Scientology and the Double Standard.

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.

Goduznt Xzst

lostexpectation wrote: »

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

is this some kind of really obscure joke about arguing like a Christian? because I must say you are doing a very good job

The Mad Hatter

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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".

Reality's turned into a Jack Chick tract?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

Jesus and Mo' debated this very point back in December:

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've also heard rumours on the internets that the mods are "dreamy".

Pity they're all married and their Christian morals wont allow them to play the field

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

is this some kind of really obscure joke about arguing like a Christian? because I must say you are doing a very good job

Maybe he's being post modern?

midlandsmissus

Again, I think scientology is unbelievable tripe, I also think alot of catholicism is tripe. You dont need to be a part of any religion to believe in God. Is my two cents!

axer

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Again, I think scientology is unbelievable tripe, I also think alot of catholicism is tripe. You dont need to be a part of any religion to believe in God. Is my two cents!

and believing in god (especially the christian god) is unbelievable tripe.

midlandsmissus

axer wrote: »

and believing in god (especially the christian god) is unbelievable tripe.

Hmmmm......
Scientology - pay lots of money to people to be in their religion
Catholic church - pay lots of money to be in their religion (I know priests zipping round in little convertables)
Your own little belief that makes you happy and doesn't involve other money-grabbing humans.

I know which option makes more sense to me.

the_syco

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

"non-science sources" being... I believe he can do X without any proof at all?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've also heard rumours on the internets that the mods are "dreamy".

LOLtastic lies.

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

/edit
Didn't see the "or". My bad :oops:

Naz_st

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hmmmm......
Scientology - pay lots of money to people to be in their religion
Catholic church - pay lots of money to be in their religion (I know priests zipping round in little convertables)
Your own little belief that makes you happy and doesn't involve other money-grabbing humans.

I know which option makes more sense to me.

I agree with you that there is a difference in the credulity required to believe in theism over deism but still have to point out that just because something "makes you happy" or just because something is more "believable" than something else, it isn't evidence for its truth. You could argue that pink elephants are more believable than pink unicorns, but it doesn't make the belief in pink elephants any more accurate.