Why are you an atheist?

King Mob

Rasheed wrote: »

And I'm by no means back 100% so I'm still pissed off with the man upstairs but I'm still on the side that he is there. I think......

And you're almost were we are in that case.

You realise that there is no rational means to defend your position.
You realise that the concept of God does not match observation.
You realise that people can believe clearly silly things that aren't true in the absence of evidence and even in spite of evidence.
And you now realise that your personal reasons for believing in God aren't convincing even to yourself.

You understand why we are atheists pretty well. But you yourself don't seem to understand why you are a theist.
It seems that the only reason you still believe is because you just do or because you prefer the idea over him not existing.

Do you really think that those are honest reasons to hold something true?

Rasheed

King Mob wrote: »

And you're almost were we are in that case.

You realise that there is no rational means to defend your position.
You realise that the concept of God does not match observation.
You realise that people can believe clearly silly things that aren't true in the absence of evidence and even in spite of evidence.
And you now realise that your personal reasons for believing in God aren't convincing even to yourself.

You understand why we are atheists pretty well. But you yourself don't seem to understand why you are a theist.
It seems that the only reason you still believe is because you just do or because you prefer the idea over him not existing.

Do you really think that those are honest reasons to hold something true?

I don't know to give you an honest answer. I have been doing a lot of soul searching the last few months, including my religion.
As I said, I'm not nearly as sure He's there as I used to be,but I still believe he's there.
Yes perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, but that's just me. I find it peaceful when i pray, when I go to mass, when I go on pilgrimages. I feel more in tune with myself after these things.
Maybe thats silly, maybe its all in my head but that's what I get from religion.
I'm not mad religious, I'm probably more an 'Ala Carte Catholic' but as long as I get the feeling of peace and solace from it, il stay the way I am.
In another way, especially while I was sick, I was nearly too afraid to think too deeply about it in case what in was looking for wasn't there.
But now i have looked, and as I said if I stop getting anything out of it, I'm finished. That make sense?

Sonics2k

It's there as a comfort reason for you, and personally I think that's absolutely fine.

I personally don't believe in God(s), but I can understand the comfort factor people can get from it. The belief that something is watching over us, or the possibility of an afterlife is very relieving to many people.

I'd honestly say it's part of our nature, we like to feel comfortable.

Bannasidhe

Rasheed wrote: »

I don't know to give you an honest answer. I have been doing a lot of soul searching the last few months, including my religion.
As I said, I'm not nearly as sure He's there as I used to be,but I still believe he's there.
Yes perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, but that's just me. I find it peaceful when i pray, when I go to mass, when I go on pilgrimages. I feel more in tune with myself after these things.
Maybe thats silly, maybe its all in my head but that's what I get from religion.
I'm not mad religious, I'm probably more an 'Ala Carte Catholic' but as long as I get the feeling of peace and solace from it, il stay the way I am.
In another way, especially while I was sick, I was nearly too afraid to think too deeply about it in case what in was looking for wasn't there.
But now i have looked, and as I said if I stop getting anything out of it, I'm finished. That make sense?

I understand. My OH is of the same mind although she has stopped defining herself as any kind of Catholic. She prays at night before she goes to sleep. Not in a kneel by the side of the bed 'Holy Mary Mother of God' way but a few minutes of quiet contemplation and internal expression of appreciation for all the positives her life contains. She believes there is a God who listens, I believe she could chant 'ringa ringa rosie' and it would have the same effect - but the fact is she believes someone is listening and this makes her feel life is manageable.

She doesn't do it when I am there (I am normally watching something very interesting and historical on BBC 4 into the wee hours) which I think is a shame. I see no difference between Atheistic forms of meditation and praying in terms of their psychological value and it saddens me that she fears I would be openly dismissive of what is to her an important coping mechanism. .. or perhaps she fears I'll start with the bloody questions again

Gumbi

It's an awkward situation. Should one suspend disbelief and block out skepticism in favour of the various beneficial effects of religion? It's very difficult to actually contemplate this objectively if you yourself actually do gain solace, comfort or peace from religion. Am I making sense here?

