Catholic Christians are likely wrong

"The rule is that pregnancy is caused by sexual intercourse and no other means (pre-IVF). You believe in the rule because everyone in our society believes it to be true. You have probably had the rule explained to you by your parents, and by your science teachers. The rule is supported by the books you read and the conversations you have. It is consistent with broader theories of biology. Like everyone else in our society, you accept its truth without searching for further evidence." This may be the single most hypocritical statement I've heard in awhile. Approximately zero people in the entire world choose a separate religion from their parents' religion. Nearly every Catholic I've ever met (pretty much my whole area is Catholic) have never considered whether or not it's true, and never search for more evidence. You say being born of a virgin isn't weird!? I don't just accept it as truth because my parents told me, I accept it as truth because the only known case is in Jesus, who doesn't for sure exist! I don't think I should worry about scientists discovering a new way of giving birth, because if it happens it will be because of technology rather than something the Holy Spirit did. You saying that I might be ignorant like most people isn't helping you out ("if your teachers, family and friends were convinced and talking about it in an excited way, then you too would change your mind and think that it could well have happened."). Besides, you blew this entire *example* out of proportion. You're going to have to accept the Bible sates some pretty weird ("absurd") stuff. The law of killing your neighbour for working on the Sabbath say? The whole belief system even makes you say "Oh what the #%^*". Here's a quote from George Carlin, who is a comedian (you probably know) but also one of the smartest men of all time: "Religion easily has the greatest b/s story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you." Let's take a step back, whether you believe Catholics are right or wrong, they without a doubt believe in some really "weird" things that are for sure hard to believe in. Now I'll use your own ignorance argument against you; Most Catholics believe what they do because they never considered it "like everyone else in our society" (quote from you), and I think that the fact that Catholics believe in unusual things that will probably never be proven is definitley a valid argument. This is exactly why I'm an atheist, because "beliefs are supported by religious and social authorities". This to me is why religion is wrong as a whole. Now I know the debate topic is that Catholics are wrong, but I'm trying to say it from an atheist standpoint. I only chose Catholicism because it's the religion I know most about, and I wouldn't want to argue a Muslim from an atheist standpoint because I honestly don't even know what their beliefs are. As a response to second part: *Bill Maher chuckle* I told you to prove that god moves in mysterious ways, but you didn't. Instead, you tell me there is a lot we don't know about god. Cool! I'll tell you the reason I said "prove it". To say that god moves in mysterious ways is ridiculous, because you don't even know that he does, but rather you say that as a response when atheists ask why evil exists. My second argument of the eleven was that every Catholic response is as well questionable. This is a prime example, you say god moves in mysterious ways, I say prove it. And you never could. Now I'll actually take your arguement into my perspective. "The parallel would be an atheist who does not claim to understand everything about the universe, who would accept that such understanding is beyond a mortal"s abilities." The difference between an atheist saying he doesn't know everything about the universe and a Catholic saying he doesn't know anything about God is that at least what the atheist knows about the universe IS BASED ON FACTS. What a Catholic knows about God is actually things not based on facts but based on what their uncredible book states. Here's an example: an atheist knows that there are other planets than earth because they've seen them with their eyes (making it a "fact"), but a Catholic says that god persuaded Abram to leave his polytheistic society and follow him- NOTICE THIS ISN'T A FACT, it actually just came from the Bible. So saying that an atheist not knowing everything about universe is the same as a Catholic not knowing everything about is 100% WRONG. Uh, yeah...it isn't possible for someone to continue her faith even if parts of the doctrine make no sense to her. You are right about those things being beliefs (dreams, memories, etc). But those beliefs are on a whole different spectrum than believing in god. The only thing they have in common actually is that they are both beliefs. If those things aren't real, then god isn't real either, and honestly nobody knows what is actually going on. I argue my case assuming that all these things are real, and you should be arguing your case assuming that all these things are real too. Breaking it down, if god doesn't exist, these things still can, but not the other way around. So it cancels itself out and goes back to the initial argument of whether or not god exists period. I don't think it's necessary to take it to this extreme of a level where we question everthing's existence. As a response to third part: "It's not far-fetched to suppose that there was a man who preached against religious laws, annoyed the authorities and was executed." These were some things he did that were not far-fetched, I know- but there were things he did that were far-fetched- curing leprosy, walking on water, etc. You can say that it's easier for the writers to exaggerate a story (kind of proves most Catholics wrong) that is somewhat real, the people who wrote it even existed, which there isn't any proof of. The Bible is so questionable and scriptures have been around so long to the point where we don't know how it came to be what it is today. I don't see how the Jesus/Joseph coincedence is weak, they have nearly identical stories with slightly different content. The argument by the way is that Jesus is based off of Joseph,meaning he didn't exist. You also didn't respond to my other Jesus arguments (see my round 2 post), could you respond to them in round 3? Thanks again anyways for this debate.