Freedom of religion? Is Scientology really a religion?

[FM Arouet666]

http://www.xenu.net/archive/scientology_illustrated/
http://www.xenu.net/archive/CoS_prices.html

Reading through xenu.net, I wonder how people can believe such utter nonsense. Scientology would be funny if it wasn't so morally bankrupt. How can people be so ignorant?

Speaking of ignorant, let me introduce you to Tommy boy.....
http://www.tomcruiseisnuts.com/
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/TomCruise/

What a dolt, I refuse to watch his crap, not a great loss, his movies tend to be fluff, lacking in substance and inspired acting.

:tinfoilhat: :woohoo:

[mestup]

1. How can people be so ignorant? Well, Bush in office.

I know, I know. There was that whole thing about stolen votes. But still, the question has to be - why was it so close?

Great links by the way!

[lazarus]

2. Is it any more weird

or bizarre than, say, a religion in which ritual cannibalisation of one's deity is practised?

I find all beliefs in the supernatural to be equally nonsensical.

[eridani]

3. Parody circulating in filking circles 25 years or so ago

Tune: Ballad of Jesse James

I'll make no apology for Scientology
To rid us of our engrams they'll be bound
Of profits not a smidgeon
They are tax-free, a religion'
And they'll cure you if you only stick around.

Chorus: We shall be clear, L. Ron will make us clear
We're hoping and we're praying for the light
L. Ron Hubbard pray for me
That my soul enlightened be
Thad's imprisoned in the engrammatic night

Marijuana, meditation, LSD and masturbation
Come and go and fade so quickly from the scene
But Dianetics is here to stay
And if you can afford to pay
Your dirty mind will soon be brainwashed clean.

Chorus

Oh our hearts are so much brighter
and our wallets so much lighter
Our consciences and bank accounts are clear
Stack the greenbacks in the cupboard
Of old Mother L. Ron Hubbard
He was just a struggling author yesteryear.

Chorus

[reprehensor]

9. Hah!

That's classic!

You know, L. Ron was actually a good pulp sci-fi author. You wouldn't know it from the abomination, 'Battlefield Earth' movie, but the book is well written, flows well, has a coherent interesting plot, and I was suprised as hell when I started reading it.

I'm also suprised that more SF authors don't cook up their own religions.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. It's a self-serving, self-perpetuating cult. It's also crap for suckers.

[Nihil]

8. So is that "pro" or "con" for Scientology?

Or were we talking about the Christian Church here?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Most people can figure it out. But what is your point?

Most people can figure it out. Only you are talking about the christian church here. So what is your point?

[Nihil]

11. My point was that your comment is not restricted to Scientology

Most people could figure it out ...

I was wondering if you had recognised the similarity to other
"self-serving, self-perpetuating" cults but that seems to have
eluded you. A quote about motes & beams springs to mind.

[The Magistrate]

23. One Point Not To Be Overlooked, Sir

"Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived."

Scientology cannot be said to have survived for another couple of centuries at least, in this league....

[CatholicEdHead]

15. Any religion/philosophy taken over the top leads to this

to some degree. Cults can form from almost anything.

[Benhurst]

5. One man's religion is another's superstition. NT

:popcorn:

[soothsayer]

12. Amen! Er....I mean yeah.

[ClintonTyree]

6. I knew Cruise was nuts when......

he divorced Nicole Kidman. No man in their right mind divorces Nicole Kidman.
Now he's running around with this 26 year old bimbette who is obviously not too bright, she's pregnant so we have another annoying little egotistic future Scientologist to look forward to
By the way, Cruise's real name is Thomas Cruise Mapother IV. Doesn't have much of a "ring" to it does it?
Scientology is a cult that sucks wayward egomaniacs like Cruise into it's fold. You can see what they've done to Cruise's mind, imagine what the rest of the zombies are like. If Scientology is a religion as they claim, can anyone name ONE GOOD THING this "religion" has accomplished except relieve people like Cruise of their money and fill them with pseudo-superiority? Just asking.
Everything you always wanted to know about Scientology but didn't give a shit enough about to ask; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Beliefs_and_practices

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. personally,

I am suspect of any so-called religion that is more interested in your money than in your spiritual health. There are a lot of con men in religion.

[jackthesprat]

13. Christianity and Scientology are both religions.

What's the beef?

[FM Arouet666]

18. No, no....... Where's the beef?

As in where is the substance in scientology which qualifies it as a religion?

[beam me up scottie]

19. What definition are you using?

This one would include scientology:

From Answers.com:

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.
1. a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Incidentally, the definition of cult from the same source fits both as well.

cult (kŭlt)
n.
1. a) A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b) The followers of such a religion or sect.

2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.

3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.

4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

5. a) Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b) The object of such devotion.

6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

[FM Arouet666]

20. Fraud

1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting :

Of course I would lump both religion and cult under fraud.

A point of contention regarding the CoS is the amount of money involved in the church. However, christians and mormons tithe large amounts of money, and anyone who has wondered around european catholic churches will acknowledge the amount of money spent in glorification of god.

Another point is that scientology beliefs are ridiculous. Talking burning bushes, walking on water, rising from the dead, the holy hand grenade, oops that was a movie, but you get what I mean.

I guess what I find objectionable is the ease with which someone can invent a new cult(religion), manipulate a group of impressionables, bilk them of funds, oppress opposition, and cause mental and physical harm.

But hey, I am probably being too paternalistic, if people want to spend their lives and money for something as ridiculous as the ramblings of a bad science fiction writer, so be it. Just seems pathetic.......

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

21. Oh, I agree, it is pathetic.

I just don't think it should be disqualified for any of those reasons.

There are stray woo woos everywhere looking for something to believe in.

You should invent your own religion.

It could be fun, profitable and you could amaze all your friends.

[jackthesprat]

33. Same could be asked of any religion, like Christianity.

Matter of taste.

[FM Arouet666]

42. Your right, we should dump all religions.

All religions are myth, no supporting evidence, contradicting modern science. You have nominated christianity for the chopping block. I second the opinion. All in agreement say Aye....

[beam me up scottie]

14. Sure it is.

It's just a baby though.

Imagine how much misery, death and destruction they can bring to the world once they've had another 2000 years to catch up to the big boys.

[catbert836]

16. Ah, Scientology.

What a bizarre cult! they think that we're inhabited by the souls of millions of malignant dead aliens! Only if it was something believable, like a virgin birth, or someone rising from the dead...
Not to say that Scientology isn't extremely f**ked up, of course.

[beam me up scottie]

17. ROFL!

"Only if it was something believable, like a virgin birth, or someone rising from the dead..."

:rofl:

[catbert836]

29. Glad you appreciated it.

n/t

[beam me up scottie]

30. It's that much funnier coming

from someone who's had the experience than an infidel like me.

:evilgrin:

[catbert836]

31. Hee hee.

I guess that WOULD be funny to you, because you're one of THOSE people... :hide:

[beam me up scottie]

32. Watch it!

You never know when the Flying Spaghetti Monster is watching...

[FM Arouet666]

22. Two other interesting aspects to the CoS debate

The 1993 Tax exempt status.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/nytimes.html

I am not a big fan of tax exemption for religious organizations. Especially religions which have become political heavy weights, e.g. evangelical christianity.

And the German opposition to the CoS.
http://www.germanlife.com/Archives/1997/9710_01.html

The article provides an insight into the German governments opposition to the CoS. Infiltration of government by church members, covert influence, sounds very much the fundies in the U.S. Hariet Miers appointed to the SCOTUS based on her religion? Scary, the Germans have a point.

However, the flip side of the argument is rather odious. Should the government take an active role in regulating what is a religion? If so, how easy would it be for government to then mandate what religions are to be believed. Judging this question based on the current administration, the answer must be a resounding no.

On the other hand, there should be rule of law to prevent an unscrupulous individual from taking an illegal pyramid scam, dressing it up with the crape paper of religion, and gaining a legitimacy to bilk unsuspecting followers.

The Germans have taken the position that the CoS has crossed the line from legitimate religion to scam. From what I have read about the high pressure practices of the "church" and their penchant for retaliation, I would agree. But, I also agree the line between scam and religion must be drawn very conservatively so as not to invite governmental abuse.

Just some thoughts......

[papau]

24. Someone should read L. Ron's 1948 Hugo award acceptance speech

He said he hated paying income taxes, and would start a "church" to avoid paying them - and he did.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. And the UK Charity Commission's decision that it isn't a religion

http://website.lineone.net/~steve_c-t/Scientology/Documents/charity_commissiondecision.htm

A fairly complicated decision, but I think it boils down to saying Scientology's activities are personal therapy, rather than an attempt to benefit the public as a whole, and while Scientology claims a 'supreme being', their activities don't amount to reverence for it, and so they are not a religion.

[FM Arouet666]

26. Thanks for the link

Supports my take on the issue. How far out there do you have to go before you should not be considered a religion?

I like your summary of the decision, but I am left with a question. Are there any other "more acceptable" religions which could be defined in similar fashion to that described in your summary?

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I'm not sure

I did think that Buddhism might have problems under that legal definition, because they don't have a supreme being (but they do revere things); I see there is a new Charities Bill currently going through the British parliament, which says religion includes religions with more than one god, and those with no gods, so perhaps they also thought Buddhism might have problems.

[papau]

35. Why is does Buddhism not fit the UN's words?

"The Commissioners decided that the concept of a supreme being was broader than the theistic concept of a personal creator god, but otherwise it would not be proper to specify the precise nature of that concept or require it to be analogous to the deity or
supreme being of any particular religion. However the Commissioners did not find themselves compelled to reject the concept of theism altogether nor to accept the abstract concept of the notion of a supernatural thing or principle.....(c) The Commissioners decided that the criterion of worship would be met where the belief in a supreme being found its expression in conduct indicative of reverence or veneration for the supreme being.

The Brit bill is just for L Ron's group - I do not think that it is being sold as something more that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. I'm not definite that Buddhism would have a problem

under the Commission's interpretation, but I thought they were saying that while they regarded a supreme being as being a wider concept than a god which created the world, or one which communicates with us ('personal'), they didn't think they would go as far as saying it would meant something as abstract as a principle. And that, I thought, might be a problem for Buddhism (since they were using an earlier legal ruling that "the definition of religion was characterised by a belief in a supreme being and an expression of belief in that supreme being through worship." As far as I know, Buddhists haven't had any actual problems (but I don't know if that's because it no-one has ever complained about them).

The Commission's ruling was specific to the Scientologists; the current bill is for far more than Hubbard's lot - it's a general revision of charity law in Britain (of which religion is one part). When I saw that they explicitly said a religion could be with many, or no, gods, I thought it might mean they wanted to get away from the idea of a 'supreme being'.

[papau]

39. Interesting - thanks for the info- it seems to come down to the definition

of God - and it looks like the tax folks are ducking the idea of giving us a definition. I would think that spirit of the tree worship, spirit of whatever worship, and perhaps ancestor veneration perhaps broke the tax folks ability to "find the right words" for spirituality and God.

[Zhade]

27. Why is it that a made-up story like Xenu's is recognized as fiction...

...but virgin births and resurrections are not?

This is a serious question. There is no more evidence for those purported miracles than there is for "body thetans".

Why are, say, Muslims atheists when it comes to all belief systems but their own?

What enables a believer to discard one obvious myth but accept another?

Again, this is a serious question. I honestly don't understand how believers can pick and choose what they profess to deeply believe, often even within their own belief system!

For example, the Christian bible states that all contained within its covers MUST be taken as true. Thus, according to the holy book Christians use, there can be no Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, or don't believe the Great Flood actually happened.

Now, I know there are Christians who don't accept the bible as literally true. From what I know about early Christianity, that's much closer to the purported words of Jesus than the Paulian doctrine that followed his alleged crucifixion.

How do believers reconcile their holy books' demand for fidelity and loyalty to the entire text with their natural inclination not to accept every bit of a myth as factually true?

I stress once more, not a flame, but a serious question.

(Btw, funny note: an alternative for 'Xenu' in DU's spellcheck is 'Xena'.)

[papau]

34. L Ron said he would write a fiction that he would call a religion - and

did - so as to get his IRS tax shelter that he lacked at the 1948 Hugo's -"Xenu is a galactic ruler who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause people problems today. These events are known to Scientologists as "Incident II", and the traumatic memories associated with them as The Wall of Fire or the R6 implant. The story of Xenu is part of a much wider range of Scientology beliefs in extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in Earthly events, collectively described as space opera by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.

Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, famously warning that R6 was "calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it." The Xenu story was the start of the use of the volcano as a common symbol of Scientology and Dianetics from 1968 to the present day.

Much of the criticism of the Church of Scientology focuses on the story of Xenu. The Church has tried to keep Xenu confidential; critics claim revealing the story is in the public interest, given the high prices charged for OT III. The Church avoids making mention of Xenu in public statements and has gone to considerable effort to maintain the story's confidentiality, including legal action on the grounds of both copyright and trade secrecy. Despite this, much material on Xenu has leaked to the public.

Hubbard later dramatised parts of the Xenu story as a film script, Revolt in the Stars."

Scientology=motivation classes and to the extent it does not affect me, I do not care what they do/think and am indeed glad some folks are getting motivated.

Perhaps me in my faith, and those in other faiths find more (and trust more those there at the time) "evidence for those purported miracles" than you do. Perhaps with reason :-)

[Zhade]

36. More likely with no reason, but merely emotion.

Before you get into "metaphysical evidence" - which is not evidence at all, except perhaps in your mind (which of course could be delusional or confused about what its 'experiencing') - I wonder if you could answer the question I actually asked: how do believers, such as yourself, determine that myths of one religion occurred, but myths of other religions did not?

Do you feel something while reading one myth, and not while reading another? And how do you then know for certain that any such feelings are motivated by "recognizing the truth" (sic) and not by anything from misfiring neurons to wishful thinking?

I often wonder how people can pick and choose which myth to believe as factually true, and how such cherry-picking often occurs even within the myth a believer has chosen to believe as true. I'm asking, to better understand believers, how you are able to do it, and how you are able to set two myths side-by-side and say "this one is true, this one is not" - and why it is that a believer feels that their belief is correct, and the other believer's isn't, while the other believer thinks the same in reverse.

Personally, I would start to wonder why my particular unproven myth was real but another's wasn't. Actually, that (and the inability to believe in gods and demons without any evidence for their existence) are what led me to conclude that religions are just stories written by ancient peoples to try to make sense of the world.

So how do you choose it, and how do you justify the exclusion of all belief systems but your particular brand?

[papau]

37. You sound like "myth" is a bad word - it is not - for the most part it is

history.

You try to say there is no evidence because you want no evidence, while I see evidence that is more than adequate as to the history in the "myth". Different judgements by different people do happen -eh?

As to God, we come to faith. And as you state in the above post, by definition there can be no evidence in the scientific sense - but as I have said there can be evidence in the meta-physical sense.

In the scientific by definition there can be no ultimate truth - there is only "experiment" than can be reproduced, and the latest best effort toward an explanation of how that event - that experimental result - occurred. Often non-scientific folks confuse the explaining of the how by science as an explanation of the why - but I believe you will find most understand that the "why" the non-scientific think they see is no more than an extensive "how" that can be applied to make new experiments.

You find importance in determining the quality of the history in the "myth" and ask how do I know that the myth of one religion occurred, and that those of another did not occur. Since neither of us were there in the past how do we know anything about the past really occurred? In anything other than the pure science of math, all is a judgment call. This is no different. Given the stated intent of L Ron, to call his "myth" history is to call the man a liar. Of course all early believers are liars or are mistaken if your faith demands you accept that there is no God - or no God shown to you as yet, whatever - but we all are making judgment calls.

And as any judgment can be called wrong - or just "misfiring neurons" and "wishful thinking" - a judgment that early believers were liars or were mistaken could be wrong.

I agree that myths/religion can be viewed as attempts to make sense out of the of the world.

We all demand "order" in our life - and even the demand for absolutely no order - because it is a demand for pure/random when proof of random is never complete - is a demand for an absolute rule. If random did not exist then stat courses are worthless - but chaos theory has us looking at long term order amongst the random as an expected, making all science explanations transitory.

But you can not prove that some "order" is noy really a "pause" in a random sequence, the same way you can not prove that their is no God.

So we continue in our search for order - both of us - in our own way.

At least that is my opinion.

:toast:

:-)

[Zhade]

40. Myth, by definition, is not history.

You can feel satisfied that what you see as "metaphysical evidence" is enough to convince you of your beliefs. That's great.

Doesn't make it evidence to anyone but you, and you must admit you're biased toward your own beliefs. So, not a reliable indication that your beliefs are grounded in any historical fact.

"And as any judgment can be called wrong - or just "misfiring neurons" and "wishful thinking" - a judgment that early believers were liars or were mistaken could be wrong."

