The Tenets of Tolerism™

[Seth]

It's specifically intended and created to be a religion. I've even trademarked the names "Tolerist™" and "Tolerism™."

It qualifies as a religion under federal tax law, and I'm it's Prophet, with all the tax-exempt benefits that accrue to every religion.

And no, I'm not kidding.

Let's see the tax exemption number. (It's an offense not to disclose it when asked.)

...by the IRS perhaps. But I'm not obligated to give it to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks for it.

Besides, I never said I have a 501c3 tax ID...yet. I merely said that being the Prophet of a religious order entitles one to all the tax benefits that accrue to any other religious organization, which is true. I don't need a tax ID number till I start collecting donations.

I haven't had any orders for ordination so far, so why waste the time doing the paperwork?

[egbert]

It's specifically intended and created to be a religion. I've even trademarked the names "Tolerist™" and "Tolerism™."

It qualifies as a religion under federal tax law, and I'm it's Prophet, with all the tax-exempt benefits that accrue to every religion.

And no, I'm not kidding.

Let's see the tax exemption number. (It's an offense not to disclose it when asked.)

...by the IRS perhaps. But I'm not obligated to give it to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks for it.

Where'd you get your Law Degree - watching Perry Mason reruns, or from your fellow inmates?

[egbert]

It's specifically intended and created to be a religion. I've even trademarked the names "Tolerist™" and "Tolerism™."

It qualifies as a religion under federal tax law, and I'm it's Prophet, with all the tax-exempt benefits that accrue to every religion.

And no, I'm not kidding.

Let's see the tax exemption number. (It's an offense not to disclose it when asked.)

Besides, I never said I have a 501c3 tax ID...yet. I merely said that being the Prophet of a religious order entitles one to all the tax benefits that accrue to any other religious organization, which is true. I don't need a tax ID number till I start collecting donations.

I haven't had any orders for ordination so far, so why waste the time doing the paperwork?

You SAID

I'm it's Prophet, with all the tax-exempt benefits that accrue to every religion.

Clearly indicating you currently HAVE "all the tax-exempt benefits"!

But then, we already know you're a pathological liar....

[Seth]

It's specifically intended and created to be a religion. I've even trademarked the names "Tolerist™" and "Tolerism™."

It qualifies as a religion under federal tax law, and I'm it's Prophet, with all the tax-exempt benefits that accrue to every religion.

And no, I'm not kidding.

Let's see the tax exemption number. (It's an offense not to disclose it when asked.)

Besides, I never said I have a 501c3 tax ID...yet. I merely said that being the Prophet of a religious order entitles one to all the tax benefits that accrue to any other religious organization, which is true. I don't need a tax ID number till I start collecting donations.

I haven't had any orders for ordination so far, so why waste the time doing the paperwork?

You SAID

I'm it's Prophet, with all the tax-exempt benefits that accrue to every religion.

Clearly indicating you currently HAVE "all the tax-exempt benefits"!

I do have them. One obtains the tax benefits involved by being a religion. One cannot, of course make use of those benefits without filing the appropriate paperwork with the IRS when it becomes necessary to do so. The important thing about tax benefits is that you only make use of them when there is income or expenses which can be qualified under IRS rules for exemption from taxation. Since I have no income...yet...from my religious activities, I have no need to file the 501c3 paperwork (which is a pain in the ass) or file a tax return for the organization, which is as yet in an informal stage. If and when I begin receiving taxable income in the form of donations or have deductible expenses associated with the religion and need to file a return, then I need to do the paperwork.

Until then, as a religion, I enjoy all the tax-exempt benefits that accrue to every religion, I'm simply not making use of them yet.

But then, we already know you're a pathological liar....

Pretty sure this qualifies as a personal attack under the FUA, unless you have evidence of a diagnosis from a board-certified psychiatrist that I'm a "pathological liar."

[egbert]

But then, we already know you're a pathological liar....

Pretty sure this qualifies as a personal attack under the FUA, unless you have evidence of a diagnosis from a board-certified psychiatrist that I'm a "pathological liar."

Better than that - your own words....
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... er#p827634

[Seth]

But then, we already know you're a pathological liar....

Pretty sure this qualifies as a personal attack under the FUA, unless you have evidence of a diagnosis from a board-certified psychiatrist that I'm a "pathological liar."

Better than that - your own words....
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... er#p827634

Not even a nice try. I debunked your personal attack over in that thread.

[Tero]

My tolerance of the supernatural only extends to three mythical figures. SC, EB and TF.

[egbert]

I don't have a problem with provocation, generally. But I'm wondering why you'd create a religion that doesn't allow for it.

What makes you think it doesn't?

Hard to provoke if you don't resort to less respectful address. Provocation, by its very nature, isn't particularly respectful.

It can be, if the purpose of the provocation is honorable. Provoking someone to think about something that they may have done wrong, for example, is a way of causing them to examine an error in judgment or action. The same is true of provoking debate and discussion, particular in fora dedicated to that purpose.

Provoking someone for no reason other than to make them angry or insult them, on the other hand, is not a tolerant or respectful thing to do.

And what could be more intolerant or disrespectful than pointing a 44 magnum and shouting"FREEZE" at some innocent who just rang your doorbell?

[Seth]

I don't have a problem with provocation, generally. But I'm wondering why you'd create a religion that doesn't allow for it.

What makes you think it doesn't?

Hard to provoke if you don't resort to less respectful address. Provocation, by its very nature, isn't particularly respectful.

It can be, if the purpose of the provocation is honorable. Provoking someone to think about something that they may have done wrong, for example, is a way of causing them to examine an error in judgment or action. The same is true of provoking debate and discussion, particular in fora dedicated to that purpose.

Provoking someone for no reason other than to make them angry or insult them, on the other hand, is not a tolerant or respectful thing to do.

And what could be more intolerant or disrespectful than pointing a 44 magnum and shouting"FREEZE" at some innocent who just rang your doorbell?

Derail.

[.Morticia.]

But then, we already know you're a pathological liar....

Pretty sure this qualifies as a personal attack under the FUA, unless you have evidence of a diagnosis from a board-certified psychiatrist that I'm a "pathological liar."

Better than that - your own words....
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... er#p827634

Not even a nice try. I debunked your personal attack over in that thread.

How do you define a personal attack, Seth?

Where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable?

[MrFungus420]

So, short version:

Seth = L. Ron Hubbard wannabe

[camoguard]

That absence of evidence part is pure bullshit. Absence of evidence is absence of continuing any line of dialog about whatever it is you think the evidence would suggest. So positive views with absent evidence should be discarded.

[Seth]

That absence of evidence part is pure bullshit. Absence of evidence is absence of continuing any line of dialog about whatever it is you think the evidence would suggest. So positive views with absent evidence should be discarded.

So, we should discard every single cosmological theory that exists today? Because not one of them has any actual critically robust evidence proving them true. They all get back to the Big (something) and their theories, and their math, all fall apart and they dive into wild speculation.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fuck religions.

[Seth]

Fuck religions.

Fuck atheists.

Feel better?