Tom Cruise - Has infact everyone else gone mad?

Whether he's bonkers or not, the Church of Scientology must be laughing. I bet there is a sizeable influx of people interested in becoming scientologists due to all the media attention, and ultimately that means more money for them.
 
The only difference, by this argument, is that you know who the author of Dianetics is, whereas you don't know who wrote the Bible. That's about it. I don't see how that makes Dianetics any less relevant as a religious text.

The bible describes claimed events which I am unable to prove or disprove. The actual authors of the text are largely irrelevant to that point, other than they all describe similar events.

L Ron Hubbard would argue that the text wasn't written by him - but through him as a medium. The scribes and Disciples who wrote the Bible would say exactly the same thing.

I've never seen any claims that Hubbard claims he was writing as a medium.
 
Had to pick you up on that, if you check BBC news or other news sites* you can find information on how the church's located in certain towns are abusing an ancient law where they can "claim tax" around the influence of the church to do repairs, often costing households between £300-£5000.

*I don't have the time to dig the sources out since im still at work.

I've searched for it, can't find anything related to that.
 
I love the irony that those with religious beliefs think that Atheists are somehow different from them.

Heres a clue. If you are christian, you are an atheist apart from the Christian god. You are atheist about every single other religion out there.

So in fact, atheism is the most practiced "religion" in the world, apart from the pure atheists, most people are 90% atheist, they just deny it.
 
The bible describes claimed events which I am unable to prove or disprove. The actual authors of the text are largely irrelevant to that point, other than they all describe similar events.

I've never seen any claims that Hubbard claims he was writing as a medium.

I think we're losing sight of the main argument here which is about whether Tom Cruise is some cultish/religious nutcase. To me he just looks like anyone who's into their religion or belief system. I don't think he looks crazy.

I love the irony that those with religious beliefs think that Atheists are somehow different from them.

Heres a clue. If you are christian, you are an atheist apart from the Christian god. You are atheist about every single other religion out there.

So in fact, atheism is the most practiced "religion" in the world, apart from the pure atheists, most people are 90% atheist, they just deny it.

This is bilge. Aetheism is the belief that no God or gods exist whatsoever. It's not selective.
 
I love the irony that those with religious beliefs think that Atheists are somehow different from them.

Heres a clue. If you are christian, you are an atheist apart from the Christian god. You are atheist about every single other religion out there.

So in fact, atheism is the most practiced "religion" in the world, apart from the pure atheists, most people are 90% atheist, they just deny it.

Atheism is the skeptisism of all Gods etc... So you are either an atheist or not. You can't be part or mostly atheist.

So by your logic, a non-smoker is actually still a smoker? Either you're a smoker or not... Black or white...
 
Atheism is the skeptisism of all Gods etc... So you are either an atheist or not. You can't be part or mostly atheist.

So by your logic, a non-smoker is actually still a smoker? Either you're a smoker or not... Black or white...

A smoker as someone "who smokes" either a pipe, cigarettes etc. So if you are "a smoker" it can be one of those people, its only black and white if you say "I don't smoke" because you don't participate in any smoking related activities.

I understand what you are getting at. You are trying to persuade me that an Atheist is like a non-smoker, by definition not believing in any gods. However, a Christian is *not* like a Smoker, because if you are Christian you are NOT muslim, and vice versa. What I was trying to get at, is that you *already* deny hundreds of religions by believing in the Christian Gods, its just that you don't admit to it. So its like me declaring myself a non-smoker, and you declaring yourself a "cigarette smoker" as opposed to any other kind. You are *still* a non-smoker of pipes and the other things, but you have escaped because no-one has said anything about the other options.

Religion is something "of personal choice" rather than something that has to be justified. If I wanted to lose weight, and I picked brand A slim shake milkshake instead of brand B, I would have to justify it. But Christians/Muslims/Scientologists get away with not having to justify a damn thing, irrationality at its best.
 
A smoker as someone "who smokes" either a pipe, cigarettes etc. So if you are "a smoker" it can be one of those people, its only black and white if you say "I don't smoke" because you don't participate in any smoking related activities.

I understand what you are getting at. You are trying to persuade me that an Atheist is like a non-smoker, by definition not believing in any gods. However, a Christian is *not* like a Smoker, because if you are Christian you are NOT muslim, and vice versa. What I was trying to get at, is that you *already* deny hundreds of religions by believing in the Christian Gods, its just that you don't admit to it. So its like me declaring myself a non-smoker, and you declaring yourself a "cigarette smoker" as opposed to any other kind. You are *still* a non-smoker of pipes and the other things, but you have escaped because no-one has said anything about the other options.

Religion is something "of personal choice" rather than something that has to be justified. If I wanted to lose weight, and I picked brand A slim shake milkshake instead of brand B, I would have to justify it. But Christians/Muslims/Scientologists get away with not having to justify a damn thing, irrationality at its best.

You are either an atheist or not... The moment you believe in any deity based religion for example, you are not an atheist. To suggest there's something inbetween these opposing positions/views seems odd!?


Anyway... Back on topic please...
 
I think we're losing sight of the main argument here which is about whether Tom Cruise is some cultish/religious nutcase. To me he just looks like anyone who's into their religion or belief system. I don't think he looks crazy.

I concur... Hence this thread...
 
A smoker as someone "who smokes" either a pipe, cigarettes etc. So if you are "a smoker" it can be one of those people, its only black and white if you say "I don't smoke" because you don't participate in any smoking related activities.

I understand what you are getting at. You are trying to persuade me that an Atheist is like a non-smoker, by definition not believing in any gods. However, a Christian is *not* like a Smoker, because if you are Christian you are NOT muslim, and vice versa. What I was trying to get at, is that you *already* deny hundreds of religions by believing in the Christian Gods, its just that you don't admit to it. So its like me declaring myself a non-smoker, and you declaring yourself a "cigarette smoker" as opposed to any other kind. You are *still* a non-smoker of pipes and the other things, but you have escaped because no-one has said anything about the other options.

Religion is something "of personal choice" rather than something that has to be justified. If I wanted to lose weight, and I picked brand A slim shake milkshake instead of brand B, I would have to justify it. But Christians/Muslims/Scientologists get away with not having to justify a damn thing, irrationality at its best.

Reading that was like wading through some kind of wordy gruel.
 
You are either an atheist or not... The moment you believe in any deity based religion for example, you are not an atheist. To suggest there's something inbetween these opposing positions/views seems odd!?


Anyway... Back on topic please...

I guess if the message is too difficult to either understand or accept, you can always deny it entirely. But isn't that what religion is all about?

I didn't say anything about being an atheist - you are the one talking about atheists. I am saying that you have an atheist attitude and position about EVERY OTHER RELIGION, and you have no way to justify it. Unless you can sit down and write out why ALL the other religions are WRONG and yours is RIGHT.

Be my guest.
 
I guess if the message is too difficult to either understand or accept, you can always deny it entirely. But isn't that what religion is all about?

I didn't say anything about being an atheist - you are the one talking about atheists. I am saying that you have an atheist attitude and position about EVERY OTHER RELIGION, and you have no way to justify it. Unless you can sit down and write out why ALL the other religions are WRONG and yours is RIGHT.

Be my guest.

The majority of religions are not exclusive to all other beliefs. Even christanity isn't. The actual wording in the bible is basically that you won't worship other gods, not that other gods don't exist...

Believing in one religion does not require disbelief in all others, only that you follow one in preference to the others.

And that's without mentioning that the big three religions all worship the same god anyway.
 
The majority of religions are not exclusive to all other beliefs. Even christanity isn't. The actual wording in the bible is basically that you won't worship other gods, not that other gods don't exist...

The wording in Exodus is "thou shalt have no other gods before Me". Which is indeed actually confirming existence of other gods rather than denying it.
 
That's a very specific situation, not a general issue, and something they should have been made aware of when they bought the property.

Apologies, I was highlighting a single case, but one that may set a standard. The Chancel Repair Act has had effects on others though...http://www.chancelrepair.org/9.html

The implications of this ruling are far reaching. It means that the Church of England can now hunt down 1000's of property owners across around 5000 English and Welsh parishes whose houses, gardens, schools, businesses etc have been built on the 3.5million acres of old church land, forcing them to pay unrestricted costs for building repairs to the local church.

It is important to note that the liability does NOT have to be mentioned in the property deeds for it to be valid, the owner can still be 'found' by the PCC and the law enforced. Solicitors that DO manage to find out about the obligation during conveyancing are obliged to inform the land registry thus 'cursing' the property and rendering it impossible to sell or indeed to mortgage/remortage.

http://www.chancelrepair.org/7.html
 
Even christanity isn't. The actual wording in the bible is basically that you won't worship other gods, not that other gods don't exist...

That may be the actual wording but it is far from the actual practice, especially in times past.


Believing in one religion does not require disbelief in all others, only that you follow one in preference to the others.

While this may be the case for you and your faith, unfortunately it doesn't tend to be the case for most. From my experience at least.

And that's without mentioning that the big three religions all worship the same god anyway.

Ah but it is the differences in how that seem to really matter to them isn't it?

As far as scientology goes, the reason it is a cult and not a religion is probably time. As Dolph says, we know why created the basis of the religion and that makes it harder to believe it. I dare say Islam had the same problem in the years after it's formation (thankfully they had an army to help enforce the truth). Give it a couple of hundred years and if scientology is still about and the origins of it's creation are somewhat more obscured then it may well get a bit further away from its current cult label. Especially if it's follows continue to grow.
 
Christianity was created by some decadent and degenerated Romans as a tool of oppression, in the late Roman era, and it should be treated accordingly.

If you're going to quote from Varg Vikernes, you should be made aware that he's wrong.

Christianity was founded by bunch of Jews (not Romans) and emerged from the Jewish religious tradition during the early 1st Century AD. Its followers were persecuted for the next three centuries; first by the wider Jewish community, and later by the Romans (particularly Diocletian, whose state-sponsored pogrom lasted 8 years).

It was not until the conversion of Constantine that Christianity became a political power in its own right.
 
Back
Top Bottom