Neither, it's the money that corrupts everything

non-godly thinking - wouldn't that simply be logical thinking? Lol@one-sided approach coming from one of the most devoutly ignorant people on this website.

I take no issue with religious people who can admit that the non-existence of God is a possibility. It's the "blind faith" group, which you referenced earlier, with whom I have an issue. 

In regard to the image I can only assume it was joke.

And by that you mean that the level-headed people will believe what they find most likely rather than live in denial?

Can't say I disagree. But this does make it seem like God doesn't like the level-headed people who don't find the Bible's content believeable and who don't want to deny those feelings. Something that makes God seem ignorant, in my opinion.

And yeah, what I said can certainly be applied to non-religious people as well (just replace "religion" with "political stance"). I just wanted to focus on the topic.

Religion is just a front to keep us complacent and in line. A lot of good can come from religion such as charity and the likes. However, throughout the years of humanity, it has cause far too much harm to be ignored. It makes some of the weak willed hostile and intolerant about things that they even can't prove or disprove. Not to mention it isn't a choice for much, it's passed down from generation to generation.

I don't like it, i never will and i think it corrupts good people but at the end of the day, it's man-made so it's really just people fooling other people through the power of words.

It is the people.

Same can be said about communism. IN a perfect work communism works, But people corrupt it and exploit the general people.

Seem is the right word. Ex from Christianity: when God casts judgement on non-belief in the OT, it's a matter of fact for him, not a manipulation into having people reject their concerns. He's not saying I'll punish you for your unbelief, but more like "as an unbeliever you will suffer judgement", God being a force that purely acts against ungodliness. That's how I read it at least.

I also think that realizing that non-religious people do it as well is on topic, because that would help us realize that the fault of corruption ultimately is in the people, and not necessarily or at least not completely in religion.

I knew you were going claim that I was one sided as well. OK, so let’s try not to be “one-sided”. Here goes, logically I can admit and understand why people have difficulty believing in religion, for a number of reasons, but one reason in particular is the fact that people today believe mostly in what they can see or prove. I assume then that man non-religious people can’t prove there is a God/deity or see him so they don’t believe, which is understandable.

OK, now lets see you try to understand religious people, and not be one-sided.

I was going to post this. Word for word.

Of course you can, because it is logical to take the stance of a skeptic. We do it in every facet of life.

If I tell you I can lift an elephant, you remain uncertain until you see me actually do it. That isn't to say I cannot do it, but you certainly don't just concede that I can based upon "faith."

I can understand belief in God, but I cannot understand a belief in a particular doctrine governing this being. It makes sense that there could exist some force/being that manifested everything. It does not make sense that this being has any attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and certainly it is absurd to think it responds to prayers from a particular species of primate on one planet out of the billions which exist.

However, if the resurrection of Jesus Christ were documented at the time (not 30+ years removed) I would at least entertain the idea. OR if other historical documents confirmed this event (resurrection, not crucifixion), I could place some salt in that.

But right now, it's simply circular reasoning. i.e. The resurrection occurred because the Bible said so and the Bible is true because Jesus was God. Get it?

I might be mistaken, but that was a piss poor attempt at not being one-sided. So I can only conclude that you really are one-sided. In any event, let me ask you this, was your ancient gandmother an monkey and do you suppose that she had flees?