Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Shell B]

to Minimlaist

You are militantly ignorant. You do not seek the truth. You just insult people on baselfess bull shit.

There is no f in baseless. Anyway, just because he doesn't seek your "version" of the truth, does not mean he hasn't sought truth.

Hitler was not a fine Catholic; you are a liar.

Please refrain from knee-jerk personal insults. It adds nothing to the conversation and only muddies the waters.

Proving further that you are an immoral shitty atheist.

Define shitty.

I can call myself a chair, that does not make me a chair.

And you can call Min shitty and immoral, but that does not make him so.

There are very clear teachings on what it means to behave like a Catholic.

Yes, there are and chances are that some of the atheists here have studied Catholic teachings more extensively than you have. It is in your best interest to feel out the community before you start spouting off.

Anti-semetism has always been condemned by the Church, when the Church is speaking as a whole.

Bullshit and please define "speaking as a whole." I'm pretty sure Catholics don't make up the rules. They just follow them blindly.

Yes there are Catholics who do evil things.

I can't argue with that.

This does not mean the Church on a whole condones, or ever condoned such actions.

Oh, sure, they don't condone killing puppies, but ignoring things is as good as condoning.

Witch hunts=fully condoned.
Pedophilia=swept under the rug therefore, condoned.

It has in fact always condemned them.

Not true at all. You'll notice that I refrained from calling you a liar and simply called your argument untrue. That's called holding your temper. You ought to try it.

If anything Hitler was an atheist who used his Catholic birth as a way to get votes from a very powerful Catholic segment of Germany.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact is Hitler thought of religion as something to trick people with, so that they will do your will. But he certainly was not a devout believer. Two of the greatest organized, thoughtfully intentional atrocities of all time were committed under atheistic regimes which sought to silence religion, and Christianity in particular: commmunism and nazism.

Someone needs a history lesson. Gott mit uns mean anything to you?

When someone does evil in the name of Christianity they do it in a decietful and underhanded way, misleading poor ignorant folk to do things they otherwise would not do. With nazism and communism, people willingly and knowingly committed these great atrocities because they were materialist who understood that objective* good is a fiction to control people (if you are an atheist).

You make no sense.

You are using the part is like the whole fallacy and I'm sure you know better, you just want to insult and prey on the ignorance of others by saying things that are superfluous to the point.

Are you saying he is trying to prey on your ignorance?

The idea of God is far more worthy of belief and based within reality then the stupid shit you keep spouting off. If you truly can't see that its because you've blinded yourself with hate. I don't come in here acting like its easy to see that God is real, or that atheism is clearly false. I come in here humbly saying I know its hard. I know intelligent, honest, good people have struggled with these questions and honestly come up on different sides. I'm just trying to give reasons why I think the side I came up on, in which I am among GREAT company, is a stronger side, and perhaps I can persuade someone else, perhaps not.

Nothing has been humble about your approach. It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself you are virtuous after you had a fit of anger.

My tactic to persuade on the issue is to point out that the atheistic system has a much more troubleing view of humanity and Theism has a very beautiful view of humanity, sometimes. I know this does not mean that it is true. However, I believe that both systems are consistent and have some measure of legitimacy, and if this is the case I think, after much struggling one should arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is true, and that our reality is meaningless and irrational apart from faith. As we have to base are most basic apriori observations on faith, or something akin to it. Within Christianity man is the pinnacle of creation and he is loved and his meaing flows from an eternal omnipotent source.

You'll do no convincing with that argument.

Instead of honest dialouge you continually try to derail me using STUPIDITY that is not to the point and that is fucking useless, because I can sit here and say insulting things that are based half way in reality but in truth do not contribute to the arguement at all. Like men molesting other people is new to any people group. Teachers, family members, and people of all religions abuse people. As a matter of FACT Catholic clergy do it far less than nearly any other group like say teachers or family members. At least witin Catholicism we can objectively say that what they are doing is evil and will be punished, in this life or the next, with conviction.

How very fucking Christian of you to call someone stupid.

[Rhizomorph13]

What Min is saying is not stupid. Religion posits a being that is logically impossible. God exists outside of time and material space but interacts with reality without leaving any scientifically testable evidence. Even if we can't view God directly surely the actions from the God of the bible would be measureable in quality of life for His people, or divorce statistics, or any of the other things that believers pray about.