King Mob

Rasheed wrote: »

I don't know to give you an honest answer. I have been doing a lot of soul searching the last few months, including my religion.
As I said, I'm not nearly as sure He's there as I used to be,but I still believe he's there.
Yes perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, but that's just me. I find it peaceful when i pray, when I go to mass, when I go on pilgrimages. I feel more in tune with myself after these things.
Maybe thats silly, maybe its all in my head but that's what I get from religion.
I'm not mad religious, I'm probably more an 'Ala Carte Catholic' but as long as I get the feeling of peace and solace from it, il stay the way I am.
In another way, especially while I was sick, I was nearly too afraid to think too deeply about it in case what in was looking for wasn't there.
But now i have looked, and as I said if I stop getting anything out of it, I'm finished. That make sense?

No unfortunately it does not make sense to me as you a clearly aware that others get that same sense of "peace and solace" from other religions that are totally mutually exclusive with yours.

Why do these people who believe in false gods and concepts get the same benefit?
And how do you know that you aren't just a victim of the same?

But again I suspect that you ignore this possibility because you prefer that it is not true.

So again do you really think that basing what you believe on what is comforting or less scary a very good or honest way to do it, especially when you realise that this type of thinking is flawed and the thing you believe cannot be in anyway supported by evidence or rational argument?

Bannasidhe

Gumbi wrote: »

It's an awkward situation. Should one suspend disbelief and block out skepticism in favour of the various beneficial effects of religion? It's very difficult to actually contemplate this objectively if you yourself actually do gain solace, comfort or peace from religion. Am I making sense here?

Yes. I think this is the situation my OH finds herself in. She has admitted some of my questions have caused her to seriously doubt the existence of a God but I do not think she can take that final step - perhaps it's fear or perhaps the solace she finds is so integral to her sense of well being that she would loose that.

When we discussed this the analogy we both felt suited best was that it is akin to cutting oneself off from your parents. We are all programmed to love and respect our parents, even when they absolutely do not deserve it. But some people can never take that mental leap in disassociating themselves even from abusive parents.

I often mentally withdraw when I find things becoming overwhelming - I imagine that in doing that I am experiencing the same as she does when she prays with the important difference that I am internalising mentally while she is externalising.

Sarky

Ah King Mob, why hound the chap? He's been nothing but lovely during this whole exchange. If he takes the next logical step, it won't because he's been backed into a corner.

Rasheed

King Mob wrote: »

No unfortunately it does not make sense to me as you a clearly aware that others get that same sense of "peace and solace" from other religions that are totally mutually exclusive with yours.

Why do these people who believe in false gods and concepts get the same benefit?
And how do you know that you aren't just a victim of the same?

But again I suspect that you ignore this possibility because you prefer that it is not true.

So again do you really think that basing what you believe on what is comforting or less scary a very good or honest way to do it, especially when you realise that this type of thinking is flawed and the thing you believe cannot be in anyway supported by evidence or rational argument?

I'm sorry now King, you must think I'm horrid slow, but I don't really understand the question! I tried to explain what I 'get' from my religion so I don't really understand what you are asking!

GarIT

Rasheed wrote: »

I don't know to give you an honest answer. I have been doing a lot of soul searching the last few months, including my religion.
As I said, I'm not nearly as sure He's there as I used to be,but I still believe he's there.
Yes perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, but that's just me. I find it peaceful when i pray, when I go to mass, when I go on pilgrimages. I feel more in tune with myself after these things.
Maybe thats silly, maybe its all in my head but that's what I get from religion.
I'm not mad religious, I'm probably more an 'Ala Carte Catholic' but as long as I get the feeling of peace and solace from it, il stay the way I am.
In another way, especially while I was sick, I was nearly too afraid to think too deeply about it in case what in was looking for wasn't there.
But now i have looked, and as I said if I stop getting anything out of it, I'm finished. That make sense?

