Suggestions?

[wanstronian]

That was no sarcastic snipe and it’s too bad you choose to dismiss it as such. I suggest you read it again and consider this time whether it might be true (that would be the open-minded thing to do ).

Thanks for the advice on being open-minded - it’s an honour to be educated by you… I have read it back, and okay, maybe you were being genuine. However, it can easily be read as sarcasm, particularly given our fundamentally opposing points of view. So maybe you should be more careful to remove doubt in future, and I’ll try not to jump to conclusions about your intent. How does that sound?

And who am I to judge? I’m a guy who knows who to read and is able to respond to what he reads in a reasonable, rational way, instead of resorting to stupid ad hominems. How bout you??

Who to read? Or how? If it’s who, then I don’t really know what you’re referring to. If it’s how, then your mistaken accusation of ad hominem belies your claim.

But regardless of this, it’s not your place to judge me for attempting to help the OP in the best way that I thought I could (or at least, doing so puts you in a bad light, imo). In fact, given that my post was clearly directed at the OP, it wasn’t your place to interject at all. And it was clear from your response to my first post that your interest wasn’t in judging my attempt to help, it was in judging my motives for posting, which you couldn’t possibly know. Your very first post to me in this thread contains an ad hominem, so it’s ironic that you then (wrongly) make the same accusation against me!

Speaking of critical thinking skills, how does that even begin to make sense??

Easy. The OP comes from an upbringing and background of religious belief. Despite the inherent dogma of religious belief systems and closed-minded attitude to anything that threatens it, the OP has managed to recognise that whaddyaknow, there’s actually zero evidence for the existence of God, and that the philosophical ‘proofs’ are nothing but weak wordsmithing that are only plausible to those who have a huge amount of confirmation bias. To discard the dogma and see through these ‘proofs’ takes not only the possession but the application of critical thinking skills. Not to mention a fair amount of courage, particularly when one’s friends and family are also firmly ensconsed in religious dogma.

Of course, one who lacks critical thinking skills, or lacks the courage to apply them to their religious beliefs, will no doubt disagree. So I fully expect you to challenge this explanation.

…if you happen to be a closed-minded bigot who arbitrarily ignores arguments when he disagrees with the conclusions of the person making them.

What’s your reasoning for implying I’m closed-minded? And bigoted? I look forward to reading your response on these points, Mr Rational.

And now it’s my turn to call you out on your critical thinking: What’s your evidence that I “arbitrarily” ignore arguments? What’s your evidence I [allegedly] do this because I disagree with the conclusions of the person making them? That my friend, really is an ad hominem - your second - so you’re not doing a great job of coming across as the grown-up, rational one in this little contretemps. The very things you’ve accused me of appear in your accusation!

I didn’t contribute to this thread to start a fight, I contributed to try and help the OP. You, on the other hand, have taken it upon yourself to turn this into an attack thread. You have managed to drive the OP away with your misguided and aggressive posting, and have generally hijacked the thread in a serious of OT posts that add no value.

Well done you.

 

[Betterave]

Thanks for the advice on being open-minded - it’s an honour to be educated by you… I have read it back, and okay, maybe you were being genuine. However, it can easily be read as sarcasm, particularly given our fundamentally opposing points of view. So maybe you should be more careful to remove doubt in future, and I’ll try not to jump to conclusions about your intent. How does that sound?

How about instead you just assume that I’m attempting to say something true and constructive? I assure you, that is a safe assumption (even on those rare occasions when there is some sarcasm mixed in ).

Who to read? Or how? If it’s who, then I don’t really know what you’re referring to. If it’s how, then your mistaken accusation of ad hominem belies your claim.

How, not who - my bad. My accusation of ad hominem, however, was not mistaken. Why would you say that?

But regardless of this, it’s not your place to judge me for attempting to help the OP in the best way that I thought I could (or at least, doing so puts you in a bad light, imo). In fact, given that my post was clearly directed at the OP, it wasn’t your place to interject at all. And it was clear from your response to my first post that your interest wasn’t in judging my attempt to help, it was in judging my motives for posting, which you couldn’t possibly know. Your very first post to me in this thread contains an ad hominem, so it’s ironic that you then (wrongly) make the same accusation against me!

