Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?



Belfast Telegraph runs a story about a mother and lesbian daughter leaving the Presbyterian Church in Ireland over its ban for baptism for babies who belong to same sex parents and the latter are banned from communion

Why does a minority religion like the Presbyterian Church get picked on by the media for banning baptisms for the children of same sex parents when it is apparent that the parents will not teach the sinfulness of homosexuality to the children? The Catholic Church does the same rule and indeed in its sacred tradition has more abusive statements against LGB than the Bible has. Why is there no pressure on the Church to apologise for those traditions? The pope is esteemed despite his bigoted Amoris Laetitia which accuses committed gay relationships of not having the remotest resemblance to marriage as set up by God. And the Church quotes the text banning gay sex on pain of being stoned to death as proving homosexuality is a sin. That is gross passive aggression and an insult to the innocent men who died. It is Catholic doctrine that Jesus has made it a sin if you take communion while living in a same sex relationship or being unrepentant for having gay sex. The Church says the homosexual is not a full member until he repents and goes to confession and repents for ever thinking that homosexuality is not a sin.

I don't care for Presbyterianism as a religion - its a false religion. But that is not the point. We are getting to the point where we are asked to pretend that gay sex being a sin is not a Christian teaching. That is a lie. LGBT rights is one thing but it must never be turned into an ideology. The hate against their religion by the woman and her gay daughter contrasts with the lack of vitriol that comes from the Church which merely says, "we are not excluding you. Here is what you must do. Our religion our rules. It is up to you and we will respect your right to walk away."

Parents and Catholic schools

Parents often state that they want schools with say a Catholic ethos. Why do they not care that they can have children formed as Catholics even if schools are secular? Why don't they secularise schools and use Sunday Schools? And why is there no concern for whether a religion is true or not? A Muslim School and a Catholic School cannot both be preaching a religion from God. Both might be preaching religions of man and man has no right to order anybody to do anything on religious grounds - only God can have that right and even that is debatable.  If man has no right to dictate he has less right if he thinks he can dictate for God if God has no such right!  God has no needs and rights are based on needs so God has no right to judge us and is failing to love the sinner and hate the sin if he judges us.  He is just being arrogant and spiteful and hypocritical. Not all concerns linked to religion are really about truth or God or religion. I think Catholics just want a Catholic culture not Catholicism as a religion.

Science and religion

Tricky thing is mystical ideas of God that he is very unlike us and virtually unknowable come from philosophy not the Bible. Doctrines such as spirit meaning something that has no parts are not in the Bible. The Bible never calls God spirit in that sense. Christianity smuggled in pagan philosophy and logic to create a system that on the face of it looks plausible. It does similar manipulations today with pretending that science and the Bible fit. The reality is that when the apostles said Jesus went up to Heaven on a cloud they thought he was going to live in the sky. And he gave that impression. Science finds no heaven up there. The believers read what they know back into the Bible. Thus they fail to see that it was a mythological product of its time. Its odd to say that the pagans really believed in magical squabbling gods and that the author of Genesis did not mean his tale literally. He did especially when it is tamer than what appears in other religions. Religion and "science" were not distinct then and its spindoctors pretend they are distinct now. If a religion is really true and not man-made it will not all that lying and adjusting to look sensible. 

How do atheists explain resurrection story of Jesus?

The most important thing is to remember that the New Testament never actually says WHY the tomb was empty. If Jesus was stolen he could still have risen. The accounts say the stone was moved and there was nobody about all the time when that happened. Nobody says the body was gone then. The body could have been taken by anybody after the stone rolled back. The accounts of the appearances never tie him down to a physical time or place so it is really a Jesus who has such different properties that it hardly has much of a connection to what was buried. The believers in fairness admit that apparitions would not be enough to justify belief in the resurrection and they lie about the tomb being empty for Jesus vacated it via resurrection.

Religious groups angered by President Trump vow to keep LGBT act
"Liberals" are to blame for creating a culture where raising concerns about people's religious ideas was made taboo. Conservatives played on that and were delighted that we ended up with a society that made it rude to tell say a priest to be that he might be wasting his life on a relationship with God that is delusion. Now look at what is happening. Wrong beliefs or turning guesses into beliefs has consequences. A man-made faith or religion not only leads to corruption it is corruption for corruption starts with a refusal to face the truth and embrace it if you are wrong.
Ex-congresswoman Michele Bachmann is calling on Trump to reverse the ‘evil’ gay agenda

I hope the gays who give money to Christianity are proud of themselves. They enable an anti gay religion and their delusion has dangerous consequences as we see in the cast of that woman.
Policing criticism of Islam: the new Star Chamber

But it [Christianity] is also remarkable for approving of the past violence engaged in by divine command. Jesus refused to apologise for it or repudiate it. He even regarded Moses highly though Moses claimed God gave him the nasty commands. The followers of Jesus need to think about kettles and pots if they criticise Islam.

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in
the land - it would be as if they killed all people. And if any one saved a life, it would be as if they saved the life of all people."
(Holy Quran, Chapter 5, Verse 32). This verse could be read as saying honour killing is fine. And is a verse that makes out you are the same as mass murderer for killing one person really concerned about justice? No.
Comedian Refers to Communion As “Haunted Bread,” Priest Files Complaint with Irish Government

Assuming that the Catholic dogma is true that you have to have the right intention to ordain a priest or to turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ then it will happen that times this fails to take place through a defect of intention. The Church annuls a lot of marriages on the grounds that the marriage was not entered into with genuine freedom. It would be the same with many ordinations to the priesthood. Many enter it because they feel they are gay or because their families coerce them. Some want to pretend to help people while feeding them religion that they secretly believe is insidious poison. The latter was my reason. Some priests are really atheists and never intended to be validly ordained. In other words, ordinations should be annulled as well as marriages. The result is that if Jesus put the Eucharist of transubstantiation into the hands of the priests he would have been exposing the people to the danger of adoring a Eucharist that was not his body and blood at all. Considering the absolute horror with which the Bible consistently regards the crime of idolatry it is improbable that this risk would have been taken. Either Jesus will consecrate the bread and wine himself without needing a priest or we will not receive the true Eucharist until after the resurrection.

The Bible says that man is totally depraved and hates God though he fakes service and love to him (Romans 1, 3) and that is why trying to earn salvation through the Law of Moses as the Jews do is so futile. How then could God expect us to trust priests to turn bread and wine into Jesus? Evil men like others to be as bad as themselves so they would be eager to fake the transformation so that their flock would be deprived of divine aid and fall into vice. A God with intense aversion to idolatry would hardly set up such a scheme.
Discussion on PinkNews - Catholic Bishop claims debates on LGBT issues are like ‘arguing with an alcoholic’
The Church regards a book allegedly created by God through men as infallible on faith and morals. Jesus taught the Old Testament had no errors. God in it commands that gay men be tortured to death by stoning.

There is evidence that Jesus was an active homosexual though he certainly refused to admit that the murderous laws of his Bible that wanted gay men stoned was evil. Why arent they going to bookshops and asking them to stop selling the quran which says things like that Jesus was not God's son and did not die on the cross and that Muhammad was the best prophet and not Jesus?
The Bible mocks homosexuals by saying God demanded they be stoned to death. And are you stupid? If you are offended by something you look the other way for no two people are offended by the same things. But the offensive Christian faith deserves to be offended for trampling on the blood of gay men stoned to death thanks to the God Jesus worshipped!

EU chief under fire for hailing Castro as ‘hero for many’ despite persecution of gay men

Jesus Christ took responsibility for giving Moses a law that demanded that gay men be stoned to death along with statue worshippers and mediums and others. He went as far as to start the Sermon on the Mount by saying he had no intention of ever contradicting the law. The law was dropped by Christianity after his death for it could not afford to antagonise the liberal societies of Greece and Rome. Add him to your list.
Discussion on Slugger O'Toole Ashers lose appeal in ‘cake’ case

Ashers could have assumed the message on the cake was a windup. How did they know it was meant? They knew Lee was gay. They discriminated. What dreadful people the mc Arthurs are.
Stop calling the message on the cake a political one. Not all marriages are recognised by law. The Catholic Church does weddings after annulments and which do not fit the law of the land.

The Bible if people would read it is clear that it contains revelations in God’s own words that demand that adulteresses and children be stoned to death. Jesus preached hellfire without any regard for how that would effect sensitive scrupulous souls. I find the Bible offensive. Ashers would have no problem if I refused to print it on that basis and was forced to. It would not give me the right to stand up and object in Church to such a blasphemy against human dignity smeared in blood and innocent blood being honoured as the only infallible and good book.

It is clear that all the problems are caused by people of faith in religion. No secularist would have done what the bakery did even if they did believe gay sex or marriage was wrong.

Even if religion should be respectfully given exemptions that allow it to discriminate against people, it does not follow that religion should exist. Better get out of it folks and let it die out. Problem solved! Something has to be forced on everybody. If it is not religion it is going to be secularism. The good thing about secularism is that it minimises the forcing or should do. There is enough to force over without religion contributing. If religion gets the right to force it will soon look for this right in nearly everything.

The secular state cannot allow a religious person to argue that they must discriminate against another for their conscience says they must. That would drag the state into the area of judging if the religious person is sincere. To judge that, you have to judge if a sane person would believe what the person claims to believe. That means examining if the belief could be true and if there is good evidence in its favour. It would destroy religious freedom and cripple the nation in court-cases because there are many different faiths all disagreeing with one another. It destroys the secular principle that people of religious belief or who say they believe (even if they don't) should not get special treatment under the law. It is clearly unfair for one person to suffer just because another claims to believe something.

Any priest can absolve 'grave sin' of abortion, Pope rules

Priests forgiving sins is allegedly based on when Jesus told his disciples that whoever's sins they are forgiven and whoever's they retain are retained. In fact nothing in the Bible says this authority was passed on. It was a once off and we know the apostles never absolved sin. And what kind of God would keep a repentant person in sin until they get a priest? The doctrine is gross blasphemy.
Discussion on Daylight Atheism: Why Liberal Catholics Should Leave the Church

One thing is for sure, if you won't leave the Church officially then at least do not give it money for that money will be used to gain undeserved influence and to spread religious misinformation. The Church does not claim to be a charity but a mission and the charity work only serves the evangelism. Also, there are estimates that a large pile of money donated to the Church does not really go where you think it is going.

It does not matter what anybody identifies as. I can identify as Mormon but nobody in their right mind would take me seriously. It is up to the facts to identify you not you or anybody else. And the fact remains that the bishops are the authorised teachers of the Church and supposedly stand in the place of Jesus and are guided by him. They are not telling you to go if you should be a Protestant or humanist. They are only telling you what logic says.
If Catholicism is a man made religion then it will have errors. In that case a progressive Catholic does not exist. What you have is a person using the label who is trying to mend the errors while pretending the religion is definitely from God.

It is alarming that for most of its history - until recently - Catholics had no problem worshipping a God of hate who torments sinners and innocent people (yes if you have sex outside marriage you will be cursed by God forever despite being an innocent person) for all eternity. I don't think the damage done by such doctrines should be forgiven so easily by today's Catholics.

The reality is that truth is not about us. Truth is truth no matter what. A religion that claims to be the truth should be followed without cherry-picking but only if it really is the truth. I am atheist and do not like the Church but I agree that those who cannot see it as the truth should leave. Otherwise they end up supporting what they think is a manmade religion. It is stupid to regard everybody that claims to be Christian as Christian or qualified to speak on what Christians believe. If some belief is not Christian and anti-Christian no Christian can make it Christian
Discussion on Debunking Christianity

It is wrong to think Jesus ever meant to contradict the law. He could have done accidently for the law contradicts itself so why would he be guaranteed to be consistent? There is nothing in the New Testament that says the law is ever wrong. Even when Jesus made all foods clean it could be meant to mean that he magically took away whatever it was that made them dirty or unclean. It would not amount to saying, "Food is clean no matter what the law says." Jesus told the adulteress that she deserved stoning - he just got those who were to stone her to see that they should leave her alone for they were no better themselves. The story only says she was saved then. The would be stoners were not going to kill her according to the law but were going to stone her without authority. But what about after that? If she had been in danger of being stoned and the law was applied correctly Jesus would have told them to stone her.

He was not a good role model - it is Christian lies that try to make out he was.  There is an egotism in saying that your god is the best or the perfect one and that you are in a position to assess for you are so smart and good.

Discussion on Spectator Blogs - When he thinks no one is looking, Pope tries to wave through communion for divorced-and-remarried

Liberals just want the pope to be nicer to some people such as the divorced but what use is that when the core system of Catholicism is a human invention and a toxic one? Liberals are only enabling the poison.

The reason why Christianity is to blame for so much suffering is the teaching of love. Love is risky in the sense that it demands too much of the person and has them acting as if they know what is best for others. The Eastern teaching of compassion is vastly superior. Compassion insists that you do your best to dialogue with the other person so that you can put yourself in their place. Love has a patronising and controlling side side while compassion recognises that risk and does all it can to avert it.

Also if Catholicism is a man-made religion, calling somebody Catholic is really just a word. It has as much validity as saying a man from Rainville is a Rainvillian. There would be nothing special about the label except as a social appellation.

As the creed says the Church is one and holy and Catholic (Catholic means it has the truth for all people and is an implicit claim to infallibility or access to unerring teachings) and apostolic the implication is that a person who knows what the Church teaches and denies it is no longer a believing Catholic but a cherry-picker. They may be culturally Catholic but even an atheist who was never baptised can manage that! Christ was very severe against those who were recognised as Jews but who were not really because their hearts were full of sin and heresy and pretence. Catholic Pharisees exist too.

How good is a religion when it produces such experts at pretending to be good? Not all religions have the pharisee problem to the extent that Catholicism does.
Discussion on PinkNews - Catholic church: Banning gay cure therapy is ‘persecution’ against religion

This pope is worse than Ratzinger who said that gay sex is intrinsically disordered. He said that committed gay love has NO similarity at all with man and woman marriage. That is harsh even if you think gay love and gay sex are sins. Nothing is totally bad.
Grafton Is Dust

Don't condemn a religion just by what evil it does. Look at what evil it enables. The Church lets Catholics print extreme newspapers in its name. You cannot be excommunicated for saying gays must be put to death but you will if you say the notion of saints influencing God contradicts the notion that God is perfect and thus cannot be influenced. The Church is warped for having sex outside of marriage is banned in all circumstances while killing people is not. The Church is another creation of the human need to follow and spell out what is "good" not what is really good or for the best.
Discussion on Wake Up Call,10 surprising truths about Jesus.

"Salvation is of the Jews". Jesus told the Samaritan woman that. Though Samaritans believed the same essentials as the Jews Jesus had a problem with her religion. Jesus is pointing to a faith that was based on scripture supposedly written by God which says plenty about divine anger and God wanting innocent people such as heretics and idol-worshippers and adulterers put to death by stoning the cruellest thing imaginable. This man is an over-rated role model. No truly good person tolerates evil in the name of religion or anything else.
Discussion on Progressive Secular Humanist, Watch: Mother Teresa Brags About Coerced Deathbed Conversions

Mother Teresa was the biggest example of somebody who does "good" not good. The problem is how the Church enables her message and makes
her a saint. Pope Francis and his cronies are passive aggressive in how they ignore the truth. A religion needs to be condemned more for the
evil it opens the door to than what it does or has done.

A comment says, "If dealing with the suffering brings one closer to God or spurs one on to relieve the suffering of others, that is a good
thing." You don't need to believe in God to use your suffering to motivate you to reach out and help other sufferers. In fact seeing
suffering as random and a fact of life should make you hate it more than one who thinks its part of God's alleged plot to bring good out of it.
To say you do need to believe is just insulting. And how could suffering be good if it makes you close to a God who makes you suffer?
Believers in God in some way do wallow in suffering and water down how terrible i t is for others. They cannot admit that a God who hurts
people or WORSE who lets them be hurt (letting hurt happen is worse than hurting for at least when you hurt you know how much hurt you expect to
happen) is unworthy of worship.

I have realised from a comment above that she had no right to take that Nobel Prize. She was not a true humanitarian. She could not even
be trusted with money for she put faith before people and used suffering to invite people to her understanding of faith. Inviting people to a
vague sense of faith is one thing but a specific faith is a different matter.