Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Do Scientologists have brains

13

Comments

  • #62
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Of course scientologists have brains. Sure didn't they just surpass the speed of light?


  • #63
    lee_baby_simms
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    Apparently the Dublin Scientology Centre on Abbey St has one of the poorest records with regard to recruiting new members in the world. Go us!

    Also the church claims to have 8 million members but according to polls, emeter sales and ex members that figure is closer to 20,000 members worldwide.


  • #64
    TheyKnowMyIP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 568 ✭✭✭TheyKnowMyIP


    Scientology is the scam of the 20th century!


  • #65
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    krudler wrote: »
    The Catholic Church started out as a cult, all it takes is time and numbers. Although scientology charges people for salvation, its not like you could buy your way into heaven....oh, wait.

    "And Jesus said 'Thou cannot buyeth their way to salvation for it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is a wealthy man into heaven'. Now as we pray the baskets will be handed around, as much as you can spare is always enough for Jesus."


  • #66
    deandean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,459 ✭✭✭deandean


    Of course Scientologists have brains.

    And they are well washed.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,234 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    Its not a religon, its a business.


  • #68
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    CJC999 wrote: »
    Its not a religon, its a business.
    And thats different from any other religious organisation how exactly?


  • #69
    TheyKnowMyIP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 568 ✭✭✭TheyKnowMyIP


    I think Scientology is the biggest load of absolute bollix I have ever heard. In saying that, you fault Hubbard for chancing his arm and exploiting the stupidity of others? If a subsection of people are simple idiots, why not fleece em?

    This man is probably the greatest Troll ever to have graced this fine place we call "Earth". Dianetics is absolute rubbish.


  • #70
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Emiko wrote: »
    An alien overlord in a fancy spaceship seems more plausible than some ineffable heft of gas who records our wrongdoings from on high.

    Credit where it's due.

    Hey - Santa rocks! :o


  • #71
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    And thats different from any other religious organisation how exactly?

    You say that as if the Vatican is a multi-billion dollar organisation that still requires donations from those living through a recession!

    Oh, wait.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,992 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Faolchu wrote: »
    some people need something to believe in, some are more feeble brained that others of course.

    Such as atheists that choose to believe that there is no god.

    Any scientist will tell you that the absence of evidence to prove a theory doesn't disprove it either.

    If one was strictly apply strictly scientific reasoning and logic to the "god" question, the only rational conclusion to reach would be that we are incapable of knowing whether or not some form of higher being exists.


    Atheists follow the exact same logical path as religious types. "I believe it, so it must be true." There's equal evidence supporting either belief system (i.e. sweet f*ck all).
    Agnostics are the only ones who can claim not be making a leap of faith


  • #73
    TheyKnowMyIP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 568 ✭✭✭TheyKnowMyIP


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Such as atheists that choose to believe that there is no god.

    Any scientist will tell you that the absence of evidence to prove a theory doesn't disprove it either.

    I don't think you understand the definition of "Atheism". Look it up in a dictionary. The onus of proof lies with the religious types to provide evidence for the existence of god. No evidence = no logical basis for belief. It's really quite that simple.


  • #74
    lee_baby_simms
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭lee_baby_simms


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    And thats different from any other religious organisation how exactly?

    Well its quite easy to get your hands on a bible for free these days. You then can read it cover to cover, attend confessionals and mass every Sunday without being forced to actually hand over cash.

    Scientology is different as not only do you need to pay huge amount of money to read the copyrighted Hubbard scriptures and recieve auditing you are also forbidden from practising Scientology outside of the official Church. If you do you are regarded as a 'squirrel' and personally harassed by the church in the same way they do with 'suppresive people'.

    Bunch of **** basically.


  • #75
    krudler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Seachmall wrote: »
    "And Jesus said 'Thou cannot buyeth their way to salvation for it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is a wealthy man into heaven'. Now as we pray the baskets will be handed around, as much as you can spare is always enough for Jesus."

    indeed, even though the church sold forgiveness and absolved people for a price.
    Jesus supposedly preached again riches and wealth, yet those who preach in his name demand "donations" and the pope lives in a private city with one of the largest art collections on earth in it. its not exactly the humble mans life old J was preaching about now is it?

    religion is a business, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.


