@ 2PM EST NASA will announce alien life has been discovered

[SwiftSpear]

I dont have problems with anyone who wants to be shizo to boost his weak selfassurance, i have problem the moment he expects me to stand up in the bus, so his imaginary friend may have a seat.

Religion is a privat thing, in fact so privat, that you best keep it completely out of the public sphere, which is nearly impossible because the invisible friend makes you vote for demagogic bigots, forces you into stuffing your childrens heads with propaganda and is in every way generally a asshole.

And that presence thing happens to everyone who gets under serious stress. I nearly crashed a car on a frozzen over street once, and after that filled up with adrenalin, alone in the car, but longing for company to celebrate live going on, i can quite imagine how this presence must feel. Guess its only natural, but human nature sucks, if we all would listen to that, we would still have kings, and keep away from dangerous magic machinery. So,you- man, no, human the fuck up, grow into an adult, be responsible for yourself.

"Religion is a private thing". This is the worst fallacy of the atheist movement in my opinion. It ultimately amounts to "I find you annoying and therefore you should not be allowed to talk". If speech is free, then shouldn't I be allowed to talk about what I believe to be the most important aspect of my life as a person, about the major guiding force for most of my decisions in life?

Most religious people in most religions have the primary goal of being righteous people, and to do the "right thing" for the world. Certainly the worst of us are no worse than the worst of the atheists and the worst of the agnostics. I'm not sure there's any evidence for anyone to claim any type of high ground there. How about all the criminals who don't believe in God because legitimate faith would require them to not act as selfishly and unethically as they do? Do the atheists want to take credit for that?

Not only that, but you're astoundingly hypocritical. Atheists have a faith belief as well, they have faith that there is no God. There is no proof for that belief, there is no stronger supporting evidence than the opposite. You are not champions of science and intelligence due to your vast and infinitely justified objectivity, what you purport to be true is no more objective and logical than your opponents, it simply is another assumption regarding the nature of things that we as a people know nothing about. So where does this notion of "There is no god! you shouldn't even be allowed to talk about it!" come from?

I'm not willing to give up my freedoms of speech, I'm not willing to sterilize my human experience of all things of an abstract nature which science doesn't currently accurately explain. I find that neither attractive or interesting. And I see absolutely no value in withholding conversation of the things I experience as I go about living my life the way I do, and how I interpret those things in a metaphysical sense.

I don't expect everyone to listen, or to want to listen. I feel really uncomfortable when those "player" types start talking about all the girls they are with and how awesome it is to treat other people like objects of pleasure. The difference being, I don't believe they shouldn't be allowed to speak simply because what they have to say is something I'm uncomfortable with. I don't particularly like conspiracy theorists either, but once again, they are free to live and argue their point, as wrong as I believe it is.

Religion is not private. Everyone likes to marginalize things they are uncomfortable with, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not comfortable with atheism, should you not be allowed to talk about it?

[SinbadEV]

[quote="SwiftSpear"][quote="PicassoCT"]I dont have problems with anyone who wants to be shizo to boost his weak selfassurance, i have problem the moment he expects me to stand up in the bus, so his imaginary friend may have a seat.

Religion is a privat thing, in fact so privat, that you best keep it completely out of the public sphere, which is nearly impossible because the invisible friend makes you vote for demagogic bigots, forces you into stuffing your childrens heads with propaganda and is in every way generally a asshole.

And that presence thing happens to everyone who gets under serious stress. I nearly crashed a car on a frozzen over street once, and after that filled up with adrenalin, alone in the car, but longing for company to celebrate live going on, i can quite imagine how this presence must feel. Guess its only natural, but human nature sucks, if we all would listen to that, we would still have kings, and keep away from dangerous magic machinery. So,you- man, no, human the fuck up, grow into an adult, be responsible for yourself.[/quote]
"Religion is a private thing". This is the worst fallacy of the atheist movement in my opinion. It ultimately amounts to "I find you annoying and therefore you should not be allowed to talk". If speech is free, then shouldn't I be allowed to talk about what I believe to be the most important aspect of my life as a person, about the major guiding force for most of my decisions in life?

Most religious people in most religions have the primary goal of being righteous people, and to do the "right thing" for the world. Certainly the worst of us are no worse than the worst of the atheists and the worst of the agnostics. I'm not sure there's any evidence for anyone to claim any type of high ground there. How about all the criminals who don't believe in God because legitimate faith would require them to not act as selfishly and unethically as they do? Do the atheists want to take credit for that?