[Ashendant]

Nazi was as Christian as it gets, Hitler just hated organized religion as a system of control of his people, he also used religion as a lure for it's religious citizens to misbehave, which makes him a hypocrite, but that's most certainly not the worst thing he's been called.

[Rhizomorph13]

Oh, and dqualk, I feel I should inform you that you have already lost in this thread according to Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But don't worry though, there is definitly porn about is according to Rule 34.

[dqualk]

To Shell B,

He is the one being insulting. I am responding in a negative manner. I do not need to define how the Church speaks as a while She has done that Herself, perhaps if you studied it a little you would find how the Church speaks as a whole. Ignorant.

I can write I am an atheist on my-shirt or any other stupid slogan and that doesnt make me an atheist. Hitler had many Priests and Bishops killed and threatened to kill the Pope himself. Hitler made many negative comments about religion in general. There are many documentaries, books and resources on Hitler and what he believed. For certain he did not give two shits about the Church. He saw it simply as a means to a sick sadistic end.

Why don't you show me how it is bull shit that the Church has always condemned anti-semetism. Jesus Himself is a Jew. Mary is a Jew, all of the apostles were Jews, Paul was a Jew, St. John of the Cross and Teresa Avilla were Jews. The Church has always and everywhere condemend any racism.

He is a liar because he said Hitler is a good Catholic. This is just a lie.

You Shell B are clearly only writing to insult as well. You are not attempting to parse out truth, you are just defending this person because he is similar to you and attacking me becasue you enjoy insulting Christians, very lame.

Anger is virtuous at times. I'm not angry at just anyone. I'm not even really angry at minimalist. I'm angry becaues someone is pretending to be intelligent when really there are as bad as any dogmatic person who says things that are not to the point just to make people angry. Like you for example.

And last and certainly not least, who defines what is Christian like? I promise you that it is not your stupid opinion. Do not go about saying "that wasn't very Christian of you" when you know nothing of Christianity. But I think it is funny that you recognize how Christians are typically tender to people out of their love for their neighbor. I will say that you represent your atheist community in a vile and stupid way. Fortunately I am not quick to apply to all atheist the stupidity of you and minimalist. And I'm sure you and minimalist are actually not that bad, except when you are talking to a Christian on the internet. But I would ask that you and minimalist refrain from stupid arguemnts like, Hitler was a Catholic so Catholics are evil. Or some priests commited attrocities in the past so Catholics are evil, as if atheist are pure as the wind driven snow. Grow up.

---

What Min is saying is not stupid. Religion posits a being that is logically impossible. God exists outside of time and material space but interacts with reality without leaving any scientifically testable evidence. Even if we can't view God directly surely the actions from the God of the bible would be measureable in quality of life for His people, or divorce statistics, or any of the other things that believers pray about.

It is not logically impossible, God is just wholly apart from any system of logic within this world. It is logical that a being outside of temporality would not be measureable within a temporal realm. However, even peopel as early as Plato and Aristotle recognized that for their to be reason and meaning there had to be an unmoved mover. They discovered this by the light of reason.

Your second argument is not really a valid arguement but it is a strong one in an emotional sense. It reminds me of Ghandi saying I like your Christ but not your Christians. I can understand why you object to Christianity, or Theism in general, in that sense.

I would say that the beauty of God is that He will take all of the evil of the world and radically redeem it so that something so beautiful will happen in the future that it will inundate all of the evils of the past with love. I don't expect you to just swim the Tiber on that statement or anything, but it is a beautiful hope that I cling to.

---

Nazi was as Christian as it gets, Hitler just hated organized religion as a system of control of his people, he also used religion as a lure for it's religious citizens to misbehave, which makes him a hypocrite, but that's most certainly not the worst thing he's been called.

It is so ignorant and rash to say taht Nazisim was Christian in any regard. The first victims were the Christians like the thousands of clergymen who were slaughtered by the Nazis. Pope Pius XII saved more Jewish lives than any human being at that time by smuggleing Jews out of Italy and Germany, and by giving them false baptismal certificated to save their lives.

if you want to watch a docmentary that is half decent and doesnt pull to many punches you can watch The Cross and the Star. Its on netflix under Nazi Medicine / The Cross and the Star. It demonstrates taht Hitler hated Christianty and sought to replace it with a new kind of Nazi religion and taht the primary motivations for the Nazi intellectuals was a belief in materialism. This was the entire motivation behind nazism. They said that the only good was a utilitarian treatement of man whereby men seek to advance teh species of man by eliminating dumb/sickly/et al. people from the gene pool. They used arguements that Jews got sick easier to justify eradicating them. Ultimately teh motivation behind nazisism was radical disbelief in God and morality in general. Might made right in Nazism.

Please grow up and admit that Christianty is worlds apart from Nazism. Further, if you want Christianity in its short and simple look at the person of Jesus within the New Testament. He is the ultimate example of what a perfect human looks like within the belief of Chrstianity. Anything less than a life like Jesus' is at best tolerated because of the curcumstances of a fallen world, at worst not permissible at all.

---

Oh, and dqualk, I feel I should inform you that you have already lost in this thread according to Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But don't worry though, there is definitly porn about is according to Rule 34.

lol that is actually hilarious. ive never seen that before, but it is so true.

[theVOID]

Your argument is already seriously illogical. Material in nature =/= No beauty, meaning or love.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it is a statement about one's aesthetic attraction to objects concepts or relationships - What difference does the existence of a god make to a person having an aesthetic attraction to something else? Absolutely none.

I mean an ultimately beaitful thing. Not a subjectively beautiful thing. There is nothing that is acutally beautiful in and of itself within atheism.

Your requirement for a cosmic mandate is absurd, so is the notion that what we as finite beings consider to be beauty is actually not.

What difference would it make if there was some cosmic being who decided what is and is not beautiful? And how would this cosmic being finding something beautiful make it inherently beautiful? If something is inherently beautiful it is beautiful independent of the existence of anything else, including your god. If it is simply beautiful because a god says it is then it's still a subjective evaluation relative to a being of some kind.

It would make absolutely no difference to my own experience of beauty and what it means for me to find something beautiful - It has absolutely no impact on our experience, and if that is the case then this ultimate beauty is absolutely indistinguishable from non-existent beauty

Let me make this abundantly clear - Intrinsic values simply do not exist, nothing has value in and of it's self, every single statement of value you could possibly make is relative to a desire, be it the desires of us as finite beings, or the desires of god as an infinite being.

Love is a set of interrelated emotions, there is the love associated with kinship, the emotion that holds together friendships and wider families, there is the love associated with partnership and sex that binds marriages and there is the love associated with stewardship that gives us reason to care for our children and dependants - The addition of some cosmic being to this equation makes no difference - This question should illustrate that: Does god's love exist without other beings? If that is the case then God loves rocks and hydrogen and vacuum energy and has done so for longer than he ever loved us - If this is the case then love is unimportant and can be applied to the inanimate - If God's love is contingent upon a relationship with other beings then it is no more special than any other love and is contingent upon interaction in the exact same way that human love is.

Well the Triune God has existed from eternity, and within Eternity He has loved within Himself, that is the Father loves the Son and gives Him all of Himself; likewise the Son returns this love to the Father in eternal Triune dance. The Holy Spirit is sometimes understood as the manifestation of the love between the Father and Son, but I think you get the gist.

He's a schizophrenic mess - He loves his son who is also him, that means he loves him self. God is a narcissist, great, tell me something I didn't already know...

And if that is what you consider the spirit to be then the spirit is just the fuel of God's narcissistic fire.

Meaning only exists in a fleeting sense, grounded in and contingent upon our desires. If the lack of cosmic meaning is a concern to you the only response I can think of is "So what?". The fact that you desire some cosmic meaning says naught about whether or not there is one. Given a logical and analytical approach to reality there is none to be found, and we just have to accept that - Reality is what it is regardless of what any of us want it to be - It all comes down to a simple question, do you value comfort or truth? The truth doesn't exist to make us feel good, delusions however do and arise all the time for that exact purpose.

There is no reason to believe that God does not exist.

Oh for fucks sake not this whole "You can't disprove it" bullshit. Can you disprove the existence of the non-physical comedian telling me knock-knock jokes telepathically? If you can't provide me with reasons to believe he doesn't exist you should believe in him - To do anything else would be a double standard, though I'd be willing to bet that you're already up to your eyeballs in those.

