Atheists and Theists are both right

[caross73]

Ultimately the people decide what to believe. I think they have to be educated when they believe silly things that can be used to justify atrocities. Unfortunately, they think the silly rationales are harmless, and should not be criticized (deeply held beliefs - stop being such an arrogant theophobe), when in fact it is precisely the idea that Faith is an acceptable justification for behavior that allows one to do almost any evil that strikes one's fancy. Faith can be used to justify good things, as well as bad, but when you cede your actions to an ultimate moral authority, such as God -- well, you can see what has happened in the past. Do the people have a choice in which parts of scripture to believe? If its truly divine, then I don't think they do. You can't reject something on the basis that God wouldn't want that, when a dozen other people on the same grounds say he would!

How do you decide what to believe is a VERY important question.

Choose? Well, I won't put it so black and white. Afterall, some people have religion almost literally hammered in them: they don't know any better. You've also got to rationalise the fact that the majority still doesn't use religion to justify evil actions. Islamic extremists, the Westboro church, they're all minorities.
How they decide, well that's a very interesting question indeed, one I can't answer.

The moderates are justifying the rationale used by the extremists. If God can command me not to eat shellfish, or not to allow the gays to marry, what can't he command someone else to do? How can we be opposed to Islamic extremists, killing for their God, if we in truth have no idea what God wants, and yet we accept that he is real, and he wants us to live a certain way? There is no difference between their commandments and ours, except one of interpretation, yet cafeteria Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible they like, excluding things about stoning adulterers and burning witches, for no reason other than they personally don't think God wants those things (see, that is Old Testament -- God changed his mind and did away with all that by a nifty re-interpretation of what Christ supposedly came to do - to abolish the law, not obey it). Fundamentalists say 'you can't do that, you have to accept OUR interpretation.' How do they know? Nobody has any evidence one way or the other.

If you really believe, that God is real, and he has given you an order in the form of a divinely inspired text ... who are you to say 'nah, this part of it is great, but that part of the scripture is for chumps.'

See, the funny thing is, the fundamentalists at least aren't hypocrites. They aren't picking and choosing -- they are consistent - this is God's word and there can be no reinterpretation. The moderates however, well, they have no way of saying their interpretation is any better than any one else's unless they have access to some OTHER source of morality than their gut instinct and the God they don't take seriously.

 

[Tarmon'gaidin]

I'm very sorry for this but I was too lazy to actually read your entire topic.

So I'm just going to react to the titel; Atheists and Theists are both right

That doesn't make sense doesn't it?

Did my reply make any sense? No I gues not.

Maybey that should tell you something.

 

[TramanTraks]

A point that so often goes unaddressed in discussions about religion is that all these different belief systems and any holy book or religious text was created by man. So really, we can go around and around in circles forever but it doesn't change the fact that the extent of human knowledge encompasses only what we can teach ourselves. There is no quantitative evidence to prove anyone has ever spoken to god(s), therefore no one can know the will of god(s). I have no intention of condemning anyones beliefs but i have noticed, on many occasions, the paradox of finding proof of the supernatural in the man-made.

Hopefully this gets the convo-ball rolling again.

 

[runtheplacered]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjvSX4Y8C1o

His views on agnosticism are pretty weak. He calls it a "cross your fingers behind your back" way of thinking, and that's rubbish. I'm an agnostic, and while I don't believe in heaven and hell, or any particular need to appease a God, I'm not one to say that there is no God in some other form. For example, I absolutely am (as he puts it) unconvinced that Christianity is the one true form of worshiping the deity. But, I'm not convinced that there could be some other form of a God, which I could not possibly be able to describe or demonstrate, and at the same time am not "crossing my fingers" for anything. I just simply am not willing to say I "Know" the answer to the unanswerable question. I'm not an agnostic because of some "just in case" theory. And I find it simple minded of him to assume such a thing. I don't believe in a heaven and hell, so there's nothing for me to worry about and make me feel that I need to do anything "just in case".

I like his fictional works and his appearances on Monty Python, but his views on theology (or the lack there of) just don't appeal to me.

 

[Baby Tea]

...cafeteria Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible they like, excluding things about stoning adulterers and burning witches, for no reason other than they personally don't think God wants those things. Fundamentalists say 'you can't do that, you have to accept OUR interpretation.' How do they know? Nobody has any evidence one way or the other.

If you really believe, that God is real, and he has given you an order in the form of a divinely inspired text ... who are you to say 'nah, this part of it is great, but that part of the scripture is for chumps.'

See, the funny thing is, the fundamentalists at least aren't hypocrites. They aren't picking and choosing -- they are consistent. The moderates however, well, they have no way of saying their interpretation is any better than any one elses unless they have access to some OTHER source of morality than their gut instinct and the God they don't take seriously.

Well this only shows that neither you, or the fundamentalist extremists, understand or know anything about hermeneutics, exegesis, isagesis, or general theology. Really, it's the extremists who are twisting the book to suit their needs, hate, and bigotry.

Christians who don't follow those parts of the Bible that say 'burn witches' and 'stone adulterers' aren't 'moderates'. They are following what Christians are actually supposed to follow, which is the teachings of Christ.

 

[caross73]

...cafeteria Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible they like, excluding things about stoning adulterers and burning witches, for no reason other than they personally don't think God wants those things. Fundamentalists say 'you can't do that, you have to accept OUR interpretation.' How do they know? Nobody has any evidence one way or the other.

If you really believe, that God is real, and he has given you an order in the form of a divinely inspired text ... who are you to say 'nah, this part of it is great, but that part of the scripture is for chumps.'

See, the funny thing is, the fundamentalists at least aren't hypocrites. They aren't picking and choosing -- they are consistent. The moderates however, well, they have no way of saying their interpretation is any better than any one elses unless they have access to some OTHER source of morality than their gut instinct and the God they don't take seriously.

Well this only shows that neither you, or the fundamentalist extremists, understand or know anything about hermeneutics, exegesis, isagesis, or general theology. Really, it's the extremists who are twisting the book to suit their needs, hate, and bigotry.

Christians who don't follow those parts of the Bible that say 'burn witches' and 'stone adulterers' aren't 'moderates'. They are following what Christians are actually supposed to follow, which is the teachings of Christ.

Right. You've got a better reason than them to understand what your God tells you in a particular way. He changed his mind about the keeping slaves, stoning adulterers, etc... You have way that relies on reproducible evidence, and testing, as opposed to reinterpretation of your particular set of parables, rhetorical argumentation, and your particular unevidenced belief about how to reliably communicate with the divine.

Thank you for making my point. Everybody thinks that they've got the in-road, everybody else is clueless. And of course, thats just fine! Well great, now go and support the idea that hermeneutics and exegesis is any better at getting at the truth. If you can do that without using the Bible (that which you are interpreting) as your primary source of justification for your particular truth, great!

Islam has experts in hermeneutics, the interpretation of the Koran. Go ask them why you are correct and they are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasr_Abu_Zayd#Humanistic_Hermeneutics_of_the_Islam

 

[Zephyr618]

For me it seems the following things are true if God exists:
This world is a home to all spirits present with the ability to choose what they believe in. In order for atheists to have a home the universe must look natural, else atheism would fail quickly. Those who reach for the divine can find it. Those who reach for rationality can find it. Throughout our lives we work out our karma, often with great suffering. Suffering is not evil when viewed across many lives for each spirit (yes I just invoked some form of re-incarnation)

This world is home to matter, and nothing more. The fact we have brains and can think is merely an accident of nature. Unfortunately, most people aren't smart enough to figure that out for themselves so they believe the more pleasing and easier to understand explanation that they are a spirit that will live forever. There are no spirits.

The world would also look natural is there were no god.

Billions of people "reach for the divine" They die unaware that they have wasted their lives chasing ghosts. Though I suppose that those who reach for rationality can find it, as I have.

I'm not going to insult you as I intended on doing when I entered this thread, but I am going to say that your title is only half-right.

btw I thought Christians didn't believe in re-incarnation.

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

His views on agnosticism are pretty weak. He calls it a "cross your fingers behind your back" way of thinking, and that's rubbish. I'm an agnostic, and while I don't believe in heaven and hell, or any particular need to appease a God, I'm not one to say that there is no God in some other form. For example, I absolutely am (as he puts it) unconvinced that Christianity is the one true form of worshiping the deity. But, I'm not convinced that there could be some other form of a God, which I could not possibly be able to describe or demonstrate, and at the same time am not "crossing my fingers" for anything. I just simply am not willing to say I "Know" the answer to the unanswerable question. I'm not an agnostic because of some "just in case" theory. And I find it simple minded of him to assume such a thing. I don't believe in a heaven and hell, so there's nothing for me to worry about and make me feel that I need to do anything "just in case".

I like his fictional works and his appearances on Monty Python, but his views on theology (or the lack there of) just don't appeal to me.

Yes, and even among intellectuals, you're not alone.


But I think the heart of Adams' argument, that disputes this line of thinking, is when he talks about the burden of proof.

 

[Atomicmoo]

And I can state I think your both wrong...

 

[Baby Tea]

Well this only shows that neither you, or the fundamentalist extremists, understand or know anything about hermeneutics, exegesis, isagesis, or general theology. Really, it's the extremists who are twisting the book to suit their needs, hate, and bigotry.

Christians who don't follow those parts of the Bible that say 'burn witches' and 'stone adulterers' aren't 'moderates'. They are following what Christians are actually supposed to follow, which is the teachings of Christ.

Right. You've got a better reason than them to understand what your God tells you in a particular way. One that relies on observation, and evidence, as opposed to reinterpretation of your particular set of parables, your particular belief about how to communicate properly with the divine.

Thank you for making my point.

It is observation and simple hermeneutics. While I could go into great detail about the Old Testament being the Law, and Christians being under grace and not the law and all the verses that go along and show that (They're even in context!), and not have one verse that says otherwise in all of scripture (Even when taken literally), I'll be brief:

Your posts have only shown that you have a contempt for religion and God that must come from somewhere. You mentioned you used to belief in God, but now you don't. I wouldn't say it's much of a jump to assume that someone, or a group, affiliated with the church may have hurt you in some way, thus your present resentment.

If that's not true, then I am a bit baffled as to why someone would be so adamantly opposed to a set of beliefs that really don't have anything to do with you. I disagree with many worldviews, but I certainly don't rail against them with the zeal that you seem to, save anti-theists and theophobes.

Either that, or you're just a simple troll.
If so, bravo.

If not, then it's sad to see one more person who really can't just let people believe what they wish without ridicule, resentment, or zealous, self-righteous argument. That goes for theists and non/anti-theists alike.
I'm all for healthy debate and discussion, and as crazy as it is for me to think there isn't a God, or for you to think there is one, I'd like to think one could do that without using passive-aggressive mockery.

 

[caross73]

Well this only shows that neither you, or the fundamentalist extremists, understand or know anything about hermeneutics, exegesis, isagesis, or general theology. Really, it's the extremists who are twisting the book to suit their needs, hate, and bigotry.

Christians who don't follow those parts of the Bible that say 'burn witches' and 'stone adulterers' aren't 'moderates'. They are following what Christians are actually supposed to follow, which is the teachings of Christ.

Right. You've got a better reason than them to understand what your God tells you in a particular way. One that relies on observation, and evidence, as opposed to reinterpretation of your particular set of parables, your particular belief about how to communicate properly with the divine.

Thank you for making my point.

It is observation and simple hermeneutics. While I could go into great detail about the Old Testament being the Law, and Christians being under grace and not the law and all the verses that go along and show that (They're even in context!), and not have one verse that says otherwise in all of scripture (Even when taken literally), I'll be brief:

Your posts have only shown that you have a contempt for religion and God that must come from somewhere. You mentioned you used to belief in God, but now you don't. I wouldn't say it's much of a jump to assume that someone, or a group, affiliated with the church may have hurt you in some way, thus your present resentment.

If that's not true, then I am a bit baffled as to why someone would be so adamantly opposed to a set of beliefs that really don't have anything to do with you. I disagree with many worldviews, but I certainly don't rail against them with the zeal that you seem to, save anti-theists and theophobes.

Either that, or you're just a simple troll.
If so, bravo.

If not, then it's sad to see one more person who really can't just let people believe what they wish without ridicule, resentment, or zealous, self-righteous argument. That goes for theists and non/anti-theists alike.
I'm all for healthy debate and discussion, and as crazy as it is for me to think there isn't a God, or for you to think there is one, I'd like to think one could do that without using passive-aggressive mockery.

Again, why can't you attack the message instead of inferring my motivations (which you know nothing at ALL about). Either you have a good universal basis for your beliefs or you don't. As it is, I'm extremely skeptical that you do. Unsubstantiated claims of hermeneutic authority don't convince. If there was ONE correct way to interpret your scriptures, heck, HISTORY, almost everybody would have realized it by now and we wouldn't have religion, we'd have the Science of Yhwhology. You've had 2000 years, and yet, here we are. Your religion itself is fragmented around how to believe. There is no standard because there is no way of bringing your claims down to reality. All there is are many groups saying THIS is the standard. Nobody can check who is right or wrong.

I already told you why I feel as I do. Because Faith is dangerous and needs to be called to task.

I'd like to think one could do that without using passive-aggressive mockery.

I'm sorry you consider questioning the validity of a particular set of beliefs mockery. I don't see anything funny about it. Religion is THE ISSUE for the 21st century. The rise of Islam, the rise of anti-science ideologies and creationism, the right to privacy and the need for defense. We are going to be having this discussion for a long time.

 

[Baby Tea]

Again, why can't you attack the message instead of inferring my motivations. Either you have a good reason for your beliefs or you don't. As it is, I'm extremely skeptical that you do. Unsubstantiated claims of hermeneutic authority don't convince. If there was ONE correct way to interpret your scriptures, almost everybody would have realized it by now. You've had 2000 years, and yet, here we are.

I already told you why I feel as I do. Because Faith is dangerous.

I would say my own existential experiences, philosophical wrestling, reading, learning, questions and answers have led me to believe what I do.

You know there is a popular Biblical proverb that says: 'The love of money is the root of all evil'. It's often misquoted as 'Money is the root of all evil'. The difference being that money itself isn't inherently evil, but it can be used and manipulated in evil ways.

I'd say the same with faith and you thinking it's 'dangerous'. Faith isn't dangerous. It can be used, manipulated, and spread in dangerous, and evil, ways...but faith itself isn't inherently dangerous or evil.

There are millions of people who are happier, have found a peace, have found the strength to get through the hardest of human trials all because of their faith in a God or gods. The fact that I or you may or do disagree with their ideas of God(s) is irrelevant to them. They are happy. They found peace.

I haven't been saying here how Christianity is the one truth over all, only that I wish to see people get along and just respect each other regardless of system of belief.

You, however, seem to have the same delusion that most other anti-theists have: That this world would be a better place without religion. This naive notion misses the point that religion has been an excuse or catalyst in many terrible acts, I won't deny it, but if you remove that excuse or catalyst, then mankind will simply find another one. The removal of religion is a band-aid solution for the savagery of mankind.

Now you might not think that way, and not want the removal of religion. Perhaps you only want that people have real reasons for believing what they do. Well many people, admittedly perhaps not all, wouldn't believe what they do without having what they see as a good reason. And, frankly, it isn't your place or station to demand anything from them on their reasons for their faith. They don't need to explain anything to you.
You don't get it? Then don't get it.
You got questions about it? Then try approaching it with some more tact, rather then slightly veiled mockery.

 

[caross73]

frankly, it isn't your place or station to demand anything from them on their reasons for their faith.

I'm not making any demands. You are. You demand I approach this issue with more tact, and yet I'm not the one hurling insults. You've now called me delusional. If I'm delusional for asking for answers to hard questions, then all thinkers have been insane.

Faith IS the problem. Faith can be used to justify anything. You say people will use it to justify their actions is PRECISELY why it isn't simply a private affair.

I'd say the same with faith and you thinking it's 'dangerous'. Faith isn't dangerous. It can be used, manipulated, and spread in dangerous, and evil, ways...but faith itself isn't inherently dangerous or evil.

If Faith DEFINES what evil is, what bad is, how on earth can it be manipulated for evil. Faith itself, if one believes in a Moral Authority, is what defines what evil is.

There are millions of people who are happier, have found a peace, have found the strength to get through the hardest of human trials all because of their faith in a God or gods. The fact that I or you may or do disagree with their ideas of God(s) is irrelevant to them. They are happy. They found peace.

