Why are atheists and agnostics so sad?

[thegreekdog]

Well thats the thread over, cause you just made an agnostic happy.

Any luck? I did pray for you (in between chasing my son around church for an hour).

Pretty sure it backfired then. Yesterday was an absolute nightmare.

Sorry dude. Maybe some other Lootifer had a better day.

[Dukasaur]

Some would ask, "how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil?" They have missed a far greater conundrum: "why would a perfect God create a universe at all?"

Sister Miriam Godwinson
"But for the Grace of God"

[zimmah]

I have my own theory on this, and I actually think about it a lot. Religiously, college was a confusing time and my World Religion class certainly put a lot of ideas in my head. After all, I was studying religion right? Well, I came out an Atheist, probably like a lot of other students who listened to the anti-God ranting 55 minutes everyday Monday-Friday for 4 months. Can't say for sure the anti-God ranting everyday had an influence on me as I took notes on it and memorized it and got tested on it, but hey, it might be possible.

Anyways, I thought I was Atheist for a few years. I argued all the basic talking points with family and friends, not understanding them, but the arguements just sounded good and seemed to make sense (to a highly inexperienced person in their early 20's). Then, one day I realized it was just as silly to try to prove God does not exist as it is to prove God does exist, so I stopped pretending like I had it figured out at 22 years old.

As for the question, even people I respect tremendously and can explain with reason and conviction why God does not exist, I have noted they are, without exception (in my experience), pretty miserable with no hope for anything and don't participate in anything, barely even family functions or friendly events, and they usually never have children.

My theory is that human beings do have souls, and it needs to be filled with something. Atheists at first have that emptiness of the soul and they quickly fill it with something else, usually something secular, anti-religion, or Liberal. And that's why they can never stfu at Christmas dinner about how Jesus never existed and have to start yelling and call people stupid.

that's a pretty interesting statement you make here, and i agree to a certain degree with it.

i don't really understand how people could even say Jesus did not exist, while our calendars are based on his birth-year (or a close estimate at least, as Jesus was probably not born exactly on 1 A.D.) and there are many written documents from around his age that either prophetised his coming or confirmed his existence. Many of the documents like parts of the dead sea scrolls are dated to before Jesus, and already describe in detail certain facts that would happen during Jesus lifetime, such as his birth and death. I can't remember exactly how many prophecies surround Jesus life and death but it's at least around 300, most of which are found in the dead sea scrolls and are confirmed by later documents.

The bible is not the only book that talks about Jesus either, the Koran also talks about Jesus, although he's called Isa there, and he's not seen as (the son of) God*, but as a regular prophet. *In the bible Jesus is portrayed as the son of God, even though many Christians claim Jesus is God.

Sometimes the way historians try to cover up history makes me think of the manga/anime series "one piece", in which nico robin tries to uncover the true history which is kept hidden by powerful persons who want to protect their status. Of course it's not exactly like that in real life, however researchers and archaeologist do in fact continuously publish fake articles for fame and also they won't ever publish articles that would make them lose credibility, so in a sense the 'true history' will always remain hard to find. Also many archaeological finds are hard to interpret right even if you wanted to, and at best it's a guess. Researchers are notorious for having a hard time to admit their previous mistakes as well, so once they came to a conclusion it's hard to change their minds when new information is dug up, sometimes they even pretend it's not there or they write it off as a fluke. Even if researchers admit their mistakes, schools will often still use the older books and/or teachers and parents will give outdated information.

Non-biblical evidence of Jesus is found in the fact that in the first century "Christians whose name is derived from Christus" were under a lot of pressure by the Romans. Whether or not Jesus was just a very popular dude or a higher being is debatable, but the fact that he existed is hardly deniable, one could than also argue Julius Cesar never existed. Several letters written by Romans in a high government position speak about Christians, and Christians were known to worship Christ as a god.