Not only that, but you're astoundingly hypocritical. Atheists have a faith belief as well, they have faith that there is no God. There is no proof for that belief, there is no stronger supporting evidence than the opposite. You are not champions of science and intelligence due to your vast and infinitely justified objectivity, what you purport to be true is no more objective and logical than your opponents, it simply is another assumption regarding the nature of things that we as a people know nothing about. So where does this notion of "There is no god! you shouldn't even be allowed to talk about it!" come from?

I'm not willing to give up my freedoms of speech, I'm not willing to sterilize my human experience of all things of an abstract nature which science doesn't currently accurately explain. I find that neither attractive or interesting. And I see absolutely no value in withholding conversation of the things I experience as I go about living my life the way I do, and how I interpret those things in a metaphysical sense.

I don't expect everyone to listen, or to want to listen. I feel really uncomfortable when those "player" types start talking about all the girls they are with and how awesome it is to treat other people like objects of pleasure. The difference being, I don't believe they shouldn't be allowed to speak simply because what they have to say is something I'm uncomfortable with. I don't particularly like conspiracy theorists either, but once again, they are free to live and argue their point, as wrong as I believe it is.

Religion is not private. Everyone likes to marginalize things they are uncomfortable with, but that doesn't make it right. I'm not comfortable with atheism, should you not be allowed to talk about it?[/quote]

The only believer is SinbadEV, and he's not that hardcore into it.

You forgot Jazcash too.

...and apparently SwiftSpear too.

[AF]

Swiftspear, that is not accurate.

To demonstrate this point I have 2 paragraphs and points.

1: Religion is private, BUT, this does not mean the same thing as "religion is something you shouldnt talk about". Sex is private, but that doesn't stop a certain celebrity talking about fucking his wife up the arse on UK television. Religious belief is a personal private thing, and some people choose to share it. What is objected to, is when it is deemed necessary to know, and when it is imposed on people. In some places in America ( and gosh the UK and europe ), people will ask you what denomination you are and then group you and treat you accordingly. This is bad, and is surprising for people in more secular communities where its none of your business who I believe in or dont.

2: The statement that Athiests have their faith is a flawed attack, levelled usually by religious people, and is levelled at numerous people, from Athiests, to political followings, to fans of boyzone/westlife.

You see what you fail to make is the distinction between faith that there is no god, which amounts to blind conviction, versus reasoning that there is no god and taking a scientific approach to disproving god, versus the final one, that of disbelief.

Disbelief is different, its not that the person does not believe in god, and professes a lack of god. The person does not have a view on god, does not acknowledge gods existence or nonexistence, has no views on God, and has never really seen the need to bother.

It is phrased up by this man in the documentary "The history of disbelief", a frank and honest documentary that dispels with the fancy storytelling with actors and goes straight to the point. He does various things from delving into history, to talking to people about to die about their views.

Here is Part 1, Atheism: Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief - Shadows of Doubt

If you go to the 9 minute 10 second mark, he talks about his personal disbelief and why he himself despite not believing in any god, does not consider himself an Athiest. He is not an agnostic, and has no religious inclination. I suggest you watch, as he puts it better than I ever could.

[AF]

Reading back I missed something.

Athiests do not object to any talk of God. Well, a minority do but they are deluded. You see the onus is not on them to prove god does nto exist, it is on the religious to prove god does exist.

I can tell you there is a mouse in the room that follows you everywhere. You look for it and do not find it. Is the onus on you to prove me wrong? Or me to prove that there really is a mouse and I'm not wasting your time? Why should God be any different. Why should people believe in God until disproven?

There's no reason to see this as a denial of the abstract, after all how would we devise new theories? Create new art, think of new things? We are irrational beings, who have illogical tendencies and feelings. It is not the athiest that advocates Vulcan pure logic, indeed some athiests are deeply passionate and expressive about how they feel and how wonderous one can feel because of the world, godful or godless, it is still awe inspiring, and their lack of a god only deepens their awe and wonder.

I would also point out that stating your god and belief is fact is a subtle and cruel insult to other religious people who do not share your world view. To say this yet claim religious tolerance is hypocritical.

[zwzsg]

Regarding Math, this is not a purely imaginary concept. It is an abstract concept, but it has real testable attributes. It is possible to prove empirically via logic. It is possible to disprove a mathematical theorem, to have erroneous calculations, to state wrong things e.g. 2 < 1 etc

I meant imaginary as: Construct of the mind that's free from reality, so, in the sense of abstract indeed. And the rest of my post is precisely about what you say here, and that make math completly different from religion, even though both are "things coming from human thoughts that aren't physically in our universe".

[SwiftSpear]

Swiftspear, that is not accurate.
1: Religion is private, BUT, this does not mean the same thing as "religion is something you shouldnt talk about". Sex is private, but that doesn't stop a certain celebrity talking about fucking his wife up the arse on UK television. Religious belief is a personal private thing, and some people choose to share it. What is objected to, is when it is deemed necessary to know, and when it is imposed on people. In some places in America ( and gosh the UK and europe ), people will ask you what denomination you are and then group you and treat you accordingly. This is bad, and is surprising for people in more secular communities where its none of your business who I believe in or dont.

This is the same thing as the "don't ask don't tell" concept that has caused so much trouble for the american military. In secular communities it's basically "I assume you're secular until I find out otherwise, and then I ostracize you" that's not any better than outright asking what someone believes and then treating them differently because of if. Plus, for the majority of Christian groups, at least where I am, tell people you don't believe in God and they will treat you WAY nicer... patronize a little perhaps, but they are more likely to put concerted effort into trying to make sure you're comfortable with them, because we KNOW that people perceive us as judgmental idiots, but most of us just aren't even close to that description.

2: The statement that Athiests have their faith is a flawed attack, levelled usually by religious people, and is levelled at numerous people, from Athiests, to political followings, to fans of boyzone/westlife.

You see what you fail to make is the distinction between faith that there is no god, which amounts to blind conviction, versus reasoning that there is no god and taking a scientific approach to disproving god, versus the final one, that of disbelief.

Disbelief is different, its not that the person does not believe in god, and professes a lack of god. The person does not have a view on god, does not acknowledge gods existence or nonexistence, has no views on God, and has never really seen the need to bother.

It is phrased up by this man in the documentary "The history of disbelief", a frank and honest documentary that dispels with the fancy storytelling with actors and goes straight to the point. He does various things from delving into history, to talking to people about to die about their views.

Here is Part 1, Atheism: Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief - Shadows of Doubt

If you go to the 9 minute 10 second mark, he talks about his personal disbelief and why he himself despite not believing in any god, does not consider himself an Athiest. He is not an agnostic, and has no religious inclination. I suggest you watch, as he puts it better than I ever could.

Believing that something does not exist is still believing. It's "different" in how it causes you to view the world, but it is not the same as "not having any belief". My "blind conviction" in the belief that God exists is no more irrational than your belief that he does not. I HAVE examined the evidence, I have spend wealths of time thinking about it, I have studied and done research on it, I have logically reasoned that there is a God.

Faith in God is no more a dice roll than "reasoning that there is no god and taking a scientific approach to disproving god". I have seen lots and lots and lots of evidence for God in my life, from my point of reference. Is it empirical evidence? No more than the evidence I have been presented by people attempting to disprove my beliefs.

I will agree with you, there is a class of people who fit the description "The person does not have a view on god, does not acknowledge gods existence or nonexistence, has no views on God, and has never really seen the need to bother". But those people are not Atheists, those people are Agnostics. They do not have a Disbelief, nor do they have a belief, they are one of two types of people, those who choose to not acknowledge any metaphysical debate at all, effectively, those who live animalistically, never questioning things they do not understand. The other category is those who are still in the process of deciding, who do not have a belief because they are simply still gathering evidence. There are some people who fit in the second category for long long periods of time, even some philosophers, but they tend to be more rare. Most people polarize into one irrationality or another because there's just something about our character as people that prefers irrationality to ambiguity.

I choose to ignore your appeal to authority, because it's that authority is promoting a philosophy that effectively states that 2+2=5. Promotion of a theory that cannot be proved when there is no empirical evidence for it is what it is, non-empirical thinking, and both, "there is a God" and "there is not any God or gods" are such theories. One cannot take the objective high ground just because it contains the word "not". Great scientific discoveries have come both from people chafing away antiquated thinking when they suspected it was incorrect, and from people thinking creatively and making assumptions that at the time they could not prove. Every great scientist does a fair share of both.

[SwiftSpear]

I'm religiously tolerant, not religiously ambivalent. I'm not going to kill you or oppress you if you don't see things my way, I'll defend your freedom to believe what you want to because I need that freedom as well, and additionally I believe that freedom is necessary to form a valid faith in the God I do believe is correct (You cannot love something you do not freely choose to pursue). but that is not the same thing as accepting your views as equally valid to my own. The reason I argue is that atheists believe that their faith convictions are default, and thus by nature they have the high ground because they haven't "bought into" anything. But they have. I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, but I think there is overwhelming and empirical evidence to show that the atheist theory of religion is not default.

I don't expect you to see my views as "equally valid", but I would hope that when I come into threads like this and see people spouting off about how they would effectively relegate Christians and religious believers into second class citizens and then society would be so much better, that they would see that their just being crusaders (I mean that in the most demeaning and historically accurate sense) for their own religion. I'd hope that you guys would learn from the mistakes made in the history of my own religion, and that's why I take issue to stupid stuff like that being said.

[SwiftSpear]

I can tell you there is a mouse in the room that follows you everywhere. You look for it and do not find it. Is the onus on you to prove me wrong? Or me to prove that there really is a mouse and I'm not wasting your time? Why should God be any different. Why should people believe in God until disproven?

Should I believe in the claims of the scientific community until disproven?

the onus is on you prove that there is truth in all scientific claims, and I should stubbornly insist that it is all lies until every shadow of doubt can be dispelled to me in person to my frame of reference.

The reality is, everyone holds beliefs, we believe that other people around us exist, and they aren't just figments of our imagination, we believe that things such as "Intelligence" and "Authority" are valid ideals and people can hold those positions. We believe in the value of things like money and property and all kinds of stuff that has no real objectivity aside from our socially agreed upon assertion of it. You can't ever actually objectively prove to me that you exist, I just assume it to be true, because I have some compelling evidence of that, and I don't really like the alternative. Belief in God fundamentally is no different than that. It's either objectively true, or it is not, and no belief for or against it makes any difference to that, or is innately any more valuable than the alternative belief. Something being unprovable doesn't make it not worth believing in.

I believe in God because I've seen evidence for it, when I started searching for answers to my questions regarding God, it felt like hopping on the roller coaster, the stars aligned around me and evidence would fall into my lap just as I needed it. Fundamentally, I like the hope in the position that there is objective good in the universe and there is a being that personifies that ideal. I don't believe in God for no reason at all, I feel my reasons for my belief are absolutely justified. I prefer belief in my God to disbelief. The whole concept of "onus of proof" is a cop out in this discussion. Only the stance of "I don't know" could appeal to it. If you're not willing to be solid in that stance I have no onus on me.

[KaiserJ]

all these threads do is re-organize my "eat first" lists for when north korea rules us all

[FireStorm_]

I don't understand.
You're tolerant but you also take issue?
You talk about your 'own religion', but also think (and I'm not sure whether you have expressed this or not) it is not your personal view?
What part (all of it?) of this view is shared, and via what medium?

Your statements raise so many questions for me, yet claim you are sure about something (a divine entity?), and even stranger to me, I haven't noticed you describing this 'something' in any way. How do you know your description will be the same as that of someone else? Someone else who is sure for that matter.
Isn't evidence something that can be shared?

Last but not least:
I think it funny you use the word 'Crusaders' in combination with the word 'relegate' in the sense of ignoring.

[SwiftSpear]

Evidence: "something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:"
According to the dictionary.

I see no requisite of it being shareable, if I haven't already, I would state that the existence of God is NOT something objectively provable. If it were something that could be proven, then God would have to want to be to be objectively proven, and if God, the God of the bible, wanted to be objectively proven, then there would be no test to run, he'd just come and tell everyone "Oh hey, I'm God by the way", or something of that regard. There is no empirical evidence of God, only circumstantial evidence, and I can recount the circumstantial evidence I have seen, and I'm completely willing to do that, but I've seen no sign that the people I'm talking to here wouldn't just question my interpretation. That would be the "correct scientific" thing to do.

Regarding Crusaders: From my experience, atheists rarely ignore, they're usually quite happy to be equally or more obnoxious in promoting their beliefs than most other people. I've spoken to atheists who legitimately would like it to be illegal to talk about God. That's not ignoring. Crusaders were horrible people. It effectively was "Oh you're not Christian?" *STAB STAB STAB*. I would like no one from any religion to ever do that ever again, but these days atheists are a bad offender. Just ask Falun Gong.

