Religion

[Bollwerk]

You know, especially we have a dark spot in our history. It is basically the same schema. I Think, those tests and stuff are dangerous in some way. But that applies to media and others either.
These days it is difficult to know, what you can believe or not.

You've got a nice attitude in spite of beeing offended and it is obvious, that you are focosing on me right now.
It is nice to have a talk, but don't expect me joining Scientology, just to make clear.
I don't trust them and maybe you're just trying to convince me joining or stuff.

If it isn't this way, I'm sorry. ;-)

Anyway it is interesting.

[erricrice]

.

[erricrice]

.

[lal]

I apologize if I offended anyone with any of my statements.  My only intention was to defend my religion when I saw false things posted [...]

What false things?  That that evil Xenu 75 Mio. years ago sent his overpopulation to Earth in DC-8-like looking spaceships to have them watch a brainwashing movie to make them falsely believe in god and other stuff?  And that these irritated thetans now posses your body and Scientology will help you to get rid of them (for a littel bit of money)?  Inform yourself Eric, that is the *core* of your so called "religion".  Of course you will not be told that before level 7, when you've been brainwashed enough to believe this crap.

I see no hope for you.  You were raised in a brainwashed family and all your friends are like that, too.  Acknowledging that they're all wrong would leave you with nothing left, so you can't and will instead defend your sect to death.  Happy auditing

[ch_123]

since there are very few people who seem open to even asking questions and I loved having someone to have a conversation with about it.

Yeah, I have a similar problem when I tell people that I hate Jews and want to annex Poland...

^o)

[erricrice]

.

[lal]

Those things have nothing to do with Scientology.

So you say I'm a liar?

[InSanCen]

Now with that out of the way: If you were to look a little closer you would realize that those claims about Scientology have nothing to do with OT 7.  They are claimed to be(falsely) the materials for OT 3.  Either way I have seen the materials for the all the OT levels since my father has been through them all and none of them contain anything even vaguely similar to that.

Care to post them then?

What you have here is what most people think about Scientology (And I give it a bit more wiggle room than I do other Religions, as I quite like the Mission Earth series he wrote), as it is a very closed religion.

You seem to be fairly intelligent, so you can see that the only way to prove people wrong, that what they have been told so far is false, is to show them something concrete that says otherwise.

Having personally met a lot of people very high up up in other religions, I think I can safely say that in any religion there are bad things going on... the "small fry" in most organised religion never seem to be allowed to know about this though.

[erricrice]

.

[erricrice]

.

[erricrice]

.

[erricrice]

.

[Rajagra]

Yeeeehaar! Things are really warming up now!

[InSanCen]

Unfortunately I don't think I'm even supposed to know them(I think my dad broke a rule there) so no I can't post exactly what is in them.  What I can say though is that they are just extended auditing techniques similar to what I have already explained in my responses to Bollwerk.  They are techniques that just need more sensitive work, making use of more of the ideas that can be found at the Scientology.org website that I linked earlier.  Look under Dianetics.  It is a more advanced form of that and only that.  

I understand what you mean about religions in general but you will find that if you go to a Scientology Org(organization, we don't call them churches) the people you will meet there are anything but closed.  In every major org there are about 40 displays with movies playing that explain the basics of Scientology.   Those same movies are on the website.  If you want information they will give it to you for sure, just try it.  If you don't then you have no grounds to say that they are a closed organization.

You misunderstand me in a very large way. I want nothing whatsoever to do with Scientology. I have made up my mind a long time ago (Long before the Media Furore about them). They are one step up from the mormons in my personal view of things (And it's a very small step at that, and only because I have direct personal experience of their techniques and doctrines at the higher level's). I have tried to keep my personal dislike of your religion out of this, but my view is similar to, if less pronounced, than webwits.

I certainly will not be going to an org to get information. I would rather castrate myself with no pain relief using a blunt spoon.

I was merely trying to point you to a way to prove to other people that may accept your proof, that your texts are as you say, nothing to do with aliens.

[erricrice]

.

[Bollwerk]

You took quite a risk, stating here that you breaked a rule. Or not? What if a higher-up is reading?
Just kidding.^^

It seems like the word Scientology is creating an impact alone.

I watched the first video in the first section and the first in the way of happyness section.

Whoa. I was blewn away by the military guy holding this "way of happiness"-book next to his M16 with a big smile.^^
Yeah. How true. The world is evil. Make humans better and it would be a better place.

Sou you think, your spirit is immortal?
You can do everything?

