I reckon they have. Message boards give people an almost direct line to experts on almost every subject. I don’t think I’d have the SQL skills I have if it wasn’t for this MB. And I am stretching my ego a bit here, but the company I work for might not be where it is without my SQL skills (and other skills)
Well, then, all you need to do to prove religion is as useful as message boards is demonstrate how a person can gain SQL skills through prayer and revelation. Compared to the claims made in scripture, this is a fairly trivial task.
Good point.
A religious person would claim that God guided the SQL apprentice to the right sources of learning.
Well, I guess Google is an upstart god, then.
Who moved the goalposts? Certainly not I. I said that Christian missionary work in Africa was a good thing, you said it was harmful and that we should either let them starve or repatriate them to be second class citizens in first world nations.
My religion? What makes you think it’s my religion? Are you really incapable of having a discussion without ad hominems? Is ‘your opinion is irrelevant because you are a Christian’ really something you consider to be a valid argument?
I do not practice ANY religion BTW.
Christian missionaries are doing a whole hell of a lot more for the benefit of Africa than YOU are.
Do you have similar problems with the peace corps, Dr’s without borders? Any of those secular organizations that perform the exact same services?
Emotional fulfillment is not the role of a church.
You’re not busy protecting shit, you are hoping that somehow you can find a way to minimize the freedom of others in favor of your own powerbase. :rolleyes: The metaphorical gorillas represent your desire to impose your own politics over that of others. It’s just about the political dominance game, and you like the people you are denigrating are trying to hide that under a veneer of idealism.
Unfortunately ‘In God We Trust.’, is a smoke screen regardless of whether you are supporting or opposing it. It’s a political football used to wage culture war and is pretty much meaningless outside of that.
Well, no-one’s stopping you from laying out what you think the role of a church is, now you’ve said what it isn’t.
I have a powerbase? Cool.
If you say so. I figure they’d have way more freedom under my ideal regime than I would have under theirs.
I can’t argue with you if you’re willing to lie with the facts right out in the open for everyone to see. It’s just too absurd.
I did in this thread. I’ve done so in many other threads. Why should I believe that with the hundred or more times you’ve ignored me that you’ll listen now?
I’ll try one more time with the belief that it probably won’t penetrate.
It is a focal point for a community that shares ethical/moral beliefs. IE, people get married there, they get buried there, they have their children christened there. They go to their minister for advice. They hold social gatherings that cement the community. They engage in community service. They have outreach to one another in times of hardship.
You definitely belong to a voting bloc of people that more or less agree on similar policy.
You are still laboring under the ad hominem fallacy that atheists are more secular than religious people. Many religious people absolutely share the secular values that you hold dear, and in fact many more religious people than atheists have fought hard to keep those rights in place.
Ok, so what did I say that makes you so willing to break the rules of the forum you are posting in?
You were completely ignorant of the work of Christian missionaries and so my pointing it out is ‘moving the goalposts’? It’s probably pretty helpful to your slander that you aren’t actually pointing out what you think I said was dishonest.
Your ignorance =/= my dishonesty.
Sort of a chicken-and-egg problem. I don’t know that there are any churches that started off exclusively for non-charitable purposes and then had the infrastructure available for charity. I know much less about mosques and synagogues, but there are references in Scripture to charitable activity among Jesus’ disciples even while He was on earth. So it doesn’t seem all that much of an advantage - a church has to set up a structure just as does a secular charity, right from the outset.
(Although in the case of the Christian church, they did sort of semi-leverage off the existing synagogues, in that many of their early converts were Jews and proselytes. It was only after the church began to spread outside Israel that they began to meet in private homes. And even then, they were engaged in charitable relief at least of each other. Tertullan, a non-Christian famously remarked, "How these Christians love each other!", and there are several references in the writings of Paul that refer to one church coming to the aid of another.)
I would expect that question to have already been answered in the negative. Secular people now have the option of donating (as you do, to your credit) to existing charities, either religious or secular (there are, as you mention, a few of these). Yet they choose not to do so at levels comparable to religious practitioners. I don’t see why they would donate at the same levels (and do volunteer work, and give blood, and so on) to secular charity if they don’t do so now.
It’s sort of like the old joke -
IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry, after checking the rules I realize I misunderstood them and what I said might have been borderline. So I apologizing for saying you lied, and allow me to rephrase it: what you said isn’t true.
Still unwilling to specify exactly what you have a problem with? Just going to leave it vague and make me fill in the blanks?
Ok, what I am assuming you think was ‘shifting the goalposts’ was that I went from saying, “Feeding starving people in Africa.”, to, “Building Farms, digging wells and teaching people to read.”, because you fixated on the idea of just handing out rice a la the UN aid programs, whereas I was thinking a little more nuanced than that from the beginning.
I already spelled it out for you. At this point I’m not arguing for you, because you know exactly what you’re doing, and I don’t think there is anyone else reading this thread to whom it isn’t also blatantly obvious what you’re doing, so it would be pointless for me to continue this nonsense.
Oh for Cecil’s sake…
Under that premise, Jonas Salk did dick-all because someone else would have come up with a polio vaccine. Hell, I’ll agree under those conditions that religion has never bettered the world because under your stipulations nothing has ever bettered the world.
No, I really don’t. I don’t understand what you’re ranting about.
I think your argument was facile, baseless and silly. That’s my honest opinion. I’m not lying to you about that.
Thank you, that’s flattering. What might actually cause me to think twice is if you agreed with me.
Of course because it’s about identity. You don’t like it because it is Christians doing it, not because of any particular gripe about what they are doing.
That’s usually what these threads are about, they are one big ad hominem masquerading as a debate.
Clueless as usual. I disagreed with throwing food at that problem long before I saw it framed as a Christian solution.
And for all I care, they can continue to do so, but none of these functions specifically require a religious element, i.e. none of them involve actually getting the advice of God or are dependent on the outcome of a particular ritual.
And what do you think those policies are, more or less? I haven’t been paying attention to my powerbase’s newsletter so I’m not up on the latest decisions.
I said my ideal regime, not the regime that would result if you locked fifty atheists up in a room and had them form policy. Frankly, I have no particular reason to trust atheists with power, or anyone with power (sorry, powerbase), but in some areas of public policy I’m being forced to struggle against people who are letting their religion guide them into ideologically satisfying but short-sighted and harmful political action. If they would stop doing that, we wouldn’t have a problem.
As a suggestion, if a religious group insists on getting political, I figure they should lose their tax-exempt status and any other financial or legal advantage they might have over secular political actions committees. This will include any effort to interfere with science education. They can still have all the freedom of expression they want, but they’ll do it at the same level as any other group of citizens.
In any case, I don’t need to get all ad-hominy, so I reject your accusation as incorrect. I’ve plenty of real-world examples of people trying to rewrite laws not to better society in the here-and-now, but to placate what they believe is their godhead in hopes, I guess, of a bigger reward in the next life.