Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

[Prufrock]

the point of this rant, and it is a subject that makes my blood BOIL, is that if somebody wants to beleive alien souls were trapped in a volcano, in my view that is fine, i dont see it any more ridiculous than beleiving God created everything in 7 days, people are entitled to beleive that and nobody should have the right to say they cant. if people use this beleif as a foundation and a shield for devious irresponsible money grabbing methods, damn right people should be allowed to protest, to make a stand, that does not make you a racist nor an incitor of racial hatred.

Whilst accepting your points, I'm not quite sure where racism comes into it all? Sectarianism, surely?

whether or not a strict definition of racism would encompass discrimination on the grounds of religion, if a muslim lad were to be abused because he was asian the general public and the mass media would describe it as racism, semantics are hardly the point here.

[Prufrock]

it cured Tom Cruise's dyslexia. What more do you want??

them not to ruin the lives of many in order to make a quick profit?

and your evidence of this is? And in comparison to the numbers whose lives have been "ruined" by other religions, Scientology has "ruined" how many?

May also I point you directly to the stations broadcasting on the upper reaches of Sky, where a "Christian" preacher will cure you of being a paraplegic, but don't forget to show your love for the Lord (must be said as if doing a James Brown impression) by sending lots of money to him.

If you're going to castigate one religion, gotta do them all or you're just as bad as them.

Like a wise man roughly said - We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

/www.whyaretheydead.net/

i read that with my friend once when we stumbled on it by accident looking for jokes about scientology. now there is no proof to their claims but i find a lot of it very convincing. as for castigating one religion, im not castigating it becasue it is a religion, im attacking it becasue of its practices. i am firmly against this sort of pressuring, indoctrination and manipulation no matter what religion. i am just as firmly against the Christian preachers on sky, and against indoctrination of children in any religion. i have said in another thread i dont beleive children can have a religion. however the issue in this thread is scientology.

i personally am against organised religion, but it is part of the world and wont be got rid of any time soon. i dont mind this as long as they do not attempt to manipulate people for their own means. scientology in my view is the most aggressive and active in this respect, hence its special place in my heart, altho i condemn any religion that practices in this way

[Bruce Rioja]

Like a wise man roughly said - We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

Love it (who was it?)

May I add Oscar Wilde:

"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability".

I'll go for Richard Dawkins.

[a1]

I'll go for Richard Dawkins.

he IS a prick.

proper.

[Puskas]

I'll go for Richard Dawkins.

he IS a prick.

proper.

Why, exactly? A biologist, lots of good stuff published regarding genetics/phenotype relations in regard to evolution. Good writer, clear concise arguments.
He asks a simple question - why can't theists give evidence for their beliefs? What makes him a prick? Exactly?

[Dujon]

Might I suggest, Puskas, that he is a young lad who, like me, has trouble with spelling and multiple finger typing? After all, the letter "L" is not all that far from the letter "N" on my keyboard.


*edit*

I have just checked what keys I use when touch typing and which involve my middle finger. They are:


cdeik

You can work out your own anagram. Not brilliant, but pretty close.

[Montreal Wanderer]

whether or not a strict definition of racism would encompass discrimination on the grounds of religion, if a muslim lad were to be abused because he was asian the general public and the mass media would describe it as racism, semantics are hardly the point here.

If he was abused because he was Asian, it would be racism and the public and mass media would be correct. If he was abused because he was a Muslim, it would not be racism but perhaps religious intolerance. If he was abused solely for either reason it would be unacceptable. I'm not sure what people in the UK mean when they say Asian (Indian subcontinent??) but Asian in most places would cover a number of different religions.

[hisroyalgingerness]

cult? did he mis-spell? has that joke been done?

friend at mine at work went for one of those free personality tests they do.

they concluded she was self-concious, lonely, lacked direction and needed scientology in her life

[TANGODANCER]

Why, exactly? A biologist, lots of good stuff published regarding genetics/phenotype relations in regard to evolution. Good writer, clear concise arguments.
He asks a simple question - why can't theists give evidence for their beliefs? What makes him a prick? Exactly?

My sole contribution to the thread:

Why should they even try? If there was evidence for beliefs, the world would be full of believers. Believers never decry non-believers, it's always the other way round. It's called the sound of "fear".

And now, before the entrance of the great Anti-God, I'll laugh in advance and go make a brew. .

[communistworkethic]

Why, exactly? A biologist, lots of good stuff published regarding genetics/phenotype relations in regard to evolution. Good writer, clear concise arguments.
He asks a simple question - why can't theists give evidence for their beliefs? What makes him a prick? Exactly?

My sole contribution to the thread:

Why should they even try? If there was evidence for beliefs, the world would be full of believers. Believers never decry non-believers, it's always the other way round. It's called the sound of "fear" .

And now, before the entrance of the great Anti-God, I'll laugh in advance and go make a brew. .

to para-phrase your holier than thou self.."that's a load of shit". I suggest you remove your blinkers and look around the world at the amount of religious persecution in the name of a god.


As for "fear", it is only the like of youself that doesn't want anwers to questions that fears anything, you fear the idea that this is all that life has and that when you die that's it. Those who follow science, look for evidence that can be tested and proved or tested and disproved not some arbritray mumbo-jumbo that not believing will see you sent to the fires of hell and eternal damnation.

To quote Dawkins again......

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. "

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. "

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. "

"One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all. "

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time. "

"There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies? "

[TANGODANCER]

Amen.

[a1]

Why, exactly? A biologist, lots of good stuff published regarding genetics/phenotype relations in regard to evolution. Good writer, clear concise arguments.
He asks a simple question - why can't theists give evidence for their beliefs? What makes him a prick? Exactly?

they are too 'dogmatic' in their aproach. they come across like the rabid religious types that they think are pricks except they hate the mellow ones too just for believing in a god.

he's a biologist. the whole "is there a god? no theres not" shite , IF there is one a physacist type will find 'Him' . and these steven hawking types are way more pragmatic about it all.

theres a documentry called " The Trouble With Atheism ", only saw five minutes at stupid o clock in the morning, he blamed world war 2 on summert daft.

then about 4 months later saw that " Go God Go " episode of sourth park , got bonus points for this ultra glib statement.

"Logic and reason aren't enough: You also have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you."

which made me laugh.

the mysts of time help most religions .. scientology though is based on books in the 20th century that people are older than.. and starship troopers was miles better .

[boltonboris]

Also a Family Guy episode when Peter's Dad comes to town

"Okay, People don't agree with you, so you hit them - Very Catholic"

[Prufrock]

whether or not a strict definition of racism would encompass discrimination on the grounds of religion, if a muslim lad were to be abused because he was asian the general public and the mass media would describe it as racism, semantics are hardly the point here.

If he was abused because he was Asian, it would be racism and the public and mass media would be correct. If he was abused because he was a Muslim, it would not be racism but perhaps religious intolerance. If he was abused solely for either reason it would be unacceptable. I'm not sure what people in the UK mean when they say Asian (Indian subcontinent??) but Asian in most places would cover a number of different religions.

that was complete brain freeze on my part. i meant a muslim lad abused because he was muslim. strictly speaking not racist, but thats what that means now, due to its constant use in that way by the media and the general public. that however is not the point, my point was, to say something contrary to religion does not make you a bad person (no semantical problems there anyone?? ) as long as you have a reason other than for the sake of having a go at someone on the basis of their religion. does that make sense? im not sure it does but im trying to talk in the most general terms so the actual point doesnt get diluted by arguments about my choice of word.

[Prufrock]

Why, exactly? A biologist, lots of good stuff published regarding genetics/phenotype relations in regard to evolution. Good writer, clear concise arguments.
He asks a simple question - why can't theists give evidence for their beliefs? What makes him a prick? Exactly?

My sole contribution to the thread:

Why should they even try? If there was evidence for beliefs, the world would be full of believers. Believers never decry non-believers, it's always the other way round. It's called the sound of "fear".

And now, before the entrance of the great Anti-God, I'll laugh in advance and go make a brew. .

because, and this is my big problem with religion, when you are talking about people's lives you must have evidence. if i was to tell you i had an imaginary friend called Frank you'd think me crazy. If i call him a god, write a book that will cause thousands if not millions of deaths in the future, and get indignant if you try to suggest you are not going to beleive in Frank because you dont think he is real, suddenly its ok, because its my religion. the most powerful two men in the world at the time, just before the Iraq war, know what they did just before they made the announcement the war was going ahead? prayed to THEIR imaginary friend. thats right, ignored the lack of hard real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which was enough for the UN security council not to pass a resolution.

as for dawkins, i think a lot of his stuff is very interesting but in my mind too aggressive, and i dont agree that religion is necessarily bad. one of the most interesting things i have read about religion is in fact Derren Brown's book 'Tricks of the mind'. Part of this book is a teaching book for basic magic and memory skills, but there are sections when he talks about Dawkins' ideas, simplifies them, and puts them in the context of his own life. Brown used to be an evangelic christian, but after gaining an interest in magic and psychology began to question his faith. he sets what i think is a very fair challenge. read dawkins, challenge your faith, have an open mind, if you still beleive fair enough. anyone unwilling to do this is in my view hiding behind the idea of faith to explain what they are scared of or cannot answer.

back to the matter in hand, of scientology. the main point here i think is that these protestors where not protesting aginst the fact these people beleive in Thetans. They were protesting against the practices employed by these people. that in my mind is not inciting racial hatred, it is having some social responsibility, and im sure if the church of england had done the same things they would protest aginst that too. before anyone comes up with a list of the church's wrongs i mean in the modern day, and to the extent of the website i quoted above

[Lord Kangana]

I prefer Nietzche:

There are no facts, only interpretations.

and

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Religion should be a source for good in this world and it can be a great comfort to those who have faith. It can also become dogma and misused by men for other evil purposes. Acts are committed in the name of religions which are clearly contrary to the tenets of those religions. People lose or gain faith for any number of reasons, but to attempt to convince them that what they believe at a particular moment is wrong is pointless. I am an atheist not because anything can be proved either way but because the concept of God, invented by men with less knowledge than I have, seems extremely improbable. However, one can still live one's life in an ethical way, based to a significant extent on religious texts.

[communistworkethic]

Religion should be a source for good in this world and it can be a great comfort to those who have faith. It can also become dogma and misused by men for other evil purposes. Acts are committed in the name of religions which are clearly contrary to the tenets of those religions. People lose or gain faith for any number of reasons, but to attempt to convince them that what they believe at a particular moment is wrong is pointless. I am an atheist not because anything can be proved either way but because the concept of God, invented by men with less knowledge than I have, seems extremely improbable. However, one can still live one's life in an ethical way, based to a significant extent on religious texts.

totally agree with your sentiments there MW, which may indeed worry you! But I do take that further step and like my life to revolve around evidence and reason, logic and probability; superstition has no place for me ('cept maybe on matchdays ) and I don't think ethics has to have anthing to do with religion. Then there's the duplicitous nature of being religious, you want to live part of your life based on blind faith, but you wouldn't walk out in to the road with a blindfold on if a stranger told you it was safe. Why have faith in something completely intangible but the apply strict logic for another?

I would also take the highlighted point one step further in itself. In the bible, many are supposed to have spoken to God, Angels and all manner of spirit, the Bible states this as fact, unless it's one of those bits you arbitraily decide is just analagous, and no believer thinks anything unusual of these tales, all perfectly reasonable. Peter Sutclifffe claims God told him to kill women and he's a nutter. Now as far as I'm concerned any claim that you're hearing voices in your head makes you of questionable sanity, but for some reason a certain section of society has decided that it knows what God's will is and that he can't change his mind 2,000 + years later, inspite of his omnipotence.


