I'm sure most people on this forum are atheists (i being one of them). I just wanted to say something about all religions which pretty much makes sure their poppycock! The point is, the race of the god. Jesus was white because he was thought up by a white person in tough times. Buddha was Indian because he was made by a prince who saw hardships in his country. The gods of Mayans were pretty much the only godly figures, instead of having races. I just think this is a big point on what pretty much proves that religion is a bunch of poppycock!
I believe that the reason that people portray Jesus as white is because most people in America and England can relate to a white Jesus. I bet that to a black person, Jesus could be black.
Fix'd. Not even going to go into the OT III stuff. There are so many other things wrong with them. For example, the fact that there is an EXTREMELY high suicide rate among people who escape from this cult. Also, they steal your money and make you feel bad if you don't keep spending more. Don't, whatever you do, let yourself become ensnared by their web of lies.
Scientology.org BE BRAINWASHED!
Other places to be brainwashed: The Church of Scientology. Its really nice and expensive! I wish I as much money as a dangerous life sucking cult
Not even going to go into the OT III stuff. There are so many other things wrong with them. For example, the fact that there is an EXTREMELY high suicide rate among people who escape from this cult. Also, they steal your money and make you feel bad if you don't keep spending more. Don't, whatever you do, let yourself become ensnared by their web of lies.
"What's better than telling people a stupid story and having them believe you?! Having them PAY you for it, stupid!"
No one actually knows what color Jesus is, it's just that whites like to think of him has white, blacks like to think of him has black and so on. And it's not like they said Jesus was a white man or a black man in the bible.
No one actually knows what color Jesus is, it's just that whites like to think of him has white, blacks like to think of him has black and so on. And it's not like they said Jesus was a white man or a black man in the bible.
>_> He was born in Jerusalem! Plus Mary is a white name
Correct me if I'm wrong but if he was black, he'd be a slave?
I figured most people would be able to pick up on the reference. In the bible, when Cain was punished by God, he was marked for his crime so that others would know what he did. Many believe this "mark" to be the dark skin of Africans. This theory was used to try to uphold Jim Crow Laws in many southern states. Hell, it might have made it to the Senate.
Anyways, if people are dumb enough to think it's correct today, they sure as hell could have used it as an excuse to keep slaves back then.
science is a religion. religion is formed in order to answer questions that can't be answered by just what you see. science tries to explain a lot of those questions, and the questions that can't be answered and proven, are answered through scientific theory.
I'm going to pull you up there- just...no.
The part I object to is equating science with religion in terms of generating some kind of metaphysical mythos in order to explain things.
This is precisely where science differs from religion. Science, at its core, makes absolutely no attempt to explain things by putting them in some kind of metaphysical framework. The source of this confusion is in the frequent misinterpretation of "cause".
Cause is a tricky word. In a 'religious' sense, "cause" is phrased as "God created the universe" i.e. God caused the universe to exist. The word cause here means that one event was directly responsible for the other.
Science never actually says this. It is only a layman interpretation of science that allows us to use this common word, but it's technically incorrect. Given the nature of evidence, science is governed by the principles skepticism which allow us to say "given this and that, it is likely that there is an association between this and that". The condition for us to be able to call this a "cause" is whether one event will precede another event in a way that is demonstrable, replicable and is not better explained by another chain of events. A 'causing' B means that B will always be a direct consequence of B but we can only determine this if the sample space is infinitely constant and this is not definable.
My point is that the interpretation of this apparent 'commonality' between science and religion is in fact a world apart. Furthermore this is why science does not have to stand diametrically opposed to any religion: because it does not purport to give expression to mystique by saying "this causes that and that's the end of it."
And this is also why it's just wrong to say "science is a religion". If anything, this is only applicable in the sense that "I choose to believe in science" by which we mean "I choose to accept that the scientific method is a satisfactory way to interpret observations." And really, that's trivial.
