Did they offer to audit your thetan? lol. I've only "debated" one Scientologist, and it was a short debate. I haven't studied Scientology like I have Christianity, or even Judaism or Islam, but when the South Park episode came out a few years ago with Tom Cruise hiding in a closet, it piqued my interest enough to do some light reading.
Is it a religion?
Well, it has a creation theory. (Souls from outerspace created the universe as we know it and reside within us all)
They believe in life after death, through reincarnation of our immortal soul.
The stories surrounding their ancient faith are ridiculous and impossible to prove...or disprove.
They cyphon money from their followers and are a disgustingly rich organization...
YUP! That's a religion!!
I think that there is an argument that all organized religions are cults. All religions have initiation rituals, rights of passage, expect faith without proof of concept and many are virtually impossible to disassociate yourself with.
Of course, be careful calling Scientology a cult or you might incur the wrath of Xenu!
I believe in reincarnation, though I don't think it's likely that we have Alien souls. One day our souls will disolve though. Because everything manifested must one day become unmanifested.
The stories surrounding their ancient faith are ridiculous and impossible to prove...or disprove.
How do you feel about a "big bang"? When will it be proved / disproved?
How about a "missing link"? When will it be proved / disproved?
There are more questions that could be asked...but let's proceed forward. It appears that "evolution" stories are ridiculous and impossible to prove...or disproved. Could science be another form of religion? One that is without deity but otherwise very similar.
How do you feel about a "big bang"? When will it be proved / disproved?
How about a "missing link"? When will it be proved / disproved?
Honestly, mlm, I don't usually involve myself in those discussions because I'm not educated enough in the subject to form a valid opinion. Perhaps that is a bit of a cop out, but I prefer to not comment on something when my comments would likely be ignorant of the facts.
It appears that "evolution" stories are ridiculous and impossible to prove...or disproved.
I think you might be taking the metaphor a bit too far here. There is certainly enough physical evidence available to support the concept of evolution. Far more evidence than we have that Jesus walked on water, or Mohammed moved a mountain, or Joseph Smith used seeing stones to translate the Book or Mormon.
Could science be another form of religion? One that is without deity but otherwise very similar.
In some ways, yes. I don't think it fits all the criteria, but the argument could be made.
There is certainly enough physical evidence available to support the concept of evolution.
That things can "evolve" does not necessarily indicate origins. As far as "enough" we will have to disagree. There are plenty of unknowns and questions that remain to be answered by non-creationist theories.
That things can "evolve" does not necessarily indicate origins.
Stonehenge, i know it's there, i can touch it, but i have no idea how it came to be. In 2600 bc someone decided to erect it using slabs of stone that weighed 50 tons each, i mean instead of using the time to hunt, supply shelter or procreate, they decided they needed to build this ?
There are plenty of unknowns and questions that remain to be answered by non-creationist theories.
And there always will be, that's the beauty of the universe. The things we do know, though, are that the universe is more than a few thousand years old, that some omniscient being didn't create it in 6 days and rest on the 7th and that man almost certainly evolved from primates.
The creation story in the Bible is a fairy tale used to explain something that, in ancient times, they couldn't otherwise explain. It was a story, it was never meant to be taken literally. Its like parents telling kids that a stork brings the babies, or Santa Claus brings their presents on Christmas Eve. When you're a kid, you believe these things. Once you grow up and gain more knowledge, you understand that these stories were just a way of explaining something that someone either couldn't, or didn't want to, explain to you. Ignoring that knowledge because you'd rather believe your parents story is kinda silly, don't ya think?
Once you grow up and gain more knowledge, you understand that these stories were just a way of explaining something that someone either couldn't, or didn't want to, explain to you. Ignoring that knowledge because you'd rather believe your parents story is kinda silly, don't ya think? no more than vicariously living through a sports team's success because you failed or never experienced real life football yourself! it seems most people on this site are failures of one type or another, myself included, considering i didn't get drafted even though i played and started 4 years in high school and 2 in college.be careful how you chose to pass judgement , it sort of opens you up to get handled by your peers and called out once in a while!
I don't believe it's judgemental, hurtumbad, to question anyone's intelligence who might believe that the universe is only 6000 years old and that God created all that is in it in a sequential 6 day period. Well, perhaps it is judgemental, but I won't apologize for that judgement. I can respect the belief that God started the universe in its essence billions of years ago and watched over its development to its current state. I don't believe it, but I can respect it. I can't respect someone who chooses to be completely ignorant of all scientific evidence in regards to the Biblical creation story.
I don't think mlm's post was in support of the creation story as a literal translation, by the way...I think he was just trying to point out that other explanations of our existence are no more valid...which I disagree with.
How do you feel about a "big bang"? When will it be proved / disproved? Proved? oh god ( pun intended) the big bang is accepted because its in line with what we can observe and understand, im not saying its the be all end all of theories, but its one that works just fine with significant evidence, there are very few absolutes in this world i would think, and to say WE KNOW ANYTHING for 100% certain is hard to do, what i can say is that based upon the knowledge we have attained for the last few centuries, The big bang theory and more recently the CCC theory are accepted as they are provable. so basically what im saying is, its been proven :)
How about a "missing link"? When will it be proved / disproved? I lost you here, missing link between? if you are referring to transitional phases for evolution, im not citing every single one, but there are THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of known /documented transitional phases, which further adds credence to evolution. There are more questions that could be asked...but let's proceed forward. It appears that "evolution" stories are ridiculous and impossible to prove...or disproved. Could science be another form of religion? One that is without deity but otherwise very similar. NO science is not a religion, science is torn apart day in day out, nothing is taken for granted, hundreds if not thousands of people verify independent research for anything to be accepted in to academia, and even then, said findings are always under review, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR FAITH in science, the scientific method holds true. also a religion in the popular sense requires a deity or object of worship, science and its many fields are a tool, an avenue, perhaps a better way to put things is, science is merely the arena for work to commence, not a shrine, its people are respected not revered. and further more science helps us in the now, it does not look to answer questions that it has no way to know if they are true or not, it answers questions that can be answered, as of right now , no one can say god exists or does not exist for certain, what i can say is that the probability of one existing in the abrahamic form is low and mind numbingly arrogant of us to think it does. so what i would ask is, how are the stories of evolution ridiculous? and what makes you think science is another form of religion? and to lead on from that question...actually, to preface that question i would ask you do define religion please? 2k
I don't believe it's judgemental, hurtumbad, to question anyone's intelligence who might believe that the universe is only 6000 years old and that God created all that is in it in a sequential 6 day period. Well, perhaps it is judgemental, but I won't apologize for that judgement.
Evolutionists never do.
I can respect the belief that God started the universe in its essence billions of years ago and watched over its development to its current state. I don't believe it, but I can respect it.
That is one alternative of many.
I can't respect someone who chooses to be completely ignorant of all scientific evidence in regards to the Biblical creation story.
I don't know that anyone's respect is necessary here in the discussion - mine included. All people tend to "filter out" details that don't fit with their beliefs. One explanation that I have heard regarding creation and 11000 years old is that God was able to make a universe that's apparent age is far greater than its actual age. I am not trying to say this is correct; it is a supporting explanation for the literal Biblical creation story.
I don't think mlm's post was in support of the creation story as a literal translation, by the way...I think he was just trying to point out that other explanations of our existence are no more valid...which I disagree with.
At least you take the time to consider what is actually written Mano. We will disagree on this point. IMHO...science has not gone nearly far enough to "prove" any of their theories. Until they do, I will continue to point this out.
One explanation that I have heard regarding creation and 11000 years old is that God was able to make a universe that's apparent age is far greater than its actual age. I am not trying to say this is correct; it is a supporting explanation for the literal Biblical creation story.
To what end? I understand that the religious believe that "God works in mysterious ways" and that "we cannot expect to understand his motives", but what would be the point of this God trying to deceive his people in this way? Just messin' with our heads, is he?
I don't know that anyone's respect is necessary here in the discussion - mine included.
We'll disagree here as well, mlm. Respect is very significant in this discussion. I'm very proud of how respectful this thread has remained with the exception of a very few heated posts that are to be expceted in this type of discussion. Good discussion and the positive exchange of ideas can never be accomplished without mutual respect.
IMHO...science has not gone nearly far enough to "prove" any of their theories. Until they do, I will continue to point this out.
I'm interested as to what you believe, specifically, mlm? You are clearly one who believes in creation, but to which theory do you subscribe? Do you believe that the earth, and universe, was created in 6 days between 6000 and 10000 years ago? Or, do you believe that God set in motion the events that led to everything the universe has become over billions of years? Or, do you believe that the story is correct, but misinterpreted, in that one day may have actually equalled an age spanning millions of years and that the 6 days of creation were actually several billion years? Or is it something different altogether?
Secondly, as someone once asked me in this thread, what evidence would you accept as proof that you are wrong? Is there any?
At least you take the time to consider what is actually written Mano.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...I'm here to learn and further my understanding, not to argue or convince. When somebody, like yourself, has an opinion that differs from mine, I try to soak it in and understand where its coming from. I may dispute it, but I try my best to understand it. This subject fascinates me.
Proved? oh god ( pun intended) the big bang is accepted because its in line with what we can observe and understand, im not saying its the be all end all of theories, but its one that works just fine with significant evidence, there are very few absolutes in this world i would think, and to say WE KNOW ANYTHING for 100% certain is hard to do, what i can say is that based upon the knowledge we have attained for the last few centuries, The big bang theory and more recently the CCC theory are accepted as they are provable. so basically what im saying is, its been proven :)
..."significant" evidence... that is not a scientific term. It is an opinion held by evolutionists.
...and to say WE KNOW ANYTHING for 100% certain is hard to do... How about knowing it 10%?
The big bang theory and more recently the CCC theory are accepted as they are provable... Then actually prove them. Demonstrate the big bang / CCC / or whatever theory you believe. Will you need 6 months or a year? if you are referring to transiti onal phases for evolution, im not citing every single one, but there are THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of known /documented transitional phases, which further adds credence to evolution. ...im not citing every single one... You cited none.
...THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of known /documented transitional phases... And yet you didn't list even one in support.
A similar argument could have been made about the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of people that could observe the world as being "flat". Without supporting facts - not conclusions / suppositions / etc., these are just claims.
NO science is not a religion, science is torn apart day in day out, nothing is taken for granted, hundreds if not thousands of people verify independent research for anything to be accepted in to academia, and even then, said findings are always under review,
This is the theory on how evolutionist science is conducted. This does not mean that it is how it is applied.
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR FAITH in science, the scientific method holds true. also a religion in the popular sense requires a deity or object of worship, science and its many fields are a tool, an avenue, perhaps a better way to put things is, science is merely the arena for work to commence, not a shrine, its people are respected not revered. and further more science helps us in the now, it does not look to answer questions that it has no way to know if they are true or not, it answers questions that can be answered, as of right now ,
No awards in science? No political involvement whatsoever in science? No funding based upon personal beliefs in science? No social status involved in science?
no one can say god exists or does not exist for certain,
We will all know for certain when we die. Sooner or later all of us will know.
what i can say is that the probability of one existing in the abrahamic form is low and mind numbingly arrogant of us to think it does.
There is no supporting scientific data supporting this statement. Yet some will take it as fact. This proves my point nicely.
so what i would ask is, how are the stories of evolution ridiculous?
For one thing, it is no more compelling to believe in a "magical bang" as opposed to a "magical fruit".
and what makes you think science is another form of religion?
See above.
and to lead on from that question...actually, to preface that question i would ask you doto define religion please? This format doesn't permit me to comply. I am not going to call you out on providing little details and then do the same thing. If you are interested, you could begin by consulting with a religious person in your area and then doing the research necessary.
Mano: I can't respect someone who chooses to be completely ignorant of all scientific evidence in regards to the Biblical creation story.
mlmeng16: I don't know that anyone's respect is necessary here in the discussion - mine included.
Mano: We'll disagree here as well, mlm. Respect is very significant in this discussion. I'm very proud of how respectful this thread has remained with the exception of a very few heated posts that are to be expceted in this type of discussion. Good discussion and the positive exchange of ideas can never be accomplished without mutual respect.
Your not respecting someone that supports Biblical creation story today is to what I responded. I agree with respecting other points of view that don't necessarily agree with me.
I'm interested as to what you believe, specifically, mlm? You are clearly one who believes in creation, but to which theory do you subscribe? Do you believe that the earth, and universe, was created in 6 days between 6000 and 10000 years ago? Or, do you believe that God set in motion the events that led to everything the universe has become over billions of years? Or, do you believe that the story is correct, but misinterpreted, in that one day may have actually equalled an age spanning millions of years and that the 6 days of creation were actually several billion years? Or is it something different altogether?
My personal beliefs have been held out of the discussion so as to focus on my point. That point being that humankind is nowhere near being able to demonstrate with certainty either explanation - if it is even possible. In previous discussions on this topic or similar, the discussion has tended to focus on which side are you on rather than actual discussion. Therefore, I will have to leave you wondering.
Secondly, as someone once asked me in this thread, what evidence would you accept as proof that you are wrong? Is there any?
If I die and there is "nothing", I would have certainly been wrong about God. However, you are probably referring to while I'm still in existence in this form. It may or may not be possible in this case. I'm not one to "follow the crowd". I do keep an open mind about it.
Your not respecting someone that supports Biblical creation story today is to what I responded. I agree with respecting other points of view that don't necessarily agree with me.
Fair enough. In that case, let me amend my earlier statement and say that I could respect a person that believes in the Biblical creation, but I could not respect that belief.
My personal beliefs have been held out of the discussion so as to focus on my point.
That's rather convenient, mlm. In this discussion, your beliefs are important to understanding your point. In previous discussions on this topic or similar, the discussion has tended to focus on which side are you on rather than actual discussion. Therefore, I will have to leave you wondering.
I think its plain which side you are on, but it would be nice to have some clarity as to the depth of your understanding of your own side. If you'd rather not indulge me, so be it.
I have made dozens of posts in this thread and I think you would be hardpressed to find one that focused on debunking someone else's viewpoint. I like to know who I'm talking to so I can understand their point of view, but that point of view does not define the discussion for me.
If I die and there is "nothing", I would have certainly been wrong about God. However, you are probably referring to while I'm still in existence in this form. It may or may not be possible in this case. I'm not one to "follow the crowd". I do keep an open mind about it.
Sometimes an open mind isn't enough. Sometimes an inquiring mind...a curious mind...is needed to truly understand something. Do you have that, mlm? Do you take the time to study this topic from all sides?
I only ask because you are being so coy with your beliefs...its tough to have this discussion with somebody who doesn't want to share their personal beliefs.
..."significant " evidence ... that is not a scientific term. It is an opinion held by evolutionists.
...and to say WE KNOW ANYTHING for 100% certain is hard to do ... How about knowing it 10%? I really don't want to get into the scientific side of this debate because, like I said earlier, I don't feel educated enough to make an intelligent argument, but this little banter intrigued me.
What are you saying science is only 10% certain of? Evolution? The Big Bang? All of the above? I think that is selling the scientific world very short if that is what you believe.
I'm not saying that evolution has been proven beyond all doubt, but based on what evidence I have seen(the skeletal remains of dozens of related species that indicate a definite pattern of evolution over millions of years), trying to say that evolution can't be proven is like saying to someone showing you a duck, "Yes, I can see it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, but that doesn't mean you can PROVE its a duck!!"