I would also argue that trying to explain the ludicous nature of their beliefs to a relgious type is not pointless, the point is to get them to open their mind. Futile it may be in the case of those so heavily brainwashed that they metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears and go "ner ner ner I am not listening ner ner ner", but not pointless.



Oh and in reponse to our resident God-botherer, as I assumed he meant me, I can't be Anti-God, as he doesn't exist. You may as well refer to me as anti-tooth fairy

[Prufrock]

Religion should be a source for good in this world and it can be a great comfort to those who have faith. It can also become dogma and misused by men for other evil purposes. Acts are committed in the name of religions which are clearly contrary to the tenets of those religions. People lose or gain faith for any number of reasons, but to attempt to convince them that what they believe at a particular moment is wrong is pointless. I am an atheist not because anything can be proved either way but because the concept of God, invented by men with less knowledge than I have, seems extremely improbable. However, one can still live one's life in an ethical way, based to a significant extent on religious texts.

totally agree with your sentiments there MW, which may indeed worry you! But I do take that further step and like my life to revolve around evidence and reason, logic and probability; superstition has no place for me ('cept maybe on matchdays ) and I don't think ethics has to have anthing to do with religion. Then there's the duplicitous nature of being religious, you want to live part of your life based on blind faith, but you wouldn't walk out in to the road with a blindfold on if a stranger told you it was safe. Why have faith in something completely intangible but the apply strict logic for another?

I would also take the highlighted point one step further in itself. In the bible, many are supposed to have spoken to God, Angels and all manner of spirit, the Bible states this as fact, unless it's one of those bits you arbitraily decide is just analagous, and no believer thinks anything unusual of these tales, all perfectly reasonable. Peter Sutclifffe claims God told him to kill women and he's a nutter. Now as far as I'm concerned any claim that you're hearing voices in your head makes you of questionable sanity, but for some reason a certain section of society has decided that it knows what God's will is and that he can't change his mind 2,000 + years later, inspite of his omnipotence.


I would also argue that trying to explain the ludicous nature of their beliefs to a relgious type is not pointless, the point is to get them to open their mind. Futile it may be in the case of those so heavily brainwashed that they metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears and go "ner ner ner I am not listening ner ner ner", but not pointless.



Oh and in reponse to our resident God-botherer, as I assumed he meant me, I can't be Anti-God, as he doesn't exist. You may as well refer to me as anti-tooth fairy

agree with pretty much all of that commie. for me the only way to live my life is through what i perceive to be factually correct through my own senses, logic, and reasoning. the bit i have emboldened is exactly how i feel about religious types, although i dont think they have to lose their faith to have an open mind. there are things we cannot explain now. i personally thing that there will be a scientific reason for them, but it hasnt been found yet. if somebody has faith and questions that faith and can justify a beleif in a highr power to themselves not just because they are scared of the unknown, but because to them it explains the unknown, then i think they are entitled to that. that's not to say you were saying they arent i just thought your post seemed a bit ambiguous??

as for organised religion, id gladly get rid of it all. faith in my view should be a personal thing

[Prufrock]

Why, exactly? A biologist, lots of good stuff published regarding genetics/phenotype relations in regard to evolution. Good writer, clear concise arguments.
He asks a simple question - why can't theists give evidence for their beliefs? What makes him a prick? Exactly?

My sole contribution to the thread:

Why should they even try? If there was evidence for beliefs, the world would be full of believers. Believers never decry non-believers, it's always the other way round. It's called the sound of "fear".

And now, before the entrance of the great Anti-God, I'll laugh in advance and go make a brew. .

because proof is the burden of the beleiver. its nigh on impossible to prove something doesnt exsist, but normally much easier to prove something does exsist. hence the idea of proof negating faith, as if blind faith is something we should all strive for. convenient non?

i never understand how the idea of religion makes perfectly reasonable inteligent people who always work on facts, suddenly shut there eyes and put their fingers in their ears. thats not meant as a personal attack on you tango, this is the only time ive heard you talk about religion, and me thinks there may have been an element of controversy stiring!!