Utopia Talk / Politics / Whats fucking up the world:gut feeling

Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 10:08:59 More and more, I think Colbert was bang on target with his "gut feeling" cracks at Bush, during his press dinner speech. Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling LiveScience.comBy Stephanie Pappas | LiveScience.com – Thu, Sep 22, 2011 tweet341 Share22 Email Print Science Slideshows Huge NASA satellite headed for Earth 6 photos - Tue, Sep 20, 2011 Roll over Einstein: Law of physics challenged 3 photos - 19 hrs ago Powerful typhoon slams into Japan 30 photos - Thu, Sep 22, 2011 See more photos from science » For many people, believing in God comes down to a gut feeling that a benevolent deity is out there. A study now finds that gut feelings may be very important in determining who goes to church every Sunday and who avoids the pews. People who are generally more intuitive in the way they think and make decisions are more likely to believe in God than those who ruminate over their choices, the researchers found. The findings suggest that basic differences in thinking style can influence religious belief. "Some say we believe in God because our intuitions about how and why things happen lead us to see a divine purpose behind ordinary events that don't have obvious human causes," study researcher Amitai Shenhav of Harvard University said in a statement. "This led us to ask whether the strength of an individual's beliefs is influenced by how much they trust their natural intuitions versus stopping to reflect on those first instincts." Shenhav and his colleagues investigated that question in a series of studies. In the first, 882 American adults answered online surveys about their belief in God. Next, the participants took a three-question math test with questions such as, "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The intuitive answer to that question is 10 cents, since most people's first impulse is to knock $1 off the total. But people who use "reflective" reasoning to question their first impulse are more likely to get the correct answer: 5 cents. Sure enough, people who went with their intuition on the math test were found to be one-and-a-half times more likely to believe in God than those who got all the answers right. The results held even when taking factors such as education and income into account. In a second study, 373 participants were told to write a paragraph about either successfully using their intuition or successfully reasoning their way to an answer. Those who wrote about the intuitive experience were more likely to say they were convinced of God's existence after the experiment, suggesting that triggering intuitive thinking boosts belief. The researchers plan to investigate how genes and education influence thinking styles, but they're quick to note that neither intuition nor reflection is inherently superior. "It's not that one way is better than the other," study researcher David Rand of Harvard said in a statement. "Intuitions are important and reflection is important, and you want some balance of the two. Where you are on that spectrum affects how you come out in terms of belief in God." The research was published Sept. 19 online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. You can follow LiveScience senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook
garyd Member	Fri Sep 23 10:17:13 I can some it up in a lot less space than that. In fact I can do it in two words: retarded leftists
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 10:21:21 ^there you go, folks. The guy who sticks rubber nipples on piping for a living dismisses harvard research in two words. Thats the gut feeling population, summing themselves up in 2 words.
garyd Member	Fri Sep 23 10:24:49 Except I don't idiot stick.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 10:27:42 This is what gut feeling is: the human brain constantly seeks to understand logical patterns for everything it encounters. When it encounters something it has too little information (or intelligence) to be able to see patterns, it invents patterns. This is rarely of use, but can be important if you are, for ex., trapped in a life threatening situation and need to make a vital decision immediately, without having the time to examine more information. Your gut feeling may tell you to run to the right instead of the left, when meeting a lion. This is helpful, not because right may be any better than left, but because it forces a decision and an action, which is better than freezing. Thats all your gut feeling is, village idjit
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 10:31:32 Its actually almost physically using your ass to think instead of your head.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 10:38:29 So Harvard is saying belief in God is instinct. What they didn't do is make any kind of discovery or attempt to decide if this instinct is good or bad for the world. That was just your own gut feeling.
McJesus Burger Member	Fri Sep 23 10:39:27 I get a gut feeling that tells me when I need to go to church. or maybe it's telling me that i'm hungry and need to grab a few mcdonalds meals. I'm not sure which it means so I just do both to cover all bases.
garyd Member	Fri Sep 23 10:42:24 In your case the separation between ass an head is obviously minimal at best. The left in this country is the party of feelings not the right. The research in question, which, contrary to your non existant ability to reason, I had not previously addressed, is a rediculously over simplistic attempt to explain quite complex things and fails for that reason alone. My gut doesn't tell me that. Logic does.
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Sep 23 10:43:15 Of course the authors weren't interested in asking the question whether "instinct" is good or bad. They were interested in the "why" people belief in a higher being. But Republicans don't mesh with science, so it's understandable. But 882 participants? I need to check the effect size to make sure that the finding is reliable.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 10:45:08 "What they didn't do is make any kind of discovery or attempt to decide if this instinct is good or bad for the world. That was just your own gut feeling. " no, its not at all, its the opposite. Its scientific knowledge Ive read up on years back, since I am of a much more critical and evience based mind than you. I guess one would have to be a gut guy like you to even think I just gut feeling'd that up - the last thing I ever do with opinions. Every opinion I have, I have read up on before deciding. I hate making decisions without analyzing facts first. I am the opposite of you.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 10:45:26 Ignored garydrivel, of course.
garyd Member	Fri Sep 23 10:46:43 Please do. The average Christian I know is far more logicla than the average leftist I know. Present company included.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 10:48:34 This gut feeling is uniform among all the religious, the new agers, the superstitious. You recognize the same phenomena among them all. Too much information to process, so they go invent patterns.
garyd Member	Fri Sep 23 10:49:57 Odd you wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 10:51:34 You literally cant even spell logical.
garyd Member	Fri Sep 23 10:56:29 Hell you can't even figure out typos.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 11:03:26 "Its scientific knowledge" It is a fucking opinion. Just like my opinion that mint chocolate chip ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream ever. Your opinion is that religion is bad for the world. The Dalai Lama would tend to disagree with you. Religion has been used for some very bad things in the world, but has also been used for some very good things. Scientific knowledge can't help you one fucking bit in determining whether religion is good for the world or as your gut tells you fucked up the world. "I am the opposite of you." So you are a short fat balding right handed moronic failure. You probably wear ties also.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 11:13:18 ""Its scientific knowledge" It is a fucking opinion. Just like my opinion that mint chocolate chip ice cream is the best flavor of ice cream ever." Its a scientific conclusion, dumbass, stop making shit up. I realize that the difference between that and your gut feeling opinions are impossible to fathom, which is why you are so appropriate in this thread. "Your opinion is that religion is bad for the world. The Dalai Lama would tend to disagree with you." My opinion is that global life or death decisions being made on gut feeling is bad for the world. "Scientific knowledge can't help you one fucking bit in determining whether religion is good for the world or as your gut tells you fucked up the world." Scientific knowledge can determine statistically and far more seriously than religion which demographics employ which social norms, quite easily, despite the fact that this flies light years above what you thought you knew was possible. ""I am the opposite of you." So you are a short fat balding right handed moronic failure. You probably wear ties also. " I didnt say mirror image of you, ignorant redneck.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 11:17:32 Seriously, kargen and garyd, please stay out. Youre so stupid. Every sentence you say, I think, fuck, don't they even know the background to that? We'd have to go back to the education level and capacity for cognitive complexity I had when I was about 14-15 to find common ground. Im serious.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 11:46:14 "Its a scientific conclusion, dumbass, stop making shit up" "My opinion is that global life or death decisions being made on gut feeling is bad for the world." and you believe religion is a gut feeling. So using a bit of reasoning you believe religion is bad for the world. "Scientific knowledge can determine statistically and far more seriously than religion which demographics employ which social norms," Of course it can. Unfortunatly for you that isn't pertenant to our conversation. "I didnt say mirror image of you, ignorant redneck." I know, that is why I answered as I did. Okay let us make this really simple. What scientific hypothesis theory or law proves that instinct is bad for the world? What scientific hypothesis theory or law proves that gut feelings are bad for the world? What scientific hypothesis theory or law proves religion is bad for the world? Answer those three questions with something other than opinion or I will continue believing you are just a snivelling little moron with delusions of having more than two synapses.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 11:47:08 ^ ignored
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 12:05:54 You didn't ignore it. You can't answer the questions. I'll ask just one. What scientific hypothesis theory or law proves that gut feelings are bad for the world?
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Sep 23 12:10:59 "What scientific hypothesis theory or law proves that gut feelings are bad for the world?" http://www.sciencemag.org/content/185/4157/1124.short One of the most well-known scientific studies on the problem with gut instinct.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 12:32:06 http://chr...-Trouble-With-Intuition/65674/ That is the article I just read. Saw the gorilla thing before. Can't read your report as you probably knew so there is no way for me to see if it deals with the subject here or not. I readily admit following gut feelings can lead to wrong decisions, but that isn't the arguement here. The arguement is whether or not intuition is bad for the world and what science backs up the opinion of oddfish.
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Sep 23 12:40:26 The full paper: http://cit...1.1.170.7703&rep=rep1&type=pdf In any case, since you are the first person who asked whether intuition is "good for the world," then once you define what that means, I'd be happy to provide you with the scientific evidence. Right now, I have no idea what "good for the world" means. Does it mean gut feelings can lead to poor decisions that have serious consequences to many people? Does it mean our quality of life would go down?
Sam Adams Member	Fri Sep 23 12:46:52 This is the problem with the world http://www.egalitarian.biz/images/IQ-bell-curve-03.jpg most of the world just is not that intelligent.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 12:55:05 "Whats fucking up the world:gut feeling" Basically Oddfish is saying that has been proved by science. I am arguing that science can't prove that because it is opinion simular to what the best ice cream flavor is. Science could prove what the most popular ice cream flavor is, but it can't prove which one is best. Same thing with gut reactions. We can document good and bad decisions. "Right now, I have no idea what "good for the world" means. Does it mean gut feelings can lead to poor decisions that have serious consequences to many people? Does it mean our quality of life would go down?" and that is basically my point. I have no doubt that gut feelings have had very bad consequences for many people. They have also had good consequences. Lets take two fictional villages long long ago both near a volcano that hasn't erupted since those villages came to be. The volcano begins to smoke. One village leader says its just smoke don't worry about it. The other village leader says some shit might be about to happen everybody run. If the volcano erupts the first village is fucked. If the volcano does not erupt the 2nd village is fucked (though not to bad). Anyway both decisions were made based on gut feelings and depending on what follows could have been either good or bad. Now with past experience and scientists monitoring volcanos we have a much better understanding and know better when to sit and when to run. every once in a while though they still get it wrong and a gut decision could make things better or worse. So my conclusion would be gut feelings are neither good nor bad for the world, but individual decisions are more apt to be correct the more we know about the situation. Oddfish is basically saying (whether he will ever admit it or not) that science can prove religion is bad for the world. Science might be able to prove religion is wrong, but it can't prove religion is bad.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 13:02:56 god, will someone tell him to stop spamming. I cant even read the thread
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Sep 23 13:03:45 It's true. Fucking up the world is too broad, and accordingly, it's impossible to support empirically without it being defined further.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 13:10:02 "I cant even read the thread" Not surprised. You probably struggle with the Dick and Jane See Spot Run books. I know you can't comprehend them.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 13:22:52 ^ worse than TC. Nice link, milton.
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Sep 23 13:47:52 hey, no problem. It's one of the most important papers in all social science, so the more people have access to it, the better.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 14:36:23 Was an interesting article. Doesn't really apply to whether or not gut feelings are good or bad for the world though. Just explains different ways those gut feelings can be influenced. If you are aware of those influences you can probably make better estimates when called to do so. Was worth the read. The distance based on sharpness bias is something used all the time in Gestalt laws applied to art and photography. Doesn't really have anything to do with our arguement just an aside that this particular bias is taken advantage of in art. What did you think of the gorilla study in the link I provided or did you read it?
Pissflaps McGee Member	Fri Sep 23 14:49:10 I wanna know where the fuck you can buy a bat and ball for $1.10
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Sep 23 14:58:35 I read this when it was first published last year. Of course "intuition" can be useful in some cases, but it can be fatal in others. Intuition can lead people astray just as often as thoughtful analyses. But the study quoted in OP in which it shows that people who believe in God simply prefer intuitions over deliberate thinking-that could be bad. The authors of the paper made it clear that both deliberate and intuitive thinking are important. But Oddfish may be right in that preferring one kind of thinking over another can be detrimental.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 15:18:05 "But Oddfish may be right in that preferring one kind of thinking over another can be detrimental." That isn't his arguement. His arguement is that gut feelings are fucking up the world. We all know that the problems the world faces today were caused either by the French/English pissing matches of the 1800s early 1900s or by President Carter.
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Sep 23 15:23:29 As said earlier, I can't make any arguments on something as broad as the claim made by Oddfish. But I think I have interpreted his implicit claim accurately.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 15:28:57 From his past posts in other threads I am convinced he was taking a shot at religions and got over zealous in his arguement. This was followed by quick back peddling and changing of the arguement on his part.
