Why are you an atheist?

GarIT

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

Yes I think people should speak strongly about it. But he referred to the entire catholic church as a monster.

The orginisation is most definately a monster. Although some individuals are not. The church collectively has committed more crimes than any other orginisation ever.

GarIT

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

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.

Nuns have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church. They are usually funded by whatever order of nuns that they come from. They aren't there because of the church.

X_ShinyDrums_X

Pushtrak wrote: »

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

I didn't mean any of you, I meant the people that phoned my uncle and told him they were going to burn his house down.

This has gona waaaaay off topic. GarIT, I'm not an expert on the Catholic Church, nor am I pretending to be. But I said that the people in it, and so by extension it; does some good things in the community and you started going on about how the church is a monster and my attitude was crap. For saying they do good things within the community...

Now that I think of it, I actually have quite a lot of connections to priests and nuns (onto that in a bit). My uncle was ordained well before any of the child molestor stuff came out. So just because he's a priest he's evil and greedy and self serving?

You're going on about how the church has never and will never do anything good as a whole. Well the Church is made up of priests like him and there are many more like him then there are the child molestors. So all the combined good they do counts for nothing?

My grand-aunt was a nun and used to teach foreign children english to help them get on in Ireland. She is still great friends with many of them. Is she a monster? I weeded her garden for her two days ago. I certainly don't think so...

I have a great great aunt or great aunt once removed or something in Kenya. She's helping the poor there. Missions was a poor choice of words. What I mean to say is that there are others like her (nuns) out helping the poor. Is she a monster?

I was in Lourdes recently. There were many priests and nuns there who devoted their time to the sick. And many of those that were sick did nothing but praise them. So they're monsters too?

The church is largely made up of people like these and in branding the entire catholic church as being a monster, you brand those people aswell. People who have never done anything wrong.

I've already said that I'm not defending the abuses or the people that did the abusing. I'm defending the people like my uncle who get threatened as a result. I think those priests who did the abusing should be locked away. I think those who covered it up should also be locked away.

Pushtrak

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

I didn't mean any of you, I meant the people that phoned my uncle and told him they were going to burn his house down.

Oh, right. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Now that I think of it, I actually have quite a lot of connections to priests and nuns (onto that in a bit). My uncle was ordained well before any of the child molestor stuff came out. So just because he's a priest he's evil and greedy and self serving?

He is a member of a very dubious organisation. If he was to hear the confession of a priest, it is in the interests of the organisation that this information doesn't see the light of day. Silencing priests isn't unnatural for them...]
From the link:

Irish priests are at war with the Vatican again after attempts to silence a second rebel cleric. Veteran Marist priest Fr Sean Fagan has been ordered to stop writing and commentating in public. The 84-year-old has been reprimanded by the church after he had called for an inquiry into clerical sexual abuse in all Irish dioceses.

When priests are ordered to STFU when they wish to speak out, how is trust built in the organisation? Even if they want to, they are stopped. I. Can. Not. Trust. Them.

You're going on about how the church has never and will never do anything good as a whole. Well the Church is made up of priests like him and there are many more like him then there are the child molestors. So all the combined good they do counts for nothing?

Does the good make up for the harm? The ill that is done to the children who were trusted the most? No, I don't think that it does.

My grand-aunt was a nun and used to teach foreign children english to help them get on in Ireland. She is still great friends with many of them. Is she a monster? I weeded her garden for her two days ago. I certainly don't think so...

Look at the bigger picture. As an organisation. If you only look at a handful of individuals and say the organisation as a whole can do whatever it wants on account of these individuals you are setting a dangerous precedent.

I have a great great aunt or great aunt once removed or something in Kenya. She's helping the poor there. Missions was a poor choice of words. What I mean to say is that there are others like her (nuns) out helping the poor. Is she a monster?

Mission is precisely what it is. I'm sure they have a mission statement of bringing religion to the people there. Again, you are bringing emotion in to it by thinking its all about a handful of people you know. You miss the point.

GarIT

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

This has gona waaaaay off topic. GarIT, I'm not an expert on the Catholic Church, nor am I pretending to be. But I said that the people in it, and so by extension it; does some good things in the community and you started going on about how the church is a monster and my attitude was crap. For saying they do good things within the community...

Good things that individual people do, do not in any way make the orginisation a good one. Say if 80% of people in the Mafia were good people that by extension doesn't mean the Mafia is a good orginisation.

It's not really off topic, its showing reasons why you shouldn't trust the church.

I believe you have mis understood me and think the complete opposite of what I meant. I am saying that The Church is a terrible orginisation but the people in it tend to be good.

You said that the church has done good things, I think that is unfair to say. That was my point. The orginisation of the Roman Catholic Church never does good, it only ever does bad. The people in the Church do good without any help from the church itself.

Many members of the RCC have done lots of good things but none of these are backed or supported by or associated with the Church. I could help an old woman with her shopping and say I did it on behalf of Microsoft that doesnt mean Microsoft did it, maybe if Microsoft sponsored me to do it you could give credit to them but they didn't. Its the exact same where nuns go to Africa and say they did it for the church. No matter how much they say its for the church as long as the church don't pay or it or help at all you can hardly say that the church did good. The fact is the church has never done anything like that, its the communities that pay for it.

Say you take the Mafia as an exampe, if every member of the Mafia went and did good deeds on the side that wouldn't make the Mafia a good orginisation.

I wouldn't attribute any of the bad things that priests have done to the church. Its only the things they do together as an orginisation. i.e. the individual cases of paedophilia is not the fault of the church but the organised coverup and the decisions the churches leaders made to cover it up is the fault of the church of an orginisation.

Similarly good deads done by individual priests are not good deeds of the church but things the church as a group decided to do are. However there are lost of things done by individuals but nothing good is ever done by the RCC as a group.

GarIT

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

I have a great great aunt or great aunt once removed or something in Kenya. She's helping the poor there. Missions was a poor choice of words. What I mean to say is that there are others like her (nuns) out helping the poor. Is she a monster?

You right with calling it missions thats what they are, I just don't like the use of that word.

You obviously don't realise the nuns have no assocation with the Catholic Church whatsoever. They claim they do but they don't, no matter how much I tell people I work for Microsoft I don't. What the nuns do is what the nuns do, how does it become what a orginisation that tried to disown them does? Nuns are just a group of women who believe in the faith and have their own way of service to God because the church wont let them be priests.

You need to see the difference between the official actions of the Roman Catholic Church as a group along with its reputation vs. the good individuals who are not acting on behalf of the group they are doing their own thing and their reputation. They may say they are acting on behalf of the church but they are not, the whole RCC didn't get together as a group and say this is what we will do with will get these spesific individuals to go on a mission to Africa to teach people English.

X_ShinyDrums_X

Ok look, I'm not trying to defend the Catholic Church, the pedophiles or the people who covered it up. All I'm trying to say is that the Joe Soap priest is taking a hell of a lot of flack for it and I think its ridiculously unfair. To be honest I think I've made that pretty clear. By extension all church goers are affiliated with the the Catholic Church. Should we hate all of them?

The first thing I said in this topic was that they do good things within the community. By that I mean the priests, not the pope, sitting in Rome with his ridiculous hat on.

Pushtrak, you're right. I'm not looking at the big picture. What I'm looking at is the people (like my uncle) who get threatened and abused by others because of the actions of a few. By your logic we should hate all English people because someone high up the chain of command decided they were going to invade places. Should we hate all German people for what the Nazi's did to the Jews? I think its complete rubbish. Take it out on the people who do the wrong not everyone thats in someway connected (to the organisation, not to the actual wrong doing). And no I don't think that the good makes up for the harm that was done to them, but the harm wasn't done by the same people who do the good.

And honestly the mafia is not a good example. If you're in the mafia I don't care what you do, you will never be a good person in my eyes. You joined that organisation knowing it does terrible things and you willingly joined up to that. The vast majority of priests become priests because they believe in God and want to spread the word about him. Do you honestly think that the majority of them would have anything to do with the abuse or even knew what was going on?

Pushtrak

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

Ok look, I'm not trying to defend the Catholic Church, the pedophiles or the people who covered it up. All I'm trying to say is that the Joe Soap priest is taking a hell of a lot of flack for it and I think its ridiculously unfair. To be honest I think I've made that pretty clear. By extension all church goers are affiliated with the the Catholic Church. Should we hate all of them?

Hate them? Of course not, because there are so many who are vocal against the actions of the priests. The good priests are not allowed to be vocal. There are certainly members of the church who are worthy of scorn on grounds of their membership. But that is because I'm talking about such people as will try to undermine the abuse the church does. And yes, boards has such people.

By your logic we should hate all English people because someone high up the chain of command decided they were going to invade places.

If you go back to a time when England were invading us, then it was a sensible attitude to have a certain bit of caution. If we were to be invaded today by some nation, it probably wouldn't do much for their PR.

Should we hate all German people for what the Nazi's did to the Jews?

Now? No. But Germans of the time did give him the power he had. Just as by having a casual attitude about the church wrongdoings for so long led to the wrongs perpetrated by the CC. One ought to voice out distaste for criminal activities/organisations. One that has systematic abuse that is not allowed to be brought to public by its members is a type of organisation I'd be happy to see no more of.

I think its complete rubbish. Take it out on the people who do the wrong not everyone thats in someway connected (to the organisation, not to the actual wrong doing).

The policies of shutting priests/nuns up on the topic of abuse is something that would have to go. Its a culture of abuse that needs to have its policies altered dramatically. Again, you are thinking on the small scale of a couple of priests. Not the attitude, policy, catechism that makes the abuse permissible for all intents and purposes.

And no I don't think that the good makes up for the harm that was done to them, but the harm wasn't done by the same people who do the good.

Thats a nice thought to have, but not sure it represents the reality.

Do you honestly think that the majority of them would have anything to do with the abuse or even knew what was going on?

I don't know. It isn't the exact number of priests that have offended that is my point but that the policy of the church is to sweep it under the carpet and not address issues when they come up.

GarIT

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

Ok look, I'm not trying to defend the Catholic Church, the pedophiles or the people who covered it up. All I'm trying to say is that the Joe Soap priest is taking a hell of a lot of flack for it and I think its ridiculously unfair. To be honest I think I've made that pretty clear. By extension all church goers are affiliated with the the Catholic Church. Should we hate all of them?

The first thing I said in this topic was that they do good things within the community. By that I mean the priests, not the pope, sitting in Rome with his ridiculous hat on.

Pushtrak, you're right. I'm not looking at the big picture. What I'm looking at is the people (like my uncle) who get threatened and abused by others because of the actions of a few. By your logic we should hate all English people because someone high up the chain of command decided they were going to invade places. Should we hate all German people for what the Nazi's did to the Jews? I think its complete rubbish. Take it out on the people who do the wrong not everyone thats in someway connected (to the organisation, not to the actual wrong doing). And no I don't think that the good makes up for the harm that was done to them, but the harm wasn't done by the same people who do the good.

And honestly the mafia is not a good example. If you're in the mafia I don't care what you do, you will never be a good person in my eyes. You joined that organisation knowing it does terrible things and you willingly joined up to that. The vast majority of priests become priests because they believe in God and want to spread the word about him. Do you honestly think that the majority of them would have anything to do with the abuse or even knew what was going on?

I've tried to say a few time that I agree with you. No individual in the church should be blamed for the actions of the many and it is unfair and I don't blame any preist(obviously unless it was his fault). I still think the orginisation is corrupt no matter how good the people are. Saying the orginisation is corrupt in no way implies that the individuals are or are not, it only tells you that the orginisation is. We shouldn't hate any of the good priests, I do think we should all hate the orginisation.

You said the RCC does good things, I said no it does not, I have acknowledged that the individuals do, I don't see the problem.

I hate England as a group, that wouldn't stop me being friends with an English person.

The Mafia wasn't an example about people it was an example of how you can't contribute the actions of a few people that are not acting on behalf of the orginisation to the outlook for the orginisation.

The Mafia is a good comparrision to the modern day priests who are joining. I feel the same way about the RCC that you feel about the Mafia. I think anyone that would joing the RCC now is a bad person no matter what they do. Especially when there are over 200 groups that believe the same thing but haven't comitted the crimes. If you joined the church now you would know the terrible crimes it comitted which are way worse than the Mafia. Don't forget the Crusades and that the Pope at the time supported Hitler. There was also a figure published a while ago that said there were 300,000 children abused by priests worldwide between 1900 and 2000.

X_ShinyDrums_X

GarIT I agree with you for the most part. It's just I see the catholic church as the people that make it up. So the priests are a part of the catholic church. Therefore the good that they do, the catholic church does. Therefore that particular section of the church is (largely) good. The upper levels I have nothing but contempt for. Would I be right in assuming that you and pushtrak see it differently?

Could you name a few of these organisations out of genuine curiosity. Do they hold the exact same beliefs or do they vary?

If they do hold the same beliefs then I agree with you. If they vary then I can't. Catholicism is a set of beliefs. The church is corrupt and that is unfortunate but if it's the only one that holds your particular set of beliefs then your kind of stuck with it.

And do you honestly still hate the English? I'm half English myself and I reckon everyone I've ever spoken to on the topic only hate the English in the way the English "hate" the French.

Pushtrak. The germans at the time were heavily oppressed by the treaty of Versailles when they gave hitler power. They chose a leader who they thought could lead them out of oppression. I hardly think that's a casual attitude

What do you mean that you're not sure that it represents the reality? Are you saying that all priests were in some involved?

And yes I am looking at it small scale. It's where I started off from. How this generalisation of all priests being bad has affected my family.

Pushtrak

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

GarIT I agree with you for the most part. It's just I see the catholic church as the people that make it up. So the priests are a part of the catholic church. Therefore the good that they do, the catholic church does. Therefore that particular section of the church is (largely) good. The upper levels I have nothing but contempt for. Would I be right in assuming that you and pushtrak see it differently?

I'm willing to give credit to the church for the good done in its name. The question of whether the people who do good in the name of the church do so only on the grounds of doing it for the church is a highly debatable point. A good person will do good because it suits them to do good.

The organisation though, again, has policies in place to silence the matter when it comes to wrongdoings of the church. The popes butler got in trouble recently over leaks. Recall that? http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0605/breaking39.html*

The few bad apples idea is just ridiculous. It is clear that the corruption goes to the top. At what point can one recognise an organisation as corrupt? I'd say there isn't a clearer example that comes to mind than the church.

Pushtrak. The germans at the time were heavily oppressed by the treaty of Versailles when they gave hitler power. They chose a leader who they thought could lead them out of oppression. I hardly think that's a casual attitude

The point I was going for was if you give corruption power, you aren't exactly on a good road. Africa at the moment as with the cases of "witches" is an important point to bring back up. I'm not sure if you are still on a phone at the moment, but it is an example of a topic that is worth looking in to when you find the time.

What do you mean that you're not sure that it represents the reality? Are you saying that all priests were in some involved?

Ah, the point isn't all that important. You just made out that certain priests are all good and wouldn't do anything, and there are another group, to be a bit glib, I'll say are the ne'er do wells.

I'd say though, that a lot of the ones that are considered "good" would likely be providing confession to the "bad" ones and the "bad" ones might be seen generally as exemplars of the community beyond just being a priest.

And yes I am looking at it small scale. It's where I started off from. How this generalisation of all priests being bad has affected my family.

Threats, or acts of violence or any of that stuff is not something I can abide. Do you have any idea who the people involved in these threats were? Were they people directly affected by the abuse? I'd be inclined to think people who'd threaten in such a way would be. Its really down to a feeling of disenfranchisement. When the likes of Cardinal Brady can get off without any issues. He actually welcomed the Queen recently.

*Edit: The story from there if you don't want to have to go to an external link...

A prosecutor began interrogating Pope Benedict's butler today to decide if he should stand trial in what would be one of the most sensational court cases ever in the Vatican. Prosecutor Piero Antonio Bonnet questioned Paolo Gabriele in the presence of his two lawyers and Nicola Piccardi, another Vatican judicial official known as the "promoter of justice". Mr Bonnet must now decide whether there is enough evidence to order Mr Gabriele, who was arrested on May 23rd after Vatican police found a large number of confidential papal documents in his Vatican apartment, to stand trial on charges of aggravated theft.

Mr Gabriele (46) who has dual Vatican and Italian citizenship, was arrested as part of a Vatican investigation into what is known as the "Vatileaks" scandal, in which sensitive papal documents were leaked to Italian media. Many Vatican insiders believe the butler, who served the pope his meals, helped him dress and rode in the front seat of the popemobile, could not have acted alone and may be a pawn in a much wider power struggle between cardinals.

The leaks scandal began in January and came to a head last month when, in the space of a few days, the head of the Vatican bank was abruptly dismissed, Gabriele was arrested and a book containing a trove of private Vatican correspondence was published. The leaked documents allege corruption in the Vatican's business dealings with Italian companies, which were paid inflated prices for work in the Vatican, rivalries among cardinals and clashes over the management of the Vatican's bank, the IOR.

Mr Gabriele could be held for up to 100 days in pre-trial custody, said Vatican judge Paolo Papanti Pelletier, who is not involved in the leaks case at this stage. Aggravated theft carries a jail sentence of up to six years, but other offences, such as revealing state secrets, could be added to the list of charges during the investigation, the judge told reporters. Vatican investigators and a commission of cardinals have been hunting for other informants, but spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Mr Gabriele remained the only person under investigation so far.

GarIT

X_ShinyDrums_X wrote: »

GarIT I agree with you for the most part. It's just I see the catholic church as the people that make it up. So the priests are a part of the catholic church. Therefore the good that they do, the catholic church does. Therefore that particular section of the church is (largely) good. The upper levels I have nothing but contempt for. Would I be right in assuming that you and pushtrak see it differently?

Could you name a few of these organisations out of genuine curiosity. Do they hold the exact same beliefs or do they vary?

If they do hold the same beliefs then I agree with you. If they vary then I can't. Catholicism is a set of beliefs. The church is corrupt and that is unfortunate but if it's the only one that holds your particular set of beliefs then your kind of stuck with it.

And do you honestly still hate the English? I'm half English myself and I reckon everyone I've ever spoken to on the topic only hate the English in the way the English "hate" the French.

Pushtrak. The germans at the time were heavily oppressed by the treaty of Versailles when they gave hitler power. They chose a leader who they thought could lead them out of oppression. I hardly think that's a casual attitude

What do you mean that you're not sure that it represents the reality? Are you saying that all priests were in some involved?

And yes I am looking at it small scale. It's where I started off from. How this generalisation of all priests being bad has affected my family.

Yes and no. I would atribute the good things done to the Catholic community and not the church. If the Church had a choice its members would not give out aid in Africa, thats why I wouldn't give the church the credit. For me the RCC is the higer up people that make decisions on behalf of the group as well as the assets and accounts of the Church as a whole. I would call the church community the group of people that share the belief and go to church, including priests.

This probably isn't accurate as there are obviously people in between but its a good example I think. Say if a group priests go to the pope and ask if the pope will help them to get to Africa to help people there. The Pope replies "No, we do not want you to go to Africa, so we will not help you". The group of priests then do a fundraiser to raise the money themselves to go to Africa which they does, and he ends up building houses there. They call the houses the mission of pope John Paul. In that case I don't see any way to say the RCC did it, because they didnt. It was the church community that did it.

As I said before the RCC has never funded any aid projects so I don't see how you could credit them for that. Take St.Vincent de Paul you may think that that is work the church does, but its not, its completely funded by other surces, and run by volunteers. It takes a religious name because religious people are the ones that volunteer, but its not the church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
There are none of them that believe 100% the same things, the reason for the split is because they believe different things. There are some that differ only on maybe one simple non important rule. Catholics believe that it is wrong to cut your hair, it is wrong to go to the toilet in a city, that countries are all floating on water, that we are in some sort of bubble and that there is nothing past the sky only heaven, homosexuals should all face the death penalty, and that the bread transforms into flesh (which has been proven to be 100% false). So if someone can say they are a Roman Catholic and put up with all those things when they may not agree im sure they could do the same with another varation of the same religion. You could even say that you are a Christian and you make up you own beliefs based on your opnion of the bible. People jump to the RCC because it is the largest not because they agree with it, so it would be fair to say they could as easily join another group with the same basic belief.

It is actually impossible to be a memebr of the RCC if you are gay or devorced, yet both types of people would say that they are memebrs because they don't really know.

I have explained the differences between two catholic denomonations to people before and they end up saying oh im from that group not the RCC. Many people find that the protestant religion is more logical than the Catholic one.

Do you honestly believe that your uncle would want to kill people on the basis of their sexuality if he could? If he doesn't believe that then he is not actually a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholoicism is a confessionalist religion, so that means if you don't agree with one thing you're not actually a memebr of the group. I can stand outside of my house all day long telling people I am in my house, but that doesn't make me in my house.

The English thing is probably exactly the same as the French thing.

GarIT

You may find this interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessionalism_(religion). Because of that, if you disagree with one tiny bit of the RC religion it is wrong of you to say you are Catholic.

Because of that if you do not want to kill all gay people just because they are gay it is impossible to be a Roman Catholic, if you have ever used any form of contraception it is impossible to be Roman Catholic. People will say they are Roman Catholic but in reality they cannot be. They could never go to a Catholic Heaven if they don't believe every single word of the RCC.

Thats another reason I don't believe, I think some of their beliefs are completely mad, therefore even if I did claim to be Catholic I could never get into their heaven so there is no point at all in trying.

Burt Lancaster

When the mask is off, some of the revisionism, vitriol and propaganda being spun here is unreal. Interesting.

endacl

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

When the mask is off, some of the revisionism, vitriol and propaganda being spun here is unreal. Interesting.

Heh?

strobe

Bumped my head on a fibreglass Ronald mcdonald, out cold I was apparently. When I came too I was atheist and peanut butter tasted minty. Neurobiology, eh?

Rasheed

old hippy wrote: »

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

Ah I know I could be just as good and not religious but I still believe in God so I'll keep going the way I am. What I was trying to say to the other poster was I dont agree with some of Catholic teaching, and probably more if I read enough into it, but I'll keep trying my best and if that's not good enough then so be it!

InchicoreDude

GarIT wrote: »

You may find this interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessionalism_(religion). Because of that, if you disagree with one tiny bit of the RC religion it is wrong of you to say you are Catholic.

Because of that if you do not want to kill all gay people just because they are gay it is impossible to be a Roman Catholic, if you have ever used any form of contraception it is impossible to be Roman Catholic. People will say they are Roman Catholic but in reality they cannot be. They could never go to a Catholic Heaven if they don't believe every single word of the RCC.

Thats another reason I don't believe, I think some of their beliefs are completely mad, therefore even if I did claim to be Catholic I could never get into their heaven so there is no point at all in trying.

But thats just 1 religion. The original question was referring to God in general, rather than a specific religion. It is possible to believe in God without believing everything that comes with a religion.

pauldla

InchicoreDude wrote: »

But thats just 1 religion. The original question was referring to God in general, rather than a specific religion. It is possible to believe in God without believing everything that comes with a religion.

I imagine it would be a bit exhausting to go through all the religions of the world to see if they fit your own particular beliefs (and I dare to guess you'd find yourself saying 'You believe what?' quite frequently).

It is indeed possible to believe in a God without subscribing to a particular dogma, but I think that it is telling that very few seem to do this. Could it be that religious belief is driven by a need for group conformity?

Burt Lancaster

pauldla wrote: »

I imagine it would be a bit exhausting to go through all the religions of the world to see if they fit your own particular beliefs (and I dare to guess you'd find yourself saying 'You believe what?' quite frequently).

It is indeed possible to believe in a God without subscribing to a particular dogma, but I think that it is telling that very few seem to do this. Could it be that religious belief is driven by a need for group conformity?

Not really there's quite a few deists out there.

pauldla

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Not really there's quite a few deists out there.

In comparison to the professed membership of the established religions?

Pushtrak

InchicoreDude wrote: »

But thats just 1 religion. The original question was referring to God in general, rather than a specific religion. It is possible to believe in God without believing everything that comes with a religion.

A non interventionist type that isn't going to be what'll get people inclined away from thinking everyone should have equal rights. Deists are unimportant to the discussion to me. The discussion is how to most efficiently have a secular system of governance. That means no trampling on religion/religious belief or the opposite.

I do wonder though, exactly where deists are coming at their "belief" from. I can't say I've ever met one, so never had the opportunity to ask. I wonder if it is someone who doesn't understand anything about the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution but didn't find the religion that was attempted to be indoctrinated on them satisfying. Or is it people who may have a decent to good understanding on these, but stumbles at the first cause. Course, the answer will be a little from column A, a little from column B.

Burt Lancaster

Pushtrak wrote: »

A non interventionist type that isn't going to be what'll get people inclined away from thinking everyone should have equal rights. Deists are unimportant to the discussion to me. The discussion is how to most efficiently have a secular system of governance. That means no trampling on religion/religious belief or the opposite.

