Well actually there very similar.
And athiests have not proved anything.
On;ly agnostics wiat for the facts and evidence. Read Dolphs post above. He's much better at explaining.
Tom Cruise - Has infact everyone else gone mad?
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Well actually there very similar.
And athiests have not proved anything.
On;ly agnostics wiat for the facts and evidence. Read Dolphs post above. He's much better at explaining.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Science is a method of discovering truth on the assumption that the rules of reality will not inexplicably change. Accurate prediction is an assumption that once something is proven it will remain so. A text is a prediction in itself, it is a source of knowledge that competes alongside scientific beliefs. The difference is that science uses a logical method of testing, whereas testing is not expected of religion.
It is an assumption that the 'hypothesis' is untestable. The idea that it is untestable is another hypothesis, although it is not a religious one as no religious texts claim that God is untestable - they claim that their texts are in fact THE TEST yet it can be seen that the texts are also contradictory.
Last edited:
rofl, science has zip all to do with truth.
Science is used to predictably predict data. It then says that the simplist model is the only one it cares about. No where does it say the simplist model is *** correct one or that it's the truth. Everything in science is open to change, if and more likely when more data is aquired.
No religion does not say it's untestable. It's just untestable at the current time and is likely to remain so.
What rleigiuse texts do so they they are the test for anything.
Science is used to predictably predict data. It then says that the simplist model is the only one it cares about. No where does it say the simplist model is *** correct one or that it's the truth. Everything in science is open to change, if and more likely when more data is aquired.
No religion does not say it's untestable. It's just untestable at the current time and is likely to remain so.
What rleigiuse texts do so they they are the test for anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard
Yeah I don't think so some how.
He made it up himself.
He wrote science fiction books.
1+1...
And you know other religions weren't how exactly?
In a few hundred years we'll be calling scientology a religion, because it'll get enough power to influence goverments and the public. Like any other religion.
Scientology is a cult, but take away the extreme controlling nature of it and it's exactly the same as other religions. People are brought up being programmed, and give money to the church (it might not be the thousands, but if 100,000 x more people are in the church, then they only need to give a few pence a week and they'll be raking in millions)
Just look at picture of The Vatican...where exactly do you think that money has come from? That's right, Roman Catholic mugs.
The validity of religious texts has nothing to do with the God hypothesis, beyond specific and very limited definitions and testings. It also requires various assumptions to be held to be true in the absence of evidence.
The best you can do by proving an interpretation of a religious text to be incorrect is to demonstrate either that the interpretation is incorrect, or that the text itself may be incorrect.
Neither of those things say anything about the validity of deities in general, they don't even say that much about the validity of specific deities.
Science is also not about discovering the truth, the only truth in science is the observed data, and that's only true from a single frame of reference.
Please describe a testable hypothesis for a superior being that interacts with the universe in a non-consistant fashion.
The obvious difference is that we can actually prove that scientology was made up by a single individual who oh yes... happened to be a science fiction writer. Christianity on the other hand is impossible to prove or disprove, science has been trying for a while now and can't quite manage it. Maybe one day we'll have the technology and knowledge to prove it either way, but for now it will remain a hotly contested mystery.
Christians give money voluntarily... no pressure, no hassle, they give it because they care about the community and want it to continue. My ex girlfriend and her family are christians, and the most genuinely lovely people you can ever hope to meet. My ex came into christianity of her own free will, no programming or force or cajoling was used in the process. While it's easy to lump all of christianity into some faceless mass of stereotypical zombies who do nothing but preach, this simply isn't the case. I went to an alpha course at her request, and fmy own curiousity, and found it full of incredibly nice people who had a humbling amount of care and concern for each other. They also never once tried to hard-sell me religion, and allowed me to make my own choice and to freely ask any questions I had. I still don't, and barring some visible sign of divinity likely never will, accept christianity for myself but it certainly blew open my own stereotypes and forced me to take a long hard look at myself.
ALL from selling mugs? The "You don't have to be crazy to pray here but it helps" type?
Last edited:
Let him believe what he wants to believe in. I remember saying last year that I don't see any problems with Scientology or people following it to which people here criticized me last year.
He's happy, so what does it matter?
He's happy, so what does it matter?
In a way I agree with you. However as they are forcing, brainwashing and comiting crimes it is not quite so simlple.
I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. But when you get Behaviour which seems to be condoned and encouraged, then you have to question it.
You could see the same in practically every religion though. Scientology is in the spotlight as an easy target for an uneducated media, uneducated people attempting to educate people who are interested leads to misinformation.
Every religion is guilty of 'brainwashing', and perhaps forcing religion on people and commiting crimes. I think you need to look no further than Catholocism or Islam as two very guilty of that.
Every religion is guilty of 'brainwashing', and perhaps forcing religion on people and commiting crimes. I think you need to look no further than Catholocism or Islam as two very guilty of that.
No you can't. I Know very few religions that brainwash. They're usually evangelistic ones that use mild brainwashing. But even those are no where near on the scale as Scientology.
please... you clearly have no idea.
And you're speaking as someone fully informed in Scientology? Someone who has studied it for years, perhaps been involved in it?
No and I don't claim to know everything about it, but I have watched many documentary's and have read up about it. it might not be correct. But you can say is it is very different to other religions. Why do you think it is being banned in Germany? HAve you read all the accounts of kids being cut of from there parents? having to pay for information?
If you classify taht as brainwashing then yes. But most people would claim thats advertising. What I would consider brainwashing is things like chanting to involke a physical and mental state, subliminal messages, psychological techniques etc.
Quite good for a read.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/fosthome.html
It's a bit old now, but it's a UK government investigation and report into scientology.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/fosthome.html
It's a bit old now, but it's a UK government investigation and report into scientology.