Bro, does that mean you support the op approach to the matter? :S

I think you missed my point entirely. The point is not that the church is needed in order for good things to happen, no one argues that.
The point is that IT DOES good things.

Do you have evidence that non-religious humanitarian work gathers more support and is more efficient and transparent?

This is what the ai says:

While both religious and non-religious humanitarian organizations play a vital role, there's no definitive evidence suggesting non-religious work inherently gathers more support or is more efficient and transparent. Both types of organizations face unique challenges and strengths in terms of funding, operational efficiency, and accountability to beneficiaries.
Studies show that individuals with religious affiliations tend to donate more to charitable causes overall, including both faith-based and secular ones. This can translate to greater financial resources for religious humanitarian organizations.

Your arguments make sense but they only take the negative side into account, which is nowhere near to the real picture.
You make it sound like everything in the church runs automatically, with no buildings and monuments to preserve, and with no human input.
The church needs money to be sustained and keep on providing mental and physical comfort to millions of people - either believers or just people in need.

Of course where there is power there is also corruption, and of course it needs to be tackled appropriately, but it is very unreasonable to condemn the organization and its work as whole.

The ai provides a much more subjective and fair overview:

The Church in Australia plays a significant, yet complex, role in humanitarian work, with some organizations raising and spending billions of dollars annually, though not all of this is directly for humanitarian purposes. While some churches engage in significant charitable activities both domestically and internationally, particularly through organizations like Caritas Australia, there are also ongoing discussions and debates about the extent of their charitable activities, the amount of money they raise, and the tax exemptions they receive.

Key points to consider:

Significant charitable giving:
Religious people in Australia, especially churchgoers, are more likely to donate to various charities, including those focused on children, homelessness, and medical research, than non-religious individuals.

Overseas aid:
Catholic agencies like Catholic Mission and Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) contribute significant funding and support to church-run initiatives in developing countries. For example, Caritas Australia supported around 1 million people directly through humanitarian efforts and other programs in 2023-24.

Tax exemptions:
Churches in Australia are granted tax-exempt status for the "advancement of religion". Some churches operate large commercial enterprises and own extensive property holdings, potentially benefiting from tax exemptions on profits from these activities.

Debate on transparency and accountability:
There are ongoing discussions about the transparency and accountability of church finances, particularly regarding the extent to which charitable donations are used for humanitarian purposes and whether all church revenue is appropriately taxed.

Estimates of church wealth:
Some estimates suggest that the Catholic Church in Australia might be worth billions of dollars, and there are ongoing debates about how this wealth is used and whether it could be used more effectively for charitable purposes.

The conclusion: The Church in Australia is a major force in humanitarian work, both through direct charitable giving and through international aid programs. However, there are also ongoing discussions about the extent of their charitable work, the amount of money they raise, and the tax exemptions they receive.

Lmao okay mate

Pardon me, I just had to single out this one sentence since it made so little sense to me. Do you think that atheist mindsets and sensibilities are what lead to the Trump/Vance victory?

Trump is immensely popular among religious voters; and the more religious, the more likely you are to vote for him. Evangelicals are by far the strongest group in the Trump camp, with Catholics as second. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/09/white-protestants-and-catholics-support-trump-but-voters-in-other-us-religious-groups-prefer-harris/

This graph seems to suggest the direct opposite of your claim - Trump was and is largely driven by religious majority vote. He's famously unpopular among progressives and atheist/agnostic groups, even across cultural and ethnic boundaries and intersections. His style of authoritarian actions, paired with grandiose speeches, based on the belief that one possess the greatest minds, morals, rights, and sentiment, falls directly into the core tenets of most major religious doctrine and practice of faith. 

https://apnews.com/article/white-evangelical-voters-support-donald-trump-president-dbfd2b4fe5b2ea27968876f19ee20c84

There are even several instances of Trump allowing religious zealot groups or individuals to pray over him, in person, and more than one organization of that ilk has painted him as a Jesus-figure of sorts in politics. There's even popular merchandise tied to this image. The strong connections between religion, Christianity in particular, and Trump's success, are incredibly well-known and well-established at this point. To attribute his win and continued influence to atheism is not a leap of logic; it's a rocket-ship well on its way out to unknown space. 

