Is anyone a Catholic here?

I'm not really sure how relevant something like this is to this thread since it's more of a question of faith in general than any specific religion, but it's something I'm really curious about.

Some background: my family is "Jewish". As far back as I know we're Jewish. We celebrate the Jewish holidays, got brises, had a bar mitzvah, whatever. I put down Jewish as my religion whenever a survey asks and I tell my friends we're Jewish when they ask. But I've never really felt Jewish. I've been to a synagogue twice, and both of those times were about my bar mitzvah. My family knows the Jewish laws but doesn't really follow them. I've always felt like we're Jewish only in name - I've never felt a real connection to God or the greater Jewish community or anything. I don't even think I've discussed religion with my parents ever, I just sort of formed my own religious beliefs. It's just not a thing in our household. It's not really a thing for me.

So whenever people say they have faith, I wonder what it's like. I don't particularly care for the tenants or what a person does because they believe. I'm just curious as to why (how?) they believe. For those that were just always Catholic/Christian/whatever, that were born into the religion and always did the ceremonies and always believed, what is it like? Has faith just always been there for you, something you don't really think about, or is there some constant reaffirmation that "yes, I am xyz and proud of this." For those that were born into a religion and later renounced it, is it because you became disillusioned with the belief? Did you just take a look at your beliefs one day and thought that it was a wrong, or (since many of you that posted about mention your child/teen years as being important to not being xyz anymore and particularly Catholic school) was it a cumulative thing? Did you ever actually believe in the religion?

I'd also just like to thank cm_latias for his post about how he came around to Catholicism. It was really interesting to read your progression into faith!


ps i hope this post makes sense
 

Jukain

!_!
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
i think it's more of something you feel. cm_latias mentioned feeling a connection, which is really big imo. that's pretty much how you have faith.
 

TheFourthChaser

#TimeForChange
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Two-Time Past SPL Championis a Past WCoP Champion
I'm Catholic but not at all devout. I'm skeptic of organized religion in general and if there were an alternate universe where I wasn't raised this way I think I might've turned out Agnostic. Also, agreeing that abortion discussion should just be stopped now before the thread becomes engulfed in it.

I don't know what to say about the atheism/agnosticism, but I did enjoy dismantling theistic arguments as an undergrad (and am able to do so now). Hume seems to be best philosopher of the "dark side". I enjoyed his work, particularly because he gave an astounding critique of the teleological argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion through the persona Philo, before having a scientific theory to rebut any design arguments.
These arguments will always be coming down to "we can't know". That's why I always found the religious arguments in philosophy boring, they're interesting ideas but you are never getting an answer.

User: Deck Knight I hope this isn't too intrusive, but I have to ask: whatexactly prompted you to convert to Catholicism? What makes you think that Catholicism, out of all the religions in the world that exists, is the "right" one? What makes you think there even is a god? You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I'm always curious to see how religious people answer these sorts of questions.
Why does there have to be a "right" one? Honestly, I hate the idea. I would hope that whatever power that be would appreciate that someone was truly a good person and that their religious views would be almost irrelevant. One thing I always appreciated about my church (the few times that I have gone) is that they make it a point that one does not need to be a Catholic to get into Heaven.

During the last few homilies, I was mentally distracted and I could pay full attention since my mind was engrossed in thinking about ways to check and counter stuff like Hydration Vaporeon, Toxicroak, Jellicent, and Skarmory. :)
Rotom-W does well against all of these!
 

cookie

my wish like everyone else is to be seen
is a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
stop talking about pokemon
the only reason i didn't delete the other posts was because they had other relevant content in them - cut it out
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Speaking as an Anglican I'm curious as to how Catholic's perceive other Christian religions both within the context of their religion and within the context of their daily life.
 

Yeti

dark saturday
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
For those that were just always Catholic/Christian/whatever, that were born into the religion and always did the ceremonies and always believed, what is it like? Has faith just always been there for you, something you don't really think about, or is there some constant reaffirmation that "yes, I am xyz and proud of this."
As you go up in age, the conversion rate drops for youth through their schooling - it's harder to get someone in high school to believe than someone in first grade. This is because children are inherently more trusting and open to the possibility of something out there that nobody can really comprehend. Miracles and everything else crazy in the Bible don't seem implausible at all to most children. Hence having a childlike faith where you don't doubt from the logistics of the world.

That said, as you progress out of your youth, I think most people do have moments where they make a rededication or reconfirmation or God becomes real for them in a more adult/mature sense. Their understanding of the world changes and then their faith sort of has a redux of acceptance where, having more information about everything, they actively can take a role in belief as opposed to acceptance of what they've grown up with. I know several pastors who tried to fight the church environment they grew up in in their adolescence before reconnecting with their faith after big moments where they realized what they were doing, so not everyone who grew up and is currently a believer was a believer at every congruent point in their life.

This is also where people who are forced to Catholic schools or are forced to any church by their parents will start to fade away - nobody is perfect and often the systems in place or the people they encounter will have deviated from Jesus's ideal example and they start to question/act out. It's really typical teenage rebellion, they're placed into the religious environment by their parents so then as a way to defy them, they decide that Catholicism/Christianity doesn't actually have any merit or have holes. Unfortunately, the claim there is most definitely no God has no merit or credibility either, since He's an entity who doesn't really exist on the same plane as us, so there's no definite way to prove He is solely fictional. There also are miracles, unexplainable healings, etc. that you have no scientific explanation for beyond some other agency at work in the situation. Of course, your interpretation of the cause and specific agent are always up for debate, but I believe there are too many events that happen that cannot be explained to just be random events, victims of the cruel and unfeeling cosmic chaos.

Anyway to answer your question, it's sort of both. Sometimes you don't really think about it because it becomes a constant part of your life and so it slips out of your active stream of thought but your faith/connection is always sort of 'there' and other times events will happen where you feel you've been specifically blessed or touched by God that will reaffirm your belief. Of course, gathering with others of your faith lets you hear their affirmations and stories as well to prop you up and give you a reason to be proud. Your individual time dedicated to the relationship also confirms who you are - worship and reading/analysis/journaling of your Bible and can give you the confidence to be proud, alongside prayer.

Those who accept Christ later in life and perhaps haven't grown up in the church, or did and are late 20's (for example) by the time they come back can either have big testimonies of how totally screwed up their life was before their decision and how God changed things around for them, or they could've just been invited by a friend and said "sure why not" or came on a whim (which of course the church doesn't believe was JUST a whim u feel me?) and had the message really speak to and connect with them. Sometimes it's big and you feel totally blown away, sometimes it's small and you feel something click, sometimes it's in between. Depends on the person and what point they're at in their life and what they need to hear or see.
 
These arguments will always be coming down to "we can't know". That's why I always found the religious arguments in philosophy boring, they're interesting ideas but you are never getting an answer.

Yeti said:
Unfortunately, the claim there is most definitely no God has no merit or credibility either, since He's an entity who doesn't really exist on the same plane as us, so there's no definite way to prove He is solely fictional. There also are miracles, unexplainable healings, etc. that you have no scientific explanation for beyond some other agency at work in the situation. O
Among my Catholic peers, I come across as a skeptic (like the persona of Philo) with ambiguous political position. I still retain much of my previous skepticism though and find it quite pleasurable in defending the skeptical side theological debates. In contrast, I always find these discussion quite intriguing when conducted at a fairly high level (that is when participants have some mastery of philosophy and scientific topics and can prevent relevant evidence for their positions using their knowledge from those fields); it does seem like an interesting intellectual game, but I, while I was an agnostic, understand the futility of solely using one's intellectual faculties when attempting to convert or disabuse someone's belief in personal God. It is challenging to present an argument for the existence of God (through natural theology) if one is constrained by an empiricist or skeptic epistemology. The empiricist can question whether one can confidently infer that God interacts in the world and in our lives by asking whether one subjective experiences (that is what one perceives through their sensual faculties and the subjective association of the impressions and ideas within our minds) justify such a conclusion. The skeptic can indeed also cast doubt upon the reliability of human reasoning and sense perception, and this unreliability renders any claim to knowledge rather tenuous. The empiricist skeptic does not have any initial burden of proof (that is to disprove the existence of God in an abstract) and only needs to defend his/her position by rebutting claims and arguments of God's existence by questioning the quality of those subject impressions or how the association between those impression are incorrect.

For example, I had a conversation with a skeptical acquaintance (not a Catholic) who said he attended a protestant service where the parishioners were giving testimonies. His friend stated that one example of God's providence was when he was threatened by some gang members during some altercation that they would bring additional members to deal with him, and he felt that his life was saved when a convey of police vehicles arrived to scare the gang members. The most relevant detail was that the cops arrived not in response to the gang's presence, but due to some person threatening to end his/her life by jumping off a bridge. He attributed this coincidence to God's providence and the crowded praised God while my friend blanched at this faulty reasoning. He retorted to himself that his friend only considered his interests and interpreted the fortuitous chain of events as God acting to protect him, but his account neglected any concern for the other person who threatened suicide (it is unknown to what happened to him). It is difficult to imagine any counterfactual scenarios such as the cops not arriving or avoiding the encounter in the first place. Perhaps the gang members just issued an empty threat and he would have escaped unscathed regardless. There is no "null hypothesis" in this case and no way to evaluate whether the encounter was significant.

Regarding the story, Matthew 5 "rain falls on both the just and the unjust" or "shit happens" to put it as a vulgar idiom. I roll my eyes when someone ascribes the good coincidences in one's life to God's will and take that as a confirmation for a personal God's existence while concurrently neglecting their adversity and travails.


Similarly, I told him my conversion story while trying to avoid using the same fallacious reasoning his friend used. I cannot rely recounting my emotional experiences since our sentiments can indeed hinder one's ability to reason, and had to present a narrative that was more than a sequence of merely trivial, mundane events (which I contended were not trivial because the events occurring in the narrative were unlikely and they were significant because the most obvious counterfactual outcome had those events not occurred was that I would not be Catholic). I said that those events and feelings left a strong impression on me -- strong enough to attribute them to the personal trinitarian God --but I conceded that it was not unequivocally strong evidence since there was indeed an element of subjective interpretation of those events.

-----
 
Hmm... Well, having been brought up in a Mormon house myself, turning agnostic fairly recently, I can say that, as of yet, there is no right or wrong answer. It's pretty much impossible to flat-out prove that some form of a God does not exist, simply because of two factors:

One: God theoretically exists outside of natural and scientific understanding. While it's somewhat hard to say if something can "exist outside of nature," considering the definition of something in nature is "something that occurs naturally," and God clearly had to have originated from somewhere- you know what, let's move on.

Two: The truth of what God is and does changes for everyone. This is a bigger one, and much less contradictory to scientific knowledge, in my eyes. Even if one form or interpretation of a God was disproven, there are many, many different interpretations of what [a] God could or could not entail. Perhaps he's omnipotent, perhaps he's simply a powerful force. Perhaps he's kind, perhaps he's wrathful. Perhaps there are several of them, perhaps he's actually of an alien species from another galaxy or universe with amazing powers - yes, I've heard this one, it's really interesting.

You could debate all day everyday, but the fact is that it's pretty hard to disprove something that is, by its very nature, designed as such or otherwise, not scientifically falsifiable. I agree with some above posts; you never will really get an answer. Who the hell knows what happened all those years ago? The Bible [and pretty much all historical texts, actually], were written by a very certain, educated class of men that wrote what they wanted to write and excluded what they wanted to exclude. These have been translated, re-translated, localized, had items omitted, had passages put in, had words swapped around, and have had many more revisions - they're likely very different from what the original looked like. That's, of course, not counting what the church itself as a whole decides to follow. The new pope is retconning a fair amount of the bigotry that is in the Bible, and what should and should not be followed or applied to modern times is changed and tweaked all the time.

More importantly, though, why does it matter? The fact that someone believes something is unimportant; what matters is what they do about it. If everyone is attacking others or scorning them based on their beliefs, well... That's what's caused so many wars in the past. Forgive me for sounding like some tree-hugging hippie, but it would be so much better if we could just accept people, even if we don't like their beliefs, and not get riled up just because their opinion is not - or is even the antithesis of - our own. Unless they dine on the blood of infants every full moon and keep harems of six-year-old girls, what's the harm? The worst that will probably happen is that they want to talk to you about their religion; don't be a bitch about it if you're not interested, just tell them so. If they badger you or won't leave you alone, well, harassment is another thing entirely.

As for differing political views, yes, this sucks, but I've never understood the American [I know it's a lot of people, but United Statesians are the worst offenders, from what I've seen] mentality that anyone on the opposing end of the political spectrum is an automatic enemy. While I personally don't agree with everything any of those guys say, that doesn't automatically make them the antichrist. People can still be good people, even if you don't like what or how they think. Nobody's black and white. Not even Hitler himself was a complete monster.

Also, think about it - challenging the opinions of people is a good thing, right? If nobody thought for themselves and always followed one government monopoly, where would we be in the way of innovation? We'd still be in the dark ages. Thinking can be done in many different ways, and their way may actually be just as valid as your own, even if you personally don't think so. Give it some thought.

Religion was never the problem; it's what people will do in some dick-measuring contest that has continued on for millenia and probably will continue for a good, long while, because humans are generally assholes. Personally, I believe that we as a species need to change our outlook on how we treat others who are different; that's our big problem. Not religion.
 
Just a question to Shiruba, do you consider your self an Atheist? You seem to be saying a lot of things that are consistent with Atheism and seem to be trying to not directly say it. If not then whatever, you can call yourself whatever you want, just wondering though.

Also a little disagreement on to why this matters. While I do agree that people should believe whatever they want to believe and that there should be less hostility, there is at its core still a great importance to the debate. At humanity's core, we are searching for truth, and I do feel that the question as to whether God exists or not is important, even if just in the philosophical way. Trying to avoid this as in "well everyone has their opinion" is a big cop out IMO that I don't find acceptable.

Captain Picard says it the best


please don't think I am saying this as hostile as he is :P
 
Erm, closer to atheism than theism, but I'm intrigued on the idea of one, and an atheist seems to be... Almost certain? Whereas to me, it doesn't seem like something you can be sure of, and I do like reading possible explanations of how a supernatural being could exist. It really is based on individual perception, though, absolutely. Pretty much anyone who puts a lot of thought into this kind of thing has their own individual perception with its own little quirks, and it'd be hard to put a label on everything.

That said, if they don't know what "agnostic" is [I almost put "autistic" for a second there, yes I reek autism] and I'm too lazy to explain, then yeah I'd probably say that I'm an atheist, as it's the closest to the two extremes... Though I don't think I really fall onto either of them. It's not like you're either one or you're not one, it's very fluid. Pretty much any aspect of psychology is, which is one of the reasons I find the subject so intriguing.

I agree, humans can, do, and should search for their truth (or "the" truth, if there is one), my big thing is the hostility. Debates can happen all day every day, like I said, and I don't find them destructive - quite contrary. One could debate pretty much anything; from the trivial such as a favourite season or preferred tie, to something more meaningful such as the ethics of euthanisation [and thus the value of life] and the importance of the environment over the economy. Healthy debate is good for the mind and can allow someone to truly think about what is important to them, which, as one who strongly supports free thought, is very positive to me. My issue is that people often flare up or get offended because someone thinks differently, or seek to defend themselves at length for some perceived threat, or to attack those that don't share their opinion. Almost like how I've seen a lot of vegetarian people get picked on or bullied for being, well, vegetarian, when they've done nothing to the other people. Humans just like to exclude weird or different people; makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. After all, the status quo kept the species alive, which is all that almost any species cares about in "the wild," and it kept us from wanting to interact with [and perhaps breed with] those who were insane, potentially violent, and more. Fortunately, the population and our safety isn't nearly as much of a problem as it was in the past [look at the population of India and China for proof], and we can now depend on thinkers to continue to progress us to seemingly impossible heights, as is shown while technology triples by the decade and the influence of disease continues to shrink [well, except diabetes...] Thus, it's a bad quality that a lot of people have that we need to shrug off now, as it now works against the people as a whole. Being excluded for being weird is not fun, as I'm sure many people can attest; it's especially likely if they play Pokemon when they're past ten years old [not meaning to be rude, just a seemingly accurate commentary on how catty a lot of people are], or enjoy being on the internet more than with people due to being antisocial or just bad with people/preferring to be online.

tl;dr debate is good but when it gets bitchy and violent it's bad and counterproductive.

My friend, you never have to apologize when you include Star Trek - especially my favourite captain - in an argument.
 

dwarfstar

mindless philosopher
Minor correction on the definition of agnosticism: that just means not being absolutely sure.

The gnostic theist is absolutely certain one or more gods exist.
The agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god or gods, but is not certain.
The gnostic atheist is absolutely certain there is no god.
The agnostic atheist believes there is no god, but is not absolutely certain.
 

Yeti

dark saturday
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
re: atheism my professor said something pretty funny today. we're talking about chivalric romances, which of course do have some interactions with Christianity, and it goes like this:

prof: (to preface he's not biased in his discussion of religion's interaction with the genre) I have no interest at all in religion, as a belief, and don't hold any beliefs.
kid in class: yeah, go atheists!
prof: nah atheism is stupid. too formulaic.
kid: :(

no offense to any atheists but I agree on his point that atheism as it is now is more of an anti-religion institution instead of an alternative belief. you can decline to hold any beliefs in spiritual deities without subscribing to r/atheism and you will likely be a lot less obnoxious to everyone around you for it. after all, atheists not looking to hate on religion/other people/'close minded' people to make themselves feel better about their own sad lives still do believe in something - that there is/are no god(s). but they should keep it at that and discuss their philosophies and theologies and reasons for believing such instead of targeting people who do believe in something.

the poor kid even fist pumped into the air, so excited, and then he got told. god bless.

anw back to the thread. feel free to believe there is or isn't a god (or a flying spaghetti monster harem) but don't attack the institution and those in it who disagree with you. if we could trade away every modern advancement in exchange for removing r/atheism from existence I think it might be worth it tbh. n/o.
e: also not to say Christians not following the love-all, show-kindness, respect-all (even if you disagree) ideal of Jesus's life can't be just as vitriolic and persistent into making you feel worse for not holding the same belief as them. but they're just poor sinners like everyone who should take a new approach to spreading the word in a better method. but it seems like many atheists get an imaginary dick-sucking when they get to diss on someone else's belief system, with nothing to back it up except ALL THE HIP YOUNG KIDS R DOIN IT, CHECK ME IM REBELLIN. props to those who can actually support their atheistic beliefs and show respect.
 
A little nitpick but Atheism is the lack of belief... so by definition one can not have "Atheistic beliefs." One can do the step further can have Humanist beliefs, or heck you can go do the whole (nonsense) Athiesm+ thing, but straight up Atheism has no doctrine.
 

destinyunknown

Banned deucer.
re: atheism my professor said something pretty funny today. we're talking about chivalric romances, which of course do have some interactions with Christianity, and it goes like this:

prof: (to preface he's not biased in his discussion of religion's interaction with the genre) I have no interest at all in religion, as a belief, and don't hold any beliefs.
kid in class: yeah, go atheists!
prof: nah atheism is stupid. too formulaic.
kid: :(

no offense to any atheists but I agree on his point that atheism as it is now is more of an anti-religion institution instead of an alternative belief. you can decline to hold any beliefs in spiritual deities without subscribing to r/atheism and you will likely be a lot less obnoxious to everyone around you for it. after all, atheists not looking to hate on religion/other people/'close minded' people to make themselves feel better about their own sad lives still do believe in something - that there is/are no god(s). but they should keep it at that and discuss their philosophies and theologies and reasons for believing such instead of targeting people who do believe in something.

the poor kid even fist pumped into the air, so excited, and then he got told. god bless.

anw back to the thread. feel free to believe there is or isn't a god (or a flying spaghetti monster harem) but don't attack the institution and those in it who disagree with you. if we could trade away every modern advancement in exchange for removing r/atheism from existence I think it might be worth it tbh. n/o.
e: also not to say Christians not following the love-all, show-kindness, respect-all (even if you disagree) ideal of Jesus's life can't be just as vitriolic and persistent into making you feel worse for not holding the same belief as them. but they're just poor sinners like everyone who should take a new approach to spreading the word in a better method. but it seems like many atheists get an imaginary dick-sucking when they get to diss on someone else's belief system, with nothing to back it up except ALL THE HIP YOUNG KIDS R DOIN IT, CHECK ME IM REBELLIN. props to those who can actually support their atheistic beliefs and show respect.
I don't think he just meant it in the way you think (which he might have and you're probably right) but there's also the fact that atheism is something that contradicts itself (just like radical skepticism) in the sense that there's no way you don't believe in anything, because if you think that God doesn't exist, you actually do believe something (you believe that God is a lie, and therefore God exists to you as a lie).

As for me, I was raised in a catholic school (where most of the teachers were nuns) and my family is catholic, but I don't think that fact influenced my current beliefs too much. I don't identify myself as... anything tbh because I dislike identifying and classifying people and especially myself. I don't identify myself as anything in this regard because while I think that there must be a higher being (which can be anything and not even a 'being' in the strict sense of the word) which I have no way to know. I mean, for all we know, we could be characters of a videogame made by somebody (or a group of beings). Of course this might seem an exaggeration but I think it's a good example. Having said that, I don't believe in Christianity as a religion but as a moral code that tries to help people to live and respect each other, and that's in fact what most of the stories in the Bible and especially the Gospels are about. They're just a way to teach people some moral rules, and not some kind of history book (which is what a lot of people, both christians and non-christians think it is). Those moral rules are often overlooked in favour of the 'religious habits', rituals and festivities, which are often based on older 'pagan' habits and festivities and that were included in the religion just because people got used to them. I could write a lot about that but I'll try to keep it short so

1. I'm not into those rituals because I think that they have lost all they were worth for over the centuries
2. As an example, the Bible doesn't say that you have to go to church, and in fact, the christians at first just imitated what Jesus did (that is, get together with the people in your community to have dinner / lunch / w/e to talk and reflex about their lives, ethics, their beliefs, etc). However, when population started to increase, the 'initial' habit ended up turning into a different thing because the community was much bigger and it's obviously very difficult to have a 'private' meeting with so many people. I could have probably explained it better but I think I was clear enough.

However, I am interested in (and I agree with) Christianity as a moral code, because not only it's right in a lot of stuff but its morality has been determining (in a good way, except when abused by some sort of aristocracy, which is what the Church as an institution was for a long time) in a lot of changes during History, even in the present (just look at the laws of most developed countries or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
 
I don't think he just meant it in the way you think (which he might have and you're probably right) but there's also the fact that atheism is something that contradicts itself (just like radical skepticism) in the sense that there's no way you don't believe in anything, because if you think that God doesn't exist, you actually do believe something (you believe that God is a lie, and therefore God exists to you as a lie).
This doesn't make any sense as a contradiction for several reasons, mainly that Atheists do not believe that God does not exist (not that God is lie also). As stated earlier, Atheism is the lack of belief, or more specifically being unconvinced by God claims. Now as Atheists, we live as though God does not exist, as we are unconvinced by such claims in a similar way that one can be unconvinced by claims of Werewolves (and I mean this in the nicest way, I can't think of a better example right now). We do not perceive a God and thus there is no reason to live like there is one. However we do not believe that no God exist because that would required absolute knowledge of the universe.

Its very similar to as how the law works. Someone is either found guilty or not guilty, the law never makes such claims of innocence, all they say is that there is not evidence to support the claim of them being guilty. In essence, Atheists find God to be not guilty on the crime of existing. :P

So to break your contradiction down:
-Atheists do not believe that no God exists
-the lack of belief in something is not a belief
 
Last edited:

Jorgen

World's Strongest Fairy
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
Also it's just mad easier to identify simply as "atheist" because people at least have an idea of what that entails. If you try getting to fancy and self-describing yourself as atheist-agnostic to avoid the "how could you know?" contention, people get confused because so many think agnosticism is some sort of faith limbo (and therefore incompatible with atheism/theism) when it really refers to the firm stance that the existence/nonexistence of a god is unknowable.

Anyway, former Catholic, went to Catholic school, was pretty devout through high school but always was pretty skeptical, figured I was just missing something that somebody smarter could see, because come on, how else could the vast majority of people around me be so seemingly unwavering in their faith? Went to university, realized that wasn't the case, it was pretty much just social pressures keeping me on the Catholic rails, realized I no longer lived in that area, so I jumped off.

I think the best thing about Catholicism, though, is precisely that organization that others seem to lament. I mean sure, actually feeling like you're forced to believe ALL of the myriad tenets of the faith (including the highly-politicized ones) and in some pope infallible in his doctrinal decrees is pretty whack, but doctrine aside it's kind of fun to follow the intrigue in Catholic politics and to see who the next pope will be etc., and on smaller scales that organization is actually useful by allowing a church to function and to be a convenient hub for outreach activities or even just a weekly community meeting house.
 

destinyunknown

Banned deucer.
This doesn't make any sense as a contradiction for several reasons, mainly that Atheists do not believe that God does not exist (not that God is lie also). As stated earlier, Atheism is the lack of belief, or more specifically being unconvinced by God claims. Now as Atheists, we live as though God does not exist, as we are unconvinced by such claims in a similar way that one can be unconvinced by claims of Werewolves (and I mean this in the nicest way, I can't think of a better example right now). We do perceive a God and thus there is no reason to live like there is one. (What in the what?) However we do not believe that no God exist because that would required absolute knowledge of the universe.

Its very similar to as how the law works. Someone is either found guilty or not guilty, the law never makes such claims of innocence, all they say is that there is not evidence to support the claim of them being guilty. In essence, Atheists find God to be not guilty on the crime of existing. :P

So to break your contradiction down:
-Atheists do not believe that no God exists
-the lack of belief in something is not a belief
I don't know if it's just because you kept contradicting yourself but you reinforced my point. However, I do admit I shouldn't have made a generalization when speaking about atheists, since there are those who say ''I believe God doesn't exist'' (and are contradicting themselves, because they DO say that God doesn't exist, and it's a different case that the one you explained) but also people with the same opinion that you have, which is actually just a middle point and something that doesn't contradict itself (in the same vein as radical and moderate skepticism, which I mentioned in my post).
 