Why isn’t it my place to judge you? And *if *it’s not, why is it your place to judge me for judging you (for judging her); or your place to judge me for attempting to help you (and her) in the best way that I thought I could?

Just so you know, there is nothing wrong with ad hominems as such, so your noting that my post contains an ad hominem is rather uninteresting - unless you can give a reason as to why it was irrelevant or inappropriate (I’m pretty sure it was neither).

Easy. The OP comes from an upbringing and background of religious belief. Despite the inherent dogma of religious belief systems and closed-minded attitude to anything that threatens it, the OP has managed to recognise that whaddyaknow, there’s actually zero evidence for the existence of God, and that the philosophical ‘proofs’ are nothing but weak wordsmithing that are only plausible to those who have a huge amount of confirmation bias. To discard the dogma and see through these ‘proofs’ takes not only the possession but the application of critical thinking skills. Not to mention a fair amount of courage, particularly when one’s friends and family are also firmly ensconsed in religious dogma.

Of course, one who lacks critical thinking skills, or lacks the courage to apply them to their religious beliefs, will no doubt disagree. So I fully expect you to challenge this explanation.

So now you’re begging the question and poisoning the well - and this is supposed to be you explaining how your claims are grounded in sound critical thinking skills and make sense? LOL! That’s hilarious.

(BTW, the OP has not “recognized” what you claim here; she just has doubts and wants to investigate further - as you probably should too.)

What’s your reasoning for implying I’m closed-minded? And bigoted? I look forward to reading your response on these points, Mr Rational.

My reasoning is simple, Mr. Irrational: Only a closed-minded bigot would write: “Being accused by a theist of poor critical thinking skills is always cause for a snigger.” You wrote that. Therefore you are a closed-minded bigot.

(I refer this conclusion to this instance of your reasoning (though certainly there are others I could also refer to); but I’m not trying to make a general or necessary claim about your reasoning processes.)

And now it’s my turn to call you out on your critical thinking: What’s your evidence that I “arbitrarily” ignore arguments? What’s your evidence I [allegedly] do this because I disagree with the conclusions of the person making them? That my friend, really is an ad hominem - your second - so you’re not doing a great job of coming across as the grown-up, rational one in this little contretemps. The very things you’ve accused me of appear in your accusation!

My evidence that you arbitrarily ignore arguments is that you arbitrarily ignored my arguments! So yeah, that is ad hominem, but it is also true and relevant.

I didn’t contribute to this thread to start a fight, I contributed to try and help the OP. You, on the other hand, have taken it upon yourself to turn this into an attack thread. You have managed to drive the OP away with your misguided and aggressive posting, and have generally hijacked the thread in a serious of OT posts that add no value.

What do you count as value? I’ve given you (and her) an opportunity to examine and improve your understanding of the issue raised in this thread and of the methodological difficulties that are inherent to doing so. That’s a valuable opportunity for you, even if you choose not to take advantage of it.

I also directly responded to her request for information, and she thanked me for doing so, and apologized for responding irrationally to me. I don’t think I’ve driven her away; she got what she asked for, so now she’s done.

 

[tonyrey]

A religion we inherit is worthless unless we make it our own. It is far better to be a sincere agnostic rather than an insincere Christian. I write “agnostic” rather than “atheist” because atheism is a form of dogmatism. In fact anyone who understands the implications of the term “Supreme Being” must be agnostic to a certain extent because how can our puny minds grasp its full significance? Some people give the impression they have God under their thumb…

What we really believe is revealed in how we live, not in what we profess. If love for ourselves and others is the dominant feature of our life we’re certainly on the right path. Whatever inspires us to follow that path liberates us from apathy! For many of us it is the example and teaching of the carpenter from Nazareth but we all have to come to our own conclusions. That is why we exist…

 

[Tonitz]

I’m sure you are fed up, in a way, with this thread, But yours is not an uncommon situation and there are more then the common responses as might be found on a forum that is necessarily unsympathetic to your position, or entertains opinions that are provoked by contrariness.

You are neither stupid nor ignorant, and your critical thinking faculty is quite intact. So here are some considerations that might lend some dimension to your very legitimate considerations.

Firs it is valuable to note that the public face of the Church is inherited first through many stages from a Bronze Age culture that was in some degree of turmoil and had a number of unsettling influences acting on it. That all took place in and around a culture that has been the root of much that is still ambient today.

The second is that that face still bears the remnants and scars of at time it thought that it ruled the world, that world primarily being the Mediterranean. That rule included factors far more political and intellectual than any focused primarily on and actual functioning Spirituality despite its purported allegiance. Such figures as Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross, Francis of Assisi, etc, all overcame the mundanity of exoteric practices and dogmas despite being constrained to the language of the Church.

That is to say that the ideas and beliefs surrounding God and salvation are termed in a culture that assumes immense ignorance on the part of the laity. And in part this may be true, especially since efforts to use the vernacular and promote critical thinking were often not looked upon with favor by the clergy or the the hierarchy. Any honest evaluation of Church history will bear this out, as enamored as many of us are with what we now consider our Faith to be.

All that is to say that your attention need not be divided between faith, which is necessarily incomplete and fails in terms useful to one who is comprehensively critical, and the rational alternatives offered by agnosticism and atheism. As is almost always the case, despite our digital minds which tend to think in dualisms, there are other ways and other answers. They are just not popular and not easily comprehensible by everyman. Yet they are compatible both with the expressions of many of the Greats of the Church and with science. It kind of reminds me of the experiment where they put a monkey in a cage that had only four possible ways out. The monkey found a fifth way.

We have that way inherent within us, but are too busy with such arguments as are found in this thread and on these forums. When understood in the proper light, that way is clearly seen to be as well congruent with the Teachings of Jesus, if one is of a mind to find that a necessary criteria beyond simple Truth. I choose to remember that God IS, and that before Abraham was, I AM. That I am a Catholic is an accident of history. That I am created as an image and likeness of God is an eternal fact. For me, the latter is a far more reliable avenue of inquiry than the the incompatibilities of assorted religions and sects, and of the incompleteness of atheism or agnosticism, as honest as those might very well be.

@Tonyrey: that was well said. Thank you.

 

[wanstronian]

How about instead you just assume that I’m attempting to say something true and constructive? I assure you, that is a safe assumption (even on those rare occasions when there is some sarcasm mixed in ).

Hey, I’m just pointing out that your post was ambiguous. It might be the same in your other posts. Up to you whether you want to fix it.

How, not who - my bad. My accusation of ad hominem, however, was not mistaken. Why would you say that?

Because it’s true. You may want to look up what ad hominem actually is. My statement regarding you being an example to your peers was related to my interpretation of your post as being sarcastic. Therefore no ad hominem.

Why isn’t it my place to judge you?

I didn’t ask for your judgement. Nobody has put you in a position of authority. My post wasn’t directed at anybody other than the OP. I can’t stop you judging me, that doesn’t mean it’s your responsibility, especially considering the errors and fallacies you make.

And *if *it’s not, why is it your place to judge me for judging you (for judging her); or your place to judge me for attempting to help you (and her) in the best way that I thought I could?

When did you attempt to help me? I see nothing in your posts other than condescension and hypocrisy!

Why is it my place to judge you? It wouldn’t be, if you hadn’t started making erroneous accusations at me. I’m no angel - I jump into threads all the time. But I try to avoid directly attacking people who are clearly trying to help others.

Just so you know, there is nothing wrong with ad hominems as such, so your noting that my post contains an ad hominem is rather uninteresting - unless you can give a reason as to why it was irrelevant or inappropriate (I’m pretty sure it was neither).

Again, thanks for the advice.

Like any fallacious argument, they are unnecessary and counter-productive in debate, and undermine the impact of the argument itself.

So now you’re begging the question and poisoning the well - and this is supposed to be you explaining how your claims are grounded in sound critical thinking skills and make sense? LOL! That’s hilarious.

Guilty as charged! Like I said, I’m no angel. However, that little paragraph in no way invalidated my previous one, so no harm done.

(BTW, the OP has not “recognized” what you claim here; she just has doubts and wants to investigate further - as you probably should too.)

So the statement:

the flying spaghetti monster and the Catholic God are on equal playing field in my mind. I’ve used my own judgment to come to this conclusion

means what, exactly?

My reasoning is simple, Mr. Irrational: Only a closed-minded bigot would write: “Being accused by a theist of poor critical thinking skills is always cause for a snigger.” You wrote that. Therefore you are a closed-minded bigot.

Oh, I see. “If I say it’s true, then it’s true. Therefore it’s true. QED.” Nice reasoning.

(I refer this conclusion to this instance of your reasoning (though certainly there are others I could also refer to); but I’m not trying to make a general or necessary claim about your reasoning processes.)

Wow - we hold differing opinions, therefore you find instances of my reasoning invalid and indicative of closed-mindedness and bigotry. Who knew?

But of course, I haven’t just rocked up and made a comment on theistic critical thinking skills. I’ve engaged in a number of debates on this forum with people who have tried to justify their belief and, without exception, every justification is flawed in some way, and often in a way which, if the subject matter were different, they themselves would realise.

So granted, my comment was somewhat inflammatory. But it’s based on my personal experiences on this forum, and I stand by it in general terms.

My evidence that you arbitrarily ignore arguments is that you arbitrarily ignored my arguments! So yeah, that is ad hominem, but it is also true and relevant.

Which argument did I ignore? The ad hominem is that you purported to know my reason for this alleged misdemeanour. An ad hominem, by definition, cannot be relevant.

What do you count as value? I’ve given you (and her) an opportunity to examine and improve your understanding of the issue raised in this thread and of the methodological difficulties that are inherent to doing so. That’s a valuable opportunity for you, even if you choose not to take advantage of it.

That’s an incredibly arrogant set of statements. Just who do you think you are?

I also directly responded to her request for information, and she thanked me for doing so, and apologized for responding irrationally to me. I don’t think I’ve driven her away; she got what she asked for, so now she’s done.

Wow - this is an eye-opener! This is what she said:

I’m sorry. As an irrational woman, I read too much into what people say. …

Thank you for taking the time to counter each and every one of my sentences. I see now how disrespectful I was being and would like nothing more than to just begin reading so that I may be more intellectually on par with you. I think I’ll start with Pascal.

I ask that you please do not reply to this thread, for I am done with it. It served the purpose I needed it for and all you will do is get my fragile female mind worked up again…

You think that was a genuine apology and thanks?

What I find staggering is that you didn’t pick up on the sarcasm. One could draw many plausible inferences from that, none of them favourable to you.

Why do I think “Dunning-Kruger” when I read your posts?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

It seems that you are unable to resist the temptation for a sarcastic snipe at me when I try to help. You are a true exemplar for Catholic Christianity.

So, what exactly is an “exemplar” of Catholic Christianity? Is being “unable to resist the temptation for a sarcastic snipe” an ideal achievement of Catholic Christianity? The fact that one person does something you attribute it an entire institution? You could have been the better person there, but instead you generalize out of a particular. You are doing the same exact thing he or she is doing, if they are even doing anything wrong and I really do not care what the conversation is. To call the person an “exemplar of Catholic Christianity” has too much fallacious bias against something you KNOW is not all about “sarcastic sniping”. It is actually a bad thing to insult somebody in Catholicism.

You are unreasonable. Therefore, you are an exemplar of atheism or whatever religion you are. Hardly fair for me to do this whether or not I really believe it.

Just let it go. No need to keep bickering whether or not the other person continues. Just be the better person.

 

[Betterave]

So, what exactly is an “exemplar” of Catholic Christianity? Is being “unable to resist the temptation for a sarcastic snipe” an ideal achievement of Catholic Christianity? The fact that one person does something you attribute it an entire institution? You could have been the better person there, but instead you generalize out of a particular. You are doing the same exact thing he or she is doing, if they are even doing anything wrong and I really do not care what the conversation is.

It’s true, if my post had been sarcastic sniping, Wanstronian’s response would have been hypocritical and would be making a stupid generalization.

But you don’t even care what the conversation is? In other words, then, you’re meddling in a dispute that you haven’t bothered to try to understand?

Just let it go. No need to keep bickering whether or not the other person continues. Just be the better person.

How to be a ‘better’ person, though? This isn’t very helpful advice, methinks.

 

[Betterave]

Hey, I’m just pointing out that your post was ambiguous. It might be the same in your other posts. Up to you whether you want to fix it.

I’m just pointing out that your post was based on an uncharitable and closed-minded interpretation. Up to you whether you want to fix that.

Because it’s true. You may want to look up what ad hominem actually is. My statement regarding you being an example to your peers was related to my interpretation of your post as being sarcastic. Therefore no ad hominem.

LOL! I know what an ad hominem is; you apparently don’t. “Who are *you *to judge?” is an irrelevant ad hominem remark. “It seems that *you are unable *to resist the temptation for a sarcastic snipe at me when I try to help. You are a true exemplar for Catholic Christianity” is also ad hominem, it is talking about *me *being “unable,” and simply presumes, no reason given, that my comments were nothing but a sarcastic snipe - then you clearly made a general ad hominem attack against me as a Catholic Christian, which shows your bigotry towards this group of people. And obviously I’m not the only one who noticed this. There’s really no ambiguity in what you wrote.

I didn’t ask for your judgement. Nobody has put you in a position of authority. My post wasn’t directed at anybody other than the OP. I can’t stop you judging me, that doesn’t mean it’s your responsibility, especially considering the errors and fallacies you make.

You’re posting on a philosophy forum. You make a comment, it is fair game for anyone to address a rational criticism to that comment. I don’t need anyone to put me in a position of authority, any more that you needed anyone to do that for you before judging me! (Did you notice you did that? - a little hypocritical of you, isn’t it?)

When did you attempt to help me? I see nothing in your posts other than condescension and hypocrisy!

You’re projecting. Read again, this time on the assumption that I’m trying to help you (and the OP).

Why is it my place to judge you? It wouldn’t be, if you hadn’t started making erroneous accusations at me. I’m no angel - I jump into threads all the time. But I try to avoid directly attacking people who are clearly trying to help others.

Go ahead and substantiate that charge of “erroneous accusations” - where? what? why ‘erroneous’? (Please don’t give me more nonsense based on your failure to understand what an ‘ad hominem’ is.)

Again, thanks for the advice.

It was just information, not advice…

Like any fallacious argument, they are unnecessary and counter-productive in debate, and undermine the impact of the argument itself.

…but apparently you’re not so good at receiving information.
Again: Just so you know, there is nothing wrong with ad hominems as such, so your noting that my post contains an ad hominem is rather uninteresting - unless you can give a reason as to why it was irrelevant or inappropriate (I’m pretty sure it was neither).

So the statement:
Originally Posted by plinko
the flying spaghetti monster and the Catholic God are on equal playing field in my mind. I’ve used my own judgment to come to this conclusion
means what, exactly?

It means that she recognizes that she needs to do some research. She was just giving us some information about the conclusion that her own under-informed judgment is currently suggesting to her.

Oh, I see. “If I say it’s true, then it’s true. Therefore it’s true. QED.” Nice reasoning.

LOL! And that’s obviously a silly straw man of what I wrote. Nice try!

Wow - we hold differing opinions, therefore you find instances of my reasoning invalid and indicative of closed-mindedness and bigotry. Who knew?

Oops - there’s another one! (These are further confirmations of my original thesis, by the way - a straw man is effectively a way to ignore an argument.)

But of course, I haven’t just rocked up and made a comment on theistic critical thinking skills. I’ve engaged in a number of debates on this forum with people who have tried to justify their belief and, without exception, every justification is flawed in some way, and often in a way which, if the subject matter were different, they themselves would realise.

So you believe.

So granted, my comment was somewhat inflammatory. But it’s based on my personal experiences on this forum, and I stand by it in general terms.

I don’t care if it’s inflammatory - it’s false. That’s my problem with it. You give the evidence in this very thread that you have lousy critical thinking skills, so it’s not surprising you would come to such a false conclusion.

Which argument did I ignore? The ad hominem is that you purported to know my reason for this alleged misdemeanour. An ad hominem, by definition, cannot be relevant.

I’ve been a grad student in philosophy for 6 years and I’ve frequently taught critical thinking to university students. Trust me: your claim about ad hominem arguments is false. Please do some research on this. That is one thing that you’ve ignored.

For the original arguments that you’ve ignored, see post 25. If you don’t understand the arguments posted there, I can explain.

 

[Betterave]

That’s an incredibly arrogant set of statements. Just who do you think you are?

LOL! You’re hilarious. I already answered this dumb irrelevant question.

Wow - this is an eye-opener! This is what she said:

You think that was a genuine apology and thanks?

Like you, I didn’t think so…

What I find staggering is that you didn’t pick up on the sarcasm. One could draw many plausible inferences from that, none of them favourable to you.

…but she assured me in a PM that she was sincere. So it looks like you’re wrong again. And who am I to make that assessment? I’m a guy who doesn’t hate the truth and has very good critical thinking skills. What about you? LOL!

Why do I think “Dunning-Kruger” when I read your posts?

I don’t know. Maybe it makes you feel better about your lousy arguments?

 

[wanstronian]

I’m just pointing out that your post was based on an uncharitable and closed-minded interpretation. Up to you whether you want to fix that.

LOL! I know what an ad hominem is; you apparently don’t. “Who are *you *to judge?” is an irrelevant ad hominem remark. “It seems that *you are unable *to resist the temptation for a sarcastic snipe at me when I try to help. You are a true exemplar for Catholic Christianity” is also ad hominem, it is talking about *me *being “unable,” and simply presumes, no reason given, that my comments were nothing but a sarcastic snipe - then you clearly made a general ad hominem attack against me as a Catholic Christian, which shows your bigotry towards this group of people. And obviously I’m not the only one who noticed this. There’s really no ambiguity in what you wrote.

You’re posting on a philosophy forum. You make a comment, it is fair game for anyone to address a rational criticism to that comment. I don’t need anyone to put me in a position of authority, any more that you needed anyone to do that for you before judging me! (Did you notice you did that? - a little hypocritical of you, isn’t it?)

You’re projecting. Read again, this time on the assumption that I’m trying to help you (and the OP).

Go ahead and substantiate that charge of “erroneous accusations” - where? what? why ‘erroneous’? (Please don’t give me more nonsense based on your failure to understand what an ‘ad hominem’ is.)

It was just information, not advice…

…but apparently you’re not so good at receiving information.
Again: Just so you know, there is nothing wrong with ad hominems as such, so your noting that my post contains an ad hominem is rather uninteresting - unless you can give a reason as to why it was irrelevant or inappropriate (I’m pretty sure it was neither).

It means that she recognizes that she needs to do some research. She was just giving us some information about the conclusion that her own under-informed judgment is currently suggesting to her.

LOL! And that’s obviously a silly straw man of what I wrote. Nice try!

Oops - there’s another one! (These are further confirmations of my original thesis, by the way - a straw man is effectively a way to ignore an argument.)

So you believe.

I don’t care if it’s inflammatory - it’s false. That’s my problem with it. You give the evidence in this very thread that you have lousy critical thinking skills, so it’s not surprising you would come to such a false conclusion.

I’ve been a grad student in philosophy for 6 years and I’ve frequently taught critical thinking to university students. Trust me: your claim about ad hominem arguments is false. Please do some research on this. That is one thing that you’ve ignored.

For the original arguments that you’ve ignored, see post 25. If you don’t understand the arguments posted there, I can explain.

LOL! You’re hilarious. I already answered this dumb irrelevant question.

Like you, I didn’t think so…

…but she assured me in a PM that she was sincere. So it looks like you’re wrong again. And who am I to make that assessment? I’m a guy who doesn’t hate the truth and has very good critical thinking skills. What about you? LOL!

I don’t know. Maybe it makes you feel better about your lousy arguments?

Like I said before, I didn’t post on this thread to start a fight. You took it upon yourself to attack me, and it’s become apparent over the last few days that you’re covering for your logical and argumental ineptitude with a series of increasingly condescending and insulting commentary. I have nothing to prove to you, your hideously hypocritcal fallacies are clear indicators that you don’t have any real arguments behind your arrogant rhetoric. I won’t rile you any further, I’ve got better things to do than argue the finer points of the ad hom with an overgrown ego like you.

Judging by your performance so far in this thread, I suspect there’s plenty of utter tripe in your latest posts that I could pick apart, but as you seem unable to recognise the flaws in your own argumentation (even when they’re pointed out to you) that you claim to see in others’, there’s not much point in me humouring you by reading them.

So I’ll leave you to your childish "LOL"s and your patronising self-congratulation. I’m going to unsubscribe to this thread, so feel free to call me a few more names behind my back if it makes you feel cleverer.

If you ever want to grow up and have a constructive discussion, that would be great. If not, have a nice life.

W

 

[GreggAlvarez]

It’s true, if my post had been sarcastic sniping, Wanstronian’s response would have been hypocritical and would be making a stupid generalization.

But you don’t even care what the conversation is? In other words, then, you’re meddling in a dispute that you haven’t bothered to try to understand?

Oh… Haha… I was just defending whoever the attackee was, which was you apparently and Catholicism. I do not care about the content of the conversation. I do care that this person was being a complete hypocrite. And I was just showing this person that they were in fact being hypocritical and I like to defend my Church.

How to be a ‘better’ person, though? This isn’t very helpful advice, methinks.

Hopefully, the other person would think so.

 

[Betterave]

Like I said before, I didn’t post on this thread to start a fight.

Nor to have a rational discussion, apparently.

You took it upon yourself to attack me, and it’s become apparent over the last few days that you’re covering for your logical and argumental ineptitude with a series of increasingly condescending and insulting commentary.

Not a very intelligent comment, this (another question-begging ad hominem.)

I have nothing to prove to you, your hideously hypocritcal fallacies are clear indicators that you don’t have any real arguments behind your arrogant rhetoric.

LOL! General vituperations not directed to any of my arguments. Again, pure ad hominem question-begging.

I won’t rile you any further, I’ve got better things to do than argue the finer points of the ad hom with an overgrown ego like you.

LOL! In other words, you’ve got better things to do than to learn to use a basic term correctly. In other words, you’ve got nothing to prove to anyone, because you don’t care about the truth - what’s the point of proving anything when you’re comfortable with the angry assertion of demonstrably irrational claims?

Judging by your performance so far in this thread, I suspect there’s plenty of utter tripe in your latest posts that I could pick apart, but as you seem unable to recognise the flaws in your own argumentation (even when they’re pointed out to you) that you claim to see in others’, there’s not much point in me humouring you by reading them.

You suspect, huh? LOL!

So I’ll leave you to your childish "LOL"s and your patronising self-congratulation. I’m going to unsubscribe to this thread, so feel free to call me a few more names behind my back if it makes you feel cleverer.

Call you names?

If you ever want to grow up and have a constructive discussion, that would be great. If not, have a nice life.

LOL! Thanks, W. You too.

 

[asker42]

I would reccomend books by C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton such as Mere Christianity and The Everlasting Man. I would also reccomend reading The Bible in its entirety. Actually examine the arguments on both sides and watch debates about them particularly William Lane Craig.

 

[asker42]

Also, remember the fact that you feel bad about not being Catholic and being honest with your family shows the moral committment that God has written on your heart and is evidence of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TimothyH]

Raised Catholic. All my family members are Catholic.

The problem is, I don’t think I am anymore.

I’ve been becoming more and more assured that atheism makes the most sense to me personally, but that’s a pretty scary concept since I’ve grown up with the stereotypical Catholic guilt phenomenon. Of course, I could never admit it to my family, but I would feel horribly guilty getting married in a Catholic church down the line. My mother has already told me that the family would be very disappointed if there was no big church wedding when I mentioned that I loathe ceremonies and would rather go to a courthouse.

I digress. At this point in my life, my faith is completely illusory. I ask that you please don’t judge; what I’d like is some references to either books or websites for people with doubts like mine. When I say doubts, I mean serious ones, e.g. the flying spaghetti monster and the Catholic God are on equal playing field in my mind. I’ve used my own judgment to come to this conclusion, so I need resources that are prepared to counter my objections.

I really don’t want to give up my religion, but honestly at this point, it would be a facade for the sake of my family. So any suggestions on resources?

(I hope I put this in the right forum. Sorry if I didn’t)

My suggestion would be to skip the books and go to confession.

Catholics don’t usually just stop believing and then decide atheism makes more sense. Our Catholic Come Home ministry sees it all the time.

There are many fallen away Catholics who never stopped believing but just stopped going. But the one’s who walk in with specific questions about dogma, especially infallibility or authority or confession, are usually holding in some sin.

I’m in no position to judge but if this is the case here Plinko, as it often is, I would urge you to go to confession and stop this “Aetheism just makes more sense to me at this poiont in my life” nonsense.

If I’m wrong, then may you and God both forgive me.

-Tim-