why so passionate?

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

That would have been a great rant... if it hadn't been made and rebutted countless times before on this board.

And probably made mostly before by myself.:D

Rebutted is debatable. Rebutted: 'to refute by evidence or argument'. Who's deciding? Majority opinion?

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

what annoys me just as much is righteous athieists bemoaning the catholic church's influence on society, and then taking part in the good bits

Are you serious?

It really annoys me when atheists complain about the bad bits and take part in the good bits. Also I hate it when someone gets a dodge meal and only eats the edible bits. Or when someone buys a magazine and only reads the articles they are interested in, not the ones they aren't. And don't get me started about people who only watch movies the like or enjoy and complain about movies that suck. HYPOCRITES! :rolleyes:

robindch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

This is what really annoys me. This has been thanked so far four times without people reading down two posts and seeing that it doesn't apply to me!

Are you saying that you do not accept any part of the bible's theology as true, and that you believe that Jesus was not who he said he was?

If so, then I completely retract my comment that you are a christian!

midlandsmissus

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you serious?

It really annoys me when atheists complain about the bad bits and take part in the good bits. Also I hate it when someone gets a dodge meal and only eats the edible bits. Or when someone buys a magazine and only reads the articles they are interested in, not the ones they aren't. And don't get me started about people who only watch movies the like or enjoy and complain about movies that suck. HYPOCRITES! :rolleyes:

Of course I’m serious. The real hypocrisy lies in the fact that there is a thread on here on ‘a la carte Catholics’. Catholics who are choosing to ignore the hard parts of Catholicism and are keeping the easy parts.
So how exactly are ‘a la carte atheists’ any different? In fact, I think it’s more hypocritical. At least the Catholics aren’t roundly denouncing something and complaining about the effect on their lives and then taking part in it...?



It's hypocrisy when it's somebody else but not when it's yourself?

Dades

midlandsmissus wrote: »

So how exactly are ‘a la carte atheists’ any different? In fact, I think it’s more hypocritical. At least the Catholics aren’t roundly denouncing something and complaining about the effect on their lives and then taking part in it...?

What are you on about? What exactly are atheists taking part in?

Ickle Magoo

But nothing you have suggested so far has anything to do with picking and choosing belief in a god or religious dogma so whatever phrase you are grasping for, a la carte atheism it ain't...santa and the easter bunny are no more partaking of religious custom than leaving money under pillows courtesy of the tooth fairy.

robindch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

In fact, I think it’s more hypocritical. At least the Catholics aren’t roundly denouncing something and complaining about the effect on their lives and then taking part in it...?

I know quite a few religious who get upset about the lack of religion in every day life. Yet the very same people will go to a restaurant and -- without a moment's hesitation -- order and eat something that wasn't born a catholic, wasn't cooked by a priest, wasn't even prayed over, and wasn't served up in a golden chalice.

It's shockin' I tells ya!

Delirium

robindch wrote: »

I know quite a few religious who get upset about the lack of religion in every day life. Yet the very same people will go to a restaurant and -- without a moment's hesitation -- order and eat something that wasn't born a catholic, wasn't cooked by a priest, wasn't even prayed over, and wasn't served up in a golden chalice.

It's shockin' I tells ya!

Or worse, eat in a restaurant on a Sunday:eek::P

midlandsmissus

Dades wrote: »

What are you on about? What exactly are atheists taking part in?

I'm leaving this here for today. It is probably harder and more tiring than you realise being the single view against a majority, and I'm literally wrecked.

aidan24326

krudler wrote: »

I know most people who are christians/catholics who spend christmas the exact same way, christmas is barely even a religious festival to a lot of people anymore.

It barely ever was in the first place. Nobody really knows when Jesus was born anyway, the date corresponds to the time of year when ancient pagan festivals were held to celebrate the winter solstice.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I also don't approve of alot of the Catholic church's stance on things, but what annoys me just as much is righteous athieists bemoaning the catholic church's influence on society, and then taking part in the good bits. We're all human and some atheists are just as hypocritical as the Catholic church, so don't be so righteous!

You're really not being at all fair. What you are failing to acknowledge is that atheists/non-religious often don't have alot of choice in the matter, such is the pervasiveness of religion in society. Should Zillah throw a strop and refuse to attend his sister's wedding or just forget the religious stuff and go along for her sake? By your reckoning he should stay away. If I was to boycott every church wedding, every christening, every church funeral, I mightn't have too many friends left at this stage. That's not hypocrisy, just common sense.

MagicMarker

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It is probably harder and more tiring than you realise being the single view against a majority

lol, that's just golden!

midlandsmissus

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol, that's just golden!

