[32519]

There must be at least one Roman-Catholic lurking in the background, following the thread on Religious Moderation and this one. Whoever you are I make an appeal to you!

Christmas is just over two months away. When your Pope delivers his Christmas message, there are plenty of the world’s major television stations broadcasting his message. It is a perfect stage to set the ball rolling at a much faster pace. Print out the other thread and the last part of this one and get it to your Pope sooner than later. Get him to include in his Christmas message, “The physicists have brought down the theory of evolution,” while waving all those printouts in the air. The thunderous roar from everyone gathered before him listening, is going to echo across every nation who has a television camera there. The lost sheep from among your own members, who were led astray by the evolution theory, are going to be trampling upon one another to get back into your cathedrals and churches. There simply will not be enough room for them all as the cram your pews to find out what happened.

The sooner we can start the fight between the evolutionists and the physicists, the sooner more and more of their numbers are going to cross over to our side. And they are going to be bringing along with themselves all the other unproven theories. The spotlight of the world is going to be on all those theories. But now we are going to have from among their own numbers pointing out to all the problems with many of those theories.

So again – I appeal to you to get those printouts to your Pope before his Christmas message.

[Elianna]

And yet again, I wish that BBF had a "funny" button, like my favorite forums. Downvoting would not be enough.

[mikeh]

nige1, on 2013-October-07, 19:19, said:

Winstonm's view is cynical. Science posits tentative models of reality that help explain bits of it. Some "moral" behaviour seems instinctive (e.g. mother-love). Skinner might explain conscience in terms of operant and avoidance conditioning. These may be reinforced by belief in heaven and hell.

Most people, however, live by moral/ethical beliefs (e.g. belief in human-rights) with no scientific basis. The step from "is" to "ought" is a leap of faith. IMO, if unprovable religious or ethical beliefs stop us all becoming psychopaths, then good for them!

Yet another believer who thinks that atheists are prone to become psychopaths? I really feel sorry for these people, whose lives must be spent in fear, deep down, that they are naturally psychopathic and need their priest/minister/rabbi etc to keep them behaving morally.

What is with these people, that they can post drivel like this? Do they ever think about what they write? I'm not sure which would be worse: that this drivel is the product of unthinking kneejerk regurgitation of religious nonsense or carefully thought out insult.

FWIW, I have never heard of anyone losing their faith and then going on a killing spree. I wonder why not?

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2013-October-07, 19:19, said:

Winstonm's view is cynical. Science posits tentative models of reality that help explain bits of it. Some "moral" behaviour seems instinctive (e.g. mother-love). Skinner might explain conscience in terms of operant and avoidance conditioning. These may be reinforced by belief in heaven and hell.

Most people, however, live by moral/ethical beliefs (e.g. belief in human-rights) with no scientific basis. The step from "is" to "ought" is a leap of faith. IMO, if unprovable religious or ethical beliefs stop us all becoming psychopaths, then good for them!

My view is not cynical as I do not abscribe any motive to the believer other than a psychological need to believe something greater than themselves is "in charge" and thus their fear is moderated.

What "most people" do or do not do is not an argument but a rationalization. There is no step between "is" and "ought" other than the one provided by consequences for decisions and actions.

For the most part, I lead a positive life and to my knowledge have never done anything "evil". I act this way because the rewards for acting in this fashion outweigh any small or momentary pleasure I may get from doing "wrong". In my case I have remarried to a wonderful woman. I simply do not see how believers cannot grasp something this simple: I could have an affair and have a short period of intense personal pleasure; however, I am extremely happy in my current relationship and experience has taught me that the best way to maintain that relationship is by staying monogamous. There is no moral or ethical dilemma and no fear of eternal damnation or hope for reward. There is simply me being more happy and content by choosing positive actions.

Life can be hard - if someone needs the psychological comfort of god to help them through life by all means believe. But for those who are shaky in their belief, have cognitive dissonance with their belief, then I urge them to look closer and not simply fall back on "faith" as a retort.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-19, 07:28, said:

Guys,

The mods thought that it was a good idea to lock the "The Problem with Religious Moderation" thread. They must have had a reason, and it is fair to guess that it had to do with the exchanges between 32519 on one side and several posters on the other side.

We can think what we want about their decision to lock that thread (I personally enjoyed the thread), but we do need to respect it. That means that we should stop right here and not contaminate an other thread.

Rik

Exactly. That thread was locked because it had devolved into "Everyone gang up on 32519". And if that happens here as well, we'll take the same action.

Religious debates never turn out well in the forums.

[32519]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-19, 07:28, said:

Guys,The mods thought that it was a good idea to lock the "The Problem with Religious Moderation" thread. They must have had a reason, and it is fair to guess that it had to do with the exchanges between 32519 on one side and several posters on the other side.
We can think what we want about their decision to lock that thread (I personally enjoyed the thread), but we do need to respect it. That means that we should stop right here and not contaminate an other thread.
Rik

barmar, on 2013-October-19, 22:20, said:

Exactly. That thread was locked because it had devolved into "Everyone gang up on 32519". And if that happens here as well, we'll take the same action. Religious debates never turn out well in the forums.

I won't mention religion again in this thread, but there is something hiding underneath "Everyone gang up on 32519," and I want to find out what it is.

Question 1:
Does the USA tax laws allow as a tax deduction any expenditure on scientific research?

[gwnn]

barmar, on 2013-October-19, 22:20, said:

Exactly. That thread was locked because it had devolved into "Everyone gang up on 32519". And if that happens here as well, we'll take the same action.

Religious debates never turn out well in the forums.

Is there a rule against ganging up on people who wilfully ignore all of the posts that are addressed to him? People were trying to address his 'questions' but he kept ignoring all the answers and kept asking the same ones anyway. On the few occasions that he made any replies to other posts, he usually just took 4-5 words and replied to those out of context. Is there a rule against calling him out on this? 'Ganging up on others is always bad' is not in the forum rules as far as I know. The only kind of personal attack I can think of was perpetrated by 32519 who said mikeh lives in a cesspool (ideologically). As far as I remember no-one used bad language etc. Could we stick to the rules please when locking threads? Or maybe make a new one, 'Do not discuss religion,' which is often a rule on internet forums.

[Trinidad]

mikeh, on 2013-October-19, 16:19, said:

nige1, on 2013-October-07, 19:19, said:

Most people, however, live by moral/ethical beliefs (e.g. belief in human-rights) with no scientific basis. The step from "is" to "ought" is a leap of faith. IMO, if unprovable religious or ethical beliefs stop us all becoming psychopaths, then good for them!

Yet another believer who thinks that atheists are prone to become psychopaths?

I find that disturbing too - or more accurately: offensive and insulting.

Practice shows very clearly that religion is not needed to make people live right. Once again, religious belief ("belief is necessary to do ethically/morally right") makes people close their eyes for reality.

But probably these people think it is morally/ethically right to say that non-believers have no morals or ethics and, hence, run the risk of becoming psychopaths. Let's just call it a flaw in their moral/ethical system.

Rik

[32519]

32519, on 2013-October-20, 00:04, said:

Question 1:
Does the USA tax laws allow as a tax deduction any expenditure on scientific research?

gwnn, on 2013-October-20, 00:31, said:

<snip>

I see you are from the Netherlands.
Question 2:
Does the Netherlands tax laws allow as a tax deduction any expenditure on scientific research?

[mike777]

32519, on 2013-October-20, 02:09, said:

I see you are from the Netherlands.
Question 2:
Does the Netherlands tax laws allow as a tax deduction any expenditure on scientific research?

In the usa the deduction for a company is rather broad if that is your question......any research well no...but vast majority yes.

In general any expense is a deduction from income......

pls note in America we run two books....one for taxes and one for investors...yes that is confusing. Hence tax lawyers get paid big bucks.


I note even the word tax deduction is a very very complicated phrase. I say this as many in my family are tax lawyers and many of my buddies work at the IRS!

[32519]

mike777, on 2013-October-20, 02:18, said:

In the usa the deduction for a company is rather broad if that is your question......any research well no...but vast majority yes.

In general any expense is a deduction from income......

<snip>

I note even the word tax deduction is a very very complicated phrase. I say this as many in my family are tax lawyers and many of my buddies work at the IRS!

I am interested to know what the USA allows regarding the tax deductibility of any expenditure on scientific research. You rightly say, that from a corporate point of view, any expense is deductible, which brings you to net income before the actual tax calculation and the following tax due. In my own country there are all sorts of things which are treated differently for corporate purposes and for tax purposes, which lead to the need to do a tax reconciliation. The simplest or most common of these is the method of depreciation (and timespan over) which different asset classes are written off for corporate purposes versus the wear and tear (and timespan over) which is allowed by our tax authorities. Certain things are not allowed as deductions in any way for tax purposes, which is the reason for my question, “Are scientific research expenses deductible for tax purposes?” I am not interested in what corporate policy is regarding these expenses.

mike777, on 2013-October-20, 02:18, said:

In the usa the deduction for a company is rather broad if that is your question......any research well no...but vast majority yes.

So can you kindly be a bit more specific here, "On what basis or what criteria would lead to certain scientific research expenses to be excluded when doing the tax calculation in the USA?”

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-20, 00:50, said:

I find that disturbing too - or more accurately: offensive and insulting.

No offence intended. Its hard to understand how Trinidad could find my post offensive but I'm sorry that he feels insulted. Here is another reply to Trinidad with a fuller explanation, in case it was overlooked. I've nothing new to add, at the moment.

