The Fight Against Scientology

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

I still want to see Cheese answer this one. It's an interesting point and deserves an answer, I think. If an atheist believes there is no God, then religion came from man. And all the evil that's come from religion has come from man. So how will ridding the world of religion help anything? It's only a product of man's evil, if religion isn't there something else will take it's place.

I guess the argument would be is that at least you wouldn't have one religion warring against another. I'm with you though, I think man, in his ignorance, would just find an equally bad replacement to force on us.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I guess the argument would be is that at least you wouldn't have one religion warring against another. I'm with you though, I think man, in his ignorance, would just find an equally bad replacement to force on us.

Man will always find a reason to fight and war. Its bread into us at the deepest level. Until you can breed greed, jealousy, hornyness, and desire for glory out of our genetic code, we're going to go on killing our fellow man with increased efficiency.

[FlamesFanInEdm]

Originally Posted by Cheese

well well well...CalgaryBornAgain chimes in with his usual flatulence.
What took you so long?
You obviously cant understand what is written because as I and others have mentioned on NUMEROUS occasions...
Theism leads to violence...or sorrow if you want it to be. You can look no further than the countless thousands of radical Muslims of today following their leaders blindly into war. So yes...IF man invented religion...to control the masses...then yes that very same religion can be used against the people. Id educate you on little known atrocities like the INQUISITION for example...but it might hurt your mind.

Cheese, heres an interesting read.
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/.../violence.html
Maybe youll dismiss it to in your neverending attempt to portray "religion as the cause of the great sorrow present everywhere in the world today", but I beleive that the Christianity Jesus intended us to practice is most definitely not the root of all violence. Organized religion in the world today most definitely does have its extremists, but like someone said, we shouldnt throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Heres a quote from the above link that I agree with...
"We need to transcend the divisive rhetoric set forth by radical theists and atheists, those who would condemn the entirety of religion or secularism on the basis of the actions of a few in the past, present, or future. We need to acknowledge the common moral ground that most theists and atheists in fact share today, and band together against our common enemies, the small, extremist, insidious elements that exist on both sides of the fence. We may disagree with one another about what is true, and to some extent about what is good, but most of us can, and need to, stand together against bigotry, intolerance, and violence."

Also a question. Im a Mennonite Anabaptist (not the superconservative ones), a denomination marked with a history of nonviolence. I dont know how much you know about them, but you seem to have rejected all religion based on violence and hypocrisy in the past. It may be that you reject it also because it is impossible to prove 100% that God exists and that Jesus was God....but it is also impossible to prove 100% the other way. However, this thread appears to be debating whether or not violence and religion are inextricably linked so Im not gonna worry about that issue for now, why even use violence being linked to the church as an argument against religion because of the relatively few extremists who corrupt religion with lust for power. What do you think about denominations like Mennonites? Violence as others have demonstrated here is just as easily linked to atheism.

http://www.thirdway.com/Menno/FAQ.asp

Violence is all about power, I dont think it has anything to do with true religion.



________
FACEBOOK STOCKS

[evman150]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That sounds like an admission of a closed mind. Is that a sign of intelligence?



So am I. I guess my invitation to the "intellectual bourgeoisie society" meeting got lost in the mail.

Did anyone else get one?

I don't know. Is it? I already mentioned something about this earlier in the thread.

If you are in the "society", good for you. And judging by your prior posts (not in this thread), I'd say you are on my side of things.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Man will always find a reason to fight and war. Its bread into us at the deepest level. Until you can breed greed, jealousy, hornyness, and desire for glory out of our genetic code, we're going to go on killing our fellow man with increased efficiency.

In my post I had the rider, 'in his ignorance'. I believe man's hatred is learned and hate is where most of our problems come from. I have a hope that each man can refind them self because the alternative looks bleak with all the advances we have made to destroy.

[daveyboy]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Daveyboy...as with all other theist practises you should know better than to lump all Buddhists in the same pile. You seem to count your particular Buddhist version as the true Buddhism yet discount one of the oldest versions known...Yes its the Tibetan version...you know the one with Dalai Lama? I would hazard a guess that the DL may be the most famous of all worldwide Buddhists.
Christians hate lumping Catholics or Mormons into their fold...but guess what...they are part of the Christian fold like it or not.

Tibbetan Buddhism

Tibetan Buddhism is a religion in exile, forced from its homeland when Tibet was conquered by the Chinese. At one time it was thought that 1 in 6 Tibetan men were Buddhist monks. The best known face of Tibetan Buddhism is the Dalai Lama, who has lived in exile in India since he fled Chinese occupation of his country in 1959.

