There are two really prominent faiths that are "icked on" by lots of people: Mormonism and Scientology. Many people believe that it's because these faiths present ridiculous arguments are ideals, but I would like to suggest an alternative.
With both of these faiths, people were able to watch the religion actually being created. We have enough evidence to show the motivations behind the creators and to understand why the religion itself advanced. All religion is really quite ridiculous when you look at it; is an evil space alien controlling the galaxy or Jesus appearing in America really that silly compared to a magical creature that doesn't have to follow physical laws but gets to physically interact with the universe?
Looking at these different religions at face value, they're all incredibly silly - we just have the ability to critically analyze recent faiths like Mormonism and Scientology. If people turned this critique inward, I think more people would realize how improbable and silly belief in a god is. Thoughts?
- 98 Replies
So what you're saying is that what I and many others accept truth is completely silly? I'm confused as to why atheists feel the need to attack every other religion based on beliefs. The reason that most (intelligent) people attack Church of Scientology is the fact that they take massive sums of money from their members by convincing them that they are flawed individuals, when in actuality they are perfectly fine. Which happens in a lot of organized religions, I'll admit (which is why I don't go to church. It's all a load of money-grabbing imho.) Let them believe whatever they want. All you're doing with something like this is inciting hate and further separating us. I accept that God exists, created the universe, and controls it. It makes as much sense as any scientific explanation. Why do atheists tend to think that they're so much better, so much more "enlightened" than the rest of us? Is it the lack of fulfillment that religion provides, or do they truly believe themselves to be above everyone else?
Well, then why do you feel the need to mock other religions where there is just as much supporting evidence and rationality? That is to say, there is none.
Every religion out there is equally possible.Just because one has been around longer or has more followers does not matter.
I don't mock Scientologists based on their beliefs. The Xenu story is simply a tool we use to bring people to our cause. The same tactic that they use to get people in (propaganda and psychology), we use to draw them away. But by all means, they have the right to believe whatever they want. You have the right to NOT believe anything, but in my opinion, attacking me simply because I believe something is wrong. I don't believe other religions are possible. I believe what I believe and nothing you say or do will shake my faith. I won't try and convince you otherwise, and I won't attack you because you believe one thing or nothing at all.
Atheists strive to take religion out of things, yet act all high and mighty whenever anyone attacks them. Doesn't that seem just a LITTLE bit hypocritical?
The Christians/Cathloics used the tool of "You are going to burn in hell forver if you do not believe in our religion. And Catholics used to charge the followers money to save their souls, which went straight into the pockets of the church.
I do not remember reacting all high and mighty whenever I have gotten attacked based on my beliefs. Or even getting attacked come to think of it.
I would just like to say that I'm not attacking religion. I am, however, drawing a parallel to stories offered in all religions and the possible perceptions that people might be able to develop about the idea of god with a little rational thought, or some introspective criticism.
I'm not sure what you mean by atheists acting "high and mighty" when attacked and I also don't see how that would be hypocritical if they did.
If you don't mock Scientology or Mormonism based on their beliefs, then fine - but you also said you don't go to church for similar reasons to the Scientology method. It seems as though you have already realized and are applying my proposition, no?
Haha Moegreche, which religion believes "an evil space alien (is) controlling the galaxy"?
I'm not going to get into the fundamentals of religion, but it all really comes down to this- faith. It is really what makes you believe what you believe. Even an atheist has faith, faith that evolution is correct, even though it cannot be proven (no religion/belief on how the world began can be 'scientifically' proven though).
That's Scientology that believes the whole Xeno story. And not to blatantly disagree with you, Sitng, but I uh... blatantly disagree
Faith is hard to define (philosophically speaking) but we can use a working definition of belief in something we can't prove. Evolution is pretty much accepted as a scientific fact - it's just that evolutionists are still trying to understand some of the more subtle mechanisms behind it.
For me, Faith and Reason are essentially antonyms and I try to avoid faith whenever possible, however there are some things that I can't believe 100% (like my own existence) but I do have to take a little "leap of faith" in order to function. But if I can accept certain principles of causality and understanding, I think concepts like evolution actually logically follow from these basic ideas.
Whoops, I spelled your name wrong Sting, sorry. It's weird, every time I go to type it in, my finger wants to hit the 'k' key instead of the 'g' key, which would be kinda bad
Haha "And not to blatantly disagree with you, Sitng, but I uh... blatantly disagree " Gave me a chuckle.
Anyways, I find it hard to believe evolution as a scientific fact. We are unable to perform spontaneous generation, and that is a key factor in evolution; with a 'logical' thought process, you have to prove spontaneous generation to 'scientifically' prove evolution as a scientific law. So right there, you already have to just take evolution by 'faith' that spontaneous generation can occur.
Well I must say, that's the best objection to evolution I've heard on this site. It's certainly something that has bugged me, although I'm not sure evolution itself actually deals with the "first organism" problem - it's still a big deal. There are several theories, and scientists seem to know what chemicals are involved - Carbon, Nitrogen, Methane, and Water but as far as I know, no one is sure of exactly how all this happens.
So I've been defeated. Poop
With my faith argument now officially out of the window, I'll have to reassess or something... or just cry myself to sleep!
Like my About reads, I am a fairly intelligent person (fairly being the key word) and I can hold up an argument about most things. I can find lots of reasons why evolution isn't true, but I can be fair and say I see some things wrong with Christianity. Sometimes I wonder why an innocent person just dies, with no fault of their own... but like I said, I guess it comes down to faith.
So my initial argument, that if we had the evidence of the founding of the 5 major religions like we do with Mormonism and Scientology, would they be rejected as silly just like these "newer" faiths have been? Do you think this is cogent?
Hmm, remember how I said 'fairly' intelligent? Yeah... could you rephrase your initial argument, I'm not really understanding what you are trying to say (sorry, brain cramp or something).
Sure, basically what I'm suggesting is that the only reason people see these religions as "silly" is because we have historical evidence to show why so-and-so made up such-and-such and so we can easily refute their beliefs.
If we had the same sorts of historical evidence and understanding of the 5 big religions of the world, would we also reject them as silly?
Oh I get it. Well, I'm not sure, I am not to up-to-date on the historical evidences of the major religions, except Christianity. But for the most part I think people would still believe the religion they believe today, even if some people label them as 'silly'.
Thread is locked!