Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Advancement of religion -- charitable or not?
Comments
-
-
I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable
Jesus Christ on a fucking bicycle!
The State doesn't. It just gives tax-exemptions to all non-profitsrobindch wrote:And you're not sure why I think that the state should not fund religions?
How many times do I have to explain that from the Revenue's perspective, a tax exemption is the same as a grant? This is "Dick and Jane"-level economics.
I was going to reply to your other points, but frankly, I couldn't be arsed. Your ability, Jakkass, to understand English without turning it upside down, is zero. To be honest, I'm going to have far more fun having beer, a pizza and two New Yorkers, in the resto up the road.
Toodle pip!
0 -
I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable
The ISS is making efforts to increase membership? Not that I've noticed.your link asserts that ISS is not trying to increase the number of your members, it does not address the fact that you are trying to increase the number of Skeptics.
Did the Jesus tell you that in a dream or something?
0 -
Jesus Christ on a fucking bicycle! How many times do I have to explain that from the Revenue's perspective, a tax exemption is the same as a grant? This is "Dick and Jane"-level economics.
You repeating an erroneous statement does not mean that anything has been explained.
A tax exemption is not the same as a grant. A tax exemption is a recognition that the body concerned does not receive taxable income.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable
To the best of my knowledge, the ISS has never had a membership drive. It's never preached at street-corners with megaphones, it's never had stalls outside the GPO, it's never condemned non-skeptics to burn in hell, it's never gone door to door, and it's never set itself up as the sole moral authority on earth -- perhaps if it did any of these things, then it might grow to have 45 outlets in Dublin 15!I dont think being bad at something has any bearing on whether you tried or not
As before, I don't really think there's much point in responding any more -- I've made my points clearly in straightforward English and I may as well have been speaking to a toadstool for all the relevant response I got.I can certainly see why you keep resorting to personal jibes rather than addressing the points raised by posters with different views to your own.
The word you're looking for is Velleity.So you are crap at increasing the number of skeptical thinkers in society. But that does not alter the fact that you would like to increase such numbers.
Never claimed that -- has the ninth commandment been repealed and nobody told me?So are you back to arguing that somehow lacking public support for your ideology makes you more valid as a charity than causes that enjoy more public support?
Unfortunately, there's no smiley for "facepalm followed by huge guffaw, stitches of laughter, tears roll down face" -- if there was, I'd have put it into the previous posts. Instead, all I've got are this little fella -> :rolleyes: -- which I've overused in this thread. Believe me: no shovel, just tears of laughterRobin, put the shovel down. 0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »The government already polices ideas, racism and sexism is illegal and there is a set curriculum in state schools.
I can't find any evidence to back this up that racism & sexism are illegal &
I think that this is just wrong. I think you mean it is illegal in the workplace
in that if you are motivated by these biases then that is illegal but that
really is to do with impinging on peoples freedoms & that's why there is a
government mandate on this. Similarly with education, you are talking
about ensuring an adequate level of education is to be had & that we can't
rob children of their right. There is a world of difference between allowing
the government to be involved in such fundamental issues about life &
society compared with interfering in something like peoples personal
opinions or hobbies (such as is the case when you want to take away
peoples opportunities or choices to join cult X that works within the
confines of the law).
The state has nothing to do with people's personal opinions though:Mark Hamill wrote: »Why are people so shocked at the idea of the state making declarations on their personal hobbies or opinions? It already does so in many areas, racism and sexism is illegal, no matter how strongly some people hold to them.
This must be wrong as it is basically an argument for totalitarianism if I've
ever seen one. Don't know how you could be serious about this but I'd
like to see the evidence that the state has any claim on peoples
personal opinions.For example, I think Dawkins and Hitchens have made a nice mint of money be peddling their fictitious beliefs to gullible followers.
I highly doubt that you could defend this comment
I think jibes like this
and the ones about freethinking & rational enquiry etc... out of you guys is
hilarious
In the past day I've read at least three out of you's 
----
As for robin & PDN, I think PDN's argument has always been that the ISS
are simply trying to increase the general number of skeptics whether or
not they join the ISS in the same way that christianity is trying to increase
the numbers of christians whether or not they join church Y & because of
this if robin sees christianity as existing solely to increase the number of
christians as selfish then the ISS are also selfish because they exist to do
the same thing. I think this is a rhetorical technique to snare robin out of
his point I could be wrong so guys maybe you want to be a bit clearer
about your argument becaus obviously if I couldn't understand it then it
must be your (plural) fault and not mine :cool:0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitableFYP. This is for another thread, but it isn't about belief when it comes to that issue.
