Scientoligists
- Thread starter zzzzz
- Start date
So why did you say it's just because it's new?
Nobody on here has mentioned banning it, that I'm aware of.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
It is new. It's less than 50 years. It might be mainstream in 100 years, I doubt it but it could be.
If you told me that we could have a world currency based on belief, I would have called you a fool. Now we have dozens.
I can't figure out if you're being deliberately obtuse here.
It's not about it being new or not, it's about its intentionally fraudulent nature. The majority of its adherents don't actually "believe" in it because one of its main principles is that you aren't even told about its true, core beliefs until you've paid about a quarter of a million dollars and reached the upper echelons.
Many people never get that far, but if they do, that's when a lot of them leave, because then they realize it's all a massive fraud.
SNOWBANDIT
Active member
Any religion that doesn't hound or kill people when they finally decide they've had enough is acceptable
Same_as_before
Well-known member
I
Banning stuff sends it underground.
I think we agree, I love the word obtuse, ever since Shawshank Redemption. I am sure all religions are fraudulent, look at the wealth if the more mature.
Banning stuff sends it underground.
HarryVegas
Well-known member
Has anyone said it should be banned?
As if to make it even more obvious what it was all about, Hubbard actually gave the game away in advance.
In November 1948, at a meeting of the Eastern Science Fiction Association on Newark, New Jersey he said that there was no money in writing science fiction and the best way to get rich was to start a religion.
And when he got into legal difficulties in 1951, that's exactly what he did.
Scientology Mythbusting with Jon Atack
In November 1948, at a meeting of the Eastern Science Fiction Association on Newark, New Jersey he said that there was no money in writing science fiction and the best way to get rich was to start a religion.
And when he got into legal difficulties in 1951, that's exactly what he did.
Scientology Mythbusting with Jon Atack
Osboro
Well-known member
I don’t NEED to, you obviously do.
Its a hard concept to come to come to terms with,so it understandable that some people invent solutions, without the intellectual capacity to comprehend ( or just accept what is beyond you) you opt for fantasy.
Christianity as a belief system and moral code is wonderful, the sky fairy bits are just a control mechanism.
Last edited:
Well, some of the morals are a bit iffy! Most people tend to pick and choose which bits they like and conveniently ignore the violence, intolerance and bizarre discrepancies/inconsistencies.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
Hawking did not have the intellect to know. I am very impressed that someone on here is a level above.
Osboro
Well-known member
I accept I don’t understand , I don’t NEED to invent an explanation, it’s what a whole lot of adults do.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
I believe in a God I don't know why it bothers you. I am not asking you to. The trillions to one chance of life being created on this planet, suited so perfectly to it's environment with a brain the size that no machine can get within 0.0001% of it's capacity is not a fluke.
Same_as_before
Well-known member
And atheists don't have dwarfs ?
Osboro
Well-known member
Where did I say it bothers me?
You are the one creating a fantasy then getting bothered that I don’t buy into it.
You still haven’t answered my question about why your “ Devine Being” needs Childhood Leukaemia. I’m not the one saying I’ve figured it all out, don’t you see , You Are.
You are the one creating a fantasy then getting bothered that I don’t buy into it.
You still haven’t answered my question about why your “ Devine Being” needs Childhood Leukaemia. I’m not the one saying I’ve figured it all out, don’t you see , You Are.
I’d hope there’s no problem with you or anyone believing in a god. I grew up religious but lost faith when I realised the bible just isn’t factual and is riddled with what I found to be irredeemable inconsistencies. Some people choose to ignore that or that it’s all metaphor or moral stories, fair enough, I only really argue points on religion when someone is presenting things as fact that I believe are fiction.
I would question your point about creation of life being trillions to one, we just don’t know how common life is throughout the universe, or how often it has been created even on our own planet. If your hunch is a deity then I’m ok with that even if it’s not what I understand.
HarryVegas
Well-known member
Not here mate.
Osboro
Well-known member
I don’t believe so, no.
Nero
Well-known member
It's no more far fetched than every other religion. I remember being stuck in a hotel last year before going offshore (during the first lockdown so couldn't leave the room). The room had a Bible, so I thought I'd read a bit;
It goes on to say something like God created the world and said let there be light and there was light!
I immediately thought f*CK that and put it down. Religions are just stories that people believe in.
It goes on to say something like God created the world and said let there be light and there was light!
I immediately thought f*CK that and put it down. Religions are just stories that people believe in.
Laughing
Well-known member
Believing in some divine seeming creator isn't the same as Christianity or indeed any religion. Plenty of people consider themselves as not being part of a religion but still believe in a creator.
It isn't fantasy, nor should it be referred to as a fairy in the sky. That kind of comment just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about science and where it is today.
What we do know is that if the universe has a creator it was created in such a way that it doesn't need any intervention to keep it running. Nor is any creator benevolent in the way a human would understand.
Equally sab's statement about the accident of life and intelligence doesn't happen by accident fails to understand evolution, that is anything but accidental.
Anyone who dismisses a creator as fantasy is an idiot pretending to be analytical.
For clarity I am an atheist but certainly don't dismisses some kind of creator because I don't know. Very few scientists dismisses a creator, even Dawkins describes himself at one end of a scale of belief and has never claimed there is no creator only that it is extremely unlikely.
It isn't fantasy, nor should it be referred to as a fairy in the sky. That kind of comment just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about science and where it is today.
What we do know is that if the universe has a creator it was created in such a way that it doesn't need any intervention to keep it running. Nor is any creator benevolent in the way a human would understand.
Equally sab's statement about the accident of life and intelligence doesn't happen by accident fails to understand evolution, that is anything but accidental.
Anyone who dismisses a creator as fantasy is an idiot pretending to be analytical.
For clarity I am an atheist but certainly don't dismisses some kind of creator because I don't know. Very few scientists dismisses a creator, even Dawkins describes himself at one end of a scale of belief and has never claimed there is no creator only that it is extremely unlikely.