Scientology and the Double Standard.

Borneo Fnctn

I've noticed allot of people looking down their noses on Scientology and dismissing it as outrageous. Personally I'd be inclined to agree. It is mental. The problem I have is that people who believe in other religions look down on it. If you believe in something there is no evidence for, you have no right to hold a different brand of lies in contempt.

Also, protests are often held against Scientology. What would happen if I protested outside a Synagogue? I'd be called a Nazi. It's a real double standard. I know Scientology employs questionable methods to gain members, but surely brainwashing a child is also wrong. Every mainstream religion is guilty of this. Ask any Christian what they make of Scientology. They'll probably smile or even laugh. They tend to get very upset when you tell them you have as much respect for Scientology as you have for Jesus Christ.

Basically, I think allot of people are hypocrites of the highest order.

To be clear the protests against Scientology are more about their human rights abuses and their suppression of free speech not their beliefs specifically.

Genghiz Cohen

Theists and atheists alike.

Hang on now, let's not lump someone who believes all religions are false with people who believe their religion is the only right one.

The Scientology protests are more about the sinister practices of the cult more than the bizzareness of their belief systems.

EDIT: King Mob, you ninjar!

Galvasean

At least we have evidence to prove that L Ron Hubbard existed...

Genghiz Cohen

But what about the Thetans?
And the all powerful Xenu (fear his wrath)!

Genghiz Cohen

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

But what about the Thetans?
And the all powerful Xenu (fear his wrath)!

Well for one Xenu wasn't all powerful. He's more like Ming the Merciless.

Genghiz Cohen

You're not doing a very good job of fearing his wrath, work on that.

Overblood

How are atheists hypocrites?

By the way, I think this thread would be better suited to the christianity forum.

Naz_st

jackpalance wrote: »

Basically, I think allot of people are hypocrites of the highest order. Theists and atheists alike.

Scientology is nonsense, but there's plenty of nonsense in most mainstream religions (Noah's ark, Genesis, etc). That's what you get when a basic tenet of a religion is "faith" or "believe it without, or despite, evidence" or "believe it because I say so and I've been divinely mandated (take my word for it)".

I agree with your assertion that any religious person who scoffs at the the "silly" beliefs of other religions is inherently hypocritical, but if a lot of atheists look down on all religions reasonably equally, how are they being hypocrites?

Borneo Fnctn

Overblood wrote: »

How are atheists hypocrites?

Sorry I poorly worded it. What I'm saying is that an atheist should not protest against the beliefs of Scientology. It shouldn't be singled out. You could not get away with this if it was a more mainstream religion.

Genghiz Cohen

As I said, it's not the beliefs, it's the wrong-doings.
The seperation of family members.
The forced abortions.
The murders committed.
The money you have to pay to advance in the religion.

All religions have unplausable beliefs. you won't find an Atheist who will argue that point.

axer

jackpalance wrote: »

Sorry I poorly worded it. What I'm saying is that an atheist should not protest against the beliefs of Scientology. It shouldn't be singled out. You could not get away with this if it was a more mainstream religion.

I think you will find that most atheists think they are all crazy equally (well i do anyway).

Genghiz Cohen

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

As I said, it's not the beliefs, it's the wrong-doings.
The seperation of family members.
The forced abortions.
The murders committed.
The money you have to pay to advance in the religion.

All religions have unplausable beliefs. you won't find an Atheist who will argue that point.

*Cough* allegedly *cough*.

Also thier abuse of the legal system to suppress free speech

lostexpectation

people should be protesting outside churches too

Zillah

lostexpectation wrote: »

people should be protesting outside churches too

Do you?

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

How are atheists hypocrites?

By the way, I think this thread would be better suited to the christianity forum.

I think this is the perfect forum since Scientologists are actually atheists. While they believe in various extra-terrestrial beings, I understand that they do not teach the existence of God.

So don't try to push your atheist religion of scientology over onto our forum. We have enough nutcases of our own without taking responsibility for yours.

pts

PDN wrote: »

I think this is the perfect forum since Scientologists are actually atheists.

Actually I think you've got that one wrong. I'm pretty sure that they are more like the Freemason's. They're expected to believe in some kind of higher being, but don't give much details about said being. At least that's what they tell the uninitiated. In fact they often say that you can be Jewish, RC etc and also a Scientologist.

You only find out about the space opera stuff once you're in so deep you won't question it (allegedly)

EDIT: if you're able to read L Ron's unusual style of writing this may be of interest: http://www.scientologymyths.info/cult-or-religion/do-scientologists-believe-in-god.php
From the book "Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought":

“The eighth dynamic is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. This is called the eighth dynamic because the symbol of infinity stood upright makes the numeral “8.” This can be called the infinity or God dynamic…. "

“These dynamics could best be represented as a series of concentric circles wherein the first dynamic would be the center and each new dynamic would be successively a circle outside it.

“The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other dynamics, but when the seventh dynamic is reached in its entirety one will only then discover the true eighth dynamic.”

PDN

pts wrote: »

Actually I think you've got that one wrong. I'm pretty sure that they are more like the Freemason's. They're expected to believe in some kind of higher being, but don't give much details about said being. At least that's what they tell the uninitiated. In fact they often say that you can be Jewish, RC etc and also a Scientologist.

You only find out about the space opera stuff once you're in so deep you won't question it (allegedly)

EDIT: if you're able to read L Ron's unusual style of writing this may be of interest: http://www.scientologymyths.info/cult-or-religion/do-scientologists-believe-in-god.php
From the book "Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought":

“The eighth dynamic is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. This is called the eighth dynamic because the symbol of infinity stood upright makes the numeral “8.” This can be called the infinity or God dynamic…. "

“These dynamics could best be represented as a series of concentric circles wherein the first dynamic would be the center and each new dynamic would be successively a circle outside it.

“The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other dynamics, but when the seventh dynamic is reached in its entirety one will only then discover the true eighth dynamic.”

To be fair, the vague kind of 'higher power' talk employed by Scientology is no different from Einstein's vague references to God. Yet, when some Christians have (mistakenly in my view) tried to claim Einstein as a theist then atheist posters here have insisted that such vague God-talk is entirely compatible with atheism.

A case of wanting to have your cake and eat it?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

To be fair, the vague kind of 'higher power' talk employed by Scientology is no different from Einstein's vague references to God.
...
A case of wanting to have your cake and eat it?

It is hugely different from Einstein's vague talk of the universe and the order found in the universe as some kind of "higher power". Scientology talk of an actually "being"

From the Scientology website (I feel dirty)

Does Scientology have a concept of God?

Most definitely. Scientology affirms the existence of a Supreme Being, although its dogma is unique and does not include the worship of one. Scientology believes that only through total spiritual enlightenment can one then truly discover and understand the Supreme Being.

Naz_st

PDN wrote: »

To be fair, the vague kind of 'higher power' talk employed by Scientology is no different from Einstein's vague references to God. Yet, when some Christians have (mistakenly in my view) tried to claim Einstein as a theist then atheist posters here have insisted that such vague God-talk is entirely compatible with atheism.

A case of wanting to have your cake and eat it?

In my view, Einstein's reference to "God" was effectively an unbound awe at the majesty of the universe as he perceived it, something which obviously touched him on a "spiritual" level (or "deeply/subconciously" if you prefer).

To quote Einstein himself:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

This is very different from the view of a higher power as perceived by an organised religion, even if that higher power is non-personal or otherwise vague.

Goduznt Xzst

lostexpectation wrote: »

people should be protesting outside churches too

Yes because we all know that when you make religious people feel like they are being victimized and oppressed that they become more receptive to other peoples opinions :rolleyes:

Nodin

Wicknight wrote: »

From the Scientology website (I feel dirty)

Thats your Thetan, yearning to be released. You need to pay someone to point a electropsychometer at you, quickly.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

From the Scientology website (I feel dirty)

Check your closets !

pts

PDN wrote: »

To be fair, the vague kind of 'higher power' talk employed by Scientology is no different from Einstein's vague references to God. Yet, when some Christians have (mistakenly in my view) tried to claim Einstein as a theist then atheist posters here have insisted that such vague God-talk is entirely compatible with atheism.

