Print

[Infinitus]

Infinitus

Re: Scientology

You should read up a bit on theoretical physics gm112 rather than just coming out with a statement like that.

[gm112]

gm112

Re: Scientology

I'm just stating what I believe.

[Ben]

Ben

Re: Scientology

To bring real science into this, it is possible that gravity, when under incredibly dense situations like the big band acts in reverse and so explodes .
But how do we get to the point of the big bang? Simple - gravity. All the matter in the universe clubs together as the effects of the big bang (the constant moving outwards) slow, stop and reverse. Eventually the entire universe becomes a black hole, which is so dense that it starts to not only do nuclear fusion (like in stars), but to subatomic fusion, fusing together everything into a soup of whatever elementary particle may exist. And eventually this gravity reverses and we get the big band blah di blah blah, and it carries on again and again.

Meaning the universe has no beginning, nor an end, and so we have no need for a god .

Want a place to upload your sprites and games for FREE? Look no further than GameDevotion

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Scientology

Possum we aren't trying to 'tear down your beliefs' this is a DEBATE.  If you don't want to debate religous credibility, don't go into the debates section u__u

Perhaps you should read the rules before making stupid statements like that?

If you don't know how to follow the rules, perhaps you shouldn't post in the debate section?

It seems to me that religious people are rather pretentious (is that the right word?) about their beliefs.

But science is constantly changing, and people are always going back on their words.  I like science, because if things like the theory of evolution was true, it'd be all fine, because that's how God made it.

Liberals on the other hand are constantly battling with science trying to get it to prove what they want it to.  Me, I just accepted, and think "well, God must have made it that way".

Sorry for being all off-topicness...

I'll stay out now. ^_^

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Scientology

But science is constantly changing, and people are always going back on their words.  I like science, because if things like the theory of evolution was true, it'd be all fine, because that's how God made it.

See, what's left of the credibility of religion if you know that the majority of your holy books are fiction? I think you get to that point with a lot of religions...

[Kren]

Kren

Re: Scientology

And the  odyssey by Homer must also be totally correct because it mentions the Trojans, and they existed too! OMG!!

And people believe The Illiad as a Bible, obviously.

People believing in something does not make it true. Although that should be quite obvious.

Point is that history supports it (and to be honest I only meant for you to look at the first quoted section), and history does NOT support scientology. ^_^

Only history doesn't support either. All you gave me was a biased site with no credibility. =\

if you want a better page than that check this one..
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1817

[Swoftu]

Swoftu

Re: Scientology

if you want a better page than that check this one..
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1817

Then in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the theory of evolution???the fable of a creation without a Creator

Evolution has nothing to do with how animals came to be, etc.

Why can???t we recognize that science is about to destroy us? Soon the need for God will come crashing back upon us. Then all men will have to admit that only God can save us.

LOL. That link horribly fails. It still has basically the same weaknesses as the first one, only with more fancy words. 

And let's not forget...

Copyright ?? 2006 Philadelphia Church of God

... Nope. no bias. (sarcasm)

[Gilgamesh]

Gilgamesh

Re: Scientology

And the  odyssey by Homer must also be totally correct because it mentions the Trojans, and they existed too! OMG!!

And people believe The Illiad as a Bible, obviously.

People believing in something does not make it true. Although that should be quite obvious.

Point is that history supports it (and to be honest I only meant for you to look at the first quoted section), and history does NOT support scientology. ^_^

Only history doesn't support either. All you gave me was a biased site with no credibility. =\

if you want a better page than that check this one..
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1817

Of course the bible has a lot of truth in it, but it also holds a lot of !@#$% and exaggerations. (or as some prefer to call it; "metaphors")