And in a universe with no God, it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to find peace. Is that what you claim?

I haven't been saying here how Christianity is the one truth over all, only that I wish to see people get along and just respect each other regardless of system of belief.

Well then start by finding a way to unify Christianity, a way that everyone will be able to see and agree upon, and bring the fundamentalists back into the fold. I suspect that that is impossible, and why you will never manage to achieve what you want. You are playing with the very forces of irrationality and asking them all to get along.

You, however, seem to have the same delusion that most other anti-theists have: That this world would be a better place without religion.

Well that depends. It certainly would be a more realistic place.

This naive notion misses the point that religion has been an excuse or catalyst in many terrible acts, I won't deny it, but if you remove that excuse or catalyst, then mankind will simply find another one. The removal of religion is a band-aid solution for the savagery of mankind.

Conjecture. You've never tried. The addition of religion is merely a placebo solution for the savagery of mankind that doesn't treat the underlying disease.

Now you might not think that way, and not want the removal of religion. Perhaps you only want that people have real reasons for believing what they do. Well many people, admittedly perhaps not all, wouldn't believe what they do without having what they see as a good reason. And, frankly, it isn't your place or station to demand anything from them on their reasons for their faith. They don't need to explain anything to you.
You don't get it? Then don't get it.

You got questions about it? Then try approaching it with some more tact, rather then slightly veiled mockery.

That is your opinion. My opinion is that I'm the only one taking this seriously. You're just trying to buck the question. If you had answers that had any meaning, I might. But you seem to like picking fights on the basis of Hermeneutics actually having answers, and everyone else being wrong. I'm not sure how I've done anything worse than you. First you say my Faith is the correct one, then you say everyone is entitled to be wrong about it.

The things you want, people to get along, you can never achieve until you start understanding what knowledge actually is.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

My personal solution to the whole god problem is this: God came, made the universe, and left. I find this a reasonable middle ground. It seems silly to me to ultimately except the fact that there was no god involved in the creation of the universe, for after all, there all many implications in modern science that say that the universe has just always existed, has just always been there. And of course, only a god could create something that's always been in existence. It also seems silly to me that god would take the time to answer a prayer from someone, or that god would even take the time to sort out the good soul from the bad soul. Because has everyone has stated, good and bad are completely relative, and God knows that. I find it hard to believe that us humans, being just a bunch of atoms, are more important then any other bunches of atoms floating around in the universe. So it doesn't seem to me that we are anything special to god.

That's just my interpretation, I am not claiming it to be the right one.

 

[Iskenator67]

I'm an Atheist because I've read the stories about god and to me they are just to far fetched to believe. Sorry if that offends anyone.
Very interesting article.

 

[Captain Blackout]

You told an untruth, that Hitler was not Catholic.

That is a lie. The Catholic church did not disown Hitler from its members in good standing until after his death.

THAT is the very definition of Catholicism. He was baptized, he remained in the church through the Holocaust. Either you are simply ignorant, or you are deliberately lying - I suspect the latter since you seem very knowledgeable on Hitler and Religion. So which is it?

In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews. In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." His private statements, as reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but critical of traditional Christianity. Here Hitler made at least one attack against Catholicism that "resonated Streicher's contention that the Catholic establishment was allying itself with the Jews." In light of these private statements, for John S. Conway and many other historians it is beyond doubt that Hitler held a "fundamental antagonism" towards the Christian churches. The various accounts of Hitler's private statements vary strongly in their reliability; Most importantly, Hermann Rauschning's Hitler speaks is considered by most historians to be an invention. An overview about Hitler's religious beliefs, based on his apparent private statements, can be found in the acclaimed book by Michael Rißmann or in Richard Steigmann-Gall's controversial book on Nazism and Christianity, pp. 252?259.
In the political relations with the churches in Germany however, Hitler readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes". According to some, Hitler had a general plan, even before the rise of the Nazis to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich. The leader of the Hitler Youth stated "the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement" from the start, but "considerations of expedience made it impossible" publicly to express this extreme position.

Hitler was as Catholic as the Dalai Lama, for different reasons. Do we get to ask you the same question Caross?

*snip*

I'm not even going to actually quote this guy. I just want to say I do NOT share his perspective, even in my most fundamentalist moments. Nyctoftero, you should really read a book called "If Grace is True."

This thread was supposed to be about healthy open discussion and possibly building bridges. I don't mind flaming, I fire back but this is nuts. Oh well, fail for me.

I should say something else here. I've claimed I'm a fundamentalist Christian and a misanthropic atheist. For some complicated reasons both are true. However at heart and at my best I'm a Christian Taoist. What I get from Christianity would be more easily recognized by Lao Tzu or the Dalai Lama then say the Baptist Church. I take the broad view and look for connections across cultures.

I think my next thread will be....something more antagonistic.

 

[caross73]

If Hitler was not a Catholic, why was Pius XII sending a Bishop to bless him on his birthday and why did the Vatican wait to disown him until after his death. Or are now we defining Catholic as what one secretly considers themselves to be rather than what one is considered by others to be. If that is the case, then nothing Hitler has said can be used as evidence since he has contradicted himself at multiple times. But as far as the church was concerned, as far as GERMANY was concerned, as far as EUROPE was concerned, Hitler was a Christian and a Catholic, and Catholics, as represented by the Vatican, never disowned him until long after the scope of what he had done was revealed. The Pope even publicly lauded Hitler for the good work he was doing in Germany. Of course this is very uncomfortable for people to hear, but it is the truth.

The Dalai Lama would never be considered to be Catholic, was never baptized, never claimed faith in the church. You make a specious argument. We will never know for sure what Hitler actually believed in his heart, but I would remind you that no one actually considers himself an evil man; everyone feels justified in that what they are doing is a proper course of action.

If its what one secretly considers themselves to be, what one tells their confidants, well hell, then I'm a Born-again Baptist who is playing Devil's advocate and in so doing God's work. And you would have to take me at my word as soon as I tell someone that in confidence. But to all public appearances, I am a strident anti-theist. Which do YOU think I am?

Hitler held a "fundamental antagonism" towards the Christian churches

No doubt. He hated anything that trampled on his authority. Does that make him not a Catholic? He was never excommunicated, never requested it, never denied his faith, and publicly paid homage to Rome and privately confessed a faith in God but not anyone who claimed to represent God on earth.

I ask you then, what is a Catholic to you. If Hitler is not a True Catholic, then who decides what a True Catholic is?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Better yet, people need to stop thinking they're better than one another when neither can prove anything at all. We all need a little respect for each others' beliefs.

But the problem is one side did find out proof whilst the other didn't.

 

[Captain Blackout]

If Hitler was not a Catholic, why was Pius XII sending a Bishop to bless him on his birthday and why did the Vatican wait to disown him until after his death. Or are now we defining Catholic as what one secretly considers themselves to be rather than what one is considered by others to be. If that is the case, then nothing Hitler has said can be used as evidence since he has contradicted himself at multiple times. But as far as the church was concerned, as far as GERMANY was concerned, as far as EUROPE was concerned, Hitler was a Christian and a Catholic, and Catholics, as represented by the Vatican, never disowned him until long after the scope of what he had done was revealed. The Pope even publicly lauded Hitler for the good work he was doing in Germany. Of course this is very uncomfortable for people to hear, but it is the truth.

If its what one secretly considers themselves to be, what one tells their confidants, well hell, then I'm a Born-again Baptist who is playing Devil's advocate and in so doing God's work. And you would have to take me at my word as soon as I tell someone that in confidence. But to all public appearances, I am a strident anti-theist. Which do YOU think I am?

Hitler held a "fundamental antagonism" towards the Christian churches

No doubt. He hated anything that trampled on his authority. Does that make him not a Catholic? He was never excommunicated, never requested it, never denied his faith, and publicly paid homage to Rome and privately confessed a faith in God but not anyone who claimed to represent God on earth.

I ask you then, what is a Catholic to you. If Hitler is not a True Catholic, then who decides what a True Catholic is?

I've had friends who left the Mormon Church. They did so quietly. The Mormon Church still considered them members. That didn't make them members, it made the Mormon Church wrong. To be sure the Catholic Church failed in it's duties and still does so when it comes to Hitler. That doesn't make Hitler Catholic, it makes the Catholic Church corrupt.

And you don't want to know what I think you are....