Something out of place here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is there any evidence that the rate is any higher? Or is it just that the Enlightenment has been successful at stopping people dying, so there are more people around?

As opposed to the 'religion is of great comfort to people in a world torn apart by religion' argument, you mean?

You appear to be conflating the Industrial Age with the Englightenment; the Englightenment was a philosophical stage the gave us the likes of Hume and Locke, neither of whom was a figure of Industry or technology, but who wrote on ethics and morality and how to deal with those ideas in a world where it was obvious that religion had had its day.

No, this is the continuation of the Enlightenment as we've moved from the Industrial Age, Technological Age, through the Digital Age,  and, arguably, into the Information Age.

O.

I am using Pinkerian definitions of the enlightenment and it's benefit as befits interlocutors of a screaming Pinkerian persuasion.
I'm afraid you are doing it again Outrider, accepting the good results of the Enlightenment and denying the bad.

[Stranger]

Religious people have religious experience, antitheists dodge it.

You keep on making this absurd claim. Where is there the slightest hint of any evidence that anybody is dodging anything?

[jeremyp]

Churches will render to Caesar that which is Caeser's

Except that they get tax breaks as charities.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except that they get tax breaks as charities.

Actually fundamentally I have no issue with all charities having the same tax breaks but there are a range of issues here.

First religious organisations are simply allowed to be charities simply because they are just that, religious organisations. They don't have to demonstrate any further benefit to society that other organisations need to do to be given charitable status.

Second, and linked to the above - religious organisations get tax breaks for everything they do, while many other charities will only get breaks on those activities deemed to be charitable, while other activities don't have that status.

Third - many churches get the status automatically without having to apply, register, provide paperwork to the charities commission (under the excepted charities rule). Non religious charities with turnover of over £5k must go through the registration process etc - if you are a church you are exempt from that paperwork unless your turnover is over £100k.

Finally the business rates issue I raised earlier - if you are a (non religious) charity you still are expected to pay 20% of the business rates on your premises, rising to 100% on commercial activities (e.g. cafe, shop etc). Churches are completely exempt from business rates and in most cases this includes space used for cafe, shop etc. The buildings aren't even on the list of eatable properties.

So I've no fundamental issue with religious organisations benefiting from charitable status, but there should be a level playing field with other charitable organisation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You keep on making this absurd claim. Where is there the slightest hint of any evidence that anybody is dodging anything?

Not absurd, One can dodge issues by introducing whatabout's and non sequiturs......all avoidance behaviour, One can redirect or derail the conversation, one can feel the need to duck an issue or a word emotionally, and finally one can dodge something subconsciously. This can apply to the topic of the existence of God as well as anything else.

Obviously a single occasion of avoidance is not conclusive, outrageous avoidances and accumulated avoidances tend to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that they get tax breaks as charities.

Yes, but it was Caesar what gave them the tax breaks

[Stranger]

Not absurd, One can dodge issues by introducing whatabout's and non sequiturs......all avoidance behaviour, One can redirect or derail the conversation, one can feel the need to duck an issue or a word emotionally, and finally one can dodge something subconsciously. This can apply to the topic of the existence of God as well as anything else.

Obviously a single occasion of avoidance is not conclusive, outrageous avoidances and accumulated avoidances tend to be.

I didn't ask for a description, I asked for evidence that anybody was dodging "religious experience".

[Aruntraveller]

Not absurd, One can dodge issues by introducing whatabout's and non sequiturs......all avoidance behaviour, One can redirect or derail the conversation, one can feel the need to duck an issue or a word emotionally, and finally one can dodge something subconsciously. This can apply to the topic of the existence of God as well as anything else.

Obviously a single occasion of avoidance is not conclusive, outrageous avoidances and accumulated avoidances tend to be.

This is just nonsense, and as ever you try to make your whole argument sound more complicated simply to hide the lack of substance behind it.

I don't believe in the existence of God (s). I can't dodge something I don't believe in. In the same way I don't dodge the idea of ghosts or the idea that Johnson is somehow a good PM. I don't believe it. You can try and persuade me that Johnson is a good PM or that ghosts exist, but I see no evidence for either of those things. Similarly, I see no evidence for God.

This is not a difficult fucking concept.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

The Dunning Kruger effect applied to religious experience. The religious experience is not to do with one's natural or acquired intellect Hillside although aspects of it manifest in knowledge and Wisdom(look it up).

I think you should. Look, I even gave you a link. The Dunning-Kruger effect in this case was you presuming to call someone “clueless” when that person understood the terms he was using and you didn’t. That was the “…people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability” part.   

Religious people have religious experience, antitheists dodge it.

“Religious experiences” of Zeus, Horus, Neptune etc all count as genuine then do they? “Religious people” actually have “experiences” to which they attach various narrative explanations, generally those to which they happen to be most enculturated. You are a prime example of that. “Anti-theists” (by which you actually mean just “atheists”) just recognise that. 

