Science = the answer to the "How?"
Religion = the answer to the "Why?"

and imo religion should remain something personnal

(sorry, i havent read the whole thread so this post might be pointless )

quote:

isn't all of humanity to try and get all with each other despite of what each other's beliefs are?

It's funny that you say that. Some religions preach that some others' beliefs are not the right ones and therefore should be persecuted for such. From all the bad things I've heard about being done in the name of religion, I would say that one of the main problems of religion is that no one wants to try and get along if you don't believe what I do. I see the fanatacism that accompanies any serious religion as a horrible thing. Bottom line in some cases, it is akin to brainwashing and that's just bad. (sorry for sounding like an eight year old)

quote:

Originally posted by newtotrance I just find that believing in anything such as Scientology or other forms of religious tradition very hard to fathom.

See, this is exactly what he meant.

quote:

Originally posted by NomadaNare Well why do you believe in God, that's always been a curiousity for me. A lot of people ask, "well why dont you ...?" but nobody asks "why do you ...?"

pretty much the same reason people don't. Non-logic I look at the world, complexity of life, how crazily interlocked everything is, diversity...standing on top of a mountain at 3am watching the sun hit off another mountain thousands of feet taller and hundreds of miles away...

People usually have a philosophy of "this is all too amazing" or "This all sucks" and then base their logical approaches to it. Its one of the few things in life where the roof would still be there even if all the foundations are gone.

Im just in the "lifes too cool, there has to be a God camp"

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax pretty much the same reason people don't. Non-logic I look at the world, complexity of life, how crazily interlocked everything is, diversity...standing on top of a mountain at 3am watching the sun hit off another mountain thousands of feet taller and hundreds of miles away...

Those are purely emotive reasons, not logical ones. Beauty is a subjective thing. If we're both standing on top of that mountain looking at the sunrise, you see god's work - and I see a giant ball of hydrogen and helium shining light over a world full of flawed and imperfect things that aren't living in harmony with eachother.

quote:

Originally posted by trance_shaft Well on w/ my useless ranting while at school The latest argument has been about scientology thanks in no part to Tom Cruise. A classmate berated scientology as if it was the religion or belief of lunatics Yet I posed a question to him... Scientology was developed by a science fiction author w/ a credible amount of education. Whatever he asks us to believe in...At least the founder was alive, visible, and reasonably educated As opposed to...well...let us now put our faith in a Jewish carpenter who lived more than a thousand years ago. He asks us to believe that the world was created in several days...that there are angels/demons...that there was an Adam/Eve...that a great flood caused Noah to harbor ALL KNOWN SPECIES AT THE TIME....on and on Which would you believe? Well I find both to be absurd and idiotic. But it baffles me how people who have an adequate education in the sciences are so vehement towards the former dogma. In my opinion both are outlandish...

just some factual indiscripancies. thinking back to the cultures of 2000 years ago, few people were educated. u didnt need to be educated. it wasnt the scientific age of enlightenment in which we live in now. now your arguement that the founder was alive, visible, etc. can also be applied to the founder of christianity in that he was also alive and visible to numourous people back in that time. to them, he was very real, because they lived basically in his time, as we live basically at the same time as the scientology founder, therefore, coincidentally, the scientology founder seems a lot more real to us because he lives in our time.

noah did not harbor all known species. he harbored all "kinds" or "types" of animals. all u need is two dogs. not two of every species of dog, or animal for that matter.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian Those are purely emotive reasons, not logical ones. Beauty is a subjective thing. If we're both standing on top of that mountain looking at the sunrise, you see god's work - and I see a giant ball of hydrogen and helium shining light over a world full of flawed and imperfect things that aren't living in harmony with eachother.

are u saying there is a good and an evil? if so, what is good, and what is evil?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: are u saying there is a good and an evil? if so, what is good, and what is evil?

I think you misunderstood my post. If anything, it would imply that there is no such thing - but I wasn't even trying to touch the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: noah did not harbor all known species. he harbored all "kinds" or "types" of animals. all u need is two dogs. not two of every species of dog, or animal for that matter.

Regardless, it's biologically impossible to regenerate a species with only two specimen. Hence why more christians today interpret it as symbolism.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian I think you misunderstood my post. If anything, it would imply that there is no such thing - but I wasn't even trying to touch the subject.

well, u said an imperfect world not in harmony. im just inquiring into what u think is the force behind the imperfection and the reason why we're not in harmony.

quote:

Regardless, it's biologically impossible to regenerate a species with only two specimen. Hence why more christians today interpret it as symbolism.

really? so DNA doesnt change as generation after generation is born? who said the two animals had to be the same species. a doberman can breed just fine with a german shepard, to come out with a mix. and if bred long enough, a new breed of dog. who interprets it as symbolism?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: well, u said an imperfect world not in harmony. im just inquiring into what u think is the force behind the imperfection

Why must there nessessarily be a force behind it?

quote:

and the reason why we're not in harmony.

Humans are destroying the environment, species are dying because they can't adapt to their climates - or they're wiping eachother out. That's not what I call a perfect harmony.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: really? so DNA doesnt change as generation after generation is born? who said the two animals had to be the same species. a doberman can breed just fine with a german shepard, to come out with a mix. and if bred long enough, a new breed of dog. who interprets it as symbolism?

Inbreeding causes severe genetic deformations. Even if you had two of every dog species and made them inter-breed with eachother, you'd still get very unhealthy offspring. You need a very large population sample to start a species. Even so, the fact that pure german shepards and pure dobermans exist today would have implied that these two dogs of the same race would've had to breed with eachother, and their offspring amongst themselves.