Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[anachronistic]

You can't seriously be saying that educating our children & researching cures for disease isn't at least as important as feeding & clothing the poor?

Poverty is the very cause of many of those types of problems. I come from a very poor family; my parents don't make more than $30,000 a year combined. I can tell you from first hand experience that I am VERY lucky to be where I am now, at a University, to even have passed high school, because life has been very rough for me. I almost did not make it because of poverty.

One thing I really do appreciate about churches, is that they have missionaries. They reach out to help people, to help even bastards like me that don't accept their teachings. That unconditional kindness is very special in this world.

I can't believe you're fussing about how such generous organizations should not be exempt from taxes.

[Only-virgins]

I can't believe you're fussing about how such generous organizations should not be exempt from taxes.

Why should they be? I thought it is generosity in the first place? Generosity doesn't ask for anything back. If it gains something in return than it becomes something else. Last time I checked, generous people who give almost everything they have to feed the needy and poor don't build buildings the size of castles.

This all still falls under the silly notion that people can't be kind with out religion. What pathetic and insulting thing to say about humanity. I would think that humans can treat each other with kindness with out needing a lie.

[Mish]

Two responses: 1. whether its depressing or not is irrelevant to whether its correct.

Ah but it is. This is not a mathematical question you are dealing with, you are dealing with people's definition of life as we know it, with who they are. You are stepping way beyond simple "correct and incorrect". It leads us back to

To answer this directly: yes, I would advocate a positive life perspective over a negative one.

This would be a question of ethics for many people. Ethics are concerned less with correct/incorrect, but with right and wrong. If Science declares for example that brutal savagery are the mechanics of evolution, I personally don't think this is something that should be taught to anyone.

2. You choose to be depressed by this info.
You could be elated by this knowledge. I am.

Indi, this info in itself is depressing. This is like saying the world as we know it will end tomorrow. But don't be depressed by this info, be elevated by it. I am

I feel like I've won the Natural Lottery & admire the huzpah of my forebears. Nature doesn't force you to depression over this, only limited imagination.

While you may feel great knowing this there are others who don't. Just like a doctor could be okay opening up someone else's intestines but many others don't. It's an uncomfortable proposition for many people. They should be able to believe whatever they want to believe on matters as important as life's meaning.

Then the onus is on them to explain why their way is better, Mish. But I think you'll agree that suppression of fact isn't the most honest way to go about this.

I agree, suppression of fact is not the most honest way to go about this. But I think they have explained their point of view from ethical and moral perspective many time, there aren't many people who seem to be listening.

Their argument is based on fear & is understandable from that perspective. But that doesn't make it right, either morally or factually.

Unfortunately their argument is based on reality. I don't know what's in School curriculum is these days, but I remember "Survival of the fittest" being taught quiete openly at our School. It was taught as fact, in summary that yes all species survive by being fitter than others and evolution is all about become the best you can be anyway you can or be killed.

Of course they have to make a choice. Isn't that the whole point?

Well isn't that what you want to see? Kids making a choice?

The basic fact is, Mish, is that science has generated a lot of data, well supported data, that conflicts with a lot of religious dogma. So, rational thinking teaches us specific ways to deal with conflicts of this sort. That's what thinking individuals in society DO, Mish, its why we have evolved the brains we have. The fact this makes certain elements of society uncomfortable means they have some work to do, not stick their heads further in the sand.

Well again. We come back to the difference between Science and Religion or Theology. Science uses facts and data on what's provable, Religion uses myths and life meanings to make people live a more fulfilling life and be better people so they go for the unprovable. Religion can't contradict Science because it doesn't have the facts. But likewise Science can't contradict Religion because it doesn't have the facts on most of the myths generated by Religion (Like God). I think you are confusing the two concepts and their purposes Indi. Religion will never be a good Science. But likewise Science will never be a good Religion. People have a need for both. Neither one of them will be going away in the future.

Religion can only really keep its foothold when it is taught at an early age & with incomplete data about what is actually out there to be known.

I disagree with this. I think every person has a huge capacity for faith either learnt or personal. Even if you try to replace Religion by Science, the humongous gaps and lack of positive meaning will always mean that people will refer to some form of faith. It's unstoppable.

Science has nothing to fear from religion;

Not that it should

I already said my son is well aware of the concept of God & the bible. We take him to church even for the xmas service when visiting relatives. His choices about life philosophy will be made with the fullest experience of ALL that we can expose him to, as best we can. After that, its up to him & his reasoning brain.

I'm surprised that you do this. But I agree, it's the right thing to do.

I'm afraid I'll have to see an UNBIASED study on this, Mish. B/c all the data *I* am aware of says things like how the majority of individuals in US prisons are religious.

Is that before or after they went to prison? Because a lot of rehabilitation programs ran in US prisons are run by Religious groups. They actually claim that because Godless criminals find God that they become better people and strive for better things in life.

As fas as unbiased study for meaning of life goes, sorry Indi I didn't run a study like that. If the fact of psychology I posted earlier is not enough, then use your common sense. Ask yourself why you would advocate a positive life perspective over a non perspective or a negative one?

[Only-virgins]

I'm really sorry Indi. this guy is going to bore you to death. I think I stopped reading around page 22 or 23. lol No offense mish, religion is useless...it is ok if you believe in god...but it is useless. If you took it away this generation might become depressed and sad like you said, of course after all they are used to the idea, but generation two will not care...they will have no care for gods and pathetic theories. All I know is I am not lying to my kids and I am giving them the best thing a father can give, the truth and love.

[Mish]

Why should they be? I thought it is generosity in the first place? Generosity doesn't ask for anything back. If it gains something in return than it becomes something else. Last time I checked, generous people who give almost everything they have to feed the needy and poor don't build buildings the size of castles.

This all still falls under the silly notion that people can't be kind with out religion. What pathetic and insulting thing to say about humanity. I would think that humans can treat each other with kindness with out needing a lie.

OV, every individual and organization making donations or doing charity work have tax exemptions. Not just Religious. They are simply following the rules of the land.

[Mish]

I'm really sorry Indi. this guy is going to bore you to death. I think I stopped reading around page 22 or 23. lol No offense mish,

None is taken. I always accept victory with grace

religion is useless...it is ok if you believe in god...but it is useless.

Useless for whom? I think is the right question. Because at least half of human population tends to disagree.

If you took it away this generation might become depressed and sad like you said, of course after all they are used to the idea, but generation two will not care...

Yes, because they will invent a new one to replace the old one

they will have no care for gods and pathetic theories. All I know is I am not lying to my kids and I am giving them the best thing a father can give, the truth and love.

And Noone asks from you any more or less

[Mish]

B/c Mish, they aren't NOT-FOR-PROFIT. They don't produce tax year-end statments showing that the money they took in all went out for charity work. Have you been to the Vatican? Or seen the mosques that are built from these funds? All tax-exempt.



PACs are a MAJOR source of funding for public schools, Mish. Many schools *depend* on these funds to educate our children b/c the amounts provided by the government simply aren't enough anymore to cover the costs of educating our children.

Research labs. LOL, and just where do you think those medicines that are handed out free COME FROM?

You can't seriously be saying that educating our children & researching cures for disease isn't at least as important as feeding & clothing the poor?

All I have to say is this:

501(c) is a provision of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), listing twenty-seven types of non-profit organizations exempt from some Federal income taxes. Sections 503 through 505 list the requirements for attaining such exemptions. Many states reference Section 501(c) for definitions of organizations exempt from state taxation as well.

501(c)(3)

Section 501(c)(3) is a tax law provision granting exemption from the federal income tax to non-profit organizations. This exemption does not cover other federal taxes such as employment taxes.

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

Not only Religious organizations are tax exempt Indi. Charitable organizations, Scientific, Literary, Educational, testing for public safety. national or international sports, preventative of cruelty to children or animals. All of them are special groups exempt from tax. Should we now start attacking all of them?

But, these groups are not afforded tax-exempt status and religious groups are.You asked for an example as to how religion is treated as a special case, I gave you one. A huge, completely unfair one that almost noone wants to talk about.

Read above

I see. Well, the Nazi party in Germany made a similar argument. So much for universal ethics, Mish. Yep, if they can control the vote that makes it okay. You might want to rethink this point. Nice one.

From ethics perspective it makes it okay for long before this post. After all, you are not comparing Religious organizations of today with Nazi party are you? For better or for worse we live in a Democracy, we are subject to the rule of the majority. What can I say Indi? I'd like a better governing system as well, but we are bound by it

[Only-virgins]

None is taken. I always accept victory with grace

If you call boring your opponent to death with repeated nonsense. Have fun.

Useless for whom? I think is the right question. Because at least half of human population tends to disagree.

Yes, because they will invent a new one to replace the old one

And Noone asks from you any more or less

Useless for the next generation. They don't need to be like this. A good portion of the current human population though maybe different, they are to poisoned and to far gone. Unfortunately, they will poison their young...and the cycle of useless religion continues.

They will invent a new one? that is straight up a lie. If they have no need to they will not, at some point there might have been a need...there was so little answers to practically anything that some thing had to be said..this is not the case anymore. If the parents let their kids think on their own the world would have no religion.

They won't replace anything. It may only seem that way to someone who is already poisoned, life without religion seems dull to them and pointless. This would not be the case for children who were not fed religion from youth. Life would just go on, and religion's origins and beginnings are no longer necessary..we now actually have answers that are supported with evidence and understand the idea that it is ok to say I don't know about certain things and just leave it at that with out resorting to ridiculous assumptions. We don't say " I don't know" for god though because god itself is a ridiculous assumption to begin with.

OV, every individual and organization making donations or doing charity work have tax exemptions. Not just Religious. They are simply following the rules of the land.

Good. Whats your point? My statement stands, it really isn't generosity if you get something in return. Though I am sure the tax exempt doesn't compare to the amount of generosity. Doesn't matter, at least you agree it doesn't have to be religious to be a charity organization that is good. At least a lot of the other organizations don't build castles...that money could have gone to much more productive things. That is all I was saying, I didn't even say they shouldn't ...just said why should they...there is a difference.

you are not comparing Religious organizations of today with Nazi party are you?

I would. Brain washing with speech and the idea of superiority. Seems darn close to me. The Nazi party became the government through influence and by becoming this "majority" that you mentioned. Doesn't mean religion is as violent(they used to be) but compare on a influential level.

[Mish]

Poverty is the very cause of many of those types of problems. I come from a very poor family; my parents don't make more than $30,000 a year combined. I can tell you from first hand experience that I am VERY lucky to be where I am now, at a University, to even have passed high school, because life has been very rough for me. I almost did not make it because of poverty.

One thing I really do appreciate about churches, is that they have missionaries. They reach out to help people, to help even bastards like me that don't accept their teachings. That unconditional kindness is very special in this world.

I think Lilwing has a very good example of kindness and goodwill provided by Religious organizations. They reach out to many people that noone else does. I thought that was something to be commended not attacked.

I can't believe you're fussing about how such generous organizations should not be exempt from taxes.

I don't understand this too. Especially bearing in mind that there are a lot of other non-NPO organizations who are exempt from tax as well.

[Only-virgins]

I think Lilwing has a very good example of kindness and goodwill provided by Religious organizations. They reach out to many people that noone else does. I thought that was something to be commended not attacked.

The only reason I would ever reply to it because it is implied during a debate that it has NOTHING to do with or add too. I mean, kindness and support to people? So does red cross and many other organizations like you said.... so who cares? religion is useless and human kindness continues without it. Not like he said something we didn't know already. Like I said, to imply you need religion to be kind is an insult to everyone else who does kind things and is not religious and in faith.

[Mish]

If you call boring your opponent to death with repeated nonsense. Have fun.

I will. Have fun loosing with indignity then

Useless for the next generation. They don't need to be like this. A good portion of the current human population though maybe different, they are to poisoned and to far gone. Unfortunately, they will poison their young...and the cycle of useless religion continues.

If it's so useless then why does it continue OV? Using your own words, Isn't it an insult to human race to think of them so useless that they will continue doing a useless activity over and over again? Unless the activity isn't so useless?

They will invent a new one? that is straight up a lie. If they have no need to they will not

Ahh, "If". "IF they have a need". So even you are starting to doubt the "uselessness" of Religion?

From Greek to Roman Gods, from Judaism to Christianity, from Mormons to Scientology. Human history is one of Religion. When one falls down another steps in to replace it. Religion will always be there whether Atheists like it or not. Until you realize that Religion is much more complicated than you think, you won't be able to wish it away.

, at some point there might have been a need...there was so little answers to practically anything that some thing had to be said..this is not the case anymore.

Religion is a lot more than simple answers. If that's what Religion was all about, it would've long fallen apart. It's definition of life's meaning. It's tradition. It's a way of life.

If the parents let their kids think on their own the world would have no religion.

The world would have another Religion

They won't replace anything. It may only seem that way to someone who is already poisoned, life without religion seems dull to them and pointless. This would not be the case for children who were not fed religion from youth. Life would just go on, and religion's origins and beginnings are no longer necessary..we now actually have answers that are supported with evidence and understand the idea that it is ok to say I don't know about certain things and just leave it at that with out resorting to ridiculous assumptions. We don't say " I don't know" for god though because god itself is a ridiculous assumption to begin with.

You're talking about Science becoming a Religion OV. Something we already covered. Science doesn't have all the answers and it never will. For as long as Science doesn't have all the answers there will be a Religion. The moment Science tries to replace facts (that it doesn't have) with assumptions it becomes a Religion of its own. A very poor one at that (I posted something along those lines earlier I think).

Good. Whats your point? My statement stands, it really isn't generosity if you get something in return. Though I am sure the tax exempt doesn't compare to the amount of generosity. Doesn't matter, at least you agree it doesn't have to be religious to be a charity organization that is good. At least a lot of the other organizations don't build castles...that money could have gone to much more productive things. That is all I was saying, I didn't even say they shouldn't ...just said why should they...there is a difference.

Okay, I agree with you in a sense. Let's leave it at that.

[Mish]

The only reason I would ever reply to it because it is implied during a debate that it has NOTHING to do with or add too. I mean, kindness and support to people? So does red cross and many other organizations like you said....

It's about numbers and situation OV. Red cross doesn't cover the same people being supported by Religion and it doesn't cover as many people. Not many organizations are able to provide as many volunteers and put in as much effort into charity and philanthropic work as Religious establishments.

so who cares? religion is useless and human kindness continues without it. Not like he said something we didn't know already. Like I said, to imply you need religion to be kind is an insult to everyone else who does kind things and is not religious and in faith.

I never said you needed Religion to be kind. It just helps. I think any extra altruism in this world is a good thing. I would much rather torment Social Darwinists (Of which there are plenty).

[Junket]

Existentialism.

[TheSphinx]

Existentialism.

See Albert Camus' The Stranger for an example.

~Sphinx

[Junket]

See Albert Camus' The Stranger for an example.

~Sphinx

Read that.

Also read a dumbed down version of Jean Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness.