Religion vs atheism, why argue?

[GlitterRose]

I don't really think there is a point to arguing the existence or non-existence of a God.

I do think there's reason to duke it out over things that harm people, though.

There are militant atheists who are just complete jerks. 

But then there are atheists who seem to be trying to help humanity. 

[danydandan]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

So you agree that Thors hamner creates thunder Zeus throws lightning bolts and Yaweh made a man from dirt a woman from his rib and created the earth first and in 6 days?

I do feel the very fact that we have created over a thousand gods in our written history alone shows that we make gods up and discard them which i honestly feel offers an insight that as a species we tend to make gods up pretty regularly and discard them as understand grows. I think that very fact is too often overlooked in a zealous attempt to self validate personal belief systems that are motivated by emotion rather than evidence. 

 

Can you prove that unicorns do not exist? Or as Bertrand Russell put it in that interview can you prove there is no teapot in orbit with Mars?

You can offer more sound reasoning. We have far better theories than goddidit too. Just like a flat earth believer who will debate you fiercely there is no good reason to consider a creator as a realistic option yet many do. Numbers professing belief is really the only reason why religious outlooks are supported. Real world evidence is completely non-existent yet evidence supports a natural universe. We can find better evidence but that doesnt mean people will so much as consider it over personal beliefs with generations of investment in that belief.

Never said I believed in a God/s or anything to do with our origins. Thunder is caused by lightning and lightning is caused by postive and negatively charged particles in clouds. No one has a clue how life started. Obviously there are suggestions and evolution explains how we got to where we are but it doesn't suggests how we started millions of years ago.

I agree we have literally made up thousands of God's, from Celtic, Hindi, Abrahamic, Pagan, Greek the list goes on and on. There is no difference from one God  to the other in terms of existence. Just because God's are discarded doesn't mean they don't exist, we can't prove either their existence or non-existence.

We can't prove nor disprove unicorns. They are obviously mythical in origin but some cultures depict unicorns as a goat like creature with horns, it isn't always the European version of it. I can prove goats exist so some might argue unicorns did exist based on a certain description.

I agree with the argument, that looking at the evidence a creator is not needed. Nor if one is logical, should a creator be a conclusion based on evidence. Faith is blind and unfortunately it happens not only to religious zeolites it happens to folks in the scientific world too.

But claiming one can't prove a negative is pseudological. The absence of evidence doesn't prove the absence of an event. Or in this case the non-evidence of a God/s doesn't prove the non-existence of a God/s. However like always the bruden of prove falls on the claimant. Russel's teapot makes a good point that the bruden of prove regarding unfalsifiable claims should be on the person making such claims, i.e the people claiming Gods existence are burdened to provide prove just as much as the claimant of non-existence because both claims are unfalsifiable.

Anyways, remember that what you do not yet know, is more important than what you already know.

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by danydandan

[Davros of Skaro]

5 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I don't really think there is a point to arguing the existence or non-existence of a God.

I agree. But when people insist it as fact with a bunch of dogma with it? Then bad ideas should be challenged. 

5 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I do think there's reason to duke it out over things that harm people, though.

Is it not worthy to push back ignorance? 

5 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

There are militant atheists who are just complete jerks. 

That's what the internet thinks I do.

5 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

But then there are atheists who seem to be trying to help humanity. 

That's what I think I do.

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, danydandan said:

Never said I believed in a God/s or anything to do with our origins.

I realise that, your obviously an astute person. I was just making a point.

12 hours ago, danydandan said:

Thunder is caused by lightning and lightning is caused by postive and negatively charged particles in clouds.

That's my point though. Those gods made way for knowledge. They are not considered as real in this day and age. They have been disproven by better answers from science.

12 hours ago, danydandan said:

No one has a clue how life started. Obviously there are suggestions and evolution explains how we got to where we are but it doesn't suggests how we started millions of years ago.

I beg to differ. 

