Which is giving it privileged status, since it’s far, far crazier than such myths as Washington and the cherry tree. If one poster on the SDMB claimed to be a brain surgeon and another claimed to be a werewolf, somehow I doubt you’d treat both the same.
To quote my signature:
My definition of “insane” isn’t so far from that of most people as they’d like to admit. People call other religious beliefs than their own crazy all the time, even though they aren’t any nuttier than what they believe. I just don’t have a pet religion than I’m pretending is different than all the others.
I’m getting a mental picture of Argent Towers storming Scientology’s Gold Base, dressed in Cuirassier armor and carrying some sort of vintage military rifle.
I think you are confusing “evidence” with “proof.” There is a world of what you call “factual evidence.”
You would really slow down the creative thinking end of scientific discovery if you had your way.
That doesn’t sound “main stream” to me. What you are describing is fundamentalism. I’m familiar with the one Jesus Camp portrayed in the film, but I’ve attended many, many church camps for children and teens in my life that were nothing like that at all.
Having your own definition for words isn’t helpful at all in debate. And you do pretend or imagine that you know things that you can’t possibly know. I think you sincerely believe these things. I’m not accusing you of lying.
In response to a comment that described L. Ron Hubbard as a liar, a criminal, and someone who had screwed over his own family, Marley 23 posted this:
Marley, you don’t know about all religious founders, their personal histories or their motivations. Your statement is unsupportable.
I’m not challenging you on this so much as I am fascinated by that information. Do you have an authoritative cite? (I know, it feels the same as a challenge.) I would accept Tomndebb’s word for it.
I would agree with you that bilking people, demanding blind obedience, controlling people’s lives, and shunnning of ex-believers is repulsive. I see none of that in the main stream Protestant denominations that I have been affiliated with: Cumberland Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist (through their publishing house) and Unity. I grew up in a town of 2,000 in the South. There were lots of churches but I didn’t see the pistol-whipped sort of people that you describe. I knew one or two girls who weren’t allowed to dance or wear makeup and they wore their dresses longer than most. I actually remember only one. I don’t know how much of that was parental control. We were as Ozzie and Harriet or Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver as folks in any suburb. Three of the kids in my Sunday School class of about 8 to 10 people graduated from West Point and the Air Force Academy. We weren’t particularly stupid or gullible or goody-two shoes. We were just normal.
Please stop painting such black pictures of all Christian churches when you seem to be familiar with only a few of the very most bizarre that make the newspaper or television.
No, there’s none at all. Believers love this “argument” I’ve noticed; they mention that there’s supposedly lots of “factual evidence” but of course carefully avoid mentioning what it is since it doesn’t exist.
Then you and your fellow believers shouldn’t have one. I’m the one who is trying to be objective and using the same standards for everything; it’s the believers who want a special standard for their pet delusion. Just as we see in this thread, where Scientology is criticized in ways that greatly offend all the believers here when it is applied to their equally ridiculous and destructive beliefs.
We can make assumptions based upon the current crop of nutbars and extrapolate backwards.
Even if some of those from the past truly believed that they spoke for god, there is zero evidence that it is true. Just their word, or those who claimed to speak for them. The filter of history, and the numbers of current believers, have given credence to those words where otherwise they would be laughed at.
Scientology is in a lot of trouble, and they may not last much longer. The cat is out of the bag regarding xenu. Kids today watch South Park. So it is very difficult for them to recruit new blood. As members age and die, or realize that the religion is nothing but a scam and quit, or simply continue the practice with the many unsanctioned breakaway sects, their numbers are declining.
They spend fabulous amounts of money to create “Ideal Orgs” but nobody is coming in to hear the spiel. The “Test Center” on Hollywood Blvd. is always devoid of prospects. The “Stress Test” tables attract the curious, but very few people go beyond that contact.
At some point the whole thing is going to implode.
And Der Trihs, I can tell you one major difference between Scientology and other religions. In my town, and I am sure in yours, you will find churches that feed and clothe the poor. Try going into an Org and ask them if they can give you a sandwich! They will call security. Christians do good works because their God commands them to. There is no such thing going on in Scientology.
What destructive beliefs do I hold? How have they been destructive? Be specific.
I think that it is ridiculous that you believe that I am destructive or that the beliefs that I hold are destructive. Be specific to me. You can’t generalize about Christians, Der Trihs, anymore than you can generalize about Dopers or Blacks or people who have a disability or Europeans.
I didn’t participate in the Inquisition anymore than you did. Nor did I participate in the Crusades or in the torture and extermination of Jews. I owned no slaves and was born to two people who were both born in poverty.
As for evidence that there is a God – what I see as evidence, you would not see as evidence. I see fractals as evidence, for example. I see the beauty of the photographs made through the Hubble telescope as evidence. I see the recognition of art in a chess game as evidence. I find the concept of the Golden Rectangle and other concepts explored in Godel, Escher, Bach as evidence. Ode to Joy The scent of cinnamon. What a prism does to white light. I could sit here all night and list things. But you will almost certainly be blind to them as evidence.
