Trump has granted religions huge unchecked power over the government and made it easier for shadowy people to pour money into politics.

Trump signed an executive order which works to destroy the Johnson Amendment, which says says that non profits, like religious organisations, can't involve themselves in politics.

Trump acts like this is a First Amendment victory, allowing pastors and such to talk about politics from the pulpit.

The Johnson Amendment wasn't about stopping a religious leader from talking about politics to their congregation, rather it's about massive organisations, who don't pay taxes but do do have an agenda, having influence over the political process.

What Trump has done could turn Churches in to SuperPACS or worse. Religious organisations could spend money campaigning for politicians but they can also receive money from whoever.

This creates a way for people to funnel money into political campaigns without any accountability or transparency.

The thing is no one was even telling Churches they can't involve themselves in politics. All the Johnson Amendment said was Churches lose their tax exempt status if they do.

A religious leader can say what they want if their church, temple or mosque just paid taxes.

And this whole time barely any church got in trouble for this stuff.

2000 churches challenged the IRS about this since 2008 and only one has been audited.

But know it's gone, and with it the separation of church and state.

American-style Protestantism is largely a political organisation. This is welcome news to them.

...."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"..... The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively...

The First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing a National Religion, & it also forbids Congress from making laws that interferes with a Citizen's Right to practice his/her chosen religion....

[font=Georgia][i]That's all the First Amendment does pertaining to Religion.....it doesn't grant any Right(s).

The Separation of Church & State, does not mean.....I repeat, does not mean the Separation of Church from State......   ;)
[/i][/font]

Panther wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 10:44pm:

...."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"..... The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively... The First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing a National Religion, & it also forbids Congress from making laws that interferes with a Citizen's Right to practice his/her chosen religion.... The Separation of Church & State, does not mean.....I repeat, does not mean the Separation of Church from State......   ;)

You have completely ignored their tax-exempt status in regards to political activity.

AiA wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 10:46pm:

Panther wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 10:44pm: ...."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"..... The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively... The First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing a National Religion, & it also forbids Congress from making laws that interferes with a Citizen's Right to practice his/her chosen religion.... The Separation of Church & State, does not mean.....I repeat, does not mean the Separation of Church from State......   ;) You have completely ignored their tax-exempt status in regards to political activity.

Really?......Where is that addressed in the Constitution......or can you cite a specific Amendment or Article/Clause that refers to that in the Constitution?    https://i.imgsafe.org/b9e0347.gif

It has been addressed by Congress.

AiA wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 11:18pm:

It has been addressed by Congress.

Really....I thought that The Constitution is the Law of the Land.....All law must have it's "roots" in, & be compliant with, the US Constitution as written or defined by the Supreme Court in their decisions.

Congress is only one (1) part of the 3 independent parts of government.

But, if Congress has addressed it, specifically how....in what....where? https://i.imgsafe.org/b9e0347.gif

Panther wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 11:51pm:

AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:18pm: It has been addressed by Congress. Really....I thought that The Constitution is the Law of the Land.....All law must have it's "roots" in, & be compliant with, the US Constitution as written or defined by the Supreme Court in their decisions. Congress is only one (1) part of the 3 independent parts of government. But, if Congress has addressed it, specifically how....in what....where? https://i.imgsafe.org/b9e0347.gif

\

Hard to believe that in 2017 someone would not know how to do a search using Google ... the law Congress passed does have its "roots" in the Constitution, if it didn't, it wouldn't be law, would it? Trump has fallen under the influence of scum like Paula White, a fraudulent minister who lives a luxury lifestyle while filing for bankruptcy.

What a bunch of BS.

Raven must be on the mailing list for the Democrats.

A 180 degree spin.

What this does is free up pastors to speak their minds in church/synagogue/mosque without fear of an IRS audit or losing their tax exempt status.

If anything this puts the churches at odds with the "progressives" in gov.

Well done President Trump.

Richdude wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 12:02am:

What a bunch of BS. Raven must be on the mailing list for the Democrats. A 180 degree spin. What this does is free up pastors to speak their minds in church/synagogue/mosque without fear of an IRS audit or losing their tax exempt status. If anything this puts the churches at odds with the "progressives" in gov. Well done President Trump.

Trump fraudster Paula White would love you:http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/09/trump_pastor_paula_white_has_bankruptcy_pretend_doctoral_history.html

AiA wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 12:13am:

Richdude wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 12:02am: What a bunch of BS. Raven must be on the mailing list for the Democrats. A 180 degree spin. What this does is free up pastors to speak their minds in church/synagogue/mosque without fear of an IRS audit or losing their tax exempt status. If anything this puts the churches at odds with the "progressives" in gov. Well done President Trump. Trump fraudster Paula White would love you:http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/09/trump_pastor_paula_white_has_bankruptcy_pretend_doctoral_history.html

That is a media hit piece because of her support for Trump.

Hillary sold 20% of the USA's uranium to Russia - why is that never mentioned by the MSM?

Like most of Trumps mindless and pointless Executive Orders, all this does is try and curry points with his religious base which is deserting him. Tax Status has NEVER been an impingement on the right to speak, including politics.

The 'separation of church and state' does not mean that religious people are not permitted to speak or stand for office. It ONLY MEANS that religious organisations do not get to make and enforce law as it was once in England. That is all.

AiA wrote on May 11^th, 2017 at 11:58pm:

Panther wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:51pm: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:18pm: It has been addressed by Congress. Really....I thought that The Constitution is the Law of the Land.....All law must have it's "roots" in, & be compliant with, the US Constitution as written or defined by the Supreme Court in their decisions. Congress is only one (1) part of the 3 independent parts of government. But, if Congress has addressed it, specifically how....in what....where? https://i.imgsafe.org/b9e0347.gif \ Hard to believe that in 2017 someone would not know how to do a search using Google ... the law Congress passed does have its "roots" in the Constitution, if it didn't, it wouldn't be law, would it? Trump has fallen under the influence of scum like Paula White, a fraudulent minister who lives a luxury lifestyle while filing for bankruptcy.

So what, unless you are into promoting the progressive left's "Class Warfare" mantra  aka  Envy of the Successful.

Many millionaires & billionaires file for bankruptcy in their failing/faltering businesses (those worth saving), which doesn't incorporate their 'personal' holdings...they are separate under bankruptcy law... & that is all I'll say about that.....

➣ Any law that passes becomes law if it passes via the process, it only becomes unconstitutional when suit is filed, & then the Supreme Court decides it's worthy of it's attention (they pick & chose amongst the many who apply....they aren't required to listen to any they don't want to)....when the Supreme Court decides to listen to the case, & it comes to a decision, only then is it truly for or against....constitutional or unconstitutional.....& until that time the findings of lower court decision(s)..if any..will stand.

A handful of lower courts could find a law constitutional, but if taken up by the Supreme Court at a later date, & the Supreme Court decides the exact same law  unconstitutional....well all the lower courts decisions are vacated, & the law is struck as unconstitutional.

The same thing could happen if a present day Supreme Court picks up a decision made by a previous SCOTUS, & upon it's reflection decides to overturn the previous SC decision based on it's own findings.....it's overturned....fin-eee-tow!   

An example might very well be the 1970's Roe v. Wade decision somewhere down the line..... a present day court could overturn that decision if it wished, & all the howling would accomplish nothing.....it would either be wait for a more sympathetic court in the distant future to overturn, or an Amendment could be brought & passed changing the Constitution itself. ;)

We may very well be seeing something similar in this topics  Church & State case, in the near future, that is, if the Supreme Court in it's infinite wisdom  http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/chuckle002.gif  wants to hear it. ;)

Panther wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 11:44am:

AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:58pm: Panther wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:51pm: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:18pm: It has been addressed by Congress. Really....I thought that The Constitution is the Law of the Land.....All law must have it's "roots" in, & be compliant with, the US Constitution as written or defined by the Supreme Court in their decisions. Congress is only one (1) part of the 3 independent parts of government. But, if Congress has addressed it, specifically how....in what....where? https://i.imgsafe.org/b9e0347.gif \ Hard to believe that in 2017 someone would not know how to do a search using Google ... the law Congress passed does have its "roots" in the Constitution, if it didn't, it wouldn't be law, would it? Trump has fallen under the influence of scum like Paula White, a fraudulent minister who lives a luxury lifestyle while filing for bankruptcy. So what, unless you are into promoting the progressive left's "Class Warfare" mantra  aka  Envy of the Successful. Many millionaires & billionaires file for bankruptcy in their failing/faltering businesses (those worth saving), which doesn't incorporate their 'personal' holdings...they are separate under bankruptcy law... & that is all I'll say about that..... ➣ Any law that passes becomes law if it passes via the process, it only becomes unconstitutional when suit is filed, & then the Supreme Court decides it's worthy of it's attention (they pick & chose amongst the many who apply....they aren't required to listen to any they don't want to)....when the Supreme Court decides to listen to the case, & it comes to a decision, only then is it truly for or against....constitutional or unconstitutional.....& until that time the findings of lower court decision(s)..if any..will stand. A handful of lower courts could find a law constitutional, but if taken up by the Supreme Court at a later date, & the Supreme Court decides the exact same law  unconstitutional....well all the lower courts decisions are vacated, & the law is struck as unconstitutional. The same thing could happen if a present day Supreme Court picks up a decision made by a previous SCOTUS, & upon it's reflection decides to overturn the previous SC decision based on it's own findings.....it's overturned....fin-eee-tow!    An example might very well be the 1970's Roe v. Wade decision somewhere down the line..... a present day court could overturn that decision if it wished, & all the howling would accomplish nothing.....it would either be wait for a more sympathetic court in the distant future to overturn, or an Amendment could be brought & passed changing the Constitution itself. ;) We may very well be seeing something similar in this topics  Church & State case, in the near future, that is, if the Supreme Court in it's infinite wisdom  http://onesmiley.site11.com/smileys/chuckle002.gif  wants to hear it. ;)

your endless pro-SCOTUS masturbation is tiresome. none of your waffle address the OP in any form.

https://vgy.me/8awlyS.gif

longweekend58 wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 12:24pm:

Panther wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 11:44am: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:58pm: Panther wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:51pm: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:18pm: It has been addressed by Congress. Really....I thought that The Constitution is the Law of the Land.....All law must have it's "roots" in, & be compliant with, the US Constitution as written or defined by the Supreme Court in their decisions. Congress is only one (1) part of the 3 independent parts of government. But, if Congress has addressed it, specifically how....in what....where? https://i.imgsafe.org/b9e0347.gif \ Hard to believe that in 2017 someone would not know how to do a search using Google ... the law Congress passed does have its "roots" in the Constitution, if it didn't, it wouldn't be law, would it? Trump has fallen under the influence of scum like Paula White, a fraudulent minister who lives a luxury lifestyle while filing for bankruptcy. So what, unless you are into promoting the progressive left's "Class Warfare" mantra  aka  Envy of the Successful. Many millionaires & billionaires file for bankruptcy in their failing/faltering businesses (those worth saving), which doesn't incorporate their 'personal' holdings...they are separate under bankruptcy law... & that is all I'll say about that..... ➣ Any law that passes becomes law if it passes via the process, it only becomes unconstitutional when suit is filed, & then the Supreme Court decides it's worthy of it's attention (they pick & chose amongst the many who apply....they aren't required to listen to any they don't want to)....when the Supreme Court decides to listen to the case, & it comes to a decision, only then is it truly for or against....constitutional or unconstitutional.....& until that time the findings of lower court decision(s)..if any..will stand. A handful of lower courts could find a law constitutional, but if taken up by the Supreme Court at a later date, & the Supreme Court decides the exact same law  unconstitutional....well all the lower courts decisions are vacated, & the law is struck as unconstitutional. The same thing could happen if a present day Supreme Court picks up a decision made by a previous SCOTUS, & upon it's reflection decides to overturn the previous SC decision based on it's own findings.....it's overturned....fin-eee-tow!    An example might very well be the 1970's Roe v. Wade decision somewhere down the line..... a present day court could overturn that decision if it wished, & all the howling would accomplish nothing.....it would either be wait for a more sympathetic court in the distant future to overturn, or an Amendment could be brought & passed changing the Constitution itself. ;) We may very well be seeing something similar in this topics  Church & State case, in the near future, that is, if the Supreme Court in it's infinite wisdom  http://onesmiley.site11.com/smileys/chuckle002.gif  wants to hear it. ;) your endless pro-SCOTUS masturbation is tiresome. none of your waffle address the OP in any form.

Good, because I wasn't addressing the OP, I was responding a direct question posed to me by AiA in the previous post....but if you knew how to read you would have known that.....but being a TROLL you don't bother reading, or adding to the discussion......you just go about being the ignorant TROLLING Twat you are....... & if you don't like my "pro-SCOTUS masturbation" then stop grabbing at my waist begging like an Oliver Twist for a mouthful of seconds!!   ;D ;D  http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif

Panther wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 12:24pm: Panther wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 11:44am: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:58pm: Panther wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:51pm: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:18pm: It has been addressed by Congress. Really....I thought that The Constitution is the Law of the Land.....All law must have it's "roots" in, & be compliant with, the US Constitution as written or defined by the Supreme Court in their decisions. Congress is only one (1) part of the 3 independent parts of government. But, if Congress has addressed it, specifically how....in what....where? https://i.imgsafe.org/b9e0347.gif \ Hard to believe that in 2017 someone would not know how to do a search using Google ... the law Congress passed does have its "roots" in the Constitution, if it didn't, it wouldn't be law, would it? Trump has fallen under the influence of scum like Paula White, a fraudulent minister who lives a luxury lifestyle while filing for bankruptcy. So what, unless you are into promoting the progressive left's "Class Warfare" mantra  aka  Envy of the Successful. Many millionaires & billionaires file for bankruptcy in their failing/faltering businesses (those worth saving), which doesn't incorporate their 'personal' holdings...they are separate under bankruptcy law... & that is all I'll say about that..... ➣ Any law that passes becomes law if it passes via the process, it only becomes unconstitutional when suit is filed, & then the Supreme Court decides it's worthy of it's attention (they pick & chose amongst the many who apply....they aren't required to listen to any they don't want to)....when the Supreme Court decides to listen to the case, & it comes to a decision, only then is it truly for or against....constitutional or unconstitutional.....& until that time the findings of lower court decision(s)..if any..will stand. A handful of lower courts could find a law constitutional, but if taken up by the Supreme Court at a later date, & the Supreme Court decides the exact same law  unconstitutional....well all the lower courts decisions are vacated, & the law is struck as unconstitutional. The same thing could happen if a present day Supreme Court picks up a decision made by a previous SCOTUS, & upon it's reflection decides to overturn the previous SC decision based on it's own findings.....it's overturned....fin-eee-tow!    An example might very well be the 1970's Roe v. Wade decision somewhere down the line..... a present day court could overturn that decision if it wished, & all the howling would accomplish nothing.....it would either be wait for a more sympathetic court in the distant future to overturn, or an Amendment could be brought & passed changing the Constitution itself. ;) We may very well be seeing something similar in this topics  Church & State case, in the near future, that is, if the Supreme Court in it's infinite wisdom  http://onesmiley.site11.com/smileys/chuckle002.gif  wants to hear it. ;) your endless pro-SCOTUS masturbation is tiresome. none of your waffle address the OP in any form. Good, because I wasn't addressing the OP, I was responding a direct question posed to me by AiA in the previous post....but if you knew how to read you would have known that.....but being a TROLL you don't bother reading, or adding to the discussion......you just go about being the ignorant TROLLING Twat you are....... http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif

pretty much every post you make refers to SCOTUS and links back to your lamentable understanding of law and constitution or even the concepts thereof.

