the Atheists here would just take the time to read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis…

 

[j1akey]

Perhaps if the Atheists here would just take the time to read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis…

Honestly, while I have no objections to reading books related to the defense of any religion, if I stopped to read every book that people told atheists to “just take the the time to read”, I’d be reading from sun up till sun down every day for a month.

 

[Angel7]

Honestly, while I have no objections to reading books related to the defense of any religion, if I stopped to read every book that people told atheists to “just take the the time to read”, I’d be reading from sun up till sun down every day for a month.

Hey, atleast you’ll be contributing to the literacy of society

 

[AnAtheist]

Perhaps if the Atheists here would just take the time to read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis…

No, thank you. I have read excerpts, that guy not only writes really bad fantasy he also could have needed some training in basic logic. E.g. the Lord, liar, lunatic trilemma is a perfect example of the bifurcation fallacy (trifucation in that case).

 

[CWBetts]

No, thank you. I have read excerpts, that guy not only writes really bad fantasy he also could have needed some training in basic logic. E.g. the Lord, liar, lunatic trilemma is a perfect example of the bifurcation fallacy (trifucation in that case).

First, the CHroncles of Narnia was essentially writtenf or Children, and that series was not the only thing he wrote. I have a list of wonderful books he had also written. I feel that you have realy reads nothing ho his, but discount him only because he is a Christian writer. I actually deel soarry for anyone who is so narrow-minded.

 

[Angel7]

First, the CHroncles of Narnia was essentially writtenf or Children, and that series was not the only thing he wrote. I have a list of wonderful books he had also written. I feel that you have realy reads nothing ho his, but discount him only because he is a Christian writer. I actually deel soarry for anyone who is so narrow-minded.

No one should judge now friend. Lets just get into another Good old Heated debate, I find them Entertaining.

 

[Leela]

No, thank you. I have read excerpts, that guy not only writes really bad fantasy he also could have needed some training in basic logic. E.g. the Lord, liar, lunatic trilemma is a perfect example of the bifurcation fallacy (trifucation in that case).

I read it a few months ago having been urged on by so many on this forum. You are right about the logic issues and especially the bifurcation fallacy. His arguments generally take the following form. There are only two possibilities, either it is A or B (where B is favorable to his version of Christianity). He then goes on to demonstrate that B is just stupid. So, he concludes, it must be A! As I was reading I just kept thinking, but what about C,D,E,…or other things we haven’t even thought of yet.

Best,
Leela

 

[Angel7]

I read it a few months ago having been urged on by so many on this forum. You are right about the logic issues and especially the bifurcation fallacy. His arguments generally take the following form. There are only two possibilities, either it is A or B (where B is favorable to his version of Christianity). He then goes on to demonstrate that B is just stupid. So, he concludes, it must be A! As I was reading I just kept thinking, but what about C,D,E,…or other things we haven’t even thought of yet.

Best,
Leela

I’d love to help, maybe if you can give some quotes, and tell us waht A B C D E are?

 

[Leela]

I’d love to help, maybe if you can give some quotes, and tell us waht A B C D E are?

If we take the famous Liar, Lunatic, Lord example, isn’t it also possible that Jesus was none of the above? Perhaps he was a great moral teacher but didn’t say and do all the things that the Bible says that he did and said. The divergent accounts of the Gospels suggest to me that that is the case. In fact, I think Jesus is only depicted as claiming to be Lord in John. Lewis presupposes that we can take the Gospels as reliable history while no historian could do that in her field of study. How about Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Legend? What about other possibilities that I haven’t been clever enough to think of? I don’t think you can prove the divinity of Jesus by process of elimination.

Best,
Leela

 

[Angel7]

If we take the famous Liar, Lunatic, Lord example, isn’t it also possible that Jesus was none of the above? Perhaps he was a great moral teacher but didn’t say and do all the things that the Bible says that he did and said. The divergent accounts of the Gospels suggest to me that that is the case. In fact, I think Jesus is only depicted as claiming to be Lord in John. Lewis presupposes that we can take the Gospels as reliable history while no historian could do that in her field of study. How about Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Legend? What about other possibilities that I haven’t been clever enough to think of? I don’t think you can prove the divinity of Jesus by process of elimination.

Best,
Leela

Then you wouldn’t be calling Jesus a liar he is Lord.
Your Calling the Gospels a liar. Calling them Innacurate and false.
For you probably don’t believe on any of the Miracles, like walking on water, rasing the dead.

 

[Leela]

Then you wouldn’t be calling Jesus a liar he is Lord.
Your Calling the Gospels a liar. Calling them Innacurate and false.
For you probably don’t believe on any of the Miracles, like walking on water, rasing the dead.

Assuming Jesus existed, I don’t think he was a liar or a lunatic or the Lord. I think he was probably a very extraordinary person and a legend grew surrounding his story as has happened around other historical figures that makes it impossible today to know what he said and what he did not say. And no, I don’t believe any of the miracles, though I do find it interesting that the issue for his critics was not that he was a charlatan and not really healing anybody but that he was doing so on the Sabbath. If he existed, a historian would have to conclude that he was probably a healer of some sort or another. But raising the dead does not seem to be something that human experience tells us is possible depending on how you define “dead.” But of course, I remain open to new evidence on the matter.

Best,
Leela

 

[josie_L]

If we take the famous Liar, Lunatic, Lord example, isn’t it also possible that Jesus was none of the above? Perhaps he was a great moral teacher but didn’t say and do all the things that the Bible says that he did and said. The divergent accounts of the Gospels suggest to me that that is the case. In fact, I think Jesus is only depicted as claiming to be Lord in John. Lewis presupposes that we can take the Gospels as reliable history while no historian could do that in her field of study. How about Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Legend? What about other possibilities that I haven’t been clever enough to think of? I don’t think you can prove the divinity of Jesus by process of elimination.

Best,
Leela

Actually the gospels don’t have divergent accounts but divergent audiences (each gospel was targeting a specific group, for example, Matthew was written for Jews, and Mark for Gentiles . . . etc.) Furthermore, Jesus is mentioned as Lord in each gospel (have you been reading books from the Jesus Seminar). It really depends on how knowledgeable you are in understanding scripture, for example, when Jesus says “I am” he is refering to himself as God. There are books which take into account the legend or guru factor and they are refuted by the evidence of what we know concerning Jesus. Dr. Peter Kreeft is one example of a philosopher who deals with this.

p.s. Almost all biblical scholars and historians have agreed that Jesus did exist and that he was born in the 1st century and that he was a great moral teacher (that he may have accomplished some great deeds) and was crucified by Pilate.

Richard Burridge and Graham Gould (2004: References below) state that the questioning of Jesus’ existence is not accepted by mainstream critical scholarship.[8] Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that biblical scholars and historians regard the Jesus never existed thesis as “effectively refuted”.[9] Graham N. Stanton writes, **“Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.”**10] James Charlesworth writes “No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings …”[11] Michael Grant believes that the Christ myth theory fails to satisfy modern critical methodology, and is rejected by all but a few modern scholars.[12]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Which leaves us with few options of who Jesus was (lunatic or liar I would disqualify as Jesus could not say the things he said without being pyschotic and/or evil), the most plausible being it’s legend (the followers of Jesus made him into something he was not) or he is Lord. There are books that deal with the legend aspect quite well. God bless.

 

[SHW]

I read it a few months ago having been urged on by so many on this forum. You are right about the logic issues and especially the bifurcation fallacy. His arguments generally take the following form. There are only two possibilities, either it is A or B (where B is favorable to his version of Christianity). He then goes on to demonstrate that B is just stupid. So, he concludes, it must be A! As I was reading I just kept thinking, but what about C,D,E,…or other things we haven’t even thought of yet.

Best,
Leela

If trying to decide the truth about “God” is the example to be studied, then there are only two possibilities. Either there is a God or there is not. There can not be two Gods because they would not be in perfect unity and so their “own” ideas for their “separate” created “universes et al” would end in “chaos” due to this disunity as a result (if they even managed to create them, that is). There can only be one Supreme Creator such as the Blessed Trinity (a perfect union of three equal Divine Persons) whom we call one “God.” Simple logic.