1551. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13033 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 6:00 am

Sancus, thanks for the HTML info.

Decades ago, when I first found out about the Libertarian party, I ran in the opposite direction--they seemed wacko. I also never appreciated their diva, A. Rand.

After becoming a Wikipedian editor, I found out that Jimmy Wales who was essential in its founding is a member of the Libertarian party. I admire Wales immensely, not only because I can access so much worthwhile knowledge for free, but because I can freely edit it, discuss the editions with anyone, oh well, it is just a perfect pleasure for someone like me. So all of a sudden the Libertarian party became credible in my eyes. I think new 'guys' like Wales will make that party a bit more appealing, but I am still cautious because if you are a Libertarian how can you even be identified with a political party? A true Libertarian is apolitical in my book.

1552. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13027 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 5:17 am

Jared and Sancus, how do you bold face our names in your comments? I think it is very useful and want to do it also.

1553. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13025 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 5:10 am

"Atheists have difficulty bridging ourselves with society. I think we are correct in thinking it's because those of us who are out of the closet are so few. The believers think it's because we're helpless and lonely without God. The socialist left appears to agree that we're helpless and has bought wholesale into the notion that government can act as our bridge between individual and society. Marxists look to government to take the place of religion."
________

Insightful post, Sancus (as usual!)

Could you please give us your opinion on the existing Libertarian party?

1554. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13020 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 4:43 am

David A Robertson,

Faith is crucial in order to accept the existence of God. How does an atheist develop faith?

1555. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13013 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 4:21 am

"Maybe "Breaking the Spell" was too mild - that the "The God Delusion" was really what broke the spell? ;-)"
______

Ole, again I have only recently started to read this discussion and only briefly browsed through the pages of previous discussion, but I do see a lot of critical thinking here. Passionately blunt language does not preclude critical thinking.

Critical thinking is very important, and we all can improve our doing it. Some do not even know what it is, and equate it with the random passing of thoughts which contain assumptions, preferences, opinions, etc, and then they conclude that those aspects of thinking is the process of critical thinking. Critical thinking is a mental skill that takes time to develop and hone.

1556. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #13011 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 3:59 am

Yorker, Feynman was certainly not isolated from people, he was extroverted, and he had many passionate interests outside of science, like drumming, cracking safes, and drawing portraits. He was adored as an univeristy teacher. And I have no problem with his selfishness, as I am very supportive of enlightened self interest.
But I do think that he compartmentalized his scientific work from the possible deleterious effects of science on the world.

1557. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13008 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 3:39 am

Maybe "Breaking the Spell" was too mild - that the "The God Delusion" was really what broke the spell? ;-)
_____

When someone is in shock, or hysterical, sometimes times they are shook or slapped, to get them out of that state. Harsh language is similar, and unlike a hysterical person who may be pleased that someone has taken the effort to cut short the hysteria, supporters of religious superstitions take umbrage.

Hysterical people have a lot to gain from ending their hysteria, supporters of religious superstitions do not--they are similar to any group of humans whose occupation went out the window, like makers of horse harnesses at the turn of the previous century--they have alot to lose, especially if they cannot adapt, no matter how painfully, to the changing human tide.

I remember reading regarding the American film director, Brian De Palma films as being too graphically violent, his response was that violence is the most strongest color on the cinematic canvas. It makes you take attention, and harsh language used in this way, let's say, how Billy Sands uses it, is similar. The blunt language in itself cuts through the inertia and blandness of average discussions, and opens a welcome door to some valuable and serious content.

1558. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #13003 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 2:48 am

No. 35 comment: "That is: Perhaps the problem is not in this or that system, or this or that belief, but in Human Consciousness itself.."
________

I am assuming that this poster is godismyshoddy, and who has just been resurrected by opening up another account using a different user id and electronic mail box--very easy to do, I have zillions of electronic mail boxes myself.

On the risk of feeding this gifted troll (check out the troll comment discussion thread under the Kenny episode--53 comments of pure triteness and uselessness), I would like to elaborate on the quote I have selected from his/her comment.

As it has been mentioned that these kinds of posts can be used for fodder as discussion, and I welcome any comments from the wonderfully lucid cadre of posters at this site.

Human consciousness is what we have since we are humans. It is a byproduct from evolution and it is amazing--we are learning about it more and more via the fields of cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, epigenetics, biogenetics, and brain fitness. The advances have been significant and are continuing.

Human consciouness is what we have, so that is what we work with to understand the world--it has evolved from our interaction with our physical environment, the middle world. Our human consciouness can be expanded by using technology, to see and find information that would otherwise escape us. It is a profound virtuous circle.

We are highly successful evolved apes, and I am, for one, very happy to be one--to accept that, work within those limits, recognize those limits, and creatively entend those limits by the use of science and technology.

Brain fitness exercises can exercise each lobe of our fantastic brains--the physical connection to our mental HUMAN consciousness. Use it or lose it. I want to use my human consciousness every chance I get so that not only will I not lose it but hone it also.

I have no need or desire to be connected to some consciousness that is not human. I have never seen the appeal of that, which is the supposedly appealing aspect of eastern and new age religion.

I suspect that such religions are appealing because we are not encouraged to have self ownership, we are not encouraged to bask in our highly evolved apeness, but instead to feel somehow we are lacking, that we are fallen angels, that we have lost in our evolution, and not that we have gained a most beautiful and potent gift.

1559. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #12996 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 1:55 am

Ole, well said. I have just started to read this thread, and as it consists of 14 pages at this point, I am largely ignorant of the discussion that has been taking place, though I have briefly browsed through the pages.

However, if one is going to be harsh, I rather have it to be the style that has been expressed here, honest, no beating around the bush, and quite wittingly expressed!

Atheists who have been brought up as ones by their parents, also, can feel anger. In fact, just about anyone can feel anger at their parents.

1560. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12994 by Logicel on December 15, 2006 at 1:25 am

K1mgy: Corporate mission statements seldom have an ethical aspect to them--they are just verbal mush for the most part. It would be very satisfying if potential employees who are critical thinkers refuse an offer of employment based on this. Imagine this conversation: We, here, at the Mind-Numbing and Sloppy, Lazy Thinking, Inc are happy to offer you a position. And the critical thinker applying for the job says, no thanks, your mission statement SUCKS.

I really appreciate your comment. Thanks.

1561. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12978 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 6:42 pm

Yorker: your suggestion for a Scientist's oath is a very interesting idea.

Scientists, unlike medical doctors, work long hours by themselves, or with a small cadre of other scientists. Unless they lecture science, they have very little contact with non scientists. On the other hand, medical doctors come into contact with people of all different kinds of occupations, representing a much more varied mix of humanity. Hence, the medical oath is confirming their vocation, their contact with the many.

Scientists, on the other hand, can be viewed being separate from the many, almost segregated from the rest of us, in specialized laboratories that often offer either no or limited access by the public. However, the results of their work influence all in a modern society. But, because of their segregated and solitary nature of their work, they, themselves, seem very distant from the rest of us, and perhaps they feel so also?

In a way the medical oath is wasted on the doctors who are in immediate contact with people, who are constantly faced with human contact. The doctors should let the scientists have their oath. They have more need of it!

Richard Feynman, though a very loved and admired scientist, stated in one of his popular non-science books that he knew from a very early age that he could not solve the world's problems, and therefore would not focus on that angle. He also professed no regret on working on the Los Alamos atomic bomb project.

I witnessed Teller get cream-pied by a Yippie in NYC in the late eighties. The aging yippie was protesting Teller's involvement with Reagan's star wars project. Teller was almost impassive, just wiping the cream stuff off his face, while the host of the lecture said that this action was fascist, and that Teller had escaped fascism years ago, only to have to endure it yet again. But the yippie was not fascist, he was not stopping Teller from speaking, or was difficult to remove from the auditorium. The yippie was just saying that the use of science for destruction deserved at the very least, a pie in the face, to show how incongruous it was for a scientist to work for the destruction of humanity.

Anyway, I have no suggestion for a scientist's oath, but would love to hear any from other posters.

1562. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #12968 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 5:13 pm

"Besides, The God Delusion quickly drops its sour tack and becomes a most impassioned, endearing, articulate and heartening secular-humanist call to arms. Call it the book's evolution. Despite the clumsy burka metaphor with which he wraps up his essay, Dawkins is humane, logical and erudite."
_________


Eloquently put and reflects my sentiments.

Chapters 8 through 10 in TGD are lucidly written with intense compassion. When I encounter critics of Dawkins describing him as a cold-hearted man embracing uncaring and dogmatic science that he insists on cramming down our throats, I think of these last chapters and realize these critics have not read TGD from cover to cover.

I regard this review as the adequately competent review for which we were all waiting. However, it is from the progressive side and directed towards that side. Will we ever encounter the equivalent in terms of an adequate review from the god botherers?

The author writes well and clearly, and it was a very enjoyable read.

1563. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12962 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 4:39 pm

TearTheRootOffTheSucker, thanks for the insightful post--I really enjoyed it.

1564. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12946 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 2:42 pm

T Larson, Thanks for the clarification.

1565. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12937 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:39 pm

Jcosta, submit the original article (http://www.cspo.org/home/perspectives/index.htm) to this site for possible listing as an article for discussion. This way many more posters can analyse it.

1566. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12856 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 4:45 am

29. Comment #12785 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 9:02 pm/Youths are segregated from society and held captive by various institutions, including the family. They do not need to be gullible to accept religion when it is forced onto them.
_______

Thanks for the link. This is a topic I have always been interested in? Why? Because I will never forget how I as a child was regarded as semi-human, and being female, more like one quarter human.

1567. Science Weekly for December 11: Creationism special

Comment #12846 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 3:12 am

The discussion regarding if teachers actually know what evolution truly is and Wolpert's comment concerning that evolution is a very complex topic to teach well was very unsatisfying.

It is my opinion that many teachers do not understand evolution correctly, and that it is not a complex topic at all to teach.

1568. Science Weekly for December 11: Creationism special

Comment #12845 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 3:08 am

Nell Boase's query as to if ID is just nonsense why discuss it all was refuted well by Wolpert when he said because supporters of the ID nonsense have gotten it taught as science in some schools which is why the silly topic has to be discussed and why we have to be vigilant in ensuring that ID is not being taught as science. She also tried to inject philosophy into the teaching of science, and Wolpert crisply said that there is no role for philosophy in science. This is the first time I have heard Boase discuss science, and she sounds like a bit of a god apologist.

Wolpert's saying that the bacterial flagellum evolved independantly more than once was a very interesting item of knowledge.

Also there were three scientiest against ID and just one for ID. Though it seemed unfair, perhaps the reason why is that there are not many scientists that do support ID.

1569. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12837 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:52 am

I cried seeing this list.

Pol Pot is one dogmatic monster that I particularily detested. He and his minions killed you if you happened to wear eyeglasses because that showed that you were an intellectual (totally illogical of course).

I cried because the wonderfully gifted human beings including scientists that have won the Nobel Prize now feel that they must band together in order to practice science, an activity not long ago which their government had enthusiastically encouraged and supported.

I also bookmarked their site.

1570. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12833 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:36 am

Thanks so much for all your comments! You atheists are just too clever.

My household celebrates good will each and every day, and by the time Christmas comes around, I give myself an one day break, and I just go into vegetative mode. If some atheists want to go full hog on that day, that's fine with me. Christmas of course does have pagan foundations, and pagans sure knew how to have a pleasant time enjoying themselves.

1571. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12829 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:17 am

Who do you mean by you, and what do these 'yous' claim to be a priori illogical 'evidence' and therefore not subject to support from observations. What kind of observations?

1572. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12827 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:15 am

"What one can discuss is the improbability claim. But you don't do that, you claim a priori that it is "illogical' and not subject to support from observations. Well, that is illogical."
_____

You lost me. Please elaborate.

1573. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12825 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:04 am

Yes, and that is why I regard John's point as being clever, because it can be used effectively in debating with the huge number of theists that doubt their faith. Of course, they doubt their faith! They are equipped with a wonderful object, the human brain.

1574. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12824 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:02 am

On page 50 of TGD you will find a scale from 1 to 7 rating the intensity of belief and non belief. Only 1 and 7 represent unwavering stances, 1 for theists, and 7 for atheists, while 2 through 6 represents varying degrees of belief and lack of belief.

1575. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12821 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:56 am

I hear you, aidanjt, and it is an important endeavor to do.

1576. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12820 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:55 am

Just how common is this 100% faith? Many faithers admit to entertaining doubts about the existence of god all throughout their lives.

1577. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12817 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:49 am

And that is the super clever point of John's

1578. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12814 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:44 am

John P qualified his sentence with: Agnosticism is OFTEN defined.

My calling John P's statement as being a clever point should be taken within this context.

As you said if God produced evidence of 'his' existence somehow, then just as an atheist would review the evidence and revaluate their conclusions, a theist that had accepted previously that there was not a 100% certainity of God's existence would also revaluate their stance and then be convinced completely, and at that point his belief would become fact. While for the atheist his lack of belief would become acceptance of fact based reality.

1579. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12811 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:20 am

20. Comment #12806 by John Pritzlaff on December 14, 2006 at 12:07 am

Agnosticism is often defined as the belief that it is impossible to know whether god or gods exist, and many atheists and theists are also agnostics by this definition.
_____

super clever point, thanks.

1580. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12809 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:13 am

Self ownership is so more positive sounding than selfishness which is supposedly negative and is considered necessary to be watchfully curtailed in order for us to be decent humans.

Humility and selflessness are silly concepts, especially when there is so much false humility and false selflessness. For example, parents are supposedly less selfish than folks who have decided not to have children, and yet parents have children for selfish reasons, to have someone care for them for when they are older, to have someone whom they can mold, to have someone to love them, and to have someone whom they can love.

Selflessness means you suspend yourself, that you are less of a self. Why would that ever be necessary and why would it be considered smart to ever to do?

An elderly person, who was very infected with this selfish meme, the one whose creed I had mentioned earlier as being "I want only what I can have", when I pointed out that a selfless person, a person without a self, cannot be any good for anybody else if she/he does not have a self-centered base from which to act admitted she never thought of that and that it made sense. When I continued and said that a person who does not love themselves is unable to truly love others, as love begins at home, she again also agreed.

So many of these so called religious adages make no sense because they are very potent memes and therefore can be successfully spread without questioning their idiocy.

1581. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12803 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 11:52 pm

Saying that Dawkins only creed is me, me, me is, of course, lopsided. It would be more like: me and the not me, me and the not me, me and the not me.

1582. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12802 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 11:50 pm

3. Comment #12764 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 5:47 pm

It is the denial of the right for an individual to own herself that is the common and shared cause of both religious and Marxist injustices.
_________

Self ownership is a potent meme, and I have started using it recently thanks to you, Sancus.

1583. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12800 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 11:44 pm

"..., they must start trenchantly defending their beliefs against Dawkins and his ilk. And they must do so with intellectual conviction. ... Otherwise, they will continue drifting into irrelevance and insignificance."
______

Supporters of religious superstitions with their lifetime experience of cherry picking, of intellectual dishonesty, of condescension and patronizing people in the regard that people cannot learn how to successfully console themselves when necessary are ill equiped to proceed with intellectual conviction.

They will have to study critical thinking, and that would increase the chances of their understanding a bit more how wonky their 'intellectual' approach is. They then would either become deconverted or continue with their non-intellectual, non-convincing style and continue to become irrelevant and insignificant. They would be 'damned' if they do, and 'damned' if they don't--a definitely delicious irony.

1584. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12780 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 7:30 pm

Many years ago I had defined my soul as the union of my mind and body. A friend scoffed at my definition, and said the soul was immaterial. Not mine.

I often think of the African American use of the word soulful: it is not used in the religious sense, but in an equisitely human sense.

1585. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12779 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 7:15 pm

"... then I am proud to announce that I am chronically ill.
________

And I am proud to announce that I am chronically well.

1586. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12775 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 7:03 pm

"Because most of us slavishly swallowed the assumption that religion is the primary cause of conflict, and that if we got rid of it peace would prevail."
______

The opposite has been my experience, that many more people believe that the world would even be more worse off than it is if it was not as religious as it already is, and that religious belief needs to be even more instilled in the population, especially the Americans who are working towards building a theocracy.

Many atheists do not think that without religion there would be a utopia, nor do they even want one. They want to use their minds and hearts to choose for themselves what works in their lives, to learn from their mistakes, and to work with others for the common good. Their strong focus is using the human mind to the fullest, because it is more than able to do what is needed, hence the emphasis is placed on identifying delusions regardless of the kind, whether they are of a secular or religious nature.

1587. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12773 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 6:50 pm

"...if you prefer the charms and consolations of religion to the savagery of Darwinian natural selection, you are a dupe."
______

Since Dawkins has pointed out in TGD that through a byproduct of evolution--human consciouness--the human species has transcended the 'selfish' gene and is able to create a caring, kind society, Dooley has unfortunately been only exposed to the 'savage' interpretation of Darwinism which is no longer applicable to humanity.

I recently have read a great Analog Science Fiction story, where a visiting representative of a highly evolved alien species tells a human that the reason why the rest of the highly evolved beings in the universe had voted to keep humans earthbound was because humans were unable to rejoice in the fact that they are highly successful evolved apes, and instead regard themselves as failed, fallen angels. This delusion on their part defined their behavior causing all sorts of problems which the rest of the universe did not want part of and therefore had decided to keep humans quarantined on earth.

1588. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12771 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 6:29 pm

"He is the un-Whitehead,..."
________

Such an odd literary style. Is Golda Meir the un-Marilyn Monroe? Is Bush the un-Einstein? However, one could say that bloomers are un-Derpants.

1589. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12740 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Steven Mading, I agree wholeheartedly.

1590. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12738 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:42 pm

NoLongerHaveBelief, yes, each country has wonderful and not so wonderful people, and America is no exception. I have not been back to my homeland in about 16 years--one of the reasons is because it is so possible to discuss interesting topics with so many people of different nationalities via the web, including Americans, and that exposure is enough for me to keep connected to my birthplace.

However, in the last 5 years, the erosion of constitutional integrity and human rights (American has violated human rights on the world scale, and also in its own country in the past), but now, as a loved one said recently, he feels about America now like he felt about Russia ten years ago--that he has no confidence as a non-American that he would not be picked up, put away, and never be seen again. So, he has decided not to physically plant his feet on American soil at present, and does all his work via the Web if he does need to work with Americans, or suggests that they come to Europe to meet him.

1591. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12735 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Perhaps the producer, BBC, will send you a transcipt if you request one, and you also can do a search on the net, adding the word transcript to crawley, etc.

1592. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12734 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:25 pm

Frans, there are as many ways to grieve as there are atheists. Thanks for sharing yours.

Anyone can still converse with godismybody via the troll comment discussion, it is not closed to non-trolls. So it has not been removed entirely, more like segregated so his inconsiderate postings does not clog up the very sincere discussion going on among other posters, and cause well meaning posters to stop reading or posting because of the annoyance one can feel at such trollish behavior. As I said, godismy hobby responded to your last response to him and you can read it and reply if so desired via that troll discussion thread--just click it on.

1593. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12658 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 6:08 am

Another page from the site I linked in my No. 16 comment: http://objectiveministries.org/members/#AMILLER

I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING, PLEASE SOMEBODY HELP ME!

1594. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12656 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 5:40 am

A poster from another thread listed this link:

http://objectiveministries.org/pastorscorner/

He had said that for months he thought the site was serious, and I can see for myself why that would have been. It is really a damning satire of supporters of religious superstitions, in all their gullible displendour.

Humans all have some degree of gullibility but suggesting that atheists--the free thinkers, the skeptics--are more so than those batty, religious delusionists is humor in itself!

1595. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12651 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 5:20 am

Frans, I submitted Godismyhobby's posts for removal to the troll comment thread (you can click on the view troll comment discussion just above the top of each comment page for this thread--go take a look, it is pretty gratifying!) to which site management agreed. Also Godismyhobby replied to your post on that thread. You can continue to discuss whatever with him via that troll thread.

Note the troll, spam, and offensive flags that are at the bottom of each comment now. I encourage all of us to be troll vigilant and use the flags as required. And if anybody needs a lesson in what constitutes trolling check out the troll comment discussion for this thread.

1596. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12632 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 2:31 am

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued to block the financing. The school promised to use government money only for secular expenses, and federal financing resumed last May..."
________

Oh well, I for one can sleep comfortably at night, because I know addicts, whether their drug is religion or alcohol or compulsive sexual behavior, can be trusted when they make promises.

1597. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12627 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 2:15 am

In France, where I live, Scientology is labeled as a dangerous cult and is treated as such. Would the European Court of Human Rights have the power to overwhelm France's decision to deny Scientology being regarded as a bona fide church hence a charity?

I do not understand why any church, both the traditional ones like the Catholic church or the more recent ones, can escape paying taxes that other business have to or why they are referred to as charities.

They sell products and services, especially in scientology's case, and in the case of the more traditional churches, donations are squeezed out of the pockets of many who can not afford to but do anyway because of feeling that it is their religious duty to so--a definite religious abuse. Their profits are used to swell their coffers. Corporate businesses also donate to charity and use their time and energy to do community good, but their profits are taxed while their charitable contributions are not, or to a lesser degree.

As RD as pointed out in TGD, the double standards that churches and religion enjoy are unfair and needs to be addressed and changed.

1598. Julia Sweeney on The Late Show with Craig Ferguson

Comment #12624 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:49 am

I knew about Sweeney from her mention in TGD and from her blog but this is the first time that I have seen Sweeney talking.

As a poster has said on another thread here, that he is 'jealous' of the calmness in which RD addresses inanity, I am just as 'jealous' of Sweeney's firm but infectiously friendly stance on her 'dreaded' condition of atheism. I certainly need to buff up both my calmness and friendliness!

1599. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12622 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:33 am

A 'moral slave' that I know lives by this creed: I only want what I can have. Huh?

How do you know what you want without trying a lot of things? How do know that in your quest of fulfilling yourself, that you will not find surprises, that you will not learn valuable skills, knowledge, etc. in your search, though it was not these surprises in themselves which you were looking for? And some of these skills and knowledge will include learning how to have proportion and balance in your life. The search for fulfillment does not mean that the searcher is greedy and insatiable, it simply means that the searcher is willing to work and RISK the rocking of his little, stationary boat set in a stagnate pond.

And what is with this 'I can have.' Sounds more like what I can have that others have decided I can have.

1600. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12617 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:16 am

Sancus, thank you for your brilliantly insightful analysis.

As a poster on another thread said, sometimes he just wants to sit back and have a good old read because of the quality of the comments on this site.

To the hard-working posters who contribute their time and energy to this site by generating high-quality content in the form of comments, I thank you all.

And now, we have a means to rid insightful threads of trollish behavior. I hope this will encourage others to read and comment.