Tibetan Buddhism combines the essential teachings of Mahayana Buddhism with Tantric and Shamanic, and material from an ancient Tibetan religion called Bon.

But like I said earlier...IF I chose to follow a religion I would probably choose Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhism is actually one of the newer versions of ethnic Buddhism. The oldest would be Theravada, which could probably be translated as "school of the elders".

I agree with you Tibetan Buddhism is very influenced by Bon (which I said) it is also influenced by Daoism among other things.

I stand by the claim that Buddhism, especially in its Theravada and Mahayana form is a non-theistic religion.

Buddha never said there wasn't a God or there was a god. It's irrelevent to ending Dukkha (suffering) and acheieving Nibana (englightenment). The Buddha was a non-theist and I'm quite confident that the majority of Buddhists and religious studies profs. would agree that Budddhism was a non-theistic religion.

[daveyboy]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Thank you!

Although, just a random thought... but isn't the term "supernatural" subjective. What is supernatural to one person, may not be to another if their particular understanding of nature is on a different level.

For an easy example, consider this: If you went back in time 2000 years and told someone living then, that one day someone would fly to the moon, they would think that the person would be a god, or at least have supernatural powers. To them, that would be the only possibilty.

Now the Buddha, and a few other highly "enlightened" people claim to have an understanding of nature and the universe that allows them undertake feats that appear to "unenlightened" people as supernatural. But if the power exists because of nature and is obtainable by anyone who can learn it, is it really supernatural?

Just a random thought. I'm only asking, because it sounds like you know a lot about the topic.

Yah, that's an excellent point, I never really thought of it like that. The term supernatural is very subjective. I don't really have the response to that. I'd agree with you though that the Buddha and other 'enlightened beings' Boddhisattvas, Arhants, Devas, etc. could do things that would appear to those that are less spiritually advanced as being supernatural, but in reality they can do these things because they are just further along in their development on the margha (spiritual path)

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by daveyboy

Yah, that's an excellent point, I never really thought of it like that. The term supernatural is very subjective. I don't really have the response to that. I'd agree with you though that the Buddha and other 'enlightened beings' Boddhisattvas, Arhants, Devas, etc. could do things that would appear to those that are less spiritually advanced as being supernatural, but in reality they can do these things because they are just further along in their development on the margha (spiritual path)

I look at so called spiritually advanced beings doing so called supernatural feats as just another way of leading the unwary down the garden path. What good
does it do to walk on water or change water into wine if I am still left in ignorance and are no closer to knowing myself. To find a teacher who can show me how to enter my inner world and find enlightenment is the true gift.

[FlamesFanInEdm]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I look at so called spiritually advanced beings doing so called supernatural feats as just another way of leading the unwary down the garden path. What good
does it do to walk on water or change water into wine if I am still left in ignorance and are no closer to knowing myself. To find a teacher who can show me how to enter my inner world and find enlightenment is the true gift.

Well....Jesus wasnt exactly just a magician per say. A look at John 8, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...208&version=31, makes it pretty clear what Jesus wishes Christians need to do in order to know themselves and find enlightenment. Beleive in and follow Jesus as the Christ and live a life without sin to the best of our ability. I dont know if the process of getting the the point of being able to perform spiritual acts is exactly what what enlightenment is about...then again Ive never studied Buddhism all that much.
________
Brunette doggystyle

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanInEdm

Well....Jesus wasnt exactly just a magician per say. A look at John 8, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...208&version=31, makes it pretty clear what Jesus wishes Christians need to do in order to know themselves and find enlightenment. Beleive in and follow Jesus as the Christ and live a life without sin to the best of our ability. I dont know if the process of getting the the point of being able to perform spiritual acts is exactly what what enlightenment is about...then again Ive never studied Buddhism all that much.

Well.... I never actually mentioned Jesus and you and I weren't around to see if he actually did any of these acts but modern day christians as well as buddists, according to some posters hold these feats in high regard. I don't, and question whether they actually happened or if they did, there is a simple explanation. To me they are just superstition and mislead the unwary and cause the intelligent to run hard and fast and far away.

I don't find any conflict with Jesus' teaching. I do find a lot of outright disbelief when it comes to miracles such as the virgin birth and being raised from the dead, yet this is the basis for modern christianity. History seems to say that these ideas were borrowed from other religions and were only added to appeal to the masses.

[Red Mile Style]

I usually do not touch religion debates with a ten-foot pole, but some of these posts are ridiculous and I can't sleep.

Originally Posted by evman150

The lower parts of society need religion to live their lives.

Those in the upper echelon of society are (necessarily) the most intelligent, the most successful, the happiest, the most free to live their lives. These people do not need religion to give their lives meaning like the dregs of society do.

I really have nothing against those individuals who believe in God if it gives their lives some sort of (false) meaning. Just don't try and tell me these people are of the same worthiness to society as the rest of us.

I think you need to interact with people that have exceptionally high IQs because you clearly have never had the oppurtunity. I have been a member of Cal-Amity, which is the Calgary branch of Mensa for a few years now and I can tell you that the way you are portraying people who have an above average intelligence, or reversely average intelligence, is simply ignorant. Society is not divided on IQ scores or faith systems, some geniuses are happy being high school science teachers, stay-at-home Moms or computer programmers. There are no elite destinctions like you claim there are. Intelligence and faith have absolutely nothing to do with each other. As mentioned earlier it takes just as much faith to believe in nothing than to believe in God.

What do I know about God existing just because I can figure out patterns or because I have good spatial reasoning? That's absurd! However, there does seem to be a correlation between having a higher education and not believing in a god - higher than the correlation between intelligence and faith. I personally believe this has to do with the inablity of these individuals to examine possibilities outside the realm of man-made methodologies, because we know it can not be from scientific evidence proving there is no God, simply because no such evidence exists. People involved in academia only learn and accept what they are taught and conform to those ideals.

Geniuses are not just categorized based on a test result, Psychologists believe that geniuses are problem finders - constantly looking for problems to solve, not necessarily solutions to problems. A lot of the time, spirituality brings intelligent people to their knees, because there has to be more. Even the scientific explanation of human life being created by a single cell or the big bang theory, does not correspond with some scientific theories.

Originally Posted by evman150

None of us is special, but together we make up the intellectual bourgeoisie.

That's pretty bad grammar for someone who is a self-proclaimed member of the "intellectual bourgeoisie"...

Originally Posted by evman150

So a student can't be among the intellectual elite? Show me a free thinking 13 year old and I'll tell you he's one of us. Show me a free thinking 80 year old with an IQ of 89 and I'll tell you he's one of us as well. Those who believe what I believe are pretty much the inverse of the graph above, that is, the highest percentage of people who believe what I believe have the higher IQs, but that is not to say that there are not people with lower IQs who believe as well, just as I'm sure there are many people out there with astronomical IQs who are theists.

Then you need to learn how to plot graphs correctly, because according to your graph 100% of people with an IQ of 80 or less are believers, transversely 0% of people with IQs higher than 140 believe in a god.

It is possible for a student to be part of the "intellectual bourgeois" - I just don't think you are - you think you are, but you're not. You do NOT represent the intellectually elite by your posts here. To be a member of the intellectual elite, you must be open to new ideas, challenge yourself and your own beliefs and succumb to the idea that man-made methodologies such as science, are just that, man-made. You can not rationally completely exclude any possibility, you simply can not.

Originally Posted by evman150

To tell you the truth, I question my own open-mindedness. Who even says open-mindedness is a virtue? I really don't know for sure. I'm still blazing my trail in life, these answers will come, maybe on my travels.

Well, at least you are admitting that you have a lot to learn, especially since you consider yourself the "intellectual bourgeois"... laughable.

I personally detest organized religion, for many of the same reasons stated in this thread, but for me to not concieve the infinite possiblities of truth would only result in selling myself short. Believe whatever you want to believe, but do not kid yourself and believe that you are an "open-minded" individual, because you are far from it - especially with the castes you break your idea of society into.

[evman150]

I think you need to interact with people that have exceptionally high IQs because you clearly have never had the oppurtunity. I have been a member of Cal-Amity, which is the Calgary branch of Mensa for a few years now and I can tell you that the way you are portraying people who have an above average intelligence, or reversely average intelligence, is simply ignorant. Society is not divided on IQ scores or faith systems, some geniuses are happy being high school science teachers, stay-at-home Moms or computer programmers. There are no elite destinctions like you claim there are. Intelligence and faith have absolutely nothing to do with each other. As mentioned earlier it takes just as much faith to believe in nothing than to believe in God.

Ooooohhh...I'm in Mensa, look at me.

The distinction lies between those who believe and those who think freely. And like it or not, intelligence and faith are most definitely related.

What do I know about God existing just because I can figure out patterns or because I have good spatial reasoning? That's absurd! However, there does seem to be a correlation between having a higher education and not believing in a god - higher than the correlation between intelligence and faith. I personally believe this has to do with the inablity of these individuals to examine possibilities outside the realm of man-made methodologies, because we know it can not be from scientific evidence proving there is no God, simply because no such evidence exists. People involved in academia only learn and accept what they are taught and conform to those ideals.

Or it could be that those who attend universities around the world tend to be the most intelligent people. And these same people are the non-believers. But then again, maybe it's your convoluted reasoning. Occam's Razor.

Geniuses are not just categorized based on a test result, Psychologists believe that geniuses are problem finders - constantly looking for problems to solve, not necessarily solutions to problems. A lot of the time, spirituality brings intelligent people to their knees, because there has to be more. Even the scientific explanation of human life being created by a single cell or the big bang theory, does not correspond with some scientific theories.

What scientific theories are these? Who says there has to be more out there? Why does everyone need meaning?

That's pretty bad grammar for someone who is a self-proclaimed member of the "intellectual bourgeoisie"...

Please point out the grammatical error(s).

Then you need to learn how to plot graphs correctly, because according to your graph 100% of people with an IQ of 80 or less are believers, transversely 0% of people with IQs higher than 140 believe in a god.

It's done in Paint bud. Buy me a copy of Graphical Analysis and I'll give you a pretty looking graph. And actually, I made sure to show the dots never reach 100% and that the graph tends to zero asymptotically.

It is possible for a student to be part of the "intellectual bourgeois" - I just don't think you are - you think you are, but you're not. You do NOT represent the intellectually elite by your posts here. To be a member of the intellectual elite, you must be open to new ideas, challenge yourself and your own beliefs and succumb to the idea that man-made methodologies such as science, are just that, man-made. You can not rationally completely exclude any possibility, you simply can not.

I do not exclude any possibility. What I am against is the oppression of thought by people teaching from a millenia old story book.

Here's a quote to munch on:

"The most despicable people in the world are not the people who commit violent crimes, but those who do not only out of the fear of God."

Believe whatever you want to believe, but do not kid yourself and believe that you are an "open-minded" individual, because you are far from it - especially with the castes you break your idea of society into.

How many times do I have to state that I don't consider myself "open minded"? See my previous posts, which ostensibly you read, for my views on this.

[Cheese]

[quote=Vulcan;595364]From my perspective, you either know or don't know.

Lots of people, like cheese and others, pretend to know but their thinking breaks down when it comes to offering anything practical.[/quote]

So based on your comment...please feel free to offer us Atheists something to bite on...something practical.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

I still want to see Cheese answer this one. It's an interesting point and deserves an answer, I think. If an atheist believes there is no God, then religion came from man. And all the evil that's come from religion has come from man. So how will ridding the world of religion help anything? It's only a product of man's evil, if religion isn't there something else will take it's place.

If you actually go back and read my posts youll find the answer.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The point you are missing is that you are wrong to conclude that religion is the problem. It is mankind that is the problem. Eliminate religion and you still have the same problem. Communism would be a beneficial system if mankind was basically good. It isn't because mankind isn't. A priest or pope, a philosopher or a politican: it doesn't matter. There is none that is good. The bible tells us that and history demonstrates that truth.

How can I be wrong to make that conclusion? You are the one who suggests that religion is the answer, yet I trotted out point after point after point showing you exactly where religion WAS the problem. Once again you only comment on the small tidbit that conforms to your simple explanation of things. You dont have a clue what would happen if we eliminated religion...the only thing you can and constantly do is link Atheism with Communsim. Go back and actually read my comments before coming up with a half assed answer. Your answer to the communism issue has been answered here and many times before.
Did you give up on the Hitler comparisons yet?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

What the hell is a "figment of reality"?

Prove to me God does not exist.


Sure he can. That does not make religious based teachings any less valid an outlet. The lesson is what is important, not the delivery.

And fwiw, the story of Noah's Ark was created at a time when people believed in a more vengeful God, as opposed to all loving. It is a metaphor, you know that right?


Who controls the church?

Did Alexander the Great lust for power and control because of his religion? Caesar? Napoleon? Hitler?

What about the man who dominates and beats his wife? What about the woman who will tell any lie to screw her husband in a divorce? What about the junkie who kills another junkie in a drug deal gone bad?

Its all about power, its all about control. It is all about the need for both. And it has nothing to do with religion.

LOL...we are talking about the church here...theists LOVE to haul out comparisons to anything else they think will make them look better. It doesnt work and certainly doesnt answer any of the questions I pose.