  • #76
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Such as atheists that choose to believe that there is no god.

    Any scientist will tell you that the absence of evidence to prove a theory doesn't disprove it either.

    If one was strictly apply strictly scientific reasoning and logic to the "god" question, the only rational conclusion to reach would be that we are incapable of knowing whether or not some form of higher being exists.


    Atheists follow the exact same logical path as religious types. "I believe it, so it must be true." There's equal evidence supporting either belief system (i.e. sweet f*ck all).
    Agnostics are the only ones who can claim not be making a leap of faith

    Atheist is the lack of belief.
    Agnostic is the lack of knowledge.
    They're not exclusive and are most often used in combination with each other.

    The vast majority of scientists would define themselves as holding no belief, they may refer to themselves as agnostic or atheist.

    What you are discussing is a Gnostic Atheist, someone who claims to know for a fact that there is no God. Most Atheists wouldn't fit this definition (they'd be Agnostic Atheists).


  • #77
    Borat_Sagdiyev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 589 ✭✭✭Borat_Sagdiyev


    Ah religion, the great thing about it is that it's so vague that nobody really knows what it's all about.


  • #78
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,992 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »
    I don't think you understand the definition of "Atheism". Look it up in a dictionary. The onus of proof lies with the religious types to provide evidence for the existence of god. No evidence = no logical basis for belief. It's really quite that simple.


    An atheist denies the existence of a "god" or higher power. They believe that one does not exist. Athiesm is based on believing something (in this case believing that a different hypothesis is false).

    Religious people not being able to prove their beliefs doesn't mean that the beliefs of atheists are autmoatically correct. Just as religious people have an onus of proof to support their hypothesis, so do atheists.
    Just because someone cannot prove their hypothesis, it doesn't automatically mean that opposing hypotheses are correct. Each hypothesis should always be examined critically on it's own merits. It's a core principal of scientific reasoning.

    Whilst I may believe that a god PROBABLY does not exist, but I acknowledge that human knowledge isn't sufficiently developed to complete prove or disprove this belief. That's being agnostic.

    The key difference between being agnostic and being an atheist is that atheists refuse to acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain whether they are right or wrong (just as religious types can't know for certain either). That's why atheism is just another set of beliefs that chooses to ignore proper scientific method when it takes them to a conclusion that doesn't 100% support their beliefs.


  • #79
    bamboozle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,699 ✭✭✭bamboozle


    Faolchu wrote: »
    how so? what about the ones that will stone a woman to death for an extramarital affair. are they any less scum than the Roman Catholic Church? are these actions too not appaling?

    the point i was tring to make was that someone was trying to make scientology out to be the embodiement of all evil by forcing people to pay a tithe/come off meds/not give meds/isolate themselves, yet it was common hundreds of years ago to pay a tithe and iirc in germany you pay a religious tax. granted some of the opther rules of scientology are extreme but then so are the rules of other religions.

    Yes but my point is that buggering defenceless kids is not a rule of the catholic church or any religion. last i checked (well actually i've never read it) but the bible doesnt encourage its members to rape kids.


  • #80
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Whilst I may believe that a god PROBABLY does not exist, but I acknowledge that human knowledge isn't sufficiently developed to complete prove or disprove this belief. That's being agnostic.

    That's being an Agnostic Atheist.

    Atheism means no belief in God or belief in no God.
    Agnostic means no knowledge of God.

    Belief =/= Knowledge.

    Nobody on this planet knows if a God exists but most people believe one way or the other.

    It's not entirely possible to be on the fence regarding a belief, you either have faith in God's existence or you don't. Some people will argue that (people who exclusively refer to themselves as Agnostic) but I think it's just claiming a middle ground that isn't there.

    If someone asks if you believe there is a God and you respond "Could be either way" or "They're equally likely" you're representing a lack of belief in God's existence.


  • #81
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    blackwhite wrote: »
    An atheist denies the existence of a "god" or higher power. They believe that one does not exist. Athiesm is based on believing something (in this case believing that a different hypothesis is false).

    Religious people not being able to prove their beliefs doesn't mean that the beliefs of atheists are autmoatically correct. Just as religious people have an onus of proof to support their hypothesis, so do atheists.
    Just because someone cannot prove their hypothesis, it doesn't automatically mean that opposing hypotheses are correct. Each hypothesis should always be examined critically on it's own merits. It's a core principal of scientific reasoning.

    Whilst I may believe that a god PROBABLY does not exist, but I acknowledge that human knowledge isn't sufficiently developed to complete prove or disprove this belief. That's being agnostic.

    The key difference between being agnostic and being an atheist is that atheists refuse to acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain whether they are right or wrong (just as religious types can't know for certain either). That's why atheism is just another set of beliefs that chooses to ignore proper scientific method when it takes them to a conclusion that doesn't 100% support their beliefs.
    Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Russell's teapot?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    blackwhite wrote: »
    An atheist denies the existence of a "god" or higher power. They believe that one does not exist. Athiesm is based on believing something (in this case believing that a different hypothesis is false).

    Religious people not being able to prove their beliefs doesn't mean that the beliefs of atheists are autmoatically correct. Just as religious people have an onus of proof to support their hypothesis, so do atheists.
    Just because someone cannot prove their hypothesis, it doesn't automatically mean that opposing hypotheses are correct. Each hypothesis should always be examined critically on it's own merits. It's a core principal of scientific reasoning.

    Whilst I may believe that a god PROBABLY does not exist, but I acknowledge that human knowledge isn't sufficiently developed to complete prove or disprove this belief. That's being agnostic.

    The key difference between being agnostic and being an atheist is that atheists refuse to acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain whether they are right or wrong (just as religious types can't know for certain either). That's why atheism is just another set of beliefs that chooses to ignore proper scientific method when it takes them to a conclusion that doesn't 100% support their beliefs.
    Actually it was scientific method that brought me to the conclusion that god does not and will not ever exist.


  • #83
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,992 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Atheist is the lack of belief.
    Agnostic is the lack of knowledge.
    They're not exclusive and are most often used in combination with each other.

    The vast majority of scientists would define themselves as holding no belief, they may refer to themselves as agnostic or atheist.

    What you are discussing is a Gnostic Atheist, someone who claims to know for a fact that there is no God. Most Atheists wouldn't fit this definition (they'd be Agnostic Atheists).

    See my post 78 above.

    An agnostic atheist still is choosing to believe something. They're still choosing to believe that there is no god, even though they acknowledge that they don't have evidence to support or contradict that belief.

    I don't have a problem with atheists per se, nor do I have a problem with religious types.
    I have a major problem with one group or the other trying to claim intellectual superiority over the other when the reality is that neither side can actually back up their beliefs, and in my experience it's self-proclaimed atheists tend to be much worse for this.


  • #84
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    blackwhite wrote: »
    An agnostic atheist still is choosing to believe something. They're still choosing to believe that there is no god, even though they acknowledge that they don't have evidence to support or contradict that belief.

    People don't choose to believe in anything. For one reason or another they come to a conclusion they consider to be sound and as a result they believe in it. I can't suddenly to choose to believe I'm actually an alien, but under the right circumstances I could be convinced.

    Also, you're showing a complete lack of understanding regarding the scientific method and critical thinking.

    Basic and well written article.


  • #85
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,992 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    Actually it was scientific method that brought me to the conclusion that god does not and will not ever exist.

    And what evidence did you find to prove that there is no god?

    I'll bet it was exactly the same amount of evidence that the catholic church has to back up it's beliefs.


  • #86
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    blackwhite wrote: »
    And what evidence did you find to prove that there is no god?

    I'll bet it was exactly the same amount of evidence that the catholic church has to back up it's beliefs.
    What evidence did you find to prove that there is not a small teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars? Also, look up "falsifiability" and "burden of proof"

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #87
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 758 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    blackwhite wrote: »
    An atheist denies the existence of a "god" or higher power. They believe that one does not exist. Athiesm is based on believing something (in this case believing that a different hypothesis is false).

    You don't get it.

    Theism poses the positive claim that 'a god exists'.
    Atheism is simply a rejection of that claim. It does not make the claim that 'there are no gods', which is an opposite positive claim.
    blackwhite wrote:
    Religious people not being able to prove their beliefs doesn't mean that the beliefs of atheists are autmoatically correct.

    You're right, but until there is tangible evidence and an ability to demonstrate the existence of a god, there is no good reason for anyone to believe in one.
    blackwhite wrote:
    as religious people have an onus of proof to support their hypothesis, so do atheists.

    No, they don't. This is shifting the burden of proof. As explained before, atheism is simply a rejection of the claim that a god exists due to lack of evidence. By your 'logic', people who don't believe in ghosts or an alien cover-up conspiracy have an onus to prove that they don't exist. Religious hypotheses don't get some kind of free ride.
    blackwhite wrote:
    Just because someone cannot prove their hypothesis, it doesn't automatically mean that opposing hypotheses are correct.

    Each hypothesis should always be examined critically on it's own merits. It's a core principal of scientific reasoning.

    There is no hypothesis that a god does not exist, there is only the hypothesis that a god exists, and that hypothesis has no evidence, thus it is without merit. People who reject this hypothesis are called atheists.

    In science, your hypothesis must be consistent with all available evidence and you must be able to make demonstrable predictions with it. The god hypothesis fails at every turn.
    blackwhite wrote:
    Whilst I may believe that a god PROBABLY does not exist, but I acknowledge that human knowledge isn't sufficiently developed to complete prove or disprove this belief. That's being agnostic.

    No, agnostic means you don't know whether a god exists or not. Anyone who isn't a theist (someone with a belief that a god really exists) is an atheist. You can be a gnostic theist, agnostic theist, agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist, but gnosticism is really quite silly.
    blackwhite wrote:
    The key difference between being agnostic and being an atheist is that atheists refuse to acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain whether they are right or wrong (just as religious types can't know for certain either). That's why atheism is just another set of beliefs that chooses to ignore proper scientific method when it takes them to a conclusion that doesn't 100% support their beliefs.

    Yeah, at this point, I really can't take you seriously. You lack a fundamental understanding of both atheism and the scientific method.


  • #88
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    blackwhite wrote: »
    And what evidence did you find to prove that there is no god?

    This is the wrong way of thinking.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

    Burden of proof : It is up to the person who makes the positive claim to present evidence.

    Do you consider the existence of unicorns equally likely and unlikely?

    What about leprechauns?

    What about my left arm being an alien's arm?

    You can neither prove nor disprove these things, but I wouldn't call you a fool for calling bullshit.

    In fact, the very fact the existence of leprechauns and Gods cannot be disproven disqualifies their applicability into the scientific method and thus requires no middle-ground to be taken.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7VcLCwnpt4


  • #89
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    blackwhite wrote: »
    And what evidence did you find to prove that there is no god?

    I'll bet it was exactly the same amount of evidence that the catholic church has to back up it's beliefs.

    It's not the same thing at all! The null hypothesis is that there is no god. Why? Because you are trying to prove, with evidence, that one exists. If you can't prove that, the null hypothesis is accepted. So far I've not seen any proof that one exists. When I do I'll believe in one. Same as anything else in science. Substitute pink unicorns, or invisible frogs for the word god and it's the exact same thing. It's not a case of choosing to believe that invisible frogs don't exist based on no evidence whatsoever that that don't!


  • #90
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    blackwhite wrote: »
    And what evidence did you find to prove that there is no god?

    I'll bet it was exactly the same amount of evidence that the catholic church has to back up it's beliefs.
    Well in a very sort sumation, Before the big bang there was nothing, no matter no light and no time. So if there was no time how could a god exist. Simple really.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 758 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    Well in a very sort sumation, Before the big bang there was nothing, no matter no light and no time. So if there was no time how could a god exist. Simple really.

    "Oh, but God is outside of time*. He created the universe, so he's not constrained by its laws*."
    "All right... who created God?"
    "Nobody! He's God! He's eternal*!"
    "Why can't the universe (or higher-level universe like a multiverse) be eternal?"
    "Stop oppressing me!"

    *Convenient cop-outs which serve no purpose other than to satisfy circular reasoning.


Advertisement
Advertisement