The Urey Miller experiment strongly indicates chemical beginnings. Even more so than both of them reslised at the time. The experiment ended up yeilding over 20 amino acids, more than is found in life. Ive read where biologists have said they feel the mystery is resolved and that the final step is observation.

12 hours ago, danydandan said:

I agree we have literally made up thousands of God's, from Celtic, Hindi, Abrahamic, Pagan, Greek the list goes on and on. There is no difference from one God  to the other in terms of existence. Just because God's are discarded doesn't mean they don't exist, we can't prove either their existence or non-existence.

What that does illustrate is that we are imaginative and that fact supports the likelihood that we create gods to explain phenomema we don't understand for something of a quick fix.

12 hours ago, danydandan said:

We can't prove nor disprove unicorns. They are obviously mythical in origin but some cultures depict unicorns as a goat like creature with horns, it isn't always the European version of it. I can prove goats exist so some might argue unicorns did exist based on a certain description.

But they didnt. Rhinos exist, Narwhals exist. They are not Unicorns even if they inspired the myths. Mermaids too. Some might say the Dugong inspired the stories but thats a long way from a bonafide mermaid. Same here. The way natural selection plays out it did look designed from our perspective in time, and natural selection not being totally random one can see how that solution was accepted. Now we have more knowledge and like the Greek and Roman Gods the current Gods of creation have also been made redundant by QM, astronomy and physics.

12 hours ago, danydandan said:

I agree with the argument, that looking at the evidence a creator is not needed. Nor if one is logical, should a creator be a conclusion based on evidence. Faith is blind and unfortunately it happens not only to religious zeolites it happens to folks in the scientific world too.

I honestly feel that the scientists like Michio Kaku whilst somewhat zealous do no harm they more inspire others wheras the fringe claimants like Sheldrake or his ilk at JSE only undermine real science. That's damaging to progress and an enemy of reason IMHO.

12 hours ago, danydandan said:

But claiming one can't prove a negative is pseudological.

Sorry but i just cant agree on that. How is one to deny or support that which does not exist? There cannot be proof for or against. 

12 hours ago, danydandan said:

The absence of evidence doesn't prove the absence of an event. Or in this case the non-evidence of a God/s doesn't prove the non-existence of a God/s.

Im not proposing an absence of evidence though, but better answers. Superseding God theories by likelhood. I would propose that there is not only zero evidence supporting God theories but more sound answers that are well supported by evidence. There are religious arguments such as ID or tautology views such as those proposed by apologists like William Lane Craig which fall well short of the discoveries providing the best evidences that illustrate a natural universe. The current gods of creation are simply redundant. 

13 hours ago, danydandan said:

However like always the bruden of prove falls on the claimant. Russel's teapot makes a good point that the bruden of prove regarding unfalsifiable claims should be on the person making such claims, i.e the people claiming Gods existence are burdened to provide prove just as much as the claimant of non-existence because both claims are unfalsifiable.

I'm not sure I'd equate a complete lack of evidence supporting the claim with better answers as denial. Its redundancy. I would consider those claiming God theories as valid to provide better answers than those proposd by the science's which is not what is happening. Science is doing its bit by dispelling beliefs with better answers just as it did regardng gods like Thor and Zeus.

13 hours ago, danydandan said:

Anyways, remember that what you do not yet know, is more important than what you already know.

I see that as part of a definiton of science. There will always be more to learn but it doesnt mean we should forsake what we do know to respect ancient superstition. That's not actually respect by definition in my opinion. 

[Only_]

On 11/04/2018 at 12:57 AM, psyche101 said:

 The universe wasn't created for us to live in. We developed according to the laws of the universe. He has it right. Your assuming in a backwards direction.

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[psyche101]

54 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Paul Davies has refuted Sean Caroll.

 

No he has not.

