Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[ding]

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. I

No, not necessarily. Ding, you are pretty far behind the scientific community. While some may believe this, all admit they could be wrong because of ideas like this one:

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I urge you to start reading more. there are plenty of good resources for a layman such as yourself that help you understand the modern ideas in physics.

It presents a big bang model without the singularity. It existed forever as quantum potential before “collapsing” into the hot dense state and then expanding and cooling. It makes no claim that it is cyclical. Or that space and time existed forever. It claims that quantum potential existed forever. It isn't a cyclical model. It is an inflationary model.

He tweaked Friedman' solution to Einstein's GToR to avoid the singularity which is nothing more than a mathematical gimmick. It does not mean that space and time have existed forever. It does not mean the universe is cyclical. It still shows that 14 billion years ago the universe was in a hot dense state occupying the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. It still supposes that space and time were created from a quantum tunneling event otherwise known as inflation.

 

[ding]

You are googling stuff you don't understand.

No ding, not so. These are mostly ideas that have been around for quite a while. It is you who has grown lazy and ignorant, due to spending too much time on your goofy religion. Even the Hartle-hawking "no boundary" proposition has been around for decades. the cyclic model is cool. I can tel by your defensive, whiny posture that you have never learned fact one about it. You really should read up on it.

The great thing about it is that it might end up being empirically testable.

Let's debate it in the bull ring.

Are you scared?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It makes no claim that it is cyclical.

I didn't say it did, you goddamn weirdo. I presented the cyclic model idea in a completely different post and link. Pay attention!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are googling stuff you don't understand.

No ding, not so. These are mostly ideas that have been around for quite a while. It is you who has grown lazy and ignorant, due to spending too much time on your goofy religion. Even the Hartle-hawking "no boundary" proposition has been around for decades. the cyclic model is cool. I can tel by your defensive, whiny posture that you have never learned fact one about it. You really should read up on it.

The great thing about it is that it might end up being empirically testable.

Let's debate it in the bull ring.

Are you scared?

Ding, I doubt anyone has ever been scared to debate you on anything, really. But, frankly, I do not care what you believe or do not believe.

 

[ding]

It makes no claim that it is cyclical.

I didn't say it did, you goddamn weirdo. I presented the cyclic model idea in a completely different post and link. Pay attention!

I did. I debunked them both.

This debunks them both too.

 

[ding]

You are googling stuff you don't understand.

No ding, not so. These are mostly ideas that have been around for quite a while. It is you who has grown lazy and ignorant, due to spending too much time on your goofy religion. Even the Hartle-hawking "no boundary" proposition has been around for decades. the cyclic model is cool. I can tel by your defensive, whiny posture that you have never learned fact one about it. You really should read up on it.

The great thing about it is that it might end up being empirically testable.

Let's debate it in the bull ring.

Are you scared?

Ding, I doubt anyone has ever been scared to debate you on anything, really. But, frankly, I do not care what you believe or do not believe.

You are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I did. I debunked them both.

You did no such thing... what the **** are you even talking about.... damn you are one weird little man...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

fraud laws - Google Search

Fraud is a broad term that refers to a variety of offenses involving dishonesty or "fraudulent acts". In essence, fraud is the intentional deception of a person or entity by another made for monetary or personal gain. Fraud offenses always include some sort of false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct.

Most governments and countries have fraud laws of some kinds. They generally interfere with religious fraudsters only when physical harm is being done to our gullible citizens yet ignore the monetary theft that the fraudsters fleece from their victims. Prosperity ministries are the most flagrant of these immoral religions, but all religions based on demonstrable lies would be included in this question.

Our governments are quite good at acting against obvious fraudsters yet seem reluctant to protect our more gullible citizens when it comes down to religions.

Religions, to me, get a free pass to lie and steal all they can from victims, especially the older citizens even when governments know about the fraud.

I begin to see the inaction of governments on these religious fraudsters as a dereliction of duty.

Do you?

Regards
DL

Define "fraudulent religion".

It's certainly not the government's job to have any say in what people do and do not believe, or whatever private financial decisions they make, so long as they are of sound mind. There are already laws to protect people who are not in their right mind.

 

[ding]

I did. I debunked them both.

You did no such thing... what the **** are you even talking about.... damn you are one weird little man...

Sure I did.

Model #1 No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning That you don't understand but I do. Is debunked by:

He tweaked Friedman' solution to Einstein's GToR to avoid the singularity which is nothing more than a mathematical gimmick. It does not mean that space and time have existed forever. It does not mean the universe is cyclical. It still shows that 14 billion years ago the universe was in a hot dense state occupying the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. It still supposes that space and time were created from a quantum tunneling event otherwise known as inflation.

Model #2 Bang? Endless Universe Made Possible by New Model That you don't understand but I do is debunked by:

They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time.

And lastly, Alexander Vilinken explains wht the universe had to have a beginning.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's certainly not the government's job to have any say in what people do and do not believe, or whatever private financial decisions they make, so long as they are of sound mind.

Not entirely true. You can be of perfectly sound mind, and yet still be the victim of fraud (which is and should be a crime). And it is the government's job to protect us from that to the extent we ask it to do so.

For instance, Tylenol cannot claim its pills cure baldness, in its ads and packaging. That is against the law, and well should it be.

Agreed, people can believe anything they want.

 

[ding]

This is really very simple as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium and that is where it will stay. This problem cannot be avoided. And since we do not observe a universe which is at thermal equilibrium, we know that the universe has not existed forever.

And since Fort Fun cannot actually explain anything he has posted, he must be a troll.

 

[ding]

Fort Fun has laid a cosmic egg.

 

[ding]

It's certainly not the government's job to have any say in what people do and do not believe, or whatever private financial decisions they make, so long as they are of sound mind.

Not entirely true. You can be of perfectly sound mind, and yet still be the victim of fraud (which is and should be a crime). And it is the government's job to protect us from that to the extent we ask it to do so.

For instance, Tylenol cannot claim its pills cure baldness, in its ads and packaging. That is against the law, and well should it be.

Agreed, people can believe anything they want.

Of course it is true. It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. The FALSE analogy you made was the government protecting us from others. Your logic is flawed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's certainly not the government's job to have any say in what people do and do not believe, or whatever private financial decisions they make, so long as they are of sound mind.

Not entirely true. You can be of perfectly sound mind, and yet still be the victim of fraud (which is and should be a crime). And it is the government's job to protect us from that to the extent we ask it to do so.

For instance, Tylenol cannot claim its pills cure baldness, in its ads and packaging. That is against the law, and well should it be.

Agreed, people can believe anything they want.

Yes, but we are talking about religions. And the OP made specific mention of his/her/its belief that religions take advantage of the old and infirm to get their money, so this is what I'm referring to.

My grandmother left everything she had to the Assemblies of God church. House, investments, all of it. Didn't leave a cent to anyone in the family. The OP might be inclined to think that she'd been somehow gulled by the church for her wealth. My feeling is, whether they're right or wrong about the afterlife (and who the hell can say for sure?), her religious faith gave her a lot of pleasure and comfort throughout her life, so from her perspective it was worth it. And we all knew she intended to do it long before she passed, so we couldn't honestly say she didn't make the decision in full control of her faculties.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's certainly not the government's job to have any say in what people do and do not believe, or whatever private financial decisions they make, so long as they are of sound mind.

Not entirely true. You can be of perfectly sound mind, and yet still be the victim of fraud (which is and should be a crime). And it is the government's job to protect us from that to the extent we ask it to do so.

For instance, Tylenol cannot claim its pills cure baldness, in its ads and packaging. That is against the law, and well should it be.

Agreed, people can believe anything they want.

Yes, but we are talking about religions. And the OP made specific mention of his/her/its belief that religions take advantage of the old and infirm to get their money, so this is what I'm referring to.

My grandmother left everything she had to the Assemblies of God church. House, investments, all of it. Didn't leave a cent to anyone in the family. The OP might be inclined to think that she'd been somehow gulled by the church for her wealth. My feeling is, whether they're right or wrong about the afterlife (and who the hell can say for sure?), her religious faith gave her a lot of pleasure and comfort throughout her life, so from her perspective it was worth it. And we all knew she intended to do it long before she passed, so we couldn't honestly say she didn't make the decision in full control of her faculties.