If you can admit that its wishful thinking that means you are an agnostic, you dont know if its true but you would believe if there was proof.

Just a bit of FYI Catholoicism is a confessionalist religion, that means you have to believe everything or you are not really a member. If there is one thing you question about the religion there is no way (without believing absoultely everything) that you could get into heaven. So if you don't believe one thing in reality there is no point in beleving anything.

It is an eternal sin to question gods existance, it can never be forgiven, its in the proper (stupidly long) version of the 10 commandments (as part of the lords name and other gods ones). So therefore because you have questioned gods existance there is no chance you will ever get to heaven, so why bother trying. There are so many things in the religion that just make beleving pointless.

Rasheed

GarIT wrote: »

If you can admit that its wishful thinking that means you are an agnostic, you dont know if its true but you would believe if there was proof.

Just a bit of FYI Catholoicism is a confessionalist religion, that means you have to believe everything or you are not really a member. If there is one thing you question about the religion there is no way (without believing absoultely everything) that you could get into heaven. So if you don't believe one thing in reality there is no point in beleving anything.

It is an eternal sin to question gods existance, it can never be forgiven, its in the proper (stupidly long) version of the 10 commandments (as part of the lords name and other gods ones). So therefore because you have questioned gods existance there is no chance you will ever get to heaven, so why bother trying. There are so many things in the religion that just make beleving pointless.

I never actually knew if you questioned God, your fecked. I confessed this to a priest, mind would he tell me! Well that may be the case, but Ill keep trying to be as good a person as I can and if I die and go to heaven mighty, if I don't, I tried my best.

GarIT

Rasheed wrote: »

I never actually knew if you questioned God, your fecked. I confessed this to a priest, mind would he tell me! Well that may be the case, but Ill keep trying to be as good a person as I can and if I die and go to heaven mighty, if I don't, I tried my best.

Preists don't want people to leave, they are hardly going to say, leave now because you have no hope. You can be a good citizen that follows the laws of the land and treats people without religion, I do.

To be fair AFAIK Catholics believe that all sins can be forgiven. But the bible directly says Questioning gods existance is a sin that can never be forgiven, maybe with the words in a different order but thats the gist of it. I don't understand how a Catholic priest could decide that something the bible says is just not true but they do. There are many things in this book wich is 100% fact that are also not true....

You should listen to a song my cousin helped write called Anybody there, its by The Script, I base my lack of religious beliefs on that. Their whole second album deals with the theme of science and religion really well.

Turtwig

I thought it dealt with science and religion terribly.

downwithpeace

My grandparents on both sides were devout Catholics, my mother was always interested in alternative medicines and things like that so she never gave me the idea she was one to believe but I did go through the typical Catholic child stuff and I suspect more for my sake rather then religion. I never really gave it much thought then or my teens but every now and again I did wonder what would happen if I admitted to myself I didn't believe, then something happened to me and I began to lean towards the idea I believed because it made me feel safer but a few years later I realized I was lying to myself.

Edit: I also as a personal joke on some non official stuff put "Non practicing Jedi" as my religion, my only religious joke.

Pushtrak

Rasheed wrote: »

I don't know anyone that is an atheist and was just wondering why people are atheists, were ye religious at one stage and did something change your mind? Or where ye parents atheists and pass it on? Just curious about it!

Parents are Catholic, did the whole being brought to mass every saturday until I guess I was around 10 or 11. Never could accept any of the stuff that was mouthed off. When I listened, I'd always be asking my parents if they really gave the stuff credence.

Never could myself. I gave a couple of years of not even really thinking about religion one way or the other. Suppose when I was around 15, I got out a bible and started reading it. Found the answers unsatisfactory. I spent some time looking in to Buddhism, Wicca, Hinduism but in terms of any god belief, it was just empty. I couldn't find the god concept believable.

The basics on biology and space that I was learning throughout all of this was always more interesting to me. As I got older, I was more interested in the astronomy side of the sciences. I would certainly have been in my 20s when I even started reading anything by the atheistic writers, Dawkins, Hitchens.. Haven't read any Harris or Dennet yet.

I know I've been discussing religion for a long time online. The first example of this that comes to mind is a thing called Audiogalaxy back around '00/'01 but I know I was discussing the stuff before then online. Probably on Yahoo chat, as one instance, and other fora online that were interesting. Though no exact examples come to mind.

YouTube is actually fantastic. In the last couple years, I've been subscribed to some very interesting folks.

Rasheed wrote: »

Does any one find they have go explain themselves and how do people react eg. Do people try to change your mind or do you yourselves try and change people's minds regarding religion? Would it turn off potential dates for example!?

I think it would be the opposite for me on both counts. If the person seems willing to have a discussion on the matter, I'd be interested in evidence or what it is that makes them believe. It'll be the same stuff I've heard before but a discussion on stuff is interesting to me.

As for dates, well it would be an off putting fact to me in terms of looking to date someone. Dating for me though, there's a whole other discussion. To try to make it brief, though, I find it far more important to be able to get on well with a partner and be able to have discussions and be able for both of us to put up with the other.

Trust me, a person of great faith, well they're better off not having a relationship with me as I'm not having one with them. As absolutist as the above sounds, though, it could very likely occur that I may end up meeting someone of faith who we can both get on and have something with. Can't rule out the possibility. I'm certainly happier being single than being in a relationship with someone just to be with someone though.

real_irishken wrote: »

On the other hand, I do consider myself quite spiritual which I believe are two completely different topics! But that's a debate for another time!

Spiritual? I really don't know what to think when I hear this. For some, it is merely an appreciation for say, a full moon, a nice walk in a forest, a day in the sun. I can appreciate all of that, but wouldn't use some vacuous label like spiritual.

fitz0 wrote: »

I don't label myself an atheist though. I have an atheistic outlook but the title doesn't sit well with me. I would call myself an anatheist, a fantastic word I heard on this forum. If there was conclusive proof of a god handed to the world in the morning I would still not worship that god. Any god that demands worship on pain of eternal damnation is not worthy of that worship.

Anatheist, as in anathema-theist, as in anathema to religion? First I've seen of this anatheist. I've come across apatheist, which is apathetic to religion.

Rasheed wrote: »

Never said that! Just meant I wouldn't like to insult anyone by downing a belief they have.

I aim for tact, and know there is a time and place, but I do undermine belief. I care less for time and place on matters such as...

I wouldn't tell a jehovah witness that I think not allowing blood transfusions is silly. I don't think it's silly if is important to them. Not my cup of tea, that's all.

Of course a person denying medical procedure on grounds of religion is being silly. Silly is being way too generous about it. Silly is as if it were a matter of no import triviality.

Barr125 wrote: »

Just as an off-topic aside, do you other guys consider yourself's Skeptics overall or are there certain things you still hold onto?

Definitely I'd say I'm a an overall skeptic. Though there was a time when much younger when I had some silly notion regarding, say going under a ladder or breaking a mirror.

Rasheed wrote: »

Right one last question.

Has anything ever made you question your atheism? Have you ever come across anything that made you think, you know, maybe there is a God?
I'm just thinking from my side, I've questioned my faith at times.

I always think "maybe there is a god" or maybe I should put it I never think "Its impossible there is a god" I just find the likelihood of one very remote and improbable. The idea of an interventionist deity that watches 7 billion humans 24 hours a day and listens to what we say? No, just no.

Gumbi wrote: »

It's an awkward situation. Should one suspend disbelief and block out skepticism in favour of the various beneficial effects of religion? It's very difficult to actually contemplate this objectively if you yourself actually do gain solace, comfort or peace from religion. Am I making sense here?