Not by a long shot. Just making crap up from the top of your head is not 'refutation ' 

Paul Davies argues that “the laws should have an explanation from within the universe,” but admits that “the specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.” This is reminiscent of Wolfgang Pauli’s postcard to George Gamow, featuring an empty rectangle: “This is to show I can paint like Titian. Only technical details are missing.” The reason why it’s hard to find an explanation for the laws of physics within the universe is that the concept makes no sense. If we were to understand the ultimate laws of nature, that particular ambitious intellectual project would be finished, and we could move on to other things. It might be amusing to contemplate how things would be different with another set of laws, but at the end of the day the laws are what they are.

 

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/11/25/turtles-much-of-the-way-down/

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

 

Changing the post doesn't strengthen your argument either. Mario Livio showed that the carbon-12 energy level could actually have been significantly different and still resulted in a universe with the heavy elements needed for life. That so called knife edge is a great deal more blunt than your claiming it to be. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by psyche101

[danydandan]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I realise that, your obviously an astute person. I was just making a point.

That's my point though. Those gods made way for knowledge. They are not considered as real in this day and age. They have been disproven by better answers from science.

I beg to differ. 

The Urey Miller experiment strongly indicates chemical beginnings. Even more so than both of them reslised at the time. The experiment ended up yeilding over 20 amino acids, more than is found in life. Ive read where biologists have said they feel the mystery is resolved and that the final step is observation.

What that does illustrate is that we are imaginative and that fact supports the likelihood that we create gods to explain phenomema we don't understand for something of a quick fix.

But they didnt. Rhinos exist, Narwhals exist. They are not Unicorns even if they inspired the myths. Mermaids too. Some might say the Dugong inspired the stories but thats a long way from a bonafide mermaid. Same here. The way natural selection plays out it did look designed from our perspective in time, and natural selection not being totally random one can see how that solution was accepted. Now we have more knowledge and like the Greek and Roman Gods the current Gods of creation have also been made redundant by QM, astronomy and physics.

I honestly feel that the scientists like Michio Kaku whilst somewhat zealous do no harm they more inspire others wheras the fringe claimants like Sheldrake or his ilk at JSE only undermine real science. That's damaging to progress and an enemy of reason IMHO.

Sorry but i just cant agree on that. How is one to deny or support that which does not exist? There cannot be proof for or against. 

Im not proposing an absence of evidence though, but better answers. Superseding God theories by likelhood. I would propose that there is not only zero evidence supporting God theories but more sound answers that are well supported by evidence. There are religious arguments such as ID or tautology views such as those proposed by apologists like William Lane Craig which fall well short of the discoveries providing the best evidences that illustrate a natural universe. The current gods of creation are simply redundant. 

I'm not sure I'd equate a complete lack of evidence supporting the claim with better answers as denial. Its redundancy. I would consider those claiming God theories as valid to provide better answers than those proposd by the science's which is not what is happening. Science is doing its bit by dispelling beliefs with better answers just as it did regardng gods like Thor and Zeus.

I see that as part of a definiton of science. There will always be more to learn but it doesnt mean we should forsake what we do know to respect ancient superstition. That's not actually respect by definition in my opinion. 

I agree with everything you said but.

We, as scientist, have answers supported by evidence which is always preferable. Unfortunately if someone claims God doesn't exist the burden of proof falls on to them. Providing that prove is impossible thus rendering the argument moot, in my opinion, as both sides can provide no evidence to support each others claims. Unfortunately describing how weather events work using science is not evidence for the non-existence of a God.

Zues, Thor and all the rest were not displaced by science they were replaced by an Abrahamic God mostly by force.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

I agree with everything you said but.

Quote

We, as scientist, have answers supported by evidence which is always preferable.

If I may...... 

I feel 'most likely' would be the appropriate term here? 

Quote

Unfortunately if someone claims God doesn't exist the burden of proof falls on to them. Providing that prove is impossible thus rendering the argument moot, in my opinion,

Yet the argument rages and the majority support the most unlikely and illogical conclusion?? 

To many it's not moot and there is no reasoning behind it, and a detrimental effect in education in some cases and even life. You've seen the poster with a hatred for anything 'material' and that's just 11th  century thinking. Douglas Adams put it as good as I have ever seen this peculiarity of human nature described :

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. 

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.

It's rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that's grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise—that's a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is it is. In the case of an idea, if we think 'Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity', what does it mean? Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

Quote

as both sides can provide no evidence to support each others claims.

I beg to differ. Science has models that offer prediction offering confidence. There is evidence of a natural universe, its not just an adopted philosophy like religion. If the evidence wasn't there, the argument wouldn't be either. 

Quote

Unfortunately describing how weather events work using science is not evidence for the non-existence of a God.

I think it is. Some Australian Indigenous still tell stories about how a great snake carved out the river systems of Australia but the first generation to leave a traditional life will learn how such comes to be therefore gaining evidence that God's of myth simply don't exist. They are cultural stories. And to be fair, those creation myths are not any more unbelievable than much of the bible. It's just that Christianity is more widespread as you say by force, but also politics and coercion. Here was this religion that accepted women and slaves and only one God to think about. It's not really a wonder why it became more popular than the convoluted polytheistic situation where God's might vary from village to village. It had order and democracy. 

Quote

Zues, Thor and all the rest were not displaced by science they were replaced by an Abrahamic God mostly by force.

In some cases in history yet like the Abrahamic God they survived for some time, into the 9th century and some right into the middle ages used the Aeneid which is Roman and tied back to Greek mythology. But surely you see the point, not like they can be revived when school children today learn natural explanations for those once attributed to God's. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by psyche101

[White-Coyote]

On 4/11/2018 at 3:14 AM, ChaosRose said:

I don't really think there is a point to arguing the existence or non-existence of a God.

I do think there's reason to duke it out over things that harm people, though.

There are militant atheists who are just complete jerks. 

But then there are atheists who seem to be trying to help humanity. 

I agree completely, but to be fair religious people do it to. 

 

[Mr Walker]

On 08/04/2018 at 10:35 AM, White-Coyote said:

I can't help but wonder why we feel the need to force our opinions or beliefs on each other.

Neither side can prove existence or nonexistence of God, gods, God like beings/entities ...

The whole point of this thread is basically this, Why can't we just be OK with each other's opinions as long as no one is forcing us into them, maybe not just in religion. 

I see a lot of people with a lot of opinions, as long as we all accept the fact that we have our own right to them... what's the problem?

Nothing wrong with even the most extreme of opinions, as long as they remain just opinions. They cant hurt anyone. Except maybe to cause stress, anxiety, high blood pressure and thus a heart attack in their holder  

When people begin to act, basing their behaviours on their beliefs or opinions, then the nature of the belief or opinion becomes important to others.

Some beliefs and opinions promote destructive and harmful outcomes. Some promote positive, constructive outcomes, while many are neutral.  

[Mr Walker]

On 08/04/2018 at 11:21 AM, JMPD1 said:

Opinions are based on one's personal experiences, what one has been taught is 'normal', and one's personal preferences. However, not all opinions are equal, nor equally valid. Here in the U.S., we have been inundated with the notion that all opinions are equally valid and carry the same weight. A very democratic notion and a completely absurd idea that can lead to tragedy. 

If you tell me that the best pizza is one with anchovies & pineapple, that is a personal preference and harms no one. I, however, will NOT be splitting a pizza with you!

The trouble begins when people give their opinion in matters in which they are not qualified. If your cardiologist told you that you needed to have heart surgery to correct a medical issue, would you seek a second opinion from your local auto mechanic? Surely his opinion is as valid as the surgeons, yes?

 

 

lol if i had a pineapple and anchovy pizza, I wouldn't be splitting it with anyone.  (well maybe with my wife ) My favourite is chicken, onion, pineapple, sweet chilli sauce, and a few cut up  fresh veggies and herbs   

[Mr Walker]

On 08/04/2018 at 11:27 AM, JMPD1 said:

Using the Christian bible as an example, do you believe slavery is a 'good thing'? Or that women are second class  er, property to be owned and lead by men? How about killing witches or stoning unruly children?  These are all values/morals that are espoused in the book that is touted as 'the word of god', are they not? 

