Scientology - Who's really mad

[elmarko]

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive terms, they are answers given by the same person to two different questions.

If you are asked "Is there a god?" and you say "I don't know" that is agnosticism, but if you are asked "Do you believe in a god?" then you have to answer yes or no. If you answer no you are an atheist, if you answer 'yes' you are a theist. But they are two separate issues.

Penn Jilette explains it brilliantly....

Exactly the point I was putting across.

Agnosticism concerns knowledge, theism concerns belief - atheism the rejection of said belief.

While you can go deeper into explicit/implicit/strong/weak atheism - I've yet to come across an atheist who affirmatively believes that no god exists, as far as I've known it's a straw man deployed to undermine a position which doesn't really exist (except in people who are unfamiliar with the terminology).

I don't recognise the theists attempt to relabel atheism as a belief system, as for a belief system to exist it needs to have something to hold a belief in - a rejection of a concept isn't a belief.

Now, if atheism has a set of rules/doctrines & concepts which required faith - I'd be willing to accept the label which is often thrown around, but as no rules/doctrines or concepts exists - it's flawed.

But back to the OP, all extraordinary claims without evidence are flawed, how stupid they are is pendant on what personal sacrifices/changes the individual is expected to make based off these unsupported claims.

On the subject of Scientology I believe the personal price an individual has to pay is significantly higher than a member of the catholic churn (in a western country), in Africa Catholicism is far more harmful - if you are a women/homosexual then Islam/Fundamentalist Christianity is more harmful.

It's pendant on too many factors (geographical location, individual circumstance - ie, are they a vulnerable member of society, does the group in question oppress a certain minority?, how much personal freedom/financial wealth do you have to contribute for said belief system?, what sacrifices are you expected to make/are you expect to hate certain social groups etc?).

On the lowest scale, modern Buddhism, Jainism are the least damaging - with fundamentalist Islam/Christianity/Catholicism & all cults the most (cults who conform the standard methods of control in cults).

In summary, the beliefs are all equally unjustified - but the more that is asked the more somebody should be demanding justification.

For minor religions/modern calmed down versions - the social impact is much lower, so I don't think it's as stupid to believe in them (as they pay little price for being gullible) - in cults the price is higher which justifies greater scrutiny.

 

[Castiel]

Yes, you're right that it was unfair. However, I'd still bet on it

Then we are agreed.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Then we are agreed.

I wish you'd stop spoiling my fun though

 

[aardvark]

Being critical of the position is fine, in fact I encourage it...but simply dismissing it as fantasy is hardly rational or objective.

its the very definition of rational and objective!

all these religions say things that are illogical and go against current scientific knowledge (based on empirical and testable evidence).
if someone believes the opposite in the absence of other conflicting evidence then they must be rationally and objectively wrong, they will remain wrong until new data comes to light to show otherwise. simply saying 'we don't know everything and so new, unknown data may appear to prove me right at some point in the future' is not rational or objective. neither is quoting things we used to believe and have now been proved otherwise a valid logical argument.

people are free to believe what they like but don't tell me it isn't a fantasy when all available evidence/logic says it is.

 

[Castiel]

all these religions say things that are illogical and go against current scientific knowledge (based on empirical and testable evidence).
.

I was not aware that Science has yet devised a test for God or that there was empirical and falsifiable evidence to that effect.

Maybe you could point me to it.

 

[Castiel]

I wish you'd stop spoiling my fun though

Don't worry, I am sure there will be ample opportunity to have fun soon enough.....

 

[RomanNose]

And there's still confusion with the term Atheism.
Some people believe that a god doesn't exist and some people just don't believe in a god.

 

[realBabelfish]

I am not really sure that is true. It is very difficult finding the numbers for "people killed by Christianity" but as most of them were prior to industrial scale warfare I think we might struggle to get up to the multi-million figure required to beat Hitler (and certainly nowhere near Stalin).

crusades? bosnia? (christians v muslims) years of persecution of athiests by the church? spanish inquisition etc...

i guess you are right we can never prove numbers.

 

[Musty Pie]

Neither. I can't possibly pick between two fairytales.

/thread

 

["andy"]

In 2000 years i hope people find the remains of various Harry potter books in many languages and use them as their bible

Well that's if religion isn't banned by then

 

[Castiel]

And there's still confusion with the term Atheism.
Some people believe that a god doesn't exist and some people just don't believe in a god.

with broad positions that encompass various related definitions that will always be the case.

Hence all the explicit/implicit stuff and various other ways of labelling each slightly different interpretation of the position.

 

[nightrider1470]

Lol

 

[aardvark]

I was not aware that Science has yet devised a test for God or that there was empirical and falsifiable evidence to that effect.

Maybe you could point me to it.

there is no test, and thats the point.
you can believe what you like but logically the odds of you being correct are so infinitesimally small its effectively zero.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I am not really sure that is true. It is very difficult finding the numbers for "people killed by Christianity" but as most of them were prior to industrial scale warfare I think we might struggle to get up to the multi-million figure required to beat Hitler (and certainly nowhere near Stalin).

You say that, but doubtless more Catholics would be alive right now if their church had accepted contraception earlier.

 

[elmarko]

there is no test, and thats the point.
you can believe what you like but logically the odds of you being correct are so infinitesimally small its effectively zero.

While I don't believe at all - we can't assign odds to a calculation which has no variables.

It could be anything between 0 and 1.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

with broad positions that encompass various related definitions that will always be the case.

Hence all the explicit/implicit stuff and various other ways of labelling each slightly different interpretation of the position.

I think people label themselves as atheists because of the connotation of agnosticism (ie being undecided, as most people view it), and other terms, such as antitheism are not fully understood by everyone. People, like myself, use it as a statement to tell people that they are closed to religion.

 

[shoes]

I am a Christian, and I do not believe in 'invisible gods in the sky'. I may be mad, but at least I am not an idiot

Well either you are a Christian or you are not. You cannot be Christian and not believe in god, surely?

Considering how far society appeared to have progressed by the 1960s it's actually quite sad that Scientology took off in such a big way. Surely we had come far enough to realise that this is, like every other religion out there, a complete crock of ****.

 

[elmarko]

I think people label themselves as atheists because of the connotation of agnosticism (ie being undecided, as most people view it), and other terms, such as antitheism are not fully understood by everyone. People, like myself, use it as a statement to tell people that they are closed to religion.

Indeed.

The current popular view is.

Theist - Agnostic - Atheist (which is wrong).

I say atheist because I don't want people to think I think any modern religious concepts have any value - because I see no reason as to why believing in Jesus is any different to believing in Hercules, they are both equally ridiculous.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Indeed.

The current popular view is.

Theist - Agnostic - Atheist (which is wrong).

I say atheist because I don't want people to think I think any modern religious concepts have any value - because I see no reason as to why believing in Jesus is any different to believing in Hercules, they are both equally ridiculous.

As do I man. I hate the idea that someone would mistake me for someone who could believe in a deity. That being said, bring me proof and I could change my mind.

 

[spudbynight]

Well either you are a Christian or you are not. You cannot be Christian and not believe in god, surely?

Considering how far society appeared to have progressed by the 1960s it's actually quite sad that Scientology took off in such a big way. Surely we had come far enough to realise that this is, like every other religion out there, a complete crock of ****.

Many people, some much more intelligent than you, have moved from a position of disbelief to one of faith. They have done this based on their own investigation.

Would you agree that this fact indicates there might be something to look into rather than simple dismissal?