You're a single view against a majority..where? Talking about atheism on an atheist board?

The Mad Hatter

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Of course I’m serious. The real hypocrisy lies in the fact that there is a thread on here on ‘a la carte Catholics’. Catholics who are choosing to ignore the hard parts of Catholicism and are keeping the easy parts.
So how exactly are ‘a la carte atheists’ any different? In fact, I think it’s more hypocritical. At least the Catholics aren’t roundly denouncing something and complaining about the effect on their lives and then taking part in it...?



It's hypocrisy when it's somebody else but not when it's yourself?

Hang on - since when has atheism had a carte?

Zillah

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm leaving this here for today. It is probably harder and more tiring than you realise being the single view against a majority, and I'm literally wrecked.

You should probably just give in a agree with us then. It's far easier, and you get the bonus of being right!

mikhail

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Hang on - since when has atheism had a carte?

Apparently, la carte in question says that we can't take a few days off towards the end of the year to eat too much, spoil our kids and watch old movies. I think I'm going to have to reject atheism in favour of not believing in excessive consumption of turkey and chocolate, but I don't know the word for that.

Galvasean

I should protest at my workplace not being open on Christmas day so I am not partaking in a 'Christian' festival. This seems like a great idea...

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

I should protest at my workplace not being open on Christmas day so I am not partaking in a 'Christian' festival. This seems like a great idea...

My workplace is, worked Christmas day a few years ago, was soul destroying

ColmDawson

Even without religion, we'd have devised certain holidays. Humans get cold and sad in the long, dark winter. Holidays are just ways of cheering ourselves up.

Just because Christianity almost managed to successfully pretend it came up with the festivals doesn't mean I'm partaking in selective Christianity (or "à la carte atheism", whatever that is).

Galvasean

It's hard to be an 'a la carte atheist' considering atheism only has one belief.

Pushtrak

Galvasean wrote: »

It's hard to be an 'a la carte atheist' considering atheism only has one belief.

It's splitting hairs, and I know I'm being semantic, but it's more a rejection of a belief. The distinction is important because it shows inherently how a la carte is ridiculous.

Dades

All theists are a la carte, anyway.

They pick and choose what deities to believe in. :pac:

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Of course I’m serious. The real hypocrisy lies in the fact that there is a thread on here on ‘a la carte Catholics’. Catholics who are choosing to ignore the hard parts of Catholicism and are keeping the easy parts.
So how exactly are ‘a la carte atheists’ any different?

Er, because we don't hold to the idea that all of Catholicism is dictated by an omnipotent being and therefore to be consistent must be followed in its entirety.

You seriously can't see the hypocrisy of trying to support one part of the Bible by claiming it is the infallible word of God and then choosing to ignore another part of the Bible because it doesn't suit your life style?

I would have zero problem with a Catholic who thought that none of the Bible was the infallible word of God, some bits of it made sense as general moral lows and other parts were nonsense. But then they wouldn't be Catholics

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It's hypocrisy when it's somebody else but not when it's yourself?

Do you actually understand what hypocrisy means?

An atheist would be being hypocritical if they claimed that every single thing religion has ever done or produced was bad, and then partakes in parts of it that they enjoyed.

But since no one is doing that you seem to be just making up something to be annoyed about.

midlandsmissus

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, because we don't hold to the idea that all of Catholicism is dictated by an omnipotent being and therefore to be consistent must be followed in its entirety.

You seriously can't see the hypocrisy of trying to support one part of the Bible by claiming it is the infallible word of God and then choosing to ignore another part of the Bible because it doesn't suit your life style?

I would have zero problem with a Catholic who thought that none of the Bible was the infallible word of God, some bits of it made sense as general moral lows and other parts were nonsense. But then they wouldn't be Catholics



Do you actually understand what hypocrisy means?

An atheist would be being hypocritical if they claimed that every single thing religion has ever done or produced was bad, and then partakes in parts of it that they enjoyed.

But since no one is doing that you seem to be just making up something to be annoyed about.

Wicknight that would be a great post EXCEPT you've missed the part where I said I'm NOT Christian, I'm CERTAINLY not Catholic, and completely DON'T think the bible is the infallible word of God.

Nevertheless I predict your post getting ten thanks without people bothering to read the post below it...

And I do understand what hypocrisy means, thanks very much, and yes I do think people on this board are hypocritical talking about a la carte , (catholics who pick and choose which parts of the religion to take in) when there are atheists who pick and choose which parts of social religious norms to take in because they are the 'easy, good' parts of religion.

