Google excludes churches from its non-for-profits discounts

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:30

matt0r said:
That said most of the creationist claims have been actively disproved by the scientific method.

We weren't talking about creationism and many people believe different things.

aaron · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:32

I really dont think I am clutching at straws, I was just demonstrating that intelligent design in this case is unlikely as it is us, humans, mankind, that is removing that particular gene from the gene pool not the guiding hand of some higher power.

However I admit Acid that that only works in this particular situation because we can see it happening, so to be honest I do kinda side with you in the respect that ID could have a big hand in many other species development. Hey maybe its a mixture of both and one dosnt have to be secular to the other?

The only other thing I was going to say is that for example with that one specific case it lends backing towards other cases of evolution vs ID however it's something thats kinda incomprehensable with our current understanding of the universe as it is now. Therefore you are right in saying that they could be regarded as one and the same in terms of evidence due to our lack of understanding of either aspect. However its when you differentiate or at least try to between the two that problems arise.

hurfdurf · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:35

Castiel said:
He has consitantly demonstrated that he beleives that Science can and will explain everything, including how and why the Universe came into existence and the myriad other unanswered/unanswerable questions about our existence, he has no evidence that science will be able to do this, or that even if it can that it will vindicate his atheism over that of someones theism. In this regard he exhibits unevidenced 'faith'.

Richard Dawkins does back science, but I am not aware that he has ever attempted to say that science can or ever definitely will at some point, explain the origins of the world.

Carl Sagan in turn explains that whilst science cannot answer it at the moment, any may never do so, there is no need to suddenly fill in the gap with a made up god, why go that one stage further?

Castiel said:
I apologise for the lack of specific examples and the brevity of my reply, however I am posting from a phone which is rather limiting.

Understandable

hurfdurf · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:38

AcidHell2 said:
You can not wipe ideas of the face of the earth, you can't not get rid of ideas or force people not to believe them.
All you can do is be tolerant and educate and use sensible laws to help insure bad things don't happen, from any walk of life.

And you can limit their funding, so they can no longer preach and trick other people into giving them money. As we move forward and the advanced nations of this planet become less religious and deal with facts and science over superstition we will see less restrictions on advancements which have held us back as a society.

Gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, etc etc.

hurfdurf · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:39

also lol at the dude claiming evolution is just a theory and requires faith and there is the same amount of evidence for it as there is a god.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:40

hurfdurf said:
And you can limit their funding, so they can no longer preach and trick other people into giving them money. As we move forward and the advanced nations of this planet become less religious and deal with facts and science over superstition we will see less restrictions on advancements which have held us back as a society.

Gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, etc etc.

Many religious people do not see any of those as bad. Wy would you limit their funding, the funding mainly comes from people. Not governments. Although I would agree with slashing government spending on it, but I also hold that view for a lot of other groups as well.

Castiel · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:40

AcidHell2 said:
We weren't talking about creationism and many people believe different things.

To be fair, Intelligent Design is not Science. Science makes no judgements on things it cannot measure, observe or quantify. Evolution doesn't tackle how life (or the Universe) began for that very reason, we simply do not know and as yet have not got any basis to make a scientific judgement on it.

To that end, Creationism and equally Intelligent Design are topics to be taught and discussed in Religious/Philosophical classroom, not the Science Lab.

As you know, I am not religious, my interest in religion is purely academic but I am firmly of the opinion that Intelligent Design is not in any way, shape or form to be compared directly with Evolution. It is not science, it is a philosophical position based on Evolutionary ideas. Evolution is the science, intelligent design is simply a way repackaging it to suit an evangelical belief system and it should be treated as such.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:42

hurfdurf said:
also lol at the dude claiming evolution is just a theory and requires faith and there is the same amount of evidence for it as there is a god.

Lol at you.

Evolution is a scientific theory.
The evidence for both is identical p, and as such they have equal evidence. The difference is one does not fit within the scientific method.

So lol at you jumping on the bandwagon like so many people, without understanding what has been said. Or what it means.

aaron · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:42

Castiel said:
Intelligent Design is not in any way, shape or form to be compared directly with Evolution. It is not science, it is a philosophical position based on Evolutionary ideas. Evolution is the science, intelligent design is simply a way repackaging it to suit an evangelical belief system and it should be treated as such.

Nicely put Castiel

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:43

Castiel said:
To be fair, Intelligent Design is not Science. Science makes no judgements on things it cannot measure, observe or quantify. Evolution doesn't tackle how life (or the Universe) began for that very reason, we simply do not know and as yet have not got any basis to make a scientific judgement on it.

To that end, Creationism and equally Intelligent Design are topics to be taught and discussed in Religious/Philosophical classroom, not the Science Lab.
.

Which is exactly what I have said.

Destination · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:46

Hatter The Mad said:
You don't have to.

You say such silly things on occasion.

hurfdurf · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:47

AcidHell2 said:
Lol at you.

Evolution is a scientific theory.
The evidence for both is identical p, and as such they have equal evidence. The difference is one does not fit within the scientific method.

So lol at you jumping on the bandwagon like so many people, without understanding what has been said. Or what it means.

Nope

P positive there is some physical evidence of evolution, most notably some fossils and some fish that recently evolved to cope with the pollution. (resulting in nay sayers introducing the term macro and micro evolution, saying they are two different things, and that god is still the main man)

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:49

hurfdurf said:
Nope

P positive there is some physical evidence of evolution, most notably some fossils and some fish that recently evolved to cope with the pollution. (resulting in nay sayers introducing the term macro and micro evolution, saying they are two different things, and that god is still the main man)

That doesn't make sense, even with evidence, its still a theory.
It has nothing to do with micro/macro.

aaron · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:56

just to be devils advocate again here acid sorry, but then if you go along that line of thinking you could say that planes fly by the power of god, not air molecules going over the wings as although there is evidence pointing towards lift being generated by air going over the wings and creating a vaccum it still at the end of the day is only a theory. We cant actually see said molecules and yet it is accepted as the truth.

hurfdurf · 15 Sep 2011 at 21:59

AcidHell2 said:
That doesn't make sense, even with evidence, its still a theory.
It has nothing to do with micro/macro.

Religion - Evidence = 0, all based on faith

Evolution - Evidence, plenty, with a built up theory around the evidence.

For a long time some religious people tried to deny there was any evidence for evolution, including claiming that fossils and dinosaurs were placed by the devil trick humans and crying out constantly for the missing link

(comedy explanation, sorry for poor quality)

http://www.untamedmind.com/index.php?option=com_hwdvideoshare&Itemid=69&task=viewvideo&video_id=701

Then when these fish evolved and it was demonstrate-able, they came up with this amazing concept of micro and macro evolution to keep god intact and in need.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 22:00

aaron said:
just to be devils advocate again here acid sorry, but then if you go along that line of thinking you could say that planes fly by the power of god, not air molecules going over the wings as although there is evidence pointing towards lift being generated by air going over the wings and creating a vaccum it still at the end of the day is only a theory. We cant actually see said molecules and yet it is accepted as the truth.

Huh?
It's not the same.
The two theories don't have the same evidence.
There's plenty of evidence for air molecules we can do loads of tests, same for aerodynamics and air pressure.

iD is quite unique in that aspect, but then it's easy to make up a theory to fit the evidence.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 22:01

hurfdurf said:
Religion - Evidence = 0, all based on faith

Evolution - Evidence, plenty, with a built up theory around the evidence.

For a long time some religious people tried to deny there was any evidence for evolution, including claiming that fossils and dinosaurs were placed by the devil trick humans and crying out constantly for the missing link

(comedy explanation, sorry for poor quality)

http://www.untamedmind.com/index.php?option=com_hwdvideoshare&Itemid=69&task=viewvideo&video_id=701

Then when these fish evolved and it was demonstrate-able, they came up with this amazing concept of micro and macro evolution to keep god intact and in need.

and your point, I haven't said anything going against that.
Need to stop assuming I'm in support of religion and actually read what I have said.

hurfdurf · 15 Sep 2011 at 22:05

AcidHell2 said:
and your point, I haven't said anything going against that.
Need to stop assuming I'm in support of religion and actually read what I have said.

You said they had equal evidence...

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 22:07

hurfdurf said:
You said they had equal evidence...

They do.
There's only one difference between ID and Evolution.
That is evolution is done by random mutations and ID mutations are from a higher being. That's it. As they are identical in all but one way the evidence is the same for both, one theory falls out side of the scientific method and as such is ignored and isn't science.

Why is it so hard to understand, I'm genuinely confused why so many people have a problem with this.

Castiel · 15 Sep 2011 at 22:19

To bring this back to some semblance of the topic bought up in the OP, What do people think about this part of the article:

One might respond to Google’s restrictions by citing the significant philosophical, historical and psychological work on why and how religions are different from other entities -- and why they need to be. But we need not reach for the esoteric. There are strong secular reasons for Google to change its policy.
For starters, the new rules ignore the enormous charitable services provided by religious organizations. Without discounts, many religious groups would have difficulty undertaking serious charitable work at all.
My church, for example, runs a much-needed lunch program for poor women and their children. No similar service exists in the neighborhood. The program relies almost entirely on donated or discounted food from restaurants and stores. Were these for- profit companies suddenly to decide that churches were not eligible for their largesse, the lunch program would almost certainly be shut down.
The program is not unusual. In many parts of the U.S. -- and in many suffering corners of the world -- the charitable work done by religious groups is pretty much all the charitable work that is done. During the worst of the attacks on Darfur, for example, it has generally been religious groups rather than the secular nongovernmental organizations who have stuck it out.
Religious charities, moreover, tend to be more efficient than secular nonprofits, with lower costs for administration and a larger portion of the money they raise going directly to services.
Other large corporations that restrict giving to religious groups recognize the difference among religious activities. For example, the Walmart Foundation’s national giving program excludes “Faith-based organizations when the proposed grant will only benefit the organization or its members” -- leaving room, say, for a soup kitchen.

Would secular organisations fill the void and if you believe they would, then why are they not doing so now?

Also, it refers to this:

According to research compiled by the social scientist Arthur C. Brooks, people who regularly attend religious services are more than twice as likely to volunteer for entirely secular causes than those who do not attend church. They are also significantly more likely than the nonreligious to give money to secular organizations, and the amounts they give are larger.

Maybe someone can track down the actual research, as I am still posting from a phone, assuming the research is valid, how would removing religious charitable status from churches forcing them to either close or severely restrict their programs worldwide impact the poorest and most disadvantaged in society? Would secular organisations pick up where the religious ones left off?