How to tell if a religion is B.S.

[Angrboda]

Rational people don't force a thousand people to drink poisoned koolaid - or drive aircraft full of people into buildings.

Neither do most religious people. The fallacy here, to be precise, is equivocation.

[The Valkyrie]

There's a deity involved.

[Minimalist]

If their lips are moving........

[Whateverist]

There's a deity involved.

Thank you.  I was getting tired of biting my lip.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Spot on. I find it pretty difficult to criticize people who collect money to feed hungry children, whatever their motivation for doing so.

Boru

I don't criticize people who do good or even great deeds. People amaze.

I do have a problem when they do good things because Jebus, Yomomma, or the Great Pumpkin commands it.

That' s the B.S.

Hypothetical:  You have two options only:  You can give £10 to a secular charity for hungry children, or £100 to a religious charity for hungry children.  In both cases, you are given iron-clad assurance that 100% of your donation will go to the kids.

Which do you do?

Boru

[Minimalist]

Which do you do?

I remember that the religitards are always liars.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So you would give the 10 quid to the secular charity?

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

I don't criticize people who do good or even great deeds. People amaze.

I do have a problem when they do good things because Jebus, Yomomma, or the Great Pumpkin commands it.

That' s the B.S.

Hypothetical:  You have two options only:  You can give £10 to a secular charity for hungry children, or £100 to a religious charity for hungry children.  In both cases, you are given iron-clad assurance that 100% of your donation will go to the kids.

Which do you do?

Boru

Why would secular charity not accept £100?

I have yet to see any religious charity that does not leverage the donation directly or indirectly to proselytize. If £100 helps them get a pass on spreading bullshit even if all of that particular £100 is transferred to the children, then I will still have to weigh the acute needs of the children against longer term harm to humanity.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hypothetical:  You have two options only:  You can give £10 to a secular charity for hungry children, or £100 to a religious charity for hungry children.  In both cases, you are given iron-clad assurance that 100% of your donation will go to the kids.

Which do you do?

Boru

Why would secular charity not accept £100?

I have yet to see any religious charity that does not leverage the donation directly or indirectly to proselytize.      If £100 helps them get a pass on spreading bullshit even if all of that particular £100 is transferred to the children, then I will still have to weigh the acute needs of the children against longer term harm to humanity.

When a hypothetical is presented, the respondent isn't permitted to add provisos of his/her own.

So, your position is that it would be better to give £10 to feed hungry children than £100?

Boru

[Angrboda]

There's a deity involved.

Thank you.  I was getting tired of biting my lip.

So, then, Buddhism is cool. Sorry, no.

---

I don't criticize people who do good or even great deeds. People amaze.

I do have a problem when they do good things because Jebus, Yomomma, or the Great Pumpkin commands it.

That' s the B.S.

Hypothetical:  You have two options only:  You can give £10 to a secular charity for hungry children, or £100 to a religious charity for hungry children.  In both cases, you are given iron-clad assurance that 100% of your donation will go to the kids.

Which do you do?

Boru

Neither. I go to the nearest pub to think it over. By the time I'm done, the problem has resolved itself.