Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

[Prufrock]

I'd p*ss myself if they found out we were on the backs of 4 elephants who stood on a giant turtle who goes by the name of Great A'Tuin, mind...

It's not a turtle, it's a tortoise. Get your facts straight.

and whats under that tortoise, another tortoise? and under that?

[Montreal Wanderer]

which goes back to my point, who is anyone to say God hadn't changed his mind in 2000 years? Why is it taken that Sutcliffe was mad, yet Joan of Arc perfectly sane when she said God spoke to her? Yet she went on to break "Thou shalt not kill" too. So kicking the English out of France by going to war is a reasonable thing for God to say, but "kill some prostitutes" isn't?

Maybe it's me but I'm seeing a lack of consistency from this God chap.

I'm not sure Joan was considered sane at the time and she didn't actually kick the English out of France (they were still there to burn her in Rouen). However, she had to wait an awfully long time before she was accepted as a saint - I think she was canonized less than a century ago after considerable French pressure. So give Sutcliffe five hundred years to see if the church accepts the accuracy of his claim to hear the voice of God before making comparisons. Although they were both a little odd IMHO.

She was convicted of heracy and burned at the stake at the behest of the English church, 24 years later she was beatified by a Spanish Pope. Never said she achieved kicking the English out, that was her goal though. It's 27 years since Sutclifee was convicted.

Both were guilty of murder, yet, by your own acceptance, political pressure gets one canonised. The Cathlic church bowed to pressure for a retrial, then decided that God must have told her to kill the English. So in about 2500bc God is saying "thou shalt not kill" and in 15th century the church accepts that God said "It's ok to kill the English". Change of mind there according to the Church.

Actually, she was only declared a martyr 24 years after the execution. She was not beatified until 1909 and only canonized in 1920. As someone who was betrayed and died for her beliefs, I suppose martyr is a reasonable description (if one shares those beliefs). The political process of canonization was centuries later done at the behest of France who wanted to restore some patriotic pride after the Franco-Prussian War. Thus she died for political reasons and 500 years was made a saint for political reasons, IMHO.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'd p*ss myself if they found out we were on the backs of 4 elephants who stood on a giant turtle who goes by the name of Great A'Tuin, mind...

It's not a turtle, it's a tortoise. Get your facts straight.

About 20 years ago a local Mohawk who ran their cultural centre was complaining to me that the young Mohawks were rejecting traditional beliefs (I had gone to explain the use of computers in their library). When I asked the nature of the belief I was informed that North America was indeed a giant turtle swimming in a huge sea and that a woman (first ancestor) had once dropped from the clouds and landed on the turtle. There were, however, no elephants in this tradition. I wasn't surprised they were having difficulty with the youth accepting this tradition...

[Lord Kangana]

I'd p*ss myself if they found out we were on the backs of 4 elephants who stood on a giant turtle who goes by the name of Great A'Tuin, mind...

It's not a turtle, it's a tortoise. Get your facts straight.

Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers".

Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers?

Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

[communistworkethic]

It isn't just the religious that ask where did matter come from - plenty of scientists play with their particle accelerators too, trying to get to the answer. So actually, imo, "proof" is probably more within the science sphere whilst "belief" is more within the religious sphere. The only time I can see that changing soon, is if the religious side decided they could "prove" God existed, which, for my own part, I think they'll be hard pushed to do. That said, if the whole shebang can be rationalised down to a collision between particles and somehow from this collision, a whole host of years later, we have sentient life-forms holding irrelevent debates about something called religion on internet fora, then I suspect anything is possible, including as yet to be discovered "higher life forms". The scientific theorists would also have us believe that it isn't likely that we've the only planet in the cosmos to "evolve" in this manner, so what makes us think we're the highest lifeform, and if we're not, then it is just possible that something/body had some sort of hand in the development of the human race. Maybe it was a scientist playing with a particle accelerator?

you couldn't miss the point more if you tried. Scientist do look where the matter came from (that's what I said) but they don't assume it's a supreme being because they don't know, they look for an answer using evidence. The scientists accept though that they currently don't have an unequivocal answer just theories and that that isn't acceptable. Whereas the religious just go "god just existed forever and that's the way it is" and refuse to question it. I couldn't find my golf ball the other day, in spite of me thinking it would be in plain sight, was it down to bad eyesight, lots of grass or the golf-ball fairies? I found lots of other balls so it couldn't possibly be the first two, so it must have been the fairies, right?

Nobody has suggested we're the most evolved creatures in the universe, and I would not dismiss this as theory of events, nor would Eric Von Danniken, and I would say that from a probability sense it stands up as a stronger argument to the Bible's theory. Your suggestion is not what the Bible says, it's much closer to Scientologists, the Christian God gave up after Heaven and Earth then putting the lights on and he wasn't created he just is - so to try and draw it out to close the circle just doesn't work. To suggest one supreme being created us and everything in the universe is not just scienifically but philosophically pushing probability to a level beyond which it can be reasonably given merit.

As I've repeated several times now, science doesn't claim to have all the answers just yet, but filling the gaps with stuff that was just made up is no way to go about things.

[communistworkethic]

which goes back to my point, who is anyone to say God hadn't changed his mind in 2000 years? Why is it taken that Sutcliffe was mad, yet Joan of Arc perfectly sane when she said God spoke to her? Yet she went on to break "Thou shalt not kill" too. So kicking the English out of France by going to war is a reasonable thing for God to say, but "kill some prostitutes" isn't?

Maybe it's me but I'm seeing a lack of consistency from this God chap.

I'm not sure Joan was considered sane at the time and she didn't actually kick the English out of France (they were still there to burn her in Rouen). However, she had to wait an awfully long time before she was accepted as a saint - I think she was canonized less than a century ago after considerable French pressure. So give Sutcliffe five hundred years to see if the church accepts the accuracy of his claim to hear the voice of God before making comparisons. Although they were both a little odd IMHO.

She was convicted of heracy and burned at the stake at the behest of the English church, 24 years later she was beatified by a Spanish Pope. Never said she achieved kicking the English out, that was her goal though. It's 27 years since Sutclifee was convicted.

Both were guilty of murder, yet, by your own acceptance, political pressure gets one canonised. The Cathlic church bowed to pressure for a retrial, then decided that God must have told her to kill the English. So in about 2500bc God is saying "thou shalt not kill" and in 15th century the church accepts that God said "It's ok to kill the English". Change of mind there according to the Church.

Actually, she was only declared a martyr 24 years after the execution. She was not beatified until 1909 and only canonized in 1920. As someone who was betrayed and died for her beliefs, I suppose martyr is a reasonable description (if one shares those beliefs). The political process of canonization was centuries later done at the behest of France who wanted to restore some patriotic pride after the Franco-Prussian War. Thus she died for political reasons and 500 years was made a saint for political reasons, IMHO.

Poor editing on my behalf there, either way 24 years after her conviction, the case of heracy was overturned. Suddenly, it was ok to suggest you were on a mission from God, the Pope accepted that. The catholic encyclopaedia even talks of witness coming forward to "render their trubute to her ....supernatural powers".

[Lord Kangana]

Its heresy BTW.

[Worthy4England]

It isn't just the religious that ask where did matter come from - plenty of scientists play with their particle accelerators too, trying to get to the answer. So actually, imo, "proof" is probably more within the science sphere whilst "belief" is more within the religious sphere. The only time I can see that changing soon, is if the religious side decided they could "prove" God existed, which, for my own part, I think they'll be hard pushed to do. That said, if the whole shebang can be rationalised down to a collision between particles and somehow from this collision, a whole host of years later, we have sentient life-forms holding irrelevent debates about something called religion on internet fora, then I suspect anything is possible, including as yet to be discovered "higher life forms". The scientific theorists would also have us believe that it isn't likely that we've the only planet in the cosmos to "evolve" in this manner, so what makes us think we're the highest lifeform, and if we're not, then it is just possible that something/body had some sort of hand in the development of the human race. Maybe it was a scientist playing with a particle accelerator?

you couldn't miss the point more if you tried.

Maybe you're just not very good at getting your point across...

Scientist do look where the matter came from (that's what I said) but they don't assume it's a supreme being because they don't know, they look for an answer using evidence.

Remind me where I have disputed this? I have merely put forward a hypothesis that suggests it couldn't be discounted

The scientists accept though that they currently don't have an unequivocal answer just theories and that that isn't acceptable. Whereas the religious just go "god just existed forever and that's the way it is" and refuse to question it.

What about religious scientists? Maybe the religious don't question "it" because "it" doesn't matter to them, they believe in "it"

I couldn't find my golf ball the other day, in spite of me thinking it would be in plain sight, was it down to bad eyesight, lots of grass or the golf-ball fairies? I found lots of other balls so it couldn't possibly be the first two, so it must have been the fairies, right?

Maybe a magpie swooped down and made off with it? It could indeed have been fairies. I personally have never met any though. I suppose you're going to tell me for a fact fairies don't exist?

Nobody has suggested we're the most evolved creatures in the universe, and I would not dismiss this as theory of events, nor would Eric Von Danniken, and I would say that from a probability sense it stands up as a stronger argument to the Bible's theory. Your suggestion is not what the Bible says, it's much closer to Scientologists, the Christian God gave up after Heaven and Earth then putting the lights on and he wasn't created he just is - so to try and draw it out to close the circle just doesn't work. To suggest one supreme being created us and everything in the universe is not just scienifically but philosophically pushing probability to a level beyond which it can be reasonably given merit.

I'm not sure where you're heading with this one, and I'm 99% sure I haven't tried to differentiate between Scientology or Christianity, not even convinced I mentioned the Bible. Many popular faiths are generally about belief in some higher being - as Dave Allen used to say may your gods go with you. If the large particle accelerator over at CERN or Brookhaven can replicate the early evolution of our cosmos by colliding particles at high velocity and then watch them expanding, which I don't doubt,

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the ... nd-2006-05

then surely there's a line of thinking that suggests if the experiment was allowed to continue for a few hundred thousand millenia, that at some point life would evolve. This has some foundation, as it's already happened once, according to the scientific community - we're here. Surely this would mean that some "supreme being"/scientists/group of scientists had created life from matter. On that basis, I don't agree that scientifically or philosophically this is too far fetched.

As I've repeated several times now, science doesn't claim to have all the answers just yet, but filling the gaps with stuff that was just made up is no way to go about things.

You believe that the gaps are being filled with stuff that was just made up - and that's fine by me, others believe that whether literally or figuratively, the events followed the sequence described in their particular "Holy book". What happens if tomorrow (or the day after) Dr X finds a way that the whole process from particle collision onwards can be speeded up to a level approaching an infinite level of multiplication? So it happens not in millennia but days....Maybe on the first day they create a collision, on the second day maybe trees and birds appear etc.......

[communistworkethic]

worthy, I have accepted your particle accelerator premise as plausible if not probable, but it doesn't follow through as being what is suggested by any eligion currently, nor does it explain the question of who created the creators, which was my previous point - Abrahamic religions believe in one god, an eternal god with no creator, they are willing to accept that he doesn't need a creator but wont accept that science can't currently provide an answer for where all matter derives. This failure to explain is used as a point to prove God must exist, which is a leap of logic so big as to be illogical.

Religion has worked like the golf ball analogy, man decides he can't explain events so imparts some devine intervention as the only explanation. Thousands of years ago, you could understand why. But for people to continue doing so when reason, probability and evidence suggest otherwise?

As for religious scientists - the biggest hypocrits about.

[Soldier_Of_The_White_Army]

worthy, I have accepted your particle accelerator premise as plausible if not probable, but it doesn't follow through as being what is suggested by any eligion currently, nor does it explain the question of who created the creators, which was my previous point - Abrahamic religions believe in one god, an eternal god with no creator, they are willing to accept that he doesn't need a creator but wont accept that science can't currently provide an answer for where all matter derives. This failure to explain is used as a point to prove God must exist, which is a leap of logic so big as to be illogical.

Religion has worked like the golf ball analogy, man decides he can't explain events so imparts some devine intervention as the only explanation. Thousands of years ago, you could understand why. But for people to continue doing so when reason, probability and evidence suggest otherwise?

As for religious scientists - the biggest hypocrits about.

Funny you should say that. I've just watch 'The Reaping' on Sky and there was a part in it explaining how religious scientists had proven how the plague of locusts, the dieing of the first born etc etc where all part of a logical and natural progression.

Right, back to the topic.

[communistworkethic]

worthy, I have accepted your particle accelerator premise as plausible if not probable, but it doesn't follow through as being what is suggested by any eligion currently, nor does it explain the question of who created the creators, which was my previous point - Abrahamic religions believe in one god, an eternal god with no creator, they are willing to accept that he doesn't need a creator but wont accept that science can't currently provide an answer for where all matter derives. This failure to explain is used as a point to prove God must exist, which is a leap of logic so big as to be illogical.

Religion has worked like the golf ball analogy, man decides he can't explain events so imparts some devine intervention as the only explanation. Thousands of years ago, you could understand why. But for people to continue doing so when reason, probability and evidence suggest otherwise?

As for religious scientists - the biggest hypocrits about.

Funny you should say that. I've just watch 'The Reaping' on Sky and there was a part in it explaining how religious scientists had proven how the plague of locusts, the dieing of the first born etc etc where all part of a logical and natural progression.

Right, back to the topic.

Aye, it was in a film, so it must be true!

[CAPSLOCK]

Way too deep for me all this shit

Did we get anywhere in discovering owt about the 15 year old?

A Jehovas Witness or a Moron by any chance?

15 year old lads should be wanking not protesting

[Prufrock]

It isn't just the religious that ask where did matter come from - plenty of scientists play with their particle accelerators too, trying to get to the answer. So actually, imo, "proof" is probably more within the science sphere whilst "belief" is more within the religious sphere. The only time I can see that changing soon, is if the religious side decided they could "prove" God existed, which, for my own part, I think they'll be hard pushed to do. That said, if the whole shebang can be rationalised down to a collision between particles and somehow from this collision, a whole host of years later, we have sentient life-forms holding irrelevent debates about something called religion on internet fora, then I suspect anything is possible, including as yet to be discovered "higher life forms". The scientific theorists would also have us believe that it isn't likely that we've the only planet in the cosmos to "evolve" in this manner, so what makes us think we're the highest lifeform, and if we're not, then it is just possible that something/body had some sort of hand in the development of the human race. Maybe it was a scientist playing with a particle accelerator?

you couldn't miss the point more if you tried. Scientist do look where the matter came from (that's what I said) but they don't assume it's a supreme being because they don't know, they look for an answer using evidence. The scientists accept though that they currently don't have an unequivocal answer just theories and that that isn't acceptable. Whereas the religious just go "god just existed forever and that's the way it is" and refuse to question it. I couldn't find my golf ball the other day, in spite of me thinking it would be in plain sight, was it down to bad eyesight, lots of grass or the golf-ball fairies? I found lots of other balls so it couldn't possibly be the first two, so it must have been the fairies, right?

Nobody has suggested we're the most evolved creatures in the universe, and I would not dismiss this as theory of events, nor would Eric Von Danniken, and I would say that from a probability sense it stands up as a stronger argument to the Bible's theory. Your suggestion is not what the Bible says, it's much closer to Scientologists, the Christian God gave up after Heaven and Earth then putting the lights on and he wasn't created he just is - so to try and draw it out to close the circle just doesn't work. To suggest one supreme being created us and everything in the universe is not just scienifically but philosophically pushing probability to a level beyond which it can be reasonably given merit.

As I've repeated several times now, science doesn't claim to have all the answers just yet, but filling the gaps with stuff that was just made up is no way to go about things.

commie i have agreed with most of the scientific stuff you have sadi, i personally feel you argued over agressively. somebody else is as entitled to their faith as you or i am to our own atheism.


EDIT:bold letter was missed out first time round. everyone is friends again

[Worthy4England]

worthy, I have accepted your particle accelerator premise as plausible if not probable, but it doesn't follow through as being what is suggested by any eligion currently, nor does it explain the question of who created the creators, which was my previous point - Abrahamic religions believe in one god, an eternal god with no creator, they are willing to accept that he doesn't need a creator but wont accept that science can't currently provide an answer for where all matter derives. This failure to explain is used as a point to prove God must exist, which is a leap of logic so big as to be illogical.

Religion has worked like the golf ball analogy, man decides he can't explain events so imparts some devine intervention as the only explanation. Thousands of years ago, you could understand why. But for people to continue doing so when reason, probability and evidence suggest otherwise?

As for religious scientists - the biggest hypocrits about.

God is just a label. There are plenty of people who spend a lifetime (or lifetimes I guess if re-incarnation is your bag) reading scripture and interpreting it, sometimes literally, sometimes as parable. If all life started as particles, scientifically or religiously, the next question is absolutely where did they come from. Before anything there must have been something or nothing so from nothing all of a sudden everything started? The leap of logic is only huge if you want to believe it's impossible or as you put it illogical. To those who believe in "something", God or whatever, it isn't such a big leap.

You reasoning suggests to you this isn't so, others don't reason the same way. As for evidence and probability how do you calculate either empirically or mathematically that "God" is illogical or improbable, if this person/entity/thing is outside of our sphere of understanding or our ability to disprove?

Reason, probability and evidence suggest to you that it's improbable or illogical, because that's the way you want to rationalise it - for others it's different.

There are many branches of science, many of which have lots of representation from many religions. I'm not convinced that this is hypocritical at all in all scientific fields, although I could be pursuaded that in some fields of science, religion is at odds.

[Prufrock]

worthy, I have accepted your particle accelerator premise as plausible if not probable, but it doesn't follow through as being what is suggested by any eligion currently, nor does it explain the question of who created the creators, which was my previous point - Abrahamic religions believe in one god, an eternal god with no creator, they are willing to accept that he doesn't need a creator but wont accept that science can't currently provide an answer for where all matter derives. This failure to explain is used as a point to prove God must exist, which is a leap of logic so big as to be illogical.

Religion has worked like the golf ball analogy, man decides he can't explain events so imparts some devine intervention as the only explanation. Thousands of years ago, you could understand why. But for people to continue doing so when reason, probability and evidence suggest otherwise?

As for religious scientists - the biggest hypocrits about.

God is just a label. There are plenty of people who spend a lifetime (or lifetimes I guess if re-incarnation is your bag) reading scripture and interpreting it, sometimes literally, sometimes as parable. If all life started as particles, scientifically or religiously, the next question is absolutely where did they come from. Before anything there must have been something or nothing so from nothing all of a sudden everything started? The leap of logic is only huge if you want to believe it's impossible or as you put it illogical. To those who believe in "something", God or whatever, it isn't such a big leap.

You reasoning suggests to you this isn't so, others don't reason the same way. As for evidence and probability how do you calculate either empirically or mathematically that "God" is illogical or improbable, if this person/entity/thing is outside of our sphere of understanding or our ability to disprove?

Reason, probability and evidence suggest to you that it's improbable or illogical, because that's the way you want to rationalise it - for others it's different.

There are many branches of science, many of which have lots of representation from many religions. I'm not convinced that this is hypocritical at all in all scientific fields, although I could be pursuaded that in some fields of science, religion is at odds.

personally i think that is a fllawed human concept, time is a human invention, matter just is, i cannot be got rid of, nor can more be made. the idea of a before is a human notion because we apply the idea of time to everything we see and experience. there are views and theories that time for instance doesnt run in a straight line, therefore the idea of a before relating to where did stuff come from originally is not necessarily a true one. cant remeber what its called but its some branch of scientific philosophy. just another view (one which i might add i dont know that much about), as you were.

[Prufrock]

I've reached a new low, idly procrastinating from life, i came across something, and i actually thought of Commie. i dont mean that offensively, but in reality he, like all of us is just a faceless name on the internet highway cluttered with bigots fools and adverts for dishwashers. a person i may have seen tens of times, yet never met, but still somehow someone i feel like i know. a bit. i thought he and others might enjoy the bit at the bottom where the writer, Charlie Brooker defines 'scientology'. made me laugh.

Warning before i post the link. This is a link to a satirical piece about scientology AND religion in general, if it might offend you, dont read it. If it might not interest you dont read it. I am a student who's exams have finished and i literally have NOTHING better to do. Pity me. I dont want to kick of the big debate again i just thought it might make amusing reading for the non-believers, brightened up my day.


The main articles not his best but, the man can be brilliant.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 31,00.html

Sums up my views on the whole shebang.

A much better piece in my view, but not related to scientology

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 37,00.html

[TANGODANCER]

i literally have NOTHING better to do.

Must be a lot of it about right now.

[Prufrock]

i literally have NOTHING better to do.

Must be a lot of it about right now.

im dying here. i think ive read the internet.

[TANGODANCER]

im dying here. i think ive read the internet.

Okay, try putting you head round this then, just to save you of course :

Ref all these theorists, nihilists and knowlegable articles, the one thing that emerges strikingly is that for years non-believers and theorists urged everyone to approach it all with an open mind. Now, what does all that actually mean? What exactly is an open-mind?

See, I always took it at face value, ie not having a closed one, and definitely not an attempt to sway people away from their beliefs in a sort of bombastic conversion campaign or by calling them fools.

I was brought up in the most indoctrinated way, Catholic schoolboy, altar-boy, serving mass most mornings and attending church three times on Sunday. A lost-cause Catholic with a totally closed-mind, you may ask? Not so at all.

When school was behind and the options open, the church-going tapered off considerably. All the normal pursuits of a teenager were no different than they are today: girls, dance, a sneaky drink or two etc etc. Still attended church at weekends but the pressures were off and we began to think for ourselves. In the Bible, Jesus says it isn't necessary to be seen to worship ie, in a public place, church or ceremony, or at least as I understand it. So each of us approaches that as we see it. What problem up to now? None I can see. Faith/belief etc, suddenly become a personal option to all. I love the solemnity and atmosphere of the great churches and cathedrals, but you'd never see me on TV when a local church hosted "Songs of Praise" or somesuch. That's like all the fake celebrities and Royal hangers-on hogging seats at sporting events while the true fans can't get near.

What none of us believers do is to decry those who choose not to believe in God. We don't write articles taking the pxxs, articles on how foolish it all is, articles about fairies or articles decrying non-belief. As a case in point about open-mindedness; my best mate is a Freemason. Not just that, but was Grand Master of a local lodge (he lives in Portugal now). We had many conversations on the topic and I have studied and read the history, practises, ceremonies and beliefs of Freemasonary. I actually pursued it through history via the Templars right up to the present day. Bought a couple of books dealing extensively with the practise " The Second Messiah" by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas and 'The Shadow of Solomon" by Lawrence Gardner an ex-American Grand Master of the art, and read many more plus reams on the internet. Did it convertme to anything? No. Did it allow me any understanding of other beliefs? Decidedly yes. Have I commited a great sin in doing this? Well, only in the eyes of those who really do have closed minds, including Christians.

You see, open-mindedness either works both ways, or it doesn't work at all. It's supposed to equalise the options, not lay down conversion rules.

[communistworkethic]

im dying here. i think ive read the internet.

Okay, try putting you head round this then, just to save you of course :

Ref all these theorists, nihilists and knowlegable articles, the one thing that emerges strikingly is that for years non-believers and theorists urged everyone to approach it all with an open mind. Now, what does all that actually mean? What exactly is an open-mind?

See, I always took it at face value, ie not having a closed one, and definitely not an attempt to sway people away from their beliefs in a sort of bombastic conversion campaign or by calling them fools.

I was brought up in the most indoctrinated way, Catholic schoolboy, altar-boy, serving mass most mornings and attending church three times on Sunday. A lost-cause Catholic with a totally closed-mind, you may ask? Not so at all.

When school was behind and the options open, the church-going tapered off considerably. All the normal pursuits of a teenager were no different than they are today: girls, dance, a sneaky drink or two etc etc. Still attended church at weekends but the pressures were off and we began to think for ourselves. In the Bible, Jesus says it isn't necessary to be seen to worship ie, in a public place, church or ceremony, or at least as I understand it. So each of us approaches that as we see it. What problem up to now? None I can see. Faith/belief etc, suddenly become a personal option to all. I love the solemnity and atmosphere of the great churches and cathedrals, but you'd never see me on TV when a local church hosted "Songs of Praise" or somesuch. That's like all the fake celebrities and Royal hangers-on hogging seats at sporting events while the true fans can't get near.

What none of us believers do is to decry those who choose not to believe in God. We don't write articles taking the pxxs, articles on how foolish it all is, articles about fairies or articles decrying non-belief. As a case in point about open-mindedness; my best mate is a Freemason. Not just that, but was Grand Master of a local lodge (he lives in Portugal now). We had many conversations on the topic and I have studied and read the history, practises, ceremonies and beliefs of Freemasonary. I actually pursued it through history via the Templars right up to the present day. Bought a couple of books dealing extensively with the practise " The Second Messiah" by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas and 'The Shadow of Solomon" by Lawrence Gardner an ex-American Grand Master of the art, and read many more plus reams on the internet. Did it convertme to anything? No. Did it allow me any understanding of other beliefs? Decidedly yes. Have I commited a great sin in doing this? Well, only in the eyes of those who really do have closed minds, including Christians.

You see, open-mindedness either works both ways, or it doesn't work at all. It's supposed to equalise the options, not lay down conversion rules.

sorry but without wanting to start the debate all over again, but that's just not true and you even contradict yourself. Lots of religious people decry non-believers, I give you....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mT_WHiHaXdw

I'm not picking up on your particular interpretation of your own religion's views, and all the potential worms it allows to escape from cans, but to to start with your concept of what science is and does is way off the mark.

Science starts with a blank sheet of paper with ALL the possibilities and then tests them, all the time taking the view that until something is absolute it remains open to being shown as wrong. What it will allow is to accept that, while a possibility of another outcome remains, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck it probably is a duck and not a unicorn. Now if dna tests on the "duck" showed that it was a unicorn, then scientist would admit they got it wrong. Religion doesn't do that, it stops on the basis that they see the "duck" and say it's a unicorn because it says so in their book of religion and that's it. They may be right, but do they test the hypoethesis? They may question it from time to time "is it really a unicorn" but a quick "it's a unicorn while you believe it is" and they're happy.

Listening to the views of people who have similar, if different on the specifics, views is not open minded unless you're listening with the possibility that you could accept that their view is right. Given your fervent defence of your beliefs I would not think this is the case. Is your mind open to being wrong about God?

I was brought up in a Catholic family, as a protestant, whose mother converted to mormonism at one point. So I've read 2 versions of the Bible and the book of Mormon, each of which I have measured against the science which I've read and been taught. I've taken the view that something vague and improbable isn't something I can support, I don't dismiss something highly improbable as impossible, but in the same way I don't put my salary on lottery tickets every month nor am I backing the idea of a supreme being that created the universe himself. Because as a Religion you could say the universe was created in any way at all (which brings us back to Scientology) and that the universe is governed by a giant spaghetti monster and say "well you can't prove it's not" as justification. Well no and science can't currently prove what did, but then again it's not long since we thought the atom couldn't be split or than you'd suffocate if you went more than 30mph on a train. And just because science can't prove a point at the moment, it doesn't mean that Religion is right either, but at least science accepts its shortcomings and looks to improve so it can know what the answer is rather than just saying "I know what the answer is".

Until something proves otherwise, I'm happy to go with science pointing a direction based on knowledge and testing of theories......

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


the scientists could and, on many ocassions will be, wrong. But at least their minds are open to what they say being tested and being found to be wrong, so that they have to rethink their views.