Happy Atheist Forum

[youtube:2xgcm2m4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc[/youtube:2xgcm2m4]

This is such a waste of money, brain power, and artistic talent.

 

The fact that this museum exists is an absolute insult to science.

However, if they're charging an entry fee, I applaud these folks as excellent businessmen capitalizing on an easily swayed target market.

I'd give any amount of money to see those animatronic velociraptors* eat the children.

*Actual velociraptors averaged less than 3' tall, the height misconception of course coming from Jurassic Park. Further BS science, I guess.

OH TELL ME THEY ARE NOT USING TAX PAYERS' MONEY FOR THAT!  :raised:

My first reaction was to fall about laughing.  Then I started to think ... it's terrifying that this project could even get off the ground.  In Europe, at the moment, it would be unthinkable - but I'm not being smug, it could come here yet.
I am very, very sorry for the US and very afraid for Britain.

HOHO, this is but one teeny, tiny example.

We have two choices here - to laugh, or to cry. Neither makes any difference - to them. Choose for your own sake.

That resources are thus wasted - to destroy the resource of Mind - while THE PLANET IS BURNING DOWN is what disturbs me most - I don't think we're gonna make it. Doesn't mean I won't try, of course.

Humor is a terrible weapon that brings down mighty nations - but as all things funny rely on Truth, only Mighty Evil Nations are subject.

Criticise - with Humor, it sells, it spreads, it just won't die.

Lewis Black said - "These people regard the Flintstones as a documentary".

But always make the point - they aren't merely wrong, they're killing all of us. The End of the World is, after all, their stated objective.  

"It's time to take up the sword of God's Word."

Step 1: Take up Sword
Step 2: Remove brain

So where in the bible is the part when god dropped his bowling ball near the yucatan peninsula?

*human force-fields activate*

Here are some photos from the completed Creation Museum:

Creation Museum Photos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7489629@N06/sets/72157600269342444/)

Just listening to those people talk makes me physically ill... "No, I just won't believe them ," woman said about evolution.  ARHGH!!!!   :brick:

So don't believe it... waste all of your time on this earth believing a fairy tale is true.  Not a waste of my time at all.

I donno if this is funny or sad. I feel sorry for the poor children taht will be fed those lies and will grow up believing them

Wow. That left me speechless. That museum is an insult to intelligence! They really had better not be spending tax dollars on that, it's bad enough that churches are exempt.

Anyway, is there anything we can do to fix this? I dunno, maybe a museum of the REAL history of earth next door or across the street? Build a hospital next to it, and call it something like "Hospital-because millions of bacteria are evolving to resist medicine every day"?

I could not watch it.I keep seeing the commericals for it now,for some reason they are shown alot during Ellen.You would think women and minority groups would get pissy about this.Seeing how the Christian bible promotes sexism and racism.

I found an even better blog with photos and a great narrative of a visit to the museum.  He has some great photos, much better than the other link I provided above.  

Blue Grass Roots blog about the Creation Museum (http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html)

Here is something that disturbed me from one of the comments:

"First of all, consider the fact that Answers in Genesis is a 501c3; They are a religious "church" orgnazation so all contributions to them are tax deductible. Not clear what happens to their "profits" -- anyone know the tax law on that? As well, it's pretty certain they're exempt from all property tax on their 50+ acre estate! Bottom line, you, me, all of us are subsidizing this insanity with our hard earned tax dollars!!!"

Can anyone confirm this?  I don't know how to research that one.

And from another comment:  "At the end of this museum is a chapel where one is supposed to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Doesn’t anyone else find it terribly disturbing that this is part of a “museum”? Let’s call it what it really is â€" a big, life-sized tract; a propaganda piece that will do little more than preach to the choir and make Christian fundamentalists feel legitimized."

Wow.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I found an even better blog with photos and a great narrative of a visit to the museum.  He has some great photos, much better than the other link I provided above.  

Blue Grass Roots blog about the Creation Museum (http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/06/fun_at_the_crea.html)

Here is something that disturbed me from one of the comments:

"First of all, consider the fact that Answers in Genesis is a 501c3; They are a religious "church" orgnazation so all contributions to them are tax deductible. Not clear what happens to their "profits" -- anyone know the tax law on that? As well, it's pretty certain they're exempt from all property tax on their 50+ acre estate! Bottom line, you, me, all of us are subsidizing this insanity with our hard earned tax dollars!!!"

Can anyone confirm this?  I don't know how to research that one.

And from another comment:  "At the end of this museum is a chapel where one is supposed to accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Doesn’t anyone else find it terribly disturbing that this is part of a “museum”? Let’s call it what it really is â€" a big, life-sized tract; a propaganda piece that will do little more than preach to the choir and make Christian fundamentalists feel legitimized."

Wow.

Well under Bush churches have recieved even more tax breaks.I know he has even invested some money towards church driven sex ed which pretty much means no sex ed at all just dont have sex.Donations can not be taxed where I live thats why alot of places like Planned Parenthood and the animal control asks for them in return for services.

