Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

[TANGODANCER]

In the light of being so thick and lacking in understanding against Commie's great and infinite wisdom, ( possibly getting a little pxxxed off with his insulting manner might just have something to do with it) I'll pass on the lot. Better and cleverer men than me abound on every Religion/Christianity/Science forums and argue the clock round, and I've said all I need to without boring repitition. You have questions, direct them at the fount of all wisdom. "Iresistable force meets immovable object" springs to mind about the whole thing. Over and out.

[Worthy4England]

In the light of being so thick and lacking in understanding against Commie's great and infinite wisdom, ( possibly getting a little pxxxed off with his insulting manner might just have something to do with it) I'll pass on the lot. Better and cleverer men than me abound on every Religion/Christianity/Science forums and argue the clock round, and I've said all I need to without boring repitition. You have questions, direct them at the fount of all wisdom. "Iresistable force meets immovable object" springs to mind about the whole thing. Over and out.

I've looked at the clock. It has two sets of parallel sides, so is absolutely not round.

[communistworkethic]

In the light of being so thick and lacking in understanding against Commie's great and infinite wisdom, ( possibly getting a little pxxxed off with his insulting manner might just have something to do with it) I'll pass on the lot. Better and cleverer men than me abound on every Religion/Christianity/Science forums and argue the clock round, and I've said all I need to without boring repitition. You have questions, direct them at the fount of all wisdom. "Iresistable force meets immovable object" springs to mind about the whole thing. Over and out.

that irritation is probably something to do with the holes in your posts being pointed out to you. You're the one claiming the knowledge of science then showing quite clearly that you don't have it, or claiming an open mind then displaying the big padlock thereon. You even reduced this to a playground with your "I'm older than you" comment.

Where do I claim infinite wisdom? Again you try and cover your own failings by casting lies and spouting rhetoric and confused views of reality. I'll say it again, neither I nor science has all the answers at present, that's why we keep looking, in the meantime we'll use what we know to form a theory based on logic and evidence and we'll test it to see if it's right, if it's not we'll move on and look at other possibilities, we won't take an improbable one as "gospel".

You constantly whinge about people getting personal, but again you are the biggest hypocrite, this post above is nothing but a personal attack, nowhere does it seek to question or debate.

[Prufrock]

Tango, my view is this. Our landlord wanted to take our deposit and keep it outside the legally required special accounts, saying he was breaking the law not us so there was no risk for us. We said no, and he got angry because we didn't 'trust' him. I dont trust many people or things, and the only reason i do is when i have evidence that they are trustworthy. I cant beleive in god because i base everything else i believe on things i have witnessed or gotten from reliable sources. I personally don't count the writings of a church at the time hell bent on manipulating people and maintaining power to be reliable sources.

That said we all judge people, we say we dont but we do, we make microscopic, and sometimes larger judgements based on deeds and words and for me the thing matters the most was you saying you had questioned your beleifs. IMO the truest words ever spoken werer Captain Socrates with 'the unexamined life isn't worth living'. Sometimes i think to myself 'how the f*ck can anyone sane beleive in god' but for me, as long as those people who do beleive question it then it's all gravy.

i didnt post that link to offend anyone, nor to kick off the big argument again, it was just meant to be humourous light relief. I have a very dark sense of humour hence why i found it funny, and it is a satirical piece, written by a man sceptical to his core. I dont necessarily believe in all his suggestions, by they do ammuse me and many others. But, as i said none of it was meant to offend, hence why i put in a link and not just copied and pasted. As you have quite rightly said none of us are going to convince the other side to change, we all have our opinions and they are firmly enough held that they wont change. You, I, Commie and everyone else on here and in the world is guilty of looking for and accepting only evidence that supports one's own theory. Tis a human characteristic and we all do it, everyday, in everything to a greater or lesser extent. An example for which would be the clasic anti-religion, 'how can there be a god, when small defenceless children die everyday?' a beleiver's answer to which might be 'God has a higher purpose', or 'gone to a better place'. A non-believer would argue it is because 'life is random and unfeeling and that hild was weak and therefore died, its a shame, but black death feels no shame, or pity (aargh cant remember if thats a Virgil or Homer saying)'. Similarly, a believer might point out an object of natural beauty and say how could that just randomly appear? a believer says god made it, a non beleiver might argue it is to do with the body evolvong to the surroundings reacting to make us enjoy the view so as to produce endorphins to give us a kick. To me religion's argument in the first instance is weak, but so is sciences in the second one. I as a non beleiver would ignore argument b, and use argument a to back up my beliefs. I would suggest you would do the oppsite.

At the end of the day i shan't persuade you to change your beliefs, nor you mine. I don't think either of us really want to. However i live my life by evidence, and if someone were to try to convince me god created everything, they would need to prove it. I do think you misunderstand the scientists viewpoint when. We don't claim to know how the world was created, what we do know is there are things people in the past havent understood, and have therefore tried to explain away by the existence of a god, that we now understand. My view is eventually this will happen regarding the big questions. I think the idea that a supreme force has an influence on things to be unlikely but not completely unrealistic. I find the idea that this supreme force created everything, is anthropomorphic, has a moral system, a higher purpose and created a heaven for us all to go and live in absurd, but thats only my opinion, and counts for no more than anyone else's.

You say you like the idea that there is a god and an afterlife and a reward for living a good life. Similarly i like the idea that this is not a test, that we are not what would effectively be a reality tv show for a guy with a beard sat on a cloud. I feel a better person when i do something good because i know i have done it for that reason, not because im scared if i didnt id have a crow pick my liver out every day for eternity. We each chose what we want to believe, and as ever, and with every situation, humans will believe whatever it suits them to believe, that will never change.

all of what i have just written was intended not to convince you, or anyone else, but just to express my opnions, and to stress i genuinly didn't mean to cause any offence, to anyone with my links (if anybody makes a deodorant joke they'll soon be finding out once and for all wether there is a god or not ).


EDIT

[Montreal Wanderer]

But they were Americans.

That is true - but I thought I could see the similarity of argument - The state of Tennessee were saying that man was a divine creation of God and not evolved - per Charles Darwin.

I thought you were saying that we are not evolved from primates - so assumed you were inferring that were created directly by God - hence the Stopes Monkey Trial reference.

If that is not what you were saying, then where does man come from - if not from God, or evolved, then how did we get here?

Yes, I understood your relevant point Sluffy, and I'd be a rare Christian who didn't think we were created by God.

Quite, but I thought most Christians accepted evolutionary theory and not the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Are you saying that God created Adam and that Eve was actually created from Adam's rib - is that how you believe mankind originated?

Some Christians still reject the theory of evolution and cling to literal interpretations of the Bible, Sluffy - indeed the most powerful man on earth may be one such. However, I think most Christians accept the overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution and incorporate it - making the Old Testament times and activities more figurative than literal. It is certainly easy to draw parallels between someone/thing saying "Let their be Light" and the Big Bang theory (at least until we find the cause of that Bang).

[sluffy]

But they were Americans.

That is true - but I thought I could see the similarity of argument - The state of Tennessee were saying that man was a divine creation of God and not evolved - per Charles Darwin.

I thought you were saying that we are not evolved from primates - so assumed you were inferring that were created directly by God - hence the Stopes Monkey Trial reference.

If that is not what you were saying, then where does man come from - if not from God, or evolved, then how did we get here?

Yes, I understood your relevant point Sluffy, and I'd be a rare Christian who didn't think we were created by God.

Quite, but I thought most Christians accepted evolutionary theory and not the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Are you saying that God created Adam and that Eve was actually created from Adam's rib - is that how you believe mankind originated?

Some Christians still reject the theory of evolution and cling to literal interpretations of the Bible, Sluffy - indeed the most powerful man on earth may be one such. However, I think most Christians accept the overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution and incorporate it - making the Old Testament times and activities more figurative than literal. It is certainly easy to draw parallels between someone/thing saying "Let their be Light" and the Big Bang theory (at least until we find the cause of that Bang).

I agree Monty most Christians do accept the concept of evolution - it just seemed to me from Tango's posts that he did not and I was interested to find out where in fact he did believe us to originate from.

As for 'let there be light' - I don't know if you've seen the following but there is now serious debate that evidence of pre- Big Bang exists -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7440217.stm

[Worthy4England]

That is true - but I thought I could see the similarity of argument - The state of Tennessee were saying that man was a divine creation of God and not evolved - per Charles Darwin.

I thought you were saying that we are not evolved from primates - so assumed you were inferring that were created directly by God - hence the Stopes Monkey Trial reference.

If that is not what you were saying, then where does man come from - if not from God, or evolved, then how did we get here?

Yes, I understood your relevant point Sluffy, and I'd be a rare Christian who didn't think we were created by God.

Quite, but I thought most Christians accepted evolutionary theory and not the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Are you saying that God created Adam and that Eve was actually created from Adam's rib - is that how you believe mankind originated?

Some Christians still reject the theory of evolution and cling to literal interpretations of the Bible, Sluffy - indeed the most powerful man on earth may be one such. However, I think most Christians accept the overwhelming evidence in favour of the theory of evolution and incorporate it - making the Old Testament times and activities more figurative than literal. It is certainly easy to draw parallels between someone/thing saying "Let their be Light" and the Big Bang theory (at least until we find the cause of that Bang).

I agree Monty most Christians do accept the concept of evolution - it just seemed to me from Tango's posts that he did not and I was interested to find out where in fact he did believe us to originate from.

As for 'let there be light' - I don't know if you've seen the following but there is now serious debate that evidence of pre- Big Bang exists -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7440217.stm

Regardless of whether we're talking this big bang (or a previous one from a universe we've bubbled-off according to the article) somewhere along the line, the first sub-atomic particle must have happened or something else that started this whole process. If you take the notion that there's always been something, where did it come from?

There are ongoing experiments at CERN around colliding sub-atomic particles to create something akin to the "big-bang", so it's not inconceivable that there's been more than one...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Thanks, Sluffy. I have to confess most of this stuff is a little beyond me. However, my girl friend who does appear to have some knowledge did put it to me in terms I almost understood. She wrote to me as follows:

In the Beginning there was Not Much of Anything that we have any real prayer of understanding anytime soon. You could perhaps envision something like a stable energy field of some sort. Then for no reason we know of for sure, Something happened. You could think of it as a Big Bang, although that wording of course gives rise to all manner of philosophical, logical and scientific controversy. And even if 'ear-sporting' entities were around to 'hear' events taking place at the time, there are those who argue that the 'sound' might have been more of a Big Ffsssssssssst...........................or Szzzzzzzzzhmmmmm, and not a 'Bang' at all.

And then there was Stuff.

And pretty soon there was Lots of Stuff, much of which appears to have found it's way to my car, office, and apartment such that moving about in the dark has become a fairly treacherous undertaking.

So now the Big Question is: Will the Stuff just continue to drift apart till the Universe is a silent, cold, vast, drafty place? (Big Fizzle theory) or; Will there be enough Stuff to inspire Gravity to suddenly pull everything back together in one Swell Foop (the Big Crunch theory), and after that there is much speculation as to whether there would be a Big Black Hole, an Alternate Anti-Big Bang and Anti-Universe, or just Really Dense Stuff. Or maybe everything will convert to a stable energy field once again, and we are back at Square One. There are of course lots of theories in between, such as (Mem)Branes of energy continually drifting and intersecting to inadvertently precipitate random fluctuations leading to Universes with Stuff from time to time, and so on.

Some of that made a little sense to me. But not all.

[Lord Kangana]

Rather worryingly, when you start to question when and how and why and by whom the big bang/the universe was created/happened, do you not then logically have to ask:

"Who created the creator?"

[InsaneApache]

"Who created the creator?"

Man did.

[David Lee's Hair]

"Who created the creator?"

Man did.

Good answer IA

[Lord Kangana]

"Who created the creator?"

Man did.

How do you know?

[InsaneApache]

Look at all the creation/gods myths throughout the eons, they all have one thing in common. Some stone/bronze age bloke made them up. Sorry I don't know his name. I like to think of him as Reg.

[Lord Kangana]

Look at all the creation/gods myths throughout the eons, they all have one thing in common. Some stone/bronze age bloke made them up. Sorry I don't know his name. I like to think of him as Reg.

Who mentioned God?

[Worthy4England]

Look at all the creation/gods myths throughout the eons, they all have one thing in common. Some stone/bronze age bloke made them up. Sorry I don't know his name. I like to think of him as Reg.

Who mentioned God?

Think it was Reg?

[communistworkethic]

who created Reg?

[InsaneApache]

His mum and dad.

[Worthy4England]

His mum and dad.

Were they called Adam and Eve Sproggins? that might close the circle a bit...

[InsaneApache]

His mum and dad.

Were they called Adam and Eve Sproggins? that might close the circle a bit...

Sadly, I like to think they were called Vic and Doris.

[Worthy4England]

His mum and dad.

Were they called Adam and Eve Sproggins? that might close the circle a bit...

Sadly, I like to think they were called Vic and Doris.

Maybe in 2000 years they will be....you might be on to something here....