The idea is at least as logical as your belief that the body is a machine with no energy source.
Its outside of current ability to test(as far as I know) either way. There is spiritual evidence that I accept and you think doesn't exist,
The idea is at least as logical as your belief that the body is a machine with no energy source. Its outside of current ability to test(as far as I know) either way. There is spiritual evidence that I accept and you think doesn't exist,
Why don't you try and understand what I meant by energy source instead of trying to use my words to make me look stupid. I told you in IM I find you an extremely ignorant and dishonest debater and didnt want to interact with you.
Every religion is wacky, Scientology is just the "new" crazy. A hundred years ago, Mormonism was the strange new kid on the block, ad infinitum.
I can take any religion and point out the insane ideologies.
If your particular brand of insanity believes in earthly miracles and life after death, you too are as nutty as a scientologist or a muslim suicide bomber.
The majority of Muslims, Jews and Christians as well as other religious groups aren't stupid crazy like Scientology.
Scientology is a cult, it is more than regular fanatic crazy.
The whole ideology of Scientology is ludicrous. You have to pay to advance in the religion. The cult also makes every attempt to pull anything, critical of Scientology, off of popular websites like youtube.
WTF is your avatar?
The idea is at least as logical as your belief that the body is a machine with no energy source. Its outside of current ability to test(as far as I know) either way. There is spiritual evidence that I accept and you think doesn't exist,
Ok lets say a guy runs for the presidency. His political beliefs are the exact same as yours, he was the governor of his state for 8 years in which the state prospered in. He is honest and trustworthy and basically great in every way.
However for a religion he is a scientologist, would you vote for him?
If you have a problem with him, the ignore option is available. If it's really getting under your skin, there's no problem in using it.
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but it's difficult to understand what you're referring to when you say "a source of energy", as the only meaning of that which comes to mind is the scientific use of the word "energy", which comes from the breaking of molecular bonds, which is enabled by the consumption of food.
I don't believe in a personified soul that continues on after the end of life, in that such a use of energy would lead to the eventual disappearance of everything. As all matter comes from energy and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, if there was any amount of energy which did not re-enter the system after the death of the human body, there would progressively be less and less matter until eventually nothing existed. I believe in God, but I don't personally believe in that.
And logically the onus falls on the one making the claim. If one were to suggest that there is no such thing as a soul s/he would have the onus on him/herself. Similarly, in stating that there is a soul, you take the onus upon yourself. Subsequently, until you make a logical argument, the presumption is that your claim is without logical merit.
Read the history of Scientology for a deeper understanding of crazy.
It was created by a very questionable person about 60 years ago.
Yes, this was created by someone who said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'"
Personally I would never vote for a Scientologist any more than I would vote for a Mormon. But then again I would also never vote for an extremely religious person of any faith be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Zoroastrian, etc..
Well I might vote for someone who worships the ancient Egyptian gods, because that would be funny.
All religions involve faith and belief in the unseen. From the POV of a non-believer ALL religionists are nuts.
A Scientologist is just a bit nuttier, if you go by popular opinion.
Any Christian who looks down his nose at another religion is a snob.
But we are not voting for Pope or for that person to be a religious leader. Leave their religious belief out of the consideration for POTUS.
Read the history of Scientology for a deeper understanding of crazy.
It was created by a very questionable person about 60 years ago.
That's the problem. You and me have different explanations. From the LDS perspective the spirit is not from the same energy as the body. The spirit is the offspring of God and existed prior to birth here on earth.All matter is a converted form of energy, and the matter of the body breaks down, returning all of the energy which initially formed the matter which constituted the body back to the system from which it came. If there is any physical component to the soul, the only available explanation now would be it would be of the same energy which the body is from (as it would be matter, and all matter is a converted form of energy). Subsequently, the soul would break down and the energy would dissipate.
I never stated my belief in a soul was logical, only that my belief is not nutty ie it is reasonable, and that my belief in a soul is just as logical as his non belief, ie if neither are logical they have equal amount of logic.For something to be logical it must be from an argument that, if one were to accept the premises of the argument, one would be bound to accept the conclusion as true. Maybe I've missed something, but I don't recall you making any argument for the existence of a soul.
While technically I never stated my belief in a soul was logical, I do believe it is but my case wouldn't be to Joe because he doesn't accept the spiritual evidence that I accept in determining truth. It was never my intention to prove to him there is a soul, only to give my opinion that it is a reasonable belief.You've stated your belief, and there's nothing unreasonable about your belief, but it's not logical.
I stated up front the only evidence I had was of a type that he rejects. He was the one that implied his belief is logical, and that mine(and anyone who believes in an after life) is nutty. I know its my fault for not writing clearer, but you really should be telling this stuff to Joe.Similarly, it seemed to me that Joe simply stated that you haven't presented evidence that there is a soul.
Agreed.Some make the logical error in believing that if it's not logical to say there is a soul it must be logical to say there isn't a soul, in which case that individual would be making an illogical statement as well.
There was nothing questionable about it.
L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer who observed that the way to really get rich was to create a religion.
Guess what he did?
Being a member of it indicates, at least to me, that he is not very smart.
Such a high sounding prescription for lethal blindness.All religions involve faith and belief in the unseen. From the POV of a non-believer ALL religionists are nuts.
A Scientologist is just a bit nuttier, if you go by popular opinion.
Any Christian who looks down his nose at another religion is a snob.
But we are not voting for Pope or for that person to be a religious leader. Leave their religious belief out of the consideration for POTUS.
There are some extremely smart people in this world who believe the weirdest things...
The CEO of the company I work for (70,000+ employees) is a big fan of The Hidden Messages in Water.
He gave this book a huge plug at a conference I attended last year. I just sat there bewildered and embarrassed for him. But heck, he's making $20M a year. Who's to tell him he's wrong?!
:2wave:
Such a high sounding prescription for lethal blindness.
What if the candidates religion called for racial superiority, subjugation of women, violent evangelicalism, a caste system, forced insemination, forced marriage, forced child marriage, or surgical corporal punishment, all of which are in vogue in some widespread religions?
Don't you think that that would have a teensy bearing on the candidates, especially if his religion also permitted or encouraged deception to further its aims?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?