Trinidad, on 2013-October-20, 00:50, said:

But probably these people think it is morally/ethically right to say that non-believers have no morals or ethics and, hence, run the risk of becoming psychopaths. Let's just call it a flaw in their moral/ethical system.

A straw-man I don't believe that and I didn't imply it.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2013-October-20, 07:28, said:

A straw-man I don't believe that and I didn't imply it.

Glad to hear that you don't believe that religious morality/ethics stops people from becoming psychopaths.

Rik

[32519]

The word is out! There is no stopping it now! Here is another fake excuse.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-20, 10:39, said:

Glad to hear that you don't believe that religious morality/ethics stops people from becoming psychopaths.

Eh? IMO, ethical beliefs can help people to behave morally. Sometimes when Trinidad tries to paraphrase my views, I don't recognize them

[gwnn]

zip

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2013-October-19, 22:20, said:

Exactly. That thread was locked because it had devolved into "Everyone gang up on 32519". And if that happens here as well, we'll take the same action.

Religious debates never turn out well in the forums.

Regrettably, I pretty much agree with this. I sometimes find discussions about religion to be interesting, and in fact I found many of the views expressed recently of interest, but it got intense and was going nowhere useful.


A friend was over recently. He is in roughly my age group, I think he will soon be 70. He gave up religion in his early twenties. Inspired a bit by the discussion on bbf, I asked him how much of a role he felt logic played in his decision. I got the impression he had never considered that question before but he decided, after some thought, that frequent discussion on a logical basis with friends was the dominant reason. That was not the case with me, at least not in the beginning. I have always thought my change of views was, to a large extent, a matter of emotional survival. Later on, as I considered other religious options, logic and science played more of a role. But first and foremost, I had to deal with people telling my I had to do what I was told or I would go to hell. Logic only gets us so far.

To be honest, I have sometimes felt that my life has been pretty easy. Maybe a different life would have led me to different conclusions. Or maybe not. There have been a few times I thought I might not be living much longer and I felt no urge to change my mind, and even more I have felt no such need when those important to me have had a crisis. My conclusion is that I will be going to my grave without any change of heart about religion. But still, life for most of us in the modern Western world is far easier than was life for others.

My most prominent disagreement with Christianity comes as a surprise to some. The bumper sticker says "Christians aren't perfect, they are just forgiven". Sorry, but it's the wrong person doing the forgiving. If I wrong someone, I should be going to the person I have wronged and acknowledging my actions. Then we will see where that takes us. To put it another way, if someone has to die for my sins, why shouldn't it be me? I haven't killed anyone, I have not even knocked over a convenience store, but I have done some things I am not so proud of. My failings are my own, I should try to make amends, I should try to do better. Having some guy die on the cross for me two thousand years ago to absolve me of my sins? I didn't ask him to.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2013-October-20, 11:58, said:

Eh? IMO, ethical beliefs can help people to behave morally. Sometimes when Trinidad tries to paraphrase my views, I don't recognize them

Of course, ethics can help people to behave morally.

The question is whether those ethics need to be based on a religious belief system.

First, I thought that you clearly stated that ethics needed to be based on religion to help people to behave morally.
Then I thought you clearly stated that the ethics didn't need to be based on religious beliefs.
Now, I am not sure, since you are talking about ethical beliefs.

Why do you write about ethical beliefs? Do you think that ethics have to be based on beliefs?!?

Rik

[barmar]

gwnn, on 2013-October-20, 00:31, said:

Is there a rule against ganging up on people who wilfully ignore all of the posts that are addressed to him? People were trying to address his 'questions' but he kept ignoring all the answers and kept asking the same ones anyway. On the few occasions that he made any replies to other posts, he usually just took 4-5 words and replied to those out of context. Is there a rule against calling him out on this? 'Ganging up on others is always bad' is not in the forum rules as far as I know. The only kind of personal attack I can think of was perpetrated by 32519 who said mikeh lives in a cesspool (ideologically). As far as I remember no-one used bad language etc. Could we stick to the rules please when locking threads? Or maybe make a new one, 'Do not discuss religion,' which is often a rule on internet forums.

What I saw was that the thread had become repetitive and non-productive. Neither side of the argument was interested in serious debate. I was also tempted to "answer" him, but it was clear that nothing would actually satisfy him. When threads get to this point, they stop serving any useful purpose.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2013-October-20, 13:03, said:

....My failings are my own, I should try to make amends, I should try to do better. Having some guy die on the cross for me two thousand years ago to absolve me of my sins? I didn't ask him to.

This really troubling aspect of Christianity to me is that the need to be forgiven stems from the fact that we are all born as human beings, that, according to the dogma, being born a human requires a blood sacrifice by an all-powerful being in order to make us "worthy". Excuse me, but I am just fine without your forgiveness for being born, thank you.