Scientology: Digging the Dirt

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Good can we talk about scientology then? If I wanted to have a long dick contest about whose beliefs are most rational, I would have started a thread about that.[/quote]

Isn’t that exactly the type of thread you’ve started here?

[/quote]
It seems despite my best efforts that’s what it’s going to turn out to be. So be it.

Whether their beliefs are rational or not, I don’t know I don’t know what they actually believe. It’s apparently a big secret locked in a safe only unlockable to those who have millions to spend.
My main inquiry is the behavior of the people in the organization, according to former members I understand to be quite nefarious. And it runs from the top down, the spying, the isolation of it’s members, the requiring of mothers to get abortions, etc. Could they be lying? Sure. It could all be sweetness and light. I am apt to be negative towards it, certainly, but it’s based on primary negative information. Anything positive is locked in a ‘pay to play’ vault. While I can find a genuineness in other faiths, or even lack of faiths, I see no such genuineness here. It’s even been labeled a ‘dangerous cult’ in British courts.

My question if you recall is ‘what do people know about it?’ What’s been their experience. It’s not specifically to knock it, but seeking any good information to give it any regard as anything legitimate whatsoever. So rather than knock me, I would like information. Make me see the light.

But my inquiry was partially based on the following documentary. I have spent some time looking at more than this, but this is more or less it’s genesis:

[/quote]

None of it is super-secret anymore. Jewbacca linked all of their “secret” “technology” on the first page of the thread.

The South Park episode I mentioned is also really funny and uses the same source material - actual Scientology teachings - as the joke. It knocks the hell out of this wacky set of beliefs.

I’ve also watched the documentary you linked and enjoyed it quite a bit.

As far as your inquiry about “legitimacy”, well that’s what I’ve been saying the whole time. This particular made-up story about the universe is just as legitimate as any other made-up story about the universe. So in that respect it is nothing new or unique at all, and no less legitimate than any other set of beliefs (from my point of view, at least).

There have been countless creation myths dreamed up over time. People have been judging others for not believing in their favored creation myth for as long as creation myths have been around. Scientology is just another bullshit story being sold to people who want to buy it.

I believe Scientology attracts people the way all religions do. It gives them some answers they seek about life, gives them a community who they automatically have something in common with, maybe gives them purpose that they were lacking before, and it generally appeals to them in a way that other religions do not.

What’s it matter if it is all based on made-up bullshit? There’s thousands of religions and they can’t all be right, so there’s obviously quite a bit of made-up bullshit floating around that gets taken very seriously. What’s one more?

Unless we can manage to dig up an actual practicing Scientologist to chime in, I would be willing to bet that they follow Scientology for the same basic reasons that people follow . They probably believe in what they are being told. Faith is obviously very important. The community and lifestyle of church participation probably appeals to them as well. Perhaps they believe it is a path to immortality of sorts.

In short, they probably follow Scientology for many of the same fundamental reasons that you follow Christianity. I don’t think that statement is a stretch at all.

And I wouldn’t place too much stock in what British Courts believe is safe or dangerous. A fart in the wind is one match strike away from being considered military ordnance by British Courts, but that’s another topic altogether.

[/quote]

And I disagree with why you think people of scientology believe in it. But you are right, unless we have a scientologist to explain it, or some one who has done a fair amount of research on it we won’t truly know.
Again, it’s more their behavior than their beliefs that catch my critical eye. I get one person’s reality is another man’s myth. Not really worried as much about that. The paranoid schizophrenic behavior of the church that piqued my interest. Is it really tied to their beliefs? Or are they protecting themselves from being found out about criminal activites. Or maybe their big secret is there is no big secret, beats me.
To say it’s the same reason anybody believes any religion, I don’t buy. Most religion has a deep historical basis and theology that ties in with reason. Does scientology have that? Is Xenu and his Theatons just a ruse to cover up something else? It certainly does not have history going for it. If it has any reasonable basis for it, I sure haven’t seen it.

And your wrong about the world’s religions. Of the major ones, save for Buddhism, all share a common core of beliefs. Belief in a Creator of existence, belief in existence and share basic moral tenets. Their acts of worship or communication may be different, but we all share those basic beliefs.
And you and other atheists believe in existence for it’s own sake. And you have your own leadership who controls what the flock believe. You have Dennet, Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins. Well, 3 horsemen and a monkey riding a dog in the case of Dawkins, who has appeared to come unglued in recent years. I’ll be damned if you weren’t influenced by those guys yourself and find yourself quoting them while attacking religion. Your beliefs are no more founded or unfounded than mine. The question still remains why scientology? Basically, I am guessing you don’t know. Neither do I, I would like to find the relevant basic truth, or core philosophy behind it. Then maybe I would understand why someone would want to be it, in the face of the negativity that it seems to represent.[/quote]

Have I offended you somehow, Pat? You presume to know an awful lot about me and I’m detecting a lot of animosity. I don’t feel like I’ve been disrespectful toward you or your beliefs in this thread or others, unless you find the fact that I don’t believe what you do to be inherently offensive. I realize my willingness to discuss the reasons why I don’t believe can rub people the wrong way, but please do not confuse that with an attack on you.

For the record, I’ve read one Sam Harris book maybe 5 years ago. Nothing on atheism by the other guys you mention except some articles here and there on the internet. I read that Sam Harris book about 20 years AFTER I arrived at atheism on my own while being raised in a Roman Catholic family, long before I was ever exposed to any thoughts by the people you believe are my leaders. I went through all of my sacraments after Communion without believing one bit of it and not knowing that Harris or Dawkins even existed.

Insulting my intelligence or my character is not necessary to have a productive conversation here. So please stop.

Back on topic. Of course Xenu and his thetans are a ruse. The whole thing is a great big scam built on cheesy fiction to get the people at the top rich. I’m sure most Scientologists don’t see it that way, but how many members of the 700 Club care how Pat Robertson got the money to fund a shady mining operation in Zaire? The Catholics have their own country and unimaginable wealth that makes Scientologists look like riff-raff, yet believers keep on believing. Sun Myung Moon founded a wacky religion of his own and became exceedingly wealthy, and his flock, the “Moonies”, seem to have rock-solid faith in their leaders.

Faith seems to have a way of shielding people from confronting unpleasant truths about what they believe and the churches that advance those beliefs. All of those religious leaders were getting rich off of people’s genuine faith, yet they all remain wildly popular in their own circles.

I see no reason to believe that Scientology is any different. The simple fact is that outlandish and even unbelievable ideas can have a way of deeply resonating with people on many different levels. I really don’t think anything else is happening here, and I think that there are plenty of Scientologists whose faith is just as deep and meaningful to them as yours is to you.

42

Twojar, you opined in an earlier post that you couldn’t speak for me, but I believe you underestimate yourself. You have done an admirable job in expressing pretty much my feeling on the matter.

And who is to say that Moses, if he actually existed (and the best Israeli archaeologists, when tasked with finding “the property deeds” of Israel by David Ben Gurion, concluded that he probably did not, nor did the Exodus, nor even the enslaved Israelites in Egypt), was not just as cynical and avaricious as Hubbard?

Educated Egyptian nobility, leader of a successful slave revolt, leads his illiterate, superstitious, gullible followers to an active volcano, which his time in Midian has shown him to be scary but not terribly dangerous, then disappears within the smoke and lightning to emerge days later with a set of laws borrowed from the Egyptian legal system (with some Midianite Yahweh volcano cult ritual thrown in for flavor), but with a subset of laws essentially carving out a very privileged niche for his relatives, the Levites: no military service, a life of relative comfort and luxury, and free meat. Not a bad deal.

43

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Twojar, you opined in an earlier post that you couldn’t speak for me, but I believe you underestimate yourself. You have done an admirable job in expressing pretty much my feeling on the matter.

And who is to say that Moses, if he actually existed (and the best Israeli archaeologists, when tasked with finding “the property deeds” of Israel by David Ben Gurion, concluded that he probably did not, nor did the Exodus, nor even the enslaved Israelites in Egypt), was not just as cynical and avaricious as Hubbard?

Educated Egyptian nobility, leader of a successful slave revolt, leads his illiterate, superstitious, gullible followers to an active volcano, which his time in Midian has shown him to be scary but not terribly dangerous, then disappears within the smoke and lightning to emerge days later with a set of laws borrowed from the Egyptian legal system (with some Midianite Yahweh volcano cult ritual thrown in for flavor), but with a subset of laws essentially carving out a very privileged niche for his relatives, the Levites: no military service, a life of relative comfort and luxury, and free meat. Not a bad deal.[/quote]

Thanks Varq.

As an atheist, you can either be a dick about it, or not. I try not to be, but involving myself in an honest discussion about faith, or lack thereof, often has a way of pissing people off. I think atheists (myself included) can do a better job of discussing this in ways that are respectful to believers, and I also think believers can do a better job of understanding the perspective of non-believers.

In that sense, Scientology can be instructive. It is an easy religion not to believe in, after all. If someone can get their head around why they don’t believe in Xenu, or Thor, or Ghanesh, or any other of the countless supernatural beings worshipped by millions or billions of other people, they may come to understand why I don’t believe in their supernatural object of worship.

Interesting theory about Moses you have there. Whenever Hollywood gets around to remaking History of the World, Part I they should cast Seth Rogan as Moses and run with your theory.

44

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

As an atheist, you can either be a dick about it, or not. I try not to be, but involving myself in an honest discussion about faith, or lack thereof, often has a way of pissing people off. I think atheists (myself included) can do a better job of discussing this in ways that are respectful to believers,[/quote]

Simply being mindful of the adjectives used to describe the religion or belief would go a long way in accomplishing this.

Just like in journalism, it is the adjectives that show the bias and create the animosity.

Sure. But it will only happen when they aren’t put on the defensive.

45

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Sounds like Jehovah’s Witnesses, they encourage shunning a family member if they choose to leave.
I don’t think any religion can be considered loving when they encourage something like that.[/quote]

Maybe that’s really the distinction between a cult and a religion. In a cult, you are not free to seek information, you are not free to leave. In a religion, you are free to seek information and leave anytime you want.
Leaving anytime you want is rather important. If you are not there of your own freewill, then your faith is not real, it’s imposed.
The more I hear about scientology, the more grotesque it appears to me. To hear Tom Cruise talk like that, makes me think he has lost his mind. But I think he really likes it. He may not be free to leave, but it doesn’t sound like he ever wants to.
I guess it feeds his overly large ego. Making him think, where ever he goes, he’s always the smartest man in the room. After all, he has all the answers. To what I don’t know, but he has all the answers, nonetheless.[/quote]

Yeah, my friend that left, any time she had questions, they had pamphlets or brochures that they had already made to “answer” her questions. So I told her maybe you should look at information from a third party or multiple sources to decide for yourself. Basically they were trying to color her options.

46

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Good can we talk about scientology then? If I wanted to have a long dick contest about whose beliefs are most rational, I would have started a thread about that.[/quote]

Isn’t that exactly the type of thread you’ve started here?

[/quote]
It seems despite my best efforts that’s what it’s going to turn out to be. So be it.

Whether their beliefs are rational or not, I don’t know I don’t know what they actually believe. It’s apparently a big secret locked in a safe only unlockable to those who have millions to spend.
My main inquiry is the behavior of the people in the organization, according to former members I understand to be quite nefarious. And it runs from the top down, the spying, the isolation of it’s members, the requiring of mothers to get abortions, etc. Could they be lying? Sure. It could all be sweetness and light. I am apt to be negative towards it, certainly, but it’s based on primary negative information. Anything positive is locked in a ‘pay to play’ vault. While I can find a genuineness in other faiths, or even lack of faiths, I see no such genuineness here. It’s even been labeled a ‘dangerous cult’ in British courts.

My question if you recall is ‘what do people know about it?’ What’s been their experience. It’s not specifically to knock it, but seeking any good information to give it any regard as anything legitimate whatsoever. So rather than knock me, I would like information. Make me see the light.

But my inquiry was partially based on the following documentary. I have spent some time looking at more than this, but this is more or less it’s genesis:

[/quote]

None of it is super-secret anymore. Jewbacca linked all of their “secret” “technology” on the first page of the thread.

The South Park episode I mentioned is also really funny and uses the same source material - actual Scientology teachings - as the joke. It knocks the hell out of this wacky set of beliefs.

I’ve also watched the documentary you linked and enjoyed it quite a bit.

As far as your inquiry about “legitimacy”, well that’s what I’ve been saying the whole time. This particular made-up story about the universe is just as legitimate as any other made-up story about the universe. So in that respect it is nothing new or unique at all, and no less legitimate than any other set of beliefs (from my point of view, at least).

There have been countless creation myths dreamed up over time. People have been judging others for not believing in their favored creation myth for as long as creation myths have been around. Scientology is just another bullshit story being sold to people who want to buy it.

I believe Scientology attracts people the way all religions do. It gives them some answers they seek about life, gives them a community who they automatically have something in common with, maybe gives them purpose that they were lacking before, and it generally appeals to them in a way that other religions do not.

What’s it matter if it is all based on made-up bullshit? There’s thousands of religions and they can’t all be right, so there’s obviously quite a bit of made-up bullshit floating around that gets taken very seriously. What’s one more?

Unless we can manage to dig up an actual practicing Scientologist to chime in, I would be willing to bet that they follow Scientology for the same basic reasons that people follow . They probably believe in what they are being told. Faith is obviously very important. The community and lifestyle of church participation probably appeals to them as well. Perhaps they believe it is a path to immortality of sorts.

In short, they probably follow Scientology for many of the same fundamental reasons that you follow Christianity. I don’t think that statement is a stretch at all.

And I wouldn’t place too much stock in what British Courts believe is safe or dangerous. A fart in the wind is one match strike away from being considered military ordnance by British Courts, but that’s another topic altogether.

[/quote]

And I disagree with why you think people of scientology believe in it. But you are right, unless we have a scientologist to explain it, or some one who has done a fair amount of research on it we won’t truly know.
Again, it’s more their behavior than their beliefs that catch my critical eye. I get one person’s reality is another man’s myth. Not really worried as much about that. The paranoid schizophrenic behavior of the church that piqued my interest. Is it really tied to their beliefs? Or are they protecting themselves from being found out about criminal activites. Or maybe their big secret is there is no big secret, beats me.
To say it’s the same reason anybody believes any religion, I don’t buy. Most religion has a deep historical basis and theology that ties in with reason. Does scientology have that? Is Xenu and his Theatons just a ruse to cover up something else? It certainly does not have history going for it. If it has any reasonable basis for it, I sure haven’t seen it.

And your wrong about the world’s religions. Of the major ones, save for Buddhism, all share a common core of beliefs. Belief in a Creator of existence, belief in existence and share basic moral tenets. Their acts of worship or communication may be different, but we all share those basic beliefs.
And you and other atheists believe in existence for it’s own sake. And you have your own leadership who controls what the flock believe. You have Dennet, Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins. Well, 3 horsemen and a monkey riding a dog in the case of Dawkins, who has appeared to come unglued in recent years. I’ll be damned if you weren’t influenced by those guys yourself and find yourself quoting them while attacking religion. Your beliefs are no more founded or unfounded than mine. The question still remains why scientology? Basically, I am guessing you don’t know. Neither do I, I would like to find the relevant basic truth, or core philosophy behind it. Then maybe I would understand why someone would want to be it, in the face of the negativity that it seems to represent.[/quote]

Have I offended you somehow, Pat? You presume to know an awful lot about me and I’m detecting a lot of animosity. I don’t feel like I’ve been disrespectful toward you or your beliefs in this thread or others, unless you find the fact that I don’t believe what you do to be inherently offensive. I realize my willingness to discuss the reasons why I don’t believe can rub people the wrong way, but please do not confuse that with an attack on you.

For the record, I’ve read one Sam Harris book maybe 5 years ago. Nothing on atheism by the other guys you mention except some articles here and there on the internet. I read that Sam Harris book about 20 years AFTER I arrived at atheism on my own while being raised in a Roman Catholic family, long before I was ever exposed to any thoughts by the people you believe are my leaders. I went through all of my sacraments after Communion without believing one bit of it and not knowing that Harris or Dawkins even existed.

Insulting my intelligence or my character is not necessary to have a productive conversation here. So please stop.

Back on topic. Of course Xenu and his thetans are a ruse. The whole thing is a great big scam built on cheesy fiction to get the people at the top rich. I’m sure most Scientologists don’t see it that way, but how many members of the 700 Club care how Pat Robertson got the money to fund a shady mining operation in Zaire? The Catholics have their own country and unimaginable wealth that makes Scientologists look like riff-raff, yet believers keep on believing. Sun Myung Moon founded a wacky religion of his own and became exceedingly wealthy, and his flock, the “Moonies”, seem to have rock-solid faith in their leaders.

Faith seems to have a way of shielding people from confronting unpleasant truths about what they believe and the churches that advance those beliefs. All of those religious leaders were getting rich off of people’s genuine faith, yet they all remain wildly popular in their own circles.

I see no reason to believe that Scientology is any different. The simple fact is that outlandish and even unbelievable ideas can have a way of deeply resonating with people on many different levels. I really don’t think anything else is happening here, and I think that there are plenty of Scientologists whose faith is just as deep and meaningful to them as yours is to you.
[/quote]

Wasn’t trying to offend you and if I did I am sorry. I was only trying to make a point, that if you hold any beliefs up to the sun, you can detect cracks, including atheism. That’s not my point. I don’t care what they believe, even if it sounds batshit. To that end I would like them to provide some proofs of Xenu. In Christianity, we have proofs of God’s existence, historical evidence that Jesus did in fact exist, and evidence of the Resurrection. Whether it’s sufficient for you is another story, nevertheless evidence does exist. Does that justify a religion’s over all set of beliefs? No, but it is a basis on which to build.
Under Atheism you have 2 major problems. It’s not just a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism cannot account for why something exists rather than just nothing. Atheism must accept at a fundamental level that morality is simply just relative and has no real meaning. If you believe there is no Creator, no Necessary Being, no Uncaused cause, you have no way to account for existence. Oh there are theories, but in the end they simply apply ‘God-like’ qualities to abstract objects. Which is kind of a crazy thing to do.

This is why I am trying to avoid devolving into a discussion religious belief in general. We’ve had these discussions ad nauseam here, it’s not the point of the thread. It’s why I don’t target, say in terrorism threads, what muslims believe. I don’t know it in great detail, nor do I know what scientology believes. But when a large contingent of people are behaving badly, or the organization itself has widespread accusations of harm, then I take notice. The latter is what I have noticed about scientology.

More and more former members are outing and investigations in to the allegations accuse the organization, the church, of many questionable actions. Public humiliation, threats to personal well being (for leaving), spying, some physical abuse, splitting families apart, detention against personal will, disconnection (no association with anybody outside the church), forced abortions, harassment of former members or those investigating the church, financial extortion of members, denial of medical attention to critically ill members, etc.
This is not a case of isolated incidents, but the allegation of systemic abuse of members.
It’s these things I am interested in. If an individual believes in Xenu and body thaetens I don’t really give a shit.
If an organization is corrupt and causing harm to it’s members as a matter of policy of that organization, then I am curious. And that’s what I see.

47

[quote]pat wrote:
Under Atheism you have 2 major problems. It’s not just a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism cannot account for why something exists rather than just nothing. Atheism must accept at a fundamental level that morality is simply just relative and has no real meaning. If you believe there is no Creator, no Necessary Being, no Uncaused cause, you have no way to account for existence. Oh there are theories, but in the end they simply apply ‘God-like’ qualities to abstract objects. Which is kind of a crazy thing to do.
[/quote]

I think you are making atheism out to be much more than it is. I don’t expect my lack of belief to do anything for me, let alone explain the origin of the universe. Unlike religion, I’m fine with just leaving it at “I don’t know”. So is science, which is why the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life, just as the Theory of Gravity explains the behavior of gravity, not the origin of the force. Even the Big Bang Theory starts with a singularity without really explaining why the singularity was even there in the first place.

There’s lots of “we don’t know” in life, science and the atheist existence, and there always will be.

As far as morality goes, you are wrong. My morals, which happen to have plenty of overlap with Christian morals, have very deep significance to me that is rooted in empathy, compassion and a deep appreciation for the human experience. I don’t need to believe in God to be a man and conduct myself with decency.

As far as the rest of your observations about Scientology, well, it sounds to me like you’re doing your homework in learning about this rotten cult that ruins lives and makes a few people very rich. I do not believe that organization possesses very many redeeming qualities at all, unlike Christianity, which I think has plenty of good things going for it. The fact that people still BELIEVE in the teachings of Scientology, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of its absurdity and even maliciousness, is a testament to the power of faith in human beings.

How else, if not blind faith, can you explain why the Church of Scientology has members? Brainwashing might be the next best answer, but what exactly separates faith from brainwashing in situations like this?

48

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Under Atheism you have 2 major problems. It’s not just a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism cannot account for why something exists rather than just nothing. Atheism must accept at a fundamental level that morality is simply just relative and has no real meaning. If you believe there is no Creator, no Necessary Being, no Uncaused cause, you have no way to account for existence. Oh there are theories, but in the end they simply apply ‘God-like’ qualities to abstract objects. Which is kind of a crazy thing to do.
[/quote]

I think you are making atheism out to be much more than it is. I don’t expect my lack of belief to do anything for me, let alone explain the origin of the universe. Unlike religion, I’m fine with just leaving it at “I don’t know”. So is science, which is why the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life, just as the Theory of Gravity explains the behavior of gravity, not the origin of the force. Even the Big Bang Theory starts with a singularity without really explaining why the singularity was even there in the first place.

There’s lots of “we don’t know” in life, science and the atheist existence, and there always will be.
[/quote]
Which was my point. But saying you don’t know and being comfortable with that, is still a choice. And no I don’t claim to have all the answers and there will never be a point we know everything. But my answers to the fundamental questions are different then yours and they are not an ‘I don’t know’, but a know. And it’s not simply a God of Gaps argument filling in unknowns with ‘God did it’, like cavemen.

But that’s precisely what Moral Relativism is. It doesn’t mean you are immoral, at all. It’s that your basis for morality is cyclical where mine is hierarchical.

Well brainwashing has been accused, and viably so. Where I am free to look at anything I want, and I can walk away anytime I want, they are not. I am not prohibited from looking at anything. I do actually peruse Atheist websites and such just to keep my finger on the pulse of the latest thoughts and trends. I am free to do that, I am free to believe it if I want to, alas I just don’t find the arguments convincing. Or rather should I say, the counter arguments. Scientologists cannot do this. If they do, they get sent to some ‘resort’, or compound in Clearwater, FL where they are to have their eyes washed out and scientology pounded in to them until they cry uncle. Subsequently, they are enlisted in work camps, (see slave labor) to cleanse themselves.
I think the biggest fear of people sucked in is the loss of the family. If they leave, they lose their family. I can imagine that being very scary for a lot of people. Especially if you grew up in it and don’t know anything else. Like an abused spouse, you just take it.
There are many law suites currently filed by former members of the church, but they move at a snails pace. The well funded law contingent of the organization has the means to file so many injunctions and delays, that even if you win you lose.
I would like to see these allegations investigated by proper officials. If they are true and they are found to be a systemic problem rather than an outliar, it should be shut down and stripped of it’s “church” status. People can still believe in it, they would just be free of the oppressive organization controlling them with fear.

Anonymous, the hacker group, is doing a bang up job on scientology. They really, really hate the church of scientology and have become a major thorn in their side. Mainly because the church doesn’t know who they are and cannot therefore stop them.

49

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Under Atheism you have 2 major problems. It’s not just a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism cannot account for why something exists rather than just nothing. Atheism must accept at a fundamental level that morality is simply just relative and has no real meaning. If you believe there is no Creator, no Necessary Being, no Uncaused cause, you have no way to account for existence. Oh there are theories, but in the end they simply apply ‘God-like’ qualities to abstract objects. Which is kind of a crazy thing to do.
[/quote]

I think you are making atheism out to be much more than it is. I don’t expect my lack of belief to do anything for me, let alone explain the origin of the universe. Unlike religion, I’m fine with just leaving it at “I don’t know”. So is science, which is why the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life, just as the Theory of Gravity explains the behavior of gravity, not the origin of the force. Even the Big Bang Theory starts with a singularity without really explaining why the singularity was even there in the first place.

There’s lots of “we don’t know” in life, science and the atheist existence, and there always will be.
[/quote]
Which was my point. But saying you don’t know and being comfortable with that, is still a choice. And no I don’t claim to have all the answers and there will never be a point we know everything. But my answers to the fundamental questions are different then yours and they are not an ‘I don’t know’, but a know. And it’s not simply a God of Gaps argument filling in unknowns with ‘God did it’, like cavemen.

But that’s precisely what Moral Relativism is. It doesn’t mean you are immoral, at all. It’s that your basis for morality is cyclical where mine is hierarchical.

Well brainwashing has been accused, and viably so.[/quote]

How can you tell if someone believes in something because they are brainwashed? How does that differ from genuine faith?

50

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Under Atheism you have 2 major problems. It’s not just a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism cannot account for why something exists rather than just nothing. Atheism must accept at a fundamental level that morality is simply just relative and has no real meaning. If you believe there is no Creator, no Necessary Being, no Uncaused cause, you have no way to account for existence. Oh there are theories, but in the end they simply apply ‘God-like’ qualities to abstract objects. Which is kind of a crazy thing to do.
[/quote]

I think you are making atheism out to be much more than it is. I don’t expect my lack of belief to do anything for me, let alone explain the origin of the universe. Unlike religion, I’m fine with just leaving it at “I don’t know”. So is science, which is why the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life, just as the Theory of Gravity explains the behavior of gravity, not the origin of the force. Even the Big Bang Theory starts with a singularity without really explaining why the singularity was even there in the first place.

There’s lots of “we don’t know” in life, science and the atheist existence, and there always will be.
[/quote]
Which was my point. But saying you don’t know and being comfortable with that, is still a choice. And no I don’t claim to have all the answers and there will never be a point we know everything. But my answers to the fundamental questions are different then yours and they are not an ‘I don’t know’, but a know. And it’s not simply a God of Gaps argument filling in unknowns with ‘God did it’, like cavemen.

But that’s precisely what Moral Relativism is. It doesn’t mean you are immoral, at all. It’s that your basis for morality is cyclical where mine is hierarchical.

Well brainwashing has been accused, and viably so.[/quote]

How can you tell if someone believes in something because they are brainwashed? How does that differ from genuine faith?
[/quote]

Good question, I don’t know if you can get it out of a believer. Only the disillusioned. It’s less about the information they have and more about how it was gotten. I guess we would have to define ‘brainwashing’ which I would deem something to the effect of being force-fed certain information with the exclusion to all other information. And where this exclusion is coerced, and not merely encouraged.

51

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Under Atheism you have 2 major problems. It’s not just a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism cannot account for why something exists rather than just nothing. Atheism must accept at a fundamental level that morality is simply just relative and has no real meaning. If you believe there is no Creator, no Necessary Being, no Uncaused cause, you have no way to account for existence. Oh there are theories, but in the end they simply apply ‘God-like’ qualities to abstract objects. Which is kind of a crazy thing to do.
[/quote]

I think you are making atheism out to be much more than it is. I don’t expect my lack of belief to do anything for me, let alone explain the origin of the universe. Unlike religion, I’m fine with just leaving it at “I don’t know”. So is science, which is why the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life, just as the Theory of Gravity explains the behavior of gravity, not the origin of the force. Even the Big Bang Theory starts with a singularity without really explaining why the singularity was even there in the first place.

There’s lots of “we don’t know” in life, science and the atheist existence, and there always will be.
[/quote]
Which was my point. But saying you don’t know and being comfortable with that, is still a choice. And no I don’t claim to have all the answers and there will never be a point we know everything. But my answers to the fundamental questions are different then yours and they are not an ‘I don’t know’, but a know. And it’s not simply a God of Gaps argument filling in unknowns with ‘God did it’, like cavemen.

But that’s precisely what Moral Relativism is. It doesn’t mean you are immoral, at all. It’s that your basis for morality is cyclical where mine is hierarchical.

Well brainwashing has been accused, and viably so.[/quote]

How can you tell if someone believes in something because they are brainwashed? How does that differ from genuine faith?
[/quote]

Good question, I don’t know if you can get it out of a believer. Only the disillusioned. It’s less about the information they have and more about how it was gotten. I guess we would have to define ‘brainwashing’ which I would deem something to the effect of being force-fed certain information with the exclusion to all other information. And where this exclusion is coerced, and not merely encouraged. [/quote]

I’d generally agree with that definition, and opine that my time spent in CCD classes was, by our agreed-upon definition, brainwashing. I certainly was not being exposed to anything besides Catholic teachings. I was not there by choice and I was definitely being coerced into doing as I was told, with constant reminders of the supernatural threat of eternal suffering, not to mention the very tangible social consequences of being an apostate.

My point is not that Catholics are all brainwashed, but that the line between faith and brainwashing can be quite fine. This brings me back to the same drum I’ve been beating the entire time, which is that Scientologists “believe” in Scientology for the same fundamental reasons that most people believe in any religion.

It resonates with them on a deep level.
Some level of faith is present in the teachings, even in the absence of hard evidence.
They like being part of the community.
They were raised with it (Scientology is now old enough to have people raised in it).
There may be some intangible appeal about the worldview that they do not get with other belief systems.

You don’t need evidence or proof or rational thought for any of that. You just need to buy into what is being sold (literally or figuratively, depending on church practice).

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Just another religion, albeit a particularly ridiculous and unpleasant one. I’m not sure you can really explain why that church has any members, other than to shrug and say “faith”. It doesn’t really make any sense, after all.

52

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

Faith seems to have a way of shielding people from confronting unpleasant truths about what they believe and the churches that advance those beliefs. All of those religious leaders were getting rich off of people’s genuine faith, yet they all remain wildly popular in their own circles.
[/quote]

I don’t believe that this is a result of ‘faith’. It seems to me a result of being human, as most humans I have known of both atheist and faithful varieties have an incredible desire to shield themselves from unpleasantness whether philosophical or political. It seems part of human nature rather than “faith”. And there are very many conversion stories in both directions by people who were willing to question uncomfortable items, and who remain much smarter than any of us, so I do not believe one can say this lies all in the athiest’s favor either. It remains a pitfall of homo sapiens.

Pat wasn’t insulting to the best of my knowledge, but it seems you two are talking past each other in tone of ‘voice’. This seems to have caused similar reactions on both sides with you two…

53

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Under Atheism you have 2 major problems. It’s not just a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism cannot account for why something exists rather than just nothing. Atheism must accept at a fundamental level that morality is simply just relative and has no real meaning. If you believe there is no Creator, no Necessary Being, no Uncaused cause, you have no way to account for existence. Oh there are theories, but in the end they simply apply ‘God-like’ qualities to abstract objects. Which is kind of a crazy thing to do.
[/quote]

I think you are making atheism out to be much more than it is. I don’t expect my lack of belief to do anything for me, let alone explain the origin of the universe. Unlike religion, I’m fine with just leaving it at “I don’t know”. So is science, which is why the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life, just as the Theory of Gravity explains the behavior of gravity, not the origin of the force. Even the Big Bang Theory starts with a singularity without really explaining why the singularity was even there in the first place.

There’s lots of “we don’t know” in life, science and the atheist existence, and there always will be.
[/quote]
Which was my point. But saying you don’t know and being comfortable with that, is still a choice. And no I don’t claim to have all the answers and there will never be a point we know everything. But my answers to the fundamental questions are different then yours and they are not an ‘I don’t know’, but a know. And it’s not simply a God of Gaps argument filling in unknowns with ‘God did it’, like cavemen.

But that’s precisely what Moral Relativism is. It doesn’t mean you are immoral, at all. It’s that your basis for morality is cyclical where mine is hierarchical.

Well brainwashing has been accused, and viably so.[/quote]

How can you tell if someone believes in something because they are brainwashed? How does that differ from genuine faith?
[/quote]

Good question, I don’t know if you can get it out of a believer. Only the disillusioned. It’s less about the information they have and more about how it was gotten. I guess we would have to define ‘brainwashing’ which I would deem something to the effect of being force-fed certain information with the exclusion to all other information. And where this exclusion is coerced, and not merely encouraged. [/quote]

I’d generally agree with that definition, and opine that my time spent in CCD classes was, by our agreed-upon definition, brainwashing. I certainly was not being exposed to anything besides Catholic teachings. I was not there by choice and I was definitely being coerced into doing as I was told, with constant reminders of the supernatural threat of eternal suffering, not to mention the very tangible social consequences of being an apostate.

My point is not that Catholics are all brainwashed, but that the line between faith and brainwashing can be quite fine. This brings me back to the same drum I’ve been beating the entire time, which is that Scientologists “believe” in Scientology for the same fundamental reasons that most people believe in any religion.

It resonates with them on a deep level.
Some level of faith is present in the teachings, even in the absence of hard evidence.
They like being part of the community.
They were raised with it (Scientology is now old enough to have people raised in it).
There may be some intangible appeal about the worldview that they do not get with other belief systems.

You don’t need evidence or proof or rational thought for any of that. You just need to buy into what is being sold (literally or figuratively, depending on church practice).

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Just another religion, albeit a particularly ridiculous and unpleasant one. I’m not sure you can really explain why that church has any members, other than to shrug and say “faith”. It doesn’t really make any sense, after all.[/quote]

You missed the point. If you were coerced in to going to CCD, it was likely your parents. And the job of the CCD class is to teach you Catholic teachings. Not present you with all possible options of belief or non-belief.If you experienced threat of Hell-fire and damnation you definitely attended something much different than I.
Were you prevented from seeking information outside of class? Were you monitored, threatened, or in some other way prevented from seeking information outside of class? Where you threatened with separation from your family if you did not believe or spoke out against it. By the church, not your parents, but the church itself have any repercussions against you if you never stepped foot in another class? These are the differences I am talking about. Not “my parents made me”.
Have you been separated from your family now that you no longer believe, by the church?

54

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Under Atheism you have 2 major problems. It’s not just a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism cannot account for why something exists rather than just nothing. Atheism must accept at a fundamental level that morality is simply just relative and has no real meaning. If you believe there is no Creator, no Necessary Being, no Uncaused cause, you have no way to account for existence. Oh there are theories, but in the end they simply apply ‘God-like’ qualities to abstract objects. Which is kind of a crazy thing to do.
[/quote]

I think you are making atheism out to be much more than it is. I don’t expect my lack of belief to do anything for me, let alone explain the origin of the universe. Unlike religion, I’m fine with just leaving it at “I don’t know”. So is science, which is why the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life, just as the Theory of Gravity explains the behavior of gravity, not the origin of the force. Even the Big Bang Theory starts with a singularity without really explaining why the singularity was even there in the first place.

There’s lots of “we don’t know” in life, science and the atheist existence, and there always will be.
[/quote]
Which was my point. But saying you don’t know and being comfortable with that, is still a choice. And no I don’t claim to have all the answers and there will never be a point we know everything. But my answers to the fundamental questions are different then yours and they are not an ‘I don’t know’, but a know. And it’s not simply a God of Gaps argument filling in unknowns with ‘God did it’, like cavemen.

But that’s precisely what Moral Relativism is. It doesn’t mean you are immoral, at all. It’s that your basis for morality is cyclical where mine is hierarchical.

Well brainwashing has been accused, and viably so.[/quote]

How can you tell if someone believes in something because they are brainwashed? How does that differ from genuine faith?
[/quote]

Good question, I don’t know if you can get it out of a believer. Only the disillusioned. It’s less about the information they have and more about how it was gotten. I guess we would have to define ‘brainwashing’ which I would deem something to the effect of being force-fed certain information with the exclusion to all other information. And where this exclusion is coerced, and not merely encouraged. [/quote]

I’d generally agree with that definition, and opine that my time spent in CCD classes was, by our agreed-upon definition, brainwashing. I certainly was not being exposed to anything besides Catholic teachings. I was not there by choice and I was definitely being coerced into doing as I was told, with constant reminders of the supernatural threat of eternal suffering, not to mention the very tangible social consequences of being an apostate.

My point is not that Catholics are all brainwashed, but that the line between faith and brainwashing can be quite fine. This brings me back to the same drum I’ve been beating the entire time, which is that Scientologists “believe” in Scientology for the same fundamental reasons that most people believe in any religion.

It resonates with them on a deep level.
Some level of faith is present in the teachings, even in the absence of hard evidence.
They like being part of the community.
They were raised with it (Scientology is now old enough to have people raised in it).
There may be some intangible appeal about the worldview that they do not get with other belief systems.

You don’t need evidence or proof or rational thought for any of that. You just need to buy into what is being sold (literally or figuratively, depending on church practice).

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Just another religion, albeit a particularly ridiculous and unpleasant one. I’m not sure you can really explain why that church has any members, other than to shrug and say “faith”. It doesn’t really make any sense, after all.[/quote]

You missed the point. If you were coerced in to going to CCD, it was likely your parents. And the job of the CCD class is to teach you Catholic teachings. Not present you with all possible options of belief or non-belief.If you experienced threat of Hell-fire and damnation you definitely attended something much different than I.
Were you prevented from seeking information outside of class? Were you monitored, threatened, or in some other way prevented from seeking information outside of class? Where you threatened with separation from your family if you did not believe or spoke out against it. By the church, not your parents, but the church itself have any repercussions against you if you never stepped foot in another class? These are the differences I am talking about. Not “my parents made me”.
Have you been separated from your family now that you no longer believe, by the church?[/quote]

No, my family is all great. They still love me, even though I get some shit from time-to-time. Also worth noting is that the practicing Catholics in my family include some people who are a lot smarter than I am, including two physicians and a lawyer. I can’t peer into their souls to know the depths of their faith, but they are Catholics in very good standing who donate more to their parish than most people make in a year. Also worth noting is that my mother, brother and sister all no longer regularly attend church. Funny how that all works out.

So obviously the “brainwashing” was not rigorous enough, as I found myself rejecting what I was being taught before I hit puberty. Of course, I don’t really believe I was brainwashed, I was just being raised as a Catholic, which I am actually grateful for on many levels.

Back to the believers in question, it sounds like you are imagining a sort of Branch Davidian-esque Scientology compound that holds people there against there will to be indoctrinated. I’m not sure anything like that is going on. There is the Sea Org that some members volunteer for. That puts you on a boat at sea that can be hard to leave, but all boats at sea are hard to leave.

Otherwise, it seems like rank-and-file members of that Church come and go fairly freely. I’ve read stories where that wasn’t necessarily the case, but I’m not sure you can say that physically restraining members from leaving is the modus operandi of Scientology.

I think they spread their teachings in much the same way as most religions, using every available medium to spread their message, plus Tom Cruise. Simply stated, they actively proselytize, again just like any other religion. They may be a bit more pushy than most Catholics, possibly less pushy than JW’s, but I do not think they are “brainwashing” people in the manner that you describe. Simply getting their message out to people seems to do the trick.

So we still have to account for WHY people are members, which is why you started this thread in the first place. Again, I look for the most obvious reason. People have some level of faith in the church, its teachings and the community, thus sharing the same fundamental reasons that most people follow most religions. I’ve covered that notion rather thoroughly at this point, and you still don’t think that explains it.

After a few pages of this, how can you explain the success of the Church? How does it attract and retain members, if not the basic appeal of its teachings and community? Evil powers? Hypnotism? Better coffee and donuts than what you get after a Catholic Mass? LSD on the Communion wafers?

What is your best explanation, Pat?

55

Here’s an interesting and rather bizarre read I dug up. This is a website on how to leave the Church of Scientology…

…by someone who seems to still BELIEVE in the teachings of Hubbard. Odd, but another example of how deeply these ideas can resonate with people.

56

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Under Atheism you have 2 major problems. It’s not just a mere lack of belief in God or gods. Atheism cannot account for why something exists rather than just nothing. Atheism must accept at a fundamental level that morality is simply just relative and has no real meaning. If you believe there is no Creator, no Necessary Being, no Uncaused cause, you have no way to account for existence. Oh there are theories, but in the end they simply apply ‘God-like’ qualities to abstract objects. Which is kind of a crazy thing to do.
[/quote]

I think you are making atheism out to be much more than it is. I don’t expect my lack of belief to do anything for me, let alone explain the origin of the universe. Unlike religion, I’m fine with just leaving it at “I don’t know”. So is science, which is why the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life, just as the Theory of Gravity explains the behavior of gravity, not the origin of the force. Even the Big Bang Theory starts with a singularity without really explaining why the singularity was even there in the first place.

There’s lots of “we don’t know” in life, science and the atheist existence, and there always will be.
[/quote]
Which was my point. But saying you don’t know and being comfortable with that, is still a choice. And no I don’t claim to have all the answers and there will never be a point we know everything. But my answers to the fundamental questions are different then yours and they are not an ‘I don’t know’, but a know. And it’s not simply a God of Gaps argument filling in unknowns with ‘God did it’, like cavemen.

But that’s precisely what Moral Relativism is. It doesn’t mean you are immoral, at all. It’s that your basis for morality is cyclical where mine is hierarchical.

Well brainwashing has been accused, and viably so.[/quote]

How can you tell if someone believes in something because they are brainwashed? How does that differ from genuine faith?
[/quote]

Good question, I don’t know if you can get it out of a believer. Only the disillusioned. It’s less about the information they have and more about how it was gotten. I guess we would have to define ‘brainwashing’ which I would deem something to the effect of being force-fed certain information with the exclusion to all other information. And where this exclusion is coerced, and not merely encouraged. [/quote]

I’d generally agree with that definition, and opine that my time spent in CCD classes was, by our agreed-upon definition, brainwashing. I certainly was not being exposed to anything besides Catholic teachings. I was not there by choice and I was definitely being coerced into doing as I was told, with constant reminders of the supernatural threat of eternal suffering, not to mention the very tangible social consequences of being an apostate.

My point is not that Catholics are all brainwashed, but that the line between faith and brainwashing can be quite fine. This brings me back to the same drum I’ve been beating the entire time, which is that Scientologists “believe” in Scientology for the same fundamental reasons that most people believe in any religion.

It resonates with them on a deep level.
Some level of faith is present in the teachings, even in the absence of hard evidence.
They like being part of the community.
They were raised with it (Scientology is now old enough to have people raised in it).
There may be some intangible appeal about the worldview that they do not get with other belief systems.

You don’t need evidence or proof or rational thought for any of that. You just need to buy into what is being sold (literally or figuratively, depending on church practice).

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Just another religion, albeit a particularly ridiculous and unpleasant one. I’m not sure you can really explain why that church has any members, other than to shrug and say “faith”. It doesn’t really make any sense, after all.[/quote]

You missed the point. If you were coerced in to going to CCD, it was likely your parents. And the job of the CCD class is to teach you Catholic teachings. Not present you with all possible options of belief or non-belief.If you experienced threat of Hell-fire and damnation you definitely attended something much different than I.
Were you prevented from seeking information outside of class? Were you monitored, threatened, or in some other way prevented from seeking information outside of class? Where you threatened with separation from your family if you did not believe or spoke out against it. By the church, not your parents, but the church itself have any repercussions against you if you never stepped foot in another class? These are the differences I am talking about. Not “my parents made me”.
Have you been separated from your family now that you no longer believe, by the church?[/quote]

No, my family is all great. They still love me, even though I get some shit from time-to-time. Also worth noting is that the practicing Catholics in my family include some people who are a lot smarter than I am, including two physicians and a lawyer. I can’t peer into their souls to know the depths of their faith, but they are Catholics in very good standing who donate more to their parish than most people make in a year. Also worth noting is that my mother, brother and sister all no longer regularly attend church. Funny how that all works out.

So obviously the “brainwashing” was not rigorous enough, as I found myself rejecting what I was being taught before I hit puberty. Of course, I don’t really believe I was brainwashed, I was just being raised as a Catholic, which I am actually grateful for on many levels.

Back to the believers in question, it sounds like you are imagining a sort of Branch Davidian-esque Scientology compound that holds people there against there will to be indoctrinated. I’m not sure anything like that is going on. There is the Sea Org that some members volunteer for. That puts you on a boat at sea that can be hard to leave, but all boats at sea are hard to leave.

Otherwise, it seems like rank-and-file members of that Church come and go fairly freely. I’ve read stories where that wasn’t necessarily the case, but I’m not sure you can say that physically restraining members from leaving is the modus operandi of Scientology.

I think they spread their teachings in much the same way as most religions, using every available medium to spread their message, plus Tom Cruise. Simply stated, they actively proselytize, again just like any other religion. They may be a bit more pushy than most Catholics, possibly less pushy than JW’s, but I do not think they are “brainwashing” people in the manner that you describe. Simply getting their message out to people seems to do the trick.

So we still have to account for WHY people are members, which is why you started this thread in the first place. Again, I look for the most obvious reason. People have some level of faith in the church, its teachings and the community, thus sharing the same fundamental reasons that most people follow most religions. I’ve covered that notion rather thoroughly at this point, and you still don’t think that explains it.

After a few pages of this, how can you explain the success of the Church? How does it attract and retain members, if not the basic appeal of its teachings and community? Evil powers? Hypnotism? Better coffee and donuts than what you get after a Catholic Mass? LSD on the Communion wafers?

What is your best explanation, Pat?[/quote]

That’s what I am accusing them of, precisely. I cannot account for it’s popularity. It’s really not that popular among common people. It’s really the religion of rich celebrities who are spared the experiences of the lesser members. I am accusing them of being nefarious, using questionable methods to control and contain people. Using detention, and separation from family as weapons. I see it as a systemic problem. It seems to be supported by investigations and former members. Something stinks about it. And that is what I want to find out.

57

So what is scientology exactly?

58

Ok. so someone had to post this:

Hope this gives everyone a good laugh 1

59

I really don’t know much about scientology, but I think the whole thing about Xenu is not true and invented by people who don’t know what it is to make fun of it.

I read a book from L.Ron Hubbard a long time ago and I remember a few things about it.

I remember a little bit. It said that the book said to look at people around you to see that they are like you. It talked about the stage of being, the lowest one being death, followed by apathy and the highest one being god or something, that you shouldn’t hang out around people that put down what you are doing at work, etc. Basic things.

60

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/going-clear#/

Ooooo, goodie. I can’t wait to see this. Except I don’t have HBO anymore. But I am sure I will be able to find it.
Corruption, abuse, intrigue, oh my!