And there are plenty of reasons to believe that a God does not exist - To believe that there is a God as described in the major monotheistic religions is to believe that at the very beginning of existence, the very very first moment that ever was, there was a being who was all loving, all powerful and all knowing - The latter alone is a massive problem... For a being to be all knowing means that he knows the position an momentum of every particle at every single point in time for as long as time exists, this requires there is a concept in his mind that is at the very least as complex as the entirely of possible existence because to 'know' something is to have a model of this thing within the mind that accurately represents the thing in question.

This being is absurdly complex and you have to suppose it was just always there. What a farce!

This God, within Christianity, is to be understood as a God not subject to the Temporal realm. In this sense He gives reason and real beauty to the world. He also really loves the world, in an ultimate True sense.

We need to weld a tap to your mouth so we can control the flow of nonsense, because it's just pouring out at this point....

Can you please provide me with a logical argument for why the existence of a being of an atemporal nature necessarily makes his appraisal of objects, phenomenon and interaction objective?

Oh, and the 'temporal' realm in the loosest sense simply requires more than one state of affairs. To have a thought (which is necessarily a process) necessitates more than one states of affairs - For a being to be truly atemporal requires he be unthinking and unchanging, so at best in this scenario your God is a vegetable - I'll just give you this one for free and let you know that God does not necessarily have to be atemporal, you should take a page out of William Craig's book on this and avoid digging your pit-of-stupid any deeper than necessary.

I certainly believe that you experience contingent emergent meaning, that is also returning to nothing, and ultimately is nothing, and therefore I say there is no meaning, but only in the ultimate sense. So I do beleive that you expierence what you feel is reason, and that for the sake of pleasure you buy into this lie. The lie being, that you are actually feeling true ultimate meaning. I acutally believe that you have real meaning to your life, what I mean to say is that within your atheistic system there is no real meaning, that is not ultimately returning to nothing. Within the True reality there is ultimate meaning, of which you partake. Hope that makes some sense...

So what if it's finite? I don't honestly care one little bit if you're uncomfortable with that reality, it simply is not sufficient reason to believe in an infinite meaning. If you want to provide an argument beyond your simple assertions and dislike of the alternative go ahead but at this point you have demonstrated nothing even close to reason, let alone this 'strong reason through ultimate reason' bullshit you were harping on about before.

And you've just contradicted yourself in a single paragraph, congratulations that's quite an accomplishment - First you say that you don't doubt I experience meaning and then you say that I don't experience real meaning - What about contingent and emergent meaning is not real?

And now I do actually feel true ultimate meaning do I? My desire to get laid is true and ultimate meaning? Because that's the only meaning on my mind right now, that and what food means to me because of my hunger, that must be true and ultimate too right?

Oh i'm the one who has bought into a lie? Um, in case you didn't notice buddy, i'm the one who has been able to substantiate all of my claims about meaning, beauty and love, you on the other hand have waffled on about objective facts from an infinite being without providing as much as a sliver of argument or evidence for it.

You seem terrified of the fact that you're going to die and it will be the end of you, and that any meaning you have in your life dies with you. Keep deluding yourself with the love of "sky-daddy" all you like, it doesn't make any of it true.

Reality is not here to make you feel good. You have the option of accepting and enjoying reality the way it is or masking it with some bullshit about infinite beings and true meaning, the choice is yours, just be prepared to lose any credibility you had left if you chose the latter.

Oh, reason you say? Perhaps you would like to show us your reasons for thinking that this ultimate being exists, after all, your worldview and all of these supposed benefits like your 'stronger reason from ultimate reason' are entirely contingent upon the presupposition that this being exists. If God does not exist then your 'reason' is bankrupt.

Well, the God-man Jesus Christ told us that it is impossible to approach God apart from Faith.

And the FSM said AARGH! Feel my noodly appendages!

I don't care what your big-book-o-bullshit has to say.

Further, Faith is intimately united with Reason.

No, Faith is the abandonment of reasons for belief in a proposition. If you have good reason to believe something then you do not need faith. Do you have faith that you will go downwards when you jump? No, you have an empirically established fact about the laws of physics given certain conditions.

All Reason requires some axiom to rely on that one assumed on faith, or something similar to it.

Axioms are self-evident truths, like the law of non-contradiction. Faith is not self evident (or evident at all for that matter), if it was then there would be no person in charge of their mental faculties who would be able to dismiss it.

So Faith makes sense to me.

