Scientology

[flaming]

Is everyone thinking this is crazy like me?

:Alien:

[Freeform]

Moved to religion as it has nothing to do with MA.

Please note that the General Discussion forum is for the general discussion of MARTIAL ARTS.

[CosmicFish]

Is everyone thinking this is crazy like me?

:Alien:
Not all of us think you're crazy. ;)

[pgm316]

Is everyone thinking this is crazy like me?

:Alien:

Yes, crazy like you :)

[snailfist]

I read in the Independent recently that scientology's founder- the writer L. Ron Hubbard- addressed a conference of authors a few years before founding the cult thus:
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."
:D :D :D

[dect69]

Yes - It's barking mad!

Hubbards own son declared that 99% of what his father said or wrote about himself was a lie! It was a great way to make $40million+ a year!

Like they say a fool and his money are easily parted....for me - it's the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!! :-)

[Moony]

At least with FSM you know what your getting!

Moony

[TomB]

i just watched a south park episode on it

apparently they belive we are all inhabited by aliens souls

they might have just been taking the piss though :p

[Bil Gee]

Succesful science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion.". A decade later he created scientology and made much more than a million.

[Moony]

i just watched a south park episode on it

apparently they belive we are all inhabited by aliens souls

they might have just been taking the piss though :p

No.....they weren't taking the piss in that respect. Admittedly your average common or garden member might not be at that levelof belief cos they've not got to that level but they do teach it.

Moony

[Mitch]

Scientology is the unpleasant, racist little construct of a bigot more interested in getting rich quick than spirituality.

From The Guardian (well respected quality newspaper in the UK):
Ron Hubbard's Scientology: The Fundamentals Of Thought clearly states: "Unlike yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part that rocks, trees, walls, etc, can give them attention. The white saves people, prevents famine, floods, disease and revolution ... the yellow and brown races are not very progressive."

Do a search on Scientology and racism and see what you come up with.

Mitch

[flaming]

"Unlike yellow and brown people, the white does not usually believe he can get attention from matter or objects. The yellow and brown believe for the most part that rocks, trees, walls, etc, can give them attention. The white saves people, prevents famine, floods, disease and revolution ... the yellow and brown races are not very progressive." [/I]




:eek:

Ah so everyone hasn't been brainwashed by aliens, it was just a dream.

[AZeitung]

I referr you all, once again, to http://www.xenu.net

[tekkengod]

how is scientology any worse/more crazy than christianity/catholicisim?

[saru1968]

Hey i don't care what people believe, i just take exception when its rammed down my throat or you knock on my door on Christmas Day giving the 'Watchtower' away, when i told them i am devil cult they tend to leave..

:-)

[adouglasmhor]

Hey i don't care what people believe, i just take exception when its rammed down my throat or you knock on my door on Christmas Day giving the 'Watchtower' away, mine you when i told them i am devil cult they tend to leave..

:-)

I really want a goats head mask and some red robes so when god botherers come to the door i can answer in the full gear and go "oh so you are the virgins for the orgy, Where have you been we are all waiting?" who knows I might get lucky ;)

[Poop-Loops]

how is scientology any worse/more crazy than christianity/catholicisim?

Because Scientology is for nerds. :p

It is crazy and stupid. There is no denying this.

[dect69]

I believe that there is also a belief in reliving past lives and stuff - I think one bloke reported that he was a space walrus who'd fallen out of a UFO....

....honest!!


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

[BlindClown]

All religion is a joke , if its not a alien u believe in then its a god , who can believe there is one supreme beign above us all creating everything .. aliens probs more believeble story i have heard:P


ppl only accept christanity and the likes coz its beign going on for yers now , just u wait i bet this scientology crap catches on :P

also dont get me started on the bible hahahaha ( we wrote a book so it must be true )

[BendzR]

At least Religion acknowledges (usually) that it is, infact, Religion.

Scientology, has a nonsense name for starters. As if it is science-ish, which we all know it's not.

Scientology is just as bad as Intelligent Design. It tries to hide the agenda by using a misleading name. Intelligent Design is worse than Creationism, because at least Creationism is honest in the name, and same goes for Religions.

Scientology attacks Psychology, which I think is a more 'practical' science than the one attacked by Religion (Evolution).

So, yeah, it is worse than Religion TG. At least a little bit.

[Strafio]

Proper intelligent design argued properly is alright.
It's just the version they tried to push into schools that had a creationist agenda.
Proper Intelligent Design is just arguing for a creator who might still have used evolution as a means to create us. The creationist version pushes specifically for biblical creation.

[Topher]

Proper intelligent design argued properly is alright.
It's just the version they tried to push into schools that had a creationist agenda.
Proper Intelligent Design is just arguing for a creator who might still have used evolution as a means to create us. The creationist version pushes specifically for biblical creation.
Intelligent Design IS Creationism. Almost all proponents of it personally believe the Christian God is the designer, but in public they suggest any God, creation, or aliens as to appear unbiased.

The ONLY reason for ID was to try and slip passed the US separation of church and state law by repackaging creationism as a [pseudo]science. But they failed on all ground in the science arena.

[Poop-Loops]

Intelligent design is pseudo-science. For it to be real science, there would have to be proof or at least reason for a creator. There is none, so it's not valid.

[Matt_Bernius]

how is scientology any worse/more crazy than christianity/catholicisim?Perhaps the key reason is that your progression in Scientology (which is far more vertically structured than any form of Christianity) is based solely on how much you are capible of finacially donating to the church. Exclusing bad televangelists, while collections are taken in most churches your spiritual progression isn't based on how much you give.

Scientology's well established record of bankrupting people is a major strike against it. And that's before we get to its other cultish aspects.

But perhaps the thing that makes Scientology worse is their copyrighting and protection of all of their doctrine. The fact we know about Xenu is because ex-Scientologists have come forward and, at legal risk, revealed church secrets. Unlike a bible which can be purchased at any bookstore, you can't get your hands on the high level teachings of scientology. And if you do possess them, the Church will press legal action against you for having classified documents.

Then theres the entire dead agenting thing. While Christians did some pretty nasty things to their enemys, that was occuring in the rather far past (hundreds of years ago). Scientology is blackmailing, slandering, and threatening their critics in the present day.

- Matt

[Strafio]

Intelligent Design IS Creationism. Almost all proponents of it personally believe the Christian God is the designer, but in public they suggest any God, creation, or aliens as to appear unbiased.

The ONLY reason for ID was to try and slip passed the US separation of church and state law by repackaging creationism as a [pseudo]science. But they failed on all ground in the science arena.
Read what I said again.
The "Intelligent Design" they tried to teach in schools was creationism.
PROPER Intelligent Design (which was around long before creationist politicians took the name) is the theory that an intelligent being designed us. It doesn't pretend to be science, it doesn't contradict evolution, it's the theory that life is too complex to be an accident and that if we evolved then it's because we were designed to evolve.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong as I don't really know anything about it but it's not to be confused with the creationist version which was especially dodgy as it called itself science and saw itself as an alternative to evolution when a proper intelligent design theory has nothing to do with whether we evolved.

My, that was a long sentence with no commas to break it up! :eek:

[curious]

Although scientology is insane IMO. I'm not sure what is worse that or this http://www.timecube.com/

[Topher]

Read what I said again.
The "Intelligent Design" they tried to teach in schools was creationism.
PROPER Intelligent Design (which was around long before creationist politicians took the name) is the theory that an intelligent being designed us. It doesn't pretend to be science, it doesn't contradict evolution, it's the theory that life is too complex to be an accident and that if we evolved then it's because we were designed to evolve.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong as I don't really know anything about it but it's not to be confused with the creationist version which was especially dodgy as it called itself science and saw itself as an alternative to evolution when a proper intelligent design theory has nothing to do with whether we evolved.

My, that was a long sentence with no commas to break it up! :eek:
Thats usually called "Deism"

I've not heard of specifically "Intelligent Design" other than what I outlined.

[Poop-Loops]

Then theres the entire dead agenting thing. While Christians did some pretty nasty things to their enemys, that was occuring in the rather far past (hundreds of years ago). Scientology is blackmailing, slandering, and threatening their critics in the present day.

- Matt

Don't worry. In a few hundred years, they'll stop, and then they'll be just as good as Christianity.

[Atharel]

"The ONLY reason for ID was to try and slip passed the US separation of church and state law"

There is no such law. Some states have official religions, in fact.

Sorry, this meme has spread way too far and has to be stopped.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

That is the totality and extent of the law with regards to religion, and quite clearly says that Congress has no power over the free expression of religion and may not pass a law establishing a national religion or, probably, supporting one of any sort. Whether ID in the curriculum is a law is debatable, but it certainly isn't completely unreasonable for the judge iin question who decided the case to have ruled the way he did.

BUT he ruled the way he did because ID is full of scentific errors, not because it could be construed as slightly religious! Read the decision before saying such things!

