The Insanity of Scientology

[another day]

Quote by: bob60292 I didn't attribute these particular words to a case for a personal God; but it does testify to the fact that God can not be disproved; but there were other quotes I gave you that you didn't respond to. They were from Einstein too. That was a clever way to avoid a response to the statements that invalidate your point of view. By saying I was angry. For your information I was neither angry nor did I have any reason to be angry. I am not God; and I am not the recepient of your affront to the truth. He is. I don't think He's angry with you either. Perhaps He will allow circumstances in your life to teach you how little either you or I know, and how pseudo intellectual, prideful arrogance can be overcome. Neither you nor I can prove anything 100%; and that includes the 100% proof of existence of a personal conscious Creator. I can tell you one thing, though, for sure: science may one day understand the universe and life itself, but it will never create it. That is the task of a Being far more intelligent than you or I. We can dream and speculate, but creation, for better or worse, belongs to Him. Don't deceive yourself with pride. The weight of the evidence shows that He is God, and He is brilliant.. By the way I hope he blesses you.

The other two quotes didn't swing either way. They were just talking about how a spiritual side is a good thing for a human to have. Religion is not necessary for spirituality (for more intelligent people, but the sheep do need religion to be spiritual). Einstein made his thoughts on a god crystal clear, he believes in Spinoza's god, which is a non-personal FORCE rather then your human father figure god. I find it funny you still try to cling to him as being on your side when he specifically called your idea of a personal god, the idealogy of a NAIVE MAN.

And yeah, blah blah blah. Don't care what fire and brimstone you have about how my day of reckoning will come.

I love how you throw in that "By the way I hope he blesses you"... You theists always trying to come off righteous and holier-then-thou. Put a sock in it. I don't need your childish religious crap. That's like saying "I'll pray for you"..Give me a break you cultist!

All I'll say is why does it have to be a being? Why can't the great secret to life be "Nature"? Why does intelligence have to stem from a human like linear mind with emotions when it could just be a FORCE, a system? Why do you call this idea "rhetorical nonsense"? Why can't you see that a BEING is just one of the hundreds of ways that the universe manifests itself. Conscious thinking beings did not create the universe, we are a manifestation of it. The creator of life is much more then an egotistical being, it is a force of intelligence beyond any kind of silly, human-like emotion or morality.

And it doesn't matter if god cannot be disproved. Something INVENTED WITH NO PROOF, BY DEFINITION, CANNOT BE PROVEN. I could make dozens of unfounded claims and say "See you can't disprove them" Does that make them right? No. Does that mean you should take them seriously? No. End of story.

[bob60292]

Quote by: another day The other two quotes didn't swing either way. They were just talking about how a spiritual side is a good thing for a human to have. Religion is not necessary for spirituality (for more intelligent people, but the sheep do need religion to be spiritual). Einstein made his thoughts on a god crystal clear, he believes in Spinoza's god, which is a non-personal FORCE rather then your human father figure god. I find it funny you still try to cling to him as being on your side when he specifically called your idea of a personal god, the idealogy of a NAIVE MAN. And yeah, blah blah blah. Don't care what fire and brimstone you have about how my day of reckoning will come. I love how you throw in that "By the way I hope he blesses you"... You theists always trying to come off righteous and holier-then-thou. Put a sock in it. I don't need your childish religious crap. That's like saying "I'll pray for you"..Give me a break you cultist! All I'll say is why does it have to be a being? Why can't the great secret to life be "Nature"? Why does intelligence have to stem from a human like linear mind with emotions when it could just be a FORCE, a system? Why do you call this idea "rhetorical nonsense"? Why can't you see that a BEING is just one of the hundreds of ways that the universe manifests itself. Conscious thinking beings did not create the universe, we are a manifestation of it. The creator of life is much more then an egotistical being, it is a force of intelligence beyond any kind of silly, human-like emotion or morality. And it doesn't matter if god cannot be disproved. Something INVENTED WITH NO PROOF, BY DEFINITION, CANNOT BE PROVEN. I could make dozens of unfounded claims and say "See you can't disprove them" Does that make them right? No. Does that mean you should take them seriously? No. End of story.

