Galwayguy35 wrote: » I do believe there is something after death but I'm not sure what it is.
Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: » How would people who don’t believe feel if they found out tomorrow that there actually was a God who was all seeing and knowing and we were answerable to him in an afterlife? I for one would be delighted, it saddens me to think I may never see or speak to my Dad again hence why I struggle with my belief. Part of me says there is a God but I think a bigger part of me knows there isn’t and that genuinely does upset me.
Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: » Why does both the sun shine and the sky rain on the good and the evil?
vladmydad wrote: » The void that’s being left from the decline of traditional religion is now being filled with climate alarmism. (I’m not saying climate change isn’t real but it’s definitely taking on a religious/cult element). This , to me, gives credence to the theory that religiosity may be hard wired into human beings.
One eyed Jack wrote: » uptherebels wrote: » No not confusing you with someone else, alas touch screen phones. You can't separate the church from its membership. Those that committed crimes were protected by others who are in turn supported by the rest. I wasn’t separating the Church from it’s membership. I’m just not interested in suggesting that every member of the Church is complicit or tacitly approves of the wrongdoing of a minority of it’s members. Your suggesting that members of the Church are responsible for the actions of a minority of it’s members is the same in principle as suggesting that victims of abuse are responsible for the actions of the people who commit abuse against them given that they were, and the vast majority of victims of abuse still are, members of the same Catholic Church. You sure you want to stick to that logic? I’ll tell you now it’s nonsense if you so much as gave it more than 30 seconds thought. uptherebels wrote: » The difference to your ridiculous rape comparison is that men who commit rapes don't have the support and protection of any group or organisation in an effort to protect its power and money, least of all one that preaches "morality". You’re actually serious? Of course they do. That’s precisely how they were able to commit rape and abuse and have their crimes covered up, because they have a combination of power, wealth and influence in society which enables them to weave their way into positions where they have the capacity to commit crimes and have them covered up, while all the time portraying themselves as pillars of their respective communities. One would imagine the recent scandals in all different walks of life and organisations would have taught you that much, that corruption and malfeasance isn’t an intrinsic part of any ideology or community, but there are always the minority of opportunistic fcuks will manipulate people’s idealism for their own nefarious purposes. It doesn’t follow that all members of that community or all people who subscribe to a particular ideology are degenerate fcukwits.
uptherebels wrote: » No not confusing you with someone else, alas touch screen phones. You can't separate the church from its membership. Those that committed crimes were protected by others who are in turn supported by the rest.
uptherebels wrote: » The difference to your ridiculous rape comparison is that men who commit rapes don't have the support and protection of any group or organisation in an effort to protect its power and money, least of all one that preaches "morality".
smacl wrote: » The sun shines because it is a nuclear furnace and it rains or not based on prevalent weather conditions. Whether either fall on you depends pretty much on where you're standing regardless of what you happen to believe.
smacl wrote: » That's fair enough, but the reverse has been the case throughout the history of this country and even in this thread we see atheists being referred to collectively as ****. Before more religious types get all pissy about atheists slagging off their religion they should maybe ask what's the source of resentment of organised religion and how much of it is justified?
Drumpot wrote: » So “they started it” is your reason for resenting religion? Seriously? And we wonder why both sides can’t have reasonable debates on the topic! You’re both as bad as each other :pac:
smacl wrote: » Nope. Not because 'they started it', because of the untold amount of abuse, bullying and other crap that has gone on in the name religion for so long which up until very recently we simply weren't allowed to question. The reason the church gets so much criticism is because they've behave absolutely appallingly for as long as they could get away with it.
railer201 wrote: » Would there be any chance of 'getting even' with the Catholic church elsewhere, rather than dragging threads off topic ?
smacl wrote: » Ok, to bring it back on topic then, I reckon that a lot of people don't believe in god these days because the institutions that promote such a belief have time and again proven themselves untrustworthy. They're more vocal about it because they're no longer going to be victimised for voicing such an opinion.
20Wheel wrote: » best advice ive seen on the subject is this; there may or may not be a god, we cant answer that. However, that god will not intervene in your life. i find this to be true, having seen people in situations way more fcked up than any ill find myself in. god didnt intervene for people in warzones, adrift at sea, or stuck in an upturned car. so he/she/it wont be intervening to get you a promotion/laid/out of minor trouble. by all means pray, but be sure to tie up your camel, as the old saying goes.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I wasn’t separating the Church from it’s membership. I’m just not interested in suggesting that every member of the Church is complicit or tacitly approves of the wrongdoing of a minority of it’s members. Your suggesting that members of the Church are responsible for the actions of a minority of it’s members is the same in principle as suggesting that victims of abuse are responsible for the actions of the people who commit abuse against them given that they were, and the vast majority of victims of abuse still are, members of the same Catholic Church. You sure you want to stick to that logic? I’ll tell you now it’s nonsense if you so much as gave it more than 30 seconds thought. You’re actually serious? Of course they do. That’s precisely how they were able to commit rape and abuse and have their crimes covered up, because they have a combination of power, wealth and influence in society which enables them to weave their way into positions where they have the capacity to commit crimes and have them covered up, while all the time portraying themselves as pillars of their respective communities. One would imagine the recent scandals in all different walks of life and organisations would have taught you that much, that corruption and malfeasance isn’t an intrinsic part of any ideology or community, but there are always the minority of opportunistic fcuks will manipulate people’s idealism for their own nefarious purposes. It doesn’t follow that all members of that community or all people who subscribe to a particular ideology are degenerate fcukwits.
Drumpot wrote: » Alot of people who have made this decision have learned nothing. They will just swap their trust in one institution/organisation/belief for another flawed man made ideal. You have to be able to see the pros and cons of religion and look beyond your own prejudice to see this.
We have been victimised and continue to be abused by our banks, our government, our regulators and pretty much any institution with any sort of power. Because people are inherently ignorant, particularly on the role they play in corruption. For example, I think many many people engage in corrupt practices that they convince themselves are technically grand. The culture in their organisation absolves them of personal responsibility. Kind of like the concept of how normal people can engage in war atrocities. Wearing a uniform or having power in a corrupt culture can convince people they are not actually doing anything, they are just following orders or doing what everybody else is doing.
Graces7 wrote: » A small reminder. The thread title asks if you believe in God God is not the church; the church is not God. Jesus is not the church; the church is not Jesus. Religion is not God. No human agency is God I believe in God, in Jesus , in the Holy Spirit .
smacl wrote: » People don't spontaneously believe in god though. If they believe in the god they're told to believe in by their local church. If you'd been born in Yemen I daresay you'd believe in Allah.
