Atheism - Paradox

[josie_L]

Does it matter why I think as I do (btw I wouldn’t say my experiences with religious extremism is solely responsible for my beliefs … although I imagine it’s partly responsible). I’ve seen the light … whatever the reasons were seem pretty irrelevant at this point. You believe its relevant because you think it’s abnormal not to believe in flying angels and talking snakes. Yet if you professed a belief in such things outside the purview of an accepted religion, you’d probably be tossed in a rubber room. So whose beliefs are really more rational?

Yes, it does matter Francis because you seem to think we’re a threat based in part on these experiences, which couldn’t be farther from the truth, do you want to know why because if believers were that determined to have a theocracy we’d have had one long before now. In fact, not so long ago we were a more conservative society with very Christian values with no theocracy in sight. I just can’t understand why you can’t make the distinction between our democratic right to pursue moral goals without confusing it with a desire to control the whole of society. It’s has if you’re saying we have no right to even have a political voice which is not very democratic of you. I will say that if there is a threat to humanity it is the threat of moral relativism; ask yourself why the Roman empire was overrun by barbarians? And furthermore, science too can be seen as a threat in that it as provided us with the means to annihilate the world (and I’ve just learned scientists created a black hole). Does anyone say we should get rid of science? No. And I’ve also noticed that for the most part it is minority groups that usually dictate to the majority. Dictatorships usually don’t have mass support. So here we are a Christian majority and yet I don’t see anyone being hurt by our values (although some would say we’re mean to the gays for not wanting them to marry). So please would you just reevaluate your opinions about us.

P.S. And I do believe in angels because I’ve seen one.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

ask yourself why the Roman empire was overrun by barbarians?

some people believe it’s because they became weakened by Catholicism. Hmmm?

 

[josie_L]

some people believe it’s because they became weakened by Catholicism. Hmmm?

Christians were persecuted for more than 3 centuries, and although Christianity was tolerated by the 4th century as a result of Constantine, I can’t say how we could have contributed to the demise of the Roman empire (not directly anyways)? Furthermore, the Byzantine empire continued on well into the 15th century and it was just as Christian if not more so than the western part of the Roman empire. My point was Francis, that there are far greater (realistic) threats which you need to understand are weakening the fabric of our society. So why are you so fixated on religion when I could think of several more debilitating factors which threaten our democratic values?

Here’s an excerpt from my book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”:

"The barbarians were warrior peoples whose customs and conduct struct the Romans as savage. As Christopher Dawson put it, “The Church had to undertake the task of introducing the law of the Gospel and the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount among peoples who regarded homicide as the most honourable occupation and vengeance as synonymous with justice.”

Do you really believe Catholicism/Christianity weakened the empire?

Edit: How come you didn’t ask me about my seeing an angel? You must think I’m nuts.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Christians were persecuted for more than 3 centuries, and although Christianity was tolerated by the 4th century as a result of Constantine, I can’t say how we could have contributed to the demise of the Roman empire (not directly anyways)? Furthermore, the Byzantine empire continued on well into the 15th century and it was just as Christian if not more so than the western part of the Roman empire. My point was Francis, that there are far greater (realistic) threats which you need to understand are weakening the fabric of our society. So why are you so fixated on religion when I could think of several more debilitating factors which threaten our democratic values?

Here’s an excerpt from my book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”:

I know there are many Catholics who incorrectly believe the CC built western civilization. However, take the renaissance as an example. It was the rediscovery of works and writings from Roman antiquity that reinvigorated humanism (in direct opposition to the Catholic theocracy of the dark ages).

"The barbarians were warrior peoples whose customs and conduct struct the Romans as savage. As Christopher Dawson put it, “The Church had to undertake the task of introducing the law of the Gospel and the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount among peoples who regarded homicide as the most honourable occupation and vengeance as synonymous with justice.”

that’s absurd. The barbarians were Germans; and the Romans viewed the Germans as inferior. Eventually the Romans became weakened (for a variety of reasons, including religion), and they made poor choices. Indeed the Romans trained one of the greatest barbarian armies, the Visigoths (and their leader Alaric). By this time the empire was fully Christianized (Alaric himself was an Arian Christian). Alaric was the barbarian who sacked Rome.

Indeed just prior to the period of Alaric the Roman Emperor Valens was killed in a battle against the Goths. Even during this period Valens had to deal with theological diversity that was beginning to divide the empire (Valens was also an Arian Christian). The defeat of Valens is commonly viewed as the beginning of the end for the Roman empire.

Do you really believe Catholicism/Christianity weakened the empire?

Yes, but not exclusively (a variety of factors were involved).

 

[josie_L]

I know there are many Catholics who incorrectly believe the CC built western civilization. However, take the renaissance as an example. It was the rediscovery of works and writings from Roman antiquity that reinvigorated humanism (in direct opposition to the Catholic theocracy of the dark ages).

How is it incorrect? Do you know how western civilization was kept from falling into complete barbarism? And there was never a Catholic theocracy, and the ages were not dark at all, this is a myth promulgated by years and years of bad history. And how do you think many of those books from Roman antiquity were preserved?

that’s absurd. The barbarians were Germans; and the Romans viewed the Germans as inferior. Eventually the Romans became weakened (for a variety of reasons, including religion), and they made poor choices. Indeed the Romans trained one of the greatest barbarian armies, the Visigoths (and their leader Alaric). By this time the empire was fully Christianized (Alaric himself was an Arian Christian). Alaric was the barbarian who sacked Rome.

So the barbarians were only barbarians because the Romans viewed them as inferior? Now that’s absurd. And I can’t understand the connection you are trying to make between religion with regard to the fall/decline of the Roman empire?

Indeed just prior to the period of Alaric the Roman Emperor Valens was killed in a battle against the Goths. Even during this period Valens had to deal with theological diversity that was beginning to divide the empire (Valens was also an Arian Christian). The defeat of Valens is commonly viewed as the beginning of the end for the Roman empire.

How much of this was an issue to the major struggles of which Rome was going through (And Rome was splintering at the seems long before Christianity became popular amongst the peoples of Rome)? Why was Valens defeated?

Yes, but not exclusively (a variety of factors were involved).

So you think like with the Roman empire believers will weaken the U.S.(and its democratic system)? You really believe we have the desire to institute a “theocracy”?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

How is it incorrect? Do you know how western civilization was kept from falling into complete barbarism? And there was never a Catholic theocracy, and the ages were not dark at all, this is a myth promulgated by years and years of bad history. And how do you think many of those books from Roman antiquity were preserved?

historical revisionism with no basis in fact. In fact it’s so far off base I’m not sure a reasonable discussion is possible on this point? Indeed all the writers of the late middle ages (like Petrarch) affirmed how Catholic theocracy shaped the middle ages and repressed humanist thought. Later, enlightenment philosophers like Kant and Voltaire took the same position. It’s indeed impossible to square the claims of the CC with reality.

So the barbarians were only barbarians because the Romans viewed them as inferior? Now that’s absurd. And I can’t understand the connection you are trying to make between religion with regard to the fall/decline of the Roman empire?

yes they were only barbarians because the Romans viewed them in such a way. Otherwise they were people who lived in organized villages, who yes were less sophisticated and cosmopolitan as compared to the Romans (and their culture was more rural and agrarian) – but they certainly weren’t inferior (that’s a totally bigoted and pretentious opinion). Indeed it was the Romans who conquered them first (and drew first blood). In fact the Romans wouldn’t even seriously consider the demands of Alaric for better status for his people (who were after all doing the Romans bidding in campaign after campaign). They would reach agreements with Alaric but they never lived up to them (and indeed never intended to afford the Germans equal rights and a humane status within the empire).

This is an area where America is distinguishing itself from the follies of Rome.

How much of this was an issue to the major struggles of which Rome was going through (And Rome was splintering at the seems long before Christianity became popular amongst the peoples of Rome)? Why was Valens defeated?

as I say Christianity was one of many factors, but IMO it was a substantial factor.

Why was Valens defeated? Do you know the answer or are you just curious?

So you think like with the Roman empire believers will weaken the U.S.(and its democratic system)? You really believe we have the desire to institute a “theocracy”?

yes I do. Although protestant Christianity served us well during our first centuries, we never had the level of global competition we do today (and other countries who are warmly embracing our style of capitalism, like China). So religious superstition and virtue based on false ancient mythology will begin to hinder our advancement, particularly in the area of science and medical technology. However, I also believe the trend is toward a more secular America. My only hope is Obama doesn’t screw up so badly that he causes a desire to return back to an extreme right wing religious political establishment.

