I’m Catholic and believe exactly what I said, as do many people. Take the moral lessons and leave the prohibitions on eating shellfish and wearing more than one type of cloth. There are more liberal and more conservative religious people, there are more liberal and more conservative priests, there are more liberal and more conservative nuns, even. And guess what? I’m not a theologian or religious scholar. Whooooaaaa. 
@bodangles
That’s fine but if you just “Take the moral lessons” then you could be from any of the thousands of religions present before Christianity. Also in order to believe in Catholicism you have to believe that the events of the bible had to have actually happened like the the creation story, Moses, and especially Jesus. You’re not just taking the moral lessons at that point.
Maybe this is why people get angry with you: to paraphrase, “You don’t actually belong to your religion.”
@jimmyboy23 The notion of the inerrant Bible which reasons that the Bible is perfect because it is the word of God and God is perfect is a distinctly fundamentalist phenomenon; I have not met a single Christian who actually believes that creation was facilitated literally through Adam and Eve. (But then again, I’m from Massachusetts and we’re all a bunch of godless heathens) Christians believe that the Bible is divinely inspired - this does not necessarily mean that the Bible is written exactly how God would have envisioned it perfectly.*
I also don’t think you can decide whether or not someone is “really” Catholic - that’s logically fallacious; with all of the social and theological fragmentation present in Christianity, you cannot pick and choose arbitrary standards that Catholics must live up to in order to be Catholic. Religions are incredibly complex enterprises that are shaped by geopolitics and culture. You said that Catholics must believe the events of the Bible, especially in regards to Jesus - but the New Testament has very little consensus about the exact details of Jesus’ life or his teachings (some Gospels say that Jesus taught exclusively in parables, others dispute that) - in light of these discrepancies, many Christians choose instead to take the underlying messages and use those to guide their faith.
*The Roman Catholic Church holds the Bible as inspired by God, but does not view God as the direct author of the Bible, in the sense that he does not put a ‘ready-made’ book in the mind of the inspired person.
*According to Frederic Farrar, Martin Luther did not understand inspiration to mean that scripture was dictated in a purely mechanical manner. Instead, Luther “held that they were not dictated by the Holy Spirit, but that His illumination produced in the minds of their writers the knowledge of salvation, so that divine truth had been expressed in human form, and the knowledge of God had become a personal possession of man. The actual writing was a human not a supernatural act.”
*The typical view within Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity rejects the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired in a unique way. Some advocates of higher criticism who espouse this view even go so far as to regard the Bible as purely a product of human invention. However, most form critics, such as Rudolf Bultmann and Walter Brueggemann, still regard the Bible as a sacred text, just not a text that communicates the unaltered word of God.
I think this is a good point to turn back and ask the original poster if this is how his experiences with intellectual discussion usually turn out.
Here is and example of how discussions turn out, and since climate change is a topic you guys seem to like 
lets use that one:
Some guy, “Climate change is horrible, I can’t believe we let out so much carbon emissions; let’s do something about it! What do you think Patton?”
Me, “Before we talk about “what” to do, I think we should find a global consensus on what we want the average temperature to be”
Some guy, “But we are causing so much destruction to the environment, we have to do something! Are you stupid?”
Me, “The fact that we could be causing the global temperature to change isn’t a problem, the problem is that the temperature may not be where it needs to be. We should figure out what we the optimal temperature is be and get it to that level; I would say the same thing if it is mother nature changing the global temperature”
Some guy “whats wrong with you? insert rant and name calling here ____”
I don’t even get to elaborate more on “why” my views are like this, and I don’t get to hear “why” the other persons views are the way they are. the conversation stops there. There is little substance to discussions like that; we hear the others view, but never the “why.” The conversation just stops, people get mad, and then I have to try to avoid sensitive topics such as climate change, gay marriage (my views on this get liberal and conservative people mad), immigration (I’m sure I make both sides mad about this as well), taxes (liberals are made mad when my view here is brought up), legalization of drugs (conservatives get mad here), and…
Also, side note, @juillet I support a flat tax rate because corporations get crazy loop holes (both republicans and democrats allow this), and it bothers me that you can “cheat” your way to lower taxes with accounts, lobbyists, and lawyers. Small businesses, me, you… we can’t afford that. I do agree that a flat tax would be regressive, but it’d be the closest thing to “fair” that I’ve came across (nothing is perfect).
Also, let’s not talk about religion here; that leads to unpleasant conversations (especially on the internet!). We are in a system that loses 0% of its energy (all of existence), ask any engineer or scientist if that is possible to create. The fact we exist should be impossible. Since we should not be here in the first place, let’s enjoy life, and stop criticizing anyones religion or lack of a religion.
That’s…weird, and I guess I don’t have enough discussions to know if it’s uncommon or not.
My strategy for these conversations is usually to “play dumb” and ask a lot of clarifying questions, because it prevents the discussion from becoming something that can be “won” or “lost.” For example, “we should do something about climate change” is incredibly vague. Who is “we” and what is “something”? For all you know, he’d say, “We should get a global consensus on what temperature we want the world to be.” <:-P
It might help to avoid this kind of self-defeating mindset, as well. A lot of times, conversations about religion (or politics, etc.) are unpleasant simply because people think there’s no other way to talk about religion.
@Patton370
I’m sorry you’ve had that experience. Most of my conversations actually don’t go that way or I should say haven’t gone that way since high school. Usually it is a back and forth of arguments. I also never get mad when hearing another’s point of view. I don’t know why I would.
I know you don’t want to discuss religion and I respect that but in response to your energy question:
You are referencing the first law of thermodynamics. It basically says the amount of energy in the universe is constant and energy cannot be created or destroyed but only change forms. I would respond to your challenge of finding a scientist or engineer who believes they can make a system that does not “lose” energy and I’m pretty sure any most would be able to answer by saying that once you define a viable system and analyze it correctly, it will always obey the first law of thermodynamics, hence it will never “lose” energy unless it has interactions with the surroundings. Then energy can cross into the surroundings, but all we have to do is stretch our system and we can still have it where the energy has remained constant. Then expand this to the scale of the universe and you get the First Law of Thermodynamics. You may have been talking about inefficient machines like us not being able to create a machine working with perpetual motion, then the answer is more obvious in the sense the energy is still there just in different forms. Instead of kinetic energy you now have heat and sound energy. So yes any scientist should say they absolutely can build a machine to your specifications.
I’d like to see the names on that 97% “consensus” list. Are there any geologists on the list? The earth’s sea level has been rising and falling for millions of years-- so the only thing that’s new about it is that “97%” agree that “the sky is falling” and they need funding to study it or use it as a cudgel for political power.
http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Krantz/Va_Coast_figures/Fig09.sea_level.200_ka.jpg
Yes there are many geological scientists that endorse the view that Climate change is occurring on a global scale and that it is the cause of human actions.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Also there are far more arguments than the sea level. The most telling evidence comes from the rate at which temperatures have been rising and the emergence of plant and wildlife species further north than we’ve ever seen them go in the history of the world.
@jimmyboy23
I should have been more specific with my definition. Restrict the size of the system, and any energy escaping the system is now defined as “lost.”
Also, I was trying to, with minimal words, show how incredible our very existence is. All the laws that govern what we do, the complexity of everything… its epic. Whether it was created by divine means or complete luck, we should still be amazed. Why do we have gravity? Is it there just because thats how things are? Why are these laws valid, were they defined by something/someone… did they come from nothing? If someone/something defined them for us, where did they come from? Let’s start with nothing in existence… now we still have nothing. It’s phenomenal that we exist.
I am perfectly happy to talk about religion in person… but over the internet, it tends tend to lead to personal attacks.
@Patton370 - I have a midterm on Tuesday in my New Testament class. Talking about religion here makes me feel less guilty about not studying, lol.
@GMTplus7 @jimmyboy23
I want the conversation to focus more on the main topic, but… I’ve been slightly deprived of intellectual discussion, so here’s stuff on climate change! 
Some things that need to be taken into consideration when talking climate change:
On average, the standard of living improves each year. Doing too much is similar to poor people giving to rich people; the people in the future, should and likely will be better off than us. What sort of economic consequences are worth the sacrifice now?
Should we hold less developed countries back? Some countries need to burn dirty coal/cause other pollution in order to “catch up” to us. Should we keep those countries from developing and improving at a fast rate?
Just some things to think about.
Also, here’s a nice graph I like: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall14/atmo336/lectures/sec6/CMIP5_global_UAH_RSS.png (Also, I happen to go to UAH)
Predicted vs. actual. Predicting climate change can get a little wacky.
@Patton370
I may be misunderstanding what you are saying but the scenario you propose is certainly coherent with the first law of thermodynamics.
You’re absolutely right that we should be amazed. I am amazed by a lot of the things in the universe and how they work. I don’t view these things as being mystical though, I view myself as not yet understanding them and would be able to given enough time to study and research them. I think you are falling under the category of “God of the gaps” argument. Basically there is something you can’t explain and so proposing God is the cause is a very simple explanation and we don’t have to worry about exploring any further. The problem with this argument is that there almost always is a natural answer to the question. It also has to do with inability to see things on a scale of time and space much larger than our own lifetime. Evolution looks very miraculous until you see it happen over the course of millions of years (it’s very similar to a painting being made). I will be the first to admit that I would not be able to answer satisfactorily many of your questions about the universe being that I am only a Freshman engineering major. The thing I would advise you to do is to explore for the answers to your questions and see if there aren’t scientific theories based in evidence that could answer your questions about creation and the laws of nature. There’s a little bit of fault in your logic of causality and some of your answers may be found in theoretical physics (multiverse). Beyond that, I can’t say much because I am not an expert.
One last note is that the prevalence of the “God of the gaps argument” comes from it being a continuous argument. You can always just adjust where you bring in God. Goes well with creation of the universe, because no matter how much new evidence you bring in and further identify how the universe unfolded. Whenever something new comes along to debunk God as the cause, You just place God as the cause of the new thing.
@preamble1776
Haha, my school doesn’t even offer any classes on religion How are religion classes in college?
@Patton370 - Well, I go to a state school, so they’re Religious Studies courses and not Theology courses - I love them. I’ve taken three so far. The department is pretty small so they only offer a minor but they are expanding to a major next year and I’ll declare a second major in it. Some of the classes are just surveys on certain religions based off of religious texts (like my New Testament class) - others are more like history classes (Islamic History, History of the Jews), others are sociological and anthropological critiques of different religions in conjunction with one another - like a course on the “Religious Landscape of the United States.” Last semester I took a course analyzing the modern Atheist movement in the West and Atheist critiques with contemporary religious thought. Very diverse subject area. Next semester I’m taking a course on Greco-Roman Paganism that I’m pretty excited about.
@jimmyboy23
Yeah, I don’t think I am being coherent enough in what I am explaining; I’ll likely do a better job after I take thermo this spring (2016)
@preamble1776
Those sound fun and interesting! If my school offered those, I could see myself taking some for fun (likely the New Testament class, History of the Jews class, and/or the course that analyzed the modern Atheist movement)
Why can’t discussions in person be more like this thread? It actually seems to be fairly civil here haha
Because too many individuals these days that just want to repeat what mommy and daddy says, or regurgitate what they heard in class (or on the news). Most individuals lack a unique view on matters and rather decide along political lines-It’s easy. They overreact because they don’t know how to counter sincere logical viewpoints (not saying all of your view points are logical). They are “one trick ponies” who, at the moment haven’t learned to truly think for themselves. My personal views are conservative in nature, and are base purely on logic and my own morality. They’re easy to argue because they are truly my own.