The 1st amendment does not say that religion may not be present in the government. It does not say that Congressmen may not be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, or Mormon, and must put aside all their beliefs. Indeed, as politicians are citizens, their right to have and exercise their religions is specifically defended.

It does not say that religion must be banned from the public eye. It does not state that the policy of the United State government is that religion is a handicap to be hidden shamefully from the public view, despite popular opinion among certain groups. Completely the opposite. Religious expression is encouraged by this blanket protection levied upon it by the Constitution.

The government may not force people to follow or participate in a religion. That is all. This includes the members of the government! Despite how much it would please some to have all in the government having their own moralities, ethics, and outlooks on life.. that's not right, and the law reflects this. Think of how great it'd be if every Congressman was a Scientologist and acted on it - just the same as if they were an atheist desiring no religion anywhere and acted on it.

By the 14th amendment, this commandment has been considered to be extended to the state governments as well; this, however, was not the source of the dismissal of Intelligent Design. I say this as a cancer researcher working on a genetics degree - ID was just bad science, and that's why it was thrown out. The judge didn't feel the need to bring the so-called "separation of church and state" issue in because, honestly, it wouldn't clearly support a dismissal on something so purposefully non-religious as ID.

And that is it. There is no "separation of church and state law" - that was a phrase coined by Jefferson, but the words of one man, even those of a President, do not a law make. Apologies to the evangelical athests.

/rant

[Atharel]

Thats usually called "Deism"

I've not heard of specifically "Intelligent Design" other than what I outlined.

Strafio is correct.

"Deism" can overlap with Intelligent Design but is not the same. Deism does not necessarily postulate that life has a "higher" source, only the universe itself. Indeed, deism's "Blind Watchmaker" postulate heavily supports random evolution as a source to life, not the opposite.

[Strafio]

In Deism (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Deism&gwp=13) God specifically leaves us to it. So Deists would support ID but so would all Christians, including ones who took Genesis metaphorically and believe we evolved.

[Topher]

"Deism" can overlap with Intelligent Design but is not the same. Deism does not necessarily postulate that life has a "higher" source, only the universe itself. Indeed, deism's "Blind Watchmaker" postulate heavily supports random evolution as a source to life, not the opposite.
Who said evolution is random?

Deism for that matter varies. Some go no further that say a designer created the univrese, some also say evolution was started by a designer, some say evolution was started and helped by a designer, some say that the designer sometimes interacts with the universe/world.

There is no such law. Some states have official religions, in fact.

Sorry, this meme has spread way too far and has to be stopped.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The government may not force people to follow or participate in a religion.
In other words, the state (US government) should not promote or exclude a particular religion - commonly referred to as the “separation of church and state” - that the government should not force a particular religion/belief system on anyone.

Which states have official religions?

BUT he ruled the way he did because ID is full of scentific errors, not because it could be construed as slightly religious! Read the decision before saying such things!

The judge didn't feel the need to bring the so-called "separation of church and state" issue in because, honestly, it wouldn't clearly support a dismissal on something so purposefully non-religious as ID.
The judge ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. Intelligent Design is religion disguised as so called science because they knew that a religion would not be able to get taught in schools.

I have read the decision, you clearly haven’t.

[Atharel]

Who said evolution is random?
Are you proposing otherwise? Intelligent Design is non-random evolution. Evolution occurs as the macroscopic result of random events. Don't try to debate biology with me :Angel:


Deism for that matter varies. Some go no further that say a designer created the univrese, some also say evolution was started by a designer, some say evolution was started and helped by a designer, some say that the designer sometimes interacts with the universe/world.

Incorrect. Deists vary, deism doesn't. Deism is "The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation." (dictionary.com) A deist can have supra-deistic beliefs such as the one you describe, but some Christians believe in ghosts too although that has very little to do with their religion. Glad that's all cleared up.


In other words, the state (US government) should not promote or exclude a particular religion - commonly referred to as the “separation of church and state” - that the government should not force a particular religion/belief system on anyone.
Yes... including the lack thereof.

Which states have official religions?
http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm Part the First, articles II and II, as just one example. It isn't enforced, of course, but the legality *shrug*

The judge ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature. Intelligent Design is religion disguised as so called science because they knew that a religion would not be able to get taught in schools.

I have read the decision, you clearly haven’t.

"untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion" were his words, not that it was essentially religious. Notice the large emphasis placed on science: "untestable", "hypothesis".. he was emphasizing that it was directly incompatible with science, and that the reason for its proposal was likely religion. He does not state that something that accomodates science and is somewhat religious is forbidden -i.e, Intelligent Design as mentioned by Strafio- is illegal. So sorry. And I have read the decision, it was required for a political science class.

[bonita]

i just love how posts in here just evolve in whatever direction

[tekkengod]

Perhaps the key reason is that your progression in Scientology (which is far more vertically structured than any form of Christianity) is based solely on how much you are capible of finacially donating to the church. Exclusing bad televangelists, while collections are taken in most churches your spiritual progression isn't based on how much you give.

Scientology's well established record of bankrupting people is a major strike against it. And that's before we get to its other cultish aspects.

But perhaps the thing that makes Scientology worse is their copyrighting and protection of all of their doctrine. The fact we know about Xenu is because ex-Scientologists have come forward and, at legal risk, revealed church secrets. Unlike a bible which can be purchased at any bookstore, you can't get your hands on the high level teachings of scientology. And if you do possess them, the Church will press legal action against you for having classified documents.

Then theres the entire dead agenting thing. While Christians did some pretty nasty things to their enemys, that was occuring in the rather far past (hundreds of years ago). Scientology is blackmailing, slandering, and threatening their critics in the present day.

- Matt

i won't argue that thei'r nuts and a little too secretive, but they're open about being both the catholics wern't. and to be honest, i'd prefer legal action over the whole burn you alive/crucify you thing.

[slipthejab]

Tekkengod,

Do you worry so much about God/religion/Christianity because you're afraid you're going to burn in hell because you got caught red handed telling fibs about winning video game trophies in competitions that didn't even exist? :confused:

Just curious.:p

[bonita]

slipthejab--very funny

[Topher]

Are you proposing otherwise? Intelligent Design is non-random evolution. Evolution occurs as the macroscopic result of random events. Don't try to debate biology with me :Angel:
Evolution is not random.

Genetic mutations are random; natural selection (evolution) is anything but random.

A deist can have supra-deistic beliefs such as the one you describe, but some Christians believe in ghosts too although that has very little to do with their religion. Glad that's all cleared up.
I don’t see not difference with what I said. The point is there is not one definition which people follow.

"untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion" were his words, not that it was essentially religious. Notice the large emphasis placed on science: "untestable", "hypothesis".. he was emphasizing that it was directly incompatible with science, and that the reason for its proposal was likely religion. He does not state that something that accomodates science and is somewhat religious is forbidden -i.e, Intelligent Design as mentioned by Strafio- is illegal. So sorry. And I have read the decision, it was required for a political science class.
He was stating that something which promotes religion cannot be taught in school. And it was incompatible with science because it had a religious agenda and didn't act in a scientific manner.

Oh, and “hypothesis” does not automatically denote science. ID wasn't just bad science, it was religion masquerading as bad science.

[AZeitung]

how is scientology any worse/more crazy than christianity/catholicisim?
Um. . . did you look at the website I posted? Faking bomb threats from people to try and get them commited to institutions, deliberately trying to get rich off of people, being involved in numerous illegal activities, teaching that telling their doctrine to non-believers can hurt them, threatening people with physical harm who speak out against them, preaching doctrine that the higher ups know is false. The above activities aren't just engaged in by members of the church, but direct orders from the top down that the entire organization supports. Scientology deliberately tries to *harm* its followers as well as those who oppose it.

i won't argue that thei'r nuts and a little too secretive, but they're open about being both the catholics wern't. and to be honest, i'd prefer legal action over the whole burn you alive/crucify you thing.
If you had actually read Matt Bernius' post, you would see that the scientologists haven't been open about anything. They don't even tell the new members of their church their "real" doctrine until they've been around for years and paid a lot of money. As he said, the only reason we know any of this is because of ex-scientologists that have told us at their own risk.

[Topher]

If you had actually read Matt Bernius' post, you would see that the scientologists haven't been open about anything. They don't even tell the new members of their church their "real" doctrine until they've been around for years and paid a lot of money. As he said, the only reason we know any of this is because of ex-scientologists that have told us at their own risk.
But as their wacky belief is everywhere surely they don’t still charge people to get it. If they do then people who pay for it deserved to be ripped off.

[Atharel]

Evolution is not random.

Genetic mutations are random; natural selection (evolution) is anything but random.
Mutation is not the only source of randomness. Environment, choice of mate, organism's "luck", etc, etc. Evolution is the macroscopic result of randomness, sorry.


I don’t see not difference with what I said. The point is there is not one definition which people follow.
The point that I was making is that deism is separate from Intelligent Deisgn, and the implied point was that Intelligent Design isn't necessarily connected with any religion, even such a quasi-religion as deism.

He was stating that something which promotes religion cannot be taught in school. And it was incompatible with science because it had a religious agenda and didn't act in a scientific manner.

Oh, and “hypothesis” does not automatically denote science. ID wasn't just bad science, it was religion masquerading as bad science.

It was incompatible with science because the "science" involved in the actual curriculum was nothing of the sort! Its critiques of evolution are not grounded in science and thus the theory is not science, hence it may not be taught in a science class nor required on a science exam. It wasn't incompatible because of a religious agenda - it's rubbish because that's all it is.

Where did I say that one word automatically denotes anything? I stated quite clearly that he was emphasizing that the matter was one simply of science. If this "ID" curriculum had not been chock full of idiocy, the decision may have gone either way and certainly would have been appealed.

By the way: the government should not force a particular religion/belief system on anyone.
ID is not a particular religion. It meshes with nearly every religion - I can't think of one that it doesn't fit. But it is not purely materialist and purely atheistic, and as such, is abhorrent.. to some.


I'm ending my involvement in thread de-railing here. My point --that "separation of church and state" as used by evangelical atheists has no Constitutional basis and in fact is quite the opposite of direct Constitutional mandate-- is made. I apologize to the OP for the tangential topic.

replying to the topic: Scientology wins for craziest modern religion, yes :D

[AZeitung]

But as their wacky belief is everywhere surely they don’t still charge people to get it. If they do then people who pay for it deserved to be ripped off.
Yes, they do. You have to pay money to get to higher levels. The higher the level you get to, the more you learn.

Go to the website I posted: www.xenu.net

edit: here, read this part: http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm - not just the Scientology story, but the part after it.

[Topher]

Mutation is not the only source of randomness. Environment, choice of mate, organism's "luck", etc, etc. Evolution is the macroscopic result of randomness, sorry.
Mutations occur, but evolution is the result of natural selection, a non-random process. That is it’s mechanism.

It was incompatible with science because the "science" involved in the actual curriculum was nothing of the sort! Its critiques of evolution are not grounded in science and thus the theory is not science, hence it may not be taught in a science class nor required on a science exam. It wasn't incompatible because of a religious agenda - it's rubbish because that's all it is.
That’s my point. It was bad science because it was religion. It was religion pretending to be science in order to try and get into the education system.

ID is not a particular religion. It meshes with nearly every religion - I can't think of one that it doesn't fit. But it is not purely materialist and purely atheistic, and as such, is abhorrent.. to some.
I agree, the concepts of Intelligent Design relate to most religions, but “Intelligent Design” is basically an upgraded version of Christian Creationism. It is spearheaded by Christians and nearly every proponent of ID is Christian.

[Strafio]

Only the version of ID that they were trying to push into schools.
There was ID (which wasn't necessarily creationism) long before they hi-jacked the name. Basically, their theory was as ID as much as it was science. :)

[Poop-Loops]

What was it? You can say whatever you want, but until you actually show us what the "theory" was, we will just say it's religion.

Because it likely is, anyway.

[Strafio]

Intelligent Design is theories about an intelligent designer.
Theories that we must've been created by a God.
Creationism shares that but also goes on to dismiss evolutionary theory.
ID says that a God created us.
Creationism goes onto say that he did it exactly as Genesis says.

It is philosophy based rather than science (although science will doubtlessly be used). Not very familiar with its arguments but it's very different from creationism. When you say it's religion do you mean that it's religious philosophy? Being philosophy about God it is theology.
Or are you trying to imply that it's dogmatic and people who believe it do so because their "holy book" tells them to? Nah. Even if it's wrong, it's properly reasoned for.

[Poop-Loops]

Intelligent Design is theories about an intelligent designer.
Theories that we must've been created by a God.
Creationism shares that but also goes on to dismiss evolutionary theory.
ID says that a God created us.
Creationism goes onto say that he did it exactly as Genesis says.

I don't see how that is different other than on a surface level. Neither have any scientific or logical support.

It is philosophy based rather than science (although science will doubtlessly be used). Not very familiar with its arguments but it's very different from creationism. When you say it's religion do you mean that it's religious philosophy? Being philosophy about God it is theology.
Or are you trying to imply that it's dogmatic and people who believe it do so because their "holy book" tells them to? Nah. Even if it's wrong, it's properly reasoned for.

Religion = believing =/= proof

This is based on believing something without proof, hence religion.

If you're not familiar with its arguements, how can you possibly say it's different than Creationism?

[Topher]

What was it? You can say whatever you want, but until you actually show us what the "theory" was, we will just say it's religion.

Because it likely is, anyway.
I don’t think no one can they their ID wasn’t ID. They were after all auguring for an intelligent designer.

Who else have prominently used the term "Intelligent Design" other than the Christian groups? I've only heard the term ID being associated with them. Other than that, Deism and i'd guess Scientology to some degree are others who can technically fit in the ID description, but they don't use it.

[Topher]

Intelligent Design is theories about an intelligent designer.
Theories that we must've been created by a God.
Creationism shares that but also goes on to dismiss evolutionary theory.
ID says that a God created us.
Creationism goes onto say that he did it exactly as Genesis says.

It is philosophy based rather than science (although science will doubtlessly be used). Not very familiar with its arguments but it's very different from creationism. When you say it's religion do you mean that it's religious philosophy? Being philosophy about God it is theology.
Or are you trying to imply that it's dogmatic and people who believe it do so because their "holy book" tells them to? Nah. Even if it's wrong, it's properly reasoned for.
It's religion because it is. Intelligent Design only started being used after Creationism kept loosing in the US courts.

For example, The [pseudo]science text book promoted by the Intelligent Design movement was originally a creationist [pseudo]science text book. After the court cases in the 80’s in which creationism was stopped they simply changed “creationism” to “intelligent design”, “god” to “designer” or “creator” and changed or removed all mention of specific Christian points, then republished it.

They refrain from mentioning any specific Christian or religion based arguments in their arguments and try (emphasis on 'try') to sound scientific. Many of their arguments are re-worked creationist arguments, such the argument from design. Nevertheless, all of their arguments have been refute by real scientists.

All their proponents are Christian but they try not to publicly argue for the Christian God to avoid directly relating it to Christianity. They often claim the possibility of aliens creating or 'seeding' us to sound unbias.

I understand the philosophy of ID can apply to almost all God-based religions but my point is more with "Intelligent Design" itself, not it's philosophy.

"The objective (of the Wedge Strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" - "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy" Phillip E. Johnson, founder of Intelligent Design movement.

[Strafio]

I thought that there was ID independently of the movement and they'd used the name for that reason. Maybe I was mis-informed.

[Hiroji]

It may be a little daft, but its probably closer to the truth than most other religions. What would be the point in an after life anyway?.

Its all a fairytale. Much like santa clause and the tooth fairy.

Just my view, no offence to anyone.

[Topher]

I thought that there was ID independently of the movement and they'd used the name for that reason. Maybe I was mis-informed.
You are right that the concept of intelligent design – an intelligent designer/creator/being – is not unique itself. It does after all go way back to Greek philosophy. The phrase “intelligent design”, has also been used a few times when arguing for the above concepts, however no one had really ‘taken’ the phrase and firmly promoted it specifically for their cause other than the creationists. When they finally realised creationism was never going to be allowed in science classrooms they had to try and sneak it in.

The predominant modern use of the term began after the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called ‘Sources of Information Content in DNA.’ He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of ‘Of Pandas and People’. In drafts of the book ‘Of Pandas and People’, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception to ‘intelligent design’. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson, considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement, went on to work with Meyer, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture in forming and executing the wedge strategy.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)

Incidentally now the book "Of Pandas and People" has been exposed as being a creationist book they are republishing it with a new name. :rolleyes:

[tekkengod]

Um. . . did you look at the website I posted? Faking bomb threats from people to try and get them commited to institutions, deliberately trying to get rich off of people, being involved in numerous illegal activities, teaching that telling their doctrine to non-believers can hurt them, threatening people with physical harm who speak out against them, preaching doctrine that the higher ups know is false. The above activities aren't just engaged in by members of the church, but direct orders from the top down that the entire organization supports. Scientology deliberately tries to *harm* its followers as well as those who oppose it.


If you had actually read Matt Bernius' post, you would see that the scientologists haven't been open about anything. They don't even tell the new members of their church their "real" doctrine until they've been around for years and paid a lot of money. As he said, the only reason we know any of this is because of ex-scientologists that have told us at their own risk.


again, i'm NOT ARGUING THEY ARE MORE FANATICAL! i'm saying that the ideas on jesus/xenu are equal in thier respects, but YES i know they do more direct attack type actions.

[Capt Ann]

Uhhh, Tekken, bro.....

Did you happen to notice that the guy who chose the screen name "flaming" only posted one post? Ever? And it was to start an argument about 'crazy scientology'??

I know you have your opinions about all-things-religious, but I'm surprised you fell for his bait.

[Matt_Bernius]

i won't argue that thei'r nuts and a little too secretive, but they're open about being both the catholics wern't. and to be honest, i'd prefer legal action over the whole burn you alive/crucify you thing.No actually you're stretching as usual. Tom Cruise (the most public voice of scientology) states that theres no problem with being both catholoic and being a scientologist (or any other major religion). He fails to mention that Scientologists believe in reincarnation, which is completely against Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) belief. The reason for this is that reincarnation is one of the later "protected" lessons of Scientology. For that matter, the only reason we know about Xenu is people have come out and talked about it (at legal threat to themselves). Jesus is not proprietary information.

Beyond that, the burning at the stake (which by the way happened centuries ago at last count)... you should read more about Scientology's current practices of dead agenting, blackmail, extortion, and bankrupting members. Further look into their dubious medical care facilities and questionable "drug rehabilitiation" programs (a number of patients have died under their care... I suggest reading up on Clearwater). All of this is information that the Church is actively working to supress.

While I don't take away from bone headed, cruel, and dangerous things that the Christian Church has done in the past, to try and compare present practices against those of Scientology is a big stretch. But don't let that stop you.

- Matt

[Poop-Loops]

While I don't take away from bone headed, cruel, and dangerous things that the Christian Church has done in the past, to try and compare present practices against those of Scientology is a big stretch. But don't let that stop you.

- Matt

Like I said, we just have to wait a few hundred years, and then they will stop. Then we can say "Oh, but 'XXXX religion' is much worse than Scientology, since that's all in the past!"

[Matt_Bernius]

Like I said, we just have to wait a few hundred years, and then they will stop. Then we can say "Oh, but 'XXXX religion' is much worse than Scientology, since that's all in the past!"And it was a dumb arguement the first time you suggested it as well.

- Matt

[medi]

'XXXX religion' is much worse than Scientology, since that's all in the past!"


I'm actually a follower of the XXX religion... we worship the great god Thumbnail. 20 seconds at a time.

[blessed_samurai]

You guys have ADD. This thread is about Scientology and I have to wade through all these posts about ID/Creationism.

[slipthejab]

I'm actually a follower of the XXX religion... we worship the great god Thumbnail. 20 seconds at a time.

ROTFLMAO!!! :p

[holyheadjch]

dude, seriously, that is like so much more wierd than scientology,

[Poop-Loops]

And it was a dumb arguement the first time you suggested it as well.

- Matt

And yet you didn't refute it last time.

Christianity does horrible things to get followers.

It stops.

People say "awww.... but they said they're sorry..."

How does this differ from what Scientology is doing?

[Matt_Bernius]

And yet you didn't refute it last time.

Christianity does horrible things to get followers.

It stops.

People say "awww.... but they said they're sorry..."

How does this differ from what Scientology is doing?Quite frankly I didn't refute it because it was so crappy of an arguement. And it smacks of the worst type of historical relativism. By this model we shouldn't be appalled by any current crimes against humanity. Clearly we should forget about the Holocaust because Hitler made the trains run on time and god, what culture hasn't committed Genocide at somepoint in its history. I mean American's (English, Dutch, French) exterminated Native Americans by the boat load, enslaved and destroyed countless indigenous cultures in Africa, Latin American and the near and far East. Clearly, based on this arguement, you think that Americans are as bad (or perhaps as good) as Nazi's.

As for those folks in Sudan, well, if we wait hundreds of years what's going on right now should be ok in the long run.

That's the idocy of your arguement.

Thanks for playing.

- Matt

[Poop-Loops]

Quite frankly I didn't refute it because it was so crappy of an arguement. And it smacks of the worst type of historical relativism. By this model we shouldn't be appalled by any current crimes against humanity. Clearly we should forget about the Holocaust because Hitler made the trains run on time and god, what culture hasn't committed Genocide at somepoint in its history. I mean American's (English, Dutch, French) exterminated Native Americans by the boat load, enslaved and destroyed countless indigenous cultures in Africa, Latin American and the near and far East. Clearly, based on this arguement, you think that Americans are as bad (or perhaps as good) as Nazi's.

As for those folks in Sudan, well, if we wait hundreds of years what's going on right now should be ok in the long run.

That's the idocy of your arguement.

Thanks for playing.

- Matt

You can't be serious! Are you THAT dense? I meant that things in the past are STILL BAD. To claim that something isn't bad anymore because it was "in the past" is a ridiculous excuse. Christianity is just as bad now as it was before. It got most of its followers through brute force and intimidation. No different than Scientology is doing now.

[Matt_Bernius]

You can't be serious! Are you THAT dense? I meant that things in the past are STILL BAD. To claim that something isn't bad anymore because it was "in the past" is a ridiculous excuse. Christianity is just as bad now as it was before. It got most of its followers through brute force and intimidation. No different than Scientology is doing now.Exactly! Thats why it's clear that, if you are being internally constant with your arguement, you feel that Americans are just as bad as Nazis and other genocidal cultures (perhaps you'd feel we're even worse since we never actually had any formal punishment for our attacks on Native Americans and Africans). And I hope that you support slave reporations.

Like I said, the arguement is crap and it demonstrates a lack of critical thinking.

- Matt

[holyheadjch]

Exactly! Thats why it's clear that, if you are being internally constant with your arguement, you feel that Americans are just as bad as Nazis and other genocidal cultures (perhaps you'd feel we're even worse since we never actually had any formal punishment for our attacks on Native Americans and Africans). And I hope that you support slave reporations.

Like I said, the arguement is crap and it demonstrates a lack of critical thinking.

- Matt
I'm interested in why you think that the Nazis trying to wipe out the Jews is somehow worse than culture abc wiping out culture xyz?

[Matt_Bernius]

I'm interested in why you think that the Nazis trying to wipe out the Jews is somehow worse than culture abc wiping out culture xyz?I don't actually.

The problem with Pooploop's arguement is that it doesn't account for change and the possibility of forgiveness and non-violent reconciliation.

The idea that culture/group/organization X is still responsible for and should always be thought of as guilty of (and defined by) crimes that were committed decades and centuries ago just doesn't work. No one gets out clean. We're all guilty and in that case no one should be throwing stones.

I'm not advocating forgiving and forgetting. The genocide campaigns carried out against Native Americans should not be forgotten. But to hold current Americans resposible for giving small pox infected blankets to tribes would be the same as holding current Germans responsible for Nazi attrocities.

Both America and Germany (as nations) still have things to account for (America arguably more than Germany in many respects).

Pooploops reduction is that because the Catholic church engaged in reprehensible behavior in the past, the current church is evil (exact words "just as bad now as it was before"). Essentially that the past has forever stained the future. That just doesn't work. Either that or we're all guilty and should be summarily punished. Hence its a faulty reduction.

This is not to say that I don't have issues with many (not all) of the Church's social policies. But compared to the rather actual crimes that the Church of $cientology is currently engaged in (and being investigated for), there is no comparison. So if he's suggesting that current Catholic practices are as bad current Co$ practices... well that alone demonstrates a lack of objective understanding that should completely undercut his arguement and shows how he's blinded by his own dogma.

And I'm happy to state that if the Co$ was to open all of it's books, stop basing advancement on monitary donations, and cease a number of distructive cult like practices, a number of its critics, myself included, would live-and-let-live.

- Matt

[holyheadjch]

ok, I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Kwajman]

Hey, isn't that the one with the Tom "Nutcase" Cruise? The religion demanded that Katie have a "silent" birth with no expression of pain......


I'd a ripped his throat out.

[Topher]

You need to realise that the Catholic Church isn’t really committing any crime (to my knowledge), Scientology is.

[aikiMac]

I'd a ripped his throat out.
Come on, K Man, tell us how you feel. :D :p

[medi]

Hey, isn't that the one with the Tom "Nutcase" Cruise? The religion demanded that Katie have a "silent" birth with no expression of pain......


I'd a ripped his throat out.


Vic Reeves on Cruise "I wonder if he'd stay silent if I kicked him in the balls."

[Topher]

Vic Reeves on Cruise "I wonder if he'd stay silent if I kicked him in the balls."
I'd soooooo love to test that out! :D

[Poop-Loops]

You need to realise that the Catholic Church isn’t really committing any crime (to my knowledge), Scientology is.

That's not my point, though. The Catholic church would not have gotten so big in the first place without committing those acts. So saying "aww... they said they're sorry!" is not good, because they have a lot to fall back on now. They don't NEED to be evil anymore, since they're not going away any time soon. I think they shouldn't be let off the hook that easy.

America is also different, in that it never really stopped exploiting people. It's just more convenient to not talk about it.

[Matt_Bernius]

America is also different, in that it never really stopped exploiting people. It's just more convenient to not talk about it.Good to hear that as an internally consistent Citizen of the corrupt American culture you must be:

1. In favor of slave reporations.
2. Illegal Immigation Amnesty.
3. A complete Welfare State.
4. Socialism.

I expect to see you defending all of these in future posts.

If not, please dismount your ideological high horse right now and enjoy the hipocratic lifestyle with the rest of us.

Oh, and do me a favor and way off all currently non rule breaking religions.

- Matt