If you can't explain why something exists, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it was never created. That just means that your lack of knowledge about the reality and creation of existance invalidates anything you might choose to proclaim concerning it. I admit I don't know how the universe was "invented". Not only am I not God, but I don't even claim to understand His ways.
Real science tells me, however, that although not everything can be explained at the present moment we can still rely on the truth that nothing exists without a cause. This is The Law Of Cause And Effect. Look at the science books.
No effect is quantitatively nor quantatively superior to its cause. An effect can be lower than its cause but never higher. Therefore it is evidently more logical that the First Cause be infinite, omniscient and volutional than for for primevil particles to produce intelligent thought or generate life.
This is the END OF STORY

[Jack]

Considering this is supposed to be a thread about scientology, I'd say it ended several pages ago.

(And I'm as guilty as anyone for it being off topic...mea culpa)

[another day]

Therefore it is evidently more logical that the First Cause be infinite, omniscient and volutional than for for primevil particles to produce intelligent thought or generate life.

And why does this first infinite, omniscient cause of life have to be a thinking emotional being? Where did that idea come from again?

It's an abstract FORCE, a force like gravity, like the winds, like fire. It's not an egotistical being with a personality. Stop personifying the whole concept. Thats total riff raff. end of story.

[bob60292]

Quote by: another day And why does this first infinite, omniscient cause of life have to be a thinking emotional being? Where did that idea come from again? It's an abstract FORCE, a force like gravity, like the winds, like fire. It's not an egotistical being with a personality. Stop personifying the whole concept. Thats total riff raff. end of story.

Apparently you have not understood what I said. Either you are joking or you have reached your threshold of understanding. We all have one, you know: some higher some lower, but we are all only human.
I knew an old Italian lady who went to charm school. In the old days she would have said bull_ _ _ t; but now she says datsanaisa.
So, my fellow American, ask not for me to say bull_ _ _ t, just ask me to respond to you by saying DATSANAISA.
Here it goes!!!!!!!!!

DATSANAISA
God Bless and Goodbye

[Kuroko]

I would not attack the belief of a religion, or even the acts of a religion.

These are neither the correct nor the most effective means of doing so.
This arguement went from the sanity of those who practice and believe in Scientology to one (through means of defending Scientologies belief and factual evidence in it's comparison to the same evidence of other religions) of the basis of Scientologies right to be a religion.

I noticed that above it was said that Atheism is not a religion simply because the values or belief in the non-existance of a sentient being different to the faith displayed by that of other religions.

Then I say that under this premise Scientology stands the same ground as religion holds that a god or higher being be believed and given faith to. Scientology has faith in so such higher being or god, simply a being similar to ourselves with greater technology. This being in no way displays a superiority to our own existance indeed, this being under the religious sense and faiths given by theists would have even been created by thier respective higher beings or gods.

Thus, Scientology is as much a religion as Atheism (atleast from a theists and atheists point of view, a scientologist would obviously argue this point for tax reasons ).

The orriginal arguement is not one of faith, no. Also it is not one of belief or evidence to support the arguement, the followers of this group show a certain level of lapse in sanity and this indeed was the arguement.

This sanity point can be argued on a number of fronts. The one I will choose to argue on is this. If the followers accept thier faith as a religion then the religion in general is one of created and fabricated foundation. Not the actual teachings but the method to which the "church" supports itself.

To advance within the "church" one must pay an ever increasing amount, this action of the "church" further seperates it from the catagory of religion (even though I am aware of the practice of each religion not having a set point, this fact is countered by the number of "churches" in comparison which do this in general) therefor the one's joining the "church" under the religious premise are flawed atleast in the logical sense.

Advancement within a structure of belief and faith can be earned through a sum of money not on the belief or faith or even the knowledge of either. For the belief of a being higher or superior to be bound in it's ability (remember, it is imposible to advance without these teachings, which again are only provided at a price) let alone be bound by the currency of earth and governed as such is an example of sorts of the churches own beliefs.

The arguement need not be about whether or not the religion has merrit, or legal or even factual grounds. The arguement is of the "church" it's "followers" and the scientology way of life.

Apparantly some what aggressive.