Laugh. Pretty rich coming from a Troll.
What a convenient way to ignore matt_mcl’s post #53.
Why on earth would I want to? I’m both a poet and programmer. I do both well and both give me pleasure although the latter pays significantly better. Both have given pleasure to others, although the latter also earns them money. I could, strictly speaking, operate in non-metaphysical world. I could also do without the pleasures of good friends, good food, and good music, all of which, as far as I’m concerned, are far more rooted in metaphysics than science.
If I believe the processed, cardboard-like thing I eat on my knees on Sunday somehow metaphysically becomes something greater, that does not in the least affect my ability to write clean, concise code today. Knowing the scientific mechanisms between the sunsets I see or the intricate results of evolution enhances my metaphysical joy and wonder at their existence and increases my desire to know more about the science behind how they came about.
Should I drop my love of and indulgence in metaphysical things? Perhaps, but for me, it would be like dropping my love of music, chocolate, or good friends. While it might provide some material benefits, the loss to me would be far greater than anything material could make up for.
But you’re capable of love. Of friends, art, nature, science & good food. (And I doubt that’s the entire list.)
You aren’t a bitter, dried up creature with a defective brain, no heart & no soul. Yes, I realize that the creature actually has a heart beating in Its chest. And that Its “soul” could not be weighed, even if It possessed one. But you know what I mean.
Liberal, you might want to jot down this date, because it’s the day I came to your defense – not that you ever needed anybody to do that.
Ammonius, you might want to glance at the motto at the top of the webpage. Yep, fighting ignorance is our cause here. Sometimes we stumble, God knows we bicker amongst ourselves, but we try to keep our eyes on the prize of disseminating knowledge. Liberal has done so here, with a little tidbit that makes me want to research the origins of that principle we so often refer to here as “Occam’s Razor”. We’ve all called Liberal a bitch at some point, but that was usually after pages of densely argued debate. Your reply is just pathetic.
Look, we’ve had worse cases than you, and some of them have turned around. Good luck (honestly).
Jotting… 
I want to bear your child.
See, this is what I like about the Dope. Even in a thread posted by a drunken troll, we get stuff like the above. I’m all starry-eyed.
Regards,
Shodan
Ammonius…
WAKE UP!
He He. I love fucking with hung-over trolls.
Sorry to Hijack, but Hello Liberal! Welcome back? (Sorry, first thread I’ve seen you in in like a year or something)
Six months, twelve days, eight hours, and thirty-two minutes. Roughly.
It is necessary that Liberal be here.
It is not necessary that Liberal not be here.
Therefore Liberal is here.
Are you trying to say ~~L -> E(L)A{x,h}; A(L); E{x,h} -> L(x) v L(h); ~L(h); L(x) -> ~L(~x); ~L~x; Lx; Lx; {L(x); ~L(x)} v {L(x), L}; x; L; therefore, L?
May I ask why you’re picking on Catholics, specifically? I’m no fan of the Roman Catholic church (I’d be hard pressed to think of a single church that I am a fan of), but they’re neither the only nor the worst offenders when it comes to science.
Yeah, but with more of a Southern accent.
All the ad hominem in this thread is making baby Jesus cry…
I just wanted to add my “Welcome back!” to Liberal. You’re among the friends whose company I foolishly, metaphysically enjoy. 
Hey! The OP wanted a Pitting, he got a Pitting. I’m sure that we can all agree to drop all the logical fallacies if he is capable of eliminating the fallacies in his arguments. 
(And I suspect that Baby Jesus is made of sterner stuff than to get upset over this foolishness.)
As one who is both as well, that that was a brilliant corollary in explaining the difference and orthogonality of science and metaphysics. They are not opposing forces but quite simply tools for explaining phenomena which the other cannot.
IANA Catholic either, but attempting to refute transubstantiation with science is akin to refuting that people have souls on scientific grounds. Sure, there are parts of those that are measurable scientifically (are their physical/energy properties different, etc.), but the essence of the claims are purely religious. Science is unable to prove or disprove either claim precisely because there is a lack of scientific evidence both for AND against. As is often said, non-existence of evidence is not evidence of non-existence.
So to answer your question, “why should anyone believe it?” I ask you, why should anyone not believe it?
I honestly don’t know who’s stupider.
The OP or the people still feeding the stupid cunt.
It’s a troll. Nothing more nothing less.
Actually, I think the question is, why does the OP care? He’s clearly not Catholic, and belief in transubstantiation doesn’t effect any aspect of his life. This is like the third thread he’s started on the subject. Why is this such a big deal to you, Ammonius?