(September 24, 2017 at 12:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 24, 2017 at 12:26 pm)emjay Wrote: @CL. I see you've unrepped me... that's fine by me. Anyone else who wants to follow suit over this issue, that's also fine by me.

You know I said I've never seen a convincing positive case for Christianity? Well I see them least of all from theists with your type of views. I don't even think of you as a Christian because your beliefs are so wishy-washy. At least fundamentalists are consistent. Your type of Christianity seems like the make-it-up-as-you-go-along type where any uncomfortable thing in the Bible just becomes 'allegory'. You yourself inspire respect, regardless of how you now feel about me, because you are a kind and decent person... but I can't say the same thing at all about your beliefs. I never called you willfully abusive, just as I don't call my parents abusive, but nonetheless I would hope that you, and they, would understand what results from instilling a bias in someone through upbringing. And just because your beliefs are Bible Pick 'n' Mix, doesn't mean that they wouldn't also have an effect on adult bias... and frankly I don't know which would be worse. My own parents fall more into the literalist camp... I never even heard the word 'allegory' in my upbringing... but at least with that there's something consistent to address. With your type of view, that basically says 'You can believe in god but you don't have to believe in anything in the Bible, unless you want to' there isn't even something consistent to address, which I would think would be even harder to undo as an adult.

Let it be known that it never bothered me and still doesn't bother me that you are atheist and that you don't like/agree with Christianity. What upset me on a personal level is that we started off as friends on these forums. We sent each other nice PMs, we had long conversations on skype, played mafia together, and we even video chatted a number of times. You were someone I considered a "forum friend", and I liked you. So to see you giving support to the sentiment that I'm a would be child abuser, and all the other horrible things this person said to me and about my parents, really caught me off guard and gave off the vibe that you don't feel the same way about me anymore. I admit the unrep was childish, but I guess it was my way of saying, "ok, I guess we aren't on the terms I thought we were."

---

Also, I don't make up my own religion. I'm catholic. And if there is anything in catholic teaching you think I cherry pick or am wishy washy about, then please be the first to point it out by copying and pasting from church document exactly what I am going against.

I know your full blown, Which leads me to ask the one person who may be able to answer this;


Which part of jesus does the wafer turn into?  I'm hoping it's all above belt.

The discussion I had with CL and Randy Carson about transubstantiation illustrates that point perfectly in the Church's claims that the wine and crackers are chemically identical to wine and crackers but that has still changed -- it's just that those changes can't be detected by the senses. And then the Church's philosophers went to work with semantical gusto to disguise the fact that reality did not comport with their stupid claim.

emjay, your replies are so perfect I feel like I don't even need to respond to CL's last quote. She seems to actually care to understand what you're saying whereas she's developed some kind of mental block towards me just because of the animosity between her and I, so that you've basically put far more eloquently than I what would have attempted, I'll let your words stand as a great response.

(September 24, 2017 at 1:23 pm)emjay Wrote:

(September 24, 2017 at 12:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Let it be known that it never bothered me and still doesn't bother me that you are atheist and that you don't like/agree with Christianity. What upset me on a personal level is that we started off as friends on these forums. We sent each other nice PMs, we had long conversations on skype, played mafia together, and we even video chatted a number of times. You were someone I considered a "forum friend", and I liked you. So to see you giving support to the sentiment that I'm a would be child abuser, and all the other horrible things this person said to me and about my parents, really caught me off guard and gave off the vibe that you don't feel the same way about me anymore. I admit the unrep was childish, but I guess it was my way of saying, "ok, I guess we aren't on the terms I thought we were."

---

Also, I don't make up my own religion. I'm catholic. And if there is anything in catholic teaching you think I cherry pick or am wishy washy about, then please be the first to point it out by copying and pasting from church document exactly what I am going against.

I wasn't supporting his specific argument against you... just the general argument of this thread. I did not call you an abuser, potential or otherwise, neither did I say the same of my parents. I said that I knew they meant no harm in teaching me about Jesus as I grew up, and the same would be true of you. But regardless of the intentions behind it, the effect on the resulting adult is the same; bias that results from upbringing... bias that acts as a default position moving forward... a default position of emotional bias that has to be constantly fought, that does not stand and cannot be fought on it's own rational merits because it was never acquired rationally in the first place.

As for you making up your own religion, that was just a turn of phrase really... and whether it's you or the whole Catholic church doing it doesn't really matter. What I mean is as soon as any religion starts introducing the notion of 'allegory' it's a slippery slope... where does it end? If the Bible is just true or false, that's at least something consistent to argue against, but if it's just a bit true, then there's nothing consistent to argue with and the goalposts can constantly be shifted.

Fair enough, I suppose I misunderstood.

As for Catholicism, the authority of the Church is above the bible. Our teachings and beliefs are expressed in the Catechism.

Because there's no chance that'll ever cause problems...

(September 24, 2017 at 3:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 24, 2017 at 1:23 pm)emjay Wrote: I wasn't supporting his specific argument against you... just the general argument of this thread. I did not call you an abuser, potential or otherwise, neither did I say the same of my parents. I said that I knew they meant no harm in teaching me about Jesus as I grew up, and the same would be true of you. But regardless of the intentions behind it, the effect on the resulting adult is the same; bias that results from upbringing... bias that acts as a default position moving forward... a default position of emotional bias that has to be constantly fought, that does not stand and cannot be fought on it's own rational merits because it was never acquired rationally in the first place.

As for you making up your own religion, that was just a turn of phrase really... and whether it's you or the whole Catholic church doing it doesn't really matter. What I mean is as soon as any religion starts introducing the notion of 'allegory' it's a slippery slope... where does it end? If the Bible is just true or false, that's at least something consistent to argue against, but if it's just a bit true, then there's nothing consistent to argue with and the goalposts can constantly be shifted.

Fair enough, I suppose I misunderstood.

As for Catholicism, the authority of the Church is above the bible. Our teachings and beliefs are expressed in the Catechism.

I stay out of fights on AF as a general rule... seeing that they're pretty much the bread and butter of this forum. You're a big girl... you can handle yourself and it didn't seem that much different from how it was when you first came here; anti-theists were on you until they came to respect you. Similar to how it was with me. But staying out of fights doesn't mean that I can't agree with an issue, and put forward my perspective on it. Which is what I did. I guess I should've said something to make it clear that I wasn't agreeing with a specific attack on you, but what's done is done.

---

(September 24, 2017 at 3:07 pm)Astonished Wrote: emjay, your replies are so perfect I feel like I don't even need to respond to CL's last quote. She seems to actually care to understand what you're saying whereas she's developed some kind of mental block towards me just because of the animosity between her and I, so that you've basically put far more eloquently than I what would have attempted, I'll let your words stand as a great response.

Well, I don't know what to say really; that's what happens when people fight... but I don't think my perspective is any more welcome than yours, however 'eloquently' I put it. But it shouldn't be such a big deal, cos I already said it can apply equally across the board; to theists and atheists... to any worldview really... that any worldview will create that bias going forward, and therefore the best thing to do, though perhaps it would be a parenting minefield to achieve, might be to leave any activism/strong opinions out of the equation, to give the child the best chance of reaching adulthood without an inherent bias one way or another. My frustration with theists is the inability, wilful or not, to understand this, especially in light of the fact that their religion contains provisions for it that render the need for it moot in the first place.

That's exactly the problem with the moderates; the unwillingness or incapability to even acknowledge that there's a possibility they're in any kind of violation of what could be their child's unhindered cognitive development or, even in their own religious sense, their free will to accept or reject god without coercion (not that there's any way to do it without coercion even if they do accept it). All it does is make their god look like even more of a dictatorial asshole if this kind of brainwashing has to be done without the consent of the person being brainwashed.

Hating other people that hold a different view will probably only confirm prejudices on both sides. I'm a Christian and for years refused to look at opposing views. Recently I have started watching videos by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and a few others and it has been both eye-opening and challenging (in a positive sense). So far I have not seen them attacking the holders of certain beliefs but rather the beliefs themselves. Clearly, these men have a superior intellect to mine - but they don't attack or hate others for not being as clever as they so obviously are. Hating religious people will probably only confirm them in their belief system.

(September 24, 2017 at 9:51 pm)beepete Wrote: Hating other people that hold a different view will probably only confirm prejudices on both sides. I'm a Christian and for years refused to look at opposing views. Recently I have started watching videos by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and a few others and it has been both eye-opening and challenging (in a positive sense). So far I have not seen them attacking the holders of certain beliefs but rather the beliefs themselves. Clearly, these men have a superior intellect to mine - but they don't attack or hate others for not being as clever as they so obviously are. Hating religious people will probably only confirm them in their belief system.

The ideology is poisonous and maintaining and spreading it is pretty much evil regardless of intent or opinion on it. It can't be ignored. So there comes a point where separating the ideology from its agents is not feasible. There's just different levels of both motivation and means. So someone like Ken Ham is a far greater concern than yourself or CL but the two of you are still, whether unwittingly or not, contributing to something that has historically been doing nothing but harm to humanity and still does to this day in more ways than previously. Imagine if the entire world was awakened to the reality of the falsehood of faith; the Vatican would finally pay for their crimes and the money they've hoarded can be seized and put into humanitarian aid instead of squandered on the wretched scam it all is, among other things that would actually help. Every day you refuse to get on board with that is one more raped kid because someone in a position of ill-gotten power isn't being kept from them, as far as I'm concerned.

(September 24, 2017 at 11:04 pm)Astonished Wrote:

(September 24, 2017 at 9:51 pm)beepete Wrote: Hating other people that hold a different view will probably only confirm prejudices on both sides. I'm a Christian and for years refused to look at opposing views. Recently I have started watching videos by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and a few others and it has been both eye-opening and challenging (in a positive sense). So far I have not seen them attacking the holders of certain beliefs but rather the beliefs themselves. Clearly, these men have a superior intellect to mine - but they don't attack or hate others for not being as clever as they so obviously are. Hating religious people will probably only confirm them in their belief system.

The ideology is poisonous and maintaining and spreading it is pretty much evil regardless of intent or opinion on it. It can't be ignored. So there comes a point where separating the ideology from its agents is not feasible. There's just different levels of both motivation and means. So someone like Ken Ham is a far greater concern than yourself or CL but the two of you are still, whether unwittingly or not, contributing to something that has historically been doing nothing but harm to humanity and still does to this day in more ways than previously. Imagine if the entire world was awakened to the reality of the falsehood of faith; the Vatican would finally pay for their crimes and the money they've hoarded can be seized and put into humanitarian aid instead of squandered on the wretched scam it all is, among other things that would actually help. Every day you refuse to get on board with that is one more raped kid because someone in a position of ill-gotten power isn't being kept from them, as far as I'm concerned.

---

Still getting the hang of this. That religion has been used as a means for pedophiles, perverts and other degenerates to get access to their victims is, without doubt, a sorry fact. Fact - Many Atheists are good upright people. This, however, does nothing to prove that God does not exist, nor does it prove that Atheism has a beneficial effect on society (but it does not exclude the possibility either). Some terrible crimes have been committed by Atheists and obviously, it would be false to conclude that Atheism has a negative effect on society. The same applies to Theism.
I agree with your conclusion about the Vatican, and it applies equally to the Benny Hinns, Crouch's and other money grabbing cretins out in the religious sphere. I may well be wrong, but I think Ken Ham is a genuine believer in Christ and would do nothing to harm a child or use Christianity to feather his nest.
But this does not prove or disprove the existence of God either. It's taken me a while to get to the point but it is this. Hating people who believe in the existence of a creator and seek to do well is not that far removed from an Islamist who seeks jihad and desires to kill all who do not agree with his concept of Allah.
So i do believe that in some (but not all cases) we need to separate the agent from their ideology and accept them as a fellow human being with all its accompanying frailties.