• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you vote for this person?

Would you vote for a Scientologist for president?

  • yes

    Votes: 25 56.8%
  • no

    Votes: 11 25.0%
  • other

    Votes: 8 18.2%

  • Total voters
    44
The idea is at least as logical as your belief that the body is a machine with no energy source.

The body does have an energy source it's called food and water. Without out it you die. No need of a soul for an energy source.

Have you had an education beyond your Mormon teachings? I mean the food thing is 5th grade level stuff.

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,

I agree that I have seen evidence of God, but that is not evidence as it is anecdotal. So it does not count as evidence of anything.
 
Last edited:
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,

Who said there is no energy source?
We breathe oxygen and eat food.

We are living organisms just like ants or bacteria.
Do they also go on to live in an afterlife?

Saying "spiritual evidence" is like saying "magical proof". It's nonsense.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Then don't post on an internet message board. :2wave:

Yea I am ignorant and dishonest because you were wrong and cannot back up most of what you say with evidence? :lol:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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,

I assumed most would know that what I meant by energy source was that the body is just a lifeless shell and that the spirit is what gives life to the body, its our thoughts, feelings, personality, the life in us. But I'm glad someone cleared up food and drink is an energy source.
 
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?

It is a load of crap to say religion shouldn't have any effect on whether or not you vote for someone. Because if a person is actually religious then his political views are shaped by his or her religious affiliation/devotion. You do not just kick your beliefs to the curb when you find it convenient contrary to what every atheist and person pretending to be religious claims. If this person was trustworthy and honest then he wouldn't phony pretending to be a Scientologist. Because honest and trustworthy people do not kick their religious beliefs to the curb for cheap votes. So it is dishonest to pretend his religious and his political views are separate if this person is truly honest and trustworthy. It is liars and other scum who pretend to be religious like Nancy Pelosi and other phonies who pretend to be catholic for cheap votes that separate their political and religious views. A candidate who actually shares the same exact political beliefs as mine would be a plus and remove whatever negativity I feel about that person's religion. Because despite him being a crazy cultist, it is far better than any of the other candidates. Lets see here... vote for someone who actually shares most of my political beliefs and will actually do or attempt to do what I want him to do once he gets into office or vote for someone who claims to share my religious beliefs or no religious beliefs at all while at the same time pretending to share my political beliefs and doing something completely opposite once he gets elected to office. I think the choice is the crazy cultist who will do what I want him to do or attempt to do what I want him to do once he gets elected.
 
I might, I'd have to know a lot more about his religion. People foolishly think that this is due to prejudice. It is not.

A religion represents many things, but one of them is a set of laws that the adherent sees as superior to all human laws. Voters should understand clearly what theat means in each case.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

That's my bad. I know he has a right to respond on a public forum.

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 agree, I should have worded that better.

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.

I may not quite understand you here. The spirit would be made up of a matter that has always existed, just as the body would be made up of matter that always existed. Both completely separate entities. The spirit would have existed before birth on the earth, and the matter of the body is star dust. At death the matter of the body would still exist just as the matter of the spirit.


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.

Something can be logical without the ability to test for yet. I stated as far as I knew neither could be tested one way or the other based on the type of evidence we both accept(scientific). The other guy stated that he was logical also in believing the body has no soul, and sort of implied his side had the proof. I admit the type of evidence that my faith is built on, he does not accept. So shouldn't this be directed at him?



 
Last edited:
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.
 
If he is a scientologist, then he is not honest and trustworthy, sorry.

Anyone who believes that we live in a galactic confederacy that is 1 trillion years old, and that we must purchase devices from scientologists to detect the number of evil Thetans in our bodies, is clearly insane and should not be in a political leadership role.

You might as well be telling me to vote for an evangelist. It would never happen.
 
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.

Any believe level in Scientology is completely ridiculous.
It's creator is just as suspect as Jim Jones or Charles Manson.
 
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.

To be a scientologist, that means one must have accepted the tenents of scientology, and if someone's accepted those tenents, I really don't see how they're intellectually solid enough to run a state or nation. It'd be the same as if one was a flat-earther.
 
Read the history of Scientology for a deeper understanding of crazy.

It was created by a very questionable person about 60 years ago.

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?
 
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.
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.

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.
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.

You've stated your belief, and there's nothing unreasonable about your belief, but it's not logical.
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.

Similarly, it seemed to me that Joe simply stated that you haven't presented evidence that there is a soul.
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.


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.
Agreed.
 
Last edited:
I would never vote for a scientologist.. I mean we dont vote for the mafia, so why Scientology?
 
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?

Not to mention avoid federal tax evasion and other charges.. funny how suddenly getting "religion status" made all those charges go away.. charges that kept him on a boat in international waters to avoid prosecution.

Scientology is a criminal organisation. It is basically no better than the mafia and based on a pyramid scheme ... how else could the present leader of the sect go from living on the street to living in a highly guard multi million dollar estate?
 
Yes I would because, as others have noted, if he has my political views, he'd know and practice that religious views have no place whatsoever in politics and he'd leave his Scientology nonsense at the door. This goes for any and all religions.
 
Being a member of it indicates, at least to me, that he is not very smart.

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 [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Messages-Water-Masaru-Emoto/dp/1582701148"]The Hidden Messages in Water.[/ame]

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:
 
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.
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?
 
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:

Yikes, it goes to show that just because you have a **** load of money doesn't mean you are entirely smart or creditable.
 
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?

I think a lot of people have come to accept Scientology as legitimate because the government recognizes them as a religion which I think is specious at best.
 
Back
Top Bottom