Well, from my perspective, I can not suspend disbelief or block skepticism. I find beneficial effects of religion dubious in this context, too. I do see that religious people present what they feel they get out of their religion, but to a skeptic throwing away skepticism and getting some intangible benefit? It seems to be trying to build something on shifting sands.

JuliusCaesar

Pushtrak wrote: »

Spiritual? I really don't know what to think when I hear this. For some, it is merely an appreciation for say, a full moon, a nice walk in a forest, a day in the sun. I can appreciate all of that, but wouldn't use some vacuous label like spiritual.

EO Wilson in his Biophilia hypothesis says that humans have a natural affinity for nature. Roger Ulrich did a lot of research saying that people recovered faster from operations if their hospital bed had a view onto greenery, rather than just the brick wall of the next building. This is all explained of course in evolutionary terms. Anecdotally, I think that exercise in the open air is more beneficial for mental health than exercise indoors - but given the Irish climate, it's not always possible.

Off topic and will vanish now. JC

fitz0

Pushtrak wrote: »

Anatheist, as in anathema-theist, as in anathema to religion? First I've seen of this anatheist. I've come across apatheist, which is apathetic to religion.

Just anathema to worship and supplication. I like some religions and can appreciate the meditative effects they have for some people even if I don't share in them. The Buddhists are a grand bunch of lads, likewise the Hare Krishnas with their dancing and chanting.

Tim Robbins

Rasheed wrote: »

I don't know anyone that is an atheist and was just wondering why people are atheists, were ye religious at one stage and did something change your mind? Or where ye parents atheists and pass it on? Just curious about it!

Very religious up until about age 12 than I began to think it was just far fetched crackers. Probably, more disappointed to find out WWF wasn't real.

X_ShinyDrums_X

Parents don't believe in god so neither do I. Been baptised and confirmed and all that but none of us believed any of it. Tbh I think the church does very good things beyond the (IMO insanely tedious) religious bit. Community stuff etc. etc.

I'd get married in a church not a bother. I wouldn't believe any of the religious stuff but it's traditional and what's wrong with a bit of tradition? :P plus I think old churches are very impressive if nothing else.

Only read lthe first page or so, so the conversation has probably moved on quite a bit from then but anywho :P

pauldla

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

I think old churches are very impressive if nothing else.

I do too. There are some very impressive churches out there. I lived in Italy a while back and some friends and I (atheists to a man, as it happened) used to drive around at the weekend visiting local churches. There were some really beautiful ones. If you're ever in Milan, take a look at Il Duomo, what a building it is!

fitz0

The cathedral in Cologne and the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona are both amazing buildings.

I wonder what will happen to all the old churches when some have to be sold due to the declining number of worshippers. I've seen some that have been converted to libraries and such and I'd like to see more reused for cultural purposes. The Church on Abbey St is quite nice too.


This one was an art piece in York minster cathedral but it would be neat if it was permanent.

old hippy

Rasheed wrote: »

I never actually knew if you questioned God, your fecked. I confessed this to a priest, mind would he tell me! Well that may be the case, but Ill keep trying to be as good a person as I can and if I die and go to heaven mighty, if I don't, I tried my best.

You can do your best without being religious, Rasheed. Better than living in fear of an imaginary, vengeful deity.

kylith

old hippy wrote: »

You can do your best without being religious, Rasheed. Better than living in fear of an imaginary, vengeful deity.

I quite like the Marcus Auraelius quote in the Quotes thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79161753&postcount=211

Galvasean

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

Parents don't believe in god so neither do I. Been baptised and confirmed and all that but none of us believed any of it. Tbh I think the church does very good things beyond the (IMO insanely tedious) religious bit. Community stuff etc. etc.

Are those very good things worth the mountains of child raping and the continued unapologetic cover up of said abuse?
Harsh as I may sound, but yours is a terrible attitude to have in this day and age - indirectly handing over power to an uncaring monster who sits on a golden throne while millions die from aids in Africa.

X_ShinyDrums_X

Galvasean wrote: »

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

Parents don't believe in god so neither do I. Been baptised and confirmed and all that but none of us believed any of it. Tbh I think the church does very good things beyond the (IMO insanely tedious) religious bit. Community stuff etc. etc.

Are those very good things worth the mountains of child raping and the continued unapologetic cover up of said abuse?
Harsh as I may sound, but yours is a terrible attitude to have in this day and age - indirectly handing over power to an uncaring monster who sits on a golden throne while millions die from aids in Africa.

As it happens my uncle is a priest and if you blame the entire church then you blame him too. A man who does nothing but good. He has received calls from people threatening to burn his house down when he has never done a thing wrong and does nothing but give to the community.

So tbh I think that your attitude of blaming the entire church for what happened is the terrible one. If you want to fix those things you need to target the ones responsible not every single priest.

And by the way, the church has many missions in African countries so they're not just sitting on their golden throne.

And the monster?? Tbh you sound as bad as the religious nuts. I don't believe in god. But who am I to tell the many millions of others that do that they are wrong and I am right?

And before you try to jump down my throat telling me that I'm defending the child molestors etc. I'm not. I just think that laying the blame on every single priest you lay eyes on is idiotic.

Pushtrak

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

So tbh I think that your attitude of blaming the entire church for what happened is the terrible one. If you want to fix those things you need to target the ones responsible not every single priest.

We need to target the pope because of his actions and inaction, and we should target the bishops who send priests who are known to have offended to other parishes. We should question the priests in general because we know that the actions are covered up.

Recall how Brady was saying he was a note taker? Part of me says if every such note taker notes were released, people would feel better about the CC. But no, that isn't reality. People would never turn back because they'd see just how deep and how common the crap and corruption of the CC is.

And by the way, the church has many missions in African countries so they're not just sitting on their golden throne.

Oh, yeah, bringing news of religion and how condoms are terrible. Right.

And the monster?? Tbh you sound as bad as the religious nuts. I don't believe in god. But who am I to tell the many millions of others that do that they are wrong and I am right?

You are a person with a voice just like everyone. I'd have presumed people would by default wish to be very vocal against a kiddy fiddling organisation that has cover ups authoristed from the top down.

And before you try to jump down my throat telling me that I'm defending the child molestors etc. I'm not. I just think that laying the blame on every single priest you lay eyes on is idiotic.

The blame goes up to the top because the pope is involved in the covering up of abuses. It isn't a few bad apples, the corruption is inherent in the power structure.

X_ShinyDrums_X

Pushtrak wrote: »

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

So tbh I think that your attitude of blaming the entire church for what happened is the terrible one. If you want to fix those things you need to target the ones responsible not every single priest.

We need to target the pope because of his actions and inaction, and we should target the bishops who send priests who are known to have offended to other parishes. We should question the priests in general because we know that the actions are covered up.

Recall how Brady was saying he was a note taker? Part of me says if every such note taker notes were released, people would feel better about the CC. But no, that isn't reality. People would never turn back because they'd see just how deep and how common the crap and corruption of the CC is.

And by the way, the church has many missions in African countries so they're not just sitting on their golden throne.

Oh, yeah, bringing news of religion and how condoms are terrible. Right.

And the monster?? Tbh you sound as bad as the religious nuts. I don't believe in god. But who am I to tell the many millions of others that do that they are wrong and I am right?

You are a person with a voice just like everyone. I'd have presumed people would by default wish to be very vocal against a kiddy fiddling organisation that has cover ups authoristed from the top down.

And before you try to jump down my throat telling me that I'm defending the child molestors etc. I'm not. I just think that laying the blame on every single priest you lay eyes on is idiotic.

The blame goes up to the top because the pope is involved in the covering up of abuses. It isn't a few bad apples, the corruption is inherent in the power structure.

On iPod and don't know how to quote individual bits so sorry about that.