For the record, I most closely identify with Christianity, however, I'm a bit more naturalist and a bit less biblically oriented than most Christians. To me, the bible contains a human interpretation of God's interaction with us throughout our history. It is still to me "the word of God" but I don't believe it's COMPLETELY devoid of interpretation. If I'm a prophet and I saw a vision of the big bang, but I've lived my whole life tending sheep and I don't know how to read, let alone anything about physics or space, how would I describe what I saw? The bible, to me, has the answer to that question. It's full of people trying to describe things that require language they do not possess. It doesn't lie, but it's not written in God's own tongue either. Consequently, to our culture in this point in time, some of the language is even misleading if read too literally. I accredit most of the disputes between "Science" and "Christianity" to that concept.

[FireStorm_]

Ah okey, I think I understand your view better now.
But I must admit I think it still remains a very personal one.

[SwiftSpear]

Ah okey, I think I understand your view better now.
But I must admit I think it still remains a very personal one.

Yes, but I'd say the view that other people actually exist is a personal one as well. Personal is not the same as private. Our personal views reflect our point of reference to the world around us, I'd argue it's actually kind of important that we try to communicate them to each other, because some can be very dangerous, and I also believe that thought can be refined and perfected through discourse with others.

[FireStorm_]

Ah okey, I think I understand your view better now.
But I must admit I think it still remains a very personal one.

Yes, but I'd say the view that other people actually exist is a personal one as well. Personal is not the same as private. Our personal views reflect our point of reference to the world around us, I'd argue it's actually kind of important that we try to communicate them to each other, because some can be very dangerous, and I also believe that thought can be refined and perfected through discourse with others.

Apart from 'perfected' (witch is a word I seldom think I know how to use) atm I do agree with this statement.

[Teutooni]

Swift and Sinbad, you seem to think atheism is about believing that there is no god. It's not that at all, it's about not believing that there is a god. There is a distinct difference. Belief asserts something, not believing does not assert anything.

[PicassoCT]

Atheisism, is simply the statement, that nearly 100 % of all evidence found point towards a lack of god. And now enter the Christian, Muslim, Jew, demanding, that his Monotistic Fairytale written a thousand years ago, is to be taken as evidence, because mum and dad, and the pastor/rabbi/pope said its true.

You notice the problem? There is one thing i can check. I can travell to galapagos, i can dig in the ground, i could do a c14 analysis if i had the money and access. Its all hands on, noose in, its real, even the more abstract parts of particle physics could be checked (if you want to sit on top of a huge watertank under a mountain, having equipment to record tiny lightflashes). In fact i saw my grandfather do something similar for radon in water when i was young, i counted those flashes, the intervalls, did the math, he never said believe it, he said, note, and keep those notes because others are going to check you, repeat and public dishonor you if you lie, or dont have evidence, wich is nearly the same thing.

Basically every solid fact in the books of religions (which are rare already) has been found medled with by the authors, saturated with that times propaganda or has been uterly disproven by aerchologists digs.(which actually showed the monotheistic religions beeing a wild pirated version of older religions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ennead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyro-Babylonian_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... maximalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

So what remains? The vague claim that religion somehow still miracolously creates justice, although most churches certaintly make a high rank among the most corrupt organisations. (You should look at old roman catholic documents- its suprising how many left-alone widows donated there whole fortune and turned into nuns, to avoid the accusation of witchery. Not to mention that martin luther came along because of the ablasshandel, and still the religions of today are a stronghold of bigottry.)

I could hit this nail deeper, but it would be unwise, Leviathancybernetics do not approve of semi-selfconcieus machinery.

[SwiftSpear]

Swift and Sinbad, you seem to think atheism is about believing that there is no god. It's not that at all, it's about not believing that there is a god. There is a distinct difference. Belief asserts something, not believing does not assert anything.

"There is no god" is an assertion.

Not believing there is a god could be atheism or it could be agnosticism. The difference is that agnostics don't tend to be evangelistic about it. Why would they criticize the belief that there is a god or gods when they respect the possibility that there may be a god? If they didn't have respect for that possibility they would have formed a belief against it already.

