ZFGC
General => Other Discussion => Boards => Archive => Debates => Topic started by: joeshmo on June 20, 2006, 01:58:15 am
-
What are your views on scientology? Its become a primary focus of YTMND. I find it silly to have a religion based on a science fiction book, but then again look at christianity.
-
I know this will sound stupid but...if Tom Cruise does it, it MUST be bad.
-
i like tom cruise, he's an awesome actor, but he fired his PR agent, and this is what happens
-
I know this will sound stupid but...if Tom Cruise does it, it MUST be bad.
lol
Anyway, I beleive all religions are just an escape from what happens in the real world. Doesn't it feel better to beleive that you will go to some great place in the sky compared to you will rot in the ground and be forgotten about. And thats only christianity, think about how crazy some religions are.
All religions screw up somewhere in there storys, thats why I am my own religion.
-
"So I was just standin here, and tom cruise go in the closet. Why won't he just come out? And I'm not gettin no answers...... SO I PULL OUT MY GUN! TOM CRUISE, COME OUT THE CLOSET OR I'M GONNA SHOOT SOMEONE!"
Lol, sorry. Religions are good, mkay? They may lie to gain popularity, mine didn't, but you can't dismiss them all as BS. There is no proof for or against religion, so just live with it.
-
i think that religions were made to keep people under some kind of control, so they didn't kill one another
-
I know this will sound stupid but...if Tom Cruise does it, it MUST be bad.
lol
Anyway, I beleive all religions are just an escape from what happens in the real world. Doesn't it feel better to beleive that you will go to some great place in the sky compared to you will rot in the ground and be forgotten about. And thats only christianity, think about how crazy some religions are.
All religions screw up somewhere in there storys, thats why I am my own religion.
when Jesus said about the sky he was talking about a place that can't be described with a human words. the same as hell.
-
I believe that L. Ron Hubbard was a very disturbed individual who decided to create a religion based on his Science Fiction writings.
-
Ole' buddy L. Ron one day decided that he would prove that religions can be capitalized upon for money. Looks like he was right.
Anyone who thinks that a religion that was invented by a science fiction writer is in anyway true, I fear that they are sadly deranged.
-
I believe that L. Ron Hubbard was a very disturbed individual who decided to create a religion based on his Science Fiction writings.
I find it hilarious how you can say that without questioning your own religon.
-
Personally I'm a very active Pastaferian.
j/k
I think most tradition religions have a good common goal, to teach good morals. It's just the die-hard people that give me a headache. I mean the people who oppress their ideas unto others, it's really annoying.
Does scientology teach good morals or is it seriously just crap made for money?
-
Both. Mainly money. I think it teaches good morals in: No drugs. The no sex part would suck, so thats not good. But they charge a crapload of money, you would be better off with another religion.
-
They based a religion off of a science fiction novel? Is that whast it means when it relates to Xuma or something like that?
-
maby someone hase to read some stuff about it so he can tell what they say.
-
The no sex part would suck, so thats not good.
but tom cat had sex, hence tom kitten
They based a religion off of a science fiction novel? Is that whast it means when it relates to Xuma or something like that?
it's Xenu
-
I believe that L. Ron Hubbard was a very disturbed individual who decided to create a religion based on his Science Fiction writings.
I find it hilarious how you can say that without questioning your own religon.
I find it repulsive that you'd even compare scientology with Christianity.
"Because scientology is rong, all religion must oviously B rong!"
-
Eh, at least the bible has valid grounds on which it is based and actually holds some decent morals, contrary to this pure sciencefiction book. On the other hand, who's to say it's completly wrong or fake? :p
-
I find it repulsive that you'd even compare scientology with Christianity.
And yet, there's very little evidence in support of either.
-
I find it repulsive that you'd even compare scientology with Christianity.
And yet, there's very little evidence in support of either.
There's plenty of support, but there's so much more ignorance that makes one incapable of seeing it.
-
There's plenty of support, but there's so much more ignorance that makes one incapable of seeing it.
Well, I like to keep an open mind. What support are you talking about?
-
The idea of aliens seems more likely to me than a god.
-
Historical support. You know, simple things here and there, such as: http://www.beyondthisplanet.org/bible/No_mistakes/accurate_history1.htm
-
I wouldn'r ever compare scientology with christianity. Even though I find both to be vile.
Scientology charges thousands of dollars for their religious services, which is utter !@#$% and means they make a prophet, which also means they should be taxed because religion isn't a buisness.
At least the chrstian church on a whole doesn't have the audacity to charge for it's churchley services.
-
You have to PAY to belong in that religion? This was one good thing about the Protestant Reformation, the introduction to private worship in one's own home, basing conclusions on the Bible as they themselves see it. At least, that's what I think happened, I could be wrong, Global seems like such a long time ago...
-
You have to PAY to belong in that religion? This was one good thing about the Protestant Reformation, the introduction to private worship in one's own home, basing conclusions on the Bible as they themselves see it. At least, that's what I think happened, I could be wrong, Global seems like such a long time ago...
yeah you have to pay, why do you think their almost all rich white folk?
-
Historical support. You know, simple things here and there, such as: http://www.beyondthisplanet.org/bible/No_mistakes/accurate_history1.htm
You can't be serious. That site is just stupid.
Then, an archaeologist discovered an ancient slab with writing on it. This mentioned that someone had had a battle with a nation of people called Hittites! The Bible was right! The following edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica contained lots if information about this people!
And the odyssey by Homer must also be totally correct because it mentions the Trojans, and they existed too! OMG!!
But Pharaoh got really angry. He forced the slaves to make bricks with clay and straw, then he made it harder by letting them use only stubble ( small, left over pieces of straw) with the clay.
Finally, they had only clay and nothing else.
For a long time, some people claimed that this part of the Bible was not real history at all, but just pretend stories. But one archaeologist proved that even tiny details, like the story of the bricks, were true.
He discovered an ancient building in Egypt, in the city of Pithon. The bottom of the walls used proper bricks, made of mud and straw. Further up the wall, middle layers were of bricks with mud and stubble. The archaeologists discovered that some of the stubble had been torn up by the roots! That is just what might have happened if a slave was rushing to make the quota of bricks that day. The top layers of bricks had no straw at all. They were just mud ??? exactly as the Bible recorded it!
That doesn't prove !@#$%. the only thing it proves (considering that the site is even credible, which I highly doubt) is that they used stubble. Also, may I please have a link to this archaeologist that supposedly found these things? That site seems to be seriously lacking in citations.
Archaeologists have discovered that the ruins of Jericho prove that the walls fell down ??? but not inwards, as if the army had battered them in. The bricks and rubble show that the walls fell outward! That was a miracle! No people would want to push their own city walls down from inside the city!
If a city is abandoned for a couple thousand years, what do you think the condition of the walls would be?
The archaeologists also found, inside the ruined city, pots full of grain. That proved that the city was not besieged and the people were not starved into defeat. The only explanation is that the Bible is right! The collapse of the walls and the defeat of Jericho was sudden.
Wouldn't you expect grain to rot after a thousand or so years? The author seems to miss the idea that the grain could've been brought there by the occupying force, or just be remnants of later attempts to live in the city.
Notice how the entire time the author of the site continually forgets to cite any sources. I'm going to totally throw away the credibility of this site.
-
What are your views on scientology? Its become a primary focus of YTMND. I find it silly to have a religion based on a science fiction book, but then again look at christianity.
BAH! for the billionth time scientology isnt based on a book, it was created by a sci-fi AUTHOR. It was based on his beliefs. After he founded the religion he wrote several books about it which is where this misconception started... anyway his name was L. Ron Hubbard. And its a load of old balls, even its followers know its made up....those famous weirdos.
-
I find it hard to go with any sci-fi book. How can you believe it? I mean, a book, science-FICTION, author? He just made it up to get money >_>
I find it a horrible religion. (Atheist ^_^ Don't try to convert me, rofl XD) Stick with an old faith, not a cult >_>
-
He just made it up to get money >_>
He was once quoted as saying "Writing stories for a penny a word is no way to get rich, the best way to become a millionaire is to start your own religion" so...um yeah he did. :D
We should try it: Zeldatology!
-
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.
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. ^_^
-
lol did any one see that south park episode about scientology that was funny. ;D :D ::) ;D :D
-
lol did any one see that south park episode about scientology that was funny. ;D :D ::) ;D :D
Yeah, actually I posted it here.
-
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. =\
-
People believing in something does not make it true. Although that should be quite obvious.
You were using a stupid example of comparing the truth of Homer's Odyssey to the Bible. People don't believe the Odyssey as they do the Bible, thus your statement has little relevance to the situation.
As for the rest of this debate: I quit... I give up, I've had these before, and it's not worth it. You win. Happy? I bet not, because I haven't unconverted from Christianity yet. It's really odd the obsession many aethiests have with tearing down Christian's beliefs. Makes you wonder if they really disbelieve it.
-
:'( I wasn't trying to unconvert anyone. what people believe is what they believe and people shouldnt try to change someones beliefs
-
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
-
Just a random observation (slightly related).
If you were to go up to a highly religious person and say "God doesn't exist, you're living a lie" they'd probably go ape at you and call it blaspheme (note highly religious).
If you were to go up to a highly scientific person (ie me) and say "Ben all of the things that science has taught you are wrong and you are living a lie". I'd be like "Really? Okay, personally I don't believe you but feel free to prove it."
It seems to me that religious people are rather pretentious (is that the right word?) about their beliefs.
-
Just a random observation (slightly related).
If you were to go up to a highly religious person and say "God doesn't exist, you're living a lie" they'd probably go ape at you and call it blaspheme (note highly religious).
If you were to go up to a highly scientific person (ie me) and say "Ben all of the things that science has taught you are wrong and you are living a lie". I'd be like "Really? Okay, personally I don't believe you but feel free to prove it."
It seems to me that religious people are rather pretentious (is that the right word?) about their beliefs.
Well yeh that is true, but its because the 2 things are founded on completly different things, science is founded of fact, religion is founded on ones own personal faith, so explaing faith is near enough impossible to someone who dosen't believe it and because of it religious people tend to get very defensive.
-
Still, why should they?
I personally believe that religion is there to fill in the gaps that science cannot explain. And it does that very well, with saying that God created the universe, because I am happy to believe that, until someone can prove what did make the universe "bang".
-
Scientology is complete !@#$%. I would believe that "god(s)" created the universe instead of a big bang. It's very unlogical that something exploding created all this. Sure there are a bunch of particles flying everywhere..but thats just...stupid
-
You should read up a bit on theoretical physics gm112 rather than just coming out with a statement like that.
-
I'm just stating what I believe.
-
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 :D.
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 :).
-
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. ^_^
-
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...
-
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 (http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1817)
-
if you want a better page than that check this one..
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1817 (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)
-
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 (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")