Religion

• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385388 wrote:Absolutely ludicrous. Even if we boil down the scenario into a simple monkey-see-monkey-do scenario, you are still performing an altruistic act.

  So what if I have malignant intentions, but I commit a seemingly altruistic act to carry them out. My intentions and motives mean nothing, then, yes?
  
  I would contend that such a contemplation is hardly ludicrous.
  

  sleeper;1385388 wrote:The person originally performing the act is now happier that other's respect him enough to want to participate in something that causes harm JUST to make the other person feel better.

  You're assuming he recognizes the respect or admiration. At that point, you're really just talking about Pavlovian conditioning if done over time. That would make it more learned than intrinsic.
  

  sleeper;1385388 wrote:I don't know why I'm wasting my time with that explanation.

  You're welcome to ignore it if you'd like. However, it still boils down to you assuming something and apparently not enjoying questioning that assumption. There is no genetic link to altruism. We see behavioral responses, but that's correlation again. My repeating actions I see does not mean that I am intrinsically altruistic, particularly if I were to do the same with malignant actions. It just means I am impressionable ... ready for some nurture education.
• sleeper

  

  You're all over the place o-trap. I'm beginning to question how much more obtuse your argument will become before you find yourself back to square 1 again.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385399 wrote:You're all over the place o-trap. I'm beginning to question how much more obtuse your argument will become before you find yourself back to square 1 again.

  I'm literally following your train of thought, so if I'm all over the place, I'm just going where you've gone.
  
  My argument is merely based on the simple process of theory and defeater. It's hardly difficult to follow.
  
  To be fair, I don't actually even really care whether or not morality would be possible outside religious institution. But I don't have to actually care about something to have a thought on it, I don't think.
  
  Relax, take a deep breath, and engage the thought. No sense in getting frustrated.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1385402 wrote:I'm literally following your train of thought, so if I'm all over the place, I'm just going where you've gone.
  
  My argument is merely based on the simple process of theory and defeater. It's hardly difficult to follow.
  
  To be fair, I don't actually even really care whether or not morality would be possible outside religious institution. But I don't have to actually care about something to have a thought on it, I don't think.
  
  Relax, take a deep breath, and engage the thought. No sense in getting frustrated.

  Agreed. I believe a break is in order. I need time to condense your sporadic and largely irrational argumentative style into a single salient point. I appreciate keeping your posts under 200 words; props.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1385392 wrote:Except other groups don't explicitly get benefits from eliminating infidels. See 9/11. I would love to get all the people's lives back that died on that day in exchange for the elimination of a belief system that can never, has never, and will never been proven. Sad that you think protecting religious freedom is more important than protecting people's lives.

  Not all groups overtly claim to want to eliminate anyone. But in order to obtain their goals, other people end up needing elimination because they get in the way. Think of Indians being eliminated in the spirit of westward expansion. Religions that preach intolerance are overt in this area. But I think the whole thing speaks to human nature more than just the negative influence of religion.
  
  I've never said a word about religious freedom, so I'm not sure how you're able to conclude that I value it over human life. The fact I don't.
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1385408 wrote:Not all groups overtly claim to want to eliminate anyone. But in order to obtain their goals, other people end up needing elimination because they get in the way. Think of Indians being eliminated in the spirit of westward expansion. Religions that preach intolerance are overt in this area. But I think the whole thing speaks to human nature more than just the negative influence of religion.
  
  I've never said a word about religious freedom, so I'm not sure how you're able to conclude that I value it over human life. The fact I don't.

  Then I'm proud to say we agree on at least one point. However, I think your unwillingness to move the needle on the allowance of religions to permeate society leaves a lot of questions that will likely go unanswered.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1385412 wrote:Then I'm proud to say we agree on at least one point. However, I think your unwillingness to move the needle on the allowance of religions to permeate society leaves a lot of questions that will likely go unanswered.

  "Allowance" of religion? What difference does it make what anyone thinks should be allowed. Religion is so far ingrained in human society and history that even if it were do disappear, it won't be in any of our lifetimes. If you don't like religion today, you will have to learn to tolerate its existence nonetheless.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385407 wrote:.. largely irrational ...

  I'll give you sporadic, but potential examples that serve as defeaters are hardly irrational. If anything, they are a crux of rational argumentation.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1385418 wrote:I'll give you sporadic, but potential examples that serve as defeaters are hardly irrational. If anything, they are a crux of rational argumentation.

  Yeah maybe if you are a woman. :laugh:
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1385417 wrote:"Allowance" of religion? What difference does it make what anyone thinks should be allowed. Religion is so far ingrained in human society and history that even if it were do disappear, it won't be in any of our lifetimes. If you don't like religion today, you will have to learn to tolerate its existence nonetheless.

  I believe I would see it within my lifetime provided churches were not allowed to claim non-profit status. They would have to charge money to cover their services and force people to look deep within to actually understand they are wasting their lives on an erroneous belief system.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1385424 wrote:Yeah maybe if you are a woman. :laugh:

  NOW who's being irrational?
• OSH

  

  sleeper;1385427 wrote:I believe I would see it within my lifetime provided churches were not allowed to claim non-profit status.

  That means that Red Cross should be for-profit. That means The Ohio State University should be for-profit. That means Amnesty International, UNESCO, Make-A-Wish, and even the Wounded Warrior Project should all go for-profit too. Might as well make Alcohol Anonymous the same.
• O-Trap

  

  As long as churches fit the qualifications of a not-for-profit, they should be given neither special exception nor special scrutiny.
• I Wear Pants

  I'm not a fan of religion and think churches should be taxed. Their main objective is worship not charitable endeavors and that's where the funds go.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1385527 wrote:As long as churches fit the qualifications of a not-for-profit, they should be given neither special exception nor special scrutiny.

  But religion is already a special exemption under 501(c)(3).
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1385528 wrote:I'm not a fan of religion and think churches should be taxed. Their main objective is worship not charitable endeavors and that's where the funds go.

  There are many churches that do indeed function in this way, but there are others who donate a substantial amount of money and/or manpower toward community building and charitable projects. Be careful throwing out the bath water.
  
  Having said that, I've raised money for the kinds of churches you mentioned. Hated every second of it, because of how it was run. However, I also raised money for charity organizations with no religious affiliation that were equally greedy, if not more so.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1385530 wrote:But religion is already a special exemption under 501(c)(3).

  It is an exemption, but not any more so than the rest who qualify under 501(c).
• I Wear Pants

  Well yeah it isn't just churches that are my issue, I think we need to start being a lot more strict and specific as to what qualifies as a tax exempt organization. And what I meant with the special exemption is it's the only one of them that can possibly have nothing to do with helping people. "operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals"
  
  Hopefully you can see that with proper scrutiny of the applicants all of those have an inherent benefit to society except religion. I mean religion can have benefit but it doesn't necessarily. I look to scientology as an example. It has nothing to offer society that would legitimize the organization not paying taxes.
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1385538 wrote:Hopefully you can see that with proper scrutiny of the applicants all of those have an inherent benefit to society except religion. I mean religion can have benefit but it doesn't necessarily. I look to scientology as an example. It has nothing to offer society that would legitimize the organization not paying taxes.

  Says you. There are all kinds of benefits from any individual ideology that one chooses...whether that is "prevention of cruelty to animals," "to promote the arts," or even to friggin' "foster national/international amateur sports competition." The ability for the National Football League to be non-profit is more of a scam than any religious institution. What about the NCAA? Scam. Why should a religious institution have to pay taxes any more than those?
  
  Those are specifically money-making ventures. In the root of it, any sect of faith (i.e., religion) is not based around money-making ventures. It just has become that...unfortunately.
  

  "When the Greeks got the gospel, they turned it into a philosophy; when the Romans got it, they turned it into a government; when the Europeans got it, they turned it into a culture; and when the Americans got it, they turned it into a business." - Richard Halverson

• I Wear Pants

  That quote is insane and waxes poetically on a benevolent past for religion that's simply doesn't exist. Sure it's been turned into a business especially the past hundred years or so but that's still far better than what it had previously been.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1385427 wrote:I believe I would see it within my lifetime provided churches were not allowed to claim non-profit status. They would have to charge money to cover their services and force people to look deep within to actually understand they are wasting their lives on an erroneous belief system.

  I think you're only talking about the US. What about the rest of thhe world.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1385300 wrote:Exactly. I believe that I am God and since you cannot prove me wrong, that unequivocally means that I am God and I am correct. It's called faith Con_Alma and you wouldn't understand because you haven't seen or experience what I have.

  I understand perfectly well. If you have faith that you are God so be it. For it to be real, however, it takes more than faith. It takes your omnipotence to be present. If you are truly omnipotent you are all knowing and you won't need human logic to disprove you. You will already know the truth.
• Ironman92

  

  With pick #49 the Pittsburgh Steelers select Desmond Trufant CB University of Washington
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1385540 wrote:That quote is insane and waxes poetically on a benevolent past for religion that's simply doesn't exist. Sure it's been turned into a business especially the past hundred years or so but that's still far better than what it had previously been.

  It surely does exist. And it's sad that it does.
• Devils Advocate