I do wonder though, exactly where deists are coming at their "belief" from. I can't say I've ever met one, so never had the opportunity to ask. I wonder if it is someone who doesn't understand anything about the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution but didn't find the religion that was attempted to be indoctrinated on them satisfying. Or is it people who may have a decent to good understanding on these, but stumbles at the first cause. Course, the answer will be a little from column A, a little from column B.

I've met a few that believe in God, but privately not organised religion. When asked most of them find it too hard to believe that the inanimate big bang, the all the energy and matter it created, and the universe it continues to create was caused by a nothing. They don't see God as a person but the sprit and source of all life, whatever that may be. Einstein for example was a deist.

pauldla

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

Einstein for example was a deist.

Yes, he probably was. He said he did not believe in a personal god, but he did use the term 'god' frequently in his writing and he did not describe himself as an atheist afaik. As in other areas, he was capable of very nuanced and subtle thought on the matter. A rare bird indeed, which is what I was trying to say in my earlier post: true deists are uncommon, and I wonder why that may be.

Pushtrak

Burt Lancaster wrote: »

I've met a few that believe in God, but privately not organised religion. When asked most of them find it too hard to believe that the inanimate big bang, the all the energy and matter it created, and the universe it continues to create was caused by a nothing. They don't see God as a person but the sprit and source of all life, whatever that may be. Einstein for example was a deist.

Einstein put it, I think that he believed in Spinoza's god. Wiki link. It seems like pantheism more than deism. And it postulates a deterministic universe, rather than free will.

pauldla wrote: »

Yes, he probably was. He said he did not believe in a personal god, but he did use the term 'god' frequently in his writing and he did not describe himself as an atheist afaik. As in other areas, he was capable of very nuanced and subtle thought on the matter. A rare bird indeed, which is what I was trying to say in my earlier post: true deists are uncommon, and I wonder why that may be.

The satisfaction people generally get from religion would be that they have a parental/paternal type figure looking out for them who has their best interests at heart. Also, that just because you're dead, doesn't mean you're dead. Which eases the mind. A non interventionist type lends itself less easily to the afterlife of good or bad.

And there being a heaven and hell gives religious the idea that whatever happens here isn't that important as there'll be judgement post mortem. The good and bad will get "theirs".

Religion is kind of the lifeboat non-answer that will satisfy those who need to have an answer, rather than leaving things with an unknown.

MrReynholm

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a God, rather simple really.

I had the benefit of growing up in a religion free household though and only experienced mild tidbits of religion during my school years. Enough, admittedly, to make me fall on pascal's wager and not completely reject the notion of an all seeing, all knowing, all dancing God figure but I grew out of that quickly enough.

Tipsy McSwagger

Couldn't sleep last night and was thinking of the OPs question. I came to the conclusion that the question is in the wrong forum, it should be asked in the Christianity forum under 'why are you a Christian?' (The accused doesnt have to prove innocence in a court of law after all, Its presumed that they are in fact innocent until proven guilty). If people were honest they would say 'well it wasn't my choice, my parents made it for me'. So the question should actually be 'why are you still a Christian?'. There is no proof that there is a God, only people being brainwashed from an early age that there is one.

endacl

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Couldn't sleep last night and was thinking of the OPs question. I came to the conclusion that the question is in the wrong forum, it should be asked in the Christianity forum under 'why are you a Christian?' (The accused doesnt have to prove innocence in a court of law after all, Its presumed that they are in fact innocent until proven guilty). If people were honest they would say 'well it wasn't my choice, my parents made it for me'. So the question should actually be 'why are you still a Christian?'. There is no proof that there is a God, only people being brainwashed from an early age that there is one.

Couldn't be asked over there, let alone discussed. They've had over-sensitive troll alarms installed that tend to trigger for no reason.

Toe the line, or gtfo seems to be the standing order...

Burt Lancaster

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

it should be asked in the Christianity forum under 'why are you a Christian?'

I agree, good question as well, you should start a thread asking this on the Christianity forum.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Couldn't be asked over there, let alone discussed. They've had over-sensitive troll alarms installed that tend to trigger for no reason.

Toe the line, or gtfo seems to be the standing order...

I disagree, exactly same as here and anywhere else, if you can put your point across without being patronising, condescending, or hateful, you'll have no problems. I've seen loads of atheists over there doing so.

Tipsy McSwagger

Ok will do