longweekend58 wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 8:42pm:

Panther wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 8:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 12:24pm: Panther wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 11:44am: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:58pm: Panther wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:51pm: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:18pm: It has been addressed by Congress. Really....I thought that The Constitution is the Law of the Land.....All law must have it's "roots" in, & be compliant with, the US Constitution as written or defined by the Supreme Court in their decisions. Congress is only one (1) part of the 3 independent parts of government. But, if Congress has addressed it, specifically how....in what....where? https://i.imgsafe.org/b9e0347.gif \ Hard to believe that in 2017 someone would not know how to do a search using Google ... the law Congress passed does have its "roots" in the Constitution, if it didn't, it wouldn't be law, would it? Trump has fallen under the influence of scum like Paula White, a fraudulent minister who lives a luxury lifestyle while filing for bankruptcy. So what, unless you are into promoting the progressive left's "Class Warfare" mantra  aka  Envy of the Successful. Many millionaires & billionaires file for bankruptcy in their failing/faltering businesses (those worth saving), which doesn't incorporate their 'personal' holdings...they are separate under bankruptcy law... & that is all I'll say about that..... ➣ Any law that passes becomes law if it passes via the process, it only becomes unconstitutional when suit is filed, & then the Supreme Court decides it's worthy of it's attention (they pick & chose amongst the many who apply....they aren't required to listen to any they don't want to)....when the Supreme Court decides to listen to the case, & it comes to a decision, only then is it truly for or against....constitutional or unconstitutional.....& until that time the findings of lower court decision(s)..if any..will stand. A handful of lower courts could find a law constitutional, but if taken up by the Supreme Court at a later date, & the Supreme Court decides the exact same law  unconstitutional....well all the lower courts decisions are vacated, & the law is struck as unconstitutional. The same thing could happen if a present day Supreme Court picks up a decision made by a previous SCOTUS, & upon it's reflection decides to overturn the previous SC decision based on it's own findings.....it's overturned....fin-eee-tow!    An example might very well be the 1970's Roe v. Wade decision somewhere down the line..... a present day court could overturn that decision if it wished, & all the howling would accomplish nothing.....it would either be wait for a more sympathetic court in the distant future to overturn, or an Amendment could be brought & passed changing the Constitution itself. ;) We may very well be seeing something similar in this topics  Church & State case, in the near future, that is, if the Supreme Court in it's infinite wisdom  http://onesmiley.site11.com/smileys/chuckle002.gif  wants to hear it. ;) your endless pro-SCOTUS masturbation is tiresome. none of your waffle address the OP in any form. Good, because I wasn't addressing the OP, I was responding a direct question posed to me by AiA in the previous post....but if you knew how to read you would have known that.....but being a TROLL you don't bother reading, or adding to the discussion......you just go about being the ignorant TROLLING Twat you are....... & if you don't like my "pro-SCOTUS masturbation" then stop grabbing at my waist begging like an Oliver Twist for a mouthful of seconds!!   ;D ;D  http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif pretty much every post you make refers to SCOTUS and links back to your lamentable understanding of law and constitution or even the concepts thereof.

Looking for another mouthful of my masturbation Longy.....

I've forgotten more about the SCOTUS in one moment than you could learn in a lifetime , & you've not proven me wrong yet......because you can't.......BOY  ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on May 12^th, 2017 at 8:42pm:

Panther wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 8:37pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 12:24pm: Panther wrote on May 12th, 2017 at 11:44am: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:58pm: Panther wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:51pm: AiA wrote on May 11th, 2017 at 11:18pm: It has been addressed by Congress. Really....I thought that The Constitution is the Law of the Land.....All law must have it's "roots" in, & be compliant with, the US Constitution as written or defined by the Supreme Court in their decisions. Congress is only one (1) part of the 3 independent parts of government. But, if Congress has addressed it, specifically how....in what....where? https://i.imgsafe.org/b9e0347.gif \ Hard to believe that in 2017 someone would not know how to do a search using Google ... the law Congress passed does have its "roots" in the Constitution, if it didn't, it wouldn't be law, would it? Trump has fallen under the influence of scum like Paula White, a fraudulent minister who lives a luxury lifestyle while filing for bankruptcy. So what, unless you are into promoting the progressive left's "Class Warfare" mantra  aka  Envy of the Successful. Many millionaires & billionaires file for bankruptcy in their failing/faltering businesses (those worth saving), which doesn't incorporate their 'personal' holdings...they are separate under bankruptcy law... & that is all I'll say about that..... ➣ Any law that passes becomes law if it passes via the process, it only becomes unconstitutional when suit is filed, & then the Supreme Court decides it's worthy of it's attention (they pick & chose amongst the many who apply....they aren't required to listen to any they don't want to)....when the Supreme Court decides to listen to the case, & it comes to a decision, only then is it truly for or against....constitutional or unconstitutional.....& until that time the findings of lower court decision(s)..if any..will stand. A handful of lower courts could find a law constitutional, but if taken up by the Supreme Court at a later date, & the Supreme Court decides the exact same law  unconstitutional....well all the lower courts decisions are vacated, & the law is struck as unconstitutional. The same thing could happen if a present day Supreme Court picks up a decision made by a previous SCOTUS, & upon it's reflection decides to overturn the previous SC decision based on it's own findings.....it's overturned....fin-eee-tow!    An example might very well be the 1970's Roe v. Wade decision somewhere down the line..... a present day court could overturn that decision if it wished, & all the howling would accomplish nothing.....it would either be wait for a more sympathetic court in the distant future to overturn, or an Amendment could be brought & passed changing the Constitution itself. ;) We may very well be seeing something similar in this topics  Church & State case, in the near future, that is, if the Supreme Court in it's infinite wisdom  http://onesmiley.site11.com/smileys/chuckle002.gif  wants to hear it. ;) your endless pro-SCOTUS masturbation is tiresome. none of your waffle address the OP in any form. Good, because I wasn't addressing the OP, I was responding a direct question posed to me by AiA in the previous post....but if you knew how to read you would have known that.....but being a TROLL you don't bother reading, or adding to the discussion......you just go about being the ignorant TROLLING Twat you are....... http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif pretty much every post you make refers to SCOTUS and links back to your lamentable understanding of law and constitution or even the concepts thereof.

Panther struggles.

As does juliar.

If those two are 'paid-to-post', their owners should demand a refund.

Ultimately, the problem is what passes for "Religion." If you are cool with it, no problem. I am not. Religions often bang on about morals, but it seems lying and calling it faith is OK:

Superstition
Ignorance
Indoctrination of children before their minds are formed
Bogus origins of the Universe
Messiahs
Prophets
Life after death
State of Grace
Enlightenment
Possession by demons
Immortal souls


All of this has its origin in mankind's fear of the dark before they figured out how light a fire.

Its time to grow up.

issuevoter wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 7:51am:

Ultimately, the problem is what passes for "Religion." If you are cool with it, no problem. I am not. Religions often bang on about morals, but it seems lying and calling it faith is OK: Superstition Ignorance Indoctrination of children before their minds are formed Bogus origins of the Universe Messiahs Prophets Life after death State of Grace Enlightenment Possession by demons Immortal souls All of this has its origin in mankind's fear of the dark before they figured out how light a fire. Its time to grow up.

the point is about the RIGHT to hold a religious belief or doctrine, not your personal  inability to understand it.

issuevoter wrote on May 13^th, 2017 at 7:51am:

Ultimately, the problem is what passes for "Religion." If you are cool with it, no problem. I am not. Religions often bang on about morals, but it seems lying and calling it faith is OK: Superstition Ignorance Indoctrination of children before their minds are formed Bogus origins of the Universe Messiahs Prophets Life after death State of Grace Enlightenment Possession by demons Immortal souls All of this has its origin in mankind's fear of the dark before they figured out how light a fire. Its time to grow up.

However your religion is nihilism and thus still a belief system.

Don't you ever look around you in awe and wonder of the World? We have only scratched the surface of what it is to be a human being. We know almost nothing about our past. Are we spiritual beings, purely material or both? How do you know there is no life after death - have you been there and come back?
In fact most of the points you have raised is your opinion and thats OK.

Perhaps I need to grow up?

Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night.

It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding.

Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us.

Richdude wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 2:53am:

How do you know there is no life after death - have you been there and come back?

One question that is never answered by believers in life after death...

How do they imagine life after death for those who have died from dementia, where the sufferer has permanently lost all sense of self before death?

Raven wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 3:14am:

Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us.

Religion fulfills a need for us to have some certainty in this World.

I am not religious but I notice that religious people are happier than those who are not.
Hard to argue against! ;)

Raven wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 3:14am:

Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us.

Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 10:14am:

Richdude wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 2:53am: How do you know there is no life after death - have you been there and come back? One question that is never answered by believers in life after death... How do they imagine life after death for those who have died from dementia, where the sufferer has permanently lost all sense of self before death?

Ive never even heard that question asked. The answer relates to the understanding of the 'self' which is not as simple as you make it out to be.

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning.

Ok give us a proper debate then.

longweekend58 wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 5:49pm:

Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning.

\


Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you?

Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive.

Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what?

Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning.

mothra wrote on May 15^th, 2017 at 7:12am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning.

That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here.

Richdude wrote on May 14^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:

I am not religious but I notice that religious people are happier than those who are not.

I'm calling bullsh1t.

longweekend58 wrote on May 15^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:

mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here.

Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence.

I count myself among their numbers.

mothra wrote on May 15^th, 2017 at 5:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:24pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers.

Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west.

You are speaking solely from your own experience and extrapolating it. And since you are  poorly regarding in the intelligence area, you are hardly a great advertisment for your opinion.

longweekend58 wrote on May 15^th, 2017 at 5:45pm:

mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:24pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers. Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west. You are speaking solely from your own experience and extrapolating it. And since you are  poorly regarding in the intelligence area, you are hardly a great advertisment for your opinion.

Lol! Longy gets insulting when he can't answer a question. Again.

Are you really so insecure you must resort to such juvenile tactics?

I think you are, aren't you.

John Smith wrote on May 15^th, 2017 at 4:45pm:

Richdude wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:05pm: I am not religious but I notice that religious people are happier than those who are not. I'm calling bullsh1t.

Which part?

The latter is self evident if you travel around the World.

  Do you think that because I have a strong sense of whats right or wrong I must be religious?  :D

mothra wrote on May 15^th, 2017 at 6:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:45pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:24pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers. Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west. You are speaking solely from your own experience and extrapolating it. And since you are  poorly regarding in the intelligence area, you are hardly a great advertisment for your opinion. Lol! Longy gets insulting when he can't answer a question. Again. Are you really so insecure you must resort to such juvenile tactics? I think you are, aren't you.

you are ONLY speaking from your own experience which, while valid, is only your own. And I repeat that you are not highly regarded for you brain-power or logic.

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 9:55am:

mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 6:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:45pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:24pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers. Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west. You are speaking solely from your own experience and extrapolating it. And since you are  poorly regarding in the intelligence area, you are hardly a great advertisment for your opinion. Lol! Longy gets insulting when he can't answer a question. Again. Are you really so insecure you must resort to such juvenile tactics? I think you are, aren't you. you are ONLY speaking from your own experience which, while valid, is only your own. And I repeat that you are not highly regarded for you brain-power or logic.

I concur with that evaluation Sigmund.......   ;D  http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/chuckle002.gif

Richdude wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 12:18am:

John Smith wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:45pm: Richdude wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:05pm: I am not religious but I notice that religious people are happier than those who are not. I'm calling bullsh1t. Which part? The latter is self evident if you travel around the World.   Do you think that because I have a strong sense of whats right or wrong I must be religious?  :D

I call bullshit too. And even if they are happier, so whats its self-delusional happiness.

I'd rather be aware and unhappy than be Yadda

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 11:31am:

Richdude wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 12:18am: John Smith wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:45pm: Richdude wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:05pm: I am not religious but I notice that religious people are happier than those who are not. I'm calling bullsh1t. Which part? The latter is self evident if you travel around the World.   Do you think that because I have a strong sense of whats right or wrong I must be religious?  :D I call bullshit too. And even if they are happier, so whats its self-delusional happiness. I'd rather be aware and unhappy than be Yadda

And they'd prefer to be aware & Happy, rather than be a Donkey......  ;D http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/chuckle002.gif

Panther wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 11:38am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 11:31am: Richdude wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 12:18am: John Smith wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:45pm: Richdude wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:05pm: I am not religious but I notice that religious people are happier than those who are not. I'm calling bullsh1t. Which part? The latter is self evident if you travel around the World.   Do you think that because I have a strong sense of whats right or wrong I must be religious?  :D I call bullshit too. And even if they are happier, so whats its self-delusional happiness. I'd rather be aware and unhappy than be Yadda And they'd prefer to be aware & Happy, rather than be a Donkey......  ;D http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/chuckle002.gif

Have you met Yadda, hes the most unaware pposter on here. Plus really Donkey jokes? Please don't pursue a career in stand up.

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 9:55am:

mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 6:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:45pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:24pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers. Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west. You are speaking solely from your own experience and extrapolating it. And since you are  poorly regarding in the intelligence area, you are hardly a great advertisment for your opinion. Lol! Longy gets insulting when he can't answer a question. Again. Are you really so insecure you must resort to such juvenile tactics? I think you are, aren't you. you are ONLY speaking from your own experience which, while valid, is only your own. And I repeat that you are not highly regarded for you brain-power or logic.

It always amuses me how you resort to calling people stupid when you have been bested. It's almost like you believe it.

Are you seriously suggesting that many people who are raised religious do not reject their religion when they grow up? Seriously?

I wonder where all the atheists and agnostics come from then? Considering, of course:


STEADY DECLINES:
The proportion of Australians identifying Christianity as their religion has been declining over the last century – from 96% in 1911 to 61.1% in the 2011 Census. Over the last decade, Christianity in Australia has declined from 68% to 61.1%.


http://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/a-demographic-snapshot-of-christianity-and-church-attenders-in-australia

mothra wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 11:47am:

I wonder where all the atheists and agnostics come from then? Considering, of course: ]

Generally reading the Bible and identifying all the inconsistencies.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 11:31am:

Richdude wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 12:18am: John Smith wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:45pm: Richdude wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:05pm: I am not religious but I notice that religious people are happier than those who are not. I'm calling bullsh1t. Which part? The latter is self evident if you travel around the World.   Do you think that because I have a strong sense of whats right or wrong I must be religious?  :D I call bullshit too. And even if they are happier, so whats its self-delusional happiness. I'd rather be aware and unhappy than be Yadda

Yadda is hardly a sample of what to find in the average Christian.

mothra wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 11:47am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 6:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:45pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:24pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers. Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west. You are speaking solely from your own experience and extrapolating it. And since you are  poorly regarding in the intelligence area, you are hardly a great advertisment for your opinion. Lol! Longy gets insulting when he can't answer a question. Again. Are you really so insecure you must resort to such juvenile tactics? I think you are, aren't you. you are ONLY speaking from your own experience which, while valid, is only your own. And I repeat that you are not highly regarded for you brain-power or logic. It always amuses me how you resort to calling people stupid when you have been bested. It's almost like you believe it. Are you seriously suggesting that many people who are raised religious do not reject their religion when they grow up? Seriously? I wonder where all the atheists and agnostics come from then? Considering, of course: STEADY DECLINES: The proportion of Australians identifying Christianity as their religion has been declining over the last century – from 96% in 1911 to 61.1% in the 2011 Census. Over the last decade, Christianity in Australia has declined from 68% to 61.1%. http://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/a-demographic-snapshot-of-christianity-and-church-attenders-in-australia

and this is why people call you stupid.  I clearly spoke of the difference between the growth of the church in the West and elsewhere.  You simply cannot be taught.