Meanwhile you think that I am out here being destructive when what I’m really doing is meditating on a book of photographs of closeups of thousands of snowflakes from the 1920s and planning a birthday surprise for a 93 year old friend.
Very illogical thinking. For one thing, you don’t know all current religious leaders and certainly not the founders. And you have no reason to assume or extrapolate backwards. Different people, different times.
No one who knows her would dream of calling my afore-mentioned 93 year old friend a “nutbar,” for example. Yet she was the first woman to be chosen to lead her denomination. She’s kind and merry and brilliant. If only we could extrapolate backwards from her! But we can’t do that either.
This has been covered again and again. Religion is extremely destructive, and even the milder versions serve as enablers for the more extreme variants due to the fact that they use the same exact flawed reasoning to justify themselves. If you can accept God and souls on faith, then you can accept the divinely ordained necessity of flying an airplane into a skyscraper on faith; both position are equally detached from reality. A disdain for facts and logic are intrinsic to religion, and that isn’t a healthy attitude to have.
Ah, another old religious favorite. “You’re just not enlightened enough to see the Truth”. None of that is evidence for a god. I could just as easily say that they are evidence against God, or that they are evidence for elves; it makes as much sense.
I know about Hubbard. I know about Smith. I know about Mohammed. All cult leaders who don’t deserve an ounce of respect or veneration. Unfortunately, people don’t look at them as they are, but as they want them to be.
Zoe, it feels like you’ve responded to my posts without reading them. I did not say “all religious founders did the things Hubbard did.” I said some of them did - Muhammad and Joseph Smith both married very young girls, Buddha Gautama walked out on his family to pursue enlightenment, the list goes on. There’s plenty of fraud and family screwing to go around. The comment wasn’t about “all religious founders,” so I’m not required to meet some kind of ridiculous and imaginary burden of proof by knowing everything about the motivations and behavior of everyone who ever founded a religion.
I’m not sure which part of the statement you want me to cite - that the RCC doesn’t want its priests to be subject to secular law? That that attitude allowed the child abuse to go on?
I said multiple times that the worst behaviors in Scientology “are not that different from other fanatical groups” and “fundamentalist families or extreme sects.” I never compared them to mainstream Protestantism or said all religious groups behave like Scientology does. I plainly said the opposite.
YOU call yourself “objective”? THIS is anything but:\
And you’ve pretty much told every religious person on this board that they’re crazy, destructive, and untrustworthy. If that’s your idea of “objective”, I’d hate to see what you consider subjective!
I don’t give a shit what people believe, or don’t believe. I DO give a shit when people generalize about those beliefs, or behaviors.
And Zoe, you also forgot ecumenical events. That would put the whole “shunning” argument right where it belongs: in the trash.
This is why it’s a horrible idea. It will never stop with one. First Scientologists (Evil). Then Westboro (jackasses). Probably Muslims next (they’re all TERRORISTS!!!, ya know). Eventually Mormans, Pagans, Catholics, etc., etc. Once you start deciding that it’s okay to judge and destroy religions, there is nothing to stop it.
P.S. Before Der Tirhs or someone chimes in thayt a religious war sounds like a good idea because Athiests are not a religion, the people judging you won’t care. You will get chrushed like everyone else.
No you didn’t. You didn’t qualify it with the word “some.” The first quotation is the one that I quoted and referred to. You just referred to how he was not unique among religious leaders. Adding the word “some” would have changed the implications of your sentence. That is the very kind of broadbrush painting that I object to. If you had said “some” I would have added an “Amen!”
Maybe you were more generous in another post. I do see your other efforts to be fair.
I don’t see everything as evidence. I still have doubts when I see the ugliness. I don’t have perfect and consistent faith. But there are so many things that are affirming for me.
Der Trihs, my challenge to you was to tell me how my beliefs are destructive and you tell me that I can fly airplanes into buildings? And you add that I, as a Christian, am “detached from reality” and have a “disdain for facts and logic”?
That is you, Der Trihs, that is not making any sense. You have gone quite overboard by including me with religious zealots and terrorists. That is totally ignorant.
I did not say what you have in quotation marks. You must be confusing me sith someone else. I said nothing about enlightenment at all and was not referring to it. When I said that you are blind, I meant that you don’t even stop to think about anyone else’s words or point of view. You don’t listen well. I know that that may not be entirely your fault.
Let me know when I – Zoe – have done something that is truly destructive while claiming to be acting out of my Christian faith.
Every time you grind all Christians under your heel, I’m under there to and you are not dealing with reality. I’m far from perfection. I’m ordinary. But I’m not violent or cruel. It is you who have said so many mean things about my family and loved ones and I am sick to death of the venom you spew out over and over again.
