BBC standing up to scientology

Christo · 13 May 2007 at 18:10

Sirrel Squirrel said:
edit/ I remember there was a story in the news about Tom Cruise asking Scarlett Johanson out for a date but when they were in the restaurant a load of people just came out of no where and they and Tom tried to make her join the religion, I mean wtf!

craziness: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8133757/

Shackley · 13 May 2007 at 18:14

There is another (BBC News 24) version of John Sweeney's outburst here - still pretty embarrassing.

There is also a John Simpson comment and (sort of) apology here.

And finally, there is an excellent (Scientology kills) site for info here.

Sleepy · 13 May 2007 at 18:17

scorza said:
And that is one helluva difference. What sort of religion doesn't tell you what its message is unless you donate $100k? The answer is a sick, money-grabbing cult.

Not all religions proselytise, Zoroastrianism and Judaism don't. Are they cults then? After all Scientology ranks as the worlds 22nd largest religion according to this site so by size alone doesn't it count as a religion?

Jet · 13 May 2007 at 18:19

Guardian said:
The response of YouTube users has been damning. One said yesterday: 'I for one feel confident and glad that I am paying good money for this psycho to remain on television! Is this really what English TV has degraded itself to?' Another wrote: 'Surely this is a joke right? How can a mentally unbalanced man like this be a BBC reporter? This kinda makes you wonder if he is not dreaming up what he reports or if TV actually reports truth! Man I'm done with the BBC.'

Rubbish. The video was uploaded by a scientologist who has banned anyone disagreeing with them from replying. On other videos YouTube users are clearly in support of him.

scorza · 13 May 2007 at 18:25

Sleepy said:
Not all religions proselytise, Zoroastrianism and Judaism don't. Are they cults then? After all Scientology ranks as the worlds 22nd largest religion according to this site so by size alone doesn't it count as a religion?

I never said anything about converting people (scientology certainly aren't guilty of not trying to convert people), I'm talking about telling about their faith. In scientology's case, they have this hierarchy that you progress up as you make more and more money for the people at the top. Apparently its just a big pyramid scheme.

I don't think size is important in distinguishing between a religion and a cult. Honesty and openness is.

yak.h'cir · 13 May 2007 at 18:30

Sleepy said:
Not all religions proselytise, Zoroastrianism and Judaism don't. Are they cults then? After all Scientology ranks as the worlds 22nd largest religion according to this site so by size alone doesn't it count as a religion?

It's not a religion. France has even go so far as to place them on the watch list and is looking to ban the organisation because they think they are that dangerous for society. Officially most countries recognise Scientology as a business.

porkrind · 13 May 2007 at 18:33

yak.h'cir said:
It's not a religion. France has even go so far as to place them on the watch list and is looking to ban the organisation because they think they are that dangerous for society. Officially most countries recognise Scientology as a business.

yet again the fools in charge of us have no idea.

Others back the Church in various ways: Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley of the City of London police helped open a new £20 million Scientology centre in London, and the authorities in the City of London have granted it cut-price rates.

link

Dolph · 13 May 2007 at 18:45

I see the cult of Dawkins is present and correct in this thread....

mosfet · 13 May 2007 at 18:50

Dolph said:
I see the cult of Dawkins is present and correct in this thread....

You mean the cult of normal, rational human beings?

Christo · 13 May 2007 at 18:53

Dolph said:
I see the cult of Dawkins is present and correct in this thread....

Care to expand on that?

Dolph · 13 May 2007 at 18:54

mosfet said:
You mean the cult of normal, rational human beings?

If you consider faith in logical positivism combined with the scientific method to be grounds to consider yourself above others, then yes

Rationality always depends on what assumptions you choose to put faith in.

Dolph · 13 May 2007 at 18:55

Chrisp7 said:
Care to expand on that?

The usual anti-religion comments, the veiled insults of those who don't share the faith in the same ideas as them, the blind faith in their position...

Mik3 · 13 May 2007 at 19:00

markyp23 said:
I know all religions stem from a ficticious book, but some people disagree that is fine.

What I am absolutely perplexed at is that this guy OPENLY made up a book and people are accepting it as fact???

Why can't everyone see this is exactly the same as Christianty/Islam etc...?

Some bloke at one time wrote the Bible and that other silly book, most religions take their book as fact. Some almighty being made the entire universe in x number of days, it takes some brainwashing to believe that crap.

Christo · 13 May 2007 at 19:00

Dolph said:
The usual anti-religion comments, the veiled insults of those who don't share the faith in the same ideas as them, the blind faith in their position...

I find your statement rather amusing; stating that people who dont believe in religion have a 'blind faith'

Dolph said:
Rationality always depends on what assumptions you choose to put faith in.

Rationality has nothing to do with faith, quite the opposite.

[TR]SweetSpotOz · 13 May 2007 at 19:00

What? The acceptance that human beings are just cells and molecules like the rest of things on the eath? Or even, in the universe?

RDM · 13 May 2007 at 19:12

Dolph said:
I see the cult of Dawkins is present and correct in this thread....

What is your stance on Scientology Dolph? Do you feel it is a valid religion?

Personally I would be wary of any religion started by a man that said the best way to make a fortune was to start a religion. Of course being one of those evil atheists I am wary of any religion full stop.

Dolph · 13 May 2007 at 19:15

Chrisp7 said:
I find your statement rather amusing; stating that people who dont believe in religion have a 'blind faith'

Where does your world view come from then?

Rationality has nothing to do with faith, quite the opposite.

Rationality can have everything and nothing to do with faith. It's about following things through, so it depends on your starting assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

Atheism, for example, is not a rational viewpoint unless you accept the concept of logical positivism to be totally accurate, and science as a means that would provide clear evidence if a diety existed. You basically need to have faith that science would provide the evidence, should the idea be true, and therefore absence of evidence is the same thing as evidence of absence.

If I have an unopenable box, what is the rational position to take on the contents of it? Full, empty or unknown? We have no evidence the box contains anything, but can we say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Dolph · 13 May 2007 at 19:17

RDM said:
What is your stance on Scientology Dolph? Do you feel it is a valid religion?

Personally I would be wary of any religion started by a man that said the best way to make a fortune was to start a religion. Of course being one of those evil atheists I am wary of any religion full stop.

I don't care whether or not people choose to believe in scientology, but I do dislike their recruiting/promotion efforts and the fact that the whole thing seems to centre around money.

I don't think atheists are evil btw, I just find it ironic that the most intolerant people on here when it comes to religion are the atheists...

Christo · 13 May 2007 at 19:27

Dolph said:
Where does your world view come from then??

Thats irrelevant, I just found your statement nonsensical.

Dolph said:
Rationality can have everything and nothing to do with faith. It's about following things through, so it depends on your starting assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

Atheism, for example, is not a rational viewpoint unless you accept the concept of logical positivism to be totally accurate, and science as a means that would provide clear evidence if a diety existed. You basically need to have faith that science would provide the evidence, should the idea be true, and therefore absence of evidence is the same thing as evidence of absence.

If I have an unopenable box, what is the rational position to take on the contents of it? Full, empty or unknown? We have no evidence the box contains anything, but can we say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Wrong. Faith is belief in something without scientific proof. Atheism is merely 'non belief' in something, this standpoint in no way relies on faith.

cleanbluesky · 13 May 2007 at 19:28

Dolph said:
The usual anti-religion comments, the veiled insults of those who don't share the faith in the same ideas as them, the blind faith in their position...

I think the biggest problem with this thread is the lack of separation between the ideas of creed and religion (Jung's wording, I think the Dalai Lama described this difference as 'religion' and 'spirituality')

When we talk of a man's personal relationship with God (or gods) we cannot place it within science (although I think Jung did produce a lot of valid work on just that).

When we talk of creeds, we talk of man's relationship to the other people who claim to share his religion.

Scientology is in my opinion the most devisive creed on the planet, regardless of the validity of the theology it preaches it engenders genuinely anti-social, selfish and even destructive trends in those who claim to be scientologists.

I also believe that your response on this issue is overly simplistic as it fails to take into account the idea of creed as opposed to a personal relationship with the divine - although I can understand your frustration with others over this issue.