Hip Member	Fri Sep 23 16:24:14 This is silly. I believe in God not because of a gut feeling, but because I am persuaded by facts.
Hip Member	Fri Sep 23 16:25:06 In fact, my level of being convinced has increased so much I am right on the edge of repenting and acting like a decent human being for once in my life; no small feat.
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 23 16:27:48 muzzlefree would be a great name for a site for religious tards who prayed away the ghey. Probably get a lot more traffic too.
Hip Member	Fri Sep 23 16:29:17 Christian: First, there was nothing, not matter, not space, not time, or anything else and then, Bang! God created everything in the universe in an infinitesimally tiny fraction of a second. Atheist: First, there was nothing, and then, Bang! The universe spontaneously created itself out of nothing, without cause, in an infinitesimally tiny fraction of a second.
StereoTypicalLiberal Member	Fri Sep 23 16:30:11 OHHH YEAHH! THE SECOND ONE IS CLEARLY SO MUHC MORE PLAUSIBLE.
Hip Member	Fri Sep 23 16:31:53 My point is not which one is more plausible, but rather to illustrate the absurd position of atheists, that perch themselves as if their view is so much more enlightened and sophisticated, when the reality is that either viewpoint requires some degree of faith, since no one has observed the Big Bang.
StereoTypicalLiberal Member	Fri Sep 23 16:34:10 The other day, an ass- a big giant round bubble ass- just exploded into existence on the street, right out of nowhere, without cause! People were like *shrug*WTF*, and they just kept walking because naturally, asses just explode into existence for no reason right on street corners.
Camaban The Overseer	Fri Sep 23 18:22:50 If the multis start again, the blind eye I've been turning stops and the DoS starts again. And it is *much* easier to do now.
chuck Member	Fri Sep 23 18:30:27 Wow you were having a conversation with yourself JB? That's pretty fucking lame dude.
KreeL Member	Fri Sep 23 19:54:25 Somewhat incorrect, hipster. We can view back in time towards the beginning of the universe and indeed see that matter is moving away from The Big Bang. Still no sign of the Great-God-Buddy{tm}.
kargen Member	Fri Sep 23 19:56:43 "We can view back in time towards the beginning of the universe and indeed see that matter is moving away from The Big Bang." Doesn't matter. His point is, what caused it?
chuck Member	Fri Sep 23 20:04:19 The conventional thinking afaik (those with more knowledge of the matter, feel free to correct me) on the matter is that time didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Without time, cause and effect are meaningless. As I understand it, taking the above assumption that there was no time before the Big Bang, there was no way anything could have happened before the Big Bang to cause it. To have a cause and an effect requires time; cause must precede effect. I'm not up on all the cool new ideas that people are having these days, so this might or might not be the conventional thinking these days. Back to your regularly scheduled programming...
garyd Member	Fri Sep 23 23:45:38 Which chuck would apply not only to an uncreated god creating the world but to any other process creating the world. And that's part of the problem.
saiko Member	Sat Sep 24 00:36:47 It's also part of the solution; considering that you achieve the exact same ontological situation with or without God compels the conclusion that He is superfluous.
garyd Member	Sat Sep 24 09:12:03 Or that he wishes to appear so for his own reasons. But hey whatever floats your boat. Thus far religion in this thread has been far too narrowly defined. If one defines religion as a belief in things lacking factual evidence to support them, then obviously the religion or belief that is most screwing up the world is the belief that more government makes things better.
chuck Member	Sat Sep 24 10:07:35 "If one defines religion as a belief in things lacking factual evidence to support them..." While not stated in a way that is flattering to the religious, I don't think this is an incorrect way to describe the whole concept of faith. --- It is nearly a tautology to say that a universe that sprang into existence without cause requires no First cause. It is also worth pointing out explicitly because you are in essence making what is known as the cosmological argument for God - it goes like Everything is an effect of some previous cause. Assuming time is finite, there must have therefore been some cause that occurred before any other and therefore caused everything we know as the universe as an effect. We can call this uncaused cause, or first cause, God. God, in this sense at least, must therefore exist. QED Should it be the case that the universe itself was truly uncaused though, the questions "Who caused it?" and/or "What caused it?" are formulated from a flawed premise that arose from our human inability to understand the rules of the game.
garyd Member	Sat Sep 24 21:21:57 Except that the assumption of virtually every currently extant Monotheism is that God is self existant and without either beginning or end. Stated another way God is the cause without cause. But let's not high jack the thread if that's all the same to you. If you'd like to make another thread about this please do.
Oddfish Member	Sun Sep 25 00:49:32 bit late for you and kargen to whine about hijacking the thread
garyd Member	Tue Sep 27 22:12:09 Liberalism is just another form of religion, all be it one in which you eithr believe or approve of.
Nekran Member	Wed Sep 28 13:37:00 "since no one has observed the Big Bang." Actually, we have. "cause must precede effect." Not since Quantum Physics, actually. There's no need to believe in any deities, because there's not a single indication that there are any. If that changes, atheists will review their stance. Don't hold your breath though.
kargen Member	Wed Sep 28 17:03:34 "There's no need to believe in any deities, because there's not a single indication that there are any." So at the very best/worst depending on point of view all you have is a tie. "bit late for you and kargen to whine about hijacking the thread" You just like typing my name don't ya Oddfish.
Cloud Strife Member	Wed Sep 28 18:44:40 ooh religion fights
Nekran Member	Thu Sep 29 01:25:21 "So at the very best/worst depending on point of view all you have is a tie." A tie? The idea that any shittastic untestable crap you can care to imagine has value and is worthy of consideration sounds like it is tied to the stance that we only care about things we have reasons for to assume they exist? Yeah... that's pretty retarded.
Oddfish Member	Thu Sep 29 01:38:12 santa claus ties in believability with evolution in American Christian Nouveau Loony Land.
kargen Member	Thu Sep 29 10:36:28 Nekran the tie is obvious you are just looking from your own biased view. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove something based only on faith. So you can't prove God exists and you can't prove God does not exist. That is a tie. Levels of believability are a different matter. One may be less likely to exist than another but when cut to the core you can't prove without doubt something doesn't exist.
Mr Kennedy Member	Thu Sep 29 10:57:56 Would you really consider any theory thrown your way as a competing possibility because you can't prove a negative? Afterall, you can't disprove thor, if you were unbiased he must be a competing theory with the christian god. The same with the old greek gods. Is not believing a theory without evidence bias?
Mr Kennedy Member	Thu Sep 29 11:02:22 It seems to be a choice between this. 1) I only believe what can be proven (which you seem to think is biased) 2) I consider every possibility to be possible, and cannot discount a theory because I cannot prove a negative, including kreel's conspiracy theories about the wtc and aliens.
garyd Member	Thu Sep 29 22:29:22 YOu can attempt to falsify a theory such as Kreel's conspiracy claptrap.
kilo Member	Thu Sep 29 22:37:54 Claptrap......... Can't wait for Borderlands 2 to come out.
Nekran Member	Fri Sep 30 03:21:04 "So you can't prove God exists and you can't prove God does not exist. That is a tie." No it's not... the burden of proof is upon those claiming he exists. Not only can't they prove it, they can't even provide a shred of some sort of a clue that there might be one out there. Until there is, it is not worthy of taking into account. I could tell you a million things that are far more likely to be true than the existence of a deity, yet you wouldn't believe any of them for a second. Take HR's garage sale story for a nice example... at least that was possible and fitted within what we know about the universe. It didn't ask for a being that can defy physical laws or any such nonsense. Nonetheless it was so obviously not true that nobody (garyd excepted of course) bought it for a second. Yet it was extremely more likely than the existence of any deities I've ever heard of. For some reason, people want to give this one idea special rights to not have to make sense at all, while still thinking it's a view that should be respected. I really can't do that... going off what is known, it's an extremely irrational position to take and I will call people out on that.
Garyd Member	Fri Sep 30 08:21:04 Actually Nekran I said exactly what you said. It was possible. I never made mention of how likely it was. It is only more likely because your own frame of reference is so much more limited than that of most believers.
Nekran Member	Fri Sep 30 09:21:39 That's true... my frame of reference is reality.
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 30 09:24:52 "my frame of reference is reality." Boring
Oddfish Member	Fri Sep 30 17:08:36 oh god, its like discussing homeopathy with my mom again
kargen Member	Fri Sep 30 23:15:35 "Would you really consider any theory thrown your way as a competing possibility because you can't prove a negative?" No I wouldn't. I wouldn't be a complete ass either and claim with 100% certainty that something couldn't be unless I could prove 100% it couldn't be. If you want to believe in Thor then believe in Thor. I choose not to believe, and might even think you a bit of a git for believing. I wouldn't though just come out and say for dead certain you are fucking wrong. Kreels 9/11 theories can pretty much be disproven at least some of them. His stupid planet iota theory we can't disprove, but it gets less and less likely the more he keeps missing the deadline for our destruction. I just think of more things as highly highly improbable instead of impossable. and Mr Kennedy there are way more than just two choices. I believe chocolate chip mint icecream is the best flavor ever, but have no proof other than personal experience. "No it's not... the burden of proof is upon those claiming he exists." Why? Sure they gotta prove he exists to convince you, but they are already convinced. Just like you gotta prove he doesn't exist to convince them. If not a tie then a stalemate. "Not only can't they prove it, they can't even provide a shred of some sort of a clue that there might be one out there." your point? You know how many things we know about now that a couple of centuries ago there was zero clues of? "I could tell you a million things that are far more likely to be true than the existence of a deity, yet you wouldn't believe any of them for a second." and I could probably add another five to the list. Still doesn't help your arguement any. "For some reason, people want to give this one idea" It isn't one idea. There are numerous religions all with their own beliefs. What they all seem to have in common is that as much as I may choose not to believe them I can't prove most their beliefs wrong.
Nekran Member	Sat Oct 01 14:43:44 I don't say it's impossible, I say it's a highly irrational point of view and one that doesn't warrant any respect, never mind tax exempt status or society going out of its way to accomodate it. All of which do happen. If my tax money stops paying our catholic priests' wages and ifpeople stop demanding absurd shit like exemption from rules or halal food at schools or whatnot, I'll get less vocal about my disdain for such nonsensical beliefs.
kargen Member	Sun Oct 02 02:11:39 Nekran are you willing to do that for all non profit organizations and charities with the tax thing? As for special food I'm with you on that one for the most part. If they have a special diet let them pack a lunch.
Oddfish Member	Sun Oct 02 02:14:07 the church has far more other expenses than administering aid.
Oddfish Member	Sun Oct 02 02:27:57 An example of a non-religious charity where 91.8% goes to directly to aid (christianity opposed this organization): The Children's Aid Society http://www...?bay=search.summary&orgid=3480 Its hard to find religious accounting sources (lack of transparency is a no-no already), but: Less than 1 half of one penny per dollar is spent by the Mormon Church on humanitarian projects by monies donated to the Church by members (see LDS Church Canadian reporting and United Kingdom reporting). http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_serviceandcharity.html
kargen Member	Sun Oct 02 02:30:07 As does any charity organization or non profit group. The simple fact is they qualify as tax exempt because they are considered to be a charity or other non profit organization. So anything you do with them you need to do to the others. And yes I am quite aware that many religious groups abuse that charity status, but that is true of other types of charities as well.
Oddfish Member	Sun Oct 02 02:32:51 "As does any charity organization or non profit group. " I was hoping you wouldnt post that stupid comment so that I'd have to repeat the facts I just posted but you did...sigh. No, everyone doesnt have 99.5% in other costs. Some have the very opposite.
Oddfish Member	Sun Oct 02 02:35:15 of the top ten charities in the USA that I found that use the least for other expenses, there was one church in Herefordshire or some place equally unheard of.
Nekran Member	Sun Oct 02 13:33:05 "Nekran are you willing to do that for all non profit organizations and charities with the tax thing?" The catholic church is not a non profit organization nor is it a charity... shit their leader sits on the throne of his own state, surrounded by the largest and most expensive art collection in the world.
Garyd Member	Sun Oct 02 15:44:32 And ninety percent of the money raised by atheist groups goes to promote atheism, 90% of the money raised by Mormons goes to promote Mormonism, both groups get a tax write off. I don't understand your problem.
Nekran Member	Sun Oct 02 15:54:08 I have no knowledge of any atheism promotion group having tax exempt status around here... but if there are any, I'm definitely against that too.
Garyd Member	Sun Oct 02 15:57:55 Well at least you are consistant. There may not be in Belgium but there are - or at least were in the US. There used to be at least one whose chief goal was to cover legal fees for Joe Asshole to sue over the appearance of every creche in any town that was on or near public property.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: