Pathetic.

NSFW

I have, several times. I may not have answered them the way you want me to but that's your problem not mine. You're hounding me now.

Are you enjoying this conversation so much that you want it to continue? You actually want more of what you consider my poor logic and grasp of the facts (or whatever your impressions are, I can't be bothered to read back and list the entire stream of insults)?

Do you want to continue this conversation? If we can limit the scope to the Catholic church and not your endless pedantic digressions or your hounding me for an answer as to why I have strong feelings about religion, I'll continue. There's some troll in me too, I'll just keep going and going...

Perhaps I am hounding you, but that's because you've not answered the question. You've claimed it was because of reasons X, Y, and Z as demonstrated in your posts. But we've also seen that reasons X, Y, and Z don't hold water. Under normal circumstances, this would lead someone to abandon X, Y, and Z and reconsider the situation. But you're not doing that. So there's something else going on besides X, Y, and Z.

I've shown you logical flaws in your "government" analogy. Are you going to address them? Or are you going to hold to your previous position despite the fact that it has been shown to be untenable?

You simply haven't convinced me that I'm wrong. My failure to convince you doesn't mean that I'm wrong about everything I've discussed with you.

Gosh it's hard to make concessions to you when I know you're going to throw it back in my face at some point -but- you have convinced me that I really need to improve my grasp of logic and argument. I know far more about philosophy than I did 12 months ago and that's been a life changing experience for me.

No, you've simply taken it to the nth pedantic degree when it was only ever meant as a loose analogy to make the point that the Catholic church's hierarchy are not answerable to the general public for their many failings. You don't elect them, you have virtually no say. They only enjoy their lack of transparency for that reason.

Imagine if the position or 'Universal church' was open to many different religions and they were voted in and out of power like governments are, do you think that the Catholics would have enjoyed 1700 years of uncontested power? I don't. They might jostle for terms of office like the Republicans and Democrats do, or they might have faded into obscurity like the UKIP party in the UK are doing because of incompetence and desperately unpopular policies.

While true, I would take as evidence the fact that you get push-back from virtually every side in almost every one of those threads. It's not like it's just the theists trying to tell you you're wrong. EVERYBODY is telling you you're wrong.

What I see is that you're driving towards the edge of a cliff, and you've altered your direction by a half of a degree. Your end result has not changed very much. See above.

Are you sure you even know what a pedant is and what it means to be pedantic?

Your analogy is clearly flawed for the reasons I've pointed out.

You can leave at any time. And leaving the Catholic church is not like leaving the Mormon church. If you don't like it, you can easily walk away. You're also focusing your analogy on democratic governments again. If you want to talk about "representation" that's fine. But that doesn't fix the problems I've pointed out.

Even democratic governments have "lack of transparency." I don't think this is a meaningful objection because "transparency" and "democracy" don't really tie together in any meaningful way.

You can imagine whatever you want to imagine. This isn't an argument and it's not grounded in any basis of fact.

So, being in the majority means that you're right? If the answer that popped into your head is 'not necessarily but if you're in a minority then you should consider that it may be you who's wrong' then you don't need to type it out.

No it hasn't, neither has yours. I take it you still believe in God despite all the well constructed and informed arguments put to you on this forum by far more intelligent posters than I? I'd be safe in saying that plenty of other theists also don't agree with what you believe (billions of them in fact) and yet you're still headed for that cliff too?


-----------------

The two posts above dealt with the personal irrelevancies, the two below are on topic. It would be good if they could all be on topic.

-----------------

Yes it's true that you can leave at any time and that kinda brings us neatly in a circle since I've been wondering the whole time why every Catholic on the planet hasn't left yet and what it would take for that to happen if the behaviour of the CC so far hasn't been enough to cause that to happen.

There was a question there, it wasn't rhetorical.

I'll ask you a question I asked you in another thread: What will it take to convince you that you're in error? So far, we've shown that logic isn't enough, and that holding a view that people on opposing sides of the debate both view as inferior isn't enough. So what will it take?

Edit: By most observers, your positions have not changed in any fundamental way since you've started posting here, despite the fact that this has been a "life changing experience for you." I find it hard to believe that this has really changed your life in any substantial way based on the relatively static views you've held over the time, and the fact that your ability to articulate your views has remained at a stable (and low) level.

You should familiarize yourself with the idea of false equivalence. You're trying to pull something like a "logical relativism" move here. ("Well, other people think *YOU* are wrong, so you should also change your mind.) I'm claiming that your beliefs have been vetted here on this forum, and that your position has been found lacking on the basis of its ability to stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore, I'm saying that this failure has been acknowledged by people on multiple sides of a different disagreement, which in particular demonstrates that the problem with your position is in no way related to that belief.

You would not be able to say the same thing of my positions under the same set of standards.


Again, I'll ask you if you expect that every American should have left the US (or any other country) by now because of its historical failures. I understand that your position is "The Catholic church is super awful and I want it to go away." But that does not mean "Everyone should feel the way I do."

You need to do something to close that gap, otherwise you're just foaming at the mouth again.

I didn't say it was rhetorical. I said that they question had no basis in fact. You asked a speculative question (again). I'm pointing out that regardless of how I might answer that question, there is no relevance to the conversation at hand.

Noted.

Are you willfully misrepresenting my position? My question is, and always has been ITT, 'why don't people feel the way I do, what will it take?

Unlike the Catholic Church, America is a Democracy, the citizens have the power to remove a government that they feel has failed them and as I've said before, that happens on a regular basis. Plenty of people who feel that the system itself is beyond repair have left America, one of my close friends is such a person. So your question is either giving me the opportunity to again use the 'government' analogy, or the answer is 'yes'.

So you're not prepared to make a comment on whether or not the Catholic Church would earn (all other things being equal) re-election based on their behaviour?

Ok. I think that's because you acknowledge, but don't want to say, that it's highly unlikely that they would get re-elected after their history of terrible abuses and mistakes. That's just what I think, I'm not saying that's your position but in the absence of a reply, what else can I do but guess?

How about an actual argument as to why people *SHOULD* feel the way that you do? Something of substance, perhaps? Not just blathering on and on about your emotional condition?

LOL -- It happens on a regular basis regardless of whether people are happy or sad about what their government is doing. Every two years, we have a different government. Your analogy is strained and nonsensical.

Yes, but has 1/3 of the country left? Not even close. But 1/3 of the American Catholics have left. What does that tell you?

Also, the answer to what is "yes"? I didn't even ask a question.

I'm telling you that regardless of what I say, it's not going to matter. It's a rabbit trail that has no basis in reality.

I think it's highly unlikely that ANY group in a true democratic process would be able to sustain power indefinitely, regardless of how well or how poorly they're doing. I think that's part of the fundamental nature of how healthy democracies work.

You can realize how stupid the question is and get off of it.

This has got to be trolling now right? Who's emotional condition, mine? lol? After all the reasons I've given, the lists of failings of the CC which you didn't even try to dispute, just tried to write off against 'good deeds', I can't understand why you would ask this question. Just read back Aaron. Nice 'completely ignore it' dodge on the issue of willful misrepresentation of my position btw.

It's starting to feel like you're trolling/levelling me, this is getting kinda old again.

This still isn't an argument. It doesn't fit with the government analogy because you don't treat each new pope like a new government. You also haven't explained why anyone should feel so offended by what happened centuries ago. You're just expressing that you're angry. Angry isn't an argument. It's an emotion.

You can believe what you want about the conversation. I've shown you how your position simply doesn't work. Yes, you're angry. Yes, you're confused as to why other people aren't angry like you are. No, you haven't actually made an argument as to why people should be angry like you. All you have is incredulity that people aren't.

Aaron,

no one would think less of you if you gave up

I would have less entertainment if I did.

This is a pretty tawdry tactic Aaron. It's about a historical and long term demonstration of incompetence, cruelty, lies, HUGE mistakes about the very god they claim to represent... and all the rest. I don't just have a few years of failings to point to (to which no doubt you'd say something like 'why you getting all het up about a few recent mistakes?'), I can reference hundreds and hundreds of years of failings (so now you say 'why you dragging up all that old stuff?'). lol.

I think 'disillusioned' or 'terribly disappointed' would be better than 'angry', stop trying (and failing) to put words in my mouth. Man, the things I let you get away with.

Ironic then that I think that all the people who stick with the CC have is credulity.

I welcome you to reference "hundreds and hundreds of years of failing." The last time you did that, you said that Thales of Miletus was persecuted by Christians and you gave a list which didn't inspire confidence in Original Position. In the end, your list contained a couple people in a very narrow band of history. So go ahead and make your case. It should be fun.

Pick your word choice. It doesn't matter. You had plenty of opportunities to characterize your feelings towards the Catholic Church and explain why you felt the way you do. These words only lead to more questions.
* What did you think of the Catholic Church *BEFORE* you read/heard about the things that caused you disillusionment?
* In order to be disappointed, you must have had expectations that were not met. Can you explain what those expectations were?

But I still think that the general attitude that has actually been displayed is "anger." It's much like you would like to say that you're "open-minded" even though your posting history suggests otherwise.

Okay. That's still not an argument for anything. You're welcome to think whatever you want.

As far as I'm concerned, you're still just venting your anger giving voice to your disillusionment.

You're enjoying this?

I'm not emotionally invested in the hope that he will change his mind. If so, I'd be quite pissed and frustrated.

I'm curious how hard he will contort himself to maintain internal consistency (as in the intelligence/religiosity thread where he's now supporting the Institute for Creation Research's position paper on "Teaching the Controversy"). Alternatively, I'm also seeing whether he will be able to address his own factual inaccuracies as they arise (such as with this "Thales of Miletus" post).

I find this worry about how you're appearing to your perceived peer group (the same group that try not to engage you most of the time) a little sad. I tried to leave this conversation once already because your posts are heavily weighed towards trolling attempts rather than discussing the subject, now I'm actually doing it because I'm literally getting nothing from this except stress that I don't want or need.

Of course he is. Pedants love nothing more than something to be pedantic about and I provide that in spades.

You're even more charitable than I thought.

Le Fin.

I would suggest that the stress that you're feeling is because you realize that you're in error, but don't want to admit it. And rather than releasing the stress by admitting the error and changing your position, you're fighting hard to try to find some way to prove yourself right.

You just might need this stress if you have an interest in being open-minded and learning new things because it seems that you have a lot of emotional barriers to said open-mindedness.