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 1:44pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 11:31am: Richdude wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 12:18am: John Smith wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:45pm: Richdude wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:05pm: I am not religious but I notice that religious people are happier than those who are not. I'm calling bullsh1t. Which part? The latter is self evident if you travel around the World.   Do you think that because I have a strong sense of whats right or wrong I must be religious?  :D I call bullshit too. And even if they are happier, so whats its self-delusional happiness. I'd rather be aware and unhappy than be Yadda Yadda is hardly a sample of what to find in the average Christian.

No but I reject the fact you need to be religious to be happy or be atheist to be unhappy same with morality.

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 1:46pm:

mothra wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 11:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 6:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:45pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:24pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers. Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west. You are speaking solely from your own experience and extrapolating it. And since you are  poorly regarding in the intelligence area, you are hardly a great advertisment for your opinion. Lol! Longy gets insulting when he can't answer a question. Again. Are you really so insecure you must resort to such juvenile tactics? I think you are, aren't you. you are ONLY speaking from your own experience which, while valid, is only your own. And I repeat that you are not highly regarded for you brain-power or logic. It always amuses me how you resort to calling people stupid when you have been bested. It's almost like you believe it. Are you seriously suggesting that many people who are raised religious do not reject their religion when they grow up? Seriously? I wonder where all the atheists and agnostics come from then? Considering, of course: STEADY DECLINES: The proportion of Australians identifying Christianity as their religion has been declining over the last century – from 96% in 1911 to 61.1% in the 2011 Census. Over the last decade, Christianity in Australia has declined from 68% to 61.1%. http://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/a-demographic-snapshot-of-christianity-and-church-attenders-in-australia and this is why people call you stupid.  I clearly spoke of the difference between the growth of the church in the West and elsewhere.  You simply cannot be taught.

More insults when proven wrong. No wonder people call you stupid.

You think "decline" means "growth".

mothra wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 1:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 1:46pm: mothra wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 11:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 6:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:45pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:24pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers. Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west. You are speaking solely from your own experience and extrapolating it. And since you are  poorly regarding in the intelligence area, you are hardly a great advertisment for your opinion. Lol! Longy gets insulting when he can't answer a question. Again. Are you really so insecure you must resort to such juvenile tactics? I think you are, aren't you. you are ONLY speaking from your own experience which, while valid, is only your own. And I repeat that you are not highly regarded for you brain-power or logic. It always amuses me how you resort to calling people stupid when you have been bested. It's almost like you believe it. Are you seriously suggesting that many people who are raised religious do not reject their religion when they grow up? Seriously? I wonder where all the atheists and agnostics come from then? Considering, of course: STEADY DECLINES: The proportion of Australians identifying Christianity as their religion has been declining over the last century – from 96% in 1911 to 61.1% in the 2011 Census. Over the last decade, Christianity in Australia has declined from 68% to 61.1%. http://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/a-demographic-snapshot-of-christianity-and-church-attenders-in-australia and this is why people call you stupid.  I clearly spoke of the difference between the growth of the church in the West and elsewhere.  You simply cannot be taught. More insults when proven wrong. No wonder people call you stupid. You think "decline" means "growth".

'global growth' is defined as the net movement across the globe. THIS sort of ignorance is why you are considered stupid.

longweekend58 wrote on May 16^th, 2017 at 3:50pm:

mothra wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 1:46pm: mothra wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 11:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 6:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:45pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 4:24pm: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 7:12am: longweekend58 wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Raven wrote on May 14th, 2017 at 3:14am: Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers. Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west. You are speaking solely from your own experience and extrapolating it. And since you are  poorly regarding in the intelligence area, you are hardly a great advertisment for your opinion. Lol! Longy gets insulting when he can't answer a question. Again. Are you really so insecure you must resort to such juvenile tactics? I think you are, aren't you. you are ONLY speaking from your own experience which, while valid, is only your own. And I repeat that you are not highly regarded for you brain-power or logic. It always amuses me how you resort to calling people stupid when you have been bested. It's almost like you believe it. Are you seriously suggesting that many people who are raised religious do not reject their religion when they grow up? Seriously? I wonder where all the atheists and agnostics come from then? Considering, of course: STEADY DECLINES: The proportion of Australians identifying Christianity as their religion has been declining over the last century – from 96% in 1911 to 61.1% in the 2011 Census. Over the last decade, Christianity in Australia has declined from 68% to 61.1%. http://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/a-demographic-snapshot-of-christianity-and-church-attenders-in-australia and this is why people call you stupid.  I clearly spoke of the difference between the growth of the church in the West and elsewhere.  You simply cannot be taught. More insults when proven wrong. No wonder people call you stupid. You think "decline" means "growth". 'global growth' is defined as the net movement across the globe. THIS sort of ignorance is why you are considered stupid.

If you weren't so stupid, you'd read back through our exchange and recognise where you went so horribly wrong. But alas, that is beyond your rudimentary intellectual prowess.

Allow me to walk you through it. You claimed:

" rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west."

I have proved that the numbers of Christians have not remained static in Australia. Numbers are on the decline. If you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that the same is demonstrably true across the western world. In the US, for example, two thirds of Millennials claim "no religion".

As for globally, Islam is the religion that is on the rise. It's projected to reach parity with Christianity by 2050, or thereabouts. By your line of, shall we call it, reasoning, Muslims must be right. Time to convert, Longy? Christianity is, globally, projected to decline.

"Over the coming decades, Christians are expected to experience the largest net losses from switching. Globally, about 40 million people are projected to switch into Christianity, while 106 million are projected to leave, with most joining the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated."

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

mothra wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 1:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 3:50pm: mothra wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 1:46pm: mothra wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 11:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 16th, 2017 at 9:55am: mothra wrote on May 15th, 2017 at 6:04pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1494503670/32#32 date=1494834322][quote author=mothra link=1494503670/31#31 date=1494832575][quote author=longweekend58 link=1494503670/29#29 date=1494829491][quote author=mothra link=1494503670/28#28 date=1494796324][quote author=longweekend58 link=1494503670/25#25 date=1494748190][quote author=Raven link=1494503670/22#22 date=1494695680]Religion is what we have because our ancestors did not know what thunder was or where the sun went at night. It was our first attempt to explain the world around us. An eclipse "The sun god is angry at us, we must make a sacrifice"  God is an ever receding entity, in the light of scientific understanding. Even the Christian god is no better then the pagan gods of old. A human sacrifice to ensure the survival of the rest of us. Your ignorance on religion and Christianity is not a substitute for actual reasoning. \ Careful Longy, you don't want to come across as dismissive and patronising now, do you? Surely you must be educated enough to realise that many people consider reasoning and religion to be mutually exclusive. Is your counter argument to Raven based on anything other than perception? If so, what? Otherwise, you cannot legitimately fault Raven's reasoning. You can disagree with his conclusions, sure, but i see no valid counter argument to challenge his reasoning. That's only for people who already reject religion therefore making that assertion nothing more than confirmation bias. A proper debate on this topic belongs elsewhere but also demands credible and articulate discussion therefore excluding the vast majority of people here. Not at all. That does not explain the great many people who were raised religious but rejected it as they grew, in the face of a wider sphere of influence. I count myself among their numbers. Again, confirmation bias. Then how do you account for the rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static It always amuses me how you resort to calling people stupid when you have been bested. It's almost like you believe it. Are you seriously suggesting that many people who are raised religious do not reject their religion when they grow up? Seriously? I wonder where all the atheists and agnostics come from then? Considering, of course: STEADY DECLINES: The proportion of Australians identifying Christianity as their religion has been declining over the last century – from 96% in 1911 to 61.1% in the 2011 Census. Over the last decade, Christianity in Australia has declined from 68% to 61.1%. http://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/a-demographic-snapshot-of-christianity-and-church-attenders-in-australia and this is why people call you stupid.  I clearly spoke of the difference between the growth of the church in the West and elsewhere.  You simply cannot be taught.

Allow me to walk you through it. You claimed:

" rapid growth of the Christian church outside of the west and the largely static (ie not reducing) count in the west."

I have proved that the numbers of Christians have not remained static in Australia. Numbers are on the decline. If you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that the same is demonstrably true across the western world. In the US, for example, two thirds of Millennials claim "no religion".

As for globally, Islam is the religion that is on the rise. It's projected to reach parity with Christianity by 2050, or thereabouts. By your line of, shall we call it, reasoning, Muslims must be right. Time to convert, Longy? Christianity is, globally, projected to decline.

"Over the coming decades, Christians are expected to experience the largest net losses from switching. Globally, about 40 million people are projected to switch into Christianity, while 106 million are projected to leave, with most joining the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated."

[url]http://www.pewforum.org/2015


One of the problems with those statistics is ironically indicated by the domain name 'pew forum'.  By far the fastest growing Christian group in Australia (and in the West) are the pentecostal (who dont sit in pews!), contemporary churches. My church alone in Little Adelaide has 5000 members. But many of these surveys cover catholic, anglican, lutheran and a few others which are all dropping badly while excluding the growing ones. The reasons are largely doctrinal, but persist just the same.

Like it or not, the  Christian Church globally is growing in a massive way.

Had you actually read the research, you would have seen that the Pentecostals were indeed factored in. Why on earth would you think they would't be?

You're getting desperate, Longy.

I am impressed (albeit surprised) that you didn't just pretend you hadn't seen my comment; as you've done in every other exchange i've had with you in which you've made a tit of yourself.

And were i to use your own rather unsophisticated "debating" technique against you, Longy, i would say that you assessing global numbers of Christians by the attendance rates of your own church is merely "speaking from your own experience" and therefore inadmissible.

And then i would call you stupid and ignorant.