Zone1 Are Atheists Happier Than Christians?

[Blues Man]

What action matters, in atheism?

You are space dust floating around on an obscure space rock, doomed to oblivion.

So what?

You are confusing nihilism with atheism.

Read the Myth of Sisyphus by Camus

 

[SweetSue92]

You are confusing nihilism with atheism.

Read the Myth of Sisyphus by Camus

No difference. Atheists who are not nihilists just haven't thought about it enough.

 

[Blues Man]

Heh

You claim they are subjective, and then use the word "terrible" and invoke "our nature".

If these things are subjective, like the flavor of ice cream, what are you even talking about?

Yes terrible is subjective just like right and wrong and evil but I need to use some sort of adjective.

There are varying degrees of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors as defined by any society.

If you prefer I will just use acceptable and unacceptable but then again those are subjective also.

 

[Blues Man]

No difference. Atheists who are not nihilists just haven't thought about it enough.

There is a vast difference.

Read think and learn

 

[SweetSue92]

Yes terrible is subjective just like right and wrong and evil but I need to use some sort of adjective.

There are varying degrees of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors as defined by any society.

If you prefer I will just use acceptable and unacceptable but then again those are subjective also.

You assumed we all would know what "terrible" is (and we do). If it were truly subjective, we could not. You would talk about "that terrible ice cream flavor, you know the one", and one person would think strawberry, and another vanilla, and another, coffee.

Listen, you just shot your entire argument dead.

 

[SweetSue92]

There is a vast difference.

Read think and learn

No, there's not.

Whatever you do is dying. It is all meaningless.

You just can't grasp it or will not. I don't blame you, believe me. Very, very few atheists can honestly grasp the implications of their own worldview.

 

[Blues Man]

You assumed we all would know what "terrible" is (and we do). If it were truly subjective, we could not. You would talk about "that terrible ice cream flavor, you know the one", and one person would think strawberry, and another vanilla, and another, coffee.

Listen, you just shot your entire argument dead.

Yes we do because it has been ingrained in us by the society we live in.

What we call unacceptable might be acceptable in another society in fact many of the things we now find unacceptable were indeed considered acceptable at some point in our history.

 

[Blues Man]

No, there's not.

Whatever you do is dying. It is all meaningless.

You just can't grasp it or will not. I don't blame you, believe me. Very, very few atheists can honestly grasp the implications of their own worldview.

Wrong again.

An atheist can define a purpose for his own life and believe it or not most of them do.

Atheists can be loving nurturing parents, can dedicate themselves to what they see as a worthwhile cause, can risk their lives to save another

Read Nietzsche then read Camus and you'll see the difference.

 

[SweetSue92]

Yes we do because it has been ingrained in us by the society we live in.

What we call unacceptable might be acceptable in another society in fact many of the things we now find unacceptable were indeed considered acceptable at some point in our history.

That does not invalidate objective morality.

If it did, then you would have to describe what you meant by "terrible" and "our nature".

 

[Blues Man]

That does not invalidate objective morality.

If it did, then you would have to describe what you meant by "terrible" and "our nature".

Why not? I am constrained by language just as you are.

Morals are relative
Good and evil are subjective

What I think is acceptable you may not
What you think as acceptable I may not.

That is the very definition of relative.

 

[SweetSue92]

Wrong again.

An atheist can define a purpose for his own life and believe it or not most of them do.

Atheists can be loving nurturing parents, can dedicate themselves to what they see as a worthwhile cause, can risk their lives to save another

Read Nietzsche then read Camus and you'll see the difference.

Yes. An insane person can tell you that that the long walk they're taking is to find the gold pot at the end of the rainbow because the leprechauns told them to. They can seriously believe this walk has immense purpose and direction. It can make them feel happy and fulfilled.

At the end it's still a fruitless walk. They don't know it.

Atheists are like, yeah, this is all fruitless, but I'm PRETENDING like all the stuff I'm doing happening isn't while we're floating on some outbound rock in some meaningless universe bound for nothing.

I mean you do you, but no thanks on my end.

 

[SweetSue92]

Why not? I am constrained by language just as you are.

Morals are relative
Good and evil are subjective

What I think is acceptable you may not
What you think as acceptable I may not.

That is the very definition of relative.

I could argue over and over with you about this but fair posters will see what they see. And you do too, I suspect.

At any rate, all that can be done for you now is to pray. Given what you have divulged here regarding your childhood I don't know that I wouldn't be super mad at God too. I likely would be. So I can't judge. That's why I mostly just pray.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes. An insane person can tell you that that the long walk they're taking is to find the gold pot at the end of the rainbow because the leprechauns told them to. They can seriously believe this walk has immense purpose and direction. It can make them feel happy and fulfilled.

At the end it's still a fruitless walk. They don't know it.

Atheists are like, yeah, this is all fruitless, but I'm PRETENDING like all the stuff I'm doing happening isn't while we're floating on some outbound rock in some meaningless universe bound for nothing.

I mean you do you, but no thanks on my end.

How is it "fruitless" to be a loving nurturing parent ?

Many atheists are just that you know.

How is it fruitless to volunteer to help people in a time of need?

Many atheists do just that as well

The fact that a person might not believe in some fantasy of an eternal afterlife is actually more of an impetus to live the best life right now.

I don't write off the suffering of others by saying "Oh well they'll die and go to heaven anyway" I try to help right now.

 

[Blues Man]

I could argue over and over with you about this but fair posters will see what they see. And you do too, I suspect.

At any rate, all that can be done for you now is to pray. Given what you have divulged here regarding your childhood I don't know that I wouldn't be super mad at God too. I likely would be. So I can't judge. That's why I mostly just pray.

I have no use for prayer or gods but then again I'm not an atheist. I don't know if gods exist or not but I do not think it matters either way.

But I will still help people
I will still refuse to eat meat so as not to add to the suffering of other living things
I will still love my wife and be faithful

I am not a nihilist because I know what I do right now matters to someone else and to me.

 

[SweetSue92]

How is it "fruitless" to be a loving nurturing parent ?

Many atheists are just that you know.

How is it fruitless to volunteer to help people in a time of need?

Many atheists do just that as well

The fact that a person might not believe in some fantasy of an eternal afterlife is actually more of an impetus to live the best life right now.

I don't write off the suffering of others by saying "Oh well they'll die and go to heaven anyway" I try to help right now.

You might think your best life is being a great parent and helping people. The guy down the street thinks it's selling your children into human trafficking.

Remember--morality is subjective, so what's the big deal? The people who want your kids have a right to be happy too. So?

 

[Blues Man]

You might think your best life is being a great parent and helping people. The guy down the street thinks it's selling your children into human trafficking.

Remember--morality is subjective, so what's the big deal? The people who want your kids have a right to be happy too. So?

And yes only atheists do that sort of stuff right?

How many reprehensible people will say they believe in the same god you do? I'll bet that it's more than all the atheists in the world put together. Religion and belief in gods doesn't automatically make someone a "good" person just as the lack of belief does not automatically make someone a "bad" person

And yes morality is relative. You have to be blind or a naïve idealist not to see that.

 

[Clyde 154]

prove first who they claim was a messiah ever claimed they were and what is written in the 4th century christian bible is an authentic representation of the 1st century events ... nothing of which was archived by those that wrote that book.

and that the christian creed was ever witnessed or approved by those that gave their lives for issues not mentioned in any of those documents - liberation theology, self determination. without any reference to a messiah by any of them.

There you go again.......Mr. Prove my argument for me..........when you submit nothing but ad hominem BS.

Why do you demand of others to disprove your arguments based upon a logical fallacy? Because you can't provide the evidence yourself that is required to refute the prima facie evidences. Its an old left wing attempt to hide the fact that you don't have any facts.......you project your failure to present evidence upon others. Its called psychological "projection". FYI: The oldest manuscript from the bible is proven to be dated in the late 1st or early 2nd century....it was scripture from Genesis and was recorded in Aramaic.

Now........to take a page from your left wing brain, prove this was not dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century A.D. Next there are sections from the Gospel of John dated to the early 2nd century. Fact is.......the oldest complete copy of the O.T. is dated to the 11th century A.D. yet you want to dismiss the N.T. Go figure........when in reality its proven that Jesus preached from the Septuagint Bible dated to the 2nd century BC. Question how could the record of Jesus speaking date to the 4th century only when its clear that the record contains teaching from the 2nd century B.C.? Very confusing to a left wing atheist when the Septuagint Scriptures were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls was not dated until 1947

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The New Dead Sea Scroll Discoveries and the Septuagint

The world of biblical scholarship is abuzz this week with the new finds in the Judean Desert. I thought I’d draw attention to these, not only because it’s always important when new bibl…

williamaross.com

 

[Meriweather]

I do care what other people believe about reality because I don't live in a vacuum. Bad ideas and attitudes can and often do lead to bad behavior, that undermines my interests and survival, because I have to coexist and share this world with them. It behooves me to challenge such beliefs and to get my own cherished assertions scrutinized as well. You may not care if you're living in a community full of people with irrational, dogmatic, sectarianistic, ethnocentric, xenophobic, sexist, racist, and imperialistic. etc. ideals, but I do.

What about the reality that only a minority of Christians believe that heaven is only for Christians? What about the reality that the word for 'condemned' that John used back in Biblical times did not have the same meaning as we attribute to the word today?

Is it your idea that that the minority and the uninformed should be stamped out so that all are like cookie cutter stamps of one another? Have you considered that informing and teaching people truths while leaving their beliefs to each individual may be more productive?

Where did you "learn" that Christians say salvation is only for them, and the Biblical use of 'condemned' means being thrown into hell? Certainly not in a public school or in the public square, correct? Where you see bad behavior, I note there is ignorance, but we have the means to educate and to teach.

Possibly it is better for each to live their own beliefs rather than going about challenging people about jumping to conclusions and imagining what all others believe? Perhaps educating people about what is known about redemption, salvation, condemnation is a better path? Even education is not going to change people's beliefs and free will, but they are people, and should be treasured as such. It's a wide world, able to hold any number of beliefs. No one has to live in fear of any group other than the group(s) who hold power and wealth.

 

[Red Front]

What about the reality that only a minority of Christians believe that heaven is only for Christians? What about the reality that the word for 'condemned' that John used back in Biblical times did not have the same meaning as we attribute to the word today?

Is it your idea that that the minority and the uninformed should be stamped out so that all are like cookie cutter stamps of one another? Have you considered that informing and teaching people truths while leaving their beliefs to each individual may be more productive?

Where did you "learn" that Christians say salvation is only for them, and the Biblical use of 'condemned' means being thrown into hell? Certainly not in a public school or in the public square, correct? Where you see bad behavior, I note there is ignorance, but we have the means to educate and to teach.

Possibly it is better for each to live their own beliefs rather than going about challenging people about jumping to conclusions and imagining what all others believe? Perhaps educating people about what is known about redemption, salvation, condemnation is a better path? Even education is not going to change people's beliefs and free will, but they are people, and should be treasured as such. It's a wide world, able to hold any number of beliefs. No one has to live in fear of any group other than the group(s) who hold power and wealth.

You're not making any assumptions and challenging others who you don't agree with? Really? You know you're doing that, correct? At least with me here now, you're objecting to what I'm posting, so what's with the continual criticism about me challenging those who believe only Christians go to heaven and everyone else is cast into the lake of fire? If you don't believe that, then my posts don't apply to you or those who hold your more liberal stance on salvation. I've already made that clear in previous posts, so what are you getting all ruffled about?

In your opinion, the NT doesn't teach a sectarian, exclusivist salvation, but in the opinion of most Evangelical teachers and leaders in the spotlight today, it certainly does. You actually think most of these Evangelical preachers, teachers, missionaries, and pastors uploading videos, engaged in outreach ministries and "witnessing" to "the lost" don't believe people need Jesus to be saved? The most vocal, visible, zealous, in everyone's face, obnoxious, pretentious Christians certainly do believe that everyone is a child of da-debil until they become "born again". I know because I was once a devout, fundamentalist, bible-thumping Christian, so you can't fool me with your liberal hoohoo sophistry gobbledygooky.

OK?

 

[Red Front]

So then it shouldn’t be a problem for you to accept the will of God.

That's right, I want the will of my Creator. No doubt. I believe God's will is self-evident and simple for every human being that is sound of mind and healthy. Yes indeed. I don't believe the will of the Infinite is "Jesus or Burn!!!!", or "You have to become a Christian".