cymtech wrote:So much hate....
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I say that partly tongue-in-cheek, but also because it is reminiscent of the religious mantra (paraphrasing here) "don't hate the sinner, hate the sin." A phrase that, to me, comes across as all talk and no action. People preach "don't hate the sinner, hate the sin," but then all of their action and vitriol are directed at the sinner, from the Inquisition to verbal abuse at abortion clinics to more subtle creation of "laws" defining marriage to a Christian ideal in order to prevent homosexual couples (and, not very long ago at all, interracial couples) from marrying (as if marriage wasn't a feature of every culture and religion on Earth; and as if the Christians were the first to invent marriage and have the right to tell everyone else how they must do it; and as if the laws of this country aren't supposed to be designed with the rights of EVERYBODY in mind, not just the rights of those who play by the rules of Religion "X"; the temerity!).
tSz42 wrote:I found it offensive because it implies that the Catholic religion, teachings, and views are wrong and people shouldn't listen to them.
Well... yeah. I feel they are wrong (they are wrong to me) and I feel people shouldn't listen to them (I can't understand people who can accept unsupported, fantastical claims as fact).
However, I will never STOP or prevent a person from listening to them. A person can listen to whatever he/she wants.
Think of it as if someone asked me if they should read a certain book, and I said, "no, that book sucks." That's not offensive. They're still free to ignore me and read the book.
tSz42 wrote:He says this without any backup or valid points. If you want to make a post saying, "I think Catholics are wrong in this area" with some evidence or points to back it up. HEY! I'm all for it. You hate *insert race*? awesome!, at least back it up.
Why? We aren't arguing facts here, we're arguing opinion, belief, faith. To me, Catholicism makes all of their claims without any backup or valid points. They can't prove that Lust will send you to hell; they can't even prove hell exists. But they're still adamant in teaching their followers to live and behave a certain way, "just because."
I can't prove hell DOESN'T exist, either. But logic dictates the burden of proof to lie with the claimant: a statement is false until PROVEN true. Otherwise, how else could we separate fact from fiction? I (or anyone else) could say anything I wanted to and it would automatically become fact? That's madness.
Example: the element aspergyiaz, undetectable by science, is the cause of all cancer.
Prove that statement wrong. Of course you can't. No more than I can prove heaven and hell don't exist. But hopefully you at least understand a little why I feel the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
Nor is popularity is not a deciding factor of fact versus fiction or fact versus opinion. Human beings tend to be impressed by large numbers and repetition: get enough people saying the same thing enough times and it becomes accepted as fact even without proof. One person making unbelievable claims is a lunatic, but a million people making unbelievable claims is a religion? Why? A million people making the same claim does not make that claim true. An alternate possibility is that you might have a group of a million lunatics on your hands, after all.
You take me to task for my "unsupported" criticisms of Catholicism/Christianity; but, in a way, I'm only protesting religion's unsupported criticisms of humanity.
Simple as that.
