Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm interested in your reactions to this. Are we less than magnanimous when we vanquish some aspect or other of theist hegemony? Are we too full of ourselves?
The article uses as a jump-off point, a British lawsuit against the Mormon church, charging that it teaches false doctrine for financial gain. The president of the church has been subpoenaed to defend his organization. The case probably won't go anywhere according to most legal analysts, not least because it's unlikely for the man to be extradited in the first place.
The writer than goes on to compare us to the Jacobians.
My take is that there is some truth to this. As a practical matter, we need to demonstrate that we are capable of "being big" about our victories, or we're going to be accused (and maybe even rightly, for a change) of religious persecution.
Still, the very fact that we must consider these questions suggests that we're doing well in the marketplace of ideas ...
I'm interested in your reactions to this. Are we less than magnanimous when we vanquish some aspect or other of theist hegemony? Are we too full of ourselves?
The article uses as a jump-off point, a British lawsuit against the Mormon church, charging that it teaches false doctrine for financial gain. The president of the church as been subpoenaed to defend his organization. The case probably won't go anywhere according to most legal analysts, not least because it's unlikely for the man to be extradited in the first place.
I saw the article about that lawsuit. That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. What kind of an idiot would do such a thing?
I saw the article about that lawsuit. That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. What kind of an idiot would do such a thing?
On overreaching idiot? I mean, I get it ... technically, any religion can be said to be promulgating unsubstantiated nonsense for financial gain and/or power over people. But no one really holds a gun to your head for you to become a Mormon or any other sort of believer, either. People are vulnerable for a reason, and the way to solve the problem is not to attack religion LEGALLY (except in those cases where it's overtly illegal and actively harmful, e.g., pedophile priests). It is to help people to be more engaged with reality, and not needing to repress their self-awareness artificially, with religion or anything else -- but to have better ways of framing and coping with reality.
Still, the very fact that we must consider these questions suggests that we're doing well in the marketplace of ideas
...
Personally, I don't think I can answer that but self-reflection is a wonderful technique for understanding the whys and wherefores of the intertwining of behavior and philosophy, belief etc. I think religion seems to induce this. Not bad in taking one from the other....;-)....
I don't care how much money that take from the gullible. I would like to see a ruling in the courts that religion abuses their tax-exempt status, and start paying at a minimum property taxes for their vast holdings of real-estate.
That from a US perspective, this suit is in the UK, and I don't even know if churches are tax-exempt in the UK.
Getting cocky? I think a lot of us are probably the sorts who have always been cocky, a feeling derived from doing battle with people who embrace mythology over science and doctrine over rationality.
However the City Data's behavioral codes along with moderator enforcement forces us to mask the cockiness in favor of a less provocative air of confidence. Behind polite toleration there frequently lurks an utter absence of respect for religious assertions.
Speaking for myself, there is indeed x amount of religious presentation which I find impossible to take seriously.
I don't care how much money that take from the gullible. I would like to see a ruling in the courts that religion abuses their tax-exempt status, and start paying at a minimum property taxes for their vast holdings of real-estate.
That from a US perspective, this suit is in the UK, and I don't even know if churches are tax-exempt in the UK.
It's not for courts to go about deciding such things, although I admit my understanding of US law can be fuzzy at times. I'd imagine such a decision ought to be achieved through democratic consensus, once the idea has reached a certain critical mass in a given society. Wouldn't want to build resentment towards us as a minority special interest that goes about things through the back door and doesn't handle issues up front, like an honourable and respectable interest group should.
I tweak out from the article that going out to extremities indulges the pathological. Going on for a long long time. Nothing new. These things we munch and chew over can't be proven thus all we have our mouthfuls of opinion some good some bad, some highly intelligent and some composed of bombast. And to those who are 'unbelievers' it is very apparent that ironically yes they do come across and banter with the 'calm confidence of a Christian with 4 aces'.........;-)....
I think atheists becoming part of society is going to knot knickers but it's not any different than those knotted knickers we've been wearing for years. We will see how it plays out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
