Should Scientology Be Banned?

How can you debate anything when you're basically saying 'you're wrong, I'm right', 'Christianity = good. Everything else = bad'?

Seems like the typical religious arguement to me.

 

I also said in that post:

I am happy to debate with people who don't believe in God, but I think people who don't appreciate these religious fanatics banging on doors should be able to debate on why they don't believe, rather than just complain. Just as some don't keep complaining to people who don't believe in God. Yes there are Christian's who won't listen to others just as there are non-Christians who won't listen, but that won't get us far. Agree?

 

I think atheists are usually more than happy to debate on why we don't believe in gods, it's almost always something we've thought long and hard about; belief in some form of god is the default position in our society, nonbelief takes some searching thought. I've had some long conversations with jehovah's witnesses who came knocking on my door with the aim of converting me - I listened respectfully and then told them what I thought was wrong with their argument just as they told me what they thought was wrong with mine!

In my experience, it's my christian friends who are defensive and don't like hearing strong criticisms of their beliefs - as if they should be ringfenced and not subject to debate. I love my beliefs being challenged, it makes me think and helps me to form better ideas.

 

Why should they have to debate about something they don't believe in? You shouldn't force your views on anyone, nor should you expect them to justify themselves.

 

I would say it's a two way process. If we expect the religious to justify themselves, then we in turn should justify ourselves. That's not to say we have to prove we are right. The burden of proof must rest with the proponents, and that in itself is some justification....

 

But why should we justify ourselves to someone who tries to convert us?

I shouldn't have to explain to someone why I believe in something.

 

If you ask someone about their beliefs i think you should have to explain yours. If they ask you then they should be the ones explaining. If someone tries to convert you then yeah i guess you shouldnt have to justify yourself. But then again i hate people who convert.

Besides Atheism is 'cool' now. Its the kids who dont hide their religon who i respect. I dont either but most people cant tell anyway so meh. But seriously when did atheism become 'in'?? Its stupid. You should be able to say what you believe without having to worry about them and their poxy 'discussions'. They dont listen. They judge.

 

They probably do to someone of such a tender age, beggars aren't they.

 

The given appears to be religion is bad, excepting the believers.

Perhaps the books of belief are nonsense supported out of self importance, but what if the concepts behind the belief structures was real, is it not one purpose to rationalise a reason why ?

 

Sorry, I couldn't understand the question. Can you rephrase it, please?

 

lol, what in english you mean ?

might not one of the purposes of existence be to understand why we do exist ?

 

Understanding why we exist is useless, because you'll never find out. In my opinion, the only purpose to existing is existing. I don't believe there is a deeper meaning, atleast not whilst I exist in my physical form. So long as I'm breathing, seeing, feeling, listening then life is full of meaning and understanding; it's all I really need to know.

'I think, therefore I am.'

 

You sound very sure about reality and its purpose well done.

I'll suggest that a lot of people still find life a mystery, sure everything is just a carbon based lifeform and is no more than just detritus on the solar wind, but I also have imagination which is mine for my existence, and precisely beacause of that imagination perhaps maybe even beyond it.

 

I hope you aren't being sarcastic.

And of course, I still have an imagination.

 

I may have taken you out of context a little but I need to re-enforce my point. I agree the default position in any society or culture has always had a belief in a super natural intelligence where ever people are. I also agree it is harder to maintain a convincing argument to deny the existence of god, allah, jewahar, buddha, brahma......than to accept.

It may surprise some here but I have developed/re-discovered my belief system, something that was ingrained in me when I was younger and have been turning back to it over the last 5 -10 years, to be deliberately vague. I cannot quote chunks of the bible and my knowledge is broad and thin. By default of my culture I have decided to look toward christianity. This could easily be islam or anyother real and respectful ideology, but I'm not a chrtistian in the sense I haven't been baptized and do not (cannot stand) to take part in any fuckin' preachy, huggy, clappy shite!

None of us can be absolutely sure whether god exists, or deny it for that matter. That is until we die and the weird energy we have, that of thought and reason, turns into something else? Energy cannot be destroyed, basic science and the platform for denying god. Therefore I like the idea of Pascal's wager, in that it's probably better to believe in god because once you there atleast you've hedged your bets, if not then nothing lost.

I try to go to Durham Cathedral on a Sunday morning, (yeah I lead an exciting and rock and roll lifestyle), especially when no one esle is around and definately not when there is a service on. I challenge anyone to try the same and come out of there after an hour and not feel re-charged, warm, invigorated, human and at peace with yourself. This may have something to do with the nature of the building and not religion but the existence of another force, life or super natural intelligence is as real as the pillars that have been holding up the huge concrete roof for the last 1000 years. I also feel that when Nietzsche professed the death of god he wasn't celebrating the fact but lamenting a new painful era was upon us and here we are.

L. Ron Hubbard is a charlitan and his alien invasion is a, well, great sci fi. There you are; who said I cant be open minded and accommodating!

 

Not everyone believes in the same thing - Christians have to listen to atheists saying there is no God, just as some Christians do preach about their beliefs. What I am saying is that people shouldn't expect to not hear anyone elses beliefs and in this society why not talk about what you believe, why just say I do/ don't believe in God - why not discuss why and how?

Like Peace said I think it's a two way thing, we all have to live together so why not debate what eachother believes in! At least it spices things up!

 

Really? Interesting!

Bring it on!!

 

Yeah, but the only difference is that athiests don't come knocking on your doors and rant about how there isn't a God. They don't shout offensive things to you in the street either.

The only use religion has is to give people false-hope. It's hope nonetheless.

 

Don't they?? And your generalising.

Also, it is only false hope to you.

 

I don't think it should be banned because telling someone what to believe in or what not to believe in isn't a very good practice to start getting into.

As for its beliefs, anyone with an active internet connection and two neurons can see through this as a scam. I don't have the time or desire to go into the whole Scientology rant, do your own research it's pretty freaking out there.

As far as other religions being crazy go, I think the difference that's apparent right of the bat is that this is one of the only religions in the world that reward and require you to be rich in order to achieve further enlightenment. Regardless of the various extremists hijacking the world's religions you have to look long and hard to find one that at its core believes that storing up riches is key to awareness. This glorification of the rich explains why so many celebrities think it's so great.