Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

[TANGODANCER]

I too am not seeking to re-open, or get into,a pointless debate. But, you see, I'm open minded enought to say fine, believe in science because everything you do believe in requires proof. You however (not personally, but all who argue your way) are totally closed minded about allowing us to believe in God because I can't provide you with proof of his existence. So you scoff, joke, credit us as fools and even try to bully with your sheer insistence on proof and the will to be right, even though I repeatedly say; Faith has no proof. There is no case for the defence except the life of Jesus and the Bible. That's what Christianity means, believing in Christ and his teachings and thus, God. You either do, or you don't. Your choice.

Fine by me, but if you think arguing or anything else will change my beliefs then you're wasting you time. Average life of the species is "three-score-years-and-ten" or thereabouts, (although I hope it's considerably longer) according to the Bible. What then, just the big blank? All this learning and living's a bit pointless then, isnt it? I mean, how do we dream at night? We are out of it bodily, our whole system's asleep, the "little death" as it's been described; yet we meet people get into all sorts of situations and even achieve the impossible. People appear in our dreams that we know to be dead. You ever dreamed of flying? What is all that and how do we do it? Science will tell us it's the brain and subconcious at work, yet it all goes on whilst we aren't there and we have little or no recollection of it when we wake. Truth is, they don't really know, they just offer possibilities. We don't really know either, that fact is our open-mindedness. Countless thousands of people claim to have had out-of-body experiences, seen ghosts and had poltergeist experiences. All tricks of the mind? All mad? Who really knows?

Scientists won't give up in their quest because they, not we, are afraid to be wrong. If we're wrong, what have we really lost? A life with meaning and a chance to die with a smile on your face; the possiblity of a chance of after-life against what? But if the scientists die, and if they are the wrong ones, what then? It's the biggest gamble of all isn't it. That's what faith means.

As I said, it's all a bit pointless as a no-argument, no-win sitution. Two-and-a half -billion people throughout the world feel the same way I do. Why not let us all do that and gamble faith against science? We'll all know for sure, someday, won't we?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Fine by me, but if you think arguing or anything else will change my beliefs then you're wasting you time. Average life of the species is "three-score-years-and-ten" or thereabouts, (although I hope it's considerably longer) according to the Bible. What then, just the big blank? All this learning and living's a bit pointless then, isnt it? I mean, how do we dream at night? We are out of it bodily, our whole system's asleep, the "little death" as it's been described; yet we meet people get into all sorts of situations and even achieve the impossible. People appear in our dreams that we know to be dead. You ever dreamed of flying? What is all that and how do we do it? Science will tell us it's the brain and subconcious at work, yet it all goes on whilst we aren't there and we have little or no recollection of it when we wake. Truth is, they don't really know, they just offer possibilities. We don't really know either, that fact is our open-mindedness. Countless thousands of people claim to have had out-of-body experiences, seen ghosts and had poltergeist experiences. All tricks of the mind? All mad? Who really knows?

I'm afraid I am a firm believer in the big blank. The idea that the personality, or, if you prefer, 'soul', can survive the death of the brain is entirely neurologically implausible, in my humble opinion. Perhaps some find that depressing, but there you go. Perhaps I find it equally depressing that some people don't appreciate that this is the only existence they're ever going to have, so they might as well make the most of it!

The idea that there is something else beyond death survives and spreads, in my opinion, because it caters to wishful thinking, and it is a natural human phenomenon for people to believe in that which they desire!

The 'how do we dream at night' is not a strong point, with respect, Tango. Our brains are still very much alive when we are asleep and I think the scientific explanation of dreams is fairly settled, uncontroversial and convincing. I'm also surprised that you should throw your 'Pascal's wager' argument in there...

Anyway, there's a reason I stay out of religious debates on here these days, so perhaps I have already said more than I should.

[TANGODANCER]

[. I'm also surprised that you should throw your 'Pascal's wager' argument in there...

