Indeed.
I'm open minded - because I'm happy to say "I don't know".
Only a truly closed mind pretends to know things they objectively do not (that a god did it all).
Scientology - Who's really mad
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
I'm open minded - because I'm happy to say "I don't know".
Only a truly closed mind pretends to know things they objectively do not (that a god did it all).
So you cannot rationally use science to justify the position you relayed that belief in God goes against current scientific knowledge. Which is effectively what you did.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that jazz.....
Exactly.
you can live by Christian values because you think they are a good idea though
The popularity of the claim has no bearing on how true or untrue it may be.
Neither does people moving from group A to B say how true or untrue a concept may be.
Anyone even slightly interested in Scientology should watch this BBC Panorama Documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFRSt_viosc
And then it's full hour long sequel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJkQdLTJWwo
These are very well worth watching and show just how creepy and intimidating this organisation is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFRSt_viosc
And then it's full hour long sequel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJkQdLTJWwo
These are very well worth watching and show just how creepy and intimidating this organisation is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,284
- Location
- Woking
That may be the case, but (and you know I can't provide evidence) a large, and increasing, number of educated people are moving away from belief, if you consider that on the whole the population of the UK (as a sample) are becoming increasingly less religious.
Personally, your justification doesn't mean anything to me.
Those morals are based on morals that humans have developed in the time that they have existed, nor are they exclusively Christian.
Or equally that there is definitively no God.....
Being closed minded is not the exclusive to those of faith (neither are they all simply closed minded simply because they determine that the evidence around them indicates a deity or in some religions a universal force). I think we need to be careful when attributing how people come to the beliefs they do and what people accept as evidence of those beliefs.....
What appears to be pure chance to you and I, may appear and quite justifiably so, differently to another....just because they hold an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean they did not come to it rationally and without critical thinking.
It is the justifications the individual has for their beliefs or positions that define their validity.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,284
- Location
- Woking
We've discussed this point before, Castiel, but I really dislike the idea that just because a concept has been created, I have to take a position on it, which is one of the reasons that I'd rather call myself an Atheist despite truly being Agnostic (although I reject religion).
I agree, that's also equally closed minded (as neither group can know).
The only reason I didn't include it is because that's not the view I hold, or anybody who has spoken much about the subject holds - just a few who are unfamiliar with the terminology.
Most of the general population believe atheists to mean "they know 100% for sure no god exists" - then proceed to call me arrogant for saying that I'm an atheist.
Ironically, they also didn't believe in a god (self titled agnostics) who had been insulting themselves.
While it's not true in all cases I agree, somebody claiming knowledge they don't posses is closed minded in my view - as claiming to already know for certain dismisses other possibilities.
I think it's rational to admit the limits of our knowledge - to say, "I don't know" to the great questions is honest.
I don't really think it's that bad to be an agnostic theist (as they tend to be more moderate/socially progressive anyway).
I agree, but conversely it's important to recognise that as a religion or cult asks for greater sacrifices or behavioural changes, it's irrational to not ask for greater evidence & justification.
In a watered down form religion requires little justification, as it has no bearing on how an individual lives or that much impact on society.
As it's get's closer to fundamentalism & more extreme it requires significantly more justification & the follows who don't demand it are either indoctrinated, gullible or stupid.
What also needs to be recognised is why the individual is putting faith in, as most people will say "It's in God" but then you ask them if they have ever actually spoken to, or had a personal relationship with a god they can quantify.
In reality what they have faith in is a parent, a friend or a preacher - it's people that religion is asking them to put faith in - not gods for the majority, this I would hope would encourage people to be even more critical of the claims made (but it doesn't always seem that way).
Last edited:
You do not have to take a position on it... But by dismissing it you are taking a position.
This sums up my position on this:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
attributed to a man called Siddhãrtha Gautama.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,284
- Location
- Woking
Buddhism makes me feel more at ease, it must be said. It represents more my world view of interconnection and unseen forces (which can be described scientifically). But I really like that quote. I wish more people would adhere to it, though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,542
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I have underlined the bit that causes problems. People don't always know what is good for them and will sometimes resist actions that are taken in their interest.
thats the thing, i don't know and without some kind of evidence i never will.
but neither will anybody else - anybody can make something up without evidence and it will join the infinite number of possibilities - the chances of any one belief being correct in those circumstances becomes infinitely small.
Technically you can. God does go against current scienfitic knowledge because there is no scientific God hypothesis. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it does not exist. That is not to say it doesn't exist, but that it does not exist in a scientific framework. As soon as someone comes up with a God hypothesis then god, as a concept, exists in science and we can start to see if the hypothesis can be proven.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 1,215
I like Scientologists. Rather than run from the clearly mental parts of their religion they decided to embrace it! Any religion that gleefully goes full-retard gets my support.
As far as I am aware BunnyKillBot is a Christian and does believe in God but he does not believe in 'invisible gods in the sky', which is what he was arguing against.
That said, there are such a thing as Christian Atheists.
It illustrates why it is important to not confuse criticism of religion with criticism of belief or more accurately how people form those beliefs....while they are obviously connected, they are not the same.
You can hold an anticlerical viewpoint without necessarily dismissing the fundamental beliefs of that religion....or at least the spiritual beliefs. The problem with many religions (or at least the particular authority or political and spiritual position at any given time) is the way they interpret and manifest those interpretations as informed by their respective and relative political and personal motivations, such as Pope Urban II in 1096 or any other politically or financially motivated interpretation of scripture in justification of a particular action or questionable morality.
Last edited: