Why are atheists so unhappy? - Page 79

RNRobert · #**1171** Aug 28, '09, 9:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by josie L

Hi Robert, it means "young earth creationists". God bless you.

That's what I figured. The thing of it is, neither you, nor I, nor any other Catholic on this thread, have espoused YEC, so I don't know where he gets off saying he needs to "save people from the likes of me."

You know, I think the condescending and arrogant attiudes of CD and yankee_doodle only prove the point of my OP. They don't merely deny God, they hate him.

CWBetts · #**1172** Aug 28, '09, 10:14 am

I think what all these "empirical evidence only" clowns need to admit to themselves is that they cannot tell the difference between knowledge and perception. They cannot perceive God, and therefore they deduce that He cannot exist. What a narrow, small minded world view. The sad fact is that things exist beyond our perception, and things that we perceive are not necessarily real.

**tonyrey** · #**1173** Aug 28, '09, 3:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee_doodle

However, Christianity (or any religion) has no selling point with intellectual objectors. We know it's not true ...

You describe yourself as an agnostic yet you claim to know religion is not true! Where do you obtain your knowledge?

yankee_doodle · #**1174** Aug 28, '09, 3:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

You describe yourself as an agnostic yet you claim to know religion is not true! Where do you obtain your knowledge?

the weight of circumstantial evidence makes it clear to me beyond a "reasonable" doubt that religion is not true (however, the same cannot be said for the proposition that there is a grand architect of some sort).

yankee_doodle · #**1175** Aug 28, '09, 3:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWBetts

I think what all these "empirical evidence only" clowns need to admit to themselves is that they cannot tell the difference between knowledge and perception. They cannot perceive God, and therefore they deduce that He cannot exist. What a narrow, small minded world view. The sad fact is that things exist beyond our perception, and things that we perceive are not necessarily real.

to the contrary .... your failure to consider our arguments is (objectively speaking) narrow minded (evidenced by the sort of terminology you use to depict those who disagree with you ... like "clowns").

No one says we cannot perceive or prove the existence of god therefore he doesn't exist. I say I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that religion is not true.

**tonyrey** · #**1176** Aug 28, '09, 3:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee_doodle

the weight of circumstantial evidence makes it clear to me beyond a "reasonable" doubt that religion is not true (however, the same cannot be said for the proposition that there is a grand architect of some sort).

In other words you believe religion is not true. What precisely is the circumstantial evidence? (that makes you happy!

)

yankee_doodle · #**1177** Aug 28, '09, 6:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

In other words you believe religion is not true. What precisely is the circumstantial evidence? (that makes you happy!

)

Here's a link to one of my posts in another thread (on pretty much the same topic):

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....&postcount=221

In this post I lay out one of my many objections to theism. As far as happiness goes, I'm not really sure how that question bears on the veracity of religious claims?

Are atheists or agnostics happy to discover religion is not true? I guess some might be a little disappointed (like when a child discovers Santa Clause isn't real); but I certainly can't speak for all atheists or agnostics. As for me, I don't think my views toward religion affect my state of happiness one way or the other (though perhaps I'm not an objective judge).

I'll say one thing ... being both intelligent and insisting on intellectual honestly can sometimes make one unpopular.

josie L · #**1178** Aug 28, '09, 6:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee_doodle

Here's a link to one of my posts in another thread (on pretty much the same topic):

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....&postcount=221

In this post I lay out one of my many objections to theism. As far as happiness goes, I'm not really sure how that question bears on the veracity of religious claims?

Are atheists or agnostics happy to discover religion is not true? I guess some might be a little disappointed (like when a child discovers Santa Clause isn't real); but I certainly can't speak for all atheists or agnostics. As for me, I don't think my views toward religion affect my state of happiness one way or the other (though perhaps I'm not an objective judge).

I'll say one thing ... being both intelligent and insisting on intellectual honestly can sometimes make one unpopular.

It's not Santa "Clause" but Santa Claus, it's not intellectual "honestly" but intellectual honesty, and last but not least it's not "to spite" it's "inspite". God bless.

RNRobert · #**1179** Aug 28, '09, 6:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by josie L

It's not Santa "Clause" but Santa Claus, it's not intellectual "honestly" but intellectual honesty, and last but not least it's not "to spite" it's "inspite". God bless.

And this guy supposedly has advanced degrees...

yankee_doodle · #**1180** Aug 28, '09, 6:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by josie L

It's not Santa "Clause" but Santa Claus, it's not intellectual "honestly" but intellectual honesty, and last but not least it's not "to spite" it's "inspite". God bless.

is that the best you can do .... point to a typo or two?

no comment ..... except to say there's no listing in Merriam Webster for inspite. Rather they list the term as either: in spite of or despite. Here's some links genius:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inspite

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/despite

yankee_doodle · #**1181** Aug 28, '09, 6:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RNRobert

And this guy supposedly has advanced degrees...

yes, and when you discover there's no such word as inspite (that your comrade just invented) in the English language, perhaps you will join her in eating your words.

josie L · #**1182** Aug 28, '09, 6:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RNRobert

And this guy supposedly has advanced degrees...

Actually he does. Trust me.

josie L · #**1183** Aug 28, '09, 6:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee_doodle

yes, and when you discover there's no such word as inspite (that your comrade just invented) in the English language, perhaps you will join her in eating your words.

Actually, I wasn't sure about that word, I wanted to write "in spite". I should have stuck with my gut. Anyways I'm not the one claiming intelligence here, am I?

p.s. I'm just a humble maid.

yankee_doodle · #**1184** Aug 28, '09, 7:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by josie L

Actually, I wasn't sure about that word, I wanted to write "in spite". I should have stuck with my gut. And anyways I'm not the one claiming intelligence here, am I?

you should have simply Googled the word before publicly being wrong about telling me I'm wrong (doesn't take a genius to type a word into your search box)?

josie L · #**1185** Aug 28, '09, 7:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee_doodle

is that the best you can do .... point to a typo or two?

no comment ..... except to say there's no listing in Merriam Webster for inspite. Rather they list the term as either: in spite of or despite. Here's some links genius:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inspite

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/despite

Well since we've had these discussions ad naseum in the past I didn't think it was necessary to regurgitate them again.