"Atheisism, is simply the statement, that nearly 100 % of all evidence found point towards a lack of god."

Christianity is simply the statement that nearly 100% of all evidence found points towards 1 true God, and Jesus is his son, and personification in human form.

Abuse of the religion is not evidence against God, humans all have free will weather they identify with the church or not, and church goers are no more invincible to corruption than anyone else, but they have an ideology of trying to eliminate it. parallel Babylonian histories are also non evidence, there is no evidence to the claim that they didn't originate with the Jews. It's simply that we find stories similar to the biblical stories in Babylonian writing. The Jews didn't have a written language at the time, but it's said they had a long established oral history. Who knows? Atheist historians make one claim theistic historians make another.

"although most churches certaintly make a high rank among the most corrupt organisations"

Absolutely ridiculous, a total shot in the dark. I've been involved with many churches that I know for a fact have no corruption, or at very least less corruption then the last 3 commercial jobs I worked. Hell, I go to the most prestigious university in my province and I've already seen more corruption there than at any church I've attended. Was there corruption in and of the church in history? Absolutely, but it would be hard pressed to find a church even through history as corrupt as most of our multinational corporations today, let alone the monarchies of the time that shared and often corrupted church power directly to serve their own agendas.

I believe in the vast majority of scientific claims made, the one's I question have more to do with my knowledge of that field of study than they do about religious beliefs, but realistically, I'm not going to do every experiment to test the things written down in text books. What if you DID do that water tank and mountain experiment and you DIDN'T see what you expected? You won't know for a fact that you will see what you expect and what science tells you you should see until you have actually done it yourself. But it's expensive, so you won't ever do it I'm guessing, yet you will still believe because in theory it has been done before and you trust the word of the person who undertook that experiment in the first place.

People will dishonor you if they don't like what you have to say for any reason, truth has nothing to do with it.

[zwzsg]

I believe in God because I've seen evidence for it.

Show me your evidence!

It was probably posted in Spring board already, but this http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ will explain how god can be proven not to exist.

- There are beliefs that we can't prove whether they're right or wrong.
- There are beliefs which can be verified to hold true.
- There are beliefs which can be shown to be utter bollocks.
God is not of the first kind, but of the third.

Also, there are as many, if not more, criminals and guys treating women badly, among religious people than atheist.

[PicassoCT]

Among scientist the only way to be (permanently) dishonored is beeing caught lieing which is showing non testable facts. And you can do those experiments, just when you go on holiday next time, ask when you want to watch a neutrino-screener, im sure they will gladly show you.

Listen Swift, i dont think i can out-argument your feelings, but the problem of various believes is, that what starts out as a harmless crutch for the mind to get better through life, has turned so many times into the stick between humanitys legs, its damage nearly self-evident by now. Lets asume, little philius swift gets teached the believe of his parents, which also includes a rigid moral code (not mating, no bating, till after marriage dating) and one day walks down the street, horny, loaded and angry, sees old AF and his lover walking before him, takes out the knife- and god willz it, rams it into the back of both.

Now the usual chorus will start, nobody will plead guilty, it will be called a tragedy, nothing could have been done to prevent it, thats just the stuff that happens, when young people walk around. Un4chanutly, AF and his lover, were at that time working on something big, something that would have helped society, something that almost for curesure, has somehow to do with sience. Now that is lost, beside two lives, your son in prison (in body, like in mind) and all that for a crutch, that breaks more legs, than it helps. And you dont see the corruption in the churches, because you dont want to see them, or god comended them.

Ive seen this shit with my own eyes, its disgusting, mental ill pedophiles getting second chances, again and again, as long as they can lie convincing about regretting everything, and been born again seven x seven times.

Other mental sick people wandering from church to church, reciving prayers not healthcare, before beeing shunned and mobbed away again. Woman, after beeing divorced shut out from Eucharisty of the only comunity& friends they have left. Gaybashing every day, of curse. But of course thats just love for them!

Not everything corrupt is nessescary tangled with money.
And if you have your ears open, you will notice, that a lot of the man in those churches still have second spouses, well you got to get material for the confession and witness mess. And there is always the cheap lie, that religion doesent create better people, god does.
Well yes, the great success is always made by Stalin in the skys, and the phail, is comitted by the people and traitors!

[smoth]

swift, not to interrupt your thoughts but your posts are somewhat long and disorganized, it is hard to follow you and that hurts your argument.