How are we subsidizing them with our tax dollars?

Here's some ways in which religion is currently subsidized by tax dollars:

Just over 20% of the market value of real estate in the US is owned by churches; the remaining 4/5ths of taxpayers make up the difference, so -

25% of all property taxes paid are paid directly to churches - you pay if you own, you pay if you rent, and you pay whenever you purchase a thing that includes the cost of property tax in production and sales overhead (literally everything you buy, product or service, originating in the US.)

And that's the tip of the iceberg, folks.

Of course, donations to the church are tax deductible - neither the donator or the donatee pay tax on money that would othewise be paid - twice.

Well - that's true of all nonprofits, you say, but - a secular nonprofit must produce the books and accounts, under law - as well as a list of contributors.

Churches are "special" - they are, ah, "separated" from the State (they play both sides of the fence), and need not produce - or even keep - books. The identities of congregation members and donators may be kept secret.

In this scenario, we have "religious communities" where the members donate all they have to the church, which responds by letting them keep actually keep and enjoy what they donate - like homes, land, and literally everything. The members pay tax on nothing - except to their church.

You could join such a scheme, but - very hard to make your own, for the separation of church and state now requires that the separated church be on the IRS Federally Approved list of denominations. THUS - while church and state are separate, the state determines what constitutes a religion.

AND OH, there's so much more...

I meant how are we subsidizing the "Answers in Genesis" organization with our tax dollars.

QuoteJust over 20% of the market value of real estate in the US is owned by churches; the remaining 4/5ths of taxpayers make up the difference, so -

What do you mean they make up the difference?

Quote25% of all property taxes paid are paid directly to churches - you pay if you own, you pay if you rent, and you pay whenever you purchase a thing that includes the cost of property tax in production and sales overhead (literally everything you buy, product or service, originating in the US.)

On what grounds? When are they paid to the church? What's it say on the checks? I don't understand.

QuoteYou could join such a scheme, but - very hard to make your own, for the separation of church and state now requires that the separated church be on the IRS Federally Approved list of denominations. THUS - while church and state are separate, the state determines what constitutes a religion.

That makes me wonder about a hypothetical.

What if a bunch of us atheists started a church. Not a new denomination, an actual church. We called it a Presbyterian church or something. But it was actually a meeting place for atheists, and a way to dodge taxes. What would be some possible results or consequences?

HEY Loffler! Congrats - you are drawing my same conclusions immediately!

First if all - if a government budget requires taxes, all benefit from the governments use of those taxes, BUT - IF some are excluded from paying the tax, while still receiving the benefits, they are being paid by taxpayers.

Those who DO pay the tax pay extra, to cover those that don't. This is EXACTLY equivalent to taxpayers paying that extra portion of the tax to the nontaxpayers directly, simple arithmetic - but face it, most people don't dig arithmetic. Those who do - Rule.

I, for instance, do not pay taxes - income OR sales. It's quite legal, too. Yet I have all I need, and all I want, in the material sense.

The same is true of donations. If I make a donation to a for-profit enterprise, I must still pay tax on the donation as income, and the recipient must ALSO pay tax on the contribution as income; so, taxes are paid twice on for-profit donations to - let's say - your children, or your elderly parents in a nursing home.

--------------------------------------------------

AH - the Church thing. I've always wanted to - now, I am in a position to do so.

For one thing, Atheists in the US greatly outnumber many tax-exempt religious sects, such as Buddhists - and even Jews, by a factor of about 7. Surely we are as entitled to the deduction as they are - and if we don't get it, we are left with a fabulous argument against giving ANYONE at tax break. Either way, we all pay less taxes, BaDaBingBang.

I was inspired recently by a big-buck evangelist church in Tulsa, OK - Guts Church. What I want is - Brains Church!

If you donate your money or property to the Church, I will give you an undated quitclaim deed (returning the money or property to you) which you may invoke at any time, without any required assent from the Church. The date you insert on the deed is the date you start paying taxes on the money or property again.

This would further include excluding everything you buy from taxes. Donate the money to the Church, the Church buys what you need tax free and gives it to you.

But actually, it's much simpler - as a Church member, you are a Church Officer, and may do this directly - as you do now - while paying an Operations fee to the Church that is a teeny, tiny fraction of what the Taxes might otherwise be, AND - you may keep all your finacial and property records a perfect, State-Approved secret. Now, NO ONE nows what you purchase or sell, not even vendors or customers.

Groovy! Lets start a new thread, eh?  

Quote from: "Promethium147"HEY Loffler! Congrats - you are drawing my same conclusions immediately!

First if all - if a government budget requires taxes, all benefit from the governments use of those taxes, BUT - IF some are excluded from paying the tax, while still receiving the benefits, they are being paid by taxpayers.

I don't buy into this paradigm. I think it's everyone's duty to figure out their own way to evade taxes. If other lobsters want to climb outta this bucket, I'm not gonna pull them back down.