Hm. Seems like some bull**** they came up with to give people a better feeling.

I'm sorry to say this. You are kind guy and I don't want to hurt you.
but...
While I agree with that thing we discussed earlier, I don't think, Scientology would help me. I am already thinking the same. I think those scientologists would rather cloud my mind instead of helping me.

I'm still agnostic. If my spirit is immortal... I'll find out. Without Scientology.

Or did you have contact to those immortal spirits? I mean, didn't you ask yourself where they could be?

[lal]

No, I'm not calling you a liar.  I'm calling the internet sources you use liars.

Yes, good boy!  That is one very important lesson to learn.  These claims about scientology on the internets are all lies put there by the evil forces that try to destroy scientology and you *have* to deny them.  You're doing this very good.  You just advanced one step further to status clear.  Congratulations.

[TheSoulhunter]

Is there a god or not? No one can know, no one can prove, so auguring about this is stupid and leads no where. Is believing in god (religion) bad? Much more interesting question. Back then, in its basics, religion was a good tool to give people guidelines for whats right or wrong. Don't kill, don't steal, don't be greedy, don't be evil... All enforced by fear, like being tortured in hell after death, but overall not much different than what our current law+judiciary system is supposed to do. Giving people rules for daily live, and make em fear the consequences for not following this rules. In times where killing someone for offending you wasn't much of a thing, in times where we hadn't laws and law enforcement like now, this wasn't such a bad thing. On the other hand, religion was often abused as a tool for evil things (wars, genocide...). But its questionable if all this things wouldn't have happened without religion, or if they would have simple used something different as tool to persuade the people to follow em, like the Nazis did for example. Even if there isn't a god, is it wrong to believe in it? I don't think so... Same as non-existent substances in pills help ill people to get well as long they believe they are there (placebos), a non-existent god can help people to cope with problems, go trough hard times, and master their lives, no?

[Bollwerk]

And misguide them. We have many religions and as long as there are people thinking, their religion is the only right one, it won't really help us.

You all know Dr. Manhattan from watchmen, right?. He resembles god in some way and he didn't live in such a nice era. He abandoned those silly humans. Makes perfect sense to me. They didn't listen to him. If I were him, I maybe would have done the same.

[lal]

Same as non-existent substances in pills help ill people to get well as long they believe they are there (placebos), a non-existent god can help people to cope with problems, go trough hard times, and master their lives, no?

Definitely, it's totally okay if religious people can cope better with life because of their belief in some fantasy story about a god, Buddha, Zeus or the flying pasta monster.  Most religions have similar rules about what is good and bad anyway, which happen to be similar to the general worldwide moral view, like the human rights for example.  No problem with that.

Sects like Scientology that obviously just want to gain profit and make use of unethical methods to assimilate the unaware are another story altogether though, and must be fought actively.  I think Islam is very wrong in many ways, too.

[Bollwerk]

Islam is wrong in its current interpretation like the crusade of the christs decades ago or other things.

The most tolerant religion could be buddhism. They tolerate other religions as well. Ok. They say those other gods are n00bs caught in their own cycle of misery... details...^^

[TheSoulhunter]

Islam is wrong in its current interpretation like the crusade of the christs decades ago or other things.

Exactly! This was always a problem... Unfortunately this old texts leave a lot room for interpretation, probably on purpose, so they fit in a lot different cultures/regions/times. But of course this poses the danger of misrepresentation (often on purpose) -> twisting stuff -> using it as propaganda -> using it as tool to control people or poison their minds, like Muslim extremists do it right now to get people on their side for their war against the west. Bad, yes. But, same can be done (and it was done more than once) by politicians and their propaganda, its not a thing of religion, but certain humans and their motivations... I think, even if religion wouldn't exist, they would simply "exploit" something different to reach their goals!

[DreymaR]

I think God is very happy that He doesn't exist. Otherwise, he'd be in a WORLD of trouble!  

[ch_123]

[cmr]

oh wow i missed a scientology thread

[size=+9]xenu.net[/size]

n.b. you have to disable scieno-sitter before the site will load. the OT3 material is well-attested. it's all in the court records from CoS v. fishman and geetz.

you should ask yourself two questions:
- why does the church of scientology withhold the xenu story from me until OT3?
- why is there a volcano on the cover of dianetics?

