Competition Scientology Competition!

[Raven]

Books for the weak minded....A bit like the bible then?

 

[Scouse]

No. Your position is the part of a Richard Dawkins book that you remember. I'd like to say understood, but when an argument is based on vitriol and small mindedness there isn't that much to understand.

I've never read any Dawkins in my life.

Remember - believe is a VERB. A 'doing' word. It's something you do.

In this case it means "blind yourself to reasonable argument".


I, on the other hand, give no shit and believe in nothing. But that's a concept you would find incredibly difficult to understand. Not because you're thick - but because your actions (believing) preclude a true understanding of the nature of this situation...

 

[Scouse]

I dont think just because the 'making it up' took place a long time ago it should gain any superior status - do you?

Ignoring the fact that you obviously accept that Scientology was started by a Sci-Fi writer in the 50's, yet don't seem to have a problem with that little fact meaning that Scientology can't be a route to true spiritual elightenment (which is surely one of the core aims of religion?)...

...why are you deliberately ignoring the violence, the labelling people as paedophiles, etc?

Is it because you simply don't care? Or is it, as I suspect, because to acknowledge such actions would severely weaken your own argument?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Remember - believe is a VERB. A 'doing' word. It's something you do.

I, on the other hand, give no shit and believe in nothing. But that's a concept you would find incredibly difficult to understand. Not because you're thick - but because your actions (believing) preclude a true understanding of the nature of this situation...

Well, i don't need to strain myself or DO anything to believe.

You don't need to DO anything to not believe.

They are both choices.

Believing that the sky is blue and not believing that the sky is blue, are equal decicions, actions and thoughts.

Which one is true? Irrelevant and if you think it is relevant if some deity is real or not, you're enforcing your beliefs and are DOING what you believe(or in your case don't believe)

You claim that religious people don't "get" the concept, yet you don't seem to have a good solid view on religious people either.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

I, on the other hand, give no shit and believe in nothing.

The amount of vitriol in your posts indicates otherwise.

But that's a concept you would find incredibly difficult to understand.

The defining of true nothing is one of the more difficult concepts. By giving nothing a definition, it ceases to be nothing, it is given form in thought. How can you define nothing when by defining it your very logical processes turn it into something.

If you have meditated on the nature of true nothing and encompassed its meaning then I would be impressed.

I suspect I'm a long way from being impressed.

 

[Scouse]

Well, i don't need to strain myself or DO anything to believe.

Wrong!

You might not have to 'strain yourself', but you do have to do something:

be⋅lieve
  –verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

Note the verb bit. (Which makes it an action)

You don't need to DO anything to not believe

This is correct.

You claim that religious people don't "get" the concept, yet you don't seem to have a good solid view on religious people either.

I've been a religious person. An active one. I know how big a fool I was.

That experience means that I'm also fully aware that, if you're a believer, you can't get it. Simple as that!

Either way Toht, I'm not arguing this one with you all over again, since I proved it mathematically last time.

 

[Scouse]

The amount of vitriol in your posts indicates otherwise.

You could read it that way. In fact, if you're religious, I'm pretty sure you can't read it any other way.

I know it's probably counter-productive to use such (supposed) vitriol in these sort of posts, but the very fact that religious people peform the act of believing means that reasoned argument is beyond their grasp.

Perhaps shock tactics (i.e. being honest and blunt without care for not hurting peoples feelings) will be more effective in the long run. Gotta try something

If you have meditated on the nature of true nothing and encompassed its meaning then I would be impressed.

If I hadn't done that in my 36 years on this planet I'd be a fool to be arguing with you.

The reason you doubt it is that you're incapable of understanding why anyone 'reasonable' would hold the (very strong) opinions I do on religious beliefs since any 'reasonable' person would obviously feel like you... or they've just "got it wrong", eh?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Wrong!

You might not have to 'strain yourself', but you do have to do something:

I've been a religious person. An active one. I know how big a fool I was.

That experience means that I'm also fully aware that, if you're a believer, you can't get it. Simple as that!

No i don't, it's like breathing, nothing more. Unless you count breathing as a concious action?

Because then choosing not to believe is an action as well

You're also basing your experience as a "foolish religious person" as a measure for ALL religion, now THAT is foolish. We aren't all you and we don't all act like YOU as a religious person. Like i said, to me it's the same as with you, it takes nothing, it's an opinion among others. JUST LIKE yours is an opinion.

You're also condecending towards people, telling them they can't know and can't get it, like somehow you are above all of judgement.

You do also notice that on this thread, YOU...are the bigggest converter, preacher and all those other things that you are against with religion

By trying so hard not to be one, you are worse then any of us.

 

[Scouse]

No i don't, it's like breathing, nothing more

I know. I used to be religious remember? But it IS something.

Learning about reality was a process that took me a long time. It wasn't a continuous action or an active choice. As we've covered before, I woke up one day and realised that I no longer performed the action called believing.

THIS exact thing is why I said:

if you're a believer, you can't get it.

'cause you can't. And as I've tried discussing it with religious people in memorandum, and never once had them understand the difference (because their reality doesn't allow it) I'm reluctant to continue down this line much further


Edit:

You're also condecending towards people, telling them they can't know and can't get it, like somehow you are above all of judgement.

I'm not being condecending. I'm just stating fact. The reason you find it condecending is because you're insulted by the idea that, because you believe in something, you can't understand something else.

I'm sorry. It's just the way it is. How else am I supposed to express it?

As for all the "converting" people stuff. Apart from the fact that I've never mentioned anything about being offended by people trying to convert me (I'm not, because it's futile). Yes. I'm unashamedly a "converter". I would wish to convert people to stop them believing in organised religion, of any kind. (Spirituality, on the other hand, is a different matter). Unfortunately, asking people to stop believing is a much harder task than convincing them to do so in the first place...

 

[rynnor]

Ignoring the fact that you obviously accept that Scientology was started by a Sci-Fi writer in the 50's, yet don't seem to have a problem with that little fact meaning that Scientology can't be a route to true spiritual elightenment (which is surely one of the core aims of religion?)...

Why cant it? It seems no less likely than believing a dead bloke came back to life so again you have made no real distinction between Scientology than any other religion - basically because there isnt any.

...why are you deliberately ignoring the violence, the labelling people as paedophiles, etc?

Is it because you simply don't care? Or is it, as I suspect, because to acknowledge such actions would severely weaken your own argument?

Its because generalisations are stupid and made by those who can only perceive the world as black n white - I trust that you are not such a person.

I think everyone would agree that people of all major religions do terrible things to each other so again why make Scientology a special case other than because its become fashionable?

Edit - Americanisation of my spelling

 

[Damini]

If there was a computer game where you had to pay money to advance each level, we'd all be saying what a scam it was. Any religious system that equates your level of spiritual achievement and enlightenment with the amount of money you have invested is obviously wrong. People turn to religion when they are in need - emotional, spiritual, physical, need. To use this need to generate profit is inherently wicked.

Scientology also argues that mental illness doesn't exist, that treatments for it are equivilent to torture. Oh, yes, and that psychiatrists are responsible for the holocaust.

Can't we just leave out the arguments about Islam, and catholicism, and blah? It's like every time someone mentions pot someone else screams OH MY GOD ALCOHOL KILLS SO MANY PEOPLE AND THAT'S LEGAL. It doesn't negate a point, it doesn't validate a point, it simply runs parallel to it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I know. I used to be religious remember? But it IS something.

Learning about reality was a process that took me a long time. It wasn't a continuous action or an active choice. As we've covered before, I woke up one day and realised that I no longer performed the action called believing.

THIS exact thing is why I said:

'cause you can't. And as I've tried discussing it with religious people in memorandum, and never once had them understand the difference (because their reality doesn't allow it) I'm reluctant to continue down this line much further

Edit: I'm not being condecending. I'm just stating fact. The reason you find it condecending is because you're insulted by the idea that, because you believe in something, you can't understand something else.

I'm sorry. It's just the way it is. How else am I supposed to express it?

You being religious only speak of YOUR experience, as it seems, you were more of a fanatic believer then a casual believer. You can't ofcourse get what i mean, 'cause you were such a fanatic religious person.

So you can't speak about anything else then fanatism, in or out of religion. Most people are not fanatics, so it's irrelevant to bring it to the majority.

You saw it as an action, it isn't to me. No more then breathing. Just like you don't believe, i believe, opinion, way of life and it IS a choice. You did choose not to believe, otherwise you'd still be a believer. Or something pushed that decicion.

You didn't, i've always called bullshit on this, pray, go to sleep, then just wake up the next morning and go "Oh, there's no deity!"

EDIT part: It's not a fact. Only condecending part about it is that you assume what i might understand, you tell that i can't understand, when it's completely factual that i CAN understand. Unless you've talked to ALL religions, ALL people in the WHOLE world. Which i doubt, you've talked to perhaps one ounce of a mountain.

You should express it by forgetting about it. This is the problem with your kind of anti-religion peeps; anything that is challenged becomes "you weren't there man!", which is not an argument, it's a copout at best.

EDIT: But you're right, we've been through this enough times so let's drop it, say what you want after(response is a given right), but i'll accept the dropping.

 

[Scouse]

Its because generalisations are stupid and made by those who can only perceive the world as black n white - I trust that you are not such a person.

I think everyone would agree that people of all major religions do terrible things to each other so again why make Scientology a special case other than because its become fashionable?

It IS a special case. Do catholics or muslims pamphlet the local area of people who are known to be anti-scientology with false claims that people are paedophiles???

What has to be said to make the case that it is significantly different?

Do they actually have to go round shooting people live on telly before you'll acknowledge what they're doing is different from what christians or muslims do??

Scientology is a whole new corporatised level of low.



Edit and Dams:

 

[Scouse]

Reactionary self-justifying stuff that flies in the face of evidence...

I was never more than a casual believer and I attended church irregularly. Certainly never a fanatic.

Whatever you say about belief not being an action is, I'm afraid, a crock of shit.

I don't "see" belief as an action. When I said that, I'm not "expressing opinion" in some gay touchy-feely way. I even gave you evidence to support the statement - the dictionary definition of the word itself.

Believing is an action. Fact.

You desparately wishing it wasn't doesn't make it so. However, you believe that - regardless of evidence - so I can't even rock your ivory tower.

You did choose not to believe, otherwise you'd still be a believer.

You carry on believing that m8. In spite of the evidence put in front of you. I obviously made it all up to make a point. I'm on some sort of anti-religious crusade because I believe in anti-religion so hard, or something (how can he not believe in something??!, everyone believes in something).......

 

[rynnor]

What has to be said to make the case that it is significantly different?

Nothing - theres practically nothing some Major religion hasnt done at some point but people still have the right to believe whatever they like - its a fundamental human right.

To say that all religions are evil and should be destroyed puts you in the same boat as crazed Imams who call for the destruction of the non-believers.

I am an atheist but I am not an angry one because I have come to see that people make their own journeys and it is not for me to say what is right for them.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Believing is an action. Fact.

You carry on believing that m8. In spite of the evidence put in front of you. I obviously made it all up to make a point. I'm on some sort of anti-religious crusade because I believe in anti-religion so hard, or something (how can he not believe in something??!, everyone believes in something).......

Those i have to reply to;

As i said, if believing is an action, so is NOT believing. Especially for someone so fanatic about it.

I don't have to keep believing in the last part, you may have gradually turned to anti-religion or something pushed you in it, but you did not literally wake up and "poof!" religion was gone.

I get that you don't believe in anything, i'm not questioning that at all. I GET IT, i always have, but stop making it like you're some kind of jesus :lol:

You don't believe in anything? Fine, f*ck off then. Because if you truly believe in nothing, then you don't even care about these discussions

 

[nath]

To say that all religions are evil and should be destroyed puts you in the same boat as crazed Imams who call for the destruction of the non-believers.

Well that's clearly not true as saying all religions are evil doesn't equate to saying religious people should be killed. Calling for the destruction of the non-believers is asking for people to be killed, they're quite different.

 

[rynnor]

If there was a computer game where you had to pay money to advance each level, we'd all be saying what a scam it was.

Actually there is One of the ones with RL money in it where that guy bought an island for 100k a while back.

Any religious system that equates your level of spiritual achievement and enlightenment with the amount of money you have invested is obviously wrong.

I thought people just pay for the courses/analysis/books etc. I guess its pretty scammy but as I said earlier - the Roman Catholic church has a sub section called Agnus Dei thats basically a cult - no contact with family or non-believers, all your money goes to the church and you have to spend your spare time praying and self-harming.

It is arguably far worse than Scientology yet because its part of a 'Major Faith' its accepted.

People turn to religion when they are in need - emotional, spiritual, physical, need. To use this need to generate profit is inherently wicked.

All religions exploit needy people - the bereaved etc. its one of their best recruiting tools.

Scientology also argues that mental illness doesn't exist, that treatments for it are equivilent to torture. Oh, yes, and that psychiatrists are responsible for the holocaust.

I think its more complicated than that but even were it true other faiths have far more repugnant messages to the modern person but these are still accepted faiths?

Can't we just leave out the arguments about Islam, and catholicism, and blah? It's like every time someone mentions pot someone else screams OH MY GOD ALCOHOL KILLS SO MANY PEOPLE AND THAT'S LEGAL. It doesn't negate a point, it doesn't validate a point, it simply runs parallel to it.

Ofc. we cant miss out the comparisons to other religions - if its so self evidently not a religion please explain concisely why that is?

I'm not trying to be difficult but I tend to think peoples pre-conceptions cloud their logic on such matters.

 

[rynnor]

Well that's clearly not true as saying all religions are evil doesn't equate to saying religious people should be killed. Calling for the destruction of the non-believers is asking for people to be killed, they're quite different.

Its all religious intolerance - full stop.

 

[nath]

Its all religious intolerance - full stop.

You say that like religious intolerance is inherently a bad thing. My religious intolerance takes form by arguing with friends and internet peeps about the absurdity of religion. If their religious intolerance results in people being killed, I'm fairly comfortable that our attitudes are different and that mine is better.

 

[rynnor]

You say that like religious intolerance is inherently a bad thing. My religious intolerance takes form by arguing with friends and internet peeps about the absurdity of religion. If their religious intolerance results in people being killed, I'm fairly comfortable that our attitudes are different and that mine is better.

I'm not saying dont discuss it but its not good where people of one religious viewpoint are persecuted as is happening with the Scientologists.

 

[nath]

Oh I think all religious viewpoints should be attacked and I'm pretty sure Scouse feels the same, though he can confirm if that's the case. It just so happens that Scientology is the point of discussion currently.

 

[rynnor]

It just so happens that Scientology is the point of discussion currently.

It doesnt 'just so happen' - theres a campaign against them - I'm just asking people to think carefully before they get sucked into a campaign of religious persecution.

 

[noblok]

'cause you can't. And as I've tried discussing it with religious people in memorandum, and never once had them understand the difference (because their reality doesn't allow it) I'm reluctant to continue down this line much further

I can. I used to be a fervent atheist myself.

And 'believing' is as much of an action as 'percieving'. Technically, yes, it's a verb and an action, but the terminology is slightly misleading as you don't really make an active choice to believe. It just happens. (At least for some people. Obviously I can't speak for every single religious person.)

 

[nath]

It doesnt 'just so happen' - theres a campaign against them - I'm just asking people to think carefully before they get sucked into a campaign of religious persecution.

Oh, well I was talking about this thread specifically. However, if there's an attack on a certain religion I don't see that it's necessary to attack all others at the same time in order to be fair. I'm not so up on the specifics of what the people of this campaign are doing so I can't speak to how appropriate it is but in my opinion anything that attacks religious ideas is swell. Religious intolerance is, to a point, a good thing, as long as people are ultimately allowed to go about their lives.

 

[Scouse]

As i said, if believing is an action, so is NOT believing.

I got this far and stopped reading.

You can't get it...

 

[old.Tohtori]

I got this far and stopped reading.

You can't get it...

I'll refer to someone who can explain it, well, possibly better;

I can. I used to be a fervent atheist myself.

And 'believing' is as much of an action as 'percieving'. Technically, yes, it's a verb and an action, but the terminology is slightly misleading as you don't really make an active choice to believe. It just happens. (At least for some people. Obviously I can't speak for every single religious person.)

If you can't understand that believing isn't necessarily an action, you can't say that other people can't understand your POV since you claim you understand that

 

[Scouse]

It is arguably far worse than Scientology yet because its part of a 'Major Faith' its accepted.

Actually, as has been said, because it's part of a "major faith" people are too scared to take it on. And they're right to be so.

I'm not trying to be difficult but I tend to think peoples pre-conceptions cloud their logic on such matters.

I can't swim in the irony but I can walk across it...

Its all religious intolerance - full stop.

I'm just asking people to think carefully before they get sucked into a campaign of religious persecution.

Well. I'm asking you to think carefully about the following.

Which is worse?

1) Ideologically disagreeing with an organisation and coordinating a campaign of embarassment against the organisation.

2) Organising a campaign of persecution against individuals, labelling them paedophiles, driving them from their homes and neighbourhoods, bullying family members and physically assaulting them.

Come on. Think carefully. Which one is "more intolerant"? I'd like a direct answer to the question please.

 

[Scouse]

I can. I used to be a fervent atheist myself.

And which horrid experience/lonely existence/peer group or girl convinced you to dance back in to la-la land?

 

[Damini]

I thought people just pay for the courses/analysis/books etc. I guess its pretty scammy but as I said earlier - the Roman Catholic church has a sub section called Agnus Dei thats basically a cult - no contact with family or non-believers, all your money goes to the church and you have to spend your spare time praying and self-harming.

It is arguably far worse than Scientology yet because its part of a 'Major Faith' its accepted.


All religions exploit needy people - the bereaved etc. its one of their best recruiting tools.



I think its more complicated than that but even were it true other faiths have far more repugnant messages to the modern person but these are still accepted faiths?



Ofc. we cant miss out the comparisons to other religions - if its so self evidently not a religion please explain concisely why that is?

I'm not trying to be difficult but I tend to think peoples pre-conceptions cloud their logic on such matters.

You're right - we should completey turn a blind eye to one of the biggest scams ever concocted because someone had the bright idea to wrap an mythology around the core of it.

Anyway, I've never said it's not a religion. Enough people believe in it, ergo it is one. It's just one that someone made up for profit, and one that is quite sinister in its behaviour.

"I guess it is pretty scammy" -

Estimated Processing Costs to OT VIII

However, Scientologists who are interested in accomplishing the major goals of Scientology – to become Clear and develop their capabilities as Operating Thetans – should expect to be investing heavily in their spirituality. Costs can vary considerably depending upon the needs of the individual, but a rough estimate suggests you’ll be paying $128,000 to reach Clear, another $33,000 to reach OT III, and an additional $100,000 to $130,000 to reach OT VIII, which is the highest level currently available.

Agnes Dei may ask you to contribute everything you own to the church - do they insist you pay certain amounts before you are allowed to progress from basic Catholic to uber Catholic?

You're never going to agree with those of us that view Scientology as something incredibly dangerous, so I guess it's all a bit moot, but maybe you'll get a glimpse of *why* people like me view them as the big bad. Yes, all religions use grief and vulnerability as a recruiting tool, but do they do it with an underlying financial motive?