<dd style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;"></dd><dd><dl>..."significant" evidence... that is not a scientific term. It is an opinion held by evolutionists. An opinion ill grant, BASED UPON evidence that leads to that conclusion, they dont just think : so this guy told this guy that X happened, this guy did not record a thing for a tleast 3 decades and 2000 years later its validity is unquestioned, oh and by the way, there were burning bushes, global floods , arks that contain millions of species etc etc BUT...there may have been this guy in and around modern day middle east, we think he existed ...and suddenly the other guy goes, well thats enough for me, thats significant evidence. significant evidence has to be observable, provable with regards to mathematics and science we know today. we dont just state the FSM exists in the sky is his own bowl of tomato sauce. ..and to say WE KNOW ANYTHING for 100% certain is hard to do... How about knowing it 10%? what makes you think its only 10%? Then actually prove them. Demonstrate the big bang / CCC / or whatever theory you believe. Will you need 6 months or a year? you are kidding me right? depends how well you understand science, but this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, you realise...that to understand the inner workings of theoretical physics you need at least a Phd, but if you want to understand the basis, their are THOUSANDS of articles and books, just use google or amazon, search for brian greene, hawking who ever. its really easy, hell go to your local high school and ask a science teacher, THIS IS ACCEPTED IN ACADEMIA, because my friend, it has been proven and is in line with our knowledge. You cited none. i should have picked my words to state that i intended not to, but here we go i guess. Ill preface this by saying, these are vary vary basics, but look by a guy called steve j gouald he has a few very good books on this stuff. but reading is the best way to learn, i can merely only point you to such things; thats just one citiation. i suggest you merely google the subject of transitional fossils.<dd><dl> http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ </dl><dl> </dl><dl>im just going to stop here as this can go on and on and on.
A similar argument could have been made about the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of people that could observe the world as being "flat". Without supporting facts - not conclusions / suppositions / etc., these are just claims. the only similarity here is your choice of words not their logical application, ill grant that science is every evolving but no one observed the world to be flat, no one flew out of the atmosphere and went ' oh looks it flat' they saw the sun slip below the horizon, marvelled at the vastness of the ocean, etc etc. one day if the spherical nature of this world is reavealed then so be it, but at least up to now im not taking something on pure and utter faith without any such evidence to truely support an invalid argument,. This is the theory on how evolutionist science is conducted. This does not mean that it is how it is applied. excuse me? you lost me? to me conducted means how things are done, there for implying how things are well done..thats kind of like saying, this is how evolutionist science is applied, not conducted. but either way, thats how its done, from top to bottom, nothing makes it to the point of being scientific fact without obscene levels of scrutiny, this my friend, is how its done, its not another theory. No awards in science? No political involvement whatsoever in science? No funding based upon personal beliefs in science? No social status involved in science? I think i should have rephrased, no faith in the propositioning of theories etc, we dont leap to conclusions. but as far as your awards and such go, yes there is faith being placed in the people based upon what they have achieved, faith is the belief of X without any evidence to confirm it, faith as you put it, does not exist. evidence exists that is tangible in order to for such institutions to back scientists. There is no supporting scientific data supporting this statement. Yet some will take it as fact. This proves my point nicely. Ahhh now you turn to scientific data, i did not say there was any scientific data...well to a degree i guess there is. this statement is a statement made using logic, its hard to imagine. ill pose to you what i posed to another early on. take in to account the following: end of the day i see no reason for a god of this nature to exist. that a being of inconceivable power created this universe, and suddenly this being cares for you on a personal level, but neglects the following. you are but one man on a rock, which accounts for ( with all the other planets in the system) for less than 1 percent of the matter in system ( the sun account for the 99%) then take in to account that it takes 8 mins or so to get from the earth to the sun at the speed of light (186,000ish miles per second) then take in to account that this system is anchored by one star, ONE, one star out of a 100 billion stars in this galaxy, then factor in that there are over 100 billion galaxies, and then it sets in, your insignificant we are. and to think that a being of such power cares for us, boggles the informed mind. thats not even taking in to account the thousands of contradictions to his natures, his poor judgement, illogical thinking and callous and cruel nature. it to me, shows that a being that is described like that, is not worth it, if it even exists. For one thing, it is no more compelling to believe in a "magical bang" as opposed to a "magical fruit". i disagree, the big bang can be traced and observed , we know an amazing outburst of energy took place, we KNOW red light shift exists,we now have evidence that there were numerous such events, meaning that this universe could not be the first, that this cycle repeats itself, there for leading to an almost infinite number of universes due to infinite regress. but i digress. show me a magical frust, a lizard endowed with vocal cords, or an ark with said dimensions and appropriate tech to do what it said it did See above. *looks, looks again...still nothing :p * i have done the research i was very religious a point in my life, so why can you not define religion? i have asked numerous people in my life time and they have all answered differently yet similar to others depending on what they believe, i just ask because im confused as to what you think a religion is, as you label science as such. 2k </dl></dd></dl></dd>