[bigpook]

At least the europeans can have that conversation without going ballistic. I like how towards the end where the host asks a priest that is sitting in the audience what his opinion is. He was well spoken and calm, even though the host seemed to be initially baiting him.
I do find it odd however that 40% of Americans believe the earth to be less than 10k years old.
But really, it shouldn't all matter anyways and it wouldn't. Its just that certain groups of people want everyone to believe a certain way, which is somewhat intolerant if you think about it.

fwiw, I believe in the FSM. We all have been touched by his noodly appendage and that makes us all special : )

[wellington1869]

kirk cameron is about to take on Darwin...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/kirk-camerons-origin-of-s_n_294349.html


Speaking of lunatics, did you guys catch Nova's  special show on the Dover, PA school board on pbs yesterday (Its a re-run actually, but even better the second time around).

[Rajagra]

Somebody grab a load of those books, they could become collectors' items.

I find it really sad that some people work so hard to convince themselves that the most implausible theory is the right one to believe. It's like Occam's Razor in reverse: "I'm not going to believe what is most likely to be true, I'll just believe what I find most comforting."

I'll call it Macco's razor.

Edit> Bah! Someone at James Randi's site beat me to it.

[wellington1869]

I'll call it Macco's razor.

thats cute, I might use it ;-D


I'm always fascinated at how, like in the Dover board case, the ID folks had virtually no idea what a "theory" was and how its different from an "idea" or a "feeling". That seemed to be a big part of the problem, since their main argument was that theory isnt proof and so any "theory", like ID, should be taught alongside Darwin.

Its not unlike, by the way, how "postmodernists" (radical left) on campus argue, in very similar ways, against science, in favor of a similar radical relativism, and suffer from the same lack of understanding of the presuppositions and disciplines that go into the making of scientific theory.  Liberal-humanities professors run amock.

What fascinated me was how the far-right's arguments in this regard were so similar to the far-left's arguments.

[DreymaR]

I like how you put the 'postmodernists' in quotes - it is as usual, not the actual postmodernist philosophers who are the problem but their fairly uncritical hounds. Which is ironic when the issue is a critical view on epistemology.  

It's so hard to critizice your own criticism, isn't it?

As Randi put it: "Me, a sceptic? I doubt it!"

[wellington1869]

I like how you put the 'postmodernists' in quotes - it is as usual, not the actual postmodernist philosophers who are the problem but their fairly uncritical hounds. Which is ironic when the issue is a critical view on epistemology.  

It's so hard to critizice your own criticism, isn't it?

As Randi put it: "Me, a sceptic? I doubt it!"

ya i totally agree; i actually like a lot of the stuff the 'big five' french postmodernists have written. Its their uncritical (mostly at american universities, sad to say) 'followers' who are the problem.

FWIW, I actually distinguish between postmodernists and postmarxists, the latter really being the radical relativists and the main conduits of the problem on campus anyway.  Its the "left" postmarxists who become indistinguishable from the far right evangelicals, if you ask me.

[Rajagra]

An interesting video on the (possible) origin of life...
http://www.wimp.com/lifeorigin/

[wellington1869]

kirk cameron doubles down
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20307814,00.html

[Voixdelion]

What fascinated me was how the far-right's arguments in this regard were so similar to the far-left's arguments.

Was it "The Celestine Prophecy" or its sequel "The Tenth Insight" that brought up the notion that the "far"-ness in extremity is actually the hell we bring upon ourselves? Mainly stated that the issue of good and evil is not one of who is right and wrong but effectively was a construct stemming from the widespread polarization of opinion; thus equal folly at either extremity with each side convinced that what they are doing (no matter how inherently destructive) is right and the way to triumph over "evil" or bad.  Thus atrocities are committed all in the name of GOD or how irrational behavior is justified in the name of Science and countless other oxymoronic excuses for stupidity and short-sightedbess come to pass.

[didjamatic]

Science and religion can both be means to get closer to a truth that we can't comprehend.  Saying you must exclusively choose one or the other is as silly as joining a political party and closing your eyes and ears to anything the "other team" has to say, no matter how valid or interesting it might be.

[EverythingIBM]

I disagree. If there is a God, he must be highly intelligent. He will respect intelligent people, who make sensible choices for rational reasons.

Therefore God will have more respect for atheists than for religious people.

I agree!

I've often found people who are in some kind of religion isolate themselves from other views (this is mandatory of any religion) and don't want to hear counter-arguments, refuse deductive reasoning, and don't test to "see if it is so". Or, simply being in it their whole life refuse to change, even if proved wrong.

I could cite many examples (oooh let's see, roman catholicism, mormonism, wicca, satanism, buddhism, islam, etc).
So which one is right? =p

[ricercar]

Modrism. My Own Damn Religion.

[secularzarathustra]

Bullocks. Saying that in stuch strong words where you condemn sane people who think differently is as silly as joining a religious group. I choose Adams' side. Religion is something made up, to explain the lightning in the sky. Deal with it, move on. Otherwise provide the evidence. Which you will not. Until you provide the evidence, religion is pure fantasy. Prove me otherwise.

Not that I disagree with you, but "evidence" is from the realm of scientific discourse. An equivalent would be someone who believes in religion saying, "Science is an attempt to explain what the gods hath wrought. Until you provide a revelation/prophecy/holy book science is pure techne..."

[kriminal]

i believe that my existence wasnt a mistake or a chance, but wont let my belief be bogged down by religon...

[wellington1869]

i believe that my existence wasnt a mistake or a chance, but wont let my belief be bogged down by religon...

i believe my existence is entirely accidental and that all our lives are fundamentally meaningless from the point of view of the infinite universe; and none of that bothers me one bit or produces any existential crisis in me.
that said, i'm not "against" people who believe otherwise; its what you do on the basis of your belief that matters, i think.

how in the world did this thread get restarted?! Someone get tim4mail back in here.

[ch_123]

Not that I disagree with you, but "evidence" is from the realm of scientific discourse.

Oh no, please tell me this isn't a "Science solves scientific problems, and religion solves religious problems argument"...

[waperboy]

Not that I disagree with you, but "evidence" is from the realm of scientific discourse. An equivalent would be someone who believes in religion saying, "Science is an attempt to explain what the gods hath wrought. Until you provide a revelation/prophecy/holy book science is pure techne..."

There isn't really a 'realm of scientific discourse'. Science is all about finding out how the real world we are part of works. I pour water over my campfire and the fire dies out with a hiss. That's a piece of science right there, with evidence and all

[ch_123]

Religion answers questions that science doesn't answer, like the nature of transubstantiation, and what happens after death.

...
...
...

[size=-4]Of course the reason why science doesn't answer these questions because it's just bollocks made up by religion.[/size]

[Rajagra]

One thing does puzzle me. I know my body and brain are made up of cells, molecules, atoms, etc. following the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. I know that people's and animals' behaviour can be explained by survival instincts. If I observe other people I can possibly believe they are nothing more than complex biological machines.

But as much as I accept that viewpoint, it doesn't explain how I have thoughts and feelings. Maybe thoughts can be explained away, but some emotions are more difficult to reduce. Why do I feel that I'm a person, not just a thing? Is it really possible for a biological computer (my brain) to delude itself into thinking it has feelings?

So I am open minded about some sort of 'spirituality'. But not in a traditional religious sense. When people have brain damage it affects their memories and personality. Your mind and brain are inextricably linked. So I don't believe in a spirit that can leave the body (at least not without losing most of what defines who you are.) But while we are alive and functioning normally, there is something special going on that is as yet unexplained. You could call that special something a spirit. I'd like to believe mine could carry on existing after I die, but there's no reason to think it will. Simply wanting to believe isn't enough to make me believe, personally.

[Rajagra]

You have no soul, webwit. :wink:

[waperboy]

One thing does puzzle me. I know my body and brain are made up of cells, molecules, atoms, etc. following the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. I know that people's and animals' behaviour can be explained by survival instincts. If I observe other people I can possibly believe they are nothing more than complex biological machines.

But as much as I accept that viewpoint, it doesn't explain how I have thoughts and feelings. Maybe thoughts can be explained away, but some emotions are more difficult to reduce. Why do I feel that I'm a person, not just a thing? Is it really possible for a biological computer (my brain) to delude itself into thinking it has feelings?

Yes, you're a pile of matter organized in complex ways, including your brain. Your 'self' is an emergent phenomenon. As well as your consciousness, your illusion of free will is a product of the massive association- and simulation-machinery that constitues your brain.

We are the borg. You will be assimilated.

[clickclack]

i believe that my existence wasnt a mistake or a chance...

I bet your parents are glad to hear that one! Phew!

wow, i really need to go to bed

[clickclack]

You have no soul, webwit. :wink:

oh my, I laughed so hard I thought I was going to have a stroke!
lolz

k seriously i need to go to bed...

[ricercar]

I've almost taken up religion, having read more than once that practicing religious people live longer, healthier lives. Guess I'd rather die young and out of practice.

[ch_123]

This morning I put on a grey jumper. In the afternoon it rained. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.