The Insanity of Scientology

[bob60292]

Quote by: another day Argh. There is no such thing as "biblical evidence"...by that logic, the book Dianetics is evidence of Scientologys truth because it's "dianetical evidence". Neither is proven beyond it's own pages, it's just a story book written by humans with some silly fable-like story of a talking snake and an apple. It's like hansel and gretal and all that crap. No it would not. There is nothing to prove anything about the divine roots of christianity. Explain to me how atheism is a religion? Keeping in mind the definition of religion. Thank you.

____________________________________________________________
Argh to you too. Biblical evidence is, for one, found in general consistency among several different authors throughout several different centuries.. It is also found in in the way in which the individual authors depict themselves up to and including their own flaws; and the complete change that occurred in them historically as a result of what they perceived as the major miraculous event. It also shows that few men would die for the truth, but it is not at all probable that several men, who previously displayed cowardice.would willingly risk and give their lies for a lie. If biblical evidence, however, were the only evidence, it could possibly be viewed as bullshit just like scientology. There are contemporary secular historical sources such as Josephus, who have written eye witness accounts, as well as many eye witnesses who were still alive at the time the gospels were written. Less has been written about George Washington, but we don't doubt that he existed and did great things.
I personally don't care if you accept this or not; but it was a moronic statement to compare christianity to scientology. Hubbard is still dead. Jesus of Nasareth, with the fear,power ,and intimidation bestowed upon the tomb's guards by the ruthless Roman authorities, arose and was witnessed by over 500 people. It's no wonder that those who denied Him before, died for Him gladly afterward. Thney knew they were going to a better place.
As far as athiesm is concerned, modern science tells us that all effects need a cause. I wasn't there at the time of quark confinement, or the " breathing" of life into man, but I can assure you that the Earth,the planets and the stars... exist. In fact so do I." I think therefore I am" It is more difficult to believe that matter created itself than that an ever existent intelligent being created the universe. But either case is a question of belief in as much as the weight of the evidence is concerned.
Yes the weight of the evidence would hold its own in an unbiased court of law; and it is also true that athiesm is a matter of faith.

[Jack]

the weight of the evidence would hold its own in an unbiased court of law

Only with 12 believers on the jury. Unbiased? Hardly.

athiesm is a matter of faith

Faith in what, exactly? You do know, I hope, that atheist simply means not theistic. It's not a statement of belief, rather of disbelief.

[bob60292]

Quote by: Isherwood Only with 12 believers on the jury. Unbiased? Hardly. Faith in what, exactly? You do know, I hope, that atheist simply means not theistic. It's not a statement of belief, rather of disbelief.

________________________________________________________________
If you choose not to believe when the criteria for non-belief is obviously faulty or inadequate you have ultimately chosen a position that is void of evidence. We know that traveling east does not lead you off the cliff of a flat Earth. If you travel east long enough you will reach the west. You are traveling" east "in disbelief, but finding the faith of your "disbelief" in the "west" Call it what you may. It is nothing other than faith in a round-about way

[bob60292]

Quote by: Compugasm DNA of Jesus, planks from the Arc, even finding the grail, doesn't prove the existance of God. If it did, you might as well say that fossils are evidence of God.

______________________________________________________________

In a sense fossils are evidence of God.

[Jack]

We know that traveling east does not lead you off the cliff of a flat Earth. If you travel east long enough you will reach the west. You are traveling" east "in disbelief, but finding the faith of your "disbelief" in the "west" Call it what you may. It is nothing other than faith in a round-about way

A poor analogy. Ideally, no matter which way you traveled, you'd wind up at the same place. Obviously, we have traveled different directions and wound up in different places. I don't have faith in atheism, I have no faith in theology.

In a sense fossils are evidence of God.

If we found the fossil of a god, I'd agree. Otherwise, the misinterpretation of the fossil record is perceived by some as evidence.

[bob60292]

Quote by: Isherwood A poor analogy. Ideally, no matter which way you traveled, you'd wind up at the same place. Obviously, we have traveled different directions and wound up in different places. I don't have faith in atheism, I have no faith in theology. If we found the fossil of a god, I'd agree. Otherwise, the misinterpretation of the fossil record is perceived by some as evidence.

_______________________________________________________________
Absolutely We would end up in the same place. That is exactly the point. We both end up with a faith. I perceive the evidence in favor of christianity; you have decided to declare for yourself the belief that noone created the universe. You can't prove it; and it is therefore a faith.
Fossils are evidence. There is no effect without a cause. That is a scientific principle.
If I'm wrong there is no harm done. If you happen to be wrong, then it's betweenn you and God. I'm not sure I'd want to be in that position as an athiest. Good Luck.

[Jack]

You can't prove it; and it is therefore a faith.

No, faith isn't involved in disbelief. I do not have, nor do I require, an absolute answer to every question. I don't mind saying "I don't know".

Faith demands an outcome. You don't have to have faith about the present. You know what's happening right now. Faith concerns the future, the outcome of the present. Atheism doesn't anticipate an outcome, there's no end game. Life is a process. So we don't have a use for faith in the way you are using the term.

[Cephus]

Quote by: bob60292 I'm not Catholic; but christianity has not only biblical evidence, but also archeological, historical, and testomonial evidence. There is nothing on earth that is 100% provable; but the evidence for the Christian faith would be adequate enough to hold up in a court of law. Scientology would be laughed out; and athiesm is, in itself, a religion that requires more faith than that of the Christian believer by far.

First off, there is no such thing as Biblical evidence. The Bible is a book of mythology. It is not viewed by credible historians as being historically valid or verifiable. Secondly, there isn't a shred of archeological, anthropological, historical or any other evidence to support the amazing claims in the Bible. In fact, in every case where science can examine the Bible's claims, the Bible proves conclusively to be wrong. Every single case.

Christianity is a laughable farce, followed by millions of delusional people who only believe because they're terrified of the alternative. Yes, Scientology is even more laughable, but that doesn't make Christianity in any way, shape or form true.

[bob60292]

Quote by: Isherwood No, faith isn't involved in disbelief. I do not have, nor do I require, an absolute answer to every question. I don't mind saying "I don't know". Faith demands an outcome. You don't have to have faith about the present. You know what's happening right now. Faith concerns the future, the outcome of the present. Atheism doesn't anticipate an outcome, there's no end game. Life is a process. So we don't have a use for faith in the way you are using the term.

________________________________________________________________
If you say you don't know you are not an athiest. You are an agnostic.

[bob60292]

Quote by: Cephus First off, there is no such thing as Biblical evidence. The Bible is a book of mythology. It is not viewed by credible historians as being historically valid or verifiable. Secondly, there isn't a shred of archeological, anthropological, historical or any other evidence to support the amazing claims in the Bible. In fact, in every case where science can examine the Bible's claims, the Bible proves conclusively to be wrong. Every single case. Christianity is a laughable farce, followed by millions of delusional people who only believe because they're terrified of the alternative. Yes, Scientology is even more laughable, but that doesn't make Christianity in any way, shape or form true.

_______________________________________________________________

The way you swing is your business; but if you should desire to swing in the direction of openmindedness you might read The case for Christ by Lee Strobel or the case for Faith by Lee Strobel. There is also a book written by a competent attorney that deals with the issue of Christianity's formidible position in a supposed court of law.
Yes there is perhaps symbolism and allegory in the Hebrew scriptures that is somehow taken for literal fact; but the Truth that exists is ofter found in the Underlying principle" between the lines."
If you lke to read also look into
Scientific Creationism byHenry Morris PHD
Religion And Human Science by Daniel Helminiak PHD
The Science Of God by Gerald Schroeder- distinguished physicist
Evidence That God Exists by Kenneth Boa -PHD and Robert Bowman Jr.University Professor
The Signature of God by Grant Jeffrey- Masters Degree and Honorary Doctorate
I found them all fascinating. I also entertained doubts at one time. Most of my studies had previously been more in your philosophical direction.

[Jack]

If you say you don't know you are not an athiest. You are an agnostic.

I'm not going to get caught up in the debate over which title applied by theists to non-theists applies in my case.

I am a non-believer. I see no evidence of gods and no need for gods. I'm not "on the fence" about that. Belief in the supernatural is outdated and unnecessary. I consider the belief in gods to be simplistic, nonsensical. I'm no more open to the possibility of gods existing than I am to the possibility that unicorns exist.

If you wish to call me an agnostic, you go right ahead. I don't.

[bob60292]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm not going to get caught up in the debate over which title applied by theists to non-theists applies in my case. I am a non-believer. I see no evidence of gods and no need for gods. I'm not "on the fence" about that. Belief in the supernatural is outdated and unnecessary. I consider the belief in gods to be simplistic, nonsensical. I'm no more open to the possibility of gods existing than I am to the possibility that unicorns exist. If you wish to call me an agnostic, you go right ahead. I don't.

________________________________________________________________

That's your choice. Good Luck

[shrike]

Quote by: Isherwood I am a non-believer. I see no evidence of gods and no need for gods. I'm not "on the fence" about that.

But how can you be sure that there is no god?

Belief in the supernatural is outdated and unnecessary. I consider the belief in gods to be simplistic, nonsensical. I'm no more open to the possibility of gods existing than I am to the possibility that unicorns exist.

Well science ruled out the possibility of unicorn existence's I know that there is no unicorns. But there is no proof about what ever the god exist or not.
.

[bob60292]

[quote=shrike;298595]But how can you be sure that there is no god?

Well science ruled out the possibility of unicorn existence's I know that there is no unicorns. But there is no proof about what ever the god exist or not.
.[/
__________________________________________________________________
You tell him shrike]

[shrike]

You tell him shrike

What do you mean by that?

[another day]

When did science rule out the possibility of unicorns existing? How do you prove something like that? Science says that logically, bigfoot can't exist because we would have found a corpse by now. Yet some people still believe that bigfoots exist. It's the same with god.

But how can you be sure that there is no god?

How can you be sure there isn't a flying spaghetti monster that created the earth? It's an old argument but it really has to be said everytime you theists use this outdated argument.

[bob60292]

Quote by: another day When did science rule out the possibility of unicorns existing? How do you prove something like that? Science says that logically, bigfoot can't exist because we would have found a corpse by now. Yet some people still believe that bigfoots exist. It's the same with god. How can you be sure there isn't a flying spaghetti monster that created the earth? It's an old argument but it really has to be said everytime you theists use this outdated argument.

______________________________________________________________

Your argument is rediculous. Science has no need to prove anything about unicorns. We have never found one.
But you are hopefully not a unicorn; and you do exist. Science can prove that there is no effect without a cause. A lack of cause does not have the capacity to create something like you; but an ever existent intelligent being can. If you can not see the design in the universe around you it is because you arrogantly choose not to. Your "blindness" is established by decree, not by reality. Even Einstein would differ with your oppinion in no uncertain terms. He marvelled at the work and design of the Creator to the point in which he dedicated his life and work to understanding it.

[bob60292]

Quote by: another day When did science rule out the possibility of unicorns existing? How do you prove something like that? Science says that logically, bigfoot can't exist because we would have found a corpse by now. Yet some people still believe that bigfoots exist. It's the same with god. How can you be sure there isn't a flying spaghetti monster that created the earth? It's an old argument but it really has to be said everytime you theists use this outdated argument.

________________________________________________
Neither Strike nor I are " you theists. He is strike and I am myself. RUDE RUDE RUDE RUDE RUDE

[another day]

No, you are both theists thank you very much.

Here we go again with theists that can't understand that the world could be designed any other way then through a human-like being. Just because there is no god, does not mean that the universe was caused by "nothing" That is asinine.

As for einstein, here's what he said...

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe. But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

Einstein didn't believe in the silly personal idea of god that the naive believe in. He believed in some kind of central intelligence of systems that forms the core of all laws of reality and nature. This is the kind of "god" i believe in. It is not a god at all however, by conventional definition. Essentially, Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, that God is the mechanism of nature and the universe, having no personality.

Something doesn't need to be a living, conscious being to be intelligent. The universe was "created" by a core intelligence. it is a system if you will that guides all life. What you believe in is a living, conscious dude up in the sky who watches over us, has an ego, gets angry, has a need for revenge and a need for people to worship him etc., ridiculous. It's just the human ego projected onto the divine realm.

[Jack]

Science has no need to prove anything about unicorns. We have never found one.

We've never "discovered" a real god, either. Yet people go on believing. How about Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster? No proof, lots of belief.

A lack of cause does not have the capacity to create something like you; but an ever existent intelligent being can.

You dismiss evolution and embrace creationism. We know that. It doesn't make it sensible, plausible or acceptable to those who don't share your theism.

If you can not see the design in the universe around you it is because you arrogantly choose not to.

Insult aside, it's because we understand that "design" is in the eye of the beholder. Design is not an absolute standard, nor does it mean the same thing to everyone. What you perceive as designed I perceive as an elegant work of nature.