Florida Shooter Repented - he gets Heaven?

[Elixir]

Jim and Tammy Bakker had 5 similar houses. When he was removed from his position at the Church of God, he was suddenly homeless. It turned out, this tax dodge was not a particularly shrewd move. Jimmy Swaggart faced defrocking for his misdeeds, and CoG officials assumed his house and properties were owned by his church. They were quite mistaken. Swaggart held deed and title to real estate and buildings, his personal home, schools, and church.

Wow... Had Swaggart been paying taxes on all those holdings?

 

[Vork]

Well, determinism can be dehumanizing, but it's still true. Nobody is 'robustly' responsible for their actions in the way that retributive justice requires, because nobody is the cause of all the relevant antecedent conditions leading to whatever action they took.

Determinism as a confident position has been largely abandoned. But perhaps you mean, "determinism or some form of partial determinism (so to speak) mixed with indeterminism that is equally hostile to moral responsibility" is true. If so, that's a pretty big metaphysical claim and I don't think it's even close to proven.

What aspect of it is unproven? I agree with your re-phrasing, but left out indeterminism for brevity. As you say, neither one helps retributive punishment. The only thing that could rescue it is libertarian free will, and I have yet to see anything approaching a convincing argument for that position.

It's unproven until libertarian free will is conclusively disproved, and there is still plenty of philosophical literature trying to defend it. It's also, I think, a difficult question because it covers multiple areas of philosophy. How well is any sort of causation understood for a start? Understanding how an agent could cause things may be baffling, but then understanding any sort of causation may be baffling. One of the standard objections is that free will would collapse into chance, rather than the agent having control needed for genuine freedom; but as I say, it's still very much disputed. See recent works like "a metaphysics for freedom" by Helen Steward or "free will as an open scientific problem" by Mark Balaguer for replies to the chance objection, if you haven't already seen those books.

 

[Elixir]

*POOF!*
(This message will self-destruct in ten seconds)

I warned you...



Thank you for the suggestion. If I may offer another, how about stop trying to voice your opinions if you can't be bothered to produce an actual disembodied, omnipotent super-being for examination?

So you think people should be able to give arguments against theistic religion, and no one should be critical of those arguments (which may perhaps be bad arguments) unless they can produce a deity for examination? That's sensible in your mind?

So you basically want a forum where no one challenges any anti-religion statement? It's just filled with people saying "I think religion is stupid for this reason", "I think God is cruel for this reason", and no one objects to any of these arguments--even if they are genuinely bad arguments--unless they can produce a deity for examination?

A forum with zero disagreement wanted? It all has to be anti-religion?

If that's what is wanted, then it's easy for the admin/mods to enforce such a rule. But it sounds a little bit dogmatic perhaps...

You misunderstand - I find child-like religious beliefs rather charming, in a "downs kids are so deep" kind of way. (I do admit that I find the depth that downs kids display to be much more profound, though.) I apologize for parroting the "shut up" line - I was being facetious. But understand this please:
I totally endorse the government keeping its hands off superstitions of all kinds. Anyone who believes in a superstition should be free to try to convince others that it's a fact, and those who are not convinced should be free to voice their disbelief, or point out that magic isn't real. Free expression should even extend to those who don't believe in a superstition, but evince it anyhow because doing so holds the prospect of financial reward. As Elron Hubbard said "if you want to make REAL money, start a religion". Works pretty well, without government assistance.
Bottom Line: I don't think that holding to superstitions - sincerely or not - should exempt a person from paying taxes, no matter how many others they can convince to believe.

Is your religion the "one true religion"?

 

[Vork]

If you want to completely change the issue to taxes... A religion isn't a business. Even if we can imagine someone trying to use religion to make money, presumably you aren't saying that all religion is fake and just intended to make money for certain people?

So yes, religion shouldn't be subject to the same taxes as business because it's a different kind of thing. It may still be subject to other taxes perhaps.

And it's maybe in a little bit bad taste to use disabled children for what looks like you want to attack religious people. Oh but it's not an "attack" you find it all charming...