It makes sense to me too, some people are so keen to believe something that they ignore the fact that they have absolutely no valid reasons to believe and just do it anyway.

At the same time I do not expect you or anyone to beleive it on necessity, as there is nothing that requires that you believe it, except the Faith that you are ultimately meaningful. Not just temporally meaningful.

I don't have 'faith' that i'm ultimately meaningful, I don't have faith in anything. Point out some proposition that I believe without sufficient evidence and i'll drop it, I won't say "well it's just faith".

Faith is a fucking blight on man kind, the escape clause embedded in our brains that allows us to bypass reason in the name of self satisfaction.

I believe there is something within you yearning for meaning,

I believe you're the biggest newb of an apologist ever.

I HAVE MEANING. I have more meaning than I know what to do with because I have more desires than I could ever hope to satisfy in my finite existence. I don't need any more meaning, let alone some imaginary meaning.

and desiring a solution to the brokeness of the world.

I think a 'broken' would makes much more sense in a naturalist context, it's a much more pleasant realisation than thinking there is some cosmic jerk-off out there sitting back with his omnipotence and watching as children starve and suffer and have their genitals mutilated and get abducted and raped.

If your God existed I'd piss on him and be sent into eternal fire sooner than bow before him. I could learn to love fire and pain, I could never love such a sick and twisted being as God.

I do not mean to refer to the broken world in a cliche way, I mean to point out that truly brokeness of this world, which we empirically observe, and in which we observe within our self. We observe it within ourself in the sense that we feel lonliness, and a yearning for true love and meaning.

You've pointed out the flaw in your reasoning yourself. AGAIN:

JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT SOMETHING TO BE TRUE DOES NOT MEAN IT IS.

I yearn for a billion dollars in my bank account more than true love and meaning, a billion dollars will get me lots of expensive sweaty love and beer, does than make it true? Fuck no, I wish it did though.

I, in my subjective experience of aesthetics, find the idea of an algorithm creating a hierarchy of complexity to be far more beautiful and profound that any concept of an absent cosmic parent and his 'son' coming to save us from the sin they planned from the dawn of time (everything happens according to God's plan right?).

Your 'Christ-man' is a fantasy and belief in him is something that is entirely unjustified. Enjoy your delusion while it lasts, I will continue to find awe, satisfaction, beauty and meaning in the reality that I am justified in believing, the reality that has more to offer me than I could ever hope to take use of in my fleeting and finite existence.

I am justified in believeing my reality as well. You can not prove to me that God does not exist, and there are many reason, that are not necessarily sound, but are certainly valid, to believe in God.

Another complete cock-up, this is getting OLD.

A. There is no 'your reality' and 'my reality'. We share a reality. You are not justified in believing something just because you want it to be the case.

B. There are plenty of reasons that are valid and not sound to believe in the invisible comedian.

1. There are non-physical minds (not sound)
2. Non-physical minds are telepathic (not sound)
3. Some non-physical minds like comedy (not sound)
4. The non-physical comedians cater to anyone who likes comedy (not sound)
5. I like comedy (Sound)
6. Therefore, there is a non-physical comedian catering to me telepathically. (VALID)

I find a subjective aesthetics to be nothing more than emptiness and nihil.

I find your completely failed attempt at reason nothing more than emptiness and nihil.

And how can something that exists and has substance (my subjective desire for certain forms) be nihil? It can't possibly be nothing because it is an empirically demonstrable fact that I desire certain forms.

If you're going to spout bullshit you should at least try and string together a coherent sentence...

The God planning sin bit is a very intense complex issue, that I think is beyond the scope of this forum, just because that is not the point of this post.

If it's not beyond the scope of some uneducated, primitive, barbaric Jews hearing sheep in a bronze-age Palestinian desert then it's not beyond this forum.

And in reality it's not a complex issue. If god is all knowing and all powerful and has actively planned everything that is going to happen AND everything that happens was in line with his plan then necessarily he intentionally created sin.

That issue ultimately hits on the problem of evil. And there are good answers to it. Although, it is true that these are not wholly convincing. My favorite answer to the problem of evil comes from Liebniz's best possible world soultion, which delves into the Christian idea of soul-building (theosis).

And it also necessitates that God chose to make a defective set of souls in a defective world and then blame us for his defective creation with eternal hellfire.

I'd do more than just piss on him if he existed, I'd take a big steaming shit on him too.

[Ashendant]

The underlying reason for the Nazis was Christianism, also Hitler didn't hate Christianism, he hated organized religion in general, he was a Christian, and his nazis were Christian to the heart, and what you describbed was a more down-to-earth version of chirstianism paired secluralism guess how europe turned out, and we didn't manage to kill ourselves

And Jesus was neither perfect of a man, he also had rather nasty arguments and ideas, and some of his power might be derived from cannabis

He was saying that a ilogical being couldn't leave a logical universe, logical, i could also argument on the need.

I wish i could be that blissfully ignorant/hopeful but alas i cannot

[thesummerqueen]

Oh, and dqualk, I feel I should inform you that you have already lost in this thread according to Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But don't worry though, there is definitly porn about is according to Rule 34.

Goddammit Rhiz, you beat me to it.

Anyone placing bets on how long this lasts?

[theVOID]

I think he's legit.

[Shell B]

To Shell B,

He is the one being insulting. I am responding in a negative manner. I do not need to define how the Church speaks as a while She has done that Herself, perhaps if you studied it a little you would find how the Church speaks as a whole. Ignorant.

I never said he wasn't being insulting.

You really think you have enough information about the scope of my knowledge to call me ignorant?

I can write I am an atheist on my-shirt or any other stupid slogan and that doesnt make me an atheist. Hitler had many Priests and Bishops killed and threatened to kill the Pope himself. Hitler made many negative comments about religion in general. There are many documentaries, books and resources on Hitler and what he believed. For certain he did not give two shits about the Church. He saw it simply as a means to a sick sadistic end.

How does hating religion have anything to do with belief in god? I know deists who hate religion and antitheists who believe in god. You're going to have to do better than that.

For the record, there are a lot of documentaries, books and resources on Hitler that are made by theists who aren't historians. Hitler was not an atheist. The man said as much himself. You can speculate on what was "really" going on all you want, but the closest thing you can get to facts regarding a person's belief are their own words. Sure, he may have been a hypocrite, but that doesn't make him an atheist.

Why don't you show me how it is bull shit that the Church has always condemned anti-semetism. Jesus Himself is a Jew.

What did the Pope do about the Holocaust? Oh, shit, nothing?

Mary is a Jew, all of the apostles were Jews, Paul was a Jew, St. John of the Cross and Teresa Avilla were Jews. The Church has always and everywhere condemend any racism.

That's interesting. I'm pretty sure churches used to be segregated in the United States.

He is a liar because he said Hitler is a good Catholic. This is just a lie.

He's as good as any other.

You Shell B are clearly only writing to insult as well. You are not attempting to parse out truth, you are just defending this person because he is similar to you and attacking me becasue you enjoy insulting Christians, very lame.

Oh, take off your security blanket of perceived persecution. I don't have to defend Min. I'm not big on insulting for the sake of insulting, either. If you had taken a day or two to post an introduction and feel out the forums, you would have known that.

Anger is virtuous at times.

No, not "virtuous," righteous, or self-righteous. Anger is not a virtue.

I'm not angry at just anyone. I'm not even really angry at minimalist. I'm angry becaues someone is pretending to be intelligent when really there are as bad as any dogmatic person who says things that are not to the point just to make people angry. Like you for example.

Haha, you called me dogmatic. Quick question: How do you go about "pretending to be intelligent?"

And last and certainly not least, who defines what is Christian like? I promise you that it is not your stupid opinion. Do not go about saying "that wasn't very Christian of you" when you know nothing of Christianity. But I think it is funny that you recognize how Christians are typically tender to people out of their love for their neighbor. I will say that you represent your atheist community in a vile and stupid way. Fortunately I am not quick to apply to all atheist the stupidity of you and minimalist. And I'm sure you and minimalist are actually not that bad, except when you are talking to a Christian on the internet.

But I would ask that you and minimalist refrain from stupid arguemnts like, Hitler was a Catholic so Catholics are evil.

Well, aren't you a great big maker of strawmen? I never called Catholics evil. I didn't even say Hitler was Christian. I said he wasn't an atheist.

Or some priests commited attrocities in the past so Catholics are evil, as if atheist are pure as the wind driven snow. Grow up.

In the past? What like fucking yesterday? Your religion's priests are having sex with small children. Put your bible down and read a newspaper.