Questioning? Fair enough. Threatening? Out of order.

No I don't recall how he was saying he was a note taker, I haven't read the entire post. And if it was on the first page, I don't recall it because I was reading it at about 1 in the morning.

Yep, cause I'm sure that's what all the nuns do. Walk in every morning preaching about how condoms will be the end of the world and we should all embrace free love. Seriously? I know it's not an amazing education but it's better then nothing.

Yes I think people should speak strongly about it. But he referred to the entire catholic church as a monster. Which it's not. I disagree strongly with many things that America has done in Iraq etc. but I don't judge every single American on it.

It may be in the power structure but it is not in every single priest. And labelling every one of them as kiddy fiddlers is wrong.

GarIT

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

Parents don't believe in god so neither do I. Been baptised and confirmed and all that but none of us believed any of it. Tbh I think the church does very good things beyond the (IMO insanely tedious) religious bit. Community stuff etc. etc.

If you look into it you will find that the RCC (as a whole) have never and will never do anything good. To be fair some preists do good things but not many. What usually happens is that the church going community will decide to do something good for example a fundraiser or local community games or something and somehow it gets credited to be the chruch's doing.

I've researched the church and found that they have something like 400 billion in gold alone between all their churchs worldwide. I understand that the place where the bread is kept has to be gold but the rest can be excessive. In total the orginistation of the Roman Catholic Church has 2 thousand billion in assets (€2,000,000,000,000) and never gives it away or spends it on anything other than itself and its higher up members. The RCC even has governmant bonds and shares in large companies (they don't buy them they would have been donated when people died) but the church never gives anything to charity. Selling the Pope's golden chair alone would feed 80,000 starving children that would otherwise die for the next 10 years.

So the Roman Catholic church is a horible greedy orginisation. Its the individual priests and church communities that do good.

Pushtrak

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

Questioning? Fair enough. Threatening? Out of order.

I didn't see anything to suggest threatening. Could you point out where this was suggested?

No I don't recall how he was saying he was a note taker, I haven't read the entire post. And if it was on the first page, I don't recall it because I was reading it at about 1 in the morning.

It wasn't mentioned in this thread, as this thread is why we are atheists not the ins and outs of the abuse in which Brady was involved in covering up. That stuff is documented elsewhere, and when the discussion revolves around whether it is justified to condemn the catholic church, extra bits will be brought in.

Yep, cause I'm sure that's what all the nuns do. Walk in every morning preaching about how condoms will be the end of the world and we should all embrace free love. Seriously? I know it's not an amazing education but it's better then nothing.

In that they likely provide food and medicine, yes. In that they encourage a belief in witchcraft and the killing of said witches, no.

Yes I think people should speak strongly about it. But he referred to the entire catholic church as a monster. Which it's not. I disagree strongly with many things that America has done in Iraq etc. but I don't judge every single American on it.

There is not saying a damn thing on an issue and there is there is far worse than anyone on this forum is suggesting on the polar opposite. There are also middle grounds between these.

It may be in the power structure but it is not in every single priest. And labelling every one of them as kiddy fiddlers is wrong.

Not every one of them is, but when the systematic hiding of abuses takes place from top to bottom, a sensible person doesn't trust it.

GarIT

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

And by the way, the church has many missions in African countries so they're not just sitting on their golden throne.

No they do not. The only church funded 'missions' in Africa are ones to expand followers but do not help anyone, they just build churches and recurit preists and eventually followers.

Local priests and church goers go on 'missions' to help people in Africa, these are all funded by fundraisers and collections, none of it has ever come out of the churches pockets. The RCC has a policy of not funding anything for any reason. They claim that no one person owns their assets so there is nobody that can decide how they can spend it, so they don't spend anything and just horde assets.

Take all the Salesian schools as an example, people would think they were there because of the church but they aren't. Every single school was funded by the order of Don Bosco and its followers. Not a single penny came from the Roman Catholic Chruch.