Why are atheists so unhappy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RNRobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that, one man’s story is not enough as any evidence. Yet luckily there are plenty of others too, like GK Chesterton (probably one of those greatest thinking in the 20th century)
I love G.K. Chesterton! I just finished re-reading Orthodoxy (for the third or fourth time), I’m currently re-reading What’s Wrong With the World, and when I’m done with that plan to re-read The Everlasting Man (which I’ve read about 4 times over the past 12 years).
 
L
Tell me, now that we know the sunsets are caused by the refraction of light on the earth atmosphere, and not by a sun god, does that make them any less beautiful?
But why do we find things beautiful? Why are we the only species with an appreciation of art, music, science, etc)? Things like art and music and appreciation for the beauty in nature aren’t necessary for the continuation of the species, so why do we have them?
 
You know, I think you’re really just nitpicking here at this point. Everyone who doesn’t have mental problems knows the difference between right and wrong, it’s called having a concience.
Hello I’m not sure what you really think, but making this statement proves there is something as absolute. I can try to put it into math terms if you want. Sadly I can’t use all the math symbols here so it would have to be wordy.

Essentially though if there exists absolutes, I find it hard not to find God. Because absolutes implies there is a beginning and an end (I mean the universe here for conversational purposes) by the basic logic that if there is no absolute, there can be no beginning nor no end cause every earliest point in time is no longer the earlier since there is something relatively earlier. Same with the end. And since beginning and having a beginning are complementary statements by the default that covers all the bases. There is nothing in between no beginning and having a beginning. Now if there is a beginning there must be a reason if reasoning is remotely important. Now if there is a reason, what is it, cause science alone cannot explain this. The reason is that when science describes anything that exists before the beginning it is no longer science since it contradicts the concept of a beginning. Basically having a beginning is like having a lower bound that where both the limit and value exists. Think of a open topological space versus a closed one. From that you can see that if there is such a thing as absolute, there is such a thing as unexplainable by science. If there is such a thing as unexplainable by science, then atheism has fail to understand reality. Now you’re life with a-atheism or believing in something supernatural.

If you want a proof of there exists an absolute form your statement, I can give it to you. It’s not hard to understand. Now if you then change your statement, then I can probably explain that one away too.
 
Sorry Darwin, but Communism and Nazism (although Nazis were socialists) were world views that were exercised long before the advent of WMDs (and other modern weapons of war).

p.s. Rn Robert asked you a question which I believe you should answer (before I attempt to answer yours).
Did i say WMD’s, and again open a book. Fire bombing was alot worse than the WMD’s used on japan.
 
Tell me, now that we know the sunsets are caused by the refraction of light on the earth atmosphere, and not by a sun god, does that make them any less beautiful? Just because i know the real explanations behind the origins of life, it doesn’t make is anyless special. In fact it makes it infinity more special, for i don’t believe this is just a stepping stone to the after life, where you believe the real fun begins.

I suggest you educate yourself and stop revelling in your own ignorance.
I have a couple thoughts on this. First, it does not make it any less beautiful because a sun god is just something someone made up. God made it beautiful before anyone gave a name to it. If you look at a table in all its intricacies like I mentioned above, you can see it to be remarkable. I would say way more beautiful than a surface look at the sun set. Thinking about the billions of nuclear reactions on the sun to make the light rays as well as the millions of photons bouncing around in the atmosphere and how the electron shells oscillate after each absorption and each remittance. Now that is beauty. But to each his own. There are so many different ways of looking at it. God made the world and the physical laws of the world to make it so lovely. That’s how I see it is beautiful. And because of that I want to know more. Learning the basic math (when I mean basic it is still pretty complicated cause supercomputers would burn out trying to model just the light rays from the sun to our eyes in all its complexities) concepts for it just makes me appreciate God more.

So by loving God, and thus loving his creation, I think I have an amazing appreciate for this sunset you speak of. Assuming otherwise of the Catholic faith is true “ignorant”.
 
But why do we find things beautiful? Why are we the only species with an appreciation of art, music, science, etc)? Things like art and music and appreciation for the beauty in nature aren’t necessary for the continuation of the species, so why do we have them?
You have not thought about this in detail. These are all products of a big brain.

Art and music are a means of socialisation and communication. They have a drastic effect on society and therefore propagation. As for science i don’t think i even need answer that.
 
Why is empathy a good thing, you’re the one that said morals are relativistic? Maybe empathy will be considered bad one day (by a society very relativistic about morals). 🙂
Bacause empathy stabilizes a society. It is a very good thing.
 
You know, I think you’re really just nitpicking here at this point. Everyone who doesn’t have mental problems knows the difference between right and wrong, it’s called having a concience.
No I’m not nitpicking because if we have a conscience then so did humans way back when which means morals are not relativistic but absolute. Empathy is and always was a virtue those who disagree with this (in that it’s not a virtue) are the relativists as such Charlie is being illogical.
 
Bacause empathy stabilizes a society. It is a very good thing.
This quote and another that I quoted on the previous page imply there are absolutes. So I challenge atheists here to explain to me why they do not believe in the universe having an absolute beginning. I already explained that having an absolute beginning implies there are supernatural things and the atheist concept of thought is incorrect because of this.

So use your “big brain” of atheist to logical this out. Explain how the universe never has a beginning.
 
Bacause empathy stabilizes a society. It is a very good thing.
Well then, the first humans must have had empathy which means that it was always around and therefore is a moral absolute.

p.s. Empathy (as you describe it) is not a necessity just read up on the Stoics if you don’t believe me.
 
Hmm, why won’t any atheist reply to my posts. They are well thought out and have valid logical arguments. And they prove my point. Wait is that why?

As an aside, I heard about GK Chesterton from reading the wiki page on CS Lewis who I don’t read works off but I know people who do. GK Chesterton is a very very smart man and has a great witty humor that I enjoy. I’m doing the aside since if atheists are not making rebuttals to me, I guess there is nothing more for me to say. I cheer you guys on fighting for the Catholic cause. Remember though, if people do not discuss in a fair, consistant, and encompassing manner, then there are not much to talk about.
 
I have a couple thoughts on this. First, it does not make it any less beautiful because a sun god is just something someone made up. God made it beautiful before anyone gave a name to it. If you look at a table in all its intricacies like I mentioned above, you can see it to be remarkable. I would say way more beautiful than a surface look at the sun set. Thinking about the billions of nuclear reactions on the sun to make the light rays as well as the millions of photons bouncing around in the atmosphere and how the electron shells oscillate after each absorption and each remittance. Now that is beauty. But to each his own. There are so many different ways of looking at it. God made the world and the physical laws of the world to make it so lovely. That’s how I see it is beautiful. And because of that I want to know more. Learning the basic math (when I mean basic it is still pretty complicated cause supercomputers would burn out trying to model just the light rays from the sun to our eyes in all its complexities) concepts for it just makes me appreciate God more.

So by loving God, and thus loving his creation, I think I have an amazing appreciate for this sunset you speak of. Assuming otherwise of the Catholic faith is true “ignorant”.
We know the origin of photons, god has nothing to do with it. As for you claim about computers, i just so happen to have a degree in that subject too. Computers can easily model the maths involved in the in light rays. Tell me what kind of maths do computers use to model such things?
 
How do you prove empathy scientifically? How are those things wrong from a scientific point of view?

Suppose (for the sake of argument) I thought that people who were not of my race should be enslaved or treated as second class citizens, that homosexuals should be put to death and that it was morally okay to rape women as long as I married them. Suppose you told me those things were wrong. Suppose I responded by asking "Who are YOU to impose YOUR morals on ME?"
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

p.s. So the relativists are not relativists after all.
 
This quote and another that I quoted on the previous page imply there are absolutes. So I challenge atheists here to explain to me why they do not believe in the universe having an absolute beginning. I already explained that having an absolute beginning implies there are supernatural things and the atheist concept of thought is incorrect because of this.

So use your “big brain” of atheist to logical this out. Explain how the universe never has a beginning.
The observable universe my have had a beginning but the universe by its very definition can not have.

Please point me to your “explantion” of why the observable universe having a beginning means there must be a “god”. 😉
 
We know the origin of photons, god has nothing to do with it. As for you claim about computers, i just so happen to have a degree in that subject too. Computers can easily model the maths involved in the in light rays. Tell me what kind of maths do computers use to model such things?
Yes a challenge. Well, this is a side argument that you are picking up. Not my main argument saying that you need to prove that the universe has no beginning to show atheist has merits.

In this side argument, what have you modeled? My first guess to modeling the sun’s rays in its complexity would be like neutronics. Here we model the millions of neutrons derived from and destroyed in nuclear reactions. So sun rays can be the same thing. Except it’s a little more complicated. Photons have group velocities (in 4 D space), wave velocities (in 4 D space), frequencies, orientation, effective mass, momentum (in 4 D space). So you would have to model each of that, and that’s only from my limited knowledge. That’s 15 dimensions. Now to get the number of photons accurately, you will need a model of the 10 million reactions or so every second in the sun. You can fudge it a bit since we are only talking about the light rays, by using monty carlo methods to estimate the appearance of each photon on the sun. Since the sun is, what, 100 earth diameters, that’s quite a large volume to approximate. That alone even in 1 D, I do not know of any supercomputer that can handle that. Now add 15 variables to it to describe the individual photons. Now with 10 million reactions, in 16 variables, it will take some large number of supercomputers. Now that is just the initial conditions.

In space there are many minute particles, but they will not have much of an effect on the photons. What is crazy are the magnetic fields. Since the sun’s magnetic field along encompasses the earth, we have to use relativistic equations to get accurate photon trajectories and attenuation. Quantum computers may be able to do that, but any real modeling will be only be zero,1 or 2 order approximations or some approximation. There will definitely be a sizable error margin. Modeling radioactive leakage over 10,000 years alone has error bars several times the size of the data. These error bars would be tremendously greater if we had to approximate and we will. Cause there are too many variables.

Now comes the easier to understand but thought to compute part. The multitude (I have no idea how many just that it is a lot) of absorption and remittance of these photons across the sky. I’m not talking about simple water vapor, but I’m talking about electron to electron interaction here.

Hehe, then there is the way less tedious calculation of rays hitting and interacting with your eyes. Whew, just typing this makes me hungry.

So how would you do this? Or anyone?
 
The observable universe my have had a beginning but the universe by its very definition can not have.

Please point me to your “explantion” of why the observable universe having a beginning means there must be a “god”. 😉
In this post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5508319&postcount=283 .
This post is just post 283 or one page ago. I did not say it proves there is a “god”. I said it proves the existence of the supernatural which leads to the fact that atheism is irrational. And it is about the universe having a beginning. My challenge is for you to prove that it does not since atheist claims that the universe is knowable.

Edit: I really mean the universe, not just the observable universe. Basically if the universe is knowable, at one point all of it is observable.
 
My challenge is for you to prove that it does not since atheist claims that the universe is knowable.
Yay, another challenge to prove the unprovable, it’s not really working anymore. The only thing aheist claim is that they have no belief in a god. Claiming the universe is knowable is retarded since there’s so much we don’t know about it, at least with what we know today. Given enough time we might be able to figure it out but that’s why people are still working on it so they can figure out the answers.
 
Yay, another challenge to prove the unprovable, it’s not really working anymore. The only thing aheist claim is that they have no belief in a god. Claiming the universe is knowable is retarded since there’s so much we don’t know about it, at least with what we know today. Given enough time we might be able to figure it out but that’s why people are still working on it so they can figure out the answers.
If the universe is not knowable, then how to do you know God does not exist? That is a contradiction. If given enough time we cannot figure it out. Then it is so faith oriented to believe there is no God. Or given enough time, we can see the whole universe, then what reason do you have to believe God cannot exists? How could not knowing everything coexists with knowing God does not exists. It does not make sense unless God is simply something that if it exists is within the known universe. But every right minded Catholic would know God does not exists as a creation in the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top