QuoteThose who DO pay the tax pay extra, to cover those that don't. This is EXACTLY equivalent to taxpayers paying that extra portion of the tax to the nontaxpayers directly,

Not really. the churches are keeping their own money. You might as well say I'm stealing money from Burger King when I eat at Wendy's.

Quotesimple arithmetic - but face it, most people don't dig arithmetic. Those who do - Rule.


--------------------------------------------------

AH - the Church thing. I've always wanted to - now, I am in a position to do so.

For one thing, Atheists in the US greatly outnumber many tax-exempt religious sects, such as Buddhists - and even Jews, by a factor of about 7. Surely we are as entitled to the deduction as they are - and if we don't get it, we are left with a fabulous argument against giving ANYONE at tax break. Either way, we all pay less taxes, BaDaBingBang.

I was inspired recently by a big-buck evangelist church in Tulsa, OK - Guts Church. What I want is - Brains Church!

If you donate your money or property to the Church, I will give you an undated quitclaim deed (returning the money or property to you) which you may invoke at any time, without any required assent from the Church. The date you insert on the deed is the date you start paying taxes on the money or property again.

This would further include excluding everything you buy from taxes. Donate the money to the Church, the Church buys what you need tax free and gives it to you.

But actually, it's much simpler - as a Church member, you are a Church Officer, and may do this directly - as you do now - while paying an Operations fee to the Church that is a teeny, tiny fraction of what the Taxes might otherwise be, AND - you may keep all your finacial and property records a perfect, State-Approved secret. Now, NO ONE nows what you purchase or sell, not even vendors or customers.

Groovy! Lets start a new thread, eh?  

My mind is reeling.

Dude, you aren't getting it. Try this -

Let's say we both go to Burger King, and we each agree to pay for our own meal.

But when we get there and order, turns out - you forgot your wallet, so - I pay for your meal.

Thus,

1) Burger King (Government) provides two meals, and is paid for two meals.
2) I (taxpayer) receive one meal, but pay for two meals.
3) You (nontaxpayer) receive one meal, but pay for nothing.

Now, under this arrangement, in accordance with our tax laws,

4) Burger King will not give me a meal unless I pay for two, and give you one;
5) Further, Burger King is the only source of food available - due to your (nontaxpayer) votes.

You are being paid by me, no way around it; Burger King only cares because - You promote Burger King, scratchee backee, with votes - which are free.

I (taxpayer) don't like that arrangement.

I don't pay taxes, but - neither did Governor Nelson Rockefeller, ever in his life, not a dime.

We join with our Society not because our labors there produce something less or equal to what we can provide ourselves alone, but because putting our labors into Society provides each of us with MUCH MORE for the same labor. Human Society is far greater than the mere sum of its parts (individuals).

Each person figures how to minimize there taxes. They minimize them even more when they pay an accountant to do it (a Society). When many get together to avoid taxes, all involved avoid more taxes. A very effective example is - Churches.

Am I getting through?    

You're getting through fine. Bill drives on the road Bob's taxes paid for. I just disagree that this is akin to Bob handing Bill some money. If it is, it is just as appropriate to say that if Bob wants the road built while Bill doesn't, but both are forced to pay for it, Bob stole money from Bill.

Both perspectives ignore the middle man who is really behind the movement of the money: the government. The addition of coercion renders lesser assessments moot. It's really more like a hostage situation. If a mugger demands $50 from you and me, and I cut and run, did I just steal from you? No, the mugger did.

Quote from: "Loffler"You're getting through fine. Bill drives on the road Bob's taxes paid for. I just disagree that this is akin to Bob handing Bill some money. If it is, it is just as appropriate to say that if Bob wants the road built while Bill doesn't, but both are forced to pay for it, Bob stole money from Bill.

Both perspectives ignore the middle man who is really behind the movement of the money: the government. The addition of coercion renders lesser assessments moot. It's really more like a hostage situation. If a mugger demands $50 from you and me, and I cut and run, did I just steal from you? No, the mugger did.

But what if Bill, who doesn't pay taxes, drives a fleet of Semi Trucks pulling double trailers?  Bob only has his one little Mazda LX Death Trap.  Bill is using the road more often and putting more strain on the infrastructure, reducing its serviceable life (requiring more tax money that Bill doesn't pay to maintain/upgrade the roadway.)  I'd imagine that a Church in most places has a much larger footprint than most individuals (gas, water, electricity, sewer, fire/police protection, lot size, etc) which means (if my assumption is true) that the Church not only gets free stuff but actually gets more use of the free stuff than I would get from the stuff that I have partly paid for.

Though in defence of *some* churches that have an unofficial barter thing going.  Don't pay taxes but have food drives, clothing drives, provide volunteers and temporary shelter when some emergency happens.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"

Quote from: "Loffler"You're getting through fine. Bill drives on the road Bob's taxes paid for. I just disagree that this is akin to Bob handing Bill some money. If it is, it is just as appropriate to say that if Bob wants the road built while Bill doesn't, but both are forced to pay for it, Bob stole money from Bill.

Both perspectives ignore the middle man who is really behind the movement of the money: the government. The addition of coercion renders lesser assessments moot. It's really more like a hostage situation. If a mugger demands $50 from you and me, and I cut and run, did I just steal from you? No, the mugger did.

But what if Bill, who doesn't pay taxes, drives a fleet of Semi Trucks pulling double trailers?  Bob only has his one little Mazda LX Death Trap.  Bill is using the road more often and putting more strain on the infrastructure, reducing its serviceable life (requiring more tax money that Bill doesn't pay to maintain/upgrade the roadway.)  I'd imagine that a Church in most places has a much larger footprint than most individuals (gas, water, electricity, sewer, fire/police protection, lot size, etc) which means (if my assumption is true) that the Church not only gets free stuff but actually gets more use of the free stuff than I would get from the stuff that I have partly paid for.

Churches aren't one person, they're many people. They're not that inefficient a use of space.

OTAY, try again.

Loffler said:

You're getting through fine. Bill drives on the road Bob's taxes paid for. I just disagree that this is akin to Bob handing Bill some money. If it is, it is just as appropriate to say that if Bob wants the road built while Bill doesn't, but both are forced to pay for it, Bob stole money from Bill.

NO, I'm NOT getting through, methinks.

HIDDEN within the above example, the road is of general utility to both if Bill and Bob, where Bill drives to work on the road, creates wealth there, and some all Societies, human and animal.

Would you go to the Police? If they laughed at your complaint or ignored it (ran away), would you not be angry with them? Would you not feel defenseless against the world - unprotected by Authority AND your fellow men - and hide, proscribing your own freedom to walk the street?

Gimme a break - or better yet, gimme your wallet.    

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"

Quote from: "Loffler"You're getting through fine. Bill drives on the road Bob's taxes paid for. I just disagree that this is akin to Bob handing Bill some money. If it is, it is just as appropriate to say that if Bob wants the road built while Bill doesn't, but both are forced to pay for it, Bob stole money from Bill.

Both perspectives ignore the middle man who is really behind the movement of the money: the government. The addition of coercion renders lesser assessments moot. It's really more like a hostage situation. If a mugger demands $50 from you and me, and I cut and run, did I just steal from you? No, the mugger did.

But what if Bill, who doesn't pay taxes, drives a fleet of Semi Trucks pulling double trailers?  Bob only has his one little Mazda LX Death Trap.  

OK, so...
If Bill leaves Harrisburg, PA at 7 AM on I-76, traveling West towards Pittsburgh, PA at a speed of 70 mph. and Bob takes his Mazda from Pittsburgh, leaving at 7:30 AM, traveling East on I-76 at a speed of 65 mph, and neither ones stops for a pee break, who will reach Bedford first to find Sondra, the truck stop hooker and spend some "quality time"?

 

POOP, the last post got the middle of it dumped somehow - try, try again.

OTAY, try again.

Loffler said:

You're getting through fine. Bill drives on the road Bob's taxes paid for. I just disagree that this is akin to Bob handing Bill some money. If it is, it is just as appropriate to say that if Bob wants the road built while Bill doesn't, but both are forced to pay for it, Bob stole money from Bill.

NO, I'm NOT getting through, methinks.

HIDDEN within the above example, the road is of general utility to both if Bill and Bob, where Bill drives to work on the road, creates wealth there, and some trickles down to Bob, Bob should pay - something. It is difficult to determine what - after all, if the road runs by both Bill and Bob' home, Bob may not drive, but - he gets police, ambulance, fire, mail, and someplace to walk. Since these are difficult to anticipate - everyone pays for this road equally.

BUT if Bill and Bob live in communities that are completely isolated from one another, economically and informationally, then - Bob paying for Bill's road is THEFT, nothing less, and would generally need to be done at the point of a gun - and often is.

Both perspectives ignore the middle man who is really behind the movement of the money: the government. The addition of coercion renders lesser assessments moot. It's really more like a hostage situation. If a mugger demands $50 from you and me, and I cut and run, did I just steal from you? No, the mugger did.

Now you express a sentiment which I abhor.

You would steal much more than $50 from me - you would steal my belief in the justice and altruism of my fellow man.

Tell me True - stand and be accounted - if I were to run and leave you to be robbed where we clearly outnumber the Oppressor and may overcome him easily, would you not be severely disappointed in me? Would you ever speak to me again? Would you tell other friends of it, that they might avoid me also - for my spinelessness?

Would you go to the Police? And what if they ignored the complaint, or laughed at it? Would you not feel defenseless - without support of your fellow man or Authority - isolated and alone? Would you not avoid the street from fear - and thus proscribe your own freedom to move about in public?

Altruism is central to all Societies, man and animal. It is a social duty, and I am nothing if not a man of duty.

Please - tell me you are not entirely lacking in concern for your fellows, a completely self centered individual - a sociopath - and withdraw the above.

Gimme a break - or better yet, gimme your wallet.    

Quote from: "Promethium147"OTAY, try again.

Loffler said:

You're getting through fine. Bill drives on the road Bob's taxes paid for. I just disagree that this is akin to Bob handing Bill some money. If it is, it is just as appropriate to say that if Bob wants the road built while Bill doesn't, but both are forced to pay for it, Bob stole money from Bill.

NO, I'm NOT getting through, methinks.

HIDDEN within the above example, the road is of general utility to both if Bill and Bob, where Bill drives to work on the road, creates wealth there, and some all Societies, human and animal.

Would you go to the Police? If they laughed at your complaint or ignored it (ran away), would you not be angry with them? Would you not feel defenseless against the world - unprotected by Authority AND your fellow men - and hide, proscribing your own freedom to walk the street?

Gimme a break - or better yet, gimme your wallet.    

Like I said, I understand. Just because I disagree with the normative conclusion doesn't mean I don't agree with the description of the situation. I don't think of taxes the way you do. Just because some government shlub tells me I owe taxes doesn't mean I accept their conditions. I owe money to people I choose to do business with, not people I was forced to do business with. The mugger example wasn't random. I pay taxes for the same reason I'd pay a mugger: my life has been threatened.

....and this has to do with the creation museum...how?  

Attempting to put the thread back on the rails it was on....

I see where we differ.

I have had this problem all my life - and have harnessed it.

When confronted with a threat - a very real threat - I smile, giggle, and sometimes guffaw. I realize this is a different outlook.

So, I'm sittin' in the coffee shop, after a complete massage, with the lovely masseuse. A large man I don't know walks by, stares angrily, and I smile - I never suspected he was her boyfriend (not ManFriend, apparently), and she laughed at him - which, of course, enraged him.

He then proffered his blade, and announced loudly and angrily for all to hear - "I'll cut your FUCKING HEART OUT!"

Being relaxed by an excelled massage, I smiled again, looked him in the eye, pushed out the chair for him and said, "NAWW. Sit - have some coffee."

He froze, made a high-pitched squeal, spun on his heel and dashed away.

It works, I say - but there's really no way to fake it.    

I do not fear death, or the process of death - I merely fear leaving things undone. I like it.  

AH, the Thread we were on was -

Creationist Museum is religious and receives tax break - this is Government Subsidy.

Loffler sez - tax break for Creationist Museum doesn't come from my pocket. This justifies Not Caring.

P147 sez - yes it does come from your pocket, when you must pay additional tax to cover fixed Govt. budget, and others who receive Govt. benefits from budget without paying taxes are getting what you payed in without paying out - it sums to the same thing as paying them directly, exactly. You could too - let's start a Atheist Church THREAD.

Loffler sez - Church sounds like good idea. I want to save money.

P147 sez - Yes, but I want every single citizen to pay their FAIR share of taxes. While we might not succeed (and gain the most individual dollar profit), we MAY make public spectacle, and force exempt "citizen" to start paying fair share - and we STILL make a profit, not as much for us personally, but some for everyone.

Loffler sez - Threats frighten me, and I comply.

P147 sez - I see. I realize now how different I am. Threats amuse me - but it works well. People who threaten me are sometimes terrified - by my Indifference.

And we all of us digress.

The closing point is - I assert the position that the Creationist Museum is not being paid directly by taxpayers just because it pays no taxes is simply and demonstrably false. It ends in their pocket, and the mechanism is irrelevant - EXCEPT that the extra steps of the mechanism are designed to mask the fact this otherwise direct payment is happening - from the average citizen. They wouldn't put up with being forced to write a check directly to the Church, so - confuse the process, and take a big shaving (finder's fee?) for the Government. 2 win (allies), one loses - viola!

I think the disagreement hinges on different outlooks - I live free or die, and the other party just wants to live. I just don't call it livin', I guess.

The Whole Thread is - Taxation without representation, as in the cases of Bill, Bob, Church and Us. It is intolerable, I say. If most agreed, it would not happen; if threat generates compliance, threat works. If threat generates revolt, we win.

And it may be done by passive resistance - but it all requires education.

"Those who would trade their freedom for safety - deserve neither freedom nor safety." - B. Franklin.    

Quote from: "tornado"The fact that this museum exists is an absolute insult to science.

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I don't like science diluted. On the other hand, it is in Bible country, and I like the idea of Christians steeping in their own stupidity, so that their ignorance forms a self-destructive causal loop like the uroboros eating its own tail.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "tornado"The fact that this museum exists is an absolute insult to science.

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I don't like science diluted. On the other hand, it is in Bible country, and I like the idea of Christians steeping in their own stupidity, so that their ignorance forms a self-destructive causal loop like the uroboros eating its own tail.

I agree with tornado... this museum is an affront to science, freethought, reason, logic and all that accompany these concepts.  It justifies their fairytale by calling it a museum which most people believe holds factual information.  By presenting all of their fairytales (did you look at the photos?) in such a way, it validates all of their mythology as fact.

And I, for one, detest that.  

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "tornado"The fact that this museum exists is an absolute insult to science.

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I don't like science diluted. On the other hand, it is in Bible country, and I like the idea of Christians steeping in their own stupidity, so that their ignorance forms a self-destructive causal loop like the uroboros eating its own tail.

But there is a huge problem with this.They are teaching their children this crap and it shows kids that science is totally wrong.So what if one of those children has the ability to help find a cure for AIDS using science,but is told this crap and does something else with his/her life.And it's pushing along the dumbing down of America.Hey kids instead of doing something useful when you grow up why don't you become a preaching idoit...but of course that preaching idoit could end up on TV making millions of dollars off the other idoits.And also seeing how some of this crap is being pushed into schools it spreads like an evil virus.Not only to those with have children who believe this but to those who have children and don't.Plus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare...

Quote from: "afreethinker30"

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "tornado"The fact that this museum exists is an absolute insult to science.

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I don't like science diluted. On the other hand, it is in Bible country, and I like the idea of Christians steeping in their own stupidity, so that their ignorance forms a self-destructive causal loop like the uroboros eating its own tail.

But there is a huge problem with this.They are teaching their children this crap and it shows kids that science is totally wrong.So what if one of those children has the ability to help find a cure for AIDS using science,but is told this crap and does something else with his/her life.And it's pushing along the dumbing down of America.Hey kids instead of doing something useful when you grow up why don't you become a preaching idoit...but of course that preaching idoit could end up on TV making millions of dollars off the other idoits.And also seeing how some of this crap is being pushed into schools it spreads like an evil virus.Not only to those with have children who believe this but to those who have children and don't.Plus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare...

Was it Hegel who saw history as a constant back and forth clash of opposites?

Anyway, I'm kind of a student of Jefferson regarding freedom of speech, and not just in the sense that it's good for people to have a right to say what they think, but also that everyone should say what they think.  I think if everyone is allowed to say whatever stupid shit pops out of their mouths, bad ideas will more quickly die natural deaths. When the truth and falsehood crash into each other, the truth is more likely to survive. It's an ideal of the Enlightenment. I think this is going on in fast forward on the internet, which is incidentally why I also think the Internet is the #1 reason why secularism and atheism are on such a steep rise in the world.

For this reason I welcome retarded Creationist Museums. Before that thing was built, these people were believing this quietly and in secret, in their backwoods Hobbit-holes. Now the laundry is on the clothesline, and the whole world can see it.

I've heard that argument before but I wonder if it the argument isn't based too much on the notion that everybody is equal.

ie.

If you were black in the USA in 1800 and you spoke your mind you'd could be beaten to death and dumped in a ditch.  You're "master" would go out and buy another one of "you" as you weren't considered anything worthy of equal respect to the (probably) white "master."

Its all fine and dandy when the people spouting bs have no power but what happens when they do have power?  How can anybody in a minority position actually defend themselves when they don't have the power to do so after having spoken their mind?  

What would happen if the Grand Dragon of the KKK decided one day during a huge clan rally to say something like, "You know folks, maybe there is no biblical defense for our intolerance against everybody not white, maybe those Mexicans are really nice hard working people.  Heck, maybe we should all just get along."
Would not this person have to fear for their well being after making that statement?  Would the fear be enough to keep somebody from speaking what they truly believe?

I don't see your point. Your examples all represent historical lapses in freedom of speech. If your safety is in danger when you speak your mind, you don't have free speech. The observation that that arrangement sucks is pretty much the foundation of the argument itself.

I have to agree with a lot of this, but push a further conclusion.

Jefferson felt that free speech had higher purpose. The right to free speech is irrelevant if one does not exercise it - and it goes away, dies a natural death. If you would be free, you must speak.

But slavery is impossible without the collusion of slaves; slaves collude with masters by submitting. If no one ever submits, there can be no slaves.

Of course, this may be a sacrifice - the individual slave may die in opposition. Note that these are immediately isolated, there is great danger to massa if the other slaves pick up on the idea; ideas spread too quickly to stop.

However, the idea may be spread before we are slaves, and this makes slavery much harder to initiate.

___________________________________________

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance (watching) - AND action to reverse shit that pops up, a la pop a mole. Just watching things go to shit doesn't help, all it does is break your widdle heart; we have to ACT where we see things tending towards shit. The longer we wait, the stronger shit grows, and the harder it is to reverse.

At this stage, nonviolent action will still work - aggressive passive resistance. I've tried that, and it works - but only on an essentially Moral Massa, or me  and massa in an essentially moral crowd that will ACT when they see clearly what massa's up to.

___________________________________________

Creationist Museums are bad, unless they are viewed as opportunities instead of disasters. They are the tip of an iceberg; and if you remove the tip of an iceberg, an apparently larger iceberg rises - it SEEMS to get bigger, but that's an illusion - you just see more of something that is actually smaller. If you keep working though, eventually - no iceberg.

Elephants must be eaten one bite at a time.

Get to bitin'!    

QuotePlus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare.

Again, I have to ask: where does it say this was paid for with tax dollars? Because they don't pay taxes? There is no end to this line of reasoning. Every penny you make is potentially tax revenue. Why don't I just follow you around the grocery store saying "There are better things for America to spend tax money on than Cheetos." That makes about as much sense as holding a church accountable for taxes they don't pay.

Quote from: "Loffler"

QuotePlus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare.

Again, I have to ask: where does it say this was paid for with tax dollars? Because they don't pay taxes? There is no end to this line of reasoning. Every penny you make is potentially tax revenue. Why don't I just follow you around the grocery store saying "There are better things for America to spend tax money on than Cheetos." That makes about as much sense as holding a church accountable for taxes they don't pay.

The reason why the "they're stealing my tax dollars" works for me is that I don't see a functional difference between taxes and the cost of a good or service.  Both perform the same function with only the names of the actors being different (government instead of WalMart).

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"

Quote from: "Loffler"

QuotePlus it's a huge waste of money for the non-theist taxpayer.There are so many better things we could use tax money for...Like Sex Ed.,feeding the homeless,better healthcare.

Again, I have to ask: where does it say this was paid for with tax dollars? Because they don't pay taxes? There is no end to this line of reasoning. Every penny you make is potentially tax revenue. Why don't I just follow you around the grocery store saying "There are better things for America to spend tax money on than Cheetos." That makes about as much sense as holding a church accountable for taxes they don't pay.

The reason why the "they're stealing my tax dollars" works for me is that I don't see a functional difference between taxes and the cost of a good or service.  Both perform the same function with only the names of the actors being different (government instead of WalMart).

Am I stealing from the other customers when I refrain from giving my money to Walmart?

Quote from: "Loffler"The reason why the "they're stealing my tax dollars" works for me is that I don't see a functional difference between taxes and the cost of a good or service.  Both perform the same function with only the names of the actors being different (government instead of WalMart).

Am I stealing from the other customers when I refrain from giving my money to Walmart?[/quote]

Only if you don't pay for what you try to take out of Walmart.  

Now this could get nitpicky. You could respond by saying, "Well if I go into Walmart and use the toilet but don't ever buy anything am I stealing from the other customers?"  I'd have to say no, because unless you do nothing but sit in the WalMart on the can for a month constantly flushing the toilet you probably aren't costing WalMart enough (money or resources) to warrant an increase in prices to the customers.  Even if in reality you are costing WalMart more than you give back (since you're not a paying customer.)

Its the difference between a rational theoretical argument and reality.  They probably are stealing in the strictest sense of the word (benefit from stuff that taxes pay for without actually paying the taxes) and its very likely that more than one or two Churches exist that do some hiding of their members wealth (so they don't have to pay as much in taxes either) but I'm not terribly sure that every Church existing in a tax exempt status is causing an enormous drain (anybody interested enough to see if there are any reliable estimates of how much tax money isn't collected because of the tax exempt status that Churches and other non-profits can claim?)

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Its the difference between a rational theoretical argument and reality.  They probably are stealing in the strictest sense of the word (benefit from stuff that taxes pay for without actually paying the taxes) and its very likely that more than one or two Churches exist that do some hiding of their members wealth (so they don't have to pay as much in taxes either) but I'm not terribly sure that every Church existing in a tax exempt status is causing an enormous drain (anybody interested enough to see if there are any reliable estimates of how much tax money isn't collected because of the tax exempt status that Churches and other non-profits can claim?)

I'm mostly annoyed by this "tax" reasoning on this thread because I don't see this kind of reasoning for anything else. Lowering one person's property tax does not raise anyone else's, so you guys couldn't possibly be referring to the actual mechanics of taxation. You must be referring to the fact that if 9 people pay for a government, the 10th nonpaying person is getting the government for free.

The flaw in this reasoning is that our tax debt is by definition whatever the government says it is. If they say it's 100%, it's 100%. If they say it's 0%, it's 0%. It makes no sense to complain about what churches don't pay, because you also have taxes you "don't pay" (why don't you pay 100% instead of 20%?).

Darn it, I explain it yet again. You are unnecessarily complicating it and fooling yourselves - others do it to you too, to Rob you. The vast majority of tax is Hidden Tax - income tax amounts to only about 15% of taxes.

Intellectualism is not about thesis and synthesis alone - we MUST start with analysis, or we are lost Eggheads.

Property tax is cool - you get taxed regularly for the same property over and over, until the value of the tax is many, many times the value of the property itself - money from nothing, except you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

It's so shit simple, I can't stand it. Please pay attention - you are hurting yourselves, and that hurts me.

Let us assume that the Tax paid is for some Purpose (other than merely collecting tax, and I'm being liberal there); thus, there must be some limit on taxes needed for the Purpose, or the purpose is unattainable, the tax useless, and we would not agree to that - yet, we often do. We are Coerced and Fooled into it.

To say otherwise is to say the budget to do finite things needs to be infinite. This would be very Bad Business - and of course, that's Government.

So, there is a FIXED BUDGET from taxes here - yes, there is, that's how it's done.

Now assume that we each receive equal or similar benefits of the Purpose of the Tax.

If I then pay LESS tax than equal share, you must pay MORE tax than equal share to Satisfy the Budget Requirement. That's arithmetic for ya.

The net result is - I pay LESS, you pay MORE for the same thing - and we discard the idea of the thing, since that's equal, and does not affect the computation.

Now I have more money, and you have less money - which is a thing PERFECTLY equivalent - regardless of the mechanism - of you paying me directly. Arithmetic yet again.

But what would motivate you to do that? Nothing - except THREAT OF FORCE or SWINDLE, and we call it Robbery.

But how do I apply force? I vote - or write the voting agendum, or lobby, or propose laws - for the Government to take your money, and give it to me. If you don't, Govt. applies Force, and takes it - with penalty. Boob that I am, I may think I now control Government - HA! I am merely feeding a monster until it turns on me, and eats me, too. Many men are killed by their own attack dog - and good riddance.

What motivates the Government to apply the Force? They get some of the money, AND control of the whole process (they use some to buy more Force), which leads eventually to them getting it ALL - BY FORCE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

There is an ancient political principle that Pure Democracy leads directly to Totalitarianism. What we are trying here is different - Constitutional Representative Democracy. If I am not mistaken, the Constitution is largely ignored in practice, particularly when it comes to making Government Larger - the Constitution is for LIMITING Government, it is very explicit and redundant on that point.

We are well along the path of Soft Fascism.

WalMart does not come to my door with a gun, and throw me in prison for Buying Elsewhere.

Have a nice day.

I understood the first time you said it. I just consider the government the villain, not the church. We should be figuring out how to evade our own taxes; churches are the heroes in this instance.

I agree Govt. is villain - but do you deny Church is villain? Are they not in collusion in this, and we are the victims, two against one - the People?

Don't they amount to One Big Villain? Sure dey do.

Once again, the thread has veered off topic. Please continue discussion of anything other than the creation museum in a new thread. This is strictly for discussion of the Creation Museum.

Perhaps you have not read the thread entirely AND understood. I really don't see how anyone could CLAIM that.

The Creation "Museum", in the first instance of the first Post, was presented as an attack mounted with Taxpayer Dollars. In the process, we have been directed to detailed online criticism of the museum's content, and a large body of for-against argument on the points presented at the "Museum". The "Museum" content viewing is over now, and minuscule in comparison to the real question - who pays for this shit?

A better approach might be - change the label on the thread itself.

All of it largely irrelevant - if they do it themselves, which they MUST be free to do - the core remaining question is - why should everyone have to pay for it; for if I can be forced to pay for this, perhaps I will eventually be forced to pay for my own public execution as an Atheist.

The great ORIGINAL question remains - do we pay for it? If so, who is forcing me - and how - and for what purpose? The "Museum" is merely a beginning, illustrative point worth little - except as a single example among countless examples.

Argument means little if the result can't be tied together with the larger structure of reality.

Quote from: "Promethium147"A better approach might be - change the label on the thread itself.

OR split it at the point of derail and make two threads out of one.

Quote from: "McQ"Once again, the thread has veered off topic. Please continue discussion of anything other than the creation museum in a new thread. This is strictly for discussion of the Creation Museum.

For the record I'm perfectly cool with this.

I am always Cool, and gettin' Cooler alla time.

Thread be - "FORCED to pay for Fundies? Yes, you ARE!"

Sehr Gut?

Up within the hour, I say!

Quote from: "Promethium147"I am always Cool, and gettin' Cooler alla time.

Thread be - "FORCED to pay for Fundies? Yes, you ARE!"

Sehr Gut?

Up within the hour, I say!

I viewed the OP and read every post and understood it well enough to conclude it had veered off too much. It's no big deal to start a new thread, just as you have done. Very appropriate to do so, and it'll make for a good read, most likely.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "McQ"Once again, the thread has veered off topic. Please continue discussion of anything other than the creation museum in a new thread. This is strictly for discussion of the Creation Museum.

For the record I'm perfectly cool with this.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "McQ"Once again, the thread has veered off topic. Please continue discussion of anything other than the creation museum in a new thread. This is strictly for discussion of the Creation Museum.

For the record I'm perfectly cool with this.

Thanks, and no sweat, Loffler. I really just wanted to keep the portion of the Creation Museum tax issues separate from the thread when it became a broader topic. What would have been a better choice would be to split the topics, but provide linking to the original. The broader discussion was worthy of its own thread, in my opinion.

Looks like its been added now anyway, so it will keep rolling along nicely.

So has anyone visited this museum?

Quote from: "Loffler"So has anyone visited this museum?

I haven't, but if I was anywhere near there and had the chance, I think I'd have to see it for myself.

My eyes crossed two minutes into the video.

It just doesn't make sense.

OH GOD THAT MADE ME LAUGH!!!

Quote from: "LSchune"My eyes crossed two minutes into the video.

It just doesn't make sense.

You did not notice what he said? he said looking to science with the bible sun glasses
His sun glasses had STICKERS on them