Do what you want, let the a la carte Catholics do what they want. You are not altogether different. Don't be so righteous.

Ghost Buster

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Wicknight that would be a great post EXCEPT you've missed the part where I said I'm NOT Christian, I'm CERTAINLY not Catholic, and completely DON'T think the bible is the infallible word of God.

Nevertheless I predict your post getting ten thanks without people bothering to read the post below it...

And I do understand what hypocrisy means, thanks very much, and yes I do think people on this board are hypocritical talking about a la carte , (catholics who pick and choose which parts of the religion to take in) when there are atheists who pick and choose which parts of social religious norms to take in because they are the 'easy, good' parts of religion.

Do what you want, let the a la carte Catholics do what they want. You are not altogether different. Don't be so righteous.

I have read this entire thread and I have to agree that Midlandmissus has a point. I intend to take her advice and stop being a hypocrite. It's a difficult one but just as soon as I finish this space ships warp drive and find a planet with absolutely no history of religious beliefs, holidays or influence IM THERE BABY!!!!!

MagicMarker

Exactly what is needed to ''take part'' in ''social religious norms''?

If I wake up on Easter Sunday, does that constitute ''taking part''? Or is eating the chocolate eggs ''taking part''?

How about if I don't drink alcohol on Good Friday, is that ''taking part''?

midlandsmissus

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I have read this entire thread and I have to agree that Midlandmissus has a point. I intend to take her advice and stop being a hypocrite. It's a difficult one but just as soon as I finish this space ships warp drive and find a planet with absolutely no history of religious beliefs, holidays or influence IM THERE BABY!!!!!

Wow a slight compliment with only half a sarcastic pargraph. I'm really coming up on the Atheist & Agnostic boards

OR

keep doing what you're doing, just don't slate la carte Catholics in the process...

let everyone do what they want to do eh? What's so wrong with that?

Ghost Buster

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Wow a slight compliment with only half a sarcastic pargraph. I'm really coming up on the Atheist & Agnostic boards

OR

keep doing what you're doing, just don't slate la carte Catholics in the process...
I didnt. Youre the one saying Im a hypocrite for taking part in holidays along with just about everyone i know and work with
let everyone do what they want to do eh? What's so wrong with that?

Tomorrow my unbaptised child of an atheist and a non practicing Protestant will be attending catholic school (the only within miles of where I live) where I have to meet with the principal to tell him why my child wont be taking part in R E. All because these folk who you feel should be let do what they want insist on filling out "catholic" on the census form and so have legislation drawn up in their favour. Thats whats so wrong with that.

midlandsmissus

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Tomorrow my unbaptised child of an atheist and a non practicing Protestant will be attending catholic school (the only within miles of where I live) where I have to meet with the principal to tell him why my child wont be taking part in R E. All because these folk who you feel should be let do what they want insist on filling out "catholic" on the census form and so have legislation drawn up in their favour. Thats whats so wrong with that.

I, as an unbaptised child of two atheists who attended Catholic School, feel I can have a point on this. What do you want them to do, not have catholic schools? There needs to be more non - denominational schools I agree with that, but the catholic school I was in let me completely do what I wanted - homework during R.E. etc. Is there an indepth study on how non religious are treated in religious schools? I would like to see research on this.

'Insist'? It's their choice to make, no?

Ghost Buster

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I, as an unbaptised child of two atheists who attended Catholic School, feel I can have a point on this. What do you want them to do, not have catholic schools? There needs to be more non - denominational schools I agree with that, but the catholic school I was in let me completely do what I wanted - homework during R.E. etc. Is there an indepth study on how non religious are treated in religious schools? I would like to see research on this.

'Insist'? It's their choice to make, no?

So doesn't this mean that your parents, as atheists and I as an atheist are being a la carte hypocrites for sending our children to catholic schools?
I could opt for driving 30 miles and use an educate together school which our neighbours kids do not attend, which none of my kids creche friends will attend, which the school bus does not serve and with none of the social activities associated with a local school. But I choose to be a hypocrite for my kids sake.
I actually consider ' a la carte' to be a generous term for most irish catholics. I think "Catholic by habit" might perhaps be a better term.

Ghost Buster

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I, as an unbaptised child of two atheists who attended Catholic School, feel I can have a point on this. What do you want them to do, not have catholic schools? There needs to be more non - denominational schools I agree with that, but the catholic school I was in let me completely do what I wanted - homework during R.E. etc. Is there an indepth study on how non religious are treated in religious schools? I would like to see research on this.

'Insist'? It's their choice to make, no?

By Insist i mean that they do it despite being about as catholic as I am. Sweet fanny adams!