mcm1610 Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 So, I just want to clarify - you relate to the scientologist views so you call yourself a scientologist, but you're not a member of the church? Or are you, but you don't pay into it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinyljunkie Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 i would have thought by now everyone would have realized its not possible to have a rational religious "discussion" on the internet. its most certainly not fruitful, and almost always does yourself, and your religion (or belief system, or lack of, etc), a disservice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 This one is far more civil than just about every other I've seen on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 the biggest issue is religion is exclusionary, and at least from my knowledge of the judeo-christian-islamic side of things, since they all share a good deal of the same origins, and thusly are all worshipping the same diety (save for the addition of christ/holy spirit on the xian side)... it seems really narrow minded that a merciful all powerful being would only choose to save a % of the population that is supposedly chosen, and just foresake the other couple billion who are probably leading morale lives, and weren't exposed to the same upbringing as the religion in question. It basically creates a paradox. you can argue free will, but you can't choose to believe in a god without being exposed to the dogma and doctrine... no one just wakes up and thinks.. shit i'm gonna be a hindu, without learning about the religion from someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivals Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 without getting into a heated debate, I can agree that 99% of religions are mostly corrupt, political or have their own agendas. I personally feel I'm in one of the very few organized religions that aren't trying to get something from someone and that doesn't have a personal agenda. Just my opinion I'm only slightly hesitant because the last time I brought it up on a forum I was made fun of and then banned lol. Let's try to keep the flaming to a min.I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses This is gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattstrike Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 The onus is generally on the person proving something does exist. Nice to see a fellow fan of Dawkins here. Have you seen the bus adverts he "endorsed" in London? There is a video somewhere… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknroll76 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I don't think I have said anything about this yet. I am in the process of reading it cover to cover. I got about a third of the way through and am taking a break to read "The Family" about the residents of the C Street House in DC. I will finish the Bible, it just gets dull in parts (too much boring lineage, not enough action.) I don't have a problem reading things I disagree with, and there is plenty of non-objectionable platitudes in the Bible that I don't have a problem with. Whoops! I'm sorry, I did it again, confused posters. I meant banned! Changing the original post now. I But no matter what banned says, I just don't buy that someone who gets that infuriated by religion read the whole thing. That's such a big investment to read it cover to cover if it just enrages the person. I didn't read it to infuriate myself, I read it because I was looking for God. I approached it with an open mind on more than one occasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benchwarmer Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Whoops! I'm sorry, I did it again, confused posters. I meant banned! Changing the original post now. I But no matter what banned says, I just don't buy that someone who gets that infuriated by religion read the whole thing. That's such a big investment to read it cover to cover if it just enrages the person. I didn't read it to infuriate myself, I read it because I was looking for God. I approached it with an open mind on more than one occasion. was he behind the couch the whole time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknroll76 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I didn't read it to infuriate myself, I read it because I was looking for God. I approached it with an open mind on more than one occasion. was he behind the couch the whole time? yeah, he's a sneaky bastard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 The onus is generally on the person proving something does exist. Nice to see a fellow fan of Dawkins here. Have you seen the bus adverts he "endorsed" in London? There is a video somewhere… IMHO, as far as proponents of athiesm go: Hitchens > Dennett > Sam Harris > Dawkins (If you couldn't tell from my avatar, I love Hitchens.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I believe in God because there's less of a chance of me going to hell as opposed to not believing in him which would just immediately send me to hell. It's a win-win situation. I may not go to hell and God has another warrior on his side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I believe in God because there's less of a chance of me going to hell as opposed to not believing in him which would just immediately send me to hell. It's a win-win situation. I may not go to hell and God has another warrior on his side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Haha, I didn't know that there was a term for something like that. Pretty neat. But yeah, I was mostly joking there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Knowing's half the battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casey Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Knowing's half the battle. PORKCHOP SANDWICHES!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Yea, if god were that petty to damn someone for not believing despite living an alright life, fuck him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oi Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokithelion Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I read the whole thing from cover to cover for the first time when I was ten. I've read it about eight more times since then, I'm 25. As far as what I live my life by I follow the teachings of Christ. He never said anything about gay people. I figure if it was really that important Christ would have mentioned it himself. Atheists should read the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson made his own gospels, it's all the actual teachings of Christ with the magic removed. As a book of philosophy it's pretty awesome. Matthew 19: 3 And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” 4 In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” You're right it doesn't mean a thing about homosexuals. It is saying two people connected by marriage are making vows to each other that are strong enough to affect blood relations and that accordingly they shouldn't get divorced over stupid shit. Christ used the only example that would have applied broadly in that time period. The idea that Christ is like modern christians who are unable to answer a question without thinking if it reflects their views on every possible angle is laughable. He was asked about divorce, he's talking about the only people that can divorced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfourtwo Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I'm too lazy to look through this thread, but has anyone posted this yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j4m35 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 epicurus never said that, lactantius did, and then hume extracted that quote from lactantius' works get yr facts right fool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfourtwo Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Just extracted from the internet! Don't blame me! I just thought it was an interesting quote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeian Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Just extracted from the internet! Don't blame me! I just thought it was an interesting quote! haha i just imagined bender saying this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayeffscene Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 This one is far more civil than just about every other I've seen on the internet. The boards surprise me every once in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 epicurus never said that, lactantius did, and then hume extracted that quote from lactantius' worksget yr facts right fool But I believe in the quote, Lactantius is attributing those words to Epicurus. Lactantius, Teleology, and American Literature Eric Carl | The Midwest Quarterly | January 01, 2005 It doesn't really matter who said it, since the words themselves are the power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartcat Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Because knowledge is power! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.