If the comment refers to atheism somehow being behind progressive notions that have driven the average Joe away from such ideas and into a more conservative lean, even that's a really long stretch. Atheism, as being a personal, specific lack of belief in supernatural or deity-like entities and forces, is not the primus motor in any major social movement. It's not something that mobilizes, gathers large masses to stages to hear speeches out on streets or near the known monuments of any nation. Nor is it the motivation behind hostile, and even deadly actions taken against opposition (imagined or otherwise). Some of the brilliant minds of our time, who happen to occupy various spaces within natural or theoretical sciences, and are also atheists, did not first decide not to believe in God and then subsequently choose their majors as a result of this. Most who achieve success within these disciplines simply, slowly, come to the realization that their work and insights are incompatible with any sort of creation myth, supernaturally guiding entities, or divine aspect of coherence and reality. 

Someone mentioned Pol Pot in one comment, framing his slaughter of religious practitioners as some sort of proof of an atheist agenda. Well, he also butchered educators and scholars with equal fervor, seeing knowledge and education as enemies of his grand scheme, so that falls flat as a part of "science vs. faith" scenario where stoic defenders or rationality are dangerous to believers. 

I had a discussion with two colleagues a few days back, both of whom are believers (Muslim), and they both argued that the Theory of Evolution was not only false, but that it was created entirely out of spite to "disprove God". Upon pressing the issue, I quickly realized that neither of them understood Evolution at all, to the point where they used arguments like "why haven't humans evolved gills when living near water" and "it's just a theory". I left the conversation citing that a failure to understand a scientific discipline is not in itself proof against its validity. To underline the point, I referred to my own complete ignorance on astrophysics not being grounds for dismissing the discipline. Such arguments ultimately fall flat though, in the face of a mind who knows the one truth, and whose imam, priest, rabbi, or pujari, as well as parents (not seldom wielding a belt or a slipper) worked them since early childhood.

From where I sit, Trump/Vance rode a wave of Biden failures, coupled with strong appeals to the religious core of the American people, and it paid off. One could argue which had more impact at the end of the day, but there's simply no scenario where one can attribute Trump's rise to power to atheism as a concept.   

Very Christian of you, Lmfao. You find a single gay person that has upset you and now suddenly you're reconsidering being friendly towards all LGBTQ+ people. I wonder how your God would feel about your prejudice towards an entire group of people because one person upset you. You're a hypocrite, Lol. It's people like yourself who give religious people a bad name, you may think you are THE example of how a religious person should be but you're on the extremist end, like the Evangelicals in America who want to rip away rights from women.

Difference is Zeus and Horus never conquered the entire world so that's why the Abrahamic God who by your own words, has not conquered the entire world yet, is the one that you believe in, Lol.

Australia won't have Shariah law and the UK's Shariah courts have zero actual legal power, they're just set up to settle disputes between communities who share a religion, in the same way that a Christian could set up a "Christian court" a Shariah court allows discussion before a contract between two parties in question, the contract is the legally enforceable part but anyone can make a contract, the contract would be based on Shariah beliefs but only legally binding under UK law.

They are mostly there to settle small disputes, not criminal disputes, as long as the settlement isn't illegal. I.E. a simple loan repayment, in Shariah law, interest on a loan isn't allowed, now two people can settle a dispute under a Shariah court to remove interest and then formulate a legally binding contract to repay the loan without interest, that is perfectly legal under UK law and can be done by anyone.

It's not new at all, it's not even only a Muslim thing, Jewish people have the same thing, it's called Beth Din and those Jewish courts exist in America and UK. It's simply people settling their differences under the same religious belief system. You can choose to do it, or you can refuse, it has no legal power. You could ask your local vicar to settle the dispute in the same way, you could ask anyone to be a 3rd party arbiter in a dispute.

100 Shariah courts is nothing when looking at UK's total population and size.

Also, you straight up ignored my post with actual evidence that "No Religion" is the fastest growing in the UK by a large margin, Lol. No Religion has grown 22.3% in the past 20 years in the UK, by comparison Christianity has declined 25.5% and those who identify as Muslim have only increased 3.4% in the same period. 22.3% vs 3.4% which pretty clearly shows that "No Religion" is on track to take over the UK.

Australia's Census also shows a similar pattern to the UK.

Religious Affiliation in Australia | Australian Bureau of Statistics

Other Religion Comprises of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Other Religions.

• Christianity has decreased 17.2% in a 10 year period.
• Other Religion has increased 2.8% in a 10 year period.
• No Religion has increased 15.8% in a 10 year period.

In 2021 the most common religions were:

• Christianity (43.9%)
• No religion (38.9%)
• Islam (3.2%)
• Hinduism (2.7%)
• Buddhism (2.4%)

Religious affiliation in Australia | Australian Bureau of Statistics

I apologize if I lost my cool. But you have to admit that the way he spoke to me was very rude. Go back and read the conversation, he was very angry and hateful towards me because I am Christian. 

Put the show on the other foot - if a Christian treated you the same way he treated me, wouldn't you lose your cool too? Of course you would.

You said I give religious people a bad name? I wonder what kind of name the other guy gives atheists. Definately doesn't make atheists look like happy people, does he?

The only reason why atheists have grown in number is because of disloyal Christian who leave their religion, but thats okay because atheists do not give birth to enough babies to replace their ageing population, while religious people do. Most atheists I know are child-free, and if they do have children, its normally just one or two. Its very rare for atheists to have 3+ children. But for religous people, we have more children. Plenty of women who mothers at my church.

100 Shariah courts sounds small, but that number will only grow higher as the years go by. Immigration and high birth rates will accelerate Islam's growth. Right now, Muslims are only 6 percent of the population, but soon they will reach 10-20 percent, by that time they will have much more power.

You're apologizing to the wrong person. I think you would be better to apologise to your God. I was just pointing out the hateful hypocrisy of your Christian faith to reconsider being friendly to all LGBTQ+ people because ONE had upset you and yes that does give religious people a bad name. You also quite clearly has some extreme Christian views that a lot of Christians I've met don't have. You are upset about how he has conducted himself but across this thread you've essentially said that...

1. All Atheists live hedonistic lifestyles full of alcohol, drugs, gambling, hook-ups and other distasteful lifestyles - That is a criticism on millions of people, a prejudice and a stereotype, I for one have never touched alcohol or drugs and I dislike gambling. This sort of hateful prejudging is surely the exact sort of thing that your God would be against? Lol.

2. You said: "The only reason why Atheists are "good people" (good people in quotation, Lol) is because they live in first world societies where they never experience poverty, starvation, extreme water shortages, etc. Its easy to be a "moral" (again, quotation, Lol) person when you are living such a comfortable lifestyle isn't it?" - It's another prejudice, you don't know anything anyone has gone through, living in a first world country does not automatically equal a comfortable life. I for one have a physical disability which took away half my childhood and resulted in a dozen major surgeries, there was nothing comfortable about my lifestyle before becoming an Atheist.

3. You've claimed: "If religious people become atheists later in life, its because they want to live hedonistic lifestyles" - So now basically extending your attacks to formerly religious people too and painting them all with the same brush and reason for leaving their faith.

4. You accused Atheist of leading selfish lifestyles and made the antagonistic claim that marriage rates are falling because people are selfish and care less about their family as a whole now - Total bollocks and an insult to anyone in a non-married relationship, such as my parents who have been in a loving relationship for over 40 years without marriage and raised multiple children and sacrificed a lot to take care of their family, a selfish person would have fled when my medical complications arose.

These things are extreme takes, just like the other dude who said all non-believers are going to Hell, nobody will take you seriously.

That's an assumption but yes I would assume Atheism has grown due to Christians no longer believing but also the youth of today even in Christian families simply moving away from religion. You can throw out your anecdotal but I have provided actual evidence of non-religion notably outpacing Christianity and Muslims. So I suppose all we can do now is wait for the 2031 Census, Lol.

You're also making the incorrect assumption that just because a religious family has a kid, that kid will be religious, that couldn't be further from the truth and is a risky assumption to make, like your anecdotal of how many Christian mothers you know, I know of plenty of people who come from religious families but aren't religious themselves, both Christian and Muslim families.

You can say religious people moving to another country will increase religion in that country but that's not necessarily true, it may be true in the short term but if that country isn't as religious as the country they're coming from, and is either more mixed or has a large portion of Atheists then it allows for the possibility of the next generation to not feel pressured into their families religion as opposed to if they were coming from an extremely religious country. They would have far more access to a variety of different faiths and beliefs, they would interact far more with friends of different beliefs and that stuff is influential on people.

Your entire religion is against Homosexuality and the LGBTQI community.
Just because you stood up to a bully once, doesn't make you vehemently an ally.

You are missing my intent. I never denied that the Church does good things, but often the "good" is not all that it seems.
Raising money for the Australian bushfire response was just an example of that.

I'll ignore the A.I response.

Don't act like an innocent victim. You are neither innocent nor a victim.

You literally said everyone is going to suffer eternal torture and damnation for not following your cult.
Obviously I am going to push back on your garbage with that.

You don't get to judge and hate others and not have it received in return.

Or perhaps... Low and behold, people are waking up? Why believe in something that cannot be proven, treats others in a disgusting fashion and is simply not required in the modern era?

It's interesting you highlight birthrates... Need I remind you that everyone, yourself included is literally born an Atheist? It's later in life people like yourself need to beat the drum of your cult to convert innocent children.