I'm not making that argument, so kindly do not put words in my mouth. Additionally, there are more possibilities than your two choices. For example, the myths of Christianity could have been made up out of whole cloth. After all, the Gospels weren't written until decades after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and intellectual honesty necessitates that the fact that the bible itself has been rewritten and retranslated dozens of times be acknowledged, and that possible changes - be they by accident or design - may have significantly changed the original posthumous texts' meanings (witness the mistranslation of 'virgin' for the original 'maiden' with regards to Mary).

The fact is, you cannot offer any proof that the supernatural myths of the Gospels (for example) occurred as written/rewritten. Yet some believe they literally happened.

I have no beef with people having such beliefs. It is their right. I only balk when people insist those events reflect historical record, when they most decidedly do not exist in such records outside of the bible. Likewise, when people try to legislate or somehow force their beliefs onto others.

I reiterate, I am cool with you believing in myths. Whatever gets you through the night, as Lennon said. Just please don't insult my intelligence by assuming I would accept subjective personal experiences as actual evidence of your beliefs' veracity.

Sadly, I still have no concrete answer to my question. Hopefully, someone will be able to explain away the cognitive dissonance inherent in believers picking one myth over another.

(EDIT: sloppy spelling thanks to working a 14-hour shift)

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

43. You never give up, do you?

"Wrong - True that Myth rarely begins as WRITTEN history - and indeed
written history, as we have noted in such places as Egypt, can be a bunch of lies - or if you like - 3 and 4 thousand year old "political" statements/spin.

Not sure what things from Egypt "we've" noticed - I don't recall having that discussion with you - but yes, myths are often told and retold, with lots of morphing and changes, before written down.


"There is no set theory concept that says history is excluded from myth."

I have no idea what you mean by 'set theory concept', as you tend to make up definitions for terms, but in any case I never made that argument, so it's a strawman I won't waste time addressing.


"We are agreed that "evidence" and "lack of evidence" are judgment calls - adding the words "you are biased toward accepting/rejecting" does not change that."

Um, no. I never agreed with you on that. In fact, the discussion of evidence being some sort of judgment call never really surfaced, so another irrelevant part of your reply.

Now that you've mentioned such a possibility for the first time, I will address that briefly to say that no, evidence is not a judgment call. How an stone is structured is an informed observation by a qualified geologist, and a layperson's ignorance of same disqualifies him from overriding the informed observations and the veracity of that evidence. In other words, if one is too ignorant to support an argument that the geologist is wrong, the "judgment call" that he is wrong is going to be flawed due to that ignorance.

Evidence is something that can be witnessed by more than one person, with the sometime exception of eyewitnesses - and of course no believers alive eyewitnessed the alleged events of their personal belief system's myths.


"I like that you are not making that "argument" and then you mention additional reasons why "made out of whole cloth" is an option."

Another falsity - I did not mention reasons why it is an option, only that it could be an option.


"As to retranslation and mistranslation, the dead sea discover seemed to put to rest the idea of great error developing over time from the process used to bring the information forward in time."

Says you. Pony up some evidence to support your claim.


"Greek, to this day, has multiple meanings for the same word - as does English. There is no "proof" of a mistranslation of the words used 2000 years ago - although there is multiple opinions as to such items as "virgin"."

Again, so you say. Please offer evidence of these multiple opinions, if you expect that claim to be taken as true.


"Why do you demand proof of the history?"

Well, I would say I demand evidence, not proof, and that because without evidence, I can't be certain it actually happened. I mean, duh. That's really not obvious to you?


"Science will provide that proof eventually is not good enough for you?"

I'm actually unsure what this part of the question means. You'll have to rephrase it, as I can't puzzle out what you mean.


"We now have a plausible if not a good "great flood" theory - the Med rising over the height of the natural barriers and flooding inland, and for the parting of the Red Sea being the effect of "nature" whacking the island of Thera. I do not care if they literally happened, you do, so these new science findings I suspect may be challenges to your atheist faith."

I. Do. Not. Have. An. Atheist. Faith. I have NEVER made the positive claim that "god does not exist". You are ascribing an argument to me that I never made, and thus distorting my position. It is intellectually dishonest, because you already know that it is not an argument I made.

Saying "I don't believe in aliens" is NOT the same as saying "I believe it is proven aliens do not exist". The former is a statement made due to lack of evidence for aliens, the other is an affirmative (and faith-based) claim.

