Can We Be Happy Without God?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: How consciousness creates reality from a static multiverse
Next: LETTER OF THANKS TO WEST AUSTRALIA PREMIER THE RIGHT HON COLIN BARNETT AS OFFICIAL DISCOVERER NOW OF TELFER MINE
From: Jimbo on 17 Mar 2010 06:29 On Mar 17, 4:55 am, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 10:31 am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...(a)broomstick.com> wrote: > > > Wrong. > > How is it wrong? Maybe you can be happy given your circumstances but > there are plenty of people who can't given their bad circumstances. Then perhaps you should refrain from making over-reaching generalizations.
From: Jimbo on 17 Mar 2010 08:56 On Mar 16, 11:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 6:15 pm, Rushtown <Rusht...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 6:04 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > No I don't think we can be truly happy without some sort of afterlife.. > > > No God also means no afterlife. This means that if you fail in this > > > life, that's it. It's all over for you. All the people who have died > > > from starvation and diseases in Africa and other impoverished regions > > > of the world no longer have a chance to experience life. > > > > According to atheism, if you die there are no more chances for you to > > > make it better. There are at least a 1,000 ways to die so let's say > > > you get very ill and weak and then you die of a disease of some sort > > > at a very young age, according to atheists you don't have another > > > chance to live again and experience the world to the fullest. And that > > > is the moral argument against atheist beliefs. > > > > Also many atheists assume that because there may not be a God that > > > there is no reason for us to act morally toward one another and to > > > love one another. Instead they assume that if there is no God and no > > > afterlife that everyone must care and look out only for himself. This > > > is not only a naturalistic fallacy but also a moral fallacy as well. > > > What would god and the afterlife be like? One million years of > > sittling on a cloud > > playing a harp? It would get so boring as to be torture. Five > > virgins a day for eternity. Even that could get old. > > > The only afterlife worth having is the one that modern physics > > promises----living as your own Doppelganger an infinity of times on an > > infinite number of earths scattered across and infinite cosmos.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Only the atheists take it as their virtue that they can die forever > and have no qualm about it. You atheists think that you are better > because you think you do not fear eternal death. God takes you through > it. It's neither a virtue or a vice, it's simply reality.
From: Jack on 17 Mar 2010 14:30 On Mar 16, 11:45 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 6:15 pm, Rushtown <Rusht...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 6:04 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > No I don't think we can be truly happy without some sort of afterlife.. > > > No God also means no afterlife. This means that if you fail in this > > > life, that's it. It's all over for you. All the people who have died > > > from starvation and diseases in Africa and other impoverished regions > > > of the world no longer have a chance to experience life. > > > > According to atheism, if you die there are no more chances for you to > > > make it better. There are at least a 1,000 ways to die so let's say > > > you get very ill and weak and then you die of a disease of some sort > > > at a very young age, according to atheists you don't have another > > > chance to live again and experience the world to the fullest. And that > > > is the moral argument against atheist beliefs. > > > > Also many atheists assume that because there may not be a God that > > > there is no reason for us to act morally toward one another and to > > > love one another. Instead they assume that if there is no God and no > > > afterlife that everyone must care and look out only for himself. This > > > is not only a naturalistic fallacy but also a moral fallacy as well. > > > What would god and the afterlife be like? One million years of > > sittling on a cloud > > playing a harp? It would get so boring as to be torture. Five > > virgins a day for eternity. Even that could get old. > > > The only afterlife worth having is the one that modern physics > > promises----living as your own Doppelganger an infinity of times on an > > infinite number of earths scattered across and infinite cosmos.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Only the atheists take it as their virtue that they can die forever > and have no qualm about it. You atheists think that you are better > because you think you do not fear eternal death. God takes you through > it. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - I wouldn't say I don't fear eternity. But I can't fool myself into believing those childhood stories, either. It's not like I have a choice here.
From: Igor on 17 Mar 2010 14:40 On Mar 16, 9:04 pm, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > No I don't think we can be truly happy without some sort of afterlife. > No God also means no afterlife. This means that if you fail in this > life, that's it. It's all over for you. All the people who have died > from starvation and diseases in Africa and other impoverished regions > of the world no longer have a chance to experience life. > > According to atheism, if you die there are no more chances for you to > make it better. There are at least a 1,000 ways to die so let's say > you get very ill and weak and then you die of a disease of some sort > at a very young age, according to atheists you don't have another > chance to live again and experience the world to the fullest. And that > is the moral argument against atheist beliefs. > > Also many atheists assume that because there may not be a God that > there is no reason for us to act morally toward one another and to > love one another. Instead they assume that if there is no God and no > afterlife that everyone must care and look out only for himself. This > is not only a naturalistic fallacy but also a moral fallacy as well. Maybe you need to stop and examine all the assumptions you just made prior to posting this nonsense.
From: The Chief Instigator on 17 Mar 2010 19:52
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:52:32 -0700 (PDT), Urion <blackman_two(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 10:31?am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...(a)broomstick.com> wrote: > >> Wrong. > > How is it wrong? Maybe you can be happy given the circumstances but > there are plenty of people who can't given their bad circumstances. I have an occasional bad circumstance, but I've been godless for four and a half decades. (I'll hit 55 in just over two months.) The South Dakota farmer's daughter who married me 20 years ago is not a bad circumstance. -- Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick(a)io.com) Houston, Texas www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: Rockford 3, Houston 2 (SO, March 14) NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 20 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35 |