Hello. We have already looked into the definition of atheism.
My Gosh…
Apart from telling me I’m “ignorant” might you be more forthcoming as to why I’m “ignorant” by giving an explanation so to make me less “ignorant”?
I have already given you an example of a country that debunks that claim. Ok lets talk about Scotland specifically. It is far less religious then the USA, and has none of what you mention above. Why are the atheists in scotland more moral then the theists in the USA?
Science can and has disproved many of the myths in the bible…So you come to CAF stating you make no claims but yet engage us in conversation telling us why our God is evil, then when we attempt to explain things to you, you claim we are either ignorant or insane. When we attempt to understand your position on theism and/or deism you state there is no evidence even though evidence, the kind of which you expect, is impossible as science can neither prove nor disprove God. But if science can neither (concretely) prove nor disprove God then we must find other means by which to build a case for God, but you are not interested in anything outside of science. So we run around in circles because you deny everything we say that doesn’t vibe with your understanding of the world, but of course, all the while stating you make no claims.
And your point being that an atheist is happy because they don’t care if they’re in mortal sin?It’s kind of ironic to click on “New Posts” and see, directly underneath the title of this thread, another one (in “Prayer Intentions”) called “Very Depressed” - by a Catholic who is depressed because she believes herself to be in a state of mortal sin.
So who is it that’s unhappy, again?
Becuase you make claims that show you don’t understand or have knowledge of even the most basic science.
No. My point is it’s ridiculous to assume that atheists are unhappy (or in “mortal sin”) just because they’re atheists.And your point being that an atheist is happy because they don’t care if they’re in mortal sin?
Ah, yes another claim but one that is erroneous as science has not disproved the Bible is a myth.
But you concede it has reduced much of the bible to be nothing more than symbolic.
Again do you think you can be a bit forthcoming about what I’m ignorant as regarding the statements I quoted on science?
I concede nothing as the claim is false.
Well just a few post ago you stated you didn’t know if you believed in adam and eve, and MANY on this board do. If you believe in adam and eve then you do not believe in evolution.
Sorry but science HAS disproven a world wide flood and HAS disproven genesis
This is an anthropomorphic comment. Whether animals have morals or not, it is invalid to state definitively that they do without having proof. If a non-human animal can attest and demonstrate that animals have morals, then this statement can have merit. Else it is a subjective and anthropomorphic view that cannot be stated as fact. This is similarly to saying my books are respectful of each other. They do not eat each other nor fight. This is simply anthropomorphism. While one can say they cannot do this because they cannot perform such actions. How can one know animals have the faculties of morals. Unless scientific evidence accrue from animals themselves claiming they have morals, this is not a fact. (There is the possibility of animals becoming human and making this claim; however, I do not believe the author of this claim is one such being.)
While it is true that the Church regards evolution as a field of science and is not necessary opposed or in support of Catholicism, I must point out that this quoted claim is also false. Simply accepting one (genetics) does not necessary preclude, include, or define the other (evolution). Earlier, this poster stated that he is both agnostic and atheist (which we have already shown he cannot be truly atheist given his statements regarding concepts of absolutes, between pages 16-20). He has clearly shown that two different concepts can coexists. While they have overlapping philosophies, one does not necessarily preclude, include, or define the other. This is the same for genetics and evolution. Evolution has been describe in non genetic terms very easily. Genetics can be understood independent of evolution as well. The confusion this poster may have as well as many modern people is that samples of genetics between species aid in the description of the evolution trees within the hierarchy the species are categorized. However, this does not imply the other as I have already shown.
A Catholic being depressed because she believes she has committed a mortal sin is to be expected (as it shows she has a conscience) and therefore is irrelevant to the thread. That is why I wrote what I did (as I assume atheists can become depressed too if they commit mortal sin) as I don’t think it was a good example of what you were trying to delineate. What you’ve written above however makes a lot more sense.
I can hardly be bothered wasting my time replying to such nonsense.
No- what I said was I was unsure whether it was to be taken LITERALLY or SYMBOLICALLY.
This is also, unfortunately incorrect. The poster is redirected to learn what the Catholic Church teaches and accepts in regards to Adam, Eve, and evolution. The truth is that believing in one does not negate the other.