Why are atheists so unhappy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RNRobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can hardly be bothered wasting my time replying to such nonsense.

We can observe animals acting in a manner that we would consider to be moral.

Atheist and agnositc are no exclusive terms. One deals with the lack of belief the other deals with the lack of knowledge.
I’m sorry that you did not comprehend what I wrote.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with one being atheist and agnostic at the same time. In fact I used that as informational evidence. I simply stated they have similar philosophical basis.

You already claimed that you can observe animals–no need to be redundant when you choose not to read or understand. I am clarifying that any such observation are anthropomorphic and does not make valid statements of fact. They are mere opinions by the simple merits of “facts” and “evidence”.
 
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.

An example: If I were to claim bats are naturally all green in color and eats calculators only during lent. And I make the claim that oranges or unlike apples as much as bats are unlike cats. It is obvious from my example that neither statement excludes the other even though both utilize bats in the observations.

Adam and Eve does not contradict evolution and vice verse. This has already been detailed on this site as well as other places. Using the search option would yield many results. In particular, read about Adam, Eve and Evolution.

As ammo for you and others, I do not subscribe to evolution. It is simply too weak of an assertion with its situational evidence. My friends were shocked to find out my thoughts on this seeing as how loving of science, anthropology, history, and cosmology I am. But unlike quantum dynamics and abstract concepts in mathematics, the rigorous evaluation needed for evolution is poor at best. Unfortunate.
Is this a joke?
 
Sorry but science HAS disproven a world wide flood and HAS disproven genesis
A careful reading of the verses shows that it was not God’s intention to give exact scientific information about the creation of each of these separate beings. His purpose was primarily one of teaching religious truths which we might summarize as follows:

“1. All creation is the work of God alone. With creation time begins as a means of measuring physical phenomena. Creation therefore occurs without there being any pre-existing matter. Hence the first effect of creation is the appearance of the chaotic mass previously mentioned.”

“2. This shows that only God is eternal. Everything else owes its existence to God, that is, is God’s creature, which means that God is distinct from the world and prior to it; he neither proceeds from nor depends on that initial chaos, as Babylonian or Assyrian cosmogonies make out: he transcends and is distinct from matter.”

“3. This creating, eternal, and totally transcendent being is the only true God; he cannot be confused with the polytheistic and pantheistic gods believed in at the time Genesis was written and to which the Israelites themselves were very inclined. Since God was separate and distinct from the universe he created, the Israelites were shown, in this new light of revelation, that God could not be confused with the sun or the moon or with the gods of the Assyrians: anything other than the transcendental God, the one true God, was his creation and therefore unworthy of worship.”

“4. Finally, God appears in this first creation account as almighty: “God said” . . . “and so it was.” Creation calls for no effort on his part, full of power and majesty, he provides everything with existence; and, furthermore, he maintains in existence everything he has created, by an act of his will. In creating things he communicates to them his goodness: “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). It could not be otherwise, because there is only one Creator, God, who is an infinite being and therefore infinitely good.”

I would like to know how science disproves Genesis based on the points above?
 
Is this a joke?
No, this is not a joke. Please use a logical mind. Maybe you are unfamiliar with independent eigenfunctions from mathematics. It is a fancy way of saying independent comments are independent whether they are made in the same context or in different contexts. This is very different from dependent comments.
 
I’m sorry that you did not comprehend what I wrote.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with one being atheist and agnostic at the same time. In fact I used that as informational evidence. I simply stated they have similar philosophical basis.

You already claimed that you can observe animals–no need to be redundant when you choose not to read or understand. I am clarifying that any such observation are anthropomorphic and does not make valid statements of fact. They are mere opinions by the simple merits of “facts” and “evidence”.
What does anthropomorphism have to do with the way the great apes act.
 
I can hardly be bothered wasting my time replying to such nonsense.

We can observe animals acting in a manner that we would consider to be moral.

Atheist and agnositc are no exclusive terms. One deals with the lack of belief the other deals with the lack of knowledge.
But an agnostic is one who lacks belief because he lacks knowledge, so again why aren’t you agnostic (an agnostic does not attempt to make claims as you have done)?
 
But you concede it has reduced much of the bible to be nothing more than symbolic.
“The reliability of the Bible has been vindicated again and again by historians and archaeologists. Scholars questioned the probability of a number of strange-sounding patriarchal names in the Old Testament until a Sumerian tablet was found inscribed with the very names in question. In the same way, the Jews were judged wrong for having traced the Nile and Euphrates Rivers to the same source until an Arabian river was discovered with the same name as the one in Egypt.”

“The sudden annihilation of 185,000 Assyrians as recounted in the Bible was likewise doubted until confirmation surfaced in the works of ancient historians. Archaeologists have confirmed Lot’s testimony on the fertility of the lower Jordan Valley, long questioned, just as they have validated the biblical account of a sudden crumbling of the walls of Jericho. Noah’s flood, once the butt of scholarly ridicule, finds support in the oral and pictorial record of primitive peoples. By the same token, biblical reference to the destruction of Canaanite cities, once suspect in academia, has found acceptance.”

“There is more. Sodom and Gomorrah were once thought to be legendary cities, but no longer. Even the possibility of fire and brimstone raining down on Sodom is reinforced by modern geological analysis as well as by Greek and Roman writings. Old Testament details relating to the Jewish exile in Egypt have come to be regarded as accurate down to the price of an ordinary slave (twenty shekels). We have confirmation, moreover, of the existence of the Queen of Sheba along with Belshazzar’s Feast and the Pool of Bethesda’s five porticoes, all previously doubted.”

“Traditional attribution of certain psalms to King David, once rejected by scholars, is back in favor. At the same time, archaeological excavation points to a close association between Hebrews and Moabites as implied by the book of Ruth. Finally, Jesus and his followers invariably accepted Old Testament accounts of miracles at face value. Take, for example, Jesus’ reference to fire and brimstone destroying Sodom “on the day when Lot went out” (Luke 17:29).”

“Because we do not have entire original manuscript copies of any of the books of Scripture, one may encounter an occasional copyist error (e.g., 22 for 222), not to mention, here and there, a slip in translation. But the vast majority of allegations are utterly groundless, and those that have not been disproven will falter given time. Once in a great while God’s word fails to jibe with secular records. But secular record-keepers have been known to make mistakes. Why should the most thoroughly tested and rigorously authenticated book in the entire ancient world be called into question unless one can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it is wrong?”

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea1.asp
 
Your going to have to explain to me what this

“An example: If I were to claim bats are naturally all green in color and eats calculators only during lent. And I make the claim that oranges or unlike apples as much as bats are unlike cats. It is obvious from my example that neither statement excludes the other even though both utilize bats in the observations.”

has to do with evolution v YEC and eigenfunctions.
 
I would answer this question as St Augustine did,

“Lord you have created us for yourself and our hearts are restless till they come to rest in you.”

Without God the heart is landless and weary of the travel.

GraceAngel.
 
What does anthropomorphism have to do with the way the great apes act.
Well, you have to assume their actions are human like to use human terms. The idea that they act this way independent of human terms are neutral in itself. The question is that once usage of the terms get applied how could we know it is true. How could your description of moral actions on the terms of apes be the same description of moral actions between humans in the context of a Catholic understanding?

They cannot be the same if you are using the same Catholic term. The Catholic term involves decisions of the will, an effect on the soul, and an objective truth that is not limited to human understanding. At least this is my understanding of it.

So then, how do you determine if the apes follow this same definition of morals.? We cannot simply ask them. We cannot compare scientific evidence with them. The examples you gave are descriptions of observations humans have made using humanistic qualities. And that in itself is subjective and may or may not represent anything that is going on with the apes. It is the same as someone without divine revelation stating definitively that God is changeable. No human evidence can describe this since change is a concept of time and God is independent of time. This does not prove the God is unchanging nor changing. It does prove that these observations by themselves are no authoritative, definitive, or binding on logical discussions. They can work on informal what if’s and hypothetical discussions, but not one where definitive claims are made.

TLDR: Unless we use definitions made by animal philosophers, all terms we use are from human observations and so are invalid in statements that claim authority, definitiveness, or relevant to conversations of broad degrees such as this one.
 
Your going to have to explain to me what this

“An example: If I were to claim bats are naturally all green in color and eats calculators only during lent. And I make the claim that oranges or unlike apples as much as bats are unlike cats. It is obvious from my example that neither statement excludes the other even though both utilize bats in the observations.”

has to do with evolution v YEC and eigenfunctions.
Okay. I’ll start with the second part. Eigenfunctions are functions that are linearly independent of each other. This is a linear algebra term but used throughout mathematics. It is a simple way to prove that two things can exists at the same time simply because they are about different topics (in math terms different spaces). It’s similar to how an average person understands 3D. Each dimension are independent of each other.

So those two statements, “If I were to …” and “And I make …” are independent from each other. This is the same as “Adam and Eve surely exists” and “Evolution is a correct theory of science”. (Note: I already stated I do not subscribe to evolution, not because of religion but because of science.) I mentioned there are many articles to read. I’ll link one. catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

The reason I did not make my own assertions to evolution is that it is not even a question to me how it effects my understanding of Adam and Eve. It does not fly with me whether I’m Catholic or not.
 
But an agnostic is one who lacks belief because he lacks knowledge, so again why aren’t you agnostic (an agnostic does not attempt to make claims as you have done)?
What claim have i made?
 
Okay. I’ll start with the second part. Eigenfunctions are functions that are linearly independent of each other. This is a linear algebra term but used throughout mathematics. It is a simple way to prove that two things can exists at the same time simply because they are about different topics (in math terms different spaces). It’s similar to how an average person understands 3D. Each dimension are independent of each other.

So those two statements, “If I were to …” and “And I make …” are independent from each other. This is the same as “Adam and Eve surely exists” and “Evolution is a correct theory of science”. (Note: I already stated I do not subscribe to evolution, not because of religion but because of science.) I mentioned there are many articles to read. I’ll link one. catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

The reason I did not make my own assertions to evolution is that it is not even a question to me how it effects my understanding of Adam and Eve. It does not fly with me whether I’m Catholic or not.
I know what Eigenfunctions are i have a degree in maths and computing.

Evolution and creation science make claims that directly contradict each other. They can’t both be correct. I should have been more specific one cannot believe in a literal genesis and evolution.

I don’t understand how you can claim to love science yet not accept evolution? It is one one of the most sound and evidence backed theories in the whole of science.
 
I know what Eigenfunctions are i have a degree in maths and computing.

Evolution and creation science make claims that directly contradict each other. They can’t both be correct. I should have been more specific one cannot believe in a literal genesis and evolution.

I don’t understand how you can claim to love science yet not accept evolution is one one of the most sound and evidence backed theories in the whole of science.
I’m sorry, but I do not see it as sound in any way. Maybe you need to learn more about it. Here is an article from a scientist with a similar understanding as myself : catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0042.html

I’m not sure who claim to believe literal genesis or what literal genesis would be in this case, but my assent that Adam and Eve being the original parents of humanity does not in any way negate evolution. Evolution does not say that more than two humans appear and became our ancestors. It simply does not have the factual evidence for this. Nor does evolution excludes either of the sex from existing. If there is factual evidence of more then two individuals as the first clearly human and are not related to each other, then this will be contrary to the assent of Adam and Eve’s existence.
 
Well, you have to assume their actions are human like to use human terms. The idea that they act this way independent of human terms are neutral in itself. The question is that once usage of the terms get applied how could we know it is true. How could your description of moral actions on the terms of apes be the same description of moral actions between humans in the context of a Catholic understanding?

They cannot be the same if you are using the same Catholic term. The Catholic term involves decisions of the will, an effect on the soul, and an objective truth that is not limited to human understanding. At least this is my understanding of it.

So then, how do you determine if the apes follow this same definition of morals.? We cannot simply ask them. We cannot compare scientific evidence with them. The examples you gave are descriptions of observations humans have made using humanistic qualities. And that in itself is subjective and may or may not represent anything that is going on with the apes. It is the same as someone without divine revelation stating definitively that God is changeable. No human evidence can describe this since change is a concept of time and God is independent of time. This does not prove the God is unchanging nor changing. It does prove that these observations by themselves are no authoritative, definitive, or binding on logical discussions. They can work on informal what if’s and hypothetical discussions, but not one where definitive claims are made.

TLDR: Unless we use definitions made by animal philosophers, all terms we use are from human observations and so are invalid in statements that claim authority, definitiveness, or relevant to conversations of broad degrees such as this one.
Well since i don’t believe in souls or moral absolutes i guess there isn’t anywhere we can really go from here.
 
Let me add in case anyone wonders, I do not think fossils are hoax. If I did, I cannot claim that evolution is a weak theory. Since no fossils means that I cannot verify whether evolution is weak or strong. While I would claim that I a religious scientist, I am still one always learning and always searching. As a true student, whom I personally feel that all real scientists and Catholics are, I cannot make a claim that I am always rigorous. However, it is my goal.
 
Well since i don’t believe in souls or moral absolutes i guess there isn’t anywhere we can really go from here.
I’m glad you understand what I intended. This is way I did not interact at first to concepts of morals and theories. However, I changed my mind because you claimed a fellow human to be ignorant of science due to her statement about Adam and Eve that I found to be unfair and needed clarification.
 
I’m sorry, but I do not see it as sound in any way. Maybe you need to learn more about it. Here is an article from a scientist with a similar understanding as myself : catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0042.html

I’m not sure who claim to believe literal genesis or what literal genesis would be in this case, but my assent that Adam and Eve being the original parents of humanity does not in any way negate evolution. Evolution does not say that more than two humans appear and became our ancestors. It simply does not have the factual evidence for this. Nor does evolution excludes either of the sex from existing. If there is factual evidence of more then two individuals as the first clearly human and are not related to each other, then this will be contrary to the assent of Adam and Eve’s existence.
Actually l know a great deal about it, i have also studied evolutionary biology at university.

“Adam and Eve being the original parents of humanity does not in any way negate evolution.” as a couple is does.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

I don’t mean this in an insulting way, i just want to get an idea of how deeply you have looked at the evidence. Have you ever looked that the evidence for evolution from scientific sources?
 
I’m glad you understand what I intended. This is way I did not interact at first to concepts of morals and theories. However, I changed my mind because you claimed a fellow human to be ignorant of science due to her statement about Adam and Eve that I found to be unfair and needed clarification.
Its not just her statements about adam and eve. I should not have used the word ignorant, as people find it offensive. However it is clear she does not have a knowledge of the sciences. Now this is not a bad thing, however it does (or should) exclude her from making claims about the subject.
 
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.
A Catholic being depressed because she’s developed a severe case of scrupulosity owing to her excessive fear of Hell would seem to be a pretty good example of what I was trying to delineate. But we’ll agree to disagree. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top