A case of wanting to have your cake and eat it?

Again, I wouldn't quite agree with this. As others have pointed out they do actually say that they believe in a God. They however decline to meat it out much. Presumably giving more detail would make Scientology incompatible with some religions. If your goal is to make as much money as possible you don't want to make yourself incompatible with anyone if at all possible.
On a related note:http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220648/march-04-2009/stephen-becomes-scientology-s-galactic-overlord
EDIT: Of course according to Scientology all religions are brainwashed into us by Xenu. Usually they don't mention this in their brochures though

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

I think this is the perfect forum since Scientologists are actually atheists. While they believe in various extra-terrestrial beings, I understand that they do not teach the existence of God.

Until I saw Wicknight's post for a minute I taught you had yourself a strawman comparable to Creationists.

lostexpectation

Zillah wrote: »

Do you?

no

lostexpectation

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes because we all know that when you make religious people feel like they are being victimized and oppressed that they become more receptive to other peoples opinions :rolleyes:

maybe those religious people should own up to the criticism.

look at brady up north retarded the peace hopes of country by wanting to dominate his children.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

It is hugely different from Einstein's vague talk of the universe and the order found in the universe as some kind of "higher power". Scientology talk of an actually "being"

From the Scientology website (I feel dirty)

The seem to have a concept of a Supreme Being, but I believe it is left up to the individual to decide who or what that being exactly is. The focus is more upon the self, whereby the believer attempts to rid themselves of 'engrams' or some such. This just so happens to be a very costly process.

dvpower

Do common or garden Scientologists buy into the whole Thetans and Xenu bit or is that just for the higher ups in the cult?

I read somewhere once that they don't introduce you to that stuff 'till you pass (or is that fail) a good few personality tests.

Zillah

lostexpectation wrote: »

no

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

994

King Mob wrote: »

Well for one Xenu wasn't all powerful. He's more like Ming the Merciless.

Ming the Merciless was all-powerful

lostexpectation

Zillah wrote: »

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

no

Zillah

Pretty sure it does.

Húrin

jackpalance wrote: »

I've noticed allot of people looking down their noses on Scientology and dismissing it as outrageous. Personally I'd be inclined to agree. It is mental. The problem I have is that people who believe in other religions look down on it. If you believe in something there is no evidence for, you have no right to hold a different brand of lies in contempt.

So where is the evidence for the claim that science is the only path to knowledge?

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

So where is the evidence for the claim that science is the only path to knowledge?

Since reading that question I've failed to think of a single thing we "know", that isn't thanks to one of the sciences.

Help me out!

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Since reading that question I've failed to think of a single thing we "know", that isn't thanks to one of the sciences.

Help me out!

You know there was a Caesar, right?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

So where is the evidence for the claim that science is the only path to knowledge?

Well religion is a pretty good example ....

what was the last thing you guys actually got right?

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You know there was a Caesar, right?

A historical figure is hardly an example of something discovered by a "path to knowledge".

Though if the truth be known, I don't know there was a Caesar. I believe historical accounts because I've no reason to think they are all false. Though I guess if people claimed he had supernatural powers I'd be somewhat sceptical about anything people wrote of him.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

Help me out!

You know what you did yesterday

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

So where is the evidence for the claim that science is the only path to knowledge?

I don't believe it is. But then knowledge is a fairly basic first step. Science is the only path to application, comprehension, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

Having a knowledge that 1+1=2 does not mean that you actually know what 1+1=2 actually means.

lostexpectation

Zillah wrote: »

Pretty sure it does.

nope

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

A historical figure is hardly an example of something discovered by a "path to knowledge".

Though if the truth be known, I don't know there was a Caesar. I believe historical accounts because I've no reason to think they are all false. Though I guess if people claimed he had supernatural powers I'd be somewhat sceptical about anything people wrote of him.

What do you understand by the term "path to knowledge"? If I didn't know better I would think you had stumbled into some vague spirituality. Anyway, you initially asked to name something that we "know". Well, we know about Caesar, the Battle of Hastings, MLK Jr. Good history is about knowing.

Genghiz Cohen

Back in the day, Pluto was a planet, iPhones were supposed to be a passing fad and this thread was about Scientology.
Them were the days wha?

Fanny Cradock

Yes, welcome to the intertangent.

Zillah

lostexpectation wrote: »

nope

No, it does.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What do you understand by the term "path to knowledge"? If I didn't know better I would think you had stumbled into some vague spirituality.

tbh I assumed we were talking about seeking new knowledge, i.e. via science, theology, philosophy, astrology or something equally fruity.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, welcome to the intertangent.

As usual, I blame the management!

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

tbh I assumed we were talking about seeking new knowledge, i.e. via science, theology, philosophy, astrology or something equally fruity.

Well, I would argue that we can seek and gain new knowledge via non-science sources.

Dades wrote: »

As usual, I blame the management!

Yeah, the standards continue to slip! On the other hand, the Christianity forum is the paragon of order. I've also heard rumours on the internets that the mods are "dreamy".

CPT. SURF

Zillah wrote: »

No, it does.

If he was telling people that he protests in front of churches and that he thinks they should be like him and do the same, then he would be a hypocrite. Right now he is just someone who does not do what he thinks would be best. What are they called? Dunno, but I don't think hypocrite is the correct term.


Edit: come to think of it, I think he might be a hypocrite actually

philologos

jackpalance wrote: »

I've noticed allot of people looking down their noses on Scientology and dismissing it as outrageous. Personally I'd be inclined to agree. It is mental. The problem I have is that people who believe in other religions look down on it. If you believe in something there is no evidence for, you have no right to hold a different brand of lies in contempt.

"believe in something there is no evidence for".

Issue: What are you considering as evidence?

I would consider there to be two types:
1) Evidence by indication, what suggests that your faith is true, or that God doesn't exist.

2) Evidence by proof, something that objectively proves something to be true.

Neither atheist or theist can provide 2.

However, many Christian authors have shown evidence by indication for what they believe.

jackpalance wrote: »

Also, protests are often held against Scientology. What would happen if I protested outside a Synagogue? I'd be called a Nazi. It's a real double standard. I know Scientology employs questionable methods to gain members, but surely brainwashing a child is also wrong. Every mainstream religion is guilty of this.

Hm, I think this is nonsense myself. Children are going to be influenced by their parents in cultural factors such as language, I don't see how that is any more "brainwashing" than anything else. Bringing up your children into a secular environment is also predisposing or in your language "brainwashing" them towards a secular lifestyle. It holds no weight unfortunately.

There is no guilt to be had for teaching your child moral values and to give them an understanding of a higher power or of a religion. I consider it wrong for you to begrudge parents the right to bring their child up in faith.

jackpalance wrote: »

Ask any Christian what they make of Scientology. They'll probably smile or even laugh. They tend to get very upset when you tell them you have as much respect for Scientology as you have for Jesus Christ.

Basically, I think allot of people are hypocrites of the highest order.

Isn't this what we commonly call making assumptions? Using a few to stereotype the lot?

Zillah

CPT. SURF wrote: »

If he was telling people that he protests in front of churches and that he thinks they should be like him and do the same, then he would be a hypocrite.

No that's exactly what a hypocrite is not. Telling people they should protest in front of churches when he himself doesn't is hypocritical.

Edit: come to think of it, I think he might be a hypocrite actually

Er, yes...

lostexpectation

Zillah wrote: »

No, it does.

no it doesn't, i said people should feel free too, i said i havn't, i didn't say i wouldn't.