Do You think that Scientology is a cult

[adamjohnson]

[Bondgirl]

Originally Posted by fixedMind

Did I say something in this thread? If I did I have absolutely no idea what it was, but it must have since been deleted. Sorry if I offended, I do post here after a night of spirits from time to time. Ill ask the mod what I said.

Well l think it was deleted but l am like you l cant not remember what the post was about

Anyway thankyou for the apology for whatever it was

[Bondgirl]

[QUOTE=The Postmaster General;3572385]That's a loaded question.

What do yuo meaN BY A LOADED QESTION
You see some people think that Sceintology is a religion and some others do see it is a cult

[Vong]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

...just repeating your same talking point, except a longer version of it.

Isn't that what you always do?

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

For fucks sake, the quote came from one of the most quintessential, outspoken atheists of modern philosophical times, and you're arguing against it, in favor of atheism, by citing the pastafarian analogy as if it's your own.

I always debated on Nietzsche's writings and nihilism itself. You act is if it's uncommon for two atheists to disagree on something.

And I hold my pastafarian beliefs very close to my heart. Praise be to FSM.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

Well, just because someone believes in Christ, doesnt make it so. There are so many flaws in that book.

So you think spewing your crap is going to get to me believe there is no God? Nice try.

[magjournal]

Scientology is a cult, but what religion isn't? I love how people think Scientologists are crazy for what they do, but they totally buy the talking snake and the woman born of a man's rib or eating the body of Christ.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by Vong

Isn't that what you always do?

Given that my response to you was an example of me not doing that, I'd say no. The only times I do that would be in cases where the other party demonstrated/voiced not understanding the point the first time around, usually because I was overly brief, gentle in my wording, or just using the wrong metaphors and analogies.

More often, I try to expand on the overall discussion, and not just my talking points. This is because I'm not engaging in discussions with strangers on the Internet to validate my own opinions, but instead to seek out insights and experiences that exist outside my IRL circle. The people I "meet" online tend to be different than those I know through work, social circles or what have you.

This is why I tend to get peeved when others use debating as a default response, especially when they are making points that I think they would know I'm familiar with, if they stopped for a second to talk instead of argue. I don't actively favor responding to schmoes who I'm familiar with because I'm looking for virtual high-fives. At the same time I expect them to at least seek clarification before assuming this is all about one-upmanship disguised as enlightenment that begs for footnotes.

Spoiler:

Of course I've learned much too late on these boards that more often than not it doesn't really matter what's written because a lot of people decide your intent before getting past your user name, or if they are too lazy to read, your avatar. If not that, any failure to automatically agree with someone is seen as a complete contradiction.

I often think that people think I'm going on and on about something, because I will go back and explain what I meant the first time around, and they go "Oh yeah, I see that now." and then get peeved as I am breaking it down for them. The Internet is funny that way, because if these were real life discussions, this perception wouldn't exist. People would listen patiently. I would listen patiently. No one would be hovering in anticipation of the reply icon.

I always debated on Nietzsche's writings and nihilism itself. You act is if it's uncommon for two atheists to disagree on something.

And I hold my pastafarian beliefs very close to my heart. Praise be to FSM.

You initially said that "reason is the death of religion" - The point in me citing that phrase was that Reason has no pertinence on something that's irrational by nature, in this case, the irrationality would be man's faith in god/concepts of god and so forth. You can't reason with faith. That's why it's called faith. Otherwise, it would be called knowledge. "I have faith there is a God."/"I have knowledge that there is a a god."

Instead, you responded by demonstrating how conceiving something doesn't make that something true. I was already on that page with you, and I never said anything to indicate otherwise. It's pretty safe to say Nietzsche was on that page as well.

Now, to further encourage discussion, I would say that Reason wouldn't be the death of religion, but it may be the catalyst to evolve religion, as it always has through all of the recorded history of man. This is the reason there are more Christians who know the Earth isn't flat than there were a number of years ago.

I think that if religion dies, it will be because of something closer to an event like an update that removes the concept from the Oxford English Dictionary and less because someone "told it like it is."

Just one of too many thoughts. Ultimately I, and I feel this carries a lot of weight when looking at history and how religion has changed though the years, a semantic breakdown finding fallacies in a faith is going to do more for strengthening that faith than it is in strenghthening it. Those things people have faith in are the ultimate underdog story - the ultimate idea that despite all odds and all probability that the thing that's believed in will rise from the grave and show everyone what's really up. You can't reason with that. You can only hope that it implodes on itself and becomes passé. More likely than not, however, it will just grow to mean something different than we know it now.

[RustyRazor]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Precisely what someone with a small penis and pussy religion would say.

Clarification?

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123

And you came on the worst day. It was 111 degrees, but the Baltimore Crab can't be beat.

Tried to go to Bo Brooks, but they could not seat us quick enough. Stoney Creek was also booked.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

So you think spewing your crap is going to get to me believe there is no God? Nice try.

I posted a video without comment.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

So you think spewing your crap is going to get to me believe there is no God? Nice try.

One man's crap is another man's gossip. Can we agree to that?

[bigred760]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

So you think spewing your crap is going to get to me believe there is no God? Nice try.

Why do you believe there is a God then?

[bigred760]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

One man's crap is another man's gossip. Can we agree to that?

I can.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

I posted a video without comment.

And your point ?

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by bigred760

Why do you believe there is a God then?

Many reasons that I don't feel like explaining but I will give you one. That yeah ... there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here just 'cause ... just 'cause'. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

And your point ?

That, since I posted without comment, I cant be trying to convince you of anything, either way.

[magjournal]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Precisely what someone with a small penis and pussy religion would say.

I lol'd.

[bigred760]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

Many reasons that I don't feel like explaining but I will give you one. That yeah ... there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here just 'cause ... just 'cause'. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever.

So instead of defending your beliefs, you decide to bash those of others?

Nice.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by bigred760

So instead of defending your beliefs, you decide to bash those of others?

Nice.

Not bashing anyone's beliefs. That IS one of the reasons that I believe in God.

[bigred760]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

Not bashing anyone's beliefs. That IS one of the reasons that I believe in God.

You did post "that, to me, is one of the most ridiculous explanations ever."

First, how is not bashing something by saying it's ridiculous?

Second . . . so because you think an explanation is ridiculous, you believe in God? Out of all the things - and they are many, according to you -to put down as to why you believe in God . . . the Bible and its teachings, Sunday school, your parents, or . . . just because . . . you went with "I think it's stupid that the universe is expanding."

That reasoning, that you believe in God because you don't agree with another religion, is . . . to me . . . ridiculous.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by bigred760

You did post "that, to me, is one of the most ridiculous explanations ever."

First, how is not bashing something by saying it's ridiculous?

Second . . . so because you think an explanation is ridiculous, you believe in God? Out of all the things - and they are many, according to you -to put down as to why you believe in God . . . the Bible and its teachings, Sunday school, your parents, or . . . just because . . . you went with "I think it's stupid that the universe is expanding."

That reasoning, that you believe in God because you don't agree with another religion, is . . . to me . . . ridiculous.

Well because it is ridiculous.

People can have their irrational beliefs in no God. And I can have my irrational beliefs in God. How about that?

[bigred760]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

Well because it is ridiculous.

People can have their irrational beliefs in no God. And I can have my irrational beliefs in God. How about that?

Now that makes more sense.

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

Well because it is ridiculous.

People can have their irrational beliefs in no God. And I can have my irrational beliefs in God. How about that?

Irrational is a negative to the more common positive, rational. Both, then, can not inherently be irrational.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

One man's crap is another man's gossip. Can we agree to that?

I meant gospel. Sorry

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

Irrational is a negative to the more common positive, rational. Both, then, can not inherently be irrational.

Couldn't be farther from the truth.

I think it is irrational for people to think there is no God and we are here just because. People (a small group mind you) think it is irrational for people to think there is a God. Therefore both sides view each others beliefs as irrational.

[Vong]

Originally Posted by The Postmaster General

You initially said that "reason is the death of religion" - The point in me citing that phrase was that Reason has no pertinence on something that's irrational by nature, in this case, the irrationality would be man's faith in god/concepts of god and so forth. You can't reason with faith. That's why it's called faith. Otherwise, it would be called knowledge. "I have faith there is a God."/"I have knowledge that there is a a god."

Instead, you responded by demonstrating how conceiving something doesn't make that something true. I was already on that page with you, and I never said anything to indicate otherwise. It's pretty safe to say Nietzsche was on that page as well.

I wasn't referring to faith, but the actual notion of "god". Though I realized that his quote cannot be legitimately linked with anything a priori since "god" cannot be classified as a "thing", but more an idea and concept. So my response to the picture and quote is now null and void, but can stand alone as an argument against the concept of a supreme deity.

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

I think it is irrational for people to think there is no God and we are here just because. People (a small group mind you) think it is irrational for people to think there is a God. Therefore both sides view each others beliefs as irrational.

So the Big Bang is a "just because" reason compared to a deity snapping his fingers and creating the cosmos?

Bear in mind when you are using the term "irrational" and "rational", as its definition is a bias towards a proven and justified explanation ("after-the-fact", a posteriori knowledge). If you're arguing from a religious standpoint, rationalism is not on your side.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by Vong

So the Big Bang is a "just because" reason compared to a deity snapping his fingers and creating the cosmos?

Bear in mind when you are using the term "irrational" and "rational", as its definition is a bias towards a proven and justified explanation ("after-the-fact", a posteriori knowledge). If you're arguing from a religious standpoint, rationalism is not on your side.

Yup the Big Bang theory is actually full of crap. That is why it is called theory and not a fact.

So how is rationalism on the side of atheism? Or the Big Bang theory? There is also the theory that something can't come out of nothing.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by magjournal

Scientology is a cult, but what religion isn't? I love how people think Scientologists are crazy for what they do, but they totally buy the talking snake and the woman born of a man's rib or eating the body of Christ.

I don't see how Christianity, Islamic, or Judaism are cults at all. Cults have small following and do strange things. And cults are not real cool if you try to leave and they secretive. Everything is an open book with the Religions I just mentioned. And you can leave if you truly want too.

I hate people calling other religions cults. Because it is such a untruth.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

Yup the Big Bang theory is actually full of crap. That is why it is called theory and not a fact.

There is also the theory that something can't come out of nothing.

The simplistic concept of something coming out of nothing shows a misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory.

cult/kəlt/
Noun:

1. A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
2. A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

The simplistic concept of something coming out of nothing shows a misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory.

Nope.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

Nope.

I can tell you'll be fun to have discussions with.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

1. A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
2. A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

What are you trying to say? Can't be about Christianity because 2.18 billion is not close to being a small group.
Maybe erroneous was right about you.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

What are you trying to say? Can't be about Christianity because 2.18 billion is not close to being a small group.
Maybe erroneous was right about you.

I didn't say anything but post a definition of the word cult, and one of those definitions makes no mention of the size of the group. In a discussion about what is or is not a cult, I think that posting the definition of the word cult is pretty damn substantive.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

I didn't say anything but post a definition of the word cult, and one of those definitions makes no mention of the size of the group.

It said SMALL group of members.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

It said SMALL group of members.

Definition #2 did. Definition #1 made no mention of size, the word cult fits both of those definitions. A cult can fit definition #1 without having to fit #2, and vice versa. Or it could mean both, but it doesn't have to.

[Vong]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

The simplistic concept of something coming out of nothing shows a misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory.

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

Nope.

This comes to mind...

If you're going to argue with someone, back up your rebuttals.

[Vong]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

Yup the Big Bang theory is actually full of crap. That is why it is called theory and not a fact.

And what makes "god" or his existence fact?

You use scientific terms to debase a scientifically contested theory in support of a religion that bears no scientific fact. If you're going to argue in the language of science, learn the language first.

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by Vong

And what makes "god" or his existence fact?

You use scientific terms to debase a scientifically contested theory in support of a religion that bears no scientific fact. If you're going to argue in the language of science, learn the language first.

Really huh? Thanks for helping me out man!

[Flimmaker1473]

Originally Posted by Vong

This comes to mind...

If you're going to argue with someone, back up your rebuttals.

Me saying nope meant I don't want to argue about it because what he said was nonsense.

[Vong]

Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473

Me saying nope meant I don't want to argue about it because what he said was nonsense.

And why is it nonsense?

Use as many adjectives as you like in describing his argument, you're still not writing valid counter points.

Come on, dude. Give us something else other than descriptions.