Catholic Christians are likely wrong

1. I guess I'm just a realist. I wouldn't believe in something that weird unless there was amazing evidence. You know, not just a book with questionable history said so. 2. You probably don't know what I'm saying with this but that's okay, I didn't really expect anybody to. As for the faith thing, I don't honestly think that's a good enough excuse to believe something absurd wthout super good evidence. Even hardcore Catholics I know (I'm at a Jesuit school) tell me that "faith is never a good enough reason. 3. I see what you're saying with the Pope thing, but it isn't what I'm talking about. Think of it like this: You and I are sitting at a table with a huge stack of cards, each one representing a religion and what their beliefs are. I ask you all of your reasons why you think each religion is wrong. Eventually you would notice a lot of the arguments are reusable. Once we've gone through the stack there is one left- Catholicism. I'm sure almost all the arguments you said against other religions sould work well against Cahtolicism as well. I guess the moral is that Christianity is no better than anything else, but they are convinced they are right and others are wrong (at least most of them). 4. I'll be glad to hear your arguments for Jesus existing. Here a mine for him not existing: I think that Jesus was based on Joseph in the Old Testament- Please read this: ( http://near-death.com... ). Jesus' time is considered one of the most well-documented periods in history from what I've heard, and all the many historians that lived around his area during or just after the life of Jesus never mentioned a word about him despite all his miracles. Also, the born on December 25th, walk on water, born of a virgin things were unoriginal; there were other gods before Jesus that apparently did that, and are now considered myths. 5. Oooh. This has nothing to do with what I was saying. I guess I shouldn't have said "unfair". What I mean is that a literalist Christian is easy to prove wrong, correct? But most reasonable Christians say they look for the message in each passage. They determine when it is not supposed to be taken seriously and when it is, but what I'm trying to get across is that you can't really just say nearly every time a story that doesn't make sense in the Bible (example, Noah's Ark) you aren't supposed to be taking it literally, but whenever it does make sense it actually happened. How do you know Jesus wasn't just an allegorical character not to be taken literally. 6. This was smart of you. I've though about it myself. I guess this whole thing plays on the "God is good" thing, right? But the debate is whether or not Catholics are wrong, and I take it that they say God is good, yet he allows humans to burn forever for making very common mistakes. 7. This is the agnostic side of me. I'm not a science person, I just think a lot. I don't claim to know why we are here, but rather that it is for now beyond our knowledge to know all the answers. You seem to be agreeing with me on the lack of evidence. Why would you believe in something absurd wthout great evidence? 8. But why do they say it's allegorical? Because they don't want to be wrong? To add, most Christians I know or have heard of are sure they are right, even though they must accept it's a *belief*. 9. I forgot to mention this is a response to a common argument I hear: You can't disprove God. My bad. 10. Prove to me that God moves in mysterious ways. Like I said, faith isn't enough. This also brings back my second argument that each Christian response is as well questionable, especially by saying "prove it". If there was much proof in Catholics being right, I would find it easier to believe in. 11. See 8. Sorry about the formatting, I wanted to do it my own style. Thanks for responding.