Tom Cruise - Has infact everyone else gone mad?

[LordSplodge]

Let me summarise all religions... Something magical happened to create us... We're special, you're not.

Did I miss anything?

I should get Begoe to strike you down with her lightning. Not all religions are the same but Scientology does seem to be one of the weirder ones...

 

[Sankari]

Depends on how you define "early" really

"Early Church history" is defined as the period covering the birth of the church to AD 325. In other words, the ante-Nicene era.

the point is that Christianity has acted in ways much more appalling than Scientology but is still entitled to be called a religion.

True, but this is somewhat tangential to my point. The point I was making is that Scientology is not merely a religion, but a cult. Christianity began as a peaceful religion which taught its followers to live in harmony with all men; the violence committed in the name of Christianity is at odds with its central teachings. By contrast, Scientology actively encourages its followers to attack their opponents.

In addition we have very little real information how really early Christianity operated. There are very few historical reports on them until after nicea.

On the contrary, we have a great deal of information about the operation of early Christianity. We have eyewitness accounts of their worship ceremonies, contemporary reports from non-Christian observers, hundreds of books written by the "early Church fathers", and the invaluable History of the Church by Eusebius, which covers the first three centuries.

 

[Goldy]

A cult is just a religion without the political power.

And I see nothing wrong with Tom Cruise or his cult, and really couldn't care less.

 

[RDM]

True, but this is somewhat tangential to my point. The point I was making is that Scientology is not merely a religion, but a cult. Christianity began as a peaceful religion which taught its followers to live in harmony with all men; the violence committed in the name of Christianity is at odds with its central teachings. By contrast, Scientology actively encourages its followers to attack their opponents.

By that measure would Islam be considered a cult? It actively encourages violence in same passages. Additionally you said yourself that Christianity started as a cult. As has Scientology. Maybe given time Scientology will be recognised as a religion.

On the contrary, we have a great deal of information about the operation of early Christianity. We have eyewitness accounts of their worship ceremonies, contemporary reports from non-Christian observers, hundreds of books written by the "early Church fathers", and the invaluable History of the Church by Eusebius, which covers the first three centuries.

However compared to the amount of information we have on Scientology (which has only been going 50 years or so) it is next to nothing.

 

[Dolph]

I don't have beliefs, but I don't define myself as Atheist but as Agnostic. I don't believe in "faith" as a good thing. Not that I place my own beliefs in 100% accuracy, but then I turn to the other "belief systems" and say why not yours? Or yours?

Sounds fair enough to me. The problem is, most of your critiques can be applied equally to atheism as to any of the theist religious beliefs, which was why I asked the question

 

[NeilF]

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.

Oh for goodness sake, stop being such a prize numpty! If you're going to try and insult people and take the intellectual high-ground at least do it where you're not standing next to a rather large drop!

Here is what you said:-
If you are christian, you are an atheist apart from the Christian god. You are atheist about every single other religion out there.

Which is bascially like saying, I'm not a smoker, apart from the packet of cigs I have each night.

You are either an atheist or not...

Now please.... Let's stop this nonsense and stay on topic...

 

[Glaucus]

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.

Except that's not how it works and perhaps you should do some research before sprouting rubbish.

A) atheism does not distinguish between gods so if you believe in a God you are not atheism.
B) not every religion requires you to deny all others.
C) how are you taking an atheists position on other religions?

As for the original question and as someone else has pointed out.
It's not just that video, it's a whole string of things and also evidence of what the cult actually does and is about.

 

[[TR]SweetSpotOz]

I get really annoyed when people associate someone being an atheist with Dawkins' books. He is a particularly average writer quoting other people in a particularly average fashion.

For me it is similar to mentioning Islam and assuming the follower is in a league with Osama Bin Laden.

 

[cleanbluesky]

Atheism, in classical theological or philosphical terms, is the expressed disbelief in God(s), or denial of God(s). (if you want the specific modern definition, explicit weak atheism). Simple lack of belief isn't enough to qualify as an atheist. (The difference between saying 'I don't share your belief' and 'I don't believe you')

As that stance cannot be proven or demonstrated by evidence (or confirmed lack of evidence), it is a faith based stance, and it's also a fairly specific doctrine in that regard, generally (mis)using the scientific method to claim absence of evidence is equivilent to evidence of absence.

This argument can be understood as the question of whether a lack of evidence is a form of evidence in itself. Given that atheism in any way that we can understand it is in fact a denial meaning that it is directly claiming something else is false. It can only justify itself if the existence of God would leave definite evidence and there is none, or if the doctrine of God were proven false. The idea of a God does not exist in isolation, it has always been accompanied by a canon of literature and construction - it is these construction

This argument is not about a lack of evidence. Science has proven religious doctrines to be contradictory, therefore their teachings must be discounted. God is a lie, or at least information about any concept of an omnipotent entity is either false or inaccurate.

We have no information on God - we have no THEORY of God, therefore it is not a case of disproving anything. It is merely a case of saying that there is nothing to prove or disprove - hence a lack of evidence justifies the argument of atheism.

 

[Glaucus]

Just because some litrature contradicts. Does not mean you can be atheist without faith. You still have no evidence that there are no Gods. Regardless if that god is contained in any religion or not.

