Why are atheists so unhappy?

[rbiaca]

He wants people to make the concious choice. .

Even at the expense, that the majority of his children will never get to hear this amazing news about eternal life and His existence?

 

[josie_L]

Who am I? I am RBIACA!

Well, welcome to CAF RBIACA, first rule, do not attempt to tell someone what they say is meaningless without first asking what they meant, second, do not express your opinions as if they were fact, and third, if your purpose for coming here is to argue for the sake of arguing against us then you will find nothing of value here.

‘Open your heart and mind to God’ is an old canard that the religious throw at non-believers. You may as well tell an atheist, ‘open your soul to Gods loving embrace and he’ll shower you will never ending joy.’

A meaningless statement…but sounds so promising.

It’s funny how you took out the part describing what was meant by my statement.

Please, cite your source of these studies.

“Dr. Ken Ring published a paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer, 1993) concerning near-death experiencers who, while out of their bodies, witness real events that occur far away from their dead body. The important aspect to this phenomenon is that these events seen far away are later verified to be true. Experiencers not only witness events from great distances, but they have been documented to hear conversations between people at the same events. Conversations such as these have also verified to be true. An even more fascinating phenomenon occurs when the experiencer actually appears in spirit to someone, usually a loved one, during their NDE and it is verified to be true by the experiencer and the loved one. It is evidence such as this, if scientifically controlled, that can provide absolute scientific proof that consciousness can exist outside of the body. A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. However, science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close. This kind of evidence and others provide very strong circumstantial evidence for the survival of consciousness.”

near-death.com/evidence.html

I also found this cite which may help you in understanding the conscienscious and it’s relationship to the body: iands.org/

 

[CWBetts]

St Paul speaks at length about those who are not under the Law, because they have not heard the Law, but still intinctually follow the Law. Perhaps a good explanation og this can be found in the 1st chapter of “Mere Christianity”, by CS Lewis. He can explain it better than I can at any rate.

 

[josie_L]

Even at the expense, that the majority of his children will never get to hear this amazing news about eternal life and His existence?

What do you mean by expense? And what makes you think God is not taking the necessary steps to bring this amazing news to them?

 

[rbiaca]

W A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. ]

I’ll wait.

 

[josie_L]

Thank you’

However, I’ll have to remind you that my question, was directed more towards a poster who claimed that God does not have to reveal himself to anyone. This poster then went on to list all sorts of intellectual pursuits a person can undertake in order to meet this God.

My reasons for stating God doesn’t necessarily need to reveal himself (tangibly) are twofold. First, I was speaking to a poster named Leela asking for a direct sign (so she could believe) of which I responded that such individual signs are not necessary . Two, they are not necessary because we don’t need individual tangible signs per se in order to know that God may very well exist, hence why I urged her to look into the origins of life (and all that it pertains to) and the miraculous (i.e., the miracles of the saints and of the eucharist, the apparitions, the shroud, the tilma of Gaudelupe. . .) In order to answer to search for God honestly one must have an open heart and mind.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

I’m a very happy atheist.

What’s more, I believe that the reason for the rapid spread of Christianity in the first few centuries was due to the unhappiness of people who were comforted by the thought that they would one day go to heaven and be eternally happy. Christianity appealed to the poor and downtrodden because it promised happiness in the world to come (and unhappiness for all those scummy rich people who were not of the “one true” belief).

This still applies today. I’m sure many Christians are engaging in wish fulfilment in hoping to be happy in their imagined afterlife.

I hope that means your bark is worse than your bite.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

p.s. I’m glad to know you think yourself smarter than God.

A couple of points here …

I don’t believe in God, so it’s meaningless for me to compare myself to him. I should have written, “If – for the sake of argument – we assume God exists …” I find that Christians contradict themselves on the issue of God’s ‘smarts’. On the one hand, Christians are quite happy to use evidence from the real world to show how smart He is. On the other hand, when a skeptic like me counters with evidence from the same world that seems to show the contrary, the evidence is ignored and we’re told that God must be smarter than us, and the evidence be damned. In other words, the rules change to benefit the Christian’s argument.

So can you actually counter my statement with any logic? If not, you may claim that logic doesn’t count … for either side.

Exactly what “official” Catholic doctrine are you refering to? And I assume you can provide the information as you seem to think yourself correct in making such a statement.

Okay, you’ve got me there. I admit that I haven’t checked the catechism (which I’m currently in the process of reading) or the Catholic encyclopedia for support on this one. I’m going to do so soon. I based that statement partially on Dante’s Inferno and on second-hand sources. Can you cite the catechism paragraph for a statement on what happens to the ‘virtuous pagans’ et al? I understand the current pope has done away with limbo; do unbaptized babies go to the same place now?

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Rome was multicultural, and there were as many beliefs about eternal happiness as there were Roman Legions and Roman slaves. Your reason for the rapid spread of Christianity fails.

Okay, I’ll restate: One of the reasons for the rapid spread of Christianity …

So did every other pagan religion in the empire. And Christianity also appealed to the rich and powerful in Rome and throughout the empire. Again, your reasoning fails.

Christianity mainly appealed almost exclusively to the poor in the Roman empire until the fourth century, when Constantine adopted the religion.

----I’m sure many atheists are engaging in wish-fulfillment in hoping to be happy in their sins. -----

:doh2:See how easy it is to make silly statements?

Many atheists are perfectly happy – not ‘hoping to be happy’ – while living a life they consider sin-free. The church’s idea of what constitutes a sin is not universal.

A Christian once said to me that, essentially, life is pointless without an afterlife. He obviously is engaging in wish fulfilment, considering there is no evidence for an afterlife.

 

[RNRobert]

I’m currently reading Karl Adam’s The Spirit of Catholicism and he makes the following comment about faith and the search for God (boldface my emphasis):

In the quest of the infinite God our attitude must be one only of expectation and attention, for the adequate answer comes only from on high. And so there is nothing more preposterous than to seek to demonstrate the Divinity of Jesus with severe scientific exactitude, in the sense that even the religiously and morally indifferent, yes even the morally defective, the egoist and the man immersed in the things of sense, should be able to lay hold of the Godhead of Jesus with their hands and should no longer resist the faith. As though faith were a self-evident thing, as that twice two is four. The infinite and holy God does not allow Himself to be profaned by becoming the object of a purely human investigation. Certainly, by His miracles and signs, He directs any unprejudiced thinker to the faith, But the happy consummation, the victorious affirmation of belief, is given only to those who seek Him with profound reverence. What sort of a God would He be, who should suffer Himself to be calculated by anyone, like the sum of the angles on a triangle, and what sort of Christianity would that be, whose principle and most zealous adherents- because of the mathematical demonstratibility of the Divinity of Jesus- must necessarily be the wise and clever of this world, the selfish and the self-satisfied, and not the poor in spirit and pure of heart! Hence the vast significance of the words of Jesus: “Flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”

 

[rbiaca]

What do you mean by expense?

Word of mouth spreading of the good news, at the expense of those who will Live their entire lives never having heard about the most amazing news in existence.

And what makes you think God is not taking the necessary steps to bring this amazing news to them?

The majority of the worlds population are not Christian. That’s how I’ve come to the conclusion that Gods word of mouth spreading of the gospel, after 2000 years, has proven that large pockets of the globe have not yet been penetrated.

That’s millions, upon billions of people who’ve lived and died, never having heard about the good news of Christ.

 

[rbiaca]

I understand the current pope has done away with limbo; do unbaptized babies go to the same place now?

The Church trusts that God will take care of those babies. No guarantee’s of heaven, but trust that God in his love will take care of them.

 

[CWBetts]

Okay, I’ll restate: One of the reasons for the rapid spread of Christianity …

Christianity mainly appealed almost exclusively to the poor in the Roman empire until the fourth century, when Constantine adopted the religion.

Many atheists are perfectly happy – not ‘hoping to be happy’ – while living a life they consider sin-free. The church’s idea of what constitutes a sin is not universal.

A Christian once said to me that, essentially, life is pointless without an afterlife. He obviously is engaging in wish fulfilment, considering there is no evidence for an afterlife.

I believe you are mistaken. There are hauntings. There are the Marian Apparitions. Perhaps you do not believe these as genuine, but they are evidence nevertheless. Perhaps you should say that thatere isn’t any evidence that you accept. I actually feel sorry for those that worship at the altar od science. THeir god has very few answers.

 

[josie_L]

Word of mouth spreading of the good news, at the expense of those who will Live their entire lives never having heard about the most amazing news in existence.

If they didn’t get to hear the good news in this lifetime they will in the next.

The majority of the worlds population are not Christian. That’s how I’ve come to the conclusion that Gods word of mouth spreading of the gospel, after 2000 years, has proven that large pockets of the globe have not yet been penetrated.

That’s millions, upon billions of people who’ve lived and died, never having heard about the good news of Christ.

The majority of the world’s population is not Christian because there are barriers being set in many of the nations which are non-Christian, for example, there is socialicism/communisim in China that is preventing and persecuting the (underground) Church from spreading the news (that’s like a billion people, right?) and then there’s the Middle East which for the most part persecutes Christians, and in some places disallows the promulgation of Christianity altogether (Saudi Arabia), and as for India the Christians who are flourishing are being threatened and have been threatened and killed (Orissa) by Hindu fundamentalists who have done much evil in the last year or two. It’s not exactly easy to bring about the Word of God in such conditions and yet it is false to assume that Christians haven’t penetrated these areas, they have. Furthermore, we have many missionaries who are putting their life on the line to preach to these countries and/or non-Christian regions.

 

[rbiaca]

If they didn’t get to hear the good news in this lifetime they will in the next.

If people can live perfectly decent, productive and happy lives without this good news, still get to heaven and then hear about the good news in the life to come…

Why not simply wait for your reward in heaven and then hear about the good news, after all, you’ll have eternity.

Me, I’m outta luck, I’m well versed in the good news.

The majority of the world’s population is not Christian because there are barriers being set in many of the nations which are non-Christian

I disagree, I would say that the reason why many are not Christians, as they believe that they have found the one true God in their religions. It’s as simple as competition.

China that is preventing and persecuting the (underground) Church from spreading the news (that’s like a billion people, right?)

God should have known that after 2000 years, a billion chinese would not yet know about him. Pity for those people.

Hindu fundamentalists

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

I believe you are mistaken. There are hauntings. There are the Marian Apparitions. Perhaps you do not believe these as genuine, but they are evidence nevertheless.

Agreed! As I stated on another board, there is no ‘proof’ in history or social science, only evidence. Strong evidence, weak evidence, flimsy evidence, doubtful evidence, mediocre evidence. The gospels are evidence of the workings of Jesus, no one can deny that. But then, there is also evidence for Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Joseph Smith’s magic glasses, Mohommed as a prophet of Allah, reincarnation, ghosts, alien abductions and the pope as the antichrist. The question I ask is: what level of believability do I place on the evidence for these things? I live by the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Agreed! As I stated on another board, there is no ‘proof’ in history or social science, only evidence. Strong evidence, weak evidence, flimsy evidence, doubtful evidence, mediocre evidence. The gospels are evidence of the workings of Jesus, no one can deny that. But then, there is also evidence for Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Joseph Smith’s magic glasses, Mohommed as a prophet of Allah, reincarnation, ghosts, alien abductions and the pope as the antichrist. The question I ask is: what level of believability do I place on the evidence for these things? I live by the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You must stop barking long enough to let your heart find it’s way to it’s deepest longing!
You were made for God,my friend! Such strong defenses are screaming of your pain! God is ALL-LOVING…turn to Him in your brokenness , He wants to bless you with peace and joy and He wants you to be with Him forever! Don’t demand proofs-open your heart and believe in the God who made you, redeemed you and cherishes you-allow Him to reveal Himself to you in your innermost being. I’m praying for you! Go to His Mother…she’s the dispenser of graces and blessings.

 

[josie_L]

A couple of points here …

I don’t believe in God, so it’s meaningless for me to compare myself to him. I should have written, “If – for the sake of argument – we assume God exists …” I find that Christians contradict themselves on the issue of God’s ‘smarts’. On the one hand, Christians are quite happy to use evidence from the real world to show how smart He is. On the other hand, when a skeptic like me counters with evidence from the same world that seems to show the contrary, the evidence is ignored and we’re told that God must be smarter than us, and the evidence be damned. In other words, the rules change to benefit the Christian’s argument.

So can you actually counter my statement with any logic? If not, you may claim that logic doesn’t count … for either side.

No there is no problem with me using logic as you may notice if you look through my many posts on this thread. What I disagree with is the faulty logic which is used to believe or counter the existence of God which is what I attempt to show when I’m directing a post to someone who is skeptical. I can’t very well speak for other Christians (and I’m sure that there are people who do this very thing you state above but I am not one of them), but for Catholics faith and reason are not incompatible.

Okay, you’ve got me there. I admit that I haven’t checked the catechism (which I’m currently in the process of reading) or the Catholic encyclopedia for support on this one. I’m going to do so soon. I based that statement partially on Dante’s Inferno and on second-hand sources. Can you cite the catechism paragraph for a statement on what happens to the ‘virtuous pagans’ et al? I understand the current pope has done away with limbo; do unbaptized babies go to the same place now?

If there are virtuous pagans who have never heard the word of God then God will judge them solely on their actions, if there are those who have heard the Word of God but reject it out of ignorance then they too have the possibility to be saved (on condition that they are virtuous). However, the Church’s stance can be reflected in these few lines in the Cathechism:

“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” pg. 224 para. 846 of the CCC

The key word here being “knowing”, so it is hard to establish who is not saved as only God could truly know a person’s heart and understanding/knowledge of the Truth

As for Limbo, just remember it was never declared a dogma of the Church and so not binding on us believers. Unbaptized babies would be treated I would believe like those who never heard the Word of God (but are virtuous), so therefore they are not condemned to limbo. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

If people can live perfectly decent, productive and happy lives without this good news, still get to heaven and then hear about the good news in the life to come…

Why not simply wait for your reward in heaven and then hear about the good news, after all, you’ll have eternity.

Me, I’m outta luck, I’m well versed in the good news.

I don’t know what’s going to happen per se when they die but I do know that if they have lived a virtuous life and never had the chance to hear the good news they have nothing to worry about.

I disagree, I would say that the reason why many are not Christians, as they believe that they have found the one true God in their religions. It’s as simple as competition.

There are many people who are persecuted for being Christian in such areas of the world so you can disagree all you like it won’t change the situation they’re living in. These are highly volatile areas for missionary work and for those Muslims who do convert many take the risk of losing their life. You do realize that for a Muslim to convert can be punishable by death (I believe it is written in one of their hadiths). The Middle East and other major Muslim countries are not into the whole free market place of ideas if you can understand this.

God should have known that after 2000 years, a billion chinese would not yet know about him. Pity for those people.

Is the world going to implode tomorrow or anytime soon? Why are you so obsessed with the idea that these people might not have heard the good news? God will judge them accordingly.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Thank you Freud for that wonderful psychoanalysis.

You’re welcome.

The title of this thread is Why are atheists so unhappy? If Christians can analyse me, then I don’t see why I can’t do the same with Christians.