I’m a moderate economic libertarian so I mostly disagree with Obama’s spending initiatives. I believe we ought to be shrinking government, not expanding it. I do not believe the federal government has any business in education, health and welfare (beyond maintaining a strong defense, the integrity of our borders, and controls over interstate commerce and law enforcement that rationally involve the national interest), etc. While I might agree with certain FDR initiatives (such as unemployment insurance, social security and medicare – although I think they ought to be at least partially privatized and radically reformed, FDIC insurance, regulation of interstate commerce including banking and insurance, etc.) I can easily think of ways to halve the size of our federal government. I think most things the feds do these days should be done by the states (I’m a strong proponent of federalism and strict construction of our constitution, and I view our second amendment as enumerating a critical civil right).

My views are pretty rare for a non-theist, but they’re shaped by logic all the same. I think atheists can be just as venerable to the heard mentality as Christians are.

 

[josie_L]

historical revisionism with no basis in fact. In fact it’s so far off base I’m not sure a reasonable discussion is possible on this point? Indeed all the writers of the late middle ages (like Petrarch) affirmed how Catholic theocracy shaped the middle ages and repressed humanist thought. Later, enlightenment philosophers like Kant and Voltaire took the same position. It’s indeed impossible to square the claims of the CC with reality.

yes they were only barbarians because the Romans viewed them in such a way. Otherwise they were people who lived in organized villages, who yes were less sophisticated and cosmopolitan as compared to the Romans (and their culture was more rural and agrarian) – but they certainly weren’t inferior (that’s a totally bigoted and pretentious opinion). Indeed it was the Romans who conquered them first (and drew first blood). In fact the Romans wouldn’t even seriously consider the demands of Alaric for better status for his people (who were after all doing the Romans bidding in campaign after campaign). They would reach agreements with Alaric but they never lived up to them (and indeed never intended to afford the Germans equal rights and a humane status within the empire).

This is an area where America is distinguishing itself from the follies of Rome.

as I say Christianity was one of many factors, but IMO it was a substantial factor.

Why was Valens defeated? Do you know the answer or are you just curious?

yes I do. Although protestant Christianity served us well during our first centuries, we never had the level of global competition we do today (and other countries who are warmly embracing our style of capitalism, like China). So religious superstition and virtue based on false ancient mythology will begin to hinder our advancement, particularly in the area of science and medical technology. However, I also believe the trend is toward a more secular America. My only hope is Obama doesn’t screw up so badly that he causes a desire to return back to an extreme right wing religious political establishment.

I’m a moderate economic libertarian so I mostly disagree with Obama’s spending initiatives. I believe we ought to be shrinking government, not expanding it. I do not believe the federal government has any business in education, health and welfare (beyond maintaining a strong defense, the integrity of our borders, and controls over interstate commerce and law enforcement that rationally involve the national interest), etc. While I might agree with certain FDR initiatives (such as unemployment insurance, social security and medicare – although I think they ought to be at least partially privatized and radically reformed, FDIC insurance, regulation of interstate commerce including banking and insurance, etc.) I can easily think of ways to halve the size of our federal government. I think most things the feds do these days should be done by the states (I’m a strong proponent of federalism and strict construction of our constitution, and I view our second amendment as enumerating a critical civil right).

My views are pretty rare for a non-theist, but they’re shaped by logic all the same. I think atheists can be just as venerable to the heard mentality as Christians are.

I don’t understand why you’re here, why are you here? Why if you believe has you do do you even bother to talk to us? We’re just sheep Francis not amenable to logic. And don’t you value logic above all else?

Edit: I will respond to the content of your post later, I just can’t deal with it right now.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I don’t understand why you’re here, why are you here? Why if you believe has you do do you even bother to talk to us? We’re just sheep Francis not amenable to logic. And don’t you value logic above all else?

Edit: I will respond to the content of your post later, I just can’t deal with it right now.

you’re just frustrated because I’m debunking your revisionist data with facts. It just goes to show all religion has is trickery. Nothing has changed much from the days the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese used deceptive gimmicks like primitive projectors to trick its worshipers in their temples.

The fact is I used to be just as enamored with religion as you are (and I remember how persuasive it was, and how hardening zealotry can be); but I guess you’re right about one thing … I do need to evaluate the sensibility of my continued participation on this forum?

 

[happilycatholic]

Our Lord works in mysterious ways.

I think this thread has covered more religious ground than any I’ve ever seen.

God is Grrrrrrreat! (a little Tony The Tiger humor)

Peace Be With You all today!

 

[happilycatholic]

you’re just frustrated because I’m debunking your revisionist data with facts. It just goes to show all religion has is trickery. Nothing has changed much from the days the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese used deceptive gimmicks like primitive projectors to trick its worshipers in their temples.

The fact is I used to be just as enamored with religion as you are (and I remember how persuasive it was, and how hardening zealotry can be); but I guess you’re right about one thing … I do need to evaluate the sensibility of my continued participation on this forum?

…and Francis my dear, you are a Zealot of your own making. You can be sure of that.

 

[josie_L]

you’re just frustrated because I’m debunking your revisionist data with facts. It just goes to show all religion has is trickery. Nothing has changed much from the days the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese used deceptive gimmicks like primitive projectors to trick its worshipers in their temples.

I’m not frustrated because you’re “debunking” my “revisionist” history I’m frustrated because you’re prejudiced to the point of blindness. And I have yet to respond to your post. And furthermore, you will never get me to lose my faith Francis no matter how hard you try.

 

[happilycatholic]

I’m not frustrated because you’re “debunking” my “revisionist” history I’m frustrated because you’re prejudiced to the point of blindness. And I have yet to respond to your post. And furthermore, you will never get me to lose my faith Francis no matter how hard you try.

Josie, it was never about you losing your faith. It’s about him being right. You’ll never be able to “prove” the existance of God and therefore the reason for your faith. That makes him always right.

Don’t you get it? Atheists are always right and no one can prove them wrong.

They always have the upper hand, always. (In this life that is, tee hee hee)

 

[josie_L]

The fact is I used to be just as enamored with religion as you are (and I remember how persuasive it was, and how hardening zealotry can be); but I guess you’re right about one thing … I do need to evaluate the sensibility of my continued participation on this forum?

No, the fact is you were never as enamoured with the Truth as I am because if you were you would not have left God.

P.S. I don’t want you to leave but everytime you write the things you do it’s like having daggers in my heart.

 

[josie_L]

Josie, it was never about you losing your faith. It’s about him being right. You’ll never be able to “prove” the existance of God and therefore the reason for your faith. That makes him always right.

Don’t you get it? Atheists are always right and no one can prove them wrong.

They always have the upper hand, always. (In this life that is, tee hee hee)

You were once an atheist (ex-Christian), how did you come to believe?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

P.S. I don’t want you to leave but everytime you write the things you do it’s like having daggers in my heart.

daggers in the heart is a little mellow dramatic don’t you think? I might be to the point and sharp when I speak; but I do try to ensure my reason is unclouded by emotion (though I concede it’s a challenge). I’m only sharp because tip toeing through a topic makes for really long and boring posts that lose a readers interest (at least in my experience anyway).

 

[josie_L]

daggers in the heart is a little mellow dramatic don’t you think? I might be to the point and sharp when I speak; but I do try to ensure my reason is unclouded by emotion (though I concede it’s a challenge). I’m only sharp because tip toeing through a topic makes for really long and boring posts that lose a readers interest (at least in my experience anyway).

No it’s not melodramatic and do you want to know why because I see a man who had something beautiful good and true and let it go. And so when I read your posts I just feel a deep loss for what you once were. You must have changed so drastically (you’ve taken a stance so opposed to the Church you once loved) And moreover, can’t you provide stimulating conversation and also be kind? There was a time you used to.

P.S. I think the real reason you’re here is because some part of you wants to believe again and/or it’s your way of being connected to the faith you lost. And you said you prayed a hundred times before losing your faith, do you think that being here at CAF may be God’s response to your prayers? Please don’t be mad at me for saying these things. God bless you.

 

[happilycatholic]

You were once an atheist (ex-Christian), how did you come to believe?

I was never an atheist. I was agnostic. I wanted to believe in God, I just couldn’t wrap my mind around how He could let certain things happen.

The difference is that atheists want more than anything for God to remain unproven because as long as that’s the case, they are perpetually ‘right’. To admit that there is even a possibility is the same as denying themselves absolute correctness. And let’s face it, they’ll always be ‘right’ because we’ll never prove God to them. When they relinquish the need to be correct and surrender that, then maybe they will let God into their lives.

My belief that God was working in my life came when I found my “proof”. That is different for everyone who goes through any kind of serious doubt.

I was always more afraid of being right (God doesn’t really exist) than being wrong (God does exist). To me, being wrong would be the best thing in the world to happen to me personally, and it was.

To Humble, being wrong means he’s perpetually wrong forever and ever.

 

[josie_L]

I was never an atheist. I was agnostic. I wanted to believe in God, I just couldn’t wrap my mind around how He could let certain things happen.

The difference is that atheists want more than anything for God to remain unproven because as long as that’s the case, they are perpetually ‘right’. To admit that there is even a possibility is the same as denying themselves absolute correctness. And let’s face it, they’ll always be ‘right’ because we’ll never prove God to them. When they relinquish the need to be correct and surrender that, then maybe they will let God into their lives.

My belief that God was working in my life came when I found my “proof”. That is different for everyone who goes through any kind of serious doubt.

I was always more afraid of being right (God doesn’t really exist) than being wrong (God does exist). To me, being wrong would be the best thing in the world to happen to me personally, and it was.

To Humble, being wrong means he’s perpetually wrong forever and ever.

But Francis says he has doubts however I’m not sure what those doubts amount to if he refuses to believe in the God of the Bible, i.e., Trinitarian God.

I have a story to tell you about a boy (of 11 years of age) who I was teaching (he was a high functioning autistic child; very smart) at school. This boy was/is an atheist whose obdurate character got him into trouble quite a bit. I in my frustration denied him as a result of his recalcitrance free time (play time), the reaction that I got was telling. He began to cry quite uncontrollably saying over and over again “I can’t make decisions, I don’t know how to make decisions”. When I said that he did indeed make decisions and that there were consequences for those decisions, he said “I don’t have anything to guide me” and I’m paraphrasing now but, he stated he didn’t quite know what consequences were going to arise from his decisions so that he was incapable of making any. In other words he was afraid to make choices because he had no way of knowing if he was right or wrong. I felt my heart melt a little towards this child who at first seemed somewhat strange, but in that moment I understood why we needed God, He is our lodestar, the guide we need to get out from under the darkness.

P.S. I hope I get a chance to work with this child again because he began to be a bit more receptive to my thoughts/advice as he was curious about my faith. He asked me a question which really made me smile “Were you born into your faith or was it your choice?”

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But Francis says he has doubts however I’m not sure what those doubts amount to if he refuses to believe in the God of the Bible, i.e., Trinitarian God.

Not doubts, but rather I concede the possibility of the unknown (i.e. something else beyond our understanding might exist). You can look around this world and find all sorts of testimony regarding mystical events (usually having to do with healings, whether physical or psychological). Indeed these stories are not unique to Christianity or even Abrahamic religions; they exist in a variety of settings (many we in the west might define as occult belief systems). These stories, however, are always explainable (and even if we don’t know the exact physiological cause – we can attribute them to things like the known relationship between physical and psychological health; even though we don’t have a great understanding of this relationship at this point in time). Some stories are more profound than others (because, statistically speaking, when you have a pool of billions of people who entertain the idea of supernatural influence over human affairs, you will inevitably find all sorts of stories … some very profound and convincing, while others not so much).

So it’s impossible for me to rationally base my views toward theism on this sort of testimony (since there’s no consistent or reliable data to base a rational opinion on). Rather, I can only look at the facts that are apparent.

1. Extraordinary stories told by ancient men, intellectually far more primitive than we are today, which sound mythological.
2. Not a single objectively verifiable replication of any of the sort of profound manifestations of divine power we read about in the bible.
3. The first chapters of Genesis (the foundation for all that follows) can be empirically shown false by hard science.

I have many more objections; but you get the point (they’re well developed logical objections, and I never had a bad experience or reason to “hate god” … and indeed when I was a theist I believed the bible provided an adequate explanation for why evil exists and why bad things happen).

At this point I guess it doesn’t make much sense for me to continue participating here at CAF; so this will be my last post. I came here initially to see if any common ground could be had between theists and non-theists. I leave with the inclination to say no it cannot; but I also understand that most posters here represent serious Catholics (and protestants), not the average American Christian (who are more amenable to entertaining secular arguments).

Even when I call my arguments rational it’s taken as an insult (and while I can understand that perception, there’s no way to get across that bridge for us). My arguments are always based on logic, so I have to continually appeal to it; and an appeal to logic is always at least mildly offensive to the theist because the unavoidable inference is … if I’m appealing to logic in stating my objections to the veracity of your claims, then you’re inversely illogical (even if I don’t blatantly state as much the undertone is always there & I understand that). The way I see is it’s your forum; it’s not designed for an atheist (even this particular section, non-Catholic religions, is probably not appropriate for an atheist since we’re technically not a religion).

I have a story to tell you about a boy (of 11 years of age) who I was teaching (he was a high functioning autistic child; very smart) at school. This boy was/is an atheist whose obdurate character got him into trouble quite a bit. I in my frustration denied him as a result of his recalcitrance free time (play time), the reaction that I got was telling. He began to cry quite uncontrollably saying over and over again “I can’t make decisions, I don’t know how to make decisions”. When I said that he did indeed make decisions and that there were consequences for those decisions, he said “I don’t have anything to guide me” and I’m paraphrasing now but, he stated he didn’t quite know what consequences were going to arise from his decisions so that he was incapable of making any. In other words he was afraid to make choices because he had no way of knowing if he was right or wrong. I felt my heart melt a little towards this child who at first seemed somewhat strange, but in that moment I understood why we needed God, He is our lodestar, the guide we need to get out from under the darkness.

So you’re comparing a war veteran and lawyer to an autistic child because I disagree with your religious views? Geesh … no comment (except good bye).

 

[Lilyflower]

Not doubts, but rather I concede the possibility of the unknown (i.e. something else beyond our understanding might exist). You can look around this world and find all sorts of testimony regarding mystical events (usually having to do with healings, whether physical or psychological). Indeed these stories are not unique to Christianity or even Abrahamic religions; they exist in a variety of settings (many we in the west might define as occult belief systems). These stories, however, are always explainable (and even if we don’t know the exact physiological cause – we can attribute them to things like the known relationship between physical and psychological health; even though we don’t have a great understanding of this relationship at this point in time). Some stories are more profound than others (because, statistically speaking, when you have a pool of billions of people who entertain the idea of supernatural influence over human affairs, you will inevitably find all sorts of stories … some very profound and convincing, while others not so much).

So it’s impossible for me to rationally base my views toward theism on this sort of testimony (since there’s no consistent or reliable data to base a rational opinion on). Rather, I can only look at the facts that are apparent.

1. Extraordinary stories told by ancient men, intellectually far more primitive than we are today, which sound mythological.
2. Not a single objectively verifiable replication of any of the sort of profound manifestations of divine power we read about in the bible.
3. The first chapters of Genesis (the foundation for all that follows) can be empirically shown false by hard science.

I have many more objections; but you get the point (they’re well developed logical objections, and I never had a bad experience or reason to “hate god” … and indeed when I was a theist I believed the bible provided an adequate explanation for why evil exists and why bad things happen).

At this point I guess it doesn’t make much sense for me to continue participating here at CAF; so this will be my last post. I came here initially to see if any common ground could be had between theists and non-theists. I leave with the inclination to say no it cannot; but I also understand that most posters here represent serious Catholics (and protestants), not the average American Christian (who are more amenable to entertaining secular arguments).

Even when I call my arguments rational it’s taken as an insult (and while I can understand that perception, there’s no way to get across that bridge for us). My arguments are always based on logic, so I have to continually appeal to it; and an appeal to logic is always at least mildly offensive to the theist because the unavoidable inference is … if I’m appealing to logic in stating my objections to the veracity of your claims, then you’re inversely illogical (even if I don’t blatantly state as much the undertone is always there & I understand that). The way I see is it’s your forum; it’s not designed for an atheist (even this particular section, non-Catholic religions, is probably not appropriate for an atheist since we’re technically not a religion).

So you’re comparing a war veteran and lawyer to an autistic child because I disagree with your religious views? Geesh … no comment (except good bye).

Then you probably won’t get this post. But if you do, I would just like to say that I enjoyed reading your posts and having dialogue with you.

For the future, I wish you every happiness and peace.