You're. How many times FFS?Your behaving really odd , Id suggest you take a rest.
Are you getting tough now? Dear me.I am surprised you are chatting to a bloke you think is thick.
Out of interest when you call strangers; thick, odd and strange when you are out what do they say?
How Scientology seems to get singled out for criticism of its beliefs is rediculous. It's no more ludicrous than every other religious organisation, all of them designed to impose obedience, control & extract money.
The Dianetics book written by Ron Hubbard was basically a recruitment tool.I don’t think that’s true, many ancient religions and belief systems arose as a way of understanding the world and the role of humanity within it, prior to the major scientific discoveries that began to explain what was previously ascribed to god, gods or other spiritual factors.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, Scientology is a young religion based on crackpot sci-fi by a bloke who was pretty up front about his intentions in creating a new religion. Of course, many older religions today have elements of control and money grabbing like you say, but there are also much deeper factors to consider like culture, family, tradition and history that explain their continued popularity, even if many of us have largely move on - something harder to explain with a cult like Scientology.
I am way to old to be tough. I was just wondering if this is how you talk in the pub.Are you getting tough now? Dear me.
The irony is that religion is so discredited by science that it is no longer considered worthy of debate.Remember 20 years ago when there would be religion threads every week and people would get into massive squabbles and go off in a huff. Ah the good old days. Replaced by brexit now I suppose. I wonder if it's had its day as a news item, or if it's due to everyone getting older and being more familiar with death.
Science has never discredited religion only the books. In fact it doesn't even attempt to discredit a supreme being.The irony is that religion is so discredited by science that it is no longer considered worthy of debate.
Therefore it gets off Scott free to keep its place as a tax avoiding part of the establishment.
We don't have good theories about how life began at all. We have 2 major schools of thought and little or no evidence for either nor have we come close to recreating life.The definition of science is the truth.
Science has very good theories about how life began.
It is interesting that God has retreated to before the big bang.
What does the comfort blanket of deluded people have to do with anything including the biggest fraud of all time.
Selling life after death is disgusting in my opinion.
You remind me of a teacher at St Mary's College open prison. A Mr (General) Jackson he taught Maths and had a severe limp. His depth of knowledge was awesome way way above his pupils he never seemed to face the class.We don't have good theories about how life began at all. We have 2 major schools of thought and little or no evidence for either nor have we come close to recreating life.
Science isn't truth at all. It's theories that change over time or are tossed out and we start from scratch from time to time.
We have nothing like a unified theory at the minute and plenty of scientists don't think we ever will.
I agree "selling" life after death is a bit amoral. However believing in God isn't buying life after death.
As for god retreating to before the Big bang. Hmm again this demonstrates a very small amount of understanding of science.
I assume you believe conscience is just a by product of life. Science knows virtually nothing about conscience. Perhaps that's where God lives, who knows not me that's for sure.
Again for clarity I would describe myself as an atheist but wouldn't insult someone who choosers to believe in a creator.
To finish, several physicists have claimed that atheism is ignoring scientific method, most notably marcelo gleiser.
Ah I'm not having this.We don't have good theories about how life began at all. We have 2 major schools of thought and little or no evidence for either nor have we come close to recreating life.
Science isn't truth at all. It's theories that change over time or are tossed out and we start from scratch from time to time.
We have nothing like a unified theory at the minute and plenty of scientists don't think we ever will.
I agree "selling" life after death is a bit amoral. However believing in God isn't buying life after death.
As for god retreating to before the Big bang. Hmm again this demonstrates a very small amount of understanding of science.
I assume you believe conscience is just a by product of life. Science knows virtually nothing about conscience. Perhaps that's where God lives, who knows not me that's for sure.
Again for clarity I would describe myself as an atheist but wouldn't insult someone who choosers to believe in a creator.
To finish, several physicists have claimed that atheism is ignoring scientific method, most notably marcelo gleiser.