I don't think anything could be done in that case, though it is a shame that all of her money went to such a fraudulent "charity".

 

[ding]

It's certainly not the government's job to have any say in what people do and do not believe, or whatever private financial decisions they make, so long as they are of sound mind.

Not entirely true. You can be of perfectly sound mind, and yet still be the victim of fraud (which is and should be a crime). And it is the government's job to protect us from that to the extent we ask it to do so.

For instance, Tylenol cannot claim its pills cure baldness, in its ads and packaging. That is against the law, and well should it be.

Agreed, people can believe anything they want.

Yes, but we are talking about religions. And the OP made specific mention of his/her/its belief that religions take advantage of the old and infirm to get their money, so this is what I'm referring to.

My grandmother left everything she had to the Assemblies of God church. House, investments, all of it. Didn't leave a cent to anyone in the family. The OP might be inclined to think that she'd been somehow gulled by the church for her wealth. My feeling is, whether they're right or wrong about the afterlife (and who the hell can say for sure?), her religious faith gave her a lot of pleasure and comfort throughout her life, so from her perspective it was worth it. And we all knew she intended to do it long before she passed, so we couldn't honestly say she didn't make the decision in full control of her faculties.

I don't think anything could be done in that case, though it is a shame that all of her money went to such a fraudulent "charity".

Who are you to say that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's certainly not the government's job to have any say in what people do and do not believe, or whatever private financial decisions they make, so long as they are of sound mind.

Not entirely true. You can be of perfectly sound mind, and yet still be the victim of fraud (which is and should be a crime). And it is the government's job to protect us from that to the extent we ask it to do so.

For instance, Tylenol cannot claim its pills cure baldness, in its ads and packaging. That is against the law, and well should it be.

Agreed, people can believe anything they want.

Yes, but we are talking about religions. And the OP made specific mention of his/her/its belief that religions take advantage of the old and infirm to get their money, so this is what I'm referring to.

My grandmother left everything she had to the Assemblies of God church. House, investments, all of it. Didn't leave a cent to anyone in the family. The OP might be inclined to think that she'd been somehow gulled by the church for her wealth. My feeling is, whether they're right or wrong about the afterlife (and who the hell can say for sure?), her religious faith gave her a lot of pleasure and comfort throughout her life, so from her perspective it was worth it. And we all knew she intended to do it long before she passed, so we couldn't honestly say she didn't make the decision in full control of her faculties.

I don't think anything could be done in that case, though it is a shame that all of her money went to such a fraudulent "charity".

Nothing fraudulent about it. She got out of it exactly what she wanted out of it; I've done business with corporations I wish provided that much satisfaction. My cousin, who was the only one of the family willing to take care of my grandmother when she couldn't do for herself, will live in the house until she passes on. All of my grandmother's estate will go to missions work in the more depressed areas of the United States, such as Indian reservations and the more isolated areas of Appalachia, a cause which was very dear to her heart her entire life.

Seems to me as though the only way one could consider this "fraudulent" or anything less than satisfactory is if one has an unreasoning, blind hatred of all things religious, regardless of any actual facts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nothing fraudulent about it.

Hmm, I doubt that. There are exceptions, naturally, but most of the churches I see are fake charities. That's the "fraud" of which I speak.

 

[ding]

Nothing fraudulent about it.

Hmm, I doubt that. There are exceptions, naturally, but most of the churches I see are fake charities. That's the "fraud" of which I speak.

How exactly do you determine that most of the churches [you] see are fake charities?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nothing fraudulent about it.

Hmm, I doubt that. There are exceptions, naturally, but most of the churches I see are fake charities. That's the "fraud" of which I speak.

"Most of the churches I see are fake charities." What the hell does that even mean? In what way are they "fake charities"? How many churches do you see? Do you fancy yourself some sort of church mystery shopper, or what?

As for "doubting that", are you calling me a liar? Or are you saying that you know more about my family and my church than I do? Is it specifically your unreasoning hatred of religion that conveys this omniscience, or just your general arrogance?