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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"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

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.

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 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.