lol ok, well I'm going to leave that well enough alone and end it here, because criticism of myself and/or the club is only reductive to the discussion.
Firstly, I do not think reductive works that way. In fact, I'm absolutely sure it doesn't. Please don't try to "embiggen" your vocabulary. No extra points will be given because of it.
More importantly, I simply stated that I have yet to see honest examples of honest debate. Admittedly, I have not read every single page, but I should not have to go over the thread with a fine toothed comb in order to discover signs of insightful conversation. This is, after all, a thread of the Enlightened.
However, I see that criticism of your beliefs makes you uncomfortable. I apologize.
I do seem to be confused, though. I thought criticism and skepticism was the backbone of atheism. Questioning and argument, along with demands for proof and evidence, should stir you, not corner you.
My only advice to you is that you are more than welcome to introduce topics for conversation - if you have a debate in mind in which you would like to participate, please do not hesitate to do exactly that.
What values guide your actions, and what are they rooted in?
Yes, they should, though that is somewhat removed from my point. My point has little to do with whether the confirmation is voluntary or involuntary at the time it is undertaken. I am fully aware that people choose to confirm their beliefs. My concern is that the official concept of Confirmation (notice the big C) within the Church is used as a psychological barrier against departing the Church later on should a person find their "confirmed" belief wavering.
You keep saying that, actually. And I keep responding with the Catholic perspective on it. Until you can show me examples of the Church using Confirmation to bully people into staying, I'll be forced to discard your observations as not rooted in fact.
The burden of proof lies upon you, as you are saying that the Church has turned a simple statement of beliefs into a weapon. Such a statement would require proof.
Right, and it's the motives of the beautifully flawed humans who run the church that I question.
Because all humans should be perfect? It's a human organization. Though the message and core never changes, the means do.
Their motives - short of an admission from the Church itself which I doubt would ever happen - can only ever be a matter of opinion
The Church has never admitted wrongdoing?
On the contrary, whenever Church personnel realize that something has gone horribly wrong, they usually openly admit it, and attempt to correct it.
Note that I am speaking about events caused by human fallibility that occur within the church. The sex scandal, which seems to be all the rage these days, mainly because "all priests are pedos because the news said so lol" sells newspapers, is such an example. The Spanish Inquisition, which is usually held against the Church even though it was carried out by a king, and the Church actually tried to mitigate the damage done in Inquisitions, is another such example.
However, the message never changes. That's one thing people seem to miss. Perhaps because it's inconvenient. Orthodoxy, mate.
and thus will forever remain in dispute, but my experiences with the Church have taught me not to be so fast to give them the benefit of the doubt.
You're so tolerant.
Your experiences with the Church? What are you, Van Helsing?
Your experiences with a Bible-thumping old lady, do you mean? Or has the Holy Father personally wronged you?
I'm actually curious to know.
You can try, but I doubt I will ever read Lewis simply because I have zero interest in Narnia lol
I'm getting really into Lewis, and I haven't read Narnia in years.
He does write other stuff, you know. ...err, "lol".
Somehow, I doubt you're actually laughing out loud.