"Reason v Happiness? As if it isn't possible to have both? Pascal merely stated something Christians have always known. My suggestion is we go with your last sentence, drop the argument and all do what we think is right. That's being happy, even if the scientists don't agree.

Next topic?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

[. I'm also surprised that you should throw your 'Pascal's wager' argument in there...

"Reason v Happiness? As if it isn't possible to have both? Pascal merely stated something Christians have always known.

The idea of 'Pascal's wager' that I have in my mind has more in common with the first line of its Wikipedia entry:

Pascal's Wager is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.

I thought that you were driving at something very similar when you said:

Scientists won't give up in their quest because they, not we, are afraid to be wrong. If we're wrong, what have we really lost? A life with meaning and a chance to die with a smile on your face; the possiblity of a chance of after-life against what? But if the scientists die, and if they are the wrong ones, what then? It's the biggest gamble of all isn't it. That's what faith means.

But yes, the sound of axes being ground is all too often the source of a headache on here, so I'll put mine back in the shed for now, reluctantly content with its bluntness....

[communistworkethic]

pascal's wager was summed up by Jasper Carrot...

" when the Jehovah's witnesses call, I always by a Watchtower. Well, someone's got to be right. "

Tango, again, your aspertions about science and scientists are just wrong. Science is there to find answers and in doing so they know they'll be wrong at times, what they seek to do is provide evidence to support their conclusions. They don't rule anything out.

Your mind is closed to the teachings of science, you accept that others follow it but you wouldn't for one minute listen to what science is actually saying and accept its points, except perhaps when it means making you healthy or your life easier. You'll accept the words of people who lived 2000 years ago when superstition was rife and understanding of events/actions we would take for granted would have been considered some kind of witchcraft but not someone who could explain those events rationally.

But your big paragraph sums up why many people go with religion, because they need to define themselves and their lives and can't accept that there's nothing after it. They can't accept that their sole purpose might just be to continue the species, or more specifically a set of genes, they assume they must have some higher purpose. You feel there must be something more it can't just end. That our brains work while we sleep offers no as evidence of a soul, the brain is being fed while we're asleep, it is not when we're dead. I'll avoid the comments on ghosts or we'll stray on to Lochness monster and fairies. But do you remember anything before you were born? So why would death necessarily be anything different?

Science has the open mind, it is the one that asks the questions and looks for answers that can be tested, it accepts that it could be wrong. Whereas the religious choose to remain in the dark, following without questioning on the basis it could be right and that if it's not then you've somehow had a much more fulfilling life than the scientists. But what is more fulfilling than a life spent in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding for the betterment of the world?

[TANGODANCER]

Right now, it's a beautiful day, however it got that way. Walked the dog, mowed the lawns, checked the cricket and had bacon sandwiches. Son's taken my wife to the garden centre, sun's got its hat on, garden's full of small birds and I'm at peace with the world. Far too nice a day to bother about Jasper Carrot wisecracks or French theories on creation. Y'all have a nice day now.

[Bruce Rioja]

I mean, how do we dream at night?

Way heeey. I know this one. It's to do with the brain transferring information from the hippocampus into the cortex during the rapid eye movement part of the sleep pattern. Knowledge is indeed the

[TANGODANCER]

I mean, how do we dream at night?

Way heeey. I know this one. It's to do with the brain transferring information from the hippocampus into the cortex during the rapid eye movement part of the sleep pattern. Knowledge is indeed the

That's pretty impressive Bruce. Thing is I still don't understand how I can fly in my dreams.

Hey, seriously, I'm not making light of the topic, it's a very complex thing, the human brain. Far too complex in my view to have evolved from an ape. Like someone very simply put it: "If we come from apes, how come they're still around?" I see the human brain as like loading a computer. It starts empty in childhood and then assembles millions of facts over a life span. The brain retains all these things in memory, but the body and other parts around it wear out with age. People acused of senile dementia are often commented on as not being able to remember what day it is, yet they can clearly recall and discuss events from years ago. But inside it all there's still something asking questions, most of which relate to more than a mundane desire to know day it is. This, I see as the soul.

If we are constantly evolving and learning, and science is regarded by some as the ultimate in logic, how come no one can answer questions such as how the Egyptians, with no machinery, managed to make the stone blocks of the pyramids so exact that they were airtight? Where did the ancient knowlege of thousands of years ago disappear to? How did Nostradamus phrophesy things hundreds of years head of himself? How could Da Vinci design a submarine and a helicopter? How come so many of the great scientists of the past practised the occult arts? You can hardly have satan without also acknowleging God, surely.

Bottom line, my own beliefs havent arrived with joining The-Wanderer. The fact that I'm twice as old as a lot of people debating things might also mean that I've come across all the doubts and the theories, science versus the miracle debates and had time to assimilate what I wanted to believe. I arrived here, have made my choices and am content with them.
Have I ever faltered and asked why regarding God? Too right I have, but overall, I arrived back with what I started with,
that a greater entity than man can conceive is behind it all. Right or wrong in others eyes matters not. People can't even agree on which rock band is the best. How can you expect them to agree on something so complex as God?

[Lord Kangana]

See I can conceive of a higher being, a creator; god, if you want to refer to him as such.

But why the hell would you want to pray to him?

As Oscar Wilde said "I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability."

[sluffy]

Hey, seriously, I'm not making light of the topic, it's a very complex thing, the human brain. Far too complex in my view to have evolved from an ape. Like someone very simply put it: "If we come from apes, how come they're still around?"

Scopes Monkey Trial -

An American legal case that tested a law passed on March 13, 1925, which forbade the teaching, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." The case was a watershed in the creation-evolution controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

[TANGODANCER]

But they were Americans.

[Batman]

Walked past the HQ on Deansgate this morning, apparently there was a protest there yesterday.....

They were advertising 'toxin tests', I was tempted until I remembered I'd just wolfed down a £2.59 Wetherspoons brekkie

[communistworkethic]

Hey, seriously, I'm not making light of the topic, it's a very complex thing, the human brain. Far too complex in my view to have evolved from an ape. Like someone very simply put it: "If we come from apes, how come they're still around?" I see the human brain as like loading a computer. It starts empty in childhood and then assembles millions of facts over a life span. The brain retains all these things in memory, but the body and other parts around it wear out with age. People acused of senile dementia are often commented on as not being able to remember what day it is, yet they can clearly recall and discuss events from years ago. But inside it all there's still something asking questions, most of which relate to more than a mundane desire to know day it is. This, I see as the soul.

If we are constantly evolving and learning, and science is regarded by some as the ultimate in logic, how come no one can answer questions such as how the Egyptians, with no machinery, managed to make the stone blocks of the pyramids so exact that they were airtight? Where did the ancient knowlege of thousands of years ago disappear to? How did Nostradamus phrophesy things hundreds of years head of himself? How could Da Vinci design a submarine and a helicopter? How come so many of the great scientists of the past practised the occult arts? You can hardly have satan without also acknowleging God, surely.

Bottom line, my own beliefs havent arrived with joining The-Wanderer. The fact that I'm twice as old as a lot of people debating things might also mean that
I've come across all the doubts and the theories, science versus the miracle debates and had time to assimilate what I wanted to believe. I arrived here, have made my choices and am content with them.

And please do define "occult arts", as frankly anything the church didn't like was classed as occult and withcraft, even though we see it as a doctor making someone better these days or a chemist experimenting. The church was responsible for the drowning of lots of women as witches for having ctas, warts and big noses. "Occult arts" probably include alchemy, or chemistry as we now know it.


