Log in

View Full Version : Scientology



Pages : 1 [2] 3

polecat
07-08-2005, 02:29 AM
And no, I don't believe that publishing a book makes a person an expert. I have a problem with the word "expert" in general. It says in a way that a person knows everything there is to know about a topic. And I think that's pretty impossible.
Hey! You trying to say you're an expert at "experts"??? }:D


I'll go back under my bridge now....

Madcap
07-08-2005, 02:48 AM
Carl Sagan's
Baloney Detection Kit




Based on the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark" published by Headline 1996.


The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:





Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?


Additional issues are

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.


Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

erotictonic
07-08-2005, 03:12 AM
.......

Madcap
07-08-2005, 03:28 AM
.....

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/9681/nobullshit8xb.gif

erotictonic
07-08-2005, 03:30 AM
...........

Sh0t
07-08-2005, 04:04 AM
I celebrate breastology...is it true pumpkin pie scent is a sexual turn on for men?

You will only lure me into your bed with SWEET POTATO pie miss whirl.

Lurker
07-08-2005, 07:56 AM
If you can't say anything nice, hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"!

Rhiannon
07-08-2005, 08:21 AM
Hey! You trying to say you're an expert at "experts"???

Heh.. Oh yeah, that's me.. Totally!

Crow
07-08-2005, 08:35 AM
Are you saying that none of this can be found in other religions? Please don't try to tell me that. The history of many religions it built on lies, murder, and extortion. Plus, all I am defending is what I chose to take from the religion. Why do YOU feel the need to rip into a religion anyway? Everyone treats their religion differently, some follow it to the hilt and some just call themselves a part of it. So why can't I try and defend some of it?
Have I said that it is perfect? No. There are many things I don't like about it and of course right now I feel like I am repeating myself.
So call it a cult if you want, I don't believe it is. If you don't want to be a part of it then don't be, but don't try to rip into something that I grew up with. SO I don't know everything, does anyone truly know everything about their religion? No.
Do I want to know everything, obviously not. Would you rather I list the things wrong with it? Or the things I took with me? I choose to remeber what I took with me.

Speaking of lies, murder and deception.. Do I really need to point the finger at the catholic church? Hell, they have methodically and slowly even picked apart entire nations of people, like when they took Indian children away from their families and just destroyed an entire way of life. I wont go into the many incidents that involved blood, killing and all in the name of their "god".

This is documented history, Like the Salem witch Trials. Which was under the guise of once again, God and his so called law - Scientology is no better and I treat it as such.

When individuals ask me to give my time, money and faith to something that is that hypocritical, no. I think I'll just stick to my ideals and be happy with that - at least I don't have to subjugate people to get them to listen to me.

Miss R

Archangel
07-08-2005, 08:37 AM
For the record... I am a Roman Catholic. I know several Scientologists. All are extremely well adjusted, highly educated (MBAs, CPAs and PhDs), and wealthy. They seem to be genuinely happy and love to spread good cheer. None of them mention anything about Scientology unless directly asked. There are also members that still hold their positions as rabbis, priests and ministers.

None of these things point to a brainwashing cult.

Personally, I believe taking anything I hear (even from my own family) or read with a grain of salt. I do, however, put full faith in my own experiences. My experiences with scientology show me that most members (ie. the several I've met) are perfectly sane and respectable, regardless of what people think of their religous philosophy.

Madcap
07-08-2005, 09:23 AM
I don't know how well adjusted they were, but most of the people in the Heaven's Gate cult were highly educated and wealthy.

Pumpkin Pie
07-08-2005, 09:26 AM
Hey! You trying to say you're an expert at "experts"??? }:D

:rotfl:

Jay Zeno
07-08-2005, 09:31 AM
Hey, my brand of arrogance is the best.

Pumpkin Pie
07-08-2005, 09:43 AM
A degree in psychology and a minor in business does not make you an expert on cults. Neither does writing a book.

Those with the other things I listed does make me one. You don't get asked to sit on discussion panels at colleges by way of a raffle system. ;)


Encouraging a person to learn more does not include calling them ignorant or chastising them, which you have done both.

Read the progression of my posts.


It's how you are choosing to communicate your ideas that is annoying.

You disagree with my position. That's clear.


Everything you write has this narcissistic air about it, as if you are the number one expert on everything there is.

You're the one making such great leaps in conclusions. I'm not. Have I said I'm the expert on everything? No. You disagree with my take on Scientology. I can back it up with facts. Your counter-argument is to call me "fucked-up" and a horrible parent. Yup, I'm the one that as a mental issue. :rotfl:

TerpsichoreToo
07-08-2005, 09:52 AM
Maybe if we just lie say he is the all knowing ,all seeing master of the universe the arrogant and narcissistic posts will end. Then people can go back to having a real discussion about the subject matter.

Sh0t
07-08-2005, 09:57 AM
Stripperweb is a cult

Rhiannon
07-08-2005, 09:59 AM
That we are.

::passes out Nikes and Kool-Aid to all::

Look at that comet!

showgirlschloe
07-08-2005, 10:13 AM
I actually find the things that Pumpkin Pie and Madcap have written very interesting. I know nothing about the religion Scientology and I always find the backgrounds and origins of religions very fascinating. My husband's uncle is a catholic priest and he is one of the most interesting people to talk to. He's one of those rebel priest that really tells you how things are and doesn't glaze it over to make you believe. One thing he says that cracks me up is that if you believe in water turning into wine, and the parting of the seas then you believe in santa claus, a fat little pervert sliding down fireplaces giving toys to kids.

Pumpkin Pie
07-08-2005, 10:38 AM
I agree with ET. And no, I don't believe that publishing a book makes a person an expert.

That's one of the biggest qualifiers for being classified as an expert. That's definitely one of them that the press uses as for who they go for expert opinions (a.k.a. soundbites). The quality of the book naturally having a major issue in that. How good are its reviews and the credentials (usually the books they've written themselves) of the reviewers.


I have a problem with the word "expert" in general. It says in a way that a person knows everything there is to know about a topic. And I think that's pretty impossible. Things are constantly evolving and branching off. No one can possess ultimate knowledge. You just take what you've learned, work with it, learn even more still.

So no one can be an expert on anything? Someone has already made the joke about how you can then be an expert on experts so I won't.

My definition of what an expert is someone that has intensely studied a subject, has a good depth of understanding about it, can back their statements with facts, and is able to articulate their positions in discourse with others. And good indicators of an expert are, for example, being asked to speak on the topic to people in the field, being asked by a professor in the field to talk to their classes, asked to sit on discussion panels focusing on the topic, releasing a white paper on the topic (here's one that I did in 2003 on p2p: http://www.adservius.com/pdf/P2P_Revolution.pdf and that resulted in many calling me an expert on that technology and being interviewed by reporters, talk show hosts, college classes, and so forth), writing a non-fiction book on the topic (or aspect of it), doing one's doctorate dissertation on the topic, having one's paper on the topic published in a scientific journal in the field, and things along these lines.

If you don't believe in experts, then I assume you ask the person on the street to give you a medical exam ... or review a legal document for you ... or ... well, you get the idea. ;)


I would be very interested in reviewing the proposal.

PM me your postal address and real name. I'll send you a NDA for you to sign and mail back to me. You'll need to get it notarized. I'll then send you the book proposal. The NDA is needed to prevent the proposal from being posted to the web or circulated in another fashion as doing so would hurt its sale to publishers.


I'm open-minded enough.

The book is not open-minded. It makes conclusions and is judgmental. One of those being that cults (and religions for that matter) are bad overall for society. Scientology will be a common thread through it since it is a modern-day cult that is in the process of becoming an established religion. Not that it will become an established religion as there are other perils it has yet to survive (such of the passing of the first generation of disciples), but it has survived earlier killers of cults (such as the death of its founder).


I just ask that you are the same way with other members is all.

Re-read my posts. I agree with Gypsy at times. I've tried to keep a level tone. However, I do point out some things and don't sugar coat them. We learn not by agreement but through evolution of our thoughts. Evolution is Darwinian.

erotictonic
07-08-2005, 10:39 AM
Those with the other things I listed does make me one. You don't get asked to sit on discussion panels at colleges by way of a raffle system. ;)

Oh bullshit. You sat on discussion panels at colleges as much as the man in the moon did. Everyone can see you are full of fucking shit. Why don't you cut the crap. The "other things you've listed" include being a marketer. Yea, that makes you an expert on cults. Hey, just calling a spade a spade. It takes a LOT LOT LOT more than the credentials you've listed to call yourself an expert on anything other than bullshit.



Read the progression of my posts.



You disagree with my position. That's clear.



You're the one making such great leaps in conclusions. I'm not. Have I said I'm the expert on everything? No. You disagree with my take on Scientology. I can back it up with facts. Your counter-argument is to call me "fucked-up" and a horrible parent. Yup, I'm the one that as a mental issue. :rotfl:

You HAVE said you were an expert.... on cults. The point is not that you have SAID you were an expert on everything, but over time reading what you post, it would seem you think you are. Everything you write is from a superiority stance of "I'm an expert, so listen to me, young padawan." I never said I necessarily disagree with anything.... that's not the arguement, and a whole different issue. I just don't like, and have never liked, the way you choose to communicate your ideas. I could give a shit about scientology. My point with calling you "fucked up", which I think you are, possibly an NPD, is to point out that you thinking she is "ignorant" and you need to educate her, others think that about you, but they don't say it, as if they are the supreme knowledgeable being of the universe. For the time I have posted on this board, you have been here with the same problem. That was my point, not just to call you fucked up, but you missed it. It's apparent that you have some pretty disturbing issues in the way you choose to communicate. Hey, I've been there, so don't get all bent out of shape. Just try to become aware of it.

Lurker
07-08-2005, 10:41 AM
It's definitely hard to try and start a major religion in modern times since all your ideas are scrutinized scientifically and debunked. The Mormons cribbed some stuff from Christianity so they got a running start. Scientology is basically a huge, carefully-crafted tax shelter, from what little I know about it. But I'm not sure that the core teachings of either are any more or less valid/defensible than any of the major world religions--they're just coming of age in a more skeptical time.

It's pretty clear to me that if you use the dictionary definition of expert (a specialist), PP qualifies as an expert on cults based on his presented pedigree. If you want to define the word in such a way that it basically never applies for nontrivial matters (someone who knows EVERYTHING about a subject) and deny that he's an expert on that basis, I'm not sure who you're trying to prove something to.

We can judge religions by what they do for their believers (often a great deal of good, sometimes not), what they do to the world at large (often a great deal of bad, sometimes not), or their stated beliefs about the universe (generally hard to swallow or even ludicrous). If people take comfort in the things Scientology tells them and teaches them, I don't know that it's my place (or anyone's place) to try to shake them out of it.

But it's not the way I would want to live my life.

Jay Zeno
07-08-2005, 10:50 AM
Pumpkin is an expert in cults.

Dictionary definition: expert
A person with special or superior skill or knowledge in a particular area

He is a person with special knowledge in the area. I don't personally grant him superior knowledge, because he's talking and writing out of clear bias, with rigid conclusions, with a motive to persuade rather than present balanced evidence. But I doubt that he cares what I grant him.


Legal definition: Expert
A witness who by virtue of special knowledge, skill, training, or experience is qualified to provide testimony to aid the fact-finder in matters that exceed the common knowledge of ordinary people.

He would be qualified in a court as an expert, because his knowledge exceeds that of the common person. However, the judge would also be careful to tell the jury that just because he's an expert doesn't make him believable. That's up for the recipient of his information to decide.

Pumpkin Pie
07-08-2005, 10:52 AM
I actually find the things that Pumpkin Pie and Madcap have written very interesting. I know nothing about the religion Scientology and I always find the backgrounds and origins of religions very fascinating. My husband's uncle is a catholic priest and he is one of the most interesting people to talk to. He's one of those rebel priest that really tells you how things are and doesn't glaze it over to make you believe. One thing he says that cracks me up is that if you believe in water turning into wine, and the parting of the seas then you believe in santa claus, a fat little pervert sliding down fireplaces giving toys to kids.

He would be an interesting person to talk to. In fact, I almost became a minister myself. I was quite along the path to becoming one. To the point of having my childhood minister and church willing to sponsor me through seminary college. However, before I took such a final step, I decided to research in more depth the religion I was going to preach. That lead to me posing some pointed questions to ministers of my denomination ... which lead me to pose similar questions to ministers of other Christain denominations (from a Southern Baptist minister to a Catholic bishop) ... which lead me to asking similar questions of ministers of other religions ... which eventually lead me to become a realist (we're just animals and when we die, that's it). Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" (http://tinyurl.com/bpt29) was the last straw that broke my religious back. It was from here that my interest in cults began and continued since. ;D I don't hate them. They're fasinating to me. A great subject to ponder, research, and discuss.

erotictonic
07-08-2005, 10:56 AM
Pumpkin is an expert in cults.

Dictionary definition: expert
A person with special or superior skill or knowledge in a particular area

He is a person with special knowledge in the area. I don't personally grant him superior knowledge, because he's talking and writing out of clear bias, with rigid conclusions, with a motive to persuade rather than present balanced evidence. But I doubt that he cares what I grant him.


Legal definition: Expert
A witness who by virtue of special knowledge, skill, training, or experience is qualified to provide testimony to aid the fact-finder in matters that exceed the common knowledge of ordinary people.

He would be qualified in a court as an expert, because his knowledge exceeds that of the common person. However, the judge would also be careful to tell the jury that just because he's an expert doesn't make him believable. That's up for the recipient of his information to decide.

He hasn't proven that to me. Just because someone says they are, doesn't mean they are. And if you go back to his posts over time, he thinks he's an expert on everything under the freaking sun. According to that definition, there are "experts" walking around all over the place. Hell, I'm an "expert" on certain subjects. I think an expert should have a lot of credentials, and I will stick to that definition.

I along with Rhi have a problem with people who call themselves "experts". Anybody can do so, but that doesn't make them, in my mind, truly an expert. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that being an "expert" doesn't really mean anything then. I suppose I didn't know the true meaning of the word. Jesus, the way "expert" is thrown around, it's pretty pathetic. In other words, it's the first alert that the person is more than likely a bullshitter or they're trying to convince you to believe them, for some reason, monetary or whatnot. BEWARE OF EXPERTS!!!!

threlayer
07-08-2005, 10:59 AM
So.....

...does Tom Cruise know the history of psychiatry or not?


Now that this argument is settled,can we start talking about something else in Off-Topic Discussions...

...maybe Off-Color Discussions...

...like SEX?

So what are you wearing? How many times do you do it per week?

Pumpkin Pie
07-08-2005, 11:12 AM
You HAVE said you were an expert.... on cults. The point is not that you have SAID you were an expert on everything, but over time reading what you post, it would seem you think you are.

Here are your exact words:


Everything you write has this narcissistic air about it, as if you are the number one expert on everything there is.

That's was I was referring to.


Everything you write is from a superiority stance of "I'm an expert, so listen to me, young padawan."

That's your intrepretation. It is not my intention.

I also only post when I think I have something to contribute to the discussion and not to just hear myself talk. It could be this reason why you get this impression of me.


I never said I necessarily disagree with anything.... that's not the arguement, and a whole different issue. I just don't like, and have never liked, the way you choose to communicate your ideas.

Yes, I know. I do recall other such discussions where you've pointed this out. Sorry you don't like how I express myself. I won't change. I suggest you just don't read what I post. There is the ignore option you can use for this purpose.


My point with calling you "fucked up", which I think you are, possibly an NPD, is to point out that you thinking she is "ignorant" and you need to educate her, others think that about you, but they don't say it, as if they are the supreme knowledgeable being of the universe. For the time I have posted on this board, you have been here with the same problem. That was my point, not just to call you fucked up, but you missed it. It's apparent that you have some pretty disturbing issues in the way you choose to communicate. Hey, I've been there, so don't get all bent out of shape. Just try to become aware of it.

Odd. You seem quite bent out of shape here and elsewhere in this thread.

Lastly, what you condemn me for is what you're doing right now. I know you cannot see that. I simply point it out for others to see if they haven't already picked up on that by now.

erotictonic
07-08-2005, 11:20 AM
Here are your exact words:



That's was I was referring to.



That's your intrepretation. It is not my intention.

I also only post when I think I have something to contribute to the discussion and not to just hear myself talk. It could be this reason why you get this impression of me.



Yes, I know. I do recall other such discussions where you've pointed this out. Sorry you don't like how I express myself. I won't change. I suggest you just don't read what I post. There is the ignore option you can use for this purpose.



Odd. You seem quite bent out of shape here and elsewhere in this thread.

Lastly, what you condemn me for is what you're doing right now. I know you cannot see that. I simply point it out for others to see if they haven't already picked up on that by now.

No one wants to be talked down to, which is what you do. This somehow has evolved into this discussion, so be it. Stop telling people they are ignorant and you need to educate them, and making digging slurs at others choices of religion or thoughts. It's not respectful. End of freaking story.

Rhiannon
07-08-2005, 11:25 AM
That's one of the biggest qualifiers for being classified as an expert. That's definitely one of them that the press uses as for who they go for expert opinions (a.k.a. soundbites). The quality of the book naturally having a major issue in that. How good are its reviews and the credentials (usually the books they've written themselves) of the reviewers.

Not every author is an expert on what they write about. There are a great number of people who take bits and pieces of what others have written, and spew them onto the pages of a brandy-new book.


So no one can be an expert on anything? Someone has already made the joke about how you can then be an expert on experts so I won't.

Um.. Exactly. It was a joke. Take it as that.


My definition of what an expert is someone that has intensely studied a subject, has a good depth of understanding about it, can back their statements with facts, and is able to articulate their positions in discourse with others. And good indicators of an expert are, for example, being asked to speak on the topic to people in the field, being asked by a professor in the field to talk to their classes, asked to sit on discussion panels focusing on the topic, releasing a white paper on the topic (here's one that I did in 2003 on p2p: and that resulted in many calling me an expert on that technology and being interviewed by reporters, talk show hosts, college classes, and so forth), writing a non-fiction book on the topic (or aspect of it), doing one's doctorate dissertation on the topic, having one's paper on the topic published in a scientific journal in the field, and things along these lines.

If you don't believe in experts, then I assume you ask the person on the street to give you a medical exam ... or review a legal document for you ... or ... well, you get the idea. ;)


Clearly our definitions of experts differ. So I'll leave it at that. Instead of arguing about what makes an expert any further, I think I'll opt to eat lead paint chips and bang my head against the wall instead. I've said that I do not believe in experts. That's not changing. I don't consider physicians experts either. I've run into quite a few who didn't know which end was up. A degree or practice doesn't not equal expertise.

And in most cases, a person is referred to by another party as an expert. If you have to claim to be one, and toot your own horn, you clearly aren't.

You say potato, I say potahto. Let's leave it there. You won't change my views on so-called experts anymore than I'll change yours.



PM me your postal address and real name. I'll send you a NDA for you to sign and mail back to me. I'll then send you the book proposal. The NDA is needed to prevent the proposal from being posted to the web or circulated in another fashion as doing so would hurt its sale to publishers.

Then, Dahling. I'm going to pass. There are very few who have my address on here (or the internet in general). I'd have to know you a little better for that. I will wish you luck with the publishing though.



The book is not open-minded. It makes conclusions and is judgmental. One of those being that cults (and religions for that matter) are bad overall for society. Scientology will be a common thread through it since it is a modern-day cult that is in the process of becoming an established religion. Not that it will become an established religion as there are other perils it has yet to survive (such of the passing of the first generation of disciples), but it has survived earlier killers of cults (such as the death of its founder).

Then it's definitely not for me. I pay no attention to close-minded perspectives. That's just the way I am. In any case, I was offering to read it because I am open-minded.


Re-read my posts. I agree with Gypsy at times. I've tried to keep a level tone. However, I do point out some things and don't sugar coat them. We learn not by agreement but through evolution of our thoughts. Evolution is Darwinian.

I have read and re-read your posts prior to reading this one. I feel no need to read them again. Again, don't set out to "teach" others unsolicited. What people choose to believe is not up to you.

TerpsichoreToo
07-08-2005, 11:35 AM
If the intention is to offer another perspective or to encourage others to continue to educate themselves on their religon the use of terms such as cult, ignorant etc are not a very effective manner to in which to acomplish the goal.

Terms such as that are going to cause a defensive and offended reaction and not an interested or open minded reaction.

I would think an "expert" in cults would understand that......but whatever.

Pamela
07-08-2005, 12:33 PM
I know NOTHING of Scientology!!

I think i prefer to keep it this way from what Tom Cruise has said about medication. If they are into that (and i know i heard it from Tom) i want no part of scientology.

Pamela

Sh0t
07-08-2005, 01:17 PM
Pumpkin Pie, could you elaborate please?

Erotictonic: could you please explain what you meant by this:


Stop telling people they are ignorant and you need to educate them, and making digging slurs at others choices of religion or thoughts.

Pumpkin Pie
07-08-2005, 01:30 PM
Pumpkin Pie, could you elaborate please?

On what? If it is on Erotictonic's rant, I'll pass.

lwtex52
07-08-2005, 02:14 PM
I know NOTHING of Scientology!!

I think i prefer to keep it this way from what Tom Cruise has said about medication. If they are into that (and i know i heard it from Tom) i want no part of scientology.

Pamela

All I know is that any religion I become a part of must require a few minutes of prayer and medication each day.

Wait....that should read "meditation".......

Sh0t
07-08-2005, 02:45 PM
On this:




I can back it up with facts.

Pumpkin Pie
07-08-2005, 05:37 PM
On this:

In regards to what?

Madcap
07-08-2005, 08:05 PM
As far as religions go, here's my thing...

Christianity: As far as Yeshua (called Jesus in the western world) goes, i don't really fault him personally. There are a couple of statments attriputed to him that i think are crap, but then there are statements attributed to everyone. There is no doubt in my mind that Yeshua existed, and that he had the best of intentions for what he tried to do. Here is a guy who stood up during one of the worst times in all of human history (that we know of) as far as brutality goes, and said "Chill the fuck out, people" (paraphrased, obviously), "Turn that cheek and help people out who need it, pay your fucking taxes and obey the law and stop bitching about it because there's more important things to worry about." I can't argue with that. Did he walk on water? Change water to wine? Was he born of a virgin? Horseshit! No, he wasn't born of any virgin. If there is a god, i'll bet that deity doesn't go around knocking up 13 year old girls. When you get to the barebones message that Yeshua had it was a decent one for the time. Sure he bitched about people not following levitican law, but there's an account of him stopping some chick from getting stoned to death in accordance with levitican law. Sure he SEEMS convinced he was the messiah, but there are SEVERAL statements attributed to him that separate him and his god. He got shafted after he died. That's my opinion. People like Saul of Tarsus (The apostle Paul) started calling him god and that fucked up the stuff he was trying to get across. Christianity is bullshit, but the basic message isn't.

Islam: Mohammad was a LOT different that a lot of the fucked up shit you see today. He was a zealot, he was a fanatic, he was also pretty merciful by 6th century standards. He married at 13 year old girl, but who didn't back then? Back then when a chick got "her first blood" she was marrying age. As far as the current climate goes between Islam and the west, i'll just post Mohammad's words and let them speak for him since i really cant, as i don't know enough about him... This is a letter sent from the 'Prophet' Mohammad to the Monks of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai...

"This is a message written by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they (Christians) are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the world."

Buddhism: Siddhartha (Who we now call Buddha) was alive around 3000 years ago in india. This dude was one odd cat, especially for his time. The life of Siddhartha is half myth, as these stories often are, but we know one thing, he was a bright mofo and one hell of a spiritual one. If there is any religion on planet earth i could adobt it's his. His last words on earth were something like this (Translated and paraphrased) "There is no Truth, find your own path..." What a mindfuck is that one? I'd love to learn more about this stuff, but i just can't say I know all that much. I know a lot of the legends sorrounding him, but a LOT of that just stinks of bullshit. I'd wager his real life was probably one hell of a story. Siddhartha was a prince in india (What is equivalent to a Rahja, i think, in recent years) and turned away from all of that luxury to follow some spiritual path. Funny how a religion we commonly associate with Asian peoples originated in India (not that they aren't part of the traditional Orient, but we almost never include them as such).

Judaism: I gotta admit that most of what i know about Moshe is from the christian Bible. Those folk call him Moses, but he pretty much is attributed with the Judaic faith. There's not much mention of him outside holy text, but shit like that doesn't just crop up out of nowhere. Now, don't get me wrong, that Red Sea bullshit is just that, Bullshit... Only that it never was the red sea in the first place... Rather it was the Reed sea (odd coincidence in the similarity) he supposedly led the folk across, a big task but not so monumental that the cosmos would have to realign to make it happen. And when you place all that shit in the timeline of history it lines up with the eruption of Thera, just a few hundred miles to the north. Thera didn't just erupt, that island blew the fuck UP like Krakatoa did. That would have seriously fucked Egypt over. Flies, Toads, Darkness, all that shit. The whole works. Imagine the tidal waves that would've hit egypt at that time? Then all the rest of the story goes down, whatever the case may have been... 40 years of wandering (however that's in bible/Torahtime, 40 years doesn't actually mean 40 years it just means a long long time, just like a thousand years is bible/Torahtime for forever). Point is, this story could have a basis in fact. Now, did Moshe write the Tprah/Pentautech (Genisis, exodus, leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy for you folk raised up that way)? I doubt it. So we can't pin that shit on Moshe. We know nothing about him, or them. Whatever the case really is. He might have been a total asshole, who the fuck knows. He was probably a real man, or group of men storytold into one, and that's all that matters. Either way, can't pin any bullshit on him. He was a barbarian, if he existed at all. Barbarians tend to believe things in very extream ways. I won't even get into Abram, just where that dude got the idea to cut his dick up i'll never know (Though i'm stuck with it because of that fucking ape, color me circumsised and color me unhappy about being mutilated).

Mormonism: Joseph Smith. He created the mormons. He tried to walk on water. He sunk. End of story.

Scientology: Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, where do i begin... I'm less forgiving of this guy than i am other hit it big cult leaders not because his shit is any less believable, but because he was more recent. This dude added some modern thinking into his stuff and it shows. He had something against Psychology and it shows through all his writings and through the faith he founded. Why? No clue. But he was no barbarian like ALL OF THE ABOVE were. This guy commanded ships in world war 2 for fuck's sake. He died in the late 80's. Unlike EVERYONE on my list before him, we kinow JUST who he was. We have shit written on notebook paper in his OWN handwriting, can we of planet earth say that for Mohammad?

So yeah, i think it's all bullshit (though i do like Siddhartha's way of looking at stuff), but i can think Hubbard's stuff is more bullshit because it's closer. I have no issue with the run of the mill scientologist, but a bait and switch game screams that it is... what it is... To me, anyway. My rancor is reserved for him and him alone as far as scientology goes. I am FAR from the one that will sit here and insist that i would never fall for something like that, because i am no better, or smarter than anyone else. So i can't judge. But i sniff bullshit when i read Hubbard's writing. That "Fair Game" policy of his might have soured me further, i dunno.





Sorry for the long post.

TerpsichoreToo
07-08-2005, 09:36 PM
Don't be sorry. I for one, really enjoyed reading it. Thankyou for sharing what you know with all of us.

PhaedrusZ
07-08-2005, 11:47 PM
I've found several of the posts here sufficiently interesting to start doing a little research about Scientology myself, and found two links which I found quite interesting. The first, primarily because it could be applied to any religion, not only to Scientology, and also because it was written by someone who was a Scientologist who decided to leave after 27 years.

http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/how-to-talk.htm

The second is not something for which I can fault Scientology, but for which I can fault both the Congress and the Internal Revenue Service.

http://www.studytech.org/asi.php

This has something to do with "Applied Scholastics," which is described as being some kind of front group for Scientology to become involved in education, but it was indicated at one point this was primarily for private Scientologist schools serving children of Scientologists. However, there was also mention of a lawsuit against an employer by three employees for using this training program(described by the suing employees as an "indoctrination into Scientology"). I have not read enough yet to know what to believe about this. But I do object to the following from this article,

"...Under the agreement (and, it was alleged, under improper pressure from Church lawyers and private investigators) the IRS had granted Scientology privileges denied to any other faith group. The disparity was highlighted in a subsequent court case involving a Jewish man who wished to claim tax exemption for his child's attendance at a Jewish school. He was denied but the court criticised the conduct of the IRS, pointing out the inconsistency of allowing Scientologists to claim tax deductions for religious schooling while denying it to everyone else. The situation has still not been resolved..."

My objection here isn't with Scientology, as I wrote above, but with the fact that, both the Congress and the IRS do not take the separation of church and state seriously. You'd either have to permit the Jewish man a tax break for his child, or remove the tax break for sending a Scientologist child to a Scientologist school in order for both religions to be treated equally.


PhaedrusZ

Madcap
07-09-2005, 12:01 AM
.....

colleen
07-09-2005, 03:36 AM
the fact that, both the Congress and the IRS do not take the separation of church and state seriously.



Don't get me started on this one! But, that would be a whole 'nother thread, wouldn't it?

Madcap
07-09-2005, 09:48 AM
Hey, my pic is gone dammit! Hehe...

velvet
07-09-2005, 02:00 PM
ok first off by definition pp would be an ''expert". he has some very good points too. i only have very basic knowledge of scientology, but even i know about the aliens. "body tritons". IMHO it's crap(science fiction?) but thats just me

doc-catfish
07-09-2005, 02:48 PM
I think all organized religions are cults. Except of course for the Church of Doc.

Send $80 and a self addressed stamped manila envelope, I can send anyone a certificate authorizing them to be a Level 1 minister in the COD (just as soon as I can buy some desktop publishing software to print them).

Attractive females may pay the "alternative" fee of giving me four lap dances. Of course you'd have to drive out here to cow country to do this and with gas at $2.50 a gallon, it might be just be easier to send me $80. That way I can go buy lap dances from somebody else.

Certificates to be a Level 2 minister start at $140 (or seven lap dances). Doesn't give you any more authority in the church than a Level 1 has, but I'll make sure they're printed on nicer paper.
;)

TerpsichoreToo
07-09-2005, 02:58 PM
LMFAO. You have a great sense of humor Doc !

showgirlschloe
07-09-2005, 03:04 PM
Sign me up, I want to be Doc-tinite!

Pumpkin Pie
07-09-2005, 06:15 PM
...the Church of Doc.

Don't forget to get a pipe! :detective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Subgenius

:rotfl:

whirlerz
07-10-2005, 08:15 AM
My body is my temple, & I hold worship services daily...

lwtex52
07-10-2005, 08:22 AM
Except for my owne little church here, The Apathetic Church of the Inaccurate Assumption, I have given up on religion.

It's the rejection I can no longer tolerate. I had written to the Vatican that, since the previous two popes had two "first names", much like all of us good ol' boys in Texas, then the next Pope should actually be from Texas. I offered my services at Pope Joe Bob I.

My plan was to replace the communion with Beer and Nachos. Take out the hymnals and replace the music with some Toby Keith. Nominate Waylon Jennings and Hank Williams for sainthood. Finally, replace those wool Nun's habits with denim jeans and shirts. (Aside: Where did the term "nun" come from? 'Never Had Nun; Ain't Gettin' Nun Now; Ain't Gonna Get Nun Neither"?)

Unfortunately, they chose Papa Ratzi instead, and here I sit, dejected.

If you do go to church today, and see someone making change at the offering plate, it's me.

big_daddy
07-10-2005, 10:32 AM
Also, considering it costs something like 8000$ for Operating Thetan-I and II, 17000$ to get OT-III and IV and 25000$ for OT-VI thru VII, i'd say that some of these people come out a hell of a lot poorer if they come out at all. Hell, just an hour with one of those lie detector things costs anywhere from 500$ to a friggin' grand! Then the clear certanity rundown is almost 3000$ and all that is before you even get to Operating Thetan! I once read that it costs somewhere around 125 thousand dollars just to get to clear!



Sounds like a big money scam to me! Just my $.o2!

big_daddy
07-10-2005, 10:48 AM
I know NOTHING of Scientology!!

I think i prefer to keep it this way from what Tom Cruise has said about medication. If they are into that (and i know i heard it from Tom) i want no part of scientology.

Pamela


Me too!!!!!!!!!!!! My dad was taken off his meds a few years ago after being on them for 20 years. He would not let us go near the windows, watch tv or go outside because "they" were watching us. It was nothing anything like Tom said that could be fixed with the bs he was talking about. You could see it in my dads eyes he was scared. Nothing Scientology could ever change my mind its a load of BS! Now that my dad is back on his meds hes out side in the garden, watching his beloved Cubs on tv and on with his NORMAL life! Besides there is no religion in science. How can there be, religion is based on beliefs, science is based on facts. To truly believe in something you don't need facts you just believe.