The Queen v The Pope

There is a difference between spirituality and well-polished bullshit. A very big difference.

I am the reincarnated Elvis. You can't prove me wrong, therefore it must be true.

If you accept why that is flawed, you accept why I think what you're saying is flawed.

You cannot say something is without proving it so. Just because we don't yet have an explaination does not justify putting it down to *. It's a simple case of true-believer syndrome, the mind believing what it wants to be true.

If that's where the science ends up then fine, that's how it goes. But you can't just assume there must be a * because we don't have an explaination for it.

 

I agree... personally I hate pseudo-sciences.

There's a big difference between you just pulling an example up that you know is ridiculous just to disprove it. Plus, I've never said I believe it or don't, just that scientists think it should be investigated. You came back with your "oh, it can't possibly be real" response in the last post and I countered with the fact that even your quoted scientist feels it should be researched. Your response is knee-* and doesn't add to the argument.

I agree, never claimed the contrary. All I'm saying is it's not impossible. I don't choose to believe that, but if others do and they don't harm anybody in the process (very important caveat) then I see no problem whatsoever.

I agree, you are confusing me playing the devil's advocate for me trying to tell you the Bible is truth. All I'm saying is that nothing should be thrown out... there are places where physics as we know them literally do not work. For the Big Bang to be true, for a split second right after the big bang matter had to have spread out faster than the speed of light. How did it happen? I don't know. I'm not saying * did it. All I'm saying is that if someone wants to believe a * did it, I really don't care. Personally, the thought appeals to me as well, and I want to believe it actually. I just can't reconcile it with what I know is true.

I'm afraid we've just wasted a huge amount of time because you've misunderstood my angle. This debate started by you quoting a man who is well known for being the scientific equivalent of a wind-up merchant who misrepresented the definition of Atheist, another scientist that actually agrees with my point, and when you actually did your own response completely misreading what I had stated. To clarify, here are my points:

I am not religious.
I believe that organized religion is fundamentally flawed in it's set up, all religions claim to be personal and not for the masses.
I believe that you can't cast out a possibility if it's not proven impossible. I also believe that there are some theories like creationism and intelligent design that are so dumb that they shouldn't be taught in schools, but that we shouldn't ridicule those who believe it.
I believe that those who choose organized religion should be allowed to worship if they want, without harassment. If you want to say your side, fine, but many atheists go severely overboard trying to pound their message in with a very superior attitude.

Also, you mention organized religion as a point of control over the populace. Here is a list of governments who have banned organized religion: People's Republic of China, DPRK, USSR, French Republic after the Revolution. Organized religion isn't what ruins peoples' lives, it is an inherent desire in some humans to use whatever mechanism they can find to control the masses. Maybe it's a political system, maybe it's "enlightenment" but the fact remains that it is a tool, not a cause, of control. That's why I dislike the Catholic Church, because of it's history. It's why I'm indifferent to Buddhism, because there's no history of attempted control over the masses.

 

Oh, *, how did I miss this little hilarious nugget? And where did I say all Atheists do this? Nowhere? That's what I thought. I know a lot of Atheists who are perfectly reasonable with people of other beliefs. The fact that I say they exist does not mean that it constitutes the majority of atheists. As a matter of fact I'd say it comprises only a tiny fraction.

For an example, I do a lot of work with Native Americans, and it would be a pretty horrible thing if my coworkers, plenty of whom are atheists (I categorize myself more as Agnostic) attacked their ancient belief systems and told them they weren't true, wouldn't it? This is the activity that angers me, is when people badger the point over and over and over when a Christian or Muslim or Jew is obviously hanging onto their beliefs for support in a hard time. My point is that it always seems to be the main monotheistic religions that people pick on.

 

the queen sucks *

 

you talk about religion as if its main agenda is to keep the world the same way it was when it was set up. it's not a fashion mate, (well at least Catholicism isnt) 'Keeping up-to-date' is not the agenda... it is to show people how to live by the way in which its founders and ultimatley Christ wanted us to live. Morals, humility, respect and faith... theyre the basic building block for any religion.

On you point about religion being against science centries ago you are 100% correct. but to take you up on an earlier post it was CENTRIES ago... and was in fact 'a different world'.
Many things were frowned upon in those days and not just scientific and technological advances. But as the world learned that they were not harmful to social and moral standards then they became socially acceptable... they didnt become acceptable because people decided to turn their backs on their religions.

 

totally off topic but can anyone else see an advert on this page for

''SCIENTOLOGY''

* irony eh!?

 

Yeah, what a load of bollocks that is mate.

 

What, so people who don't believe in * aren't allowed an opinion? At least you don't get people (over here at least anyway) knocking on doors saying there is no *, like you do with jehovah's witnesses. And you didn't mention anything there about if believing in evolution questions religon

 

agreed they all think they're aliens

 

the church is made up of people. Believe it or not priests are normal people like you and me. The only difference is while most folks are *-obsessed they decided they can do without it.

You may call it unnatural but men and women have been doing it for many sorts of reasons since societies began.

The Church is made up of these clerics as well as lay people like (im assuming) many of the people on this message board.

So it stands to reason that if the church is made up of regular people, and people are capable of great, good, bad, and ugly, then the church is capable of the same.

The goal of the church is to teach the masses to live a fulfilling non-self-centered way of life. However, as it is a massive institution of imperfect humanity then it stands to reason that it too can be thrown off course. For example, the years its highest leadership spent under the control of powerful noble italian families like the di medicis. Another example would be how the upper reaches of the church were controlled by political forces in countries like Spain, Ireland, and (in terms of the separate Russian Orthodox Church) the USSR


While all human institutions that are massive by nature are capable of failure, at least the church has a noble goal as its main focus.

 

Judaism is a religion, thus, it's harmfull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlekennie
who would you rather follow a religion which was made up pratically by a fat king who had many wifes but couldnt have a son or a religion that dates back to the time of christ easy answer

Judaism dates back to pre-Babylonian times

The roots of all these religions and more, is ultimatley superstition and recycled fairy tales.
__________________



m8 i was meaning the protestant against the catholic religion what would you put more belief in and also the jews have been at war with palestine for more than 1000 years id say they have been more harmful in history they are fighting for a land that wasnt really theirs in first place palestine was their first

 

She's out-lived five Popes so far, so does that mean she wins?

 

:icon_mrgreen:

 

that was a good one
must be lent popes no getting enough nutrition making hime weak

 

The prospect of life without getting their hole might be too much to handle for some, lol.

 

Why do the Catholic church forbid priests etc from having *? Surely it just causes problems and must affect people's individual happiness. And what kind of person would agree to it anyway?

 

Sniff sniff ,its getting stronger.

 

Aye you're not the only one picking up a bit of an odour mate.

 

Its minging mate ,smells of something ,it will come to me :icon_mrgreen:

 

Why are you trying to take the thread off topic? :icon_mrgreen: