Tom Cruise and the Church of Science Fiction

[jumbopackage]

I don't know what you mean, Tom Cruise seems like a completely normal person

Indeed!

[larrysarmy]

Atheistic evolution doesn't say that's how it HAD to happen, it just says that's how we think it happened based on the evidence we have. It basically says there are things we don't know, and here's our best guess, untainted by theistic explanation. It's certainly possible that there is a theistic explanation for things, but lack of explanation for something does not imply a theistic solution. Look at the history of mankind and look at all the things attributable to God that are simply natural phenomena. Atheism, without being a religion, just says that I don't know, and while we look for answers, I'm OK without knowing. Atheistic science doesn't have to be hostile towards religion, nor does religion have to be hostile towards atheistic science. They tend to be, however, because people on both sides of the fence have very closely held beliefs and those beliefs are challenged by one another.

There are plenty of theories floating around about how or if the Big Bang happened. There is simply no definitive answer. There may be more than one Big Bang. It may be a cycle of Big Bangs. Nobody really knows. Evidence currently matches up with the theory of a Big Bang happening, and evolution taking place. It doesn't really coincide with some theistic being creating everything in 7 days and that's that. It also doesn't support the existence of a dark lord Xenu, or reincarnation, or a sun god, or the moon being made of cheese or any of the other thousands of religious beliefs out there.

At the end of the day, from an objective, non-theistic view of things, Scientoligists are no more or less crazy to believe what they believe than Christians. We've been raised in a society that accepts Christianity as a "normal" religion, in particular Protestant Christianity (though Catholicism in the last 100 years has become equally accepted). Had we grown up in a society where Scientology was accepted, we would likely find Christianity or Islam or Mormons, or any of the "Bible-derived" religions equally as strange as we find Scientology today.

Actually...Atheist Evolution DOES hold dear to the Big Bang theory as fact. It has to....and is peddled as fact in nearly every outlet we see. Heck, I can't turn on the History Channel without some show saying and or implying as fact that "270 million years ago...such and such occurred" How can anyone make that statement?
Carl Sagan...famous humanist..said in his show
"Cosmos"..."The Cosmos is all there is, was and every will be." Not a lot of room for a creator in that statement. Introducing a creator element is not even considered.
No-God = A- Theist

Your view seems more agnostic. In terms of not knowing everything. I lived there for 20 years...it was comfortable.

I agree with your statment of evidence in cosmology pointing to a Big Bang. True...the universe is expanding...which at some point in history the universe started somewhere...or the singularity as some call it. There...is the most important question of all. Where did all the stuff for the Big Bang come from...stuff like...matter, laws, energy, space to blow into, ect. Secondly, what or who caused it.

You statement of evolution evidence from there on out taking place....I would disagree that macro-evolution on that scale happened. I do believe of micro-evolution. But I find it hard to believe that life was raised from non-life.

Again...it comes back to what is right and what is wrong. If one view is right and true, then the others are wrong. Mish Mash of theory's and religions leads to post moderism at it's best. Believe what you want...everyone's right!
But is it truth? Isn't that the ultimate question? Well...the ultimate question would be...what happens 1 second after you die. Isn't that what this is all about anyway?

[bos]

Indeed!

If he had to ability to fry Oprah through electric fingers, I would join scientology.

[cmoneyr]

If he had to ability to fry Oprah through electric fingers, I would join scientology.

Can you fry chicken to? Because that'd be cool.

[bos]

Can you fry chicken to? Because that'd be cool.

I would assume electric shock fry would probably lock in the juiciness as well.

[cmoneyr]

I would assume electric shock fry would probably lock in the juiciness as well.

Hell yea, just set it and forget it.

[Wesley]

Xenu the Lizard is watching to see what Tom will do next.

[jumbopackage]

Actually...Atheist Evolution DOES hold dear to the Big Bang theory as fact. It has to....and is peddled as fact in nearly every outlet we see. Heck, I can't turn on the History Channel without some show saying and or implying as fact that "270 million years ago...such and such occurred" How can anyone make that statement?
Carl Sagan...famous humanist..said in his show
"Cosmos"..."The Cosmos is all there is, was and every will be." Not a lot of room for a creator in that statement. Introducing a creator element is not even considered.
No-God = A- Theist

Your view seems more agnostic. In terms of not knowing everything. I lived there for 20 years...it was comfortable.

I agree with your statment of evidence in cosmology pointing to a Big Bang. True...the universe is expanding...which at some point in history the universe started somewhere...or the singularity as some call it. There...is the most important question of all. Where did all the stuff for the Big Bang come from...stuff like...matter, laws, energy, space to blow into, ect. Secondly, what or who caused it.

You statement of evolution evidence from there on out taking place....I would disagree that macro-evolution on that scale happened. I do believe of micro-evolution. But I find it hard to believe that life was raised from non-life.

Again...it comes back to what is right and what is wrong. If one view is right and true, then the others are wrong. Mish Mash of theory's and religions leads to post moderism at it's best. Believe what you want...everyone's right!
But is it truth? Isn't that the ultimate question? Well...the ultimate question would be...what happens 1 second after you die. Isn't that what this is all about anyway?

You're mixing viewpoints and theory with religion again. There is no "church of atheism" that has tenets that people believe in. There are people that don't believe God exists. Carl Sagan isn't some sort of priest. Nobody goes to Isaac Asimov for confession. The geological record presents evidence of a earth that existed 270 million years ago. It has nothing to do with a Big Bang, though the Big Bang theory is consistent with a timeline that includes the earth as it was 270 million years ago.

We don't know for sure that the universe is expanding. We observe evidence that it is. There are lots of theories about where it came from or what caused the big bang. Just the other day there was another that said that the big bang has occurred again and again and again, expanding and collapsing. Nobody really knows. It's all just a best guess based on the evidence we have.

It has absolutely nothing to do with what's "right" and "wrong". Those are constraints placed on life by humans. Some for self-preservation. Some for preservation of the species. Do people who live in blissful ignorance of religion have a "right" or "wrong" way to live their lives? Is it wrong for them to be naked in public? Or to have more than one wife (or a wife at all)? Our rules, laws, and norms are based on our culture, which, in turn, has been influenced heavily by religion. Religion, and religious tenets have been what have largely modeled our views of "right" and "wrong".

And NONE of that has anything to do with where we came from or where we're going, if you divorce theism from observation. Maybe the only purpose of being alive is to advance humanity's understanding of life around them, and their position as the dominant form of life on earth. Maybe the idea of an afterlife, and acquiring gifts in "heaven" is a way to help keep the human race from self-destructing by giving them a reason to benefit humanity while on earth. Maybe a lot of things. Maybe the dark lord Xenu really did send millions of people to die in Volcanos and get blown up by H bombs.

There MAY be truth, but it also may be relative to other things. Truth to a Christian might be different than Truth to a Scientoligist, both based on what they believe to be true. Likewise, truth to an agnostic, or athiest will be different based on what they believe. Some people put the basis of their truth on science, some on religious books and teachings and feelings. Is there an absolute truth? Maybe, but it also may be that dimensions well beyond what we understand (and are easily comprehended) may change our perception of truth.

[ozone]

I agree with your statment of evidence in cosmology pointing to a Big Bang. True...the universe is expanding...which at some point in history the universe started somewhere...or the singularity as some call it. There...is the most important question of all. Where did all the stuff for the Big Bang come from...stuff like...matter, laws, energy, space to blow into, ect. Secondly, what or who caused it.

You statement of evolution evidence from there on out taking place....I would disagree that macro-evolution on that scale happened. I do believe of micro-evolution. But I find it hard to believe that life was raised from non-life.

But is it truth? Isn't that the ultimate question? Well...the ultimate question would be...what happens 1 second after you die. Isn't that what this is all about anyway?

I've never heard of anyone (until now) saying that the big bang arouse from nothing - just that there was all this matter concentrated in one place. How and why seem like good questions, but not who.

You underestimate what several billion years can accomplish in respect to macro-evolution. Time is the great enabler.

I have no question at all what will happen 1 second after I die. I believe it is called death.

[Wesley]

So how does one explain the body suddenly weighs (some claim the weight of the soul) less right after death. This phenomenom has been reported in the last five years in the media.

The stars are currently expanding outwardly much faster than originally thought. They may be speeding so far apart they may not be brought back together. Then there is the dark matter discussion.....as opposed to the Evil Empire in IC.

[jumbopackage]

So how does one explain the body suddenly weighs (some claim the weight of the soul) less right after death. This phenomenom has been reported in the last five years in the media.

The stars are currently expanding outwardly much faster than originally thought. They may be speeding so far apart they may not be brought back together. Then there is the dark matter discussion.....as opposed to the Evil Empire in IC.

Is that why soul singers are always fat?

[LindenCy]

Atheism does take some faith, whether you believe it is a rational conclusion or not. Agnosticism is a fair position intellectually, as you do not have to prove anything. You cannot prove that God does not exist.

This really does not have to do with evolution as a scientific theory. There are people of various faiths that hold to the scientific evidence accepted by the mainstream science community. Atheism assumes no God/god in the process, but cannot prove this. I understand the arguments made, but there is still an element of assumption. With agnosticism, the question is left open.

[Kyle]

It has absolutely nothing to do with what's "right" and "wrong". Those are constraints placed on life by humans. Some for self-preservation. Some for preservation of the species. Do people who live in blissful ignorance of religion have a "right" or "wrong" way to live their lives? Is it wrong for them to be naked in public? Or to have more than one wife (or a wife at all)? Our rules, laws, and norms are based on our culture, which, in turn, has been influenced heavily by religion. Religion, and religious tenets have been what have largely modeled our views of "right" and "wrong".

I don't think he was using right and wrong in the moral sense, I think think he was using it in the correct/incorrect or true/false sense.

There MAY be truth, but it also may be relative to other things. Truth to a Christian might be different than Truth to a Scientoligist, both based on what they believe to be true. Likewise, truth to an agnostic, or athiest will be different based on what they believe. Some people put the basis of their truth on science, some on religious books and teachings and feelings. Is there an absolute truth? Maybe, but it also may be that dimensions well beyond what we understand (and are easily comprehended) may change our perception of truth.

What do you mean by truth? It sounds very strange to me to say that truth can be relative, but it probably depends on your definition. Your definition appears to be something along the lines of "whatever a person believes", in which case you are right.

However, I would argue that most people's common sense understanding of truth suggests that it is not relative. For example, suppose I say "I was born yesterday." That would not be true, no matter how much I, or anyone else believed it, because in fact I was born many years ago. The same would go for any statement with religious implications, such as "God exists" or "Zenu is my overlord." Roughly speaking, the truth of the statements is determined by how they correspond with reality, not by whether people believe they correspond with reality.

[LindenCy]

On the whole, Christianity is a time honored religion that has a historical record of belief and bases much of their faith on historical documents (whether one accepts the documents or not). Scientology is roughly 50 years old, and doesn't have much of a historical record as of yet.

[jumbopackage]

I don't think he was using right and wrong in the moral sense, I think think he was using it in the correct/incorrect or true/false sense.


What do you mean by truth? It sounds very strange to me to say that truth can be relative, but it probably depends on your definition. Your definition appears to be something along the lines of "whatever a person believes", in which case you are right.

However, I would argue that most people's common sense understanding of truth suggests that it is not relative. For example, suppose I say "I was born yesterday." That would not be true, no matter how much I, or anyone else believed it, because in fact I was born many years ago. The same would go for any statement with religious implications, such as "God exists" or "Zenu is my overlord." Roughly speaking, the truth of the statements is determined by how they correspond with reality, not by whether people believe they correspond with reality.

What I'm saying is that the reality we live in may or may not be the absolute truth. There may be another dimension in which our time is relative to some other measure. What we believe is truth based on our relative observations is not necessarily the absolute truth of existence, we just may not understand enough to know otherwise. Just as people once thought the earth was square, we don't know what we don't know.

There are a lot of oddball theories out there attempting to characterize the existence of different dimensions and whatnot. Who knows.