[–] SilentMaster [S] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
That's bullshit. If Glaxosmithkline cannot tell me their pills cure cancer and make my dick grow an inch a year why can a church say similar things? Lying to consumers is not free speech and that is exactly what churches are doing.
[–] PM_YOUR_NAUGHTY_BITS 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
Can you prove to me religions are lying? (OK for some ridiculous claims you can but for most of them you can't, it's vague stuff beyond testability)
Religion also can't really do direct harm in the same way pills can. Indirect harm maybe if someone chooses their faith over medicine or something but not direct harm. Pills need to be rigorously tested and regulated or you get shit like the thalidomide scandal.
[–] zambeezy 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Because you can't prove that what the church says will happen doesn't actually happen. You can prove that the pill didn't cure your cancer or make your dick grow an inch per year. Churches may say "we can help you find salvation" and you wouldn't know if they actually were saved until they're dead, but then you can't speak to them because they're dead.
[–] SilentMaster [S] 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
I would argue that the people running Ponzi Schemes probably call that a collection too. But those are illegal. I know the vagueness is what allows them to do this, but my god, why are we protecting predators at all costs when innocent people are being destroyed?
[–] sparkybear 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Ponzi schemes promise a return on your investment. Churches that are money grabs like this are really frowned upon in most of the Christian world because they are seen for what they are. The Prosperity Gospel has no real basis in faith and is based around the idea that if you give money to the church and to God he will bless you more. You're not promising what a ponzi scheme promises, you're promising God will bless you more if you give him more.
[–] Gerplunckamo 5 points 4 points 9 points (+9|-5) ago
Because exploiting the weak for monetary gain isn't illegal, its the foundation of our modern nation.
[–] SilentMaster [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
So religion is the same as Coca Cola? That's the most depressing thing I've ever considered.
[–] 333 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Abraham religions are like Coca Cola and Pepsi. 1 trying to convience that they have better "product".
If it was for me, I would go directly to the Source by devaluing everything that has been taught. Everything.
Besides, why do you people need somebody to be the "medium", be it church, "mediums", "prohpets", "philosophers", lamas, politicians, authors, rabbis, scientist, celebrities, etc?
Why not go directly to the source and find things by yourself?
[–] Bioreactor ago
Well I'm not a religios man but I do enjoy me a good soda every few minutes noq
[–] Partoghimeos 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
There have been good televangelists out there. Fulton Sheen had a show sixty years ago with a good following and he never used it for scamming viewers. He used the show as a medium for teaching the faith and he did a great job of it. Episodes of his show are still aired occasionally late at night on EWTN. Most modern protestant televangelists are only in it for monetary gain, but there are probably still a few honest guys out there.
[–] SilentMaster [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
That's awesome to hear. While I am an atheist, I totally respect their rights to preach their doctrines in any way they so choose. TV is an amazing tool and I fully support everyone's rights to spread ideas whether they are good or bad, true or false. But using it to lie for monetary gain is fucking despicable.
[–] SilentMaster [S] ago
Are religions allowed to murder their congregations? Then they shouldn't be able to fleece them either.
[–] GropeForLuna 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
To be honest, Zoloft (and other antidepressants) weren't the best example you could have given because they are less than honest about the effects of their drug, to put it mildly.
But to answer your question, I guess it's purely for historical reasons. Certain religions have been accepted for so long, and to many people, that in itself gives it credibility. Crazy, I know. This is one of the reasons that the books of Scientology and the like need to be totally debunked, so that in hundreds of years they are not in a similar position to more traditional religions, who have this "historical credibility".
[–] SilentMaster [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Yeah, I've all but given up on our generation. Hopefully in a few hundred years society will have figured this shit out. We'll see.
[–] newoldwave 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If people are dumb enough to send their money, then that's their problem.
[–] SilentMaster [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Yes, there is that. But American protects me against lead in my paint and asbestos in my ceiling, I would hope that it could protect those likely to give more than they can afford for false promises.
[–] RedditCEOEllenPao 0 points 25 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago
You're trying to apply logic to faith. Good fuckin' luck.
[–] obi-1 ago
This is my first upvoat to reddit, a ceo, or Ellen pao. But I can't argue with that logic.
[–] SilentMaster [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Well, no, I'm trying to apply the logic to government, but you're right, same uphill battle I guess. I want religion reigned in a bit. I have no problem with them running their shit anyway they want, but the unlimited power and tools freely given to them is bullshit. If they want to convince people that a sky zombie's blood cures cancer, it should be hard as fuck, as opposed to the current system.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago