Ask a Catholic

[pocaracas]

---

Oh... you want to learn about atheists... why didn't you say so!!

My lack of belief comes from the awareness that my brain can be fooled.... my brain, your brain everyone's brain can be fooled.
It also wants answers to questions it poses, or other people pose... when faced with the lack of information to form a reasonable answer, it will delve into speculation... from speculation comes mythology.... so, in my endeavor to be as intellectually honest with myself as possible, I choose the answer "I do not know" for the questions that, currently, go beyond what science has available... even for some of those that science provides an answer, I'll take care and use the caveat that the answer comes from science... that ten-eyed bug... we'll see if those answers pan out on the long run...

From the implicit trust people, as children, must have for their caregivers, comes indoctrination and the convincing of something for which there is no actual evidence and which, if not presented (preferably, repeatedly) at that young impressionable age, would be laughed at by the majority of the adults receiving that information for the first time.... like Santa claus.
Whether it's christianity, islam, hinduism, animism, or whatever myth... this is the religion's main generational transmission vessel.

Add in politics and the awareness of the power such beliefs have on the people's behavior, and you get a state endorsed (sometimes enforced) belief system with a whole set of rules that the people must obey, under penalty by the ultimate free baby-sitter, god.
In christianity, those rules have become essentially the moral rules some like to discuss ad nauseum (but it wasn't always so).... In islam, you have Sharia which goes into rules about exchanges and the corresponding punishments for failure to abide them.... And I'm covering more than half the world's population with these 2, so... that's enough and I'm going to bed. cya!

---

I do. But there are other threads.

This is "Ask a Catholic", so let's stay focused. 

BTW - did you know that you and I are not actually discussing anything? I'm only proselytizing (having dropped all pretenses). 

Oh.... oh... you don't say!!
Proselytizing on an atheist forum?! Why you naughty boy! Is that how your ma raised you?
You deserve a spanking... I'm sure Losty will be getting around to that in a short while.

On other news, I'm an expert thread derailleur. I may derail it by making use of the OP... thus not derailing it at all... paradox!

If you wanted to learn about atheists, why didn't you start a thread where you specifically ask about atheism and how each individual has managed to peel away from the overhanging societal pressure of belief, instead of starting all these threads unrelated to your purpose?:
- Ask a catholic
- Why be good?
- The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
- Forget the Bible

Here's a suggestion for a thread title: Atheists, why don't you believe in the same thing I believe?!
And then the text would be something along the lines of:
"I can't help believing that god exists. It's just what makes sense to me. Life, the universe and everything just make perfect sense when you assume there an almighty hand behind it all and it has a plan.... and that plan is that we all believe in him. He even sent us a son to tell us how things are!
So how or why do you not see it the same way as I do?!"

You'd get a few replies with the number 42 in there, but oh well... that's to be expected.... it's what google tells us.

Why do you waste time with strawmans and misunderstandings, instead of just posing the question that's burning up inside?

---

Concerning links and the 30/30 rule, if you read it well enough, you'll find that you can show us some links, provided you give us your own take on what's in the link, or give us a clear hint of what it is about the link that's so important. This applies equally to after the 30/30 rule no longer pertains to yourself, as failure to do so would fall under the spam rule and we wouldn't like that. Would you like it if I just put a link in your thread, with no other text telling you about the contents of the link... and then I'd be mad that you didn't read the contents of that link! Would that make sense?
Have I ever provided you with a link bereft of context?
The 30/30 rule is intended to spur discussion, by prohibiting the new member from posting a link to his own blog/site/facebook account/etc which would contain that member's views on the subject, pre-packaged and with no drive to remaining on this forum, nor discussing anything in here. Linking is allowed, if it supports your view... but it's not allowed if it's blatantly going into some other site where you wrote something... or where your group wrote something.
Links are supposed to be like references, or citations. You write some stuff and link to where that stuff is properly backed up... Like you could have done when you mentioned Tim O'Neill or that other EWTN article.

Once the 30/30 rule no longer applies to you, you may link to your own blog/site or whatever, but remember to keep some context and room for discussion.

[Cato]

Finally, yes, there are intellectual objections to Christianity. Real ones that cannot be dismissed or taken lightly. This just doesn't seem to be the place where those issues are aired. Christianity is not being taken seriously enough here for that to happen.

I don't understand your expectation that Christianity be taken seriously. You have absolutely no evidence for your God. Once you pile on bizarre unsubstantiated assertions and practices such as stigmata, exorcism, and transubstantiation your position simply becomes ridiculous.

I respect your right to believe what you wish, but this does not translate into respect for the beliefs. If you don't want to be ridiculed for your beliefs, don't hold ridiculous beliefs. Your frequent condescending attitude is also worthy of the scorn you have received. I abhor the unfounded arrogance found in believers such as you; vomiting up unsubstantiated claims and then immediately deploying the incredulous self-righteous indignation that attends the persecuted martyr temper tantrum when you are simply asked to substantiate your claims.

Your apologetics is bullshit. Nothing you have shared here draws a conclusion based on evidence. You accept a conclusion and then hunt around for anything that might loosely fortify the position while ignoring facts that would contradict it. This is known as rationalization and is only convincing to those that already accept the conclusion.

You can also spare me the reflexive 'you only hate god' or 'you were abused as a child' tripe. Arguments of this nature have an easy translation, "I don't have any evidence and am frustrated that you have found my rationalized arguments hold water like a sieve".

[The Grand Nudger]

Wha?  -I- took catholicism seriously and was told that I was being unserious for my troubles.  I assumed that vicarious redemption was -not- immoral for as long as I could stand it (about a half second), and was -effective-.  That's taking it pretty seriously, considering the subject matter and evidence on hand.  I have that issue regarding parking tickets..if you'll recall. If you want to have a serious discussion, take those opportunities. Or, bitch and moan like an impotent prick that no one respects your ghost stories as documentary?

Your call, really.

[Cyberman]

Stim, not all young females are stupid.

I agree; and the day I turn into one, I won't be either.

[Esquilax]

I know it's hard to reason things out some times, and your hatred for religion can make it difficult for you to be objective and cause you to lose it, but you and rexbeccarox have just proved my case:

Hey, I have a question: it's not anything to do with this specific response, but I notice you have a habit of arguing this way, so I need to know.

Is there a specific catholic doctrine that you feel empowers you to dictate to others what their feelings and positions are, regardless of how well you know them, or is that just a scummy little tactic that you like, personally? Are you even consciously aware when you do it, or is it a coping mechanism that you aren't aware of? Because you seem to pepper your dialogue with unsupported insinuations of bias against your religion, or demands that others really do know that you're right, and it keeps happening even when you're pulled up on it, and seem to accept that it's not at all a good way to go about discussions.

You do understand that it's easy to see you have absolutely no way of knowing these things, when you say them, right?

(Post saved to my hard drive in case it is accidentally "lost".)

You know, I defended you on the initial speedbump, I've tried to stay objective when it comes to moderating you, but it gets really hard when you continue to toss around these completely despicable insinuations like it's no big deal. Why must you be so dishonest?

[Iroscato]

I'm still smarting over his little Robin Williams jibe. The guy was a far greater gift to humanity than any poisonous doctrine. Randy is a thoroughly unpleasant little man who seems to oblivious to how much he's hurting his own cause.

[Randy Carson]

Oh, and you can't label me a hypocrite unless you can show where you have been following the Rules while at the same time I have not.

Would you prefer for me to highlight your troll posts directly in the threads or to simply hit the report button to avoid calling you out in public?

You're a troll. You can't help yourself. And everyone knows it.

But remember, you asked me to show you where you break the "No Trolling" rule. 

[Cyberman]

Rule 12: Protecting Rule-breakers
If you are aware of a member breaking the rules, you are obligated to report them to the staff, either via the Report System or by sending one of the staff a PM. Protecting rule-breakers (especially sockpuppets of currently banned members) will not be tolerated, and anyone caught doing it will be warned and possibly banned as a result. All instances will be carefully considered by staff to determine if this was willfully done.

Go for it.

[Randy Carson]

The day I take xtianity seriously is the day I get my first period.

Geez, that took less time that I thought....

VIOLATION #1

• No Trolling
  Trolling is where a person makes a deliberately provocative posting with the aim of inciting an angry response, and is not allowed. As discussions can at times get heated, not all provocative posts will get classed as trolling. However, if a member is found to be making multiple such posts, or appear to only be using the forum to provoke people, they will be in violation of this rule.
  

So, what's your excuse? That your comment was NOT provocative?

Or that you were not attempting to "incite an angry response"?

[Cyberman]

Is your report button broken? Or do you want me to do it for you? All our deliberations over alleged Rule violations are conducted in private. Is there some reason I have to pilloried in public?