"...often in a rude, offensive and annoying manner with total disregard for the beliefs of others. ...." 00Dad
Hey!!!
Sometimes it's FUN to be obnoxious!!!!
Atheists, Agnostics or Theists .... So Who's Happiest?
by 00DAD 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
ziddina
-
caliber
Happiness is "different things to different people" and cannot be qualified by any one person
According to Aristotle happiness is an end, an end result of all the things a person does. Everything everyone does is for a reason, to achieve something else. Aristotle believes that the “something else” is happiness
Happiness is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. But honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, or, in general, for anything other than itself. Happiness then is something final and self sufficient. This leads Aristotle to his definition of the happy life as a life made perfect by the possession of all good things such as wealth, friendship, knowledge, virtue
I personally believe "virtue that satisfies" proceeds from God !
-
Retrovirus
00Dad,
Don't think I agree with those four Stages of Spiritual Growth, but I like the general idea
Not sure I agree with them either Perhaps I should have just said that some people seem to need the security of a religion that provides rules and promises ultimate safety, and others don't.
And Ziddina, yes, there are many factors that can help to make us happy. But that part isn't so complex - unless, perhaps we are really hungry or in pain, we can just decide to be happy.
Retro
-
NewChapter
That's interesting Caliber. What god would you be referring to? The god represented in the bible? The reason I ask, is because the ancient greek Aristotle didn't worship that god, yet you accept his defintion of happiness.
-
caliber
@Newchapter... I thought it self evident that it would be the Christian God. His definition seems to strike a common sense cord with me, is all..
not sure if it means an endorsement of his God.
-
NewChapter
I guess it wasn't evident to me, because Aristotle would have had nothing to do with that god. I found it interesting that a greek pagan philosopher somehow reinforced the idea that happiness issued from a god he didn't know. That's all. It was just an interesting connection.
NC
-
caliber
I tend to use non-scriptural quotes for reasons stated by many here ........ -
So I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't
-
Twitch
Twitch: This isn't meant to be a scientific study, just an arm-chair conversation among friends. That being said your initial responses seem to contradict each other. First you seem to disagree with my statement that "Atheist [are] very uptight, unhappy people always going around trying to prove everyone else wrong and themselves right, often in a rude, offensive and annoying manner with total disregard for the beliefs of others." and then you go on to say that you have "some very arrogant atheists". Please clarify.
Well, perhaps we should clarify our positions and assertions first, so that misunderstandings and misrepresentations are kept to a minimum.
Firstly, you assert that atheism "believes" in something, which is incorrect. Atheism is a non belief in any deity by definition.
Your initial statement didn't single out atheists only as being (x) but that they were no different than believers in god, be it the christian, islamic or other such persuasion of faith. Is your statement that atheists only are (x) or that atheists and other "believers" are (x)? Your intial statement and your response quoted above are inconsistent.
As regards my first response, I disagree that all believers are uptight, unhappy, etc. To the contrary, I've known more than a few theists who are happy with their beliefs and have no need to convince others of it.
With regard to my 2nd response, atheists are more prone to have looked at more belief systems than believers IMO. This doesn't automatically make them more understanding people however as my response and experience attests to.
Agnostic is a word that accurately describes your 2nd statement, by generally accepted definitions. Whatever you wish to call it, it doesn't mean it's the only path that has personal satisfaction. It has been my experience that such broad generalizations cannot accurately represent the individual. Perhaps I use a finer brush these days :)
-
Phizzy
I know that being part of a high control religion does not make you happy !
I heard the expression the other day "Expectant Agnostic" this didn't mean the guy's wife was pregnant, what he mean't was that he had no proof for god, but he looked for proof wherever he thought he might find it, and on the way he met some wonderful happy people, some believers some not, the key to their happiness seemed to be their altruism, that they were giving in some way to others.
-
00DAD
twitch: Firstly, you assert that atheism "believes" in something, which is incorrect. Atheism is a non belief in any deity by definition.
ATHEISM: I've heard this line of rhetoric before and frankly don't buy it. "Non-belief" is still a belief. I understand atheists don't liked to be categorized as "believers" in connection with their, well what do you call it if it isn't a belief? See, I think it's just a word game some like to play to avoid the connotations associated with the words "belief" or "believers". I understand it, I get it, but I think it is logically unsuccessful.
athe·ism: - from Merriam-Webster:
- a disbelief in the existence of deity
- the doctrine that there is no deity
Disbelief is still a belief.
- the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
The word "doctrine" in the second definition of atheism doesn't really improve things!
- a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief (Emphasis added)
If I ask an atheist, "Do you disbelieve in God?" He will no doubt say "Yes". If I were to similarly ask, "Do you believe there is no God(s)?" He would no doubt also likewise answer "Yes.'
If an individual states "I do not believe x is TRUE", is that not the equivalent of saying, "I believe x is FALSE"?
I completely understand the motivations of many atheists to avoid the term "belief" in relation to their position/view/philosophy/whateveryouwantocallit. It makes them uncomfortable. But the fact of the matter is this: ultimately, atheism is a philosophical/theological/religious position. It is NOT something that can be proved conclusively by scientific means.
In fact, the more one tries to come up with a coherent, cohesive definition of the term, the more one finds it to be stubbornly elusive.
Not that wikipedia is the final word on anything let alone an important subject like this, but it is informative that the WP article on ATHEISM acknowledges the "ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism". (See subheading "RANGE")
twitch: perhaps we should clarify our positions and assertions first, so that misunderstandings and misrepresentations are kept to a minimum.
TRUE-BELIEVERS: I totally agree with the need for clarity. I used the term "True-Believers tm " as I have observed it frequently used in the media and press in the United States. Here, it refers to extremists of ANY type and from any ideological position. Implicit in the term is meaning that the TB will be fanatical in comparison to more moderates with similar views/beliefs/interests.
The term seems to have originated from Eric Hoffer in his 1951 book, The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements. In it he analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary.
He refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam. Hoffer believes that mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable; that religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values differed.
It's easy to see how this would be applied to fanatical Christians, Muslims, etc. But it can just as easily be applied, I believe, to what are termed "Militant Atheists" in the media.
I hope that helps.
00DAD