The mind doesn’t work properly if it’s closed – Open Parachute tag line
Having watched Ken Perrott argue today, I thought I would pull together a few of his more classic lines into a post.
Glenn Peoples tries to cut to the chase at M and M.
Ken, setting aside your emotive tactics (pretending to know that I feel embarassed), let’s see if you can show exactly how I have misrepresented your belief.
You don’t think that a church – as a church, a place of worship, teaching, Christian counsel etc – is doing anything charitable, and this is because you don’t these things achieve a charitable purpose.
Correct so far?
And you don’t these things really help people because you think they’re all based on falsehood.
Again, correct so far?
And because of this, you think that the government should treat churches as not being a charity just by virtue of being a church. You think that the governement should say that they need some other claim to being a charity.
Am I beginning to “get it wrong” yet, Ken? You’ve stated all these things yourself. These are the claims that I have attributed to you.
Now, you may proceed to show how I am “getting it wrong” by attributing these beliefs to you. Be specific please.
Reading through the comments, I thought this one stood out as a genuine attempt to get to the numb of the issue. As he says, all these things are things that Ken has said, and it seems to be a good statement of what Ken’s position is.
Glenn, I am not interested in your theological jelly wrestling. You guys will do anything (verbally) to avoid and confuse issues.
I think everything is clear. Read my last comment. I am not interested in continually restating it.
It’s a simple human rights issue. You are just trying to defend an ancient religious privilige.
If anything, it’s Ken who’s trying to slip out of being pinned down by anything, even his own beliefs!
But there are a few more examples. Bethyada ends one comment…
As far as rates go, I have talked with our church treasurer and I know that they do pay a nominal amount towards rates, so I stand by my comment in the article.
Bethyada – perhaps you should point your treasurer at the legislation – he may be unaware. Or he may be misrepresenting the true situation to you.
So rather than admit that his reading of the legislation is wrong (it is – churches are only exempt the land tax portion of rates, not other charges such as water) he instead attacks someone outside the discussion as either ignorant or lying.
I think this muddled thinking comes from your own pecuniary interest. You have something financial to loose and it is only natural you will do your best to defend that privilege.
I don’t expect any better.
A simple web search would have told Ken that Glenn’s church was founded about 10 years ago. They don’t even have a church building. Ergo, they can’t even claim a rates exemption.
Believe it or not (and I understand completely if it’s “not”!), my interest in any debate is for the truth to come out. I think Ken’s made some good points, when he’s argued the facts.And this debate is more complicated than it seems at first. Most of the atheists are talking about one sort of church (the well established, well known ones) and most of the commenters are from much smaller, with far smaller financial assets – some with none at all.
Unfortunately, the above examples (and others) show that when someone actually comes out and seriously challenges him, he resorts to attacks, and outright contradictions.
I usually try to believe that people are arguing in good faith -that they believe what they say, and it’s logical in their own mind even if it isn’t in mine. It’s hard to believe that a proud scientist would argue in bad faith, but I can’t see any other explanation.
FYI: My position on the matter (for those interested) is best described here. Quick version: it doesn’t matter.
Update: Stumbled across this at M and M – seems like I’m not the only one to notice this sort of thing.
There are three ways, and only three ways, to understand/categorize the oh-so-common atheistic inability, which is on display in this thread, to follow and address the actual points being made:
1) inability *ever* to understand;
2) ignorance, leading to misunderstanding;
3) disinclination to understand … or, at least, to admit.
To understand Ken’s behavior in terms of option 1) is to say that Ken is too stupid to understand the matter and the arguments. I don’t see how any of us is ever justified in choosing to believe that about anyone.
To understand Ken’s behavior in terms of option 2) is to say that Ken lacks some logically prior information or understanding, the lack of which is leading to his present erroneous reasoning. That is, that Ken’s error *is* error, but that it is honest error. However, has not his misunderstanding been explained to him multiple times in this very thread?
To understand Ken’s behavior in terms of option 3) is to say that Ken is intellectually dishonest; it is to say/recognize that no amount of evidence and argumentation is going to sway him … because he never was interested in genuine understanding.
Those are the three options; there are no others.