Suggestions?

[GreggAlvarez]

Originally Posted by wanstronian

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]

Originally Posted by GreggAlvarez

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]

Originally Posted by wanstronian

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]

Originally Posted by Betterave

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.

Originally Posted by Betterave

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]

Originally Posted by Betterave

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.

Originally Posted by Betterave

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

Hopefully, the other person would think so.

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by wanstronian

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]

Originally Posted by plinko

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-