Church Investment In Downtown Slc

[Scott Lloyd]

Your twisting.. religion promotes morality and ethics but so do parents and teachers and the law.. religion does not have a lock on this...

No one here is claiming it has a lock. I'm saying that churches benefit society by their promotion of morality and ethics to the extent that they deserve the tax exemption.

Besides the point is not to do away with religion just special rights .. Are you suggesting the church would fail if it had to pay taxes on its tithing? Hardley.

Taxing churches opens the door to heavy-handed government intrusion into the exercise of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. What amazes me is you guys are oblivious to how un-American what you are promoting really is.

The money you give to a church for your membership is their money how are YOU being taxed a second time?

As I've already defined it, a church is, among other things, a community of like-minded believers. The members collectively are the Church. So if you tax the Church, you take money that citizens, who have already been taxed, pay to support the goals and purposes they believe in passionately as a matter of religious faith. This amounts to a violation of human rights.

Not really.. both provide a service designed to make you feel good.

Your jaundiced opinion of religion is not universally shared and should not be impsed upon others.

please explain how I can be "imputing wrongdoing" that is not illegal? Are you suggesting that IF the church were investing tithing money it would be wrong but maybe not illegal ? Wrong by whose standard?

Please clarify. Are you saying that behavior is not wrong unless it's illegal? Such a notion would be truly amazing. And toxic.

[SleepingWillow]

Also, my comment about being entitled to your opinion referred to your claim about religion promoting fantasies, not about tax law. You have the right to worship (or not) how and where you will- kindly do us the same courtesy.

Mormons are roughly .02% of the world's population. If you believe Mormonism to be true, then every other religion out there is promoting fantasy. They can't all be right. Most contradict each other heavily.

You claim to be opposed to all religions equally, but you (at least here) have reserved your bitterness and vitriol for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm sorry, is this not the LDS discussion board?

I don't recall having heard you attack any other religion, except in the most general of terms- and especially not the religions of secular humanism and atheism- which IIRC have both been deemed religions by the US government.

Atheism is not a religion. You are likely atheist regarding all the thousands of gods in human history except Yaweh. I am merely atheist about Yaweh, too. One of my favorite quotes--"if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby."

You are right, atheism is classified as a religion, but this is necessary for legal purposes to treat everyone equal no matter their beliefs. That doesn't mean it involves mysticism or any of the other fantastical elements that typically define religion.

[Pahoran]

Just to respond to a number of grenades that have been lobbed:

Not only is it a business, but it's a tax-exempt business (more or less) in addition to being politically active corporate entity. The Church simply reminds me of a business like Ford Motor Company that has its charitable enterprises. I think those enterprises are more PR than anything else. In the Church's case it couldn't afford to NOT do anything... so it calculates a PR cost-benefit ratio regarding its charity and acts accordingly. I think most of its charitable enterprises are done to simply show its core consumers it's doing something charitable. Frankly, the Church is interested in longevity. Again, this isn't a bad thing per se... but I certainly wouldn't confuse the Mormon church's motivation for existing with a humanitarian organization like Red Cross. It's not. It's more like a gated community in which you're welcome to join, but have to pay a fee to belong rather than a non-profit hospital ran to minister to the poor and needy. The idea being that the community is an entity designed to bring happiness in a holistic sense to those willing to join, whereas the critics want to assign to the Mormon church an entirely different purpose for existing and then beat it up when it surely fails to live up to its newly assigned mission. I'm not sure how people see the LDS corporation for anything besides what it purports to be... which certainly isn't an endeavor to alleviate physical suffering, but rather an attempt to change cultural habits that bring about a better temporal lifestyle (and, in their opinion, eternal progression). If you don't like it, don't give money to it. It certainly doesn't need it.

Followed by:

You don't think the Mormon church is a business?

Of course he doesn't. Why would he? And if you are genuinely interested in seeing the Church for "what it purports to be," then why would you?

Followed then by:

I understand LDS Inc. pays taxes on the income-producing businesses that it owns, however I was referring to the Church arm of the conglomerate that collects billions in tithing revenue. I think that's a pretty good business strategy if you ask me, and I'm sure the LDS President of the Corporation along with the board would agree.

Is it possible to be any more inflammatory on this topic? And then the obligatory wide-eyed ingenue act:

I wonder why I'm getting such a hostile response when I'm not stating anything unusual about the business practice of the LDS corporation and its subsidiary the LDS Church?

I won't ask you why you lobbed these grenades, Pro-shock, because (1) you won't come clean about it anyway, and (2) you will respond by sending up a smokescreen about "getting personal" and then dive for cover.

I just want you to know that we are on to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[SleepingWillow]

Is it possible to be any more inflammatory on this topic? And then the obligatory wide-eyed ingenue act:

I won't ask you why you lobbed these grenades, Pro-shock, because (1) you won't come clean about it anyway, and (2) you will respond by sending up a smokescreen about "getting personal" and then dive for cover.

I just want you to know that we are on to you.

We'll just hide in the tax shelter.

[Pahoran]

Mormons are roughly .02% of the world's population. If you believe Mormonism to be true, then every other religion out there is promoting fantasy. They can't all be right. Most contradict each other heavily.

I'm sorry, is this not the LDS discussion board?

Yes, it is. So, do you spend 99.8% of your on-line time bagging other religions, or are we especially privileged?

Atheism is not a religion. You are likely atheist regarding all the thousands of gods in human history except Yaweh. I am merely atheist about Yaweh, too. One of my favorite quotes--"if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Clever, but rather meaningless. Systems of thought are classified by their subject matter, not by their point of view. The notion that the entire universe was originally sneezed out of the left nostril of the Great Green Arkleseizure is cosmology, not cooking. The notion that mice will spontaneously generate in a dirty shirt wrapped around an ear of wheat is biology, not bricklaying. And the notion that there is no God is religion, not rap-dancing.

The fact that Arkleseizurism is bad cosmology, and abiogenesis is bad biology, and atheism is bad religion does not change the fact that each of those systems is properly classified by their subject matter.

Religions do not need priests or rituals in order to be religions; there are many that do not have them. Nor do they need to affirmatively believe in a supreme being--some forms of Hinduism do not--or in an afterlife--some manifestations of orthodox Judaism do not. What makes them all religions is that they take positions on these questions. Because these are religious questions and nothing else.

You are right, atheism is classified as a religion, but this is necessary for legal purposes to treat everyone equal no matter their beliefs. That doesn't mean it involves mysticism or any of the other fantastical elements that typically define religion.

Actually there have been atheists that have dabbled in various forms of mysticism and the occult. No, what makes atheism a religion is simply that it is a system of thought that deals exclusively with religious questions.

So perhaps your clever quip should be re-worded to, "if atheism is a religion, then devoting large amounts of time to campaigning against stamp collecting is a hobby."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

The December Ensign has an article under News of the Church on this. The purpose of the renovation is to "energize the economy of the city that houses its [the church's] headquarters and to bolster the area near Temple Square. No tithing funds will be used in the redevelopment." The plan is outlined with schematic.

Sounds like a very worthwhile enterprise not only for the church but the community. But then the critics would like the whole area to just deteriorate so that visitors will not be drawn to Temple Square and members will likewise avoid the area. That would suit their purposes just fine and is what would happen if something is not done to improve the area.

[SleepingWillow]

Yes, it is. So, do you spend 99.8% of your on-line time bagging other religions, or are we especially privileged?

Especially privileged.

Clever, but rather meaningless. Systems of thought are classified by their subject matter, not by their point of view. The notion that the entire universe was originally sneezed out of the left nostril of the Great Green Arkleseizure is cosmology, not cooking.

No. If someone truly believed that, it would be religion.

The notion that mice will spontaneously generate in a dirty shirt wrapped around an ear of wheat is biology, not bricklaying.

No. Again, if someone truly believed that despite the evidence, it would be religion. Since nobody believes that, it's pure fantasy. Not biology.

And the notion that there is no God is religion, not rap-dancing.

Now we're just getting into semantics. By that logic, me not believing in Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, makes me religious. Sure, if you want to define religion that broadly.

No, what makes atheism a religion is simply that it is a system of thought that deals exclusively with religious questions.

If atheism is a "system of thought dealing exclusively with religious questions," then disbelieving in Zeus is a "system of thought." Semantics.

So perhaps your clever quip should be re-worded to, "if atheism is a religion, then devoting large amounts of time to campaigning against stamp collecting is a hobby."

Try again. Let me fix that. "If campaigning against magical thinking is a hobby, then devoting large amounts of time to campaigning against stamp collecting is a hobby."

I agree.

[TAK]

SCOTT

No one here is claiming it has a lock. I'm saying that churches benefit society by their promotion of morality and ethics to the extent that they deserve the tax exemption.

There is no reason to give tax breaks to support religion and they should be treated like any other business. As to morality and not to totally discount any value religion might offer but I donâ??t think I want religion(s) â?? the good folks that brought us the inquisition, slavery, wars, witch massacres, polygamy, racism, sexism and a host of other blights on society determining what is moral. - I find it morally repugnant that anybody would refer to a child as â??illegitimateâ?.

SCOTT

Taxing churches opens the door to heavy-handed government intrusion into the exercise of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. What amazes me is you guys are oblivious to how un-American what you are promoting really is.

I thought it was Pro American that everybody carry their fair share.. The idea that you cannot exercise your religions beliefs if you donâ??t get a tax deduction is an affront to those who died for what they believed.

SCOTT

As I've already defined it, a church is, among other things, a community of like-minded believers. The members collectively are the Church. So if you tax the Church, you take money that citizens, who have already been taxed, pay to support the goals and purposes they believe in passionately as a matter of religious faith. This amounts to a violation of human rights.

Your definition is ridiculous.. a Country Club is, among other things, a community of like-minded believers. The members collectively are the Club. So if you tax the Club, you take money that citizens, who have already been taxed, pay to support the goals and purposes they believe in passionately as a matter of golf and tennis. This amounts to a violation of human rights.

Human Rights?? 0h puleeze !!

SCOTT

Your jaundiced opinion of religion is not universally shared and should not be impsed upon others. Please clarify. Are you saying that behavior is not wrong unless it's illegal? Such a notion would be truly amazing. And toxic.

Once again your twisting and evading.. Are you telling us that it is wrong if the church invests tithing money?

[selek]

There is no reason to give tax breaks to support religion and they should be treated like any other business. As to morality and not to totally discount any value religion might offer but I donâ??t think I want religion(s) â?? the good folks that brought us the inquisition, slavery, wars, witch massacres, polygamy, racism, sexism and a host of other blights on society determining what is moral. - I find it morally repugnant that anybody would refer to a child as â??illegitimateâ?.

Would you prefer that the "good folks" who brought us rampant materialism, irresponsible sexual license, the disintegration of the family, pandemic levels of inner-city poverty, inner-city crime, STD's, and the welfare state, socialism, nihilism, the master race, phrenology, eugenics, infanticide, genocide, Rwanda, Somalia, Lebanon, and AIDS, determine what is moral?

If so, I find your judgement somewhat questionable, to say the least.

[TAK]

Would you prefer that the "good folks" who brought us rampant materialism, irresponsible sexual license, the disintegration of the family, pandemic levels of inner-city poverty, inner-city crime, STD's, and the welfare state, socialism, nihilism, the master race, phrenology, eugenics, infanticide, genocide, Rwanda, Somalia, Lebanon, and AIDS, determine what is moral?

If so, I find your judgement somewhat questionable, to say the least.

Thats quite the jump in "logic". Ever consider the olympics?

Apparently religion for all its value has not detered the above.. So perhaps building more expensive buildings in nice neighborhoods would be more effective in curing the ills you have illuminated. On the other hand maybe if local governments had more revenue from currently untaxed sources they might be able to do a better job of educating and providing social services?

[SleepingWillow]

Thats quite the jump in "logic". Ever consider the olympics?

Apparently religion for all its value has not detered the above.. So perhaps building more expensive buildings in nice neighborhoods would be more effective in curing the ills you have illuminated. On the other hand maybe if local governments had more revenue from currently untaxed sources they might be able to do a better job of educating and providing social services?

Don't bother. selek believes that 100 years ago, when people were much more religious, life was much better than it is today.

Excuse me I need to go throw up.

[selek]

On the other hand maybe if local governments had more revenue from currently untaxed sources they might be able to do a better job of educating and providing social services?

Actually, the government is the poster child for fraud and abuse- many, many billions of dollars are misappropriated and unaccounted for every year in the United States alone.

Also, many of the ills I've mentioned- pandemic levels of inner-city poverty, inner-city crime, STD's, and the welfare state, in addition to rampant drug abuse- coincide precisely with President Johnson's "Great Society"- which was set up specifically to combat poverty (and it's attendant ills) through social spending.

Thus far, it has had precisely the opposite effect, and far-reaching and "unforseen" (though predicted by a minority of critics) consequences- including an explosion in the illegitimacy you so decry.

You may criticize the Church for it's actions, content and secure in the knowledge that you alone are enlightened enough to determine how to spend other people's money, but your chosen solution- government spending- has demonstrated repeatedly that it is both incompetent to the task you would appoint and destructive to the very people it is intended to help.

[SleepingWillow]

Actually, the government is the poster child for fraud and abuse- many, many billions of dollars are misappropriated and unaccounted for every year in the United States alone.

Also, many of the ills I've mentioned- pandemic levels of inner-city poverty, inner-city crime, STD's, and the welfare state, in addition to rampant drug abuse- coincide precisely with President Johnson's "Great Society"- which was set up specifically to combat poverty (and it's attendant ills) through social spending.

Thus far, it has had precisely the opposite effect, and far-reaching and "unforseen" (though predicted by a minority of critics) consequences- including an explosion in the illegitimacy you so decry.

You may criticize the Church for it's actions, content and secure in the knowledge that you alone are enlightened enough to determine how to spend other people's money, but your chosen solution- government spending- has demonstrated repeatedly that it is both incompetent to the task you would appoint and destructive to the very people it is intended to help.

Blah blah reactionary nonsense blah blah blah things were so much better before FDR ruined everything yada yada

[selek]

Blah blah reactionary nonsense blah blah blah things were so much better before FDR ruined everything yada yada

So mature, so well reasoned, so concise....

Unable to confront the facts, you resort to name calling- I particularly appreciate "reactionary"- and you misstate what I said.

I drew the point to Johnson and the "Great Society", not Roosevelt and the "New Deal".

Thank you for conceding the argument.

[SleepingWillow]

So mature, so well reasoned, so concise....

Unable to confront the facts, you resort to name calling- I particularly appreciate "reactionary"- and you misstate what I said.

I drew the point to Johnson and the "Great Society", not Roosevelt and the "New Deal".

Thank you for conceding the argument.

I don't need to confront the facts. If you believe the 1950s were better than today, more power to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

Yeah... ending segregation... civil rights... medicare... medicaid... public broadcasting... the NEA... food stamps... head start... consumer protection... truth-in-lending... numerous environment protections... oh... just TERRIBLE.

[selek]

I don't need to confront the facts. If you believe the 1950s were better than today, more power to you.

Nice sidestep, but that wasn't my point or my claim. And since you chose not to confront my assertions, I will take your statement above as a further concession that the facts are indeed on my side.

And whether you agree with the social restraints or not, it is demonstrable that the social fabric and the family were both considerably stronger before the "you're not the boss of me" and "free love" generation began actively unravelling it.

[antishock8]

Just to respond to a number of grenades that have been lobbed:

Followed by:

?

Of course he doesn't. Why would he? And if you are genuinely interested in seeing the Church for "what it purports to be," then why would you?

Followed then by:

Is it possible to be any more inflammatory on this topic? And then the obligatory wide-eyed ingenue act:

I won't ask you why you lobbed these grenades, Pro-shock, because (1) you won't come clean about it anyway, and (2) you will respond by sending up a smokescreen about "getting personal" and then dive for cover.

I just want you to know that we are on to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

You and Ms. Charity seem to have a penchant for ad hominem attacks and not staying on topic. Please do not call me a young naive girl. That's bad form. If you wish to discuss the topic I'd be more than happy to do so, but I'd rather not delve into personal attacks. It detracts from the overall quality of the thread.

[TAK]

Actually, the government is the poster child for fraud and abuse- many, many billions of dollars are misappropriated and unaccounted for every year in the United States alone.

Also, many of the ills I've mentioned- pandemic levels of inner-city poverty, inner-city crime, STD's, and the welfare state, in addition to rampant drug abuse- coincide precisely with President Johnson's "Great Society"- which was set up specifically to combat poverty (and it's attendant ills) through social spending.

Thus far, it has had precisely the opposite effect, and far-reaching and "unforseen" (though predicted by a minority of critics) consequences- including an explosion in the illegitimacy you so decry.

You may criticize the Church for it's actions, content and secure in the knowledge that you alone are enlightened enough to determine how to spend other people's money, but your chosen solution- government spending- has demonstrated repeatedly that it is both incompetent to the task you would appoint and destructive to the very people it is intended to help.

Gee how in good conscience can you pay taxes? Or maybe you dont?

Your argument does nothing to show why religions should get tax breaks over other business. You can hide behind the ills of government rationalizing why the poor should be ignored but until religions step up and do more than feather their own nest, there will be many people around to point out the hypocrisy.

[Pahoran]

You and Ms. Charity seem to have a penchant for ad hominem attacks and not staying on topic. Please do not call me a young naive girl. That's bad form. If you wish to discuss the topic I'd be more than happy to do so, but I'd rather not delve into personal attacks. It detracts from the overall quality of the thread.

While you think this added to the overall quality of the thread?

Not only is it a business, but it's a tax-exempt business (more or less) in addition to being politically active corporate entity. The Church simply reminds me of a business like Ford Motor Company... it calculates a PR cost-benefit ratio regarding its charity and acts accordingly. I think most of its charitable enterprises are done to simply show its core consumers it's doing something charitable... the LDS corporation... You don't think the Mormon church is a business...? LDS Inc... the Church arm of the conglomerate... the LDS President of the Corporation... the LDS corporation and its subsidiary the LDS Church

You are behaving exactly as I expected: having lobbed these grenades with the intent of being provocative, you are trying to feign superiority over those you have attempted to provoke.

You got "such a hostile response" because, as you and I both know, that's exactly what you set out to get.

I truly hope you are satisfied with your success.

It is not the case that the Church is a "business." It is a church. It exists only to further its religious mission. This is a fact that is not disputed by any honest person anywhere; nor do honest people attempt to subvert that fact by use of sly innuendo and manipulative rhetoric.

See that you don't do it again, and I'm sure we'll all get along.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

I don't need to confront the facts. If you believe the 1950s were better than today, more power to you.

[

I grew up in the 50's. We could walk the streets freely without fear of someone molesting us. Everyone knew their neighbors. People were more polite and authority was not treated with such disdain by unruly kids. So yes in many ways the 50's were better. Of the social changes you mentioned "ending segregation... civil rights... medicare... medicaid... public broadcasting... the NEA... food stamps... head start... consumer protection... truth-in-lending... numerous environment protections... " some have very dubious benefits and created a whole new set of ills. Medicare for example caused medical costs to skyrocket as the medical industry moved the additional costs to the regular consumer. Head Start has dubious long term benefits from studies I have read, and I was a Head Start teacher. Some of the environmental protections have gotten so wacky they've actually hindered progress and abused individual and property rights. Even Civil Rights created a whole society of victims which to this day has continued to plague us. That is not to say there haven't been benefits from the social change, but to totally dismiss one era and applaud another without looking critically at all the factors is unrealistic.

[Deborah]

Gee how in good conscience can you pay taxes? Or maybe you dont?

Your argument does nothing to show why religions should get tax breaks over other business. You can hide behind the ills of government rationalizing why the poor should be ignored but until religions step up and do more than feather their own nest, there will be many people around to point out the hypocrisy.

I pay taxes because the government can put me in jail and confiscate my property, contrary to the Constitution. Religion in fact does a great deal of taking care of the poor and always has. The churches (and I'm referring to churches in general) stepped back as government took over more and more, and actually took away some of the rights of the churches to do their job. Families also abdicated their responsibilities as government took over more of the job. I agree that we can't totally do away with social security at this time because of the dependency of so many, however, you should know that the social security program was never intended to be permanent and it has expanded well beyond the insurance program it was initiallys set up to be, which is why those beyond the Baby Boomer generation will never see the benefits of it.

[SleepingWillow]

I grew up in the 50's. We could walk the streets freely without fear of someone molesting us. Everyone knew their neighbors. People were more polite and authority was not treated with such disdain by unruly kids. So yes in many ways the 50's were better. Of the social changes you mentioned "ending segregation... civil rights... medicare... medicaid... public broadcasting... the NEA... food stamps... head start... consumer protection... truth-in-lending... numerous environment protections... " some have very dubious benefits and created a whole new set of ills. Medicare for example caused medical costs to skyrocket as the medical industry moved the additional costs to the regular consumer. Head Start has dubious long term benefits from studies I have read, and I was a Head Start teacher. Some of the environmental protections have gotten so wacky they've actually hindered progress and abused individual and property rights. Even Civil Rights created a whole society of victims which to this day has continued to plague us. That is not to say there haven't been benefits from the social change, but to totally dismiss one era and applaud another without looking critically at all the factors is unrealistic.

Medicare = bad (I work in the health insurance industry... trust me, most old people are so risky and expensive that you wouldn't be able to find private insurance for them. Guess they just get to die?)

Environment Protections = bad

Civil Rights = bad

Now... I didn't grow up in the 50s, but I think this "good ol' days" you're talking about never existed. We're usually nostalgic for the days of our childhood. I grew up in the 80s, I could just as easily say, "they don't make movies like Labyrinth anymore" and go cry. But that would be silly. And so is saying, "in the 50s I could walk down the street and not get molested." You mean, as long as you weren't black? Marvelous. People might have known their neighbor, but so what? Nowadays people know dozens, if not hundreds of people, all across the world and across cultures.

[Pahoran]

Especially privileged.

So your claim to be opposed to all religions equally is just show-biz. Got it.

Clever, but rather meaningless. Systems of thought are classified by their subject matter, not by their point of view. The notion that the entire universe was originally sneezed out of the left nostril of the Great Green Arkleseizure is cosmology, not cooking.

No. If someone truly believed that, it would be religion.

Yes. According to Karl Popper, cosmology is religion.

The notion that mice will spontaneously generate in a dirty shirt wrapped around an ear of wheat is biology, not bricklaying.

No. Again, if someone truly believed that despite the evidence, it would be religion.

No, it would be biology. Theories about the reproduction of living organisms are about biology and nothing else. Unless you are using "religion" as a private codeword for "idiotic ideas." If that is the case, then you should probably say so. Arguing from unarticulated private definitions is counterproductive; all the more so, on a religious forum.

Since nobody believes that, it's pure fantasy. Not biology.

Your ignorance about the history of thought is rather sad. The dirty shirt theory of abiogenesis of mice is a textbook example of an exploded theory in science. It was actually believed, not as a "religious" belief, but as a "scientific" observation, by large numbers of people for a long time. Someone, I forget who, developed an experiment to test the theory, and found that it was not the case. A similar experiment was conducted to test the "rotting fish" theory of abiogenesis of maggots. Those experiments, and others like them, not only exploded various abiogenesis theories, but caused them to be replaced by the one settled principle of biological science, namely, biogenesis.

And the notion that there is no God is religion, not rap-dancing.

Now we're just getting into semantics. By that logic, me not believing in Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, makes me religious. Sure, if you want to define religion that broadly.

Yes, we are talking about what words mean; that's what "semantics" is. But now you are equivocating. To say that a person is religious entails a whole raft of behaviours. Still, your zealous proselyting for the religion of your choice could be described as a religious undertaking.

No, what makes atheism a religion is simply that it is a system of thought that deals exclusively with religious questions.

If atheism is a "system of thought dealing exclusively with religious questions," then disbelieving in Zeus is a "system of thought." Semantics.

No. Belief or disbelief in some proposition P is not of itself a system of thought. A point of view characterised by responding in a particular way to a whole set of similar propositions, however, is.

But perhaps you are right. Perhaps "system of thought" is too grandiose a description for the knee-jerk rejection of a whole set of propositions with practically no thought at all.

So perhaps your clever quip should be re-worded to, "if atheism is a religion, then devoting large amounts of time to campaigning against stamp collecting is a hobby."

Try again. Let me fix that. "If campaigning against magical thinking is a hobby, then devoting large amounts of time to campaigning against stamp collecting is a hobby."

I agree.

There is no "magical thinking" anywhere in view. If you want to campaign against "magical thinking" you are in the wrong place.

Regards,

Pahoran

[SleepingWillow]

Your ignorance about the history of thought is rather sad.

Don't blame me. I went to BYU.

So your claim to be opposed to all religions equally is just show-biz. Got it.

It's not showbiz. For example, I believe all humans are equal. Just because I prefer my own family doesn't mean my belief is showbiz. Likewise with the Church. I was raised in the Church, so I am uniquely suited to discuss and point out the particular problems with it to those familiar with its doctrines and practices. Judging by your other knee-jerk replies to my post, I am not surprised I had to explain this to you...

Yes, we are talking about what words mean; that's what "semantics" is. But now you are equivocating. To say that a person is religious entails a whole raft of behaviours. Still, your zealous proselyting for the religion of your choice could be described as a religious undertaking.

You continue to ignore what I say about atheism not being a religion.

If atheism is a "system of thought dealing exclusively with religious questions," then disbelieving in Zeus is a "system of thought." Semantics.

No. Belief or disbelief in some proposition P is not of itself a system of thought. A point of view characterised by responding in a particular way to a whole set of similar propositions, however, is.

I do have a system of thought. I believe in reason and rationality and science. I only reject God because I find the idea of your God to be irrational, unreasonable, and unscientific. If being reasonable and rational and scientific is religious, then you have defined religion very broadly indeed.

[USU78]

Your ignorance about the history of thought is rather sad.

Don't blame me. I went to BYU.

Must control self . . . mustn't give in . . . must not speak . . . AAARRRRRECCCCCBGGGGGHHHHH!