Have I ever faltered and asked why regarding God? Too right I have, but overall, I arrived back with what I started with,
that a greater entity than man can conceive is behind it all. Right or wrong in others eyes matters not. People can't even agree on which rock band is the best. How can you expect them to agree on something so complex as God?

sorry but all you've shown is that actually you have huge gaps in your knowledge and understanding, you choose to fill those gaps with teh Bible. Evolution does not say it happens in a linear pattern as you suggest it does. That man and ape exist together is perfectly reaosnable within evolution, that you think it isn't is about your failure to know evolution not it's failure to explain the existance of two related species.

Nostradamus as an example of genuis?? His ramblings can be interpretted however you like, and regualarly are, his are no better than the horoscopes in the papers. And the technical knowledge of individuals proves nothing about evolution either - such as the pyramids have had their consruction methods replicated using the technologies widely available at the time.

frankly, you are saying "i don't understand, or know what the science actually is, so therefore it's down to God."

[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?

[TANGODANCER]

sorry but all you've shown is that actually you have huge gaps in your knowledge and understanding,

frankly, you are saying "i don't understand, or know what the science actually is, so therefore it's down to God."

Your arguments alway follow the same pattern: That anyone who disagrees with you knows nothing.You make yet another bold assumption that no one but yourself ever read books on science, its characters or its history.
Did you miss the bit about being twice your age and having heard all the same arguments many times before? Did you miss the occult connections amongst scientists? Have you read of their obsessions with the Philosophers Stone, prolonging life and like entities, their constant disagreement as to who found what first? Their constant bickerings and disagreements amongst themselves? I know perfectly well what science is, and also about all the other things than progress in proving or disproving theories; like chemical and nuclear "advancements" that science has brought. Witness the atom bomb. Weapons of mass distruction don't start with soldiers, they start with scientists. Much of the good they achieve is somewhat tempered by the bad. Science is far from the be-all and end-all in our lives.

I can, and do read occasionally. I have done for a lot of years. You can't pursue history as a subject without falling over scientists at every turn. I have never decried science in life or denied its usefullness or progress. The "missing link" in it all is you own point-blank refusal to acknowlege the existence of God purely because science says so due to scientists being unable to prove to the contrary. You accuse me of closing my mind in a two-sided argument when, to you, there is only one side. I accept God and science, you accept science but no God. How open-minded is that, I might ask?

A quote I liked: "If it takes a little science to turn man away from God, it takes a lot of science to bring him back "

[TANGODANCER]

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.

[Dujon]

. . . I'd be a rare Christian who didn't think we were created by God.

Ruddy 'eck, TANGO, I don't like that. Who do I now sue for the time, trouble and expense of raising my children?

**********************************

On this rather repetitive subject of science versus religion: Science as such does NOT seek to preclude a creator nor does it proscribe such. Science, in its pure form, merely seeks knowledge and understanding. Many, if not most, earlier scientist were drawn (naturally) from those who were widely educated as in those days that was the clergy. Thus the phrase 'to believe in science' is nonsensical if it is couched in the sense of 'to believe in a god'.

Sheathe your swords, gentlemen, and then take the road that Trivia indicates.

[communistworkethic]

sorry but all you've shown is that actually you have huge gaps in your knowledge and understanding,

frankly, you are saying "i don't understand, or know what the science actually is, so therefore it's down to God."

Your arguments alway follow the same pattern: That anyone who disagrees with you knows nothing.You make yet another bold assumption that no one but yourself ever read books on science, its characters or its history.
Did you miss the bit about being twice your age and having heard all the same arguments many times before? Did you miss the occult connections amongst scientists? Have you read of their obsessions with the Philosophers Stone, prolonging life and like entities, their constant disagreement as to who found what first? Their constant bickerings and disagreements amongst themselves? I know perfectly well what science is, and also about all the other things than progress in proving or disproving theories; like chemical and nuclear "advancements" that science has brought. Witness the atom bomb. Weapons of mass distruction don't start with soldiers, they start with scientists. Much of the good they achieve is somewhat tempered by the bad. Science is far from the be-all and end-all in our lives.

I can, and do read occasionally. I have done for a lot of years. You can't pursue history as a subject without falling over scientists at every turn. I have never decried science in life or denied its usefullness or progress. The "missing link" in it all is you own point-blank refusal to acknowlege the existence of God purely because science says so due to scientists being unable to prove to the contrary. You accuse me of closing my mind in a two-sided argument when, to you, there is only one side. I accept God and science, you accept science but no God. How open-minded is that, I might ask?

A quote I liked: "If it takes a little science to turn man away from God, it takes a lot of science to bring him back "

again, that just shows ignorance and a resistance to the science. Yes, prolonging life, that evil activity - I expect you'll be off to crucify your GP will you, or will you be thankful that you're in your 60s thanks to improvements in medical science thanks to the occult? Oooh scientists disagreeing that they found something before someone else, yes that's proof of er er er, of yes professional pride. (oops sinners!!!!!! They must suck the devil's tongue if they're proud, no Christian would ever be proud.) .For every bad thing you list from science there are thousands of good. Science touches every piece of your daily life, even if you don't realise it.

what your age has to do with anything I don't know, being older means nothing, it certainly doesn't mean you can claim any greater intelect. If anything it just means you've been happily brainwashed by religion for 60+ years, whereas I've not. It's frankly laughable that you even raise it. I expect "my dad's bigger than your dad" next

Occult is a very wideranging term and frankly smacks as much as ignornace of science as anything. That "scientists" in the middle ages did things that the Church, who let's face it aren't without some bias, describe as "occult" has little to do with the quality or validity of their science and as much to do with the society of the time and the Church's resistance to it. So scientists looked in to stuff that all society spoke about and tried to see if it worked and how it worked, yes that would be science, testing things to see if they're real or not. The fact you may have read this that and the other does not, as shown by your previous posts, show any understanding of it or a willingness to be open to what it says. You, as with the bible, like to pick and choose the bits you like and suit you. But where you don't like what it says, you would sooner go with mysticism. If the doctor gives you somepills and tells you they'll make you better, do you do that or ignore him and pray instead? Science when it suits you. (don't try and respond to this by citing examples of ill peole who recover thanks to the power of prayer - there's no evidence to prove the prayer did it) Don't try and use examples of science being twisted by the will of men when you get so upset about the same being levelled at religion.

You do not understand how evolution works, your ridiculous apes and men co-existing statement showed you up. That comment epitomises the " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" phrases. By your mark dinosaurs mustn't have existed, after all where are they in the Bible? Adam, Eve, snake, apple/banana and T-Rex?

Again, you make stuff up, show me a post where I have said God doesn't exist. You've tried to make a weak point seem stronger by suggesting something I plainly haven't said, that's when you don't just ignore validly made points. Throughout every post on this topic I have manitained the position that I nor anyone else knows but that the idea of a supreme being, in your case - God, is improbable and no more likely than a giant spaghetti monster ruling the universe. I have clearly stated that a knowledge based on learning, logic and evidence is the way to find an answer, not books written thousands of years ago by people who's understanding of the world around them was at best poor and lead by superstition. You show me clear evidence of God and I'll happily shake your hand and tell you I was wrong. But you can't, your evidence is your faith that's it, your faith in a concept that there's no evidence for. Lack of understanding of that around us is not evidence, lack of proof that he doesn't exist is the fall-back position that lacks any merit, not least because you prove positives not negatives. I've happily said that I nor scientists know all the answers, but we'll look for them in a methodical, logical way with evidence, we may postulate as to the answers to the gaps in our knowledge but we won't take them as law, we'll test them rigorously.


Think what you will tango, I respect your right to an opinion, however, respecting that opinion might be slightly easier if it was based on knowledge, not lack of it and an absolute resistance to it when it goes against what you beleive. And before you highlight this section and say I am the same, I put the challenge to you again, show me some evidence to support your position, I'm happy to hear it.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Tango, I have no interest in any hostility whatsoever, but am I to interpret your comments as meaning that you reject the theory of evolution?

[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?