Religious Discussions

A place for more serious off-topic discussion and debates.
Posts: 15994
Joined: June 2011
Location: North Carolina
When my friends ask me about my beliefs I just say Nolan.

Posts: 1997
Joined: July 2012
Location: Boston, MA
Dodd wrote:
BatMan528491 wrote:
Exactly. So mock them all then. /quote]
No, do the opposite, believe or don't believe in what every you like. Keep it to yourself and don't be a dick about it. Simple as that.
I agree with that too. Especially the keep it to yourself part, and I can't stand it when my religious friends try to push Christianity on me and say homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible etc. etc.

Posts: 105
Joined: September 2012
Dodd wrote:
LiberNovus wrote:Scientology is a religion created by an author on acid less than 60 years ago. It deserves to be mocked actually.
Then why not mock christianity? After all, its a bunch of people praying to an invisible man in the sky, right?
Got proof?

Posts: 22390
Joined: May 2010
Location: Castle
LiberNovus wrote:
Dodd wrote: Then why not mock christianity? After all, its a bunch of people praying to an invisible man in the sky, right?
Got proof?
I've never heard or seen God or Jesus nether has anyone else. I would say thats pretty big

Posts: 18705
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Scientology is openly scientifically inaccurate and the entire hierarchy functions on getting more money. We had a section on it in world religions. It's basically a cult that breaks you psychologically.

-Vader

Posts: 6771
Joined: February 2011
Location: The Discount Inn
Vader182 wrote:Scientology is openly scientifically inaccurate and the entire hierarchy functions on getting more money. We had a section on it in world religions. It's basically a cult that breaks you psychologically.

-Vader
Did someone say
break?
Image

Posts: 105
Joined: September 2012
Vader182 wrote:Scientology is openly scientifically inaccurate and the entire hierarchy functions on getting more money. We had a section on it in world religions. It's basically a cult that breaks you psychologically.

-Vader
Exactly.

So Dodd, how can you even COMPARE Scientology to the epic phenomenon known as Christianity?

Posts: 22390
Joined: May 2010
Location: Castle
LiberNovus wrote:
Vader182 wrote:Scientology is openly scientifically inaccurate and the entire hierarchy functions on getting more money. We had a section on it in world religions. It's basically a cult that breaks you psychologically.

-Vader
Exactly.

So Dodd, how can you even COMPARE Scientology to the epic phenomenon known as Christianity?
I'm going to sound like a hypocrite because I said I like to just keep to myself and not sound like a smug atheist but because you called me out on it here it is; Christianity believes in Jesus and God, whatever. Thats all well and good, but people are praying to an invisible man in the sky, simple as that. It seems looney to me, If Jesus ever appears one day and proves me wrong then I will eat my hat. But until then the whole idea of this (or any) religion seems funny.

Posts: 18705
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Dodd wrote:
LiberNovus wrote:
Exactly.

So Dodd, how can you even COMPARE Scientology to the epic phenomenon known as Christianity?
I'm going to sound like a hypocrite because I said I like to just keep to myself and not sound like a smug atheist but because you called me out on it here it is; Christianity believes in Jesus and God, whatever. Thats all well and good, but people are praying to an invisible man in the sky, simple as that. It seems looney to me, If Jesus ever appears one day and proves me wrong then I will eat my hat. But until then the whole idea of this (or any) religion seems funny.
They aren't praying to an invisible man in the sky. Not a single scientist on earth understands the universe, what brought it here, what was the first cause that began the cycle of existence. Frankly, there's only a few competing theories. 1.) Mutli-verse theory goes so some lengths to disprove many theories for a creator. 2.) No idea. This is the most popular. 3.) A force or sentience outside this universe that doesn't conform to the rules of the universe itself.

It's a question of quantum physics, and science is every bit a religion as Christianity. I know that sounds silly, but much of what is held as absolute is on extremely shaky ground with much inconsistency, or phenomena that doesn't fit into the paradigm of our understanding of the universe. It's not about wishing up some god, it's about looking for what put us here, and of those options, which makes the most sense. So far, every stance requires a massive degree of belief. The more you study science, the more you realize it's largely assumptions on top of assumptions and a nearly never-ending ladder of them. It also tends to imply correlation implies causation, which isn't true either. I admit I don't have a mind proficient at science itself, but its concepts become more clear to me the further I research and examine it, while also speaking with individuals proficient at it.

Lastly, atheism is more of a paradox than theism. There is, scientifically, the potential for a god. Therefore, a perspective that claims there isn't one is scientifically incorrect. It too requires belief.

-Vader

Posts: 6771
Joined: February 2011
Location: The Discount Inn
Vader182 wrote:
Dodd wrote: I'm going to sound like a hypocrite because I said I like to just keep to myself and not sound like a smug atheist but because you called me out on it here it is; Christianity believes in Jesus and God, whatever. Thats all well and good, but people are praying to an invisible man in the sky, simple as that. It seems looney to me, If Jesus ever appears one day and proves me wrong then I will eat my hat. But until then the whole idea of this (or any) religion seems funny.
They aren't praying to an invisible man in the sky. Not a single scientist on earth understands the universe, what brought it here, what was the first cause that began the cycle of existence. Frankly, there's only a few competing theories. 1.) Mutli-verse theory goes so some lengths to disprove many theories for a creator. 2.) No idea. This is the most popular. 3.) A force or sentience outside this universe that doesn't conform to the rules of the universe itself.

It's a question of quantum physics, and science is every bit a religion as Christianity. I know that sounds silly, but much of what is held as absolute is on extremely shaky ground with much inconsistency, or phenomena that doesn't fit into the paradigm of our understanding of the universe. It's not about wishing up some god, it's about looking for what put us here, and of those options, which makes the most sense. So far, every stance requires a massive degree of belief. The more you study science, the more you realize it's largely assumptions on top of assumptions and a nearly never-ending ladder of them. It also tends to imply correlation implies causation, which isn't true either. I admit I don't have a mind proficient at science itself, but its concepts become more clear to me the further I research and examine it, while also speaking with individuals proficient at it.

Lastly, atheism is more of a paradox than theism. There is, scientifically, the potential for a god. Therefore, a perspective that claims there isn't one is scientifically incorrect. It too requires belief.

-Vader
Just like how theres potential for a teapot orbiting the sun.

Post Reply