Ask a Catholic

[Iroscato]

Typical mental gymnastics from someone who doesn't sincerely believe his own holy horseshit. That's why he's such a virulent poster, because the only one he's trying to convince is himself. Kinda like how the most vocal gay-bashers turn out to have a love for The Sausage themnselves.

Or like someone who hangs out in an atheist forum to constantly reinforce his misguided belief that God does not exist?

I'd love to imagine there's a magic man who cares about all of us and sent himself in human form to save us and blah, blah, blah.
Unfortunately, not a shred of evidence for such has decided to reveal itself to me, therefore I must continue assuming it's nothing more than the greatest marketing scam ever sold. Sorry you fell for it, but that's your problem

[Longhorn]

Didn't he just fucking say not having faith is easier than having it? Get your shit together -_-

[Jenny A]

Simply put, no.

That kind of comes with the territory of not believing. You're living under the assumption that none of us had given the matter much thought before arriving at what we are today. That's projection, plain and simple. And it's also just a little bit presumptuous.

Considering that a common refrain in this forum goes something like, "I stopped believing your buy-bull when I was five (or 9 or 10)...", then, yeah, it is highly possible that many have NEVER seriously considered the evidence for Christianity objectively as mature adults.

They have examined ways to CONTINUE not believing since then, but that's not the same as being open-minded and willing to go wherever the evidence leads, is it?

And yes, I do realize that others here claim to have lost their faith as adults...but I'd be willing to bet that there was something other than intellectual objection to Christian doctrine that led to their departure. It is often the case that there are moral issues involved: sexual promiscuity, divorce, homosexualty, etc.

For most atheists I know deconverting was an intellectual process much like discovering Santa doesn't exist. Just as anger sometimes accompanies discovering that the jolly old elf is a trick played on you by your parents, there may be anger associated with ceasing to believe. But it's anger at a lie, and at scare tactics, not anger driving out faith.

Continueing not to believe does not require the support of a forum, and I doubt many people are here for that reason. You see, once you dismiss a hypothesis for utter lack of credible evidence, it isn't normal or sane to continue to try to find ways to belive in it. I have no interest in trying to believe.

I'm not frightened, or even made uneasy by the proofs offered by theists here. That is in large part because I have only seen one argument for the existence of god on this forum that was new to me. That was the fine tuned universe argument and it's no better than all the others. And just in the last six months I've it seen over a dozen times. I'm open to new evidence, but I'm no more holding my breath to hear it than I am to hear proof of dragons.

Your favorite refrain: and Paul's life was changed is not credible either. Charizmatic leaders come and go even in modern times. They change lives, often for the worse. They are Morman, Scientologits, Islamic Terrorists, etc. They are crazy. That is the most likely explaination for Paul. And yes they all had fanatic followers whose lives were changed. It doesn't mean they are right. Certianly they can't all be right.

People of faith on the other hand seem to need constint reasurance. There are faith testing stories. And prayers for faith. You will never catch people praying to believe what they really know is true. It's unnecessary.

[abaris]

For most atheists I know deconverting was an intellectual process much like discovering Santa doesn't exist.  Just as anger sometimes accompanies discovering that the jolly old elf is a trick played on you by your parents, there may be anger associated with ceasing to believe.  But it's anger at a lie, and at scare tactics, not anger driving out faith.  

For me it was from having first doubts at age 9 to finally quit at age 29. So a timespan of about 20 years. And it wasn't anger. Not at all. If it had been about anger, I would have stayed and chalked the anger up as being directed at the priests. It was the pieces not adding up. Not making any sense, in lights of what I knew about the world, it's history and biology.

[ForsakenHeretic]

What do you think of the Orthodox sect of Christianity? And do you think the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Church, can ever be repaired?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

You're sort of dodging that. You said that they lived for a really long time back then, soooo one would have to assume that was much longer than we are living today. It sounds a lot like that you believe that Shem died at 600 and Methuselah died at the age of 969.

If you believed that a year wasn't measured like it was today, then you probably wouldn't have said that, so I have to assume that you do believe that people lived to a few hundred + years old, when ALL evidence heavily contradicts that.

---

I have no problem with the idea that they did live to extraordinary age. However, I am also aware that it's quite possible that some method of dating was used which is different from our own.

But what evidence do you have which indicates that Methuselah did not live to be 969 of our years?

The Methuselah story is about the futility of living a long life if you never do anything worthwhile with it.  Methuselah did 969 years and didn't do a damn thing worthwhile.  A baby who lives for five minutes but makes his parents smile with happiness does more in that very short time than Methuselah ever did in his alleged 969 years.

[abaris]

But what evidence do you have which indicates that Methuselah did not live to be 969 of our years?

Seriously?

So let's answer a question with a question. What evidence do you have that Methusaleh lived at all? And let's take it from there.

[Randy Carson]

Considering that a common refrain in this forum goes something like, "I stopped believing your buy-bull when I was five (or 9 or 10)...", then, yeah, it is highly possible that many have NEVER seriously considered the evidence for Christianity objectively as mature adults.

They have examined ways to CONTINUE not believing since then, but that's not the same as being open-minded and willing to go wherever the evidence leads, is it?

And yes, I do realize that others here claim to have lost their faith as adults...but I'd be willing to bet that there was something other than intellectual objection to Christian doctrine that led to their departure. It is often the case that there are moral issues involved: sexual promiscuity, divorce, homosexualty, etc.

For most atheists I know deconverting was an intellectual process much like discovering Santa doesn't exist.  Just as anger sometimes accompanies discovering that the jolly old elf is a trick played on you by your parents, there may be anger associated with ceasing to believe.  But it's anger at a lie, and at scare tactics, not anger driving out faith.  

That may the witness of those atheists in your circle of friends, but take note as you read the posts over the next few weeks and months...you may be surprised to see how many people here "lost" the faith (they never had) as children under the age 18. And anger about Santa Clause? Really?

Continueing not to believe does not require the support of a forum, and I doubt many people are here for that reason.  You see, once you dismiss a hypothesis for utter lack of credible evidence, it isn't normal or sane to continue to try to find ways to belive in it.  I have no interest in trying to believe.

No doubt. Because if you did have an interest in being a believer, you'd be at CAF or another strong Christian forum. Duh. But I'm not convinced that folks are here purely for the entertainment value, either. Frankly, the members of this forum are largely a disagreeable lot (even amongst themselves), so there are more pleasant places to spend an afternoon or evening and conversation on the web.

I'm not frightened, or even made uneasy by the proofs offered by theists here.  That is in large part because I have only seen one argument for the existence of god on this forum that was new to me. That was the fine tuned universe argument and it's no better than all the others.  And just in the last six months I've it seen over a dozen times.  I'm open to new evidence, but I'm no more holding my breath to hear it than I am  to hear proof of dragons.

Frightened? Why would you be? Your choice of words is telling, Jenny. Why would the thought of learning the truth of Christianity frighten you?

(Those are rhetorical questions...I can think of several reasons why a committed atheist would be white-knuckle terrified that he or she is wrong about Jesus.)

Your favorite refrain: and Paul's life was changed is not credible either.  Charizmatic leaders come and go even in modern times.  They change lives, often for the worse.  They are Morman, Scientologits, Islamic Terrorists, etc.  They are crazy.  That is the most likely explaination for Paul. And yes they all had fanatic followers whose lives were changed.  It doesn't mean they are right.  Certianly they can't all be right.

So, you've changed your tune about Paul, eh? Previously, I think you said that his conversion was one of the five that did ring true.

People of faith on the other hand seem to need constint reasurance.  There are faith testing stories.  And prayers for faith.  You will never catch people praying to believe what they really know is true.  It's unnecessary.

Does it surprise you that believers pray for the strength to persevere until the end? If so, then you do not understand the challenges that sin, Satan, and the world pose to those who seek to enter by the narrow gate.

[Randy Carson]

What do you think of the Orthodox sect of Christianity? And do you think the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Church, can ever be repaired?

The Orthodox have maintained great faithfulness to the traditions that were handed down from the Early Church, but they have allowed ethnicity and national interests to keep them divided from the Bishop of Rome, the traditional head of the universal Church established by Jesus.

I am not optimistic about reunion between east and west apart from a sovereign movement of God.

[Randy Carson]

But what evidence do you have which indicates that Methuselah did not live to be 969 of our years?

Seriously?

So let's answer a question with a question. What evidence do you have that Methusaleh lived at all? And let's take it from there.

Only indirect evidence from the scriptures.

However, I asked my question thinking that he might have something specific he wanted to discuss.