They were historical realities caused by economic, demographic,    physical (eg resource based) and social   realities,  and no one knew better at the time.  Even now we make judgements based on current values and priorities and will be considered barbarians by future humans for some of our current behaviours  

[Mr Walker]

On 08/04/2018 at 1:27 PM, joc said:

....and the morning and evening was the first day, and the morning and evening was the second day, and the morning and evening was the third day...on the Fourth day God created the sun....

Virgins don't have babies.

It is impossible to walk upon the surface of the ocean.

The Dead are never resurrected.

No one has ever seen God.

If you want more...I could fill page after page after page....but it is really unnecessary....the mere fact that God cannot be proven is proof enough that there is no God.  

Can you prove the wind exists?  Yes.   Can you prove there are plants and life at the deepest part of the oceans?  Yes

Can you prove God?  No.  Therefore...there is no God.  Period!

Virgins do have babies using modern technology.

Ive walked on water   and so have millions of humans 

resurrection of the dead is not far off in scientific terms.

 I've seen god in many forms and aspects.  

Thus these are not really  convincing proofs that a god does not, nor cannot, exist.

But of course you are probably already aware that you have fallen into an old trap.

Lack of proof for anything is NOT proof for its non existence .

Eg for centuries there was no proof  that blood transfusions could succeed with safety.  There was no proof that diseases could be cured by vaccination  

There was no proof for the existence of electrons neutrons and other  invisible things .

Edited April 13, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

On 08/04/2018 at 1:28 PM, khol said:

lets go throught it again then

child abuse

human suffering

instilling fear in its subjects

lets just start with those three..this is not proof?  what kind of god are we dealjng with here?

if you dont consider it proof then explain it to me

 

The simple escape form this artificial dichotomy is that these things are largely caused by human behaviours.

   If we accept (hypothetically)  tha t god created humans with free will so they could grow, evolve, learn, and make decions based on  knowledge and accrued wisdom,  then those things do not preclude a creator god a t all.

  Why assume if you created a race you would make them perfect and incapable of choice, knowledge,  growing, or evolving beyond how you made them.  ?

[Mr Walker]

On 08/04/2018 at 1:45 PM, ShadowSot said:

You can have freedom without brain tumors and infant death, without plague and disease. And the more we learn of how brain chemistry and abnormalities affect life, of how human behavior is to a certain level instinctual, we better understand how much of it is built in. 

 If you subscribe to any version of a Christian heaven, you can have perfect peace and perfect freedom. You can know god directly, and still rebel against him. 

 

 

You can certainly know god directly  and still choose to rebel against him.

The question is then, god's response to your disobedience and rebellion   Why should he not exclude you from the society he has planned which eliminates evil because all its participants show the y are CAPABLE of only doing good.  if you have shown your self incapable  of choosing to be good, then  how can he trust you to live  in a society where only good happens. 

This is one of the great lessons of the bible.  Human in general  ARE responsible for their behaviours and outcomes, and capable of choosing our emotional responses and behaviours;  and we thus must learn to discipline our thoughts and behaviours into only constructive and creative forms. Otherwise humanity cannot survive (and this is true if god does not exist)  

[Mr Walker]

On 08/04/2018 at 6:00 PM, Kismit said:

I don't care to argue over who is right or wrong.

But I do dislike anyone claiming thier beliefs are right or others beliefs are wrong. I think this is where arguments come from.

 

It is possible to objectively measure and evaluate what would happen if beliefs were put into action, and thus to compare rationally and objectively  which beliefs would promote the best most constructive and creative outcomes and which would promote the most destructive   The former  are the beliefs which should be encouraged in all, while the destructive ones are opposed. 

[Mr Walker]

On 09/04/2018 at 3:40 AM, XenoFish said:

I think that's what drives a lot of people. Not everyone, but the less you have to concern yourself with the better. Kind of a "Live and Let Live" things. 

Do what you wish, Harm none in the process.

In a complex and crowded modern community, that is extremely hard to live by.

When i drive a motor car i am hurting many others. If i consume more than i need and buy things i don't need,  I am harming many others.   

[Mr Walker]

On 11/04/2018 at 3:07 AM, Doug1o29 said:

You just hit the nail on the head.  Forcing...  In Oklahoma, "churches" get free ride on property taxes, while atheist groups don't.  Atheists are thus put in the position of paying taxes to subsidize religion.  A muslim group was considered a "club" when OSU wanted to condemn its buildings for an expansion.  A court had to decide that Islam was a religion and that the law prohibited OSU from seizing church-owned property.  And now a group wants to put up a monument to Satan beside the Ten Commandments on State Capitol grounds.  On what basis can this be denied if the state is already favoring a religion?

When settlement of the western lands first began, the govt reserved 640 acres out of each township for the benefit of religion (meaning Christianity).  This was done in the Seven Ranges and Ohio Purchase in Ohio.

We have always had a battle to keep church and state separate.

Doug

That is because it is impossible in a democracy where the people of a state are also strongly  affiliated with churches or religions   America uses one model with some success and many problems Australia  uses a different model of inclusiveness ie ALL relgions and atheism are given equal  state support so there is no state monopolistic religion but the state and relgions coexist 

If you removed exemption from  taxation for churches would you do so for all groups who have a charitable or community base? 

 In Australia  many  organisations are not taxed (0r deferentially taxed)  if the y are charitable and not for profit  Churches, along with many institutions, provide billions of dollars  of services to peole which otherwise would have to be financed from the public purse and require either higher taxes or lower services. 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/your-organisation/do-you-have-to-pay-income-tax-/income-tax-exempt-organisations/

 

If your organisation is a charity, it must be endorsed by us to be exempt from income tax.

If your organisation is not a charity, you can self-assess its income tax status. 'Self-assess' means an organisation can work out for itself whether it is income tax exempt or taxable. Organisations that can self-assess their income tax status do not need to be endorsed by us or get confirmation of their income tax status from us.

This flowchart shows how to work out if your organisation is exempt from income tax.

Working out if your organisation is exempt from income tax

Charity endorsement

Charities must be endorsed by us to be income tax exempt.

Charities, including health promotion charities, public benevolent institutions and religious institutions, must be registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) before we can endorse them to access charity tax concessions.

If your organisation is a charity, it cannot self-assess as income tax exempt, even where it might fall in the description for a type of entity that can self-assess. Instead, it must meet the requirements for charity registration and then become endorsed to be income tax exempt.

 

Self-assessment

If your organisation is not a charity, it can self-assess if it is exempt from income tax. It does not need to be registered with the ACNC or endorsed by us to be exempt.

To self-assess, you need to take the following steps:

1. Check the types of income tax exempt organisations

Check the Types of income tax exempt organisations to see if your organisation fits within any of the types listed. Entities that can self-assess their income tax status come from these broad groups:

• Community service organisations
• Cultural organisations
• Educational organisations
• Employment organisations
• Health organisations
• Resource development organisations
• Scientific organisations
• Sporting organisations

[danydandan]

22 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If I may...... 

I feel 'most likely' would be the appropriate term here? 

Yet the argument rages and the majority support the most unlikely and illogical conclusion?? 

To many it's not moot and there is no reasoning behind it, and a detrimental effect in education in some cases and even life. You've seen the poster with a hatred for anything 'material' and that's just 11th  century thinking. Douglas Adams put it as good as I have ever seen this peculiarity of human nature described :

Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. 

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.

It's rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that's grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise—that's a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is it is. In the case of an idea, if we think 'Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity', what does it mean? Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

I beg to differ. Science has models that offer prediction offering confidence. There is evidence of a natural universe, its not just an adopted philosophy like religion. If the evidence wasn't there, the argument wouldn't be either. 

I think it is. Some Australian Indigenous still tell stories about how a great snake carved out the river systems of Australia but the first generation to leave a traditional life will learn how such comes to be therefore gaining evidence that God's of myth simply don't exist. They are cultural stories. And to be fair, those creation myths are not any more unbelievable than much of the bible. It's just that Christianity is more widespread as you say by force, but also politics and coercion. Here was this religion that accepted women and slaves and only one God to think about. It's not really a wonder why it became more popular than the convoluted polytheistic situation where God's might vary from village to village. It had order and democracy. 

In some cases in history yet like the Abrahamic God they survived for some time, into the 9th century and some right into the middle ages used the Aeneid which is Roman and tied back to Greek mythology. But surely you see the point, not like they can be revived when school children today learn natural explanations for those once attributed to God's. 

I see your point, my argument is purely from a logical point of view. One simply can't provide evidence of something unfalsifiable, other than anecdotal, or using abstract reasoning.

[GlitterRose]

On 4/11/2018 at 6:15 AM, davros of skaro said:

I agree. But when people insist it as fact with a bunch of dogma with it? Then bad ideas should be challenged. 

Is it not worthy to push back ignorance? 

That's what the internet thinks I do.

That's what I think I do.

I'm not a lover of dogma, and I get into debate about it.

It's the whole there is a God or there isn't a God battle that I find futile. 

[LightAngel]

On 8/4/2018 at 3:05 AM, White-Coyote said:

I can't help but wonder why we feel the need to force our opinions or beliefs on each other.

 

I already posted a topic about this!

There is a them and us agenda that want us to fight about everything just so they can keep the power:

 

 

[Davros of Skaro]

4 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I'm not a lover of dogma, and I get into debate about it.

4 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

It's the whole there is a God or there isn't a God battle that I find futile. 

Me too. Try finding me saying there is no God.

[+joc]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Virgins do have babies using modern technology.

Ive walked on water   and so have millions of humans 

resurrection of the dead is not far off in scientific terms.

 I've seen god in many forms and aspects.  

Thus these are not really  convincing proofs that a god does not, nor cannot, exist.

But of course you are probably already aware that you have fallen into an old trap.

Lack of proof for anything is NOT proof for its non existence .

Eg for centuries there was no proof  that blood transfusions could succeed with safety.  There was no proof that diseases could be cured by vaccination  

There was no proof for the existence of electrons neutrons and other  invisible things .

2000 years ago artificial insemination did not exist.  Unless you are arguing that Mary was artificially inseminated by your alien god...your point is moot.

Artificial insemination isn't  being used to impregnate virgins anyway...so your point isn't just moot...it is ridiculously so!

The story is that Jesus, and then Peter, walked OFF of the ship and LITERALLY walked on top of the waves. Again your point is moot.

We are not anywhere  close to resurrecting the dead...that isn't even laughable, it is just absurd. Please spare us the diatribe of downloadable consciousness!

God is a concept.  That you claim to have seen God in many forms and aspects IS in its own way proof that God does not exist. A physical object is a provable thing. Heresay is not admissible in court and is not admissible as proof here either.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by joc

[+Sherapy]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You can certainly know god directly  and still choose to rebel against him.

The question is then, god's response to your disobedience and rebellion   Why should he not exclude you from the society he has planned which eliminates evil because all its participants show the y are CAPABLE of only doing good.  if you have shown your self incapable  of choosing to be good, then  how can he trust you to live  in a society where only good happens. 

This is one of the great lessons of the bible.  Human in general  ARE responsible for their behaviours and outcomes, and capable of choosing our emotional responses and behaviours;  and we thus must learn to discipline our thoughts and behaviours into only constructive and creative forms. Otherwise humanity cannot survive (and this is true if god does not exist)  

Your opinion only tells us this is what motivates you living the way you do. That for you think there is a right and wrong way to believe and for you that is the Bible. 

Ending with the generic if you don't believe humanity won't survive bs.

I don't need to fear monger myself with an or else or hope for some fantasy by being a good person. 

For me, this is childish.