As to the comment about children praying to goD...Fine Ill retract that and say children praying to Jesus? Go ahead and prove that one.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by skins

that's a good argument for your case CalgaryBorn.



that's one statement that die hard athiests cannot escape. of course the same is true for theists. they hear, "prove God exists, then I'll believe."

really, all you can do is examine both arguments and make a faith based decision, or become an agnostic.

ok here you go smarty...prove "the son of God existed". If you want to talk about ghosts feel free.
BTW...Atheists dont need to prove there is no God...we dont believe in it. It is the Christian that believes in and created this entity...hence it is their position to prove.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanInEdm

Cheese, heres an interesting read.
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/.../violence.html
Maybe youll dismiss it to in your neverending attempt to portray "religion as the cause of the great sorrow present everywhere in the world today", but I beleive that the Christianity Jesus intended us to practice is most definitely not the root of all violence. Organized religion in the world today most definitely does have its extremists, but like someone said, we shouldnt throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Heres a quote from the above link that I agree with...
"We need to transcend the divisive rhetoric set forth by radical theists and atheists, those who would condemn the entirety of religion or secularism on the basis of the actions of a few in the past, present, or future. We need to acknowledge the common moral ground that most theists and atheists in fact share today, and band together against our common enemies, the small, extremist, insidious elements that exist on both sides of the fence. We may disagree with one another about what is true, and to some extent about what is good, but most of us can, and need to, stand together against bigotry, intolerance, and violence."

Also a question. Im a Mennonite Anabaptist (not the superconservative ones), a denomination marked with a history of nonviolence. I dont know how much you know about them, but you seem to have rejected all religion based on violence and hypocrisy in the past. It may be that you reject it also because it is impossible to prove 100% that God exists and that Jesus was God....but it is also impossible to prove 100% the other way. However, this thread appears to be debating whether or not violence and religion are inextricably linked so Im not gonna worry about that issue for now, why even use violence being linked to the church as an argument against religion because of the relatively few extremists who corrupt religion with lust for power. What do you think about denominations like Mennonites? Violence as others have demonstrated here is just as easily linked to atheism.

http://www.thirdway.com/Menno/FAQ.asp

Violence is all about power, I dont think it has anything to do with true religion.

First things first...there are Atheists who choose to take a different route than I do. Thats their choice and I commend them for it.
As to the Mennonite question...I live in Kitchener Waterloo, its filled with Mennonites, so yes I know them VERY well. Where your entire post falls apart is when you mention Jesus...there is no proof your Jesus ever lived. Feel free to back track in this post to a couple of great links troutman provided. Would LOVE to see what you have to say after reading all of it.
I reject religion because its false, it teaches lies, it was created by man and is NOT the word of a God or the son of God. Once you get by that youll have a clearer mind...one that is free to explore life without reigns.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

In my post I had the rider, 'in his ignorance'. I believe man's hatred is learned and hate is where most of our problems come from. I have a hope that each man can refind them self because the alternative looks bleak with all the advances we have made to destroy.

Exactly...hate is learned from a very young age...if you scroll back youll find I said the exact same thing. A baby is NOT born into the world full of hate or anger. When we teach children lies it teaches them that lieing is ok....when we teach children that an all good goD can murder all of his creations what does that teach a child?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by daveyboy

Tibetan Buddhism is actually one of the newer versions of ethnic Buddhism. The oldest would be Theravada, which could probably be translated as "school of the elders".

I agree with you Tibetan Buddhism is very influenced by Bon (which I said) it is also influenced by Daoism among other things.

I stand by the claim that Buddhism, especially in its Theravada and Mahayana form is a non-theistic religion.

Buddha never said there wasn't a God or there was a god. It's irrelevent to ending Dukkha (suffering) and acheieving Nibana (englightenment). The Buddha was a non-theist and I'm quite confident that the majority of Buddhists and religious studies profs. would agree that Budddhism was a non-theistic religion.

Once again the FACT that Buddhist philosophy believes in, in some sects, rebirth, Buddhic Awakening, omniscience, the miraculous powers of a Buddha (e.g. walking through walls and upon water, skywalking, mind-reading, knowledge of all beings' past lives), to what most scholars identify as worship practices (ceremonial reverence of saints), to the Buddha's repeated claim that his Dharma is "inconceivable" and cannot be fully apprehended by logic and reason, suggests to me a theistic approach and thought to the philosophy. It is not black and white. You must admit that even though your personal choice may not have a theistic leaning there are other sects that are very much theistic.

I will give the Buddhists credit for their teachings though...they are, of all major belief systems, far and above the best.

As an aside...why Buddhism and not Christianity?