The Talmud speaks of a man named Yesha (Yeshua is the hebrew name of Jesus) who was to be punished to death for practicing sorcery. (most jews did not accept Jesus as their savior, and the miracles he did were seen as sorcery, something that is forbidden in the bible and many other holy books, mainly because sorcery is done through demons, or fallen angels working with Satan).

Also note that Jesus lived in a time period in which not many written document was created (or at least not many written documents from that time period have been found). He lived in a pretty remote corner of the roman empire, and he only served for 3 and a half years. So it's amazing that there's still relatively much evidence of Jesus even if you disregard the bible itself.

[notyou2]

Is God a volatile petty conniving sadistic despicable myopic miserable nefarious fickle douchenugget of a megalomaniac OR something else entirely?

May I put this in my cc persona somewhere?

[clangfield]

I have my own theory on this, and I actually think about it a lot. Religiously, college was a confusing time and my World Religion class certainly put a lot of ideas in my head. After all, I was studying religion right? Well, I came out an Atheist, probably like a lot of other students who listened to the anti-God ranting 55 minutes everyday Monday-Friday for 4 months. Can't say for sure the anti-God ranting everyday had an influence on me as I took notes on it and memorized it and got tested on it, but hey, it might be possible.

Anyways, I thought I was Atheist for a few years. I argued all the basic talking points with family and friends, not understanding them, but the arguements just sounded good and seemed to make sense (to a highly inexperienced person in their early 20's). Then, one day I realized it was just as silly to try to prove God does not exist as it is to prove God does exist, so I stopped pretending like I had it figured out at 22 years old.

As for the question, even people I respect tremendously and can explain with reason and conviction why God does not exist, I have noted they are, without exception (in my experience), pretty miserable with no hope for anything and don't participate in anything, barely even family functions or friendly events, and they usually never have children.

My theory is that human beings do have souls, and it needs to be filled with something. Atheists at first have that emptiness of the soul and they quickly fill it with something else, usually something secular, anti-religion, or Liberal. And that's why they can never stfu at Christmas dinner about how Jesus never existed and have to start yelling and call people stupid.

that's a pretty interesting statement you make here, and i agree to a certain degree with it.

i don't really understand how people could even say Jesus did not exist, while our calendars are based on his birth-year (or a close estimate at least, as Jesus was probably not born exactly on 1 A.D.) and there are many written documents from around his age that either prophetised his coming or confirmed his existence. Many of the documents like parts of the dead sea scrolls are dated to before Jesus, and already describe in detail certain facts that would happen during Jesus lifetime, such as his birth and death. I can't remember exactly how many prophecies surround Jesus life and death but it's at least around 300, most of which are found in the dead sea scrolls and are confirmed by later documents.

The bible is not the only book that talks about Jesus either, the Koran also talks about Jesus, although he's called Isa there, and he's not seen as (the son of) God*, but as a regular prophet. *In the bible Jesus is portrayed as the son of God, even though many Christians claim Jesus is God.

Sometimes the way historians try to cover up history makes me think of the manga/anime series "one piece", in which nico robin tries to uncover the true history which is kept hidden by powerful persons who want to protect their status. Of course it's not exactly like that in real life, however researchers and archaeologist do in fact continuously publish fake articles for fame and also they won't ever publish articles that would make them lose credibility, so in a sense the 'true history' will always remain hard to find. Also many archaeological finds are hard to interpret right even if you wanted to, and at best it's a guess. Researchers are notorious for having a hard time to admit their previous mistakes as well, so once they came to a conclusion it's hard to change their minds when new information is dug up, sometimes they even pretend it's not there or they write it off as a fluke. Even if researchers admit their mistakes, schools will often still use the older books and/or teachers and parents will give outdated information.

Non-biblical evidence of Jesus is found in the fact that in the first century "Christians whose name is derived from Christus" were under a lot of pressure by the Romans. Whether or not Jesus was just a very popular dude or a higher being is debatable, but the fact that he existed is hardly deniable, one could than also argue Julius Cesar never existed. Several letters written by Romans in a high government position speak about Christians, and Christians were known to worship Christ as a god.

The Talmud speaks of a man named Yesha (Yeshua is the hebrew name of Jesus) who was to be punished to death for practicing sorcery. (most jews did not accept Jesus as their savior, and the miracles he did were seen as sorcery, something that is forbidden in the bible and many other holy books, mainly because sorcery is done through demons, or fallen angels working with Satan).

Also note that Jesus lived in a time period in which not many written document was created (or at least not many written documents from that time period have been found). He lived in a pretty remote corner of the roman empire, and he only served for 3 and a half years. So it's amazing that there's still relatively much evidence of Jesus even if you disregard the bible itself.

I don't think many agnostics/ atheists actually dispute the existence of a prophet/teacher who appeared in Palestine around 2000 years ago, although quite why the names vary so much is perplexing. Anyway, as you say, there is evidence, and no particular other reason why Constantine would have converted the Roman Empire to Christianity.
What we (including myself as an apatheist) do dispute is that he was the 'son' of the god as described in the religious texts who created the universe etc etc, and all the 'miracles' (things like the resurrection, walking on water etc). Having seen the 'true' story of the miracle of the herrings*, supposedly performed by one saint, one has to doubt the stories.
Two quotes for you: Arthur C Clarke's "any sufficiently advanced technology will seem like magic" (and bear that in mind when reading the book of Ezekiel, or indeed watching Breaking the Magician's Code); and from Jimmy Carr - "if we're all god's children, what makes Jesus so special?"

* According to the TV program QI, the Vatican wanted to make someone (I forget who) a saint, but they needed evidence of a second miracle. The story was that on his deathbed he asked for herrings, but they didn't have any, so thinking he wouldn't notice too much they gave him some other fish. He commented how nice the herrings tasted; from which they inferred that he had transformed the fish into herrings in his mouth and attributed a miracle.
I think one can be forgiven for a) putting a more obvious and logical interpretation on events and b) questioning how genuine other such 'miracles' might have been.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

@ zimmah:
John 10:30 and John 8:58 clearly show that Jesus claimed to be God.

Just as the mental health records of thousands of patients would show the same

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

@ zimmah:
John 10:30 and John 8:58 clearly show that Jesus claimed to be God.

Just as the mental health records of thousands of patients would show the same

Was in reference to zimmah saying "*In the bible Jesus is portrayed as the son of God, even though many Christians claim Jesus is God."

As for your claim, how many of these patients have historical evidence of them living a sinless life, having flawless ethical teachings, having died forgiving their executioners and being resurrected?

How much of this historical evidence is non-biblical?My understanding is that there is very little,Josephus and Tacitus mention him.Not convinced about his flawless ethical teachings either even if we take the bible at its word but that's just a matter of opinion.The resurrection doesn't seem very likely either..on a par with virgin births and miracles and other nonesense I reckon.Maybe he was sinless whatever that means...Most likely he was a Messianic Apopalyptic Jewish Nationalist and teacher,who made wild claims.

[mrswdk]

"And if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away."

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-yes, even their own life-such a person cannot be my disciple."

[mrswdk]

Quote a lot of his lessons were borrowed from other sources anyway. It's pretty easy to teach good ethics if you use lines that have already been heavily polished by other people.

[chang50]

Quote a lot of his lessons were borrowed from other sources anyway. It's pretty easy to teach good ethics if you use lines that have already been heavily polished by other people.

Isn't the golden rule to be found in the analects of Confucius?

[PLAYER57832]

"The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living." Richard Dawkins.

"Science has no need of purpose ... all the extraordinary, wonderful richness of this world can be expressed as growth from the dunghill of purposeless interconnected corruption." Peter Atkins.

"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Francis Crick.

Discuss.

Discuss what? That quotes from 3 people taken out of context say nothing much about what those individuals think, never mind all of Agnostics and Atheists? That you have no clear idea of what Agnostics and atheists really and truly think ?

[chang50]

"The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living." Richard Dawkins.

"Science has no need of purpose ... all the extraordinary, wonderful richness of this world can be expressed as growth from the dunghill of purposeless interconnected corruption." Peter Atkins.

"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Francis Crick.

Discuss.

Discuss what? That quotes from 3 people taken out of context say nothing much about what those individuals think, never mind all of Agnostics and Atheists? That you have no clear idea of what Agnostics and atheists really and truly think ?

Thats what happens when disbelief gets absurdly raised to the level of a worldview,there is no reason why Dawkins,Crick,Atkins,and any other disbelievers have to share anything other than a disbelief in the existence of deities.

[PLAYER57832]

i don't really understand how people could even say Jesus did not exist, while our calendars are based on his birth-year (or a close estimate at least, as Jesus was probably not born exactly on 1 A.D.) and there are many written documents from around his age that either prophetised his coming or confirmed his existence. Many of the documents like parts of the dead sea scrolls are dated to before Jesus, and already describe in detail certain facts that would happen during Jesus lifetime, such as his birth and death. I can't remember exactly how many prophecies surround Jesus life and death but it's at least around 300, most of which are found in the dead sea scrolls and are confirmed by later documents.

The bible is not the only book that talks about Jesus either, the Koran also talks about Jesus, although he's called Isa there, and he's not seen as (the son of) God*, but as a regular prophet. *In the bible Jesus is portrayed as the son of God, even though many Christians claim Jesus is God.

First, please note that I am arguing as a Christian. That is, I fully and firmly believe that Christ walked this Earth, was the son of God, that I am saved because he died on the cross. BUT... the question above is not one of belief, it is of proof. Proof is very, very different from belief.

When someone says there is no solid proof of Jesus, they mean that there is no real, tangible evidence that cannot be disputed by non-believers.

Let's look at what you call proof or evidence:
1. Our calenders are based on his birth, though not exactly. Sorry... our calender was established long after, and is as much based on the Roman Gods and such as on anything regarding Christ. The calender is not evidence of Christ, it is evidence of the import and spread of the belief in Christianity in the west.

2. "many written documents" --
A. prophecy. you will have to bring up specifics, but prophecies are notoriously difficult predictors. Even today, Christians and Jews firmly disagree on the meanings of the Old Testament predictions of the coming Messiah. Other literature/writings outside the Bible are even more questionable. The Dead Sea scrolls are similarly questionable in this regard.

A. confirming his presence in that day. Actually, not so fast. In fact, one of the big questions is why there is so LITTLE literature about Christ from the time of his existence. The explanation is easy. Although we, as Christians, look back and see great import in all his actions and who he was, at the time he was viewed as a trouble maker, and one of many at the time, at that. At the time, there was a lot going on that took far more of people's attention. In other words, the fact that there was not that much about him outside of is not terribly surprising, not proof that Christ did not exist, but there isn't anywhere near enough to say to those outside of Christianity "here is the proof". In fact, in the early days of Christianity there was a lot of attention, a lot of attempt to collect anything and everything about him. Most of what exists and is verified has been canonized into our Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls do indeed give backup to most of what we Christians understand, but Some things actually challenge some modern thinking. Its still unclear exactly who even wrote them or why.

3. The Koran... sorry, but this reference really shows that you don't know Islamic history. Muslims fully accept that Christ not just walked the Earth, but was a prophet of God. They just don't think he was the son of God, the Messiah. In a large sense, Islam sprang from Judaism and Christianity, is in essence an attempt to "correct" the "misunderstandings" Jews and Christians have had of God.

None of the above is proof at all, sorry, but its not. It is evidence, but evidence that will be believed by people who already accept the Bible, not so much people who deny it.

Now, some things have been proven.. people were crucified. How and where is still questioned. Although we have traditional ideas about the location of Christ's crucification and other events, many of these are disputed by various historians. That is, many who absolutely accept the Bible question if our understanding of what it says, if our traditional views are correct.

Sometimes the way historians try to cover up history makes me think of the manga/anime series "one piece", in which nico robin tries to uncover the true history which is kept hidden by powerful persons who want to protect their status. Of course it's not exactly like that in real life, however researchers and archaeologist do in fact continuously publish fake articles for fame and also they won't ever publish articles that would make them lose credibility, so in a sense the 'true history' will always remain hard to find. Also many archaeological finds are hard to interpret right even if you wanted to, and at best it's a guess. Researchers are notorious for having a hard time to admit their previous mistakes as well, so once they came to a conclusion it's hard to change their minds when new information is dug up, sometimes they even pretend it's not there or they write it off as a fluke. Even if researchers admit their mistakes, schools will often still use the older books and/or teachers and parents will give outdated information.

Nice how you mix a lot of disparent, unrelated facts to prove your conspiracy --Yes, researchers can be arrogant and difficult to dissuade. It comes from being very smart and also very dedicated. BUT.. to think they all agree is wrong. It is inherent to all sciences that folks come forward with information, it is reviewed and questioned, argued and questioned.
-- "fake articles"???? There are frauds in EVERY profession. Also, because science is complicated, there is error. Ironically, though, while conspiracists like to point to the fakes, they inevitably pull up evidence of the fakery and error brought out by other scientists. If there is, as you insinuate, this grand conspiracy against truth, why is it that the profession is policing itself so effectively?

-- don't publish articles that make them lose credibility? Who would, but what do you think this means? You imply that merely challenging accepted ideas is somehow discrediting, but the truth is other. Scientists who truly challenge the status quo can absolutely face derision and censor, but they can also walk away with Nobel prizes. Science is sometimes slow to change with good reason, because change depends on layers of proven evidence and testing. The more an idea has been around, the more evidence there exists that seems to support the idea, the more difficult it can be to challenge that idea. Still, people can and absolutely do. Contrary to your idea, those who do are as likely to wind up very famous, not less.. IF they really have and show the evidence for what they think. THAT is the real crux of the matter. Simply coming up with an alternate idea, simply poking holes in an accepted one is not enough, you have to have evidence of your idea to have it accepted. Too often challengers lack that, and that lack is why they lack credibility, get nowhere, not some grand conspiracy. Well, I guess it IS a conspiracy, but one of needing proof to change ideas -- it is a conspiracy requiring that the scientific process be followed.

-- "hard to interpret, so its best to guess? HUH? No, no, NOOOO! Science may "guess" or speculate... but to become science, the idea must be tested. Only if evidence is found will an idea become real science. Even then, just finding some evidence that seems to agree with an idea, even a lot of evidence doesn't mean its firmly proven. Proof means there is, plain and simply no other possibility. History is full of ideas that seemed perfectly reasonable, but that, ultimately, were wrong. Some things may never be truly proven.

-- schools use old textbooks... as if this were an intentional move to blurr the truth????? REALLY? Try again! Schools don't always have money to buy the latest textbooks, as much as they might wish. Also, despite what you claim, a lot of historical ideas have not really changed that much. If you have to choose between getting a new science textbook and a new history textbook, often the choice is for science. (Or, more sadly, too often the choice is "neither" -- because all we are really allowed to teach is reading and math.. with the other things thrown in only when we have time, optionally).

Non-biblical evidence of Jesus is found in the fact that in the first century "Christians whose name is derived from Christus" were under a lot of pressure by the Romans. Whether or not Jesus was just a very popular dude or a higher being is debatable, but the fact that he existed is hardly deniable, one could than also argue Julius Cesar never existed. Several letters written by Romans in a high government position speak about Christians, and Christians were known to worship Christ as a god.

No. The events you speak of happened well after the death of Christ. In fact, early Christians considered themselves Jews. The term "Christian" was derogatory at first.

The Talmud speaks of a man named Yesha (Yeshua is the hebrew name of Jesus) who was to be punished to death for practicing sorcery. (most jews did not accept Jesus as their savior, and the miracles he did were seen as sorcery, something that is forbidden in the bible and many other holy books, mainly because sorcery is done through demons, or fallen angels working with Satan).

You do realize that the Talmud is the first 5 books of the Christian Bible? I have no idea what your point is here, but it gets down to the fact that prophecy is not entirely clear. Jews do/did not feel Christ met the criteria for the Messiah. Christians do/did.

Also note that Jesus lived in a time period in which not many written document was created (or at least not many written documents from that time period have been found). He lived in a pretty remote corner of the roman empire, and he only served for 3 and a half years. So it's amazing that there's still relatively much evidence of Jesus even if you disregard the bible itself.

No, this is really not true. Sorry, but it just is not.

[mrswdk]

Quote a lot of his lessons were borrowed from other sources anyway. It's pretty easy to teach good ethics if you use lines that have already been heavily polished by other people.

Isn't the golden rule to be found in the analects of Confucius?

It is indeed. Maybe Jesus was a Chinaman.

[notyou2]

Seems to me that it is the religious right of america and the tea party that are the ones that are unhappy. For proof see this thread
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=5385#p4307113

[Gillipig]

Seems to me that it is the religious right of america and the tea party that are the ones that are unhappy. For proof see this thread
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=5385#p4307113

Let's define happiness. Is happiness the amount of enjoyment you percieve that you're experiencing, or the amount of enjoyment others perceive that you're experiencing?
If it's the former it's kinda hard to prove who's the most happy.

[PLAYER57832]

"The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living." Richard Dawkins.

"Science has no need of purpose ... all the extraordinary, wonderful richness of this world can be expressed as growth from the dunghill of purposeless interconnected corruption." Peter Atkins.

"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Francis Crick.

Discuss.

Discuss what? That quotes from 3 people taken out of context say nothing much about what those individuals think, never mind all of Agnostics and Atheists? That you have no clear idea of what Agnostics and atheists really and truly think ?

Thats what happens when disbelief gets absurdly raised to the level of a worldview,there is no reason why Dawkins,Crick,Atkins,and any other disbelievers have to share anything other than a disbelief in the existence of deities.

Then again, it might just be the views of 3 very independent people, -- all very brilliant and deserving of recognition in various ways, taken heavily out of context here.

[chang50]

Seems to me that it is the religious right of america and the tea party that are the ones that are unhappy. For proof see this thread
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=5385#p4307113

As well as being very sore losers,all this sadness will turn to tears mark my words..

[Dukasaur]

Seems to me that it is the religious right of america and the tea party that are the ones that are unhappy. For proof see this thread
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=93718&start=5385#p4307113

As well as being very sore losers,all this sadness will turn to tears mark my words..

Ah, truly, for Morgoth has many tricks yet to play!
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_Battle_of_Unnumbered_Tears

[Frigidus]

This thread sure is depressing.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[Frigidus]

Thats what happens when disbelief gets absurdly raised to the level of a worldview,there is no reason why Dawkins,Crick,Atkins,and any other disbelievers have to share anything other than a disbelief in the existence of deities.

False. Atheism is not just "unbelief in God" and you know it, stop trying to simplify your world view to make it seem more appealing to others. The absence of absolute morals and any purpose or meaning in life, for examples, are just some of the aspects that are naturally entailed in atheism- aspects that have been confirmed and accepted by many leading scientists and philosophers. Whilst you pick and choose your world view you are being intellectually dishonest, and you're arguing in vain because its basically all of atheism and agnosticism's front runners opinion constructed upon decades of research VS your short-lived and ill-formed opinion.

I am an athiest and I also believe in absolute morality the same way that I believe in absolute laws of physics. I'm not particularly concerned what unspecified philosophers believed, I am my own man and can I don't need someone else to decide what is valid or coherent for me.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-