Indeed. I over simplified.
Perhaps better to say that one cannot expect these billboards to turn around the beliefs of the majority of the Christians in the area, nor do the need to.
4 Likes
Feeling attacked is more like it. They love being attacked. Makes them feel persecuted, which just gives them the moral high ground they need to actually persecute other groups.
8 Likes
One could say the same about wife beaters, too, that one should just accept beatings and say nothing lest you get them mad.
4 Likes
Because the neglect of evidence-based reasoning and embrace of tribalism has real and tragic consequences in the world.
3 Likes
Extra tax? Really? Can you back that up?
While were on the subject of tax discounts, where do you stand on municipalities and states giving tax discounts to industry to located offices and factories within their jurisdiction?
Either way it just looks like you want to complain about religious organizations here. Thats fine but be clear and donât fudge about things that arenât actually there.
The three Abrahamic faiths, operating on âcloseâ versions of Genesis donât say anything about the wives of the sons of Noach being close relations. The incest claim here is simply wrong. As for genocide, thats one of those words that is probably used here pretty far outside any dictionary meaning. Dawkinsites like to use that word in a variety of ways in regards to the Tanach/Christian Bible/Quran, it gets into argument to emotion and thats not very productive.
FWIW I have no theological sympathy with YECs Christians who freestyle on interpretation of the Hebrew bible. I see it as a bug in their system but a known bug with established workarounds. I also have little sympathy with self styled rationalists who refuse to do their homework before similarly free styling on the same texts.
4 Likes
Churches donât pay tax. Even when they have net-profit on their books, as in they sell stuff and keep the money. That means that other people who are taxed pay more than churches in tax. Both as a percentage and absolutely. If the churches complied with the same standards as other non-profits in the US, then human beings wouldnât pay as much tax, because most churches donât do tangible services to the community. This is not complicated, it is simple arithmetic, and to deny it is disingenuous.
6 Likes
I follow the chain of thought but its âjust soâ in that it assumes that any tax discount in one area requires a tax increase in another area. Tax policy in the US isnât zero sum by the understanding of any economists Iâve read.
By my understanding of US tax law in this area (IANAL or tax accountant) this ânet profitâ you refer to is not understood in the same way as a ânet profitâ in the case of a business. NPOs and religious organizations with tax exempt status donât get to claim any facility improvements or capital investments against taxation the way that a for profit organization does. That is to say the ânet profitâ you refer to here becomes the funding for building upkeep, staff salaries, etc. Iâm not saying âright or wrongâ just how it is as I understand. If you have something in the US tax code that shows Iâm wrong, please do let me know.
To keep this on topic, I canât find any reference that AiG here is legally classified as an organization that receives religious tax exempt status to begin with so this may all be just blowing air at each other.
2 Likes
The major issue here is that the IRS is unwilling to enforce the existing law in a way that may cost christian organizations money.
Have you heard of pulpit freedom sunday? Thatâs an event where pastors in completely untaxed churches instruct their parishoners how to vote, record it on video, and send it in to the IRS as a dare.
Itâs religious impunity, and it galls me personally. These are pastors, speaking in their capacity as pastors, tax-exempt participating in politics publicly and telling the IRS they can do nothing about it.
In my book, if you want to participate in politics, you gotta pay taxes like everyone else. Why do christian churches get an out on that? If MSF, or the Red Cross, did that, theyâd be fined so hard itâd make your head spin.
AiG will receive funding from the Ark Encounter, mark my words. Theyâve already attempted to enforce a religious litmus test in their hiring practices. I wouldnât put it past them to take it further.
2 Likes
No idea about LDoBe, but yes, I do define âresponsibleâ in a way that is likely different from how you do it.
Modern neuroscience has provided fairly conclusive evidence that weâre essentially meat robots; there is no ghost in the machine, Cartesian dualism is unsupported bunk.
But weâre meat robots whose behaviour is partly influenced [1] by a biologically-created consciousness that maintains in itself a convincing illusion of free will, and interprets the actions of others in a framework of them also being free-willed agents.
Given these discoveries, traditional notions of free will, ethics and responsibility do require reconsideration. This reconsideration is central to the field of Neurophilosophy; look up the work of Patricia Churchland for a good introduction if youâre interested in this stuff [2].
In the framework of biologically-driven minds, we need to reconsider what we mean by responsibility. What is the purpose of the concept of âresponsibilityâ? What is it for?
Thereâs still plenty of lively argument around that, but I tend to agree with the substantial faction that argues that we need to shift to considering responsibility from a functional point of view.
What approach to responsibility produces the best outcomes? It isnât about assigning blame or following any sort of cosmic rulebook, scriptural or otherwise; itâs about âwhat do we want to achieve and how can we best get there?â. What approach to responsibility provides the most desirable society?
We are all responsible for our actions in the sense of being closely involved in the causative chain that led to them; thatâs an objective physical fact. But responsibility in the ethical or moral sense is not an objective physical fact; itâs a subjective, culturally influenced selection of just one of many equally valid [3] interpretations.
There is all sorts of interesting ethical debate to be had around this, though. Regardless of whether a criminal offenderâs âbrain made them do itâ, will locking them up reduce the overall harm caused by their behaviour? Does that outweigh the harm of locking them up? What if we reduce the harm attached to the harm-prevention efforts (e.g. locking someone up)?
How should this approach influence our attitude towards rehabilitation and prevention? How does this view change our approach to issues such as diminished responsibility and mental illness? Behaviour is no more or less neurologically determined whether or not mental illness or brain injury is involved; itâs all at 100%.
Etc. Lotsa chewy ethical toys to play with. But no ghosts and no transcendence, for the simple reason that weâve never found the slightest scrap of evidence that either of those things exist.
.
[1] Influenced, but not âcontrolledâ. Consciousness is not the executive of the mind; itâs the narrator.
[2] See Patricia Churchland - ABC listen for a good quick intro.
[3] Equally valid does not mean equally desirable or imply equality in outcomes.
7 Likes
While what you describe there does seem distasteful, I wonder if its that the IRS is unwilling to enforce the existing law or if political endorsements by religious leaders end up as permitted under freedom of speech/assembly. There may well be relevant court cases but again IANAL.
OK it turns out that AiG is a 501 C3 which is a pretty broad category of NPO including religious, charitable and even animal rights activist organizations 
They can make money/receive funding from Ark Encounter but legally the uses of the funding have to be accounted for in accordance with their charter. Lots of leeway there.
And got turned down by the courts. As it should be.
1 Like
If all what you typed is true then Iâm just pre-programed to to consider it reductionist nonsense due to my illusion of free will 
Okay youâre a determinist/compatibilist like LDoBe.
So do you agree that it is irrational for atheists to get angry at religious people?
Pretty much, yes.
Fortunately, constant revision and rewiring is a fundamental part of how neurological structures function. We may be biological computers, but weâre biological learning computers. 
7 Likes
It is still rational to get angry at religious people for certain reasons. For instance, when they deny basic facts they can replicate themselves in favor of their theology.
You may want to call that willful ignorance. I call it a kind of malicious and intentional stupidity. And the folks at AiG practice it all day long. To the point where people will tell lies that they know are lies in order to shore up their subscription numbers.
While, I admit I am angry at AiG specifically, I usually am more often frustrated at religious people. Frustrated at their inability to understand, or denial of many basic facts. I become angry when they try to affect the law without offering reasons. I become angry when they try to take rights away from people without valid arguments. I am angry when the religious try to hurt people without a (yes, personal to me) valid reason.
I am most often frustrated by their attitudes toward their views and beliefs. I am frustrated by their often self-imposed mental handicaps. Handicaps I admit to participating in, but in different areas I try to keep clear of affecting the lives of others in ways they canât defend themselves from.
6 Likes
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
As with responsibility, you need to consider the purpose of anger. When undertaking a difficult task, if applied with the right intensity and in the right circumstances:
10 Likes
Please donât dump all us religious people in the same box as AiG. For me as an Orthodox Jew the events of the Flood in Genesis are true as written. But by the same token, as an Orthodox Jew I donât demand that you agree with that statement.
Did someone put a hot wire to your head because of the things you did and said?
FWIW I adore Jonas Hellborgâs bass playing in that song as well as the rest of the musicians who worked on Album.
3 Likes
Except we know from what youâve already said that âwilfulâ and âintentionalâ are weasel words. There is no transcendent self that might choose otherwise. And even if they are being knowingly deceitful, that decision too is a product of nature.
You keep talking as if they have a choice. I think youâre right, but you shouldnât, given your presuppositions.
Aha, so all this talk about blame and guilt is just a manipulative ploy to pressure others into your position. Sounds like you atheists are more cunning than I realised. Are you sure you arenât with those AiG guys? 
BTW nice with the PIL song. I havenât heard that for a looong time.
Itâs actually about pre-Jewish, pre-Hebrew thinking, and it isnât really about putting limits on the Divine. The same attitudes are found in Hinduism and taken to the limit in the Jains. The underlying idea is that whatever runs the world causes destruction as well as growth, but that a good man or a hero may become approved of by those powers and be rewarded. The concept of unlimited power doesnât really exist at this point.
If you argue that the story was retained by early editors of the Hebrew corpus because the story fitted in with their understandingof divinity, I might go along with that.
You may have misunderstood what I intended to say. I was arguing from a Maimonides ânegative theologyâ position where it is impossible to limit God as âgoodâ or any other singular human quality. This is a standard Orthodox position, nothing to do with Hindus or Jains and I certainly wouldnât argue in favor of âeditorsâ of Genesis, I am not a Reform Jew.
Just to add a little levity:
4 Likes