Oh, and as ever I see you’ve just ignored the other corrections I gave you.

Funny that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, but it was Caesar what gave them the tax breaks

So if 'Caesar' (in other words the government) decides to remove these tax breaks, or even to agree that they should be at the same level for other charities, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain the special privileges.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Not absurd, One can dodge issues by introducing whatabout's and non sequiturs......all avoidance behaviour, One can redirect or derail the conversation, one can feel the need to duck an issue or a word emotionally, and finally one can dodge something subconsciously.

Fuck me Vlad, that’s exactly all you’ve ever done since you first appeared here! What your interlocutors have always done on the other hand is to try to stop you from doing it and instead, finally, to try at least to address the endless problems you lying and evasions give you. 

This can apply to the topic of the existence of God as well as anything else.

You should know!

Obviously a single occasion of avoidance is not conclusive, outrageous avoidances and accumulated avoidances tend to be.

So stop doing it then! What Trumpian exercise in re-writing reality do you even think you’re attempting here?

27 July 2021 – the day irony died.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

So if 'Caesar' (in other words the government) decides to remove these tax breaks, or even to agree that they should be at the same level for other charities, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain the special privileges.

More to the point here perhaps, if the gov't decides to remove the the homophobia exemptions from the equalities legislation, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain these special privileges?
 

[jeremyp]

The buildings aren't even on the list of eatable properties.

This is an interesting point. In the Church of England, each parish is a financially autonomous operation. Each parish is a separate charity with respect to the Charities Commission and is entirely responsible for managing its own income and expenses. My parents' church is over the £100k limit on income and so it is registered and has been since 2009. Its expenses currently slightly exceed its income which took a huge hit last year because of the pandemic (down from approx £130k to approx £105k). The charity is listed as owning no buildings or property. Why? Because the central CodE owns all the physical buildings. Even though my parents church parish does not own the building, which is a grade 1 listed building of historical importance, it is responsible for all the maintenance and upkeep.

I don't think it would be fair to ask them to pay rates on a property they don't own. The central CofE might be another matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't ask for a description, I asked for evidence that anybody was dodging "religious experience".

Asking for evidence of experience? What evidence do you suppose experience leaves. Nice dodge but a bit obvious.
For to assent to someone else's experience you have to believe they are telling the truth. To believe that everybody who has one is lying is a bit of a giveaway that one is trying to avoid the issue.

Those who have experience dodging religious experience, Augustine, St Paul, Bunyan, HAV Williams , Calvin, The writer of Isaiah.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So if 'Caesar' (in other words the government) decides to remove these tax breaks, or even to agree that they should be at the same level for other charities, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain the special privileges.

Maybe do something in between being not given to hysteria like the New Atheist movement.

[Outrider]

I am using Pinkerian definitions of the enlightenment and it's benefit as befits interlocutors of a screaming Pinkerian persuasion.

I think Pinker short-changes the problems presented by significant wealth inequality and is overly optimistic of our likelihood of using the tools available to us now to combat climate change before it has significant long-term effects, but broadly his view of the Englightenment seems to be (and I'm 'borrowing' someone else's quote here, but I don't recall who) 'a non-negotiable commitment to reason'. This has had effects and consequences, but it doesn't change the boundaries between the Enlightenment itself and some of the consequences of it, such as laissez-faire economic trends.

But then, if you're an ardent Gray-ite and philosophically opposed to the very concept of progress, then I suppose you wouldn't bother with distinctions around what causes the progress you don't want to accept and what constitutes the actual progress you don't want to believe is happening around you.
 

I'm afraid you are doing it again Outrider, accepting the good results of the Enlightenment and denying the bad.

So you keep saying, but I'm afraid I can't see the bit where I'm denying anything; I'm just drawing a different conclusion to you about what it represents. People live longer, are better educated, have more freedom, are healthier... the better off are better off, the worst off are better off, the median is higher, the average is higher... if that's not progress, what is it?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,

More to the point here perhaps, if the gov't decides to remove the the homophobia exemptions from the equalities legislation, presumably the churches will simply accept this rather than fight tooth and nail to maintain these special privileges?

The church will always oppose the idea of a state controlled church like the ones they have in totalitarian countries and in atheist wankfantasies. Holy matrimony for those who stick with scripture will go underground and then the ball will be in your court.

Again it's render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's. God is not Caesar's.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Asking for evidence of experience?

Er yes, obviously. Or are you proposing instead that we should just take people's words for it? 

What evidence do you suppose experience leaves.

What evidence do you suppose my experience of leprechauns leaves?

Nice dodge but a bit obvious.

The only dodge here is you trying to shift the burden of proof, and yes it's very obvious.

For to assent to someone else's experience you have to believe they are telling the truth.

Wring again. What you actually have to believe is that they have good reasons for thinking they're telling the truth - which is where your various truth claims and assertions always collapse in a heap. 

To believe that everybody who has one is lying is a bit of a giveaway that one is trying to avoid the issue.

It's also a straw man. No-one discounts the likelihood of honest wrongness. The fact of your dishonest wrongness doesn't remove the likelihood of others not being honestly wrong too.   

Those who have experience dodging religious experience, Augustine, St Paul, Bunyan, HAV Williams , Calvin, The writer of Isaiah.

Plus the ancient Greeks, the Sumerians, the ancient Egyptians, the Norse, the Romans, the various Amazonian tribespeople, the ...

I'd stop digging if I were you. Really though. 

[Stranger]

Asking for evidence of experience?

That's not what I asked. I asked you to back up the claim that anybody was dodging "religious experience". I have no doubt that people have "religious experience".

To believe that everybody who has one is lying is a bit of a giveaway that one is trying to avoid the issue.

While it's quite possible some people are simply lying, it's far more likely that they are simply misinterpreting their experiences. In fact, since people draw contradictory conclusions from them, at least most people who have them are doing just that (if they're not lying).

And that's before we get to other experiences that people have. Do you believe that everybody who has experienced alien abductions, seen ghosts, believed in fortune tellers, think they've been cured by homoeopathy, and so on, are all interpreting their experiences correctly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not what I asked. I asked you to back up the claim that anybody was dodging "religious experience". I have no doubt that people have "religious experience".

While it's quite possible some people are simply lying, it's far more likely that they are simply misinterpreting their experiences. In fact, since people draw contradictory conclusions from them, at least most people who have them are doing just that (if they're not lying).

And that's before we get to other experiences that people have. Do you believe that everybody who has experienced alien abductions, seen ghosts, believed in fortune tellers, think they've been cured by homoeopathy, and so on, are all interpreting their experiences correctly?

Again if it turns out that the people you think are misinterpreting there experiences are religious people then that in itself
smacks of religious experience dodging.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

The church will always oppose the idea of a state controlled church like the ones they have in totalitarian countries and in atheist wankfantasies.

First there’s no such thing as “the church” – what you actually mean here is the homophobic part of it that you espouse.

Second, you’ve just flipped from “render unto Caesar” to the opposite of that.

Third, if a gov’t is democratically elected with a mandate to remove the homophobic exemptions from your preferred part of your choice of church there is no “totalitarianism”.

Apart from all that though…

Holy matrimony for those who stick with scripture will go underground and then the ball will be in your court.

Like the racist B&B owners went underground you mean? Oh no, that didn’t happen did it…

Again it's render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's. God is not Caesar's.

You’re all over the place here. Why not decide which side of the fence you’re actually on and then stick with it? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

Plus the ancient Greeks, the Sumerians, the ancient Egyptians, the Norse, the Romans, the various Amazonian tribespeople, the ...

Do they have accounts of Goddodging as well? Citations pleaaassse.

[ProfessorDavey]

The church will always oppose the idea of a state controlled church like the ones they have in totalitarian countries and in atheist wankfantasies.

Firstly we aren't talking about discrimination or persecution against churches but the provision of special privileges. Surely if churches don't want any state interference that should apply to special privileges too, which they should refuse as these are also state interference.

Again it's render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's. God is not Caesar's.

In reality it is cake and eat it - effectively more than happy to accept any special privileges from the state, but fight tooth and nail if anyone dares to suggest there should be a level playing field with other organisations. And try to remove a special privilege and you will see the huge organisation of religions swing into action, harnessing all their establishment links and the likes of the christian legal centre will be shouting 'persecution' in the loudest and shrillest of voices.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Do they have accounts of Goddodging as well? Citations pleaaassse.

I have your account for starters – you don’t believe in any of the gods they believed in. Why not? Why not just accept their accounts of experiences of Zeus, Odin, Horus etc at face value? After all that’s exactly what you expect others to do about your choice of god story.

And, as you’ve just ignored again the last set of corrections I gave you presumably you’ll apologise now for claiming that people who don’t just accept god stories at face value are accusing the people making them of being liars.

You will apologise won’t you?

Won’t you?   

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe do something in between being not given to hysteria like the New Atheist movement.

Religious organisation are the epitome of hysteria if you dare to suggest a special privilege might be removed to create a level playing field.

Given that there are no special privileges afforded to people in the UK who don't believe in god then we have no idea how they might react if someone suggested that a (non existent) special privilege is removed. We could suggest an experiment to see what would happen but that would involve providing a special privilege in the first place and can you imagine the volume of shrill hysteria from the religious lobby were that to be suggested.