Or you could hush up, right?

If the game is now that I have to address every single point you make, in an itemized list, I’d prefer to not play.

–

“I noticed that you have no response to my point about religious counsellors having incentive to lie.”

That might be because you were not addressing a point I actually made, Aor. Since I said nothing at all about counseling, I figured this was an attempt on your part to evade or change the subject. If you demand an opinion on it, I think religious counseling is significantly cheaper than its (admittedly licensed) outside counterparts. If commonsense counseling at bargain basement prices is what you’re after, I’m not sure you can do much better. I’d obviously recommend that those with more severe issues be encouraged to see a practicing psychiatrist, but there are certain kinds of counseling, marital in particular, which are perfectly acceptable to perform ‘in house.’

This is in no way an endorsement of your notion that ‘practical’ means ‘economical.’ I regard this, as I have mentioned, to be a silly way to judge practicality.

the conversation to date:

aor: do you get solid practical benefits by giving money to a church?

jonjon: you get several solid practical benefits: like a nice building, or a family-friendly calendar of events. to say that those aren’t benefits is silly.

aor: don’t evade my question. practicality means cost-effectiveness. if you think services like buildings and religious counseling are cost effective, then say so.

jonjon: i feel like you’re being needlessly hostile, and i think your definition of practicality is wrong.

aor: there you go evading again

I think I’ve summed that up pretty accurately. its more for my sake than yours. I hate scrolling up that far.

PS. I honestly wish I could answer every question directed at me, but tbh, I don’t have the time or inclination to do so. I try to pick questions which offer the best chance for a discussion that doesn’t get too sidetracked by side issues. I suppose that is ‘evading’ in a sense, but I simply don’t have the desire to get embroiled in a massive debate on every single comment I post.

To me, a religious person, those services are of very concrete, practical benefit.

Whereas to you, all of that is unpractical because it’s meaningless.

You’re pigeon-holing me again, prejudging me based on past experiences and stereotypes.

Turnabout is fair play. You cannot have it both ways. Either you get to speak that way about me and I get to speak that way about you, or you are a hypocrite for doing it and insisting that I cannot. What I see from you looks like another attempt to get out of the conversation when you find yourself in a tough spot. More self serving hypocrisy, like you have repeatedly gone for in our other conversations. If you are unable to deal with the points I raise then you are better off not speaking to me, absolutely. It is dishonest to use those kinds of excuses, but your goal of not having to face the inherent problems in your belief system is completely understandable.

I base my comments to you directly on what you say here. I would appreciate that same type of generosity.

More of your self serving attemps to make rules. You don’t get that right, nobody does. And you sure don’t live by that rule, do you? Does that mean I get to call you both a liar and a hypocrite, because I have caught you lying and being hypocritical in one single sentence?

By the way, pre-judging you by past experience seems quite contradictory. It may be judging you by past experience, but it cannot be pre-judging by past experience. If you really believe that all conversations exist in a vacuum and all past experiences with a person must be ignored each and every time a new subject arises then you are living in a fantasy world. I can absolutely guarantee that you do not drop all of our past conversations when you enter a new one with me, so really, really… stop the hypocrisy. Its so damn obvious, you know?

Where have I ever explicitly suggested or even intimated that sentiment?

You’re pigeon-holing me again, prejudging me based on past experiences and stereotypes.

I’ve said this to you before: if you’re going to simply prejudge me based on your ignorant stereotypes, I’m not going to converse with you. I base my comments to you directly on what you say here. I would appreciate that same type of generosity.

I never said anything about sinister forces… no idea what you are talking about. Assuming you are being honest, you are mistaken. If you have some quote of mine to base that on, bring it. If you don’t, I’ll have to assume that was an inept straw man.. a common tactic, but not something that gets missed often. Non-believers don’t see sinister forces at work as much as believers do, so perhaps that is your overactive imagination at work. Or perhaps it is a defense mechanism.

I noticed that you have no response to my point about religious counsellors having incentive to lie. Was that on purpose, or accidental? You see, in my experience when you ask a believer tough questions they get evasive. A point like the one I made tends to get under their skin, but.. they can’t deal with it. The point is so simple and clear that all they can do is pretend it wasn’t said. Like you did. If you disagree with that point, explain how and why. If you cannot justify why you disagree, you may have to concede the point.

Until you get much more clear about what you are claiming the solid and practical benefits of religious donations are, there is nothing to discuss. I understand that you want to shift the responsibility to me, which is another typical tactic from believers.. but it won’t work. You see, I already took one… and you carefully ignored it. Exactly what I expected, by the way. When a believer avoids a point, it shows they are afraid of that point. You have shown that you are unwilling to discuss the incentive to lie within the priesthood in order to maintain a following. It is a simple point, based on behavior that people see regularly in their lives… its damn hard to refute, in other words. I think that is why you ignore it… because you have no honest response that anyone would believe.

PS. I asked questions of you on other threads, and you didn’t reply to those either. Does that mean I scored a hit and scared you off from those discussions?

I am confused about where I didn’t take a firm stand. I am sorry that I didn’t answer the question in a way you were happy with. I shall strive to do better.

I think that churches often provide solid, practical benefits to the people who donate money to them.

I think that you perhaps undervalue these services, or value them considerably less than many Christians might.

I think that because of this disparity in value, you have gotten the idea in your head that your measure of practicality is somehow more ‘real’ than the practicality assigned by those who frequently tithe.

I think that this disparity in value has also led you to think that there are other, more sinister, forces behind Christians’ commitment to supporting an organization that they feel is important to them.

I could be wrong about some of these later points, but I feel i’d like to do some pinning down of my own. I’ll let you take a stand on what you’d like.

“I like to get believers to take those firm positions before debating them, because they tend to squirm and evade and refuse to concede points.” –

oddly, I find this to be true of every single person I have ever debated anything with. People don’t like to lose. I am sorry that your debate experience lacked this important aspect until you began arguing with ‘believers’.

I just don’t find those things to be solid in any way. Their practicality may be open to debate, but their solidity.. not so much.

Quoting Roger:

I’m not concerned about an individual member or an individual church; I’m talking about churches in general. I’m thinking about solid, practical benefits received from the giving of currency.

If a wandering monk in Asia is given a few coins, spends it on food for himself and then spins a few bronze cylinders… where is the solid practical benefit? I’m sure those who believe feel they get some emotional or spiritual benefit, but is that solid? They lose money, feed someone who is essentially a parasite on their society, and get in return.. a few spins on a cylinder. What services does that monk produce?
To you, all of that is unpractical because it is meaningless.

To you, a religious person, only those services provided to you by your sect of your religion are of concrete practical benefit. All others are just money wasted. That is why the general question of religions as a whole is so important.

If you want to claim weekly worship experiences are solid practical benefits, say so. If you want to claim religious counseling is a solid practical benefit, say so. Understand? That way you take a firm position that can be discussed.

In the real world, even the impractical can have benefits. Even a charity that donates 1/10 of 1% is having a benefit.. but is it practical? Compared to other charities that give a greater portion, I would have to say that this example would be an impractical way of accomplishing things with donations. That means that the value of the work of any given charity must be compared to some absolute standard.

Is religious counseling practical? Religious counselors have an incentive to lie. If telling the truth will lead to a person leave the faith, and lying will keep them.. those priests have an incentive to lie. Is that a solid practical benefit when the practitioners have an incentive to lie to benefit their organization regardless of its effect on the person they are counseling? Understand my point? Religious counseling has huge flaws because it can take the interest of the religion as being more important than the interests of the person being counselled. In my book that greatly reduces the value of such counselling.

If the major solid practical benefits from religion are a nice building to do things in, then how do those benefits stand up to.. oh, lets say a Legion Hall? Do you wonder if maybe the cost to create and maintain a church is greater than the cost to create and maintain the hall of your local Legion or other non-profit organization? That is what practical implies to me… some sense of comparative value per dollar of donation. I’m sure that spending 100 million on a church would provide some awful nice weddings.. but is it practical compared to building 100 legion halls in 100 towns?

I think most people would agree that providing food and shelter is a practical benefit.. provided, as I mentioned above, that it is done in a cost effective manner. But these other things.. they are certainly open to debate, and in a debate it is nice to get the other side to take a firm position at least once in a while.

And which of those things are solid practical benefits?

To you, they would be of no benefit, because of your worldview and perspective on religion.

To me, a religious person, those services are of very concrete, practical benefit. Hearing a sermon that motivates me to love others more completely, having my wedding ceremony performed by an ordained minister who gave a wonderful homily, attending the ceremonies of others, attending funerals where hope for the resurrection is proclaimed — all of those things are practical benefits to a person of faith.

Whereas to you, all of that is unpractical because it’s meaningless.

You don’t mean to imply that charitable activities are without practical benefit? (I hope…)

Even if we call a church a purely service industry, it still gives people practical services: weddings in a nice building, funerals in a nice building, an active social calendar that allows for family activities, etc.

While these sorts of things aren’t available at all churches, and while they might be less valuable for some ‘consumers’ than others, I don’t really think you can say that those aren’t ’solid practical benefits,’ even if you’d like to maintain that community service activities aren’t beneficial.