As much as I would like to argue this point, the other examples are more clear examples of belief, so I will drop this here.Pluralist = a mix of schools, secular = no faith schools as far as I would see it.
I thought it obvious that I'm of the opinion that exclusion is bad, inclusion is good?As for SSM most of that seems to come down to a debate on the family as I would see it anyway.
Which is opinion, which is my point. Evangelicals have their opinion on what is family, which is fine and they tell others about it, which is also fine. However they then try to force their opinion on others, which is wrong, which is the point. What other people think of family is of no business of theirs, it has no bearing on the reality or legitimacy of their own ideas of family and yet they feel the need to force their opinion on others as fact.Ideas themselves aren't illegal.
I meant acts of racism, did I really need to specify that?Where does tax exemption come into this?
The state should not give tax exemptions to groups that want to impinge on the freedom of others.I'm not strawmanning in the slightest. Your logic is flawed in this case. ISS want to change how people think and they want people to employ this skepticism to decide who or who not to listen to based on this skepticism. ISS put forward a method of thinking much in the same way as other groups in society do.What the fcuk are you talking about? Seriously, what you are arguing against is the exact opposite of what I wrote, there is no way in hell that you could not realise that. ISS want to change how people think, they want people to be more skeptical. The Church want to change WHO PEOPLE LISTEN TO. THEY WANT PEOPLE, NOT TO THINK, BUT TO SIMPLY LISTEN AND OBEY THE CHURCH. 0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »I highly doubt that you could defend this comment I think jibes like this
and the ones about freethinking & rational enquiry etc... out of you guys is
hilarious In the past day I've read at least three out of you's
I think we've been very restrained the amount of personal jibes Robin has indulged in this thread. It's a tactic he tends to revert to when he's trying to defend the indefensible.
That is what I've stated.As for robin & PDN, I think PDN's argument has always been that the ISS
are simply trying to increase the general number of skeptics whether or
not they join the ISS in the same way that christianity is trying to increase
the numbers of christians whether or not they join church Y & because of
this if robin sees christianity as existing solely to increase the number of
christians as selfish then the ISS are also selfish because they exist to do
the same thing.
It's hardly "a rhetorical technique" to point out the rather obvious flaws in another poster's logic.I think this is a rhetorical technique to snare robin out of
his point
I think it's clear enough to anyone who understands English, and you've obviously understood it.I could be wrong so guys maybe you want to be a bit clearer
about your argument becaus obviously if I couldn't understand it then it
must be your (plural) fault and not mine :cool:0 -
-
-
-
I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitablesponsoredwalk wrote: »I can't find any evidence to back this up that racism & sexism are illegal &
I think that this is just wrong. I think you mean it is illegal in the workplace
in that if you are motivated by these biases then that is illegal but that
really is to do with impinging on peoples freedoms & that's why there is a
government mandate on this.
Firstly I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the government legislating against the enactment of ideas, seeing as it would be impossible to actual legislate against ideas. Secondly I thought it was equally obvious that the reason for these legislation is stop people from impinging on other peoples freedom for stupid irrational reasons. Did I really need to explain that?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Similarly with education, you are talking
about ensuring an adequate level of education is to be had & that we can't
rob children of their right. There is a world of difference between allowing
the government to be involved in such fundamental issues about life &
society compared with interfering in something like peoples personal
opinions or hobbies (such as is the case when you want to take away
peoples opportunities or choices to join cult X that works within the
confines of the law).
You've created a tautology here, people are allowed to join cult x as long as its inside the law, but its only exists because its inside the law, so how is that an argument against the state making laws against certain cults (or cult practises)? Like I said, pyramid schemes are illegal, the state stops people from doing or joining certain things already, I dont see why calling a cults human sacrifice (as an extreme example) should be protected from this.sponsoredwalk wrote: »This must be wrong as it is basically an argument for totalitarianism if I've
ever seen one. Don't know how you could be serious about this but I'd
like to see the evidence that the state has any claim on peoples
personal opinions.
Well, the state has made racial and sexual discrimination illegal, so I imagine thats a good indication of what the state thinks of peoples views on race and sex.sponsoredwalk wrote: »As for robin & PDN, I think PDN's argument has always been that the ISS
are simply trying to increase the general number of skeptics whether or
not they join the ISS in the same way that christianity is trying to increase
the numbers of christians whether or not they join church Y & because of
this if robin sees christianity as existing solely to increase the number of
christians as selfish then the ISS are also selfish because they exist to do
the same thing. I think this is a rhetorical technique to snare robin out of
his point I could be wrong so guys maybe you want to be a bit clearer
about your argument becaus obviously if I couldn't understand it then it
must be your (plural) fault and not mine :cool:
Where you are mistaken is in thinking that any church just wants to make christians, regardless of whether they join that particular church or not. The church is defined by its own particular dogma and its this dogma that they want to pass on in order to label someone their member (if they get big enough, they will settle with just the label being passed on, eg the catholic church in ireland). Sure, some only get as far as jesus, but they all want more people in their pews, singing from their hymn sheet.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »I thought it obvious that I'm of the opinion that exclusion is bad, inclusion is good?
I don't see faith schools as being exclusive considering my experience of being in CofI schools all with a diversity of students from differing backgrounds in them.Mark Hamill wrote: »Which is opinion, which is my point. Evangelicals have their opinion on what is family, which is fine and they tell others about it, which is also fine. However they then try to force their opinion on others, which is wrong, which is the point. What other people think of family is of no business of theirs, it has no bearing on the reality or legitimacy of their own ideas of family and yet they feel the need to force their opinion on others as fact.
As I would see it this issue can be discussed in a secular manner. The idea of mother, father and child as being best for a child is up for discussion as I would see it. This is for another thread as well.Mark Hamill wrote: »The state should not give tax exemptions to groups that want to impinge on the freedom of others.
I'm still wondering exactly as to how the Anglican church I attend is intending to impinge on your rights and liberties. We exist as a community, and the people who attend are there to encourage each other in the Gospel.
Why should this church not be tax-exempt if it is providing a positive community for people to attend and be a part in?Mark Hamill wrote: »What the fcuk are you talking about? Seriously, what you are arguing against is the exact opposite of what I wrote, there is no way in hell that you could not realise that. ISS want to change how people think, they want people to be more skeptical. The Church want to change WHO PEOPLE LISTEN TO. THEY WANT PEOPLE, NOT TO THINK, BUT TO SIMPLY LISTEN AND OBEY THE CHURCH.
Your argument is flawed.
1) When I post on boards.ie I don't talk about "the church" because that leads to confusion as to what I am talking about. I talk about Christianity, and churches that partake in it.
2) The churches want to help people think about Christianity for themselves. In my experience of Christianity it has always been about encouraging Christians to read the Bible for themselves, to grow in their faith in the community and to constantly question especially if anything seems to deviate from the Bible in terms of sermons etc. This is the opposite of what you are saying here. Most Christians that I have spoken to and most Christian communities of differing denominations that I have attended encourage free thought rather than hindering it as you are falsely claiming out of pure ignorance. You are setting up your own version of Christianity by which to criticise, I'm simply not going to do it without correcting every assumption you make first.
3) Again, on the obeying the church lark at least as far as my Christian experience would tell me isn't the case. I believe that people should follow Jesus not man made institutions.
By the by, it would be nice if you could drop the expletives. I've managed to be civil with you so far. If not don't worry about it, but it would be nice.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable
Interesting to see you complaining about people doing that, since this is your general approach to the words and ideas in my posts. And now in Wicknight's too it seems. I've no idea whether it's intentional or whether it's simply an unconscious, but unfortunate, mode of discourse which religious people seem to have almost insuperable problems avoiding. After many years of looking at religious argumentation, I suspect the latter, since it seems accurately to reflect the loose and inconsistent jumble of internal ideas that prop up the final belief system.Once you go down that humpty-dumpty route where words mean whatever you want them to [...]
Mai, c'est la vie - la vieille différence entre les sophistes et les philosophes 0
Advertisement