Once again, I have never made that claim, because I am honest enough to realize that, as I cannot possibly know all knowledge in the universe, I cannot make that positive claim. Where I differ from you is that I don't make the opposite positive claim, also without evidence for its validity. If I HAD made that claim at some point in my life, you would be justified in saying I had "atheist faith" that there is no god. You'd be right. You're not, because I've never said the words you put in my mouth. Nor do I think that affirmative claim to be true. Maybe one day we'll actually have evidence for some god or gods. Since we don't at this point, I no more believe in them than I do Santa Claus.

You have been told - repeatedly - that your description of our atheism is arrogant and wrong. Why do you continue to attempt to define our atheism for us? Do I define your worldview for you? No. I would appreciate the same courtesy in reverse - I assume you've seen Skinner's thread on respect.

Now, as to the 'plausible theory' - yes, I am aware that a large-scale flood (possibly from a tsunami) may likely be the inspiration for countless Great Flood myths, including the biblical one. I'm glad you're not dim enough to think a worldwide flood wiping out all but a handful of humans and an impossible amount of animals on a boat literally happened.

(Note: I do think there was another mistranslation for "Reed Sea" to "Red Sea". It's how I recall it, anyway. If you feel so inclined, Google can find it. I'm not really pressing that point, as it's late).


"As to Bible mentioned events not existing outside the Bible, I posit that is still a matter up for discussion."

I'm always up for an honest discussion - which starts with mutual respect for the other person. I do not sense such respect from you, as you continually refuse to allow us atheists to define ourselves. Hell, when AZ gets offended, you should take a friggin' hint.


"But we...are both against "people try to legislate or somehow force their beliefs onto others.""

Yes. That is a good thing.


"I am also cool with your beliefs, indeed as Frank S said 30 years before Lennon, if Lennon ever said it, "Whatever gets you through the night".

You haven't been exposed to my beliefs, really.


"But please do not insult my intelligence by assuming I would accept your subjective personal experiences as actual evidence of the veracity of your belief in no God - no matter how you may try to reword that belief so as to claim it really is a "no belief", as you amuse us by arguing for the correctness of "no belief"."

Again with the willfully wrong arrogance. Don't believe there's no god, just don't believe in unproven gods. Haven't had any experiences to 'confirm there is no god' - how does one have an experience of nothingness?

No matter how amusing you find it to mock those who wish to define themselves, you are still wrong and will always be wrong.


"Truly it is sad that you have no concrete answer to your question. Perhaps noting the cognitive dissonance inherent in choosing a side in any debate is the beginning of wisdom?"

Haven't chosen a side - I have a position by default on the one side simply due to the fact that I don't believe in unproven gods. See, it's not specific to your god. I don't believe in the unproven Muslim myths, or Hindu, or Inuit, or whatever. So you see, I don't believe there is no god, I lack a belief in all of the unproven gods to date.


"Or if you prefer, stay with I'm right, your wrong, let's discuss why you are so stupid ("cognitive dissonance") and choose to be wrong. Whatever floats your boat."

Calling me stupid right to my face? Suggesting that I am wrong in how I define myself? Your arrogance never ceases.

[madeline_con]

44. Religion defined...

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

------------------------------

Looks like pretty much anything any moran makes up, and makes a big deal of, can be considered "religion".

[FM Arouet666]

45. Yep, I agree, and I bet this moran does too

The "moran" inside joke on DU must be popular, the spell checker doesn't catch it. LOL.....

[NAO]

46. Yes. Dianetics is more coherent and believable than The Bible

But they are both untrue, IMHO.

[Dogmudgeon]

47. Try ScienTOMogy.info

Do you know that Ron had an auditing process called "Remedy of Laughter"? Yep, it's all there, in The Creation of Human Ability (sorry, I forgot the R number Ron had assigned to it).

ScienTOMogy.info started out as a lighthearted spoof of Tom Cruise. Within days, Clam Central sent a case of Whoop-Ass® to the creator of that site. It turned out to be Yet Another Case in Scientology's ongoing "Operation Footbullet", the Church's continuing crusade to humiliate itself and marginalize its few remaining semi-sane followers.

Thou shouldst Cruise to the website ScienTOMogy and gettest thou Clear.

--p!

[FM Arouet666]

48. I am laughing my ass off.......

http://www.scientomogy.info/videos/263120_yaafm11.swf

Thanks for the link, the above video is a riot......