ashibaka

That makes much more sense to me. It makes sense that you would feel more at ease with the religion you were originally practicing rather than that you were convinced to become an atheist then convinced to convert back.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: ashibaka ]</p>

Veil of Fire

I like many theists. Heck, I *am* a 'theist', technically.

But Catholics just make my skin crawl. Always have, and even moreso now. I'd almost (ALMOST, mind you) rather hang out with a devout follower of Billy Grahm than a devout follower of the Archdiocese.

Of course, my girlfriend's father being Catholic makes things REALLY confusing some days, if ya know what I mean. He'd react bad enough if he knew his daughter was sleeping with a male protestant, even without knowing that she actually tends to prefer to sleep with female pagans!

himynameisPwn

Ah, how come all the good female pagans are taken?

Good luck with whatever you find to be the truth Theistgirl, but, honestly ask yourself if any of your reasons are more fear than real evidence for god. Whether it be fear of death, or fear of being different, don't make conclusions based on such. Of all the religions I know, Christianity(including Catholicism) seems the least likely, and the most based on fear.

himynameisPwn

Hey theistgirl, if your going to reconvert, spiffy up your site some. Some Hallelujah chorus music wouldn't be a bad touch.

Arrowman

Gurdur speaks wisely, and echoes the discomfort I felt at some of the initial responses on this thread; they looked uncomfortably like the converse of a fundamentalist message board.

That said, strong challenging of A Theist Girl's position is justified and it sounds like she's up for it.

In particular, glib though it might appear, I think the "She wasn't a True Atheist" remark is entirely appropriate. Someone who left Catholicism for two years based largely on a desire to please her partner, and then returns promptly after dumping him, sounds to me more like a "briefly lapsed Catholic" than a "reconverted atheist". What jobar said.

I also don't find ashibaka's "ReligionOfTheMonthGal" jibe particularly insulting or ad hom. I just found it very clever/appropriate/funny.

As to the rest - first let me pick out the quotes that I found most interesting...

The reasons for my reconversion to Catholicism ... And I realized that what I really wanted to do was return to the Church and the faith that I loved so much.

and from ATG's website:

...THEIST GAL, having re-converted to the Holy Roman Catholic Church...

... Three hundred and fifty brave men, almost all of them Catholic, marched into those burning towers, stopping only to PRAY - to make their last confessions to, and receive a final blessing from, a priest...

... but just to let them know what it was that started me back on the road to the Church.

Without launching into a general commentary on the RCC, I'll just point out the common theme in the above - "The Church" is mentioned far more often than "God" or "Jesus". imho the faith or Catholics is all too often more about faith in the Church, and following the rules of the Church than the Christian religion. (Well, that's true of most Christian churches, but I assert it's far more true of the RCC than any other.)

None of which invalidates ATG's position, of course - I just think this reinforces the notion of "away from / back to the Church" rather than "losing one's belief and then reacquiring it". And frankly I find the former more disturbing than the latter. But then, before I were a theist, I were a Protestant

And finally - even granted the generally recognised demographics of the NYPD and NYFD (ie, strong Irish Catholic heritage, as I understand it) - is it really necessary or justified to make the statement "Three hundred and fifty brave men, almost all of them Catholic..." as though (a) it were true (is it?) and (b) this is some way supports the notion of duty and self-sacrifice being a function of one's religion (sorry, church) than one's personal qualities as a human being.

Gurdur

hey, nice of you !
However you can see my reasons for it.
However, it sounded like one.
Had you phrased yourself otherwise, you would have been better off.
There are millions of differing types of Catholics alone. It is no help at all to tar others because of one type.
Or would you like it if a theist questioned your morals because Stalin was an atheist too ?

You did; you quoted the relevent statement yourself. You may not have meant it completely the way it came over; however, you can see why I took it the way I did.
Oh come now, you could be also mre charitable of me - you can see why I reacted the way I did.

Actually, this might turn into a very productive discussion - abiout our own atheism and humanism etc.
So why not stick around and contribute ?

Oh come now, man, this is SecWeb, where disagreements and denunciations are a million a penny, and a grand soap opera happens every three weeks.
Stick around for the resultant discussion.

Sephiroth

After seeing Theist Gal's post I am inclined to offer an apology to Theist Gal for my unfair first assumptions.

Theist Gal, I'm sorry and welcome to the SecWeb .

Panta Pei

&lt;---- &lt;raises hand&gt; Strong Atheist law enforcement officer right here.

Shall I list my brave deeds to re-re-convert or just make a weight-lifter pose:



Now everyone should be convinced of the benefits of atheism

Gurdur

Well, I'm known for it.

And thanks, truthfully.
Thank-you.
My feelings entirely. I especially dislike those who would turn us into a self-enclosed ghetto of the "right-thinking"; IMHO, it makes a mockery out of rationalism.
But then I'm an empiricist, so possibly I'm biased.
Not at all necessesarily; her website was quoted initially without her knowledge.
Asking her politely if she'ld mind discussing it might very well be in order here.
She has always been an honest and thoughtful poster.
Just a pity some of our own True Atheists can't say the same , eh ?
Nonsense.
The reasons have been given.
Actually, it wasn't "promptly"; re-read her posts.
uh huh , uh huh, uh huh.
Mind if I call you "It's-OK-That-Some-People-Should-Be-Called-"Shitheads"-Because-We-Know-We're-Right----Arrowman" ?
You do know what discussion I'm referring to, no ?
The one you never came back to to defend your and others' assertions ??
Tsk tsk tsk.
Or mind if I call you "While-I-Don't-Completely-Act-Myself-That-Way,-It's-OK-When-Atheists-Behave-Like-Bigoted-Ranters-Because-We're-Right---Arrowman" ?
Or "It's-OK-To-Slam-Deaf-Lesbians-Because-We-Want-To----Arrowman" ?

I say all of this for good reasons; I distrust your moral reasoning on this issue.
I wish to discuss this --- and you yourself brought up this very point in the previous discussion I'm referring to; you asked if it was really OK to simply be insulting in the cause of "rightness", but you never really did condemn it, more condoning it.

In that last discussion, people jibed at someone inappropriately --- and I jibed at them.
They objected to my jibing. I am laughing.
Let's see if we can hammer this one out now, OK ?

Please pardon me if I come on strongly on this one; while I know you yourself are generally polite, it's the condoning of certain behaviours that worries me, OK ?

Moreover, the characterization of Theist Gal as Religion Of The Month is completely inappropriate, given that she doesn't float between a huge range, simply Catholicism, agnotiscism, atheism and fideism --- some of which are not incompatible.

Arrrowman, as you can see from my above posts, our behaviour on this board is very important to me - and the coherency of the underlying ethics too.

So let's go over this, OK ?

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Gurdur

Man, I knew I liked and respected you greatly for good reasons, Sephiroth.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>