I don't know if it's just because you kept contradicting yourself but you reinforced my point.
... one word really can change a sentence can't it, I left out a not in that sentence >.<

I do agree with you that the absolute claim that God doesn't exist is not logically supported, and does require belief. These people are offhand referred to as Anti-theists in the 'Atheist community.' I don't know if I would say it is outright contradictory though, I don't think I have ever heard an anti-theist claim they don't believe in anything, but if they did, then yes, that would be a logical contradiction.
 

Yeti

dark saturday
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
I don't think he just meant it in the way you think (which he might have and you're probably right)
Oh he did, they had a little chat where he explained a bit more of his thoughts on why atheism was a dumb concept before returning to poetry circa 1200 AD, but I only included the poor soul getting shut down in his enthusiasm.

Personally I can't think of a way to properly phrase your thought process without on some level claiming you believe there is no God to believe in. "I claim there is no God and thus I live my life as such" well that's all good and well what you CLAIM, but what do you actually THINK personally, you've merely just asserted a standpoint instead of your own personal thought. "I perceive no existence of a god" isn't saying much at all - it's just you have no evidence, but that doesn't mean you actually think one way or another. I've always been taught atheism is just another religion - the lack of belief in a deity - and I stand by that. I don't believe it's possible to stand on some odd middle ground where you legitimately hold no belief or thought one way or the other - on some level you ARE believing there is no spiritualism. I really can't think of a way to phrase it where you don't include "I believe/think," "I have seen no evidence there is a god and find it unlikely he exists" is, imo, no different than claiming "I have seen evidence there is a god and find it likely he exists" since both of you will be convinced of what you claim.

That's my own standpoint though, feel free to refute it (sry if derailing thread) but I do think on some level you are believing in something, whether it's the lack of existence or irrelevance or whatever, just because of how the human mind processes data and unknowns. Sometimes I do wonder if certain people are just predisposed to falling away from their Catholic/Christian upbringing as they get older due to their personality? Like do they just find it too difficult to take a leap forward and have faith at some point, whereas other personalities will not be conflicted by the fact "you can't prove God is there" despite many people claiming there is proof, of varying sorts.
 

LilOu

PO poopyhead
At my school, I asked a kid, "Are you Christian?" His reply was, "No, I'm Catholic." This surprised me, since everyone I asked before either said "No, I'm atheist/another religion that isn't Christian" or "Yes". My question is, do you identify yourself as Catholic or Christian first?
As far as I know (I'm Christian), you identify yourself as a Christian first. Christians are people that believe in Jesus Christ and that he came to the world to save us. Now, inside this "Christian" category, there exists sub-categories such as Catholicism, Evangelism, Protestantism, etc.
 

Jorgen

World's Strongest Fairy
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
I think Catholicism is a bit of a special case relative to the protestant faiths, though. Catholics have the pope and a very strong denominational identity. So it's really Catholic first, which falls under the umbrella of Christianity.

I can't really speak for Eastern Orthodox or other non-Roman Catholic denominations, though.
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I'll support Jorgen's claim I suppose. I was born and raised as an Anglican but when I identify myself I identify as a Christian first, Anglican second.
 

Lavos

Banned deucer.
i was raised catholic and i don't believe in catholicism anymore but i still go to church to listen to the priest's homily and take a moment to reflect on my own behavior. even if you don't buy the whole christ bit, the values that catholic doctrine preaches are always going to be applicable in your own life. so although i don't believe christ was the son of god, i can still appreciate his actions and learn a lot from his example.

and i do think there's a higher being. in my opinion, the universe is too beautiful to have been constructed by random forces. i've also seen some things that i still have a hard time accepting, like terminal disease patients cured within minutes by a homeless man, or particles with mass seemingly appearing out of thin air, only to disappear again. miracles? acts of god? perhaps. but if there's one thing we know about this world, it's that we don't know much - and every day new evidence is surfacing that suggests we're aware of even less than we thought. i'm truly excited to see where we go from here.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top