Simply discrediting literature does not prove god does not exist. therefore athiesm has to be based on faith.

 

[azzerz]

i completely give up talking about people and religion... its never goig to get me anywhere, so I dont bother... same reason I stopped watching the news/reading papers

unnecessary bother... talk about tom cruise (or about people talking about him) untill youre blue in the face, its not going to get you anywhere

 

[cleanbluesky]

Just because some litrature contradicts. Does not mean you can be atheist without faith. You still have no evidence that there are no Gods. Regardless if that god is contained in any religion or not.

Simply discrediting literature does not prove god does not exist. therefore athiesm has to be based on faith.

Everything you know about God is an assumption gathered from others, who gathered theirs from others who gathered it from books that have been proven inaccurate. There is nothing to believe, which is the position of atheism.

 

[Glaucus]

Everything you know about God is an assumption gathered from others, who gathered theirs from others who gathered it from books that have been proven inaccurate. There is nothing to believe, which is the position of atheism.

No, the position of atheism. Is that there are no Gods. How can you say that without faith? Do you know there's no god?

 

[NeilF]

i completely give up talking about people and religion... its never goig to get me anywhere, so I dont bother... same reason I stopped watching the news/reading papers

unnecessary bother... talk about tom cruise (or about people talking about him) untill youre blue in the face, its not going to get you anywhere

LOL! So your only post in this topic is to say you won't post in this topic? Classic!

 

[KNiVES]

Indeed, sounds almost as bad a Christianity.

Almost? It's quite a fair bit worse in my opinion. Alien overlords called Xenu and magic space volcanoes are a bit of a stretch even compared to Christ and all that jazz with ascending to Heaven. Then you have the blackmail, extortion, financial irregularities and profiteering that eventually saw Germany passing legislation to ban the practice altogether.

In fact, on the Gold Base, you will find there are several snipers with high-powered rifles patrolling the area, some on the rooftops, some in plain daylight by the roadside, etc. It's like a fortress. Certainly not a religion to associate with safely by any means. It's quite a stretch to say Christianity is worse. That's just my view on Scientology anyway.

 

[cleanbluesky]

No, the position of atheism. Is that there are no Gods. How can you say that without faith? Do you know there's no god?

Because the concept of God has only been given in contradictory texts. To use the name 'God' is even an assumption which suggests that there must be an underlying truth that the concept of God is potentially valid, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a prime example of this. It's a big joke, and no-one is having serious discussion of how you can't disprove that the FSM doesn't exist. It's text has been disproven as a joke, would it be wise for everyone to conclude that just because it was a joke that the FSM can't be disproven and therefore we'd be justified in spending the next 200 years debating it, claiming it can't be disproven and building FSM churches?

 

[Glaucus]

But atheism isn't so strict. There might be a god like creature out there. There might be one from the many religions. You simply don't know. If you can't prove it you can not state it as fact without faith.

 

[Dolph]

This argument can be understood as the question of whether a lack of evidence is a form of evidence in itself. Given that atheism in any way that we can understand it is in fact a denial meaning that it is directly claiming something else is false. It can only justify itself if the existence of God would leave definite evidence and there is none, or if the doctrine of God were proven false. The idea of a God does not exist in isolation, it has always been accompanied by a canon of literature and construction - it is these construction

This argument is not about a lack of evidence. Science has proven religious doctrines to be contradictory, therefore their teachings must be discounted. God is a lie, or at least information about any concept of an omnipotent entity is either false or inaccurate.

Science does not deal in truths, science deals in accurate predictions. As such it's not the correct tool to debunk anything but specific, literal interpretations of text, which even in themselves, do nothing as to the validity or existence of a deity.

We have no information on God - we have no THEORY of God, therefore it is not a case of disproving anything. It is merely a case of saying that there is nothing to prove or disprove - hence a lack of evidence justifies the argument of atheism.

If we're looking at this from a purely scientific point of view, the default stance to any hypothesis before testing is that the status of the hypothesis is unknown, not that it is false. If the hypothesis is subsequently shown to be untestable, then the hypothesis status remains unknown, and in fact can be considered irrelevant.

Leaping from an untested hypothesis to stating the hypothesis is false is nothing more than an act of faith, especially if you're claiming it's related to science.

In order to apply logical positivism (that is, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence), you have to clearly have defined your evidence that you should find, should the hypothesis be true, fundamentally it's only relevant to testable hypothesis.

 

[Richdog]

i completely give up talking about people and religion... its never goig to get me anywhere, so I dont bother... same reason I stopped watching the news/reading papers

unnecessary bother... talk about tom cruise (or about people talking about him) untill youre blue in the face, its not going to get you anywhere

Yes lets just bury our heads in the sand, ignore everything around us, and talk about as little as possible. Must be interesting, being you.

 

[cleanbluesky]

But atheism isn't so strict. There might be a god like creature out there. There might be one from the many religions. You simply don't know. If you can't prove it you can not state it as fact without faith.

Faith in proof and the fact that all sources of information on a God creature are disproven.

But THAT kind of 'faith' is very different from the other kind of religious 'faith'. The idea of religious faith is that an idea will remain unproven, whereas athiest faith is that something that has been proven at a point in time will continue to be true after that point.