BBC standing up to scientology

cleanbluesky said:
And this is a prime example of a pet peev on OcUK, when a person puts effort into a post and it gets ignored...
Click to expand...

Just because no one quotes it, it doesn't mean it's ignored ;)

I'm appreciating the effort put into most of the posts in this thread. Certainly one of the more thought provoking religious threads.
 
Bumhucker said:
Just because no one quotes it, it doesn't mean it's ignored ;)

I'm appreciating the effort put into most of the posts in this thread. Certainly one of the more thought provoking religious threads.
Click to expand...

Take a look in SC, some good threads in there. Although unfortunately one was lost due to a server issue.
 
Mik3 said:
Early cavemen drawings show no sign of religion, that's not to say they never believed in some almighty being.
Click to expand...

Thats not strichtly true, there is strong evidence to such that there was nature based religion that used mushrooms of the magic kind. :)
 
Raz said:
Exactly. While the Big 3 are similar and have the same roots, religion may have started off differently.

Perhaps our friendly and loving pagan, CBS, may care to contribute to pagan origins...
Click to expand...

I would love to read it :) I probably share many pagan belives, my gods are Sol and Earth.
 
Raz said:
Sleepy said:
Complex tool use predates this, as does the capability for speech.
Click to expand...
Complex tool use predates man thinking?
Click to expand...
Nope, what I meant was Complex tool and the capability for speech predate the earliest known signs of religion. So I don't think that mankind always was religious. Someone had to invent it to fulfil a need.
 
Dolph said:
Atheism, for example, is not a rational viewpoint unless you accept the concept of logical positivism to be totally accurate, and science as a means that would provide clear evidence if a diety existed. You basically need to have faith that science would provide the evidence, should the idea be true, and therefore absence of evidence is the same thing as evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. Atheism is not a viewpoint, it's a lack of one.

Just because the majority of atheist people chose to science as a way of explaining the world around us does not mean that atheism equates to a scientific faith.

Views that a specific god or gods do not or can not exist are not based on any faith in science, because science cannot disprove what is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

If I have an unopenable box, what is the rational position to take on the contents of it? Full, empty or unknown? We have no evidence the box contains anything, but can we say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
Click to expand...

It would be irrational to assume any position, but if a person or group of people decide, based on no evidence or deduction that the box is full of a particular object and other people claim it to be another object, again without evidence, yet thousands of years of scientific testing of the box find no evidence for either position, it is rational to state that it is likely the box is either empty or filled with something else.

Take Father Christmas, for instance. There is no proof that he doesn't exist, nor can we disprove him. There are thousands of sighting of him all over the world every December which are disputed by skeptics, and there are billions of believers. But because we know that it's highly unlikely that a jolly fat man with a flying sled is capable of travelling at several times the speed of light to cover every house in the world in a single night, it's rational to assume the position that either he doesn't exist, or he exists differently to how anyone has claimed.

Cleanbluesky, the issue I take with your post, and with the Dalai Lama's words is that there's no objective way of separating the ideas of creed and religion in the real world, since a relationship with a god or gods is impossible to conceptualise.
 
mosfet said:
It would be irrational to assume any position, but if a person or group of people decide, based on no evidence or deduction that the box is full of a particular object and other people claim it to be another object, again without evidence, yet thousands of years of scientific testing of the box find no evidence for either position, it is rational to state that it is likely the box is either empty or filled with something else.
Click to expand...
Can you point me to any of these scientific experiments which have tested for the existence of deities?
 
Sleepy said:
Nope, what I meant was Complex tool and the capability for speech predate the earliest known signs of religion. So I don't think that mankind always was religious. Someone had to invent it to fulfil a need.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, it's quite possible (have found some references but need to check) that as man awoke and looked at himself he thought of nature, the sun, the moon etc as perhaps objects of worship or as part of his creation.

Of course, if we follow the monotheistic religions then religion was born with Adam...
 
I found the BBC article highly amusing, Sweeney should have yelled louder, the 'Men in Black wannabe' was still alive afterwards :(. In regards to the other clip of the wannaba walking away at the end, i was expecting one of those flashy devices used to erase peoples minds out of Men in Black. I guess he hasnt paid enough money to the cult to get access to that piece of technology LOL :D

EDIT - Also i noticed how FAST this thread went from bad mouthing Scientology to another generic faith based thread, maybe there is a Scientologist with Jedi powers waving his hand and changing our topic of discussion :D
 
Byron5184 said:
EDIT - Also i noticed how FAST this thread went from bad mouthing Scientology to another generic faith based thread, maybe there is a Scientologist with Jedi powers waving his hand and changing our topic of discussion :D
Click to expand...

pff...probably waving something, but doubt it's his hand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom