BBC standing up to scientology

Dolph · 14 May 2007 at 09:59

Shackley said:
Fair comment. On behalf of the chicken, I will submit without the need for extensive testing. I'm not quite sure how one would any more "easily test" for the existence or absence of life on Mars than one could for the existence or absence of a "Superior being" (God) - both hypotheses are "untestable by current methods".

I guess that this is why I would describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist - I would still hesitate however to describe my lack of belief in the existence of a God as an act of faith.

From what you've said, your lack of belief in the existance of God isn't faith based in itself, it's a rational result of your other beliefs. The point I'm trying to make is that everyone, somewhere, makes assumptions, they take certain things on faith if you will. The vast majority of atheists are covered by this idea, however they don't seem to like it being pointed out, they see it as a 'bad thing' to simply accept that they, at some point, have taken things to be true that can't be tested.

I'm agnostic to most religions and most gods, not because I disbelieve them, but because to me, they are irrelevant. I make no judgement about whether or not they exist, because I don't care, it's not important to me. To actually move beyond that, into disbelief, requires evaluation of evidence and that's where the faith idea comes in, and where the arguments for rationality come in too. To evaluate, you have to set your criteria, it always involves assumptions to do so, and most tend to use the same assumptions science uses as part of it's creation of simple predictive models, whether they are appropriate or not. The faith is in the assumptions, not in the evaluation.

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 10:24

http://www.********.com/view?i=540_1179090985

http://www.********.com/view?i=c1e_1179091218

manoz · 14 May 2007 at 10:26

cleanbluesky said:
http://www.********.com/view?i=540_1179090985

http://www.********.com/view?i=c1e_1179091218

The first vid scares the crap out of me everytime I watch it

magick · 14 May 2007 at 10:31

cleanbluesky said:
http://www.********.com/view?i=540_1179090985

http://www.********.com/view?i=c1e_1179091218

After watching the first video and seeing how emotionaly involved the reporter is I don't trust what his ability to present the facts in an unbiased way.

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 10:33

magick said:
After watching the first video and seeing how emotionaly involved the reporter is I don't trust what his ability to present the facts in an unbiased way.

Bear in mind that one of the aims of Scientology is to affect people's emotions - to my mind that guy lost it but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a reaction to some of the techniques that Scientologists have tried on him.

If a person were to go into Scientology with an 'open mind' and no knowledge of psychological manipulation it could have bad effects on them.

manoz · 14 May 2007 at 10:36

cleanbluesky said:
Bear in mind that one of the aims of Scientology is to affect people's emotions - to my mind that guy lost it but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a reaction to some of the techniques that Scientologists have tried on him.

If a person were to go into Scientology with an 'open mind' and no knowledge of psychological manipulation it could have bad effects on them.

Haven't they got something against physciatrists? Maybe cos the shrinks will know what they're upto?

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 10:37

manoz said:
Haven't they got something against physciatrists? Maybe cos the shrinks will know what they're upto?

They are against use of drugs, something to do with their philosophy. What they are up to is brainwashing, systematically pushing the buttons in a person more effectively than the Chinese ever managed.

I've seen one video of a BBC correspondent who went through a lot of their training, much of which I didn't quite understand the purpose of BUT a lot of which I did.

The interesting thing I am learning about groups is that they tend to bond, if you put them in the right environment. It's a natural tendency, and that is what Scientology takes advantage of. They put one of their men in the right environment with a newcomer, and get them to bond (bear in mind their proxy is always more loyal to scientology than the newcomer) and then they exploit that relationship

magick · 14 May 2007 at 10:48

I watched a series a on Channel 4 a while ago in which this sikh guy (i see him on tv a lot but can't remember his names) goes round 'trying different religions'. He tries scientology and to be honest it didn't really seem that bad. He met people who are into it across europe and went to a main center of it in russia where they did the psychological stuff and they allowed it to be filmed.

The people involved with scientology seemed like nice people and all of them said there lives have become much better since they got involved with scientology.Nothing really seemed to sinistar about it apart from at the end the sikh guy asked the guy showing him round about scientology and an alleged connection with UFO's to which the scientology guy just said "well ufo's are a very complex subject".

growse · 14 May 2007 at 10:48

Shackley said:
Can one (sensibly) say that not believing something is "faith based"? I don't believe that there is life on Mars, is that faith based? I don't believe that a chicken could kill a tiger, is that faith based?

I would suggest that without some sort of evidence to "prove" the existence of something, not believing in its existence has nothing to do with faith, it is just common sense.

Flip it around. It's not that you don't believe in the presence of life on Mars, it's that you believe in the absence of life on Mars. Either way, it's still based on faith, at least until an exhaustive study of Mars is completed.

In the case of the box, it may be comforting to some to adopt the position whereby they assume the box is empty if they know nothing about the contents of the box, but they'd have a hard time convincing someone else that "Here is a box. I don't know anything about this box. Therefore it's empty", because that's not a logical position to take. It's arguably a pretty good default position to take if you're forced to take a position, because it's the simplest committed answer to "what's in the box"*. However, the contents of the box, along with whether there's a god or not, are not questions to which it's necessary to commit to an answer. If you ask me if there's a god, I'll say "I don't know". I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic.

But, I think Dolph made all these points better than I could have done

*This is not to be confused, imo, with Occam's Razor, which I believe applies only to situations where a hypothesis is needed given evidence. You could very well argue that there is no such thing as "the simplest answer" given no evidence, but I'd say that "Nothing" is a more understandable and simple position to take on the box question than "17 midget clowns".

magick · 14 May 2007 at 10:55

On subject on wether God is real or not. Assuming that the nature of God is limitless and infinite, how can you prove the existance of something that is limitless or infinite. To measure infinity you'd first have to make it finite (probably impossible) so it can be measured by our finite measurement devices and percieved by our finite senses and comprehended by our finite intellect.

Stag · 14 May 2007 at 11:15

**** L Ron Hubbard and **** all his clones.

Scientology is nothing but an excuse to drain people of their money under the pretence of helping them. I think the lack of a spiritually fulfilling path in the modern western society is partly to blame. It's my hyponthesis that people need to believe in something higher than themselves and they are brainwashed into thinking that Scientology has all the answers.

"You are broken, we can fix you, for a price of only $1000 dollars. Oh you also have this character defect, this expensive course of auditing can help clear you of painful memories etc."

Why they are they so against psychiatry? Well because it's basically what they do but without the huge price tag and wad of mumbo jumbo.

Van_Dammesque · 14 May 2007 at 11:37

I've just skimmed the thread so here are my 2p's worth:
- I think it is pathetic of the BBC to show a program like this; scientology, is mainly, not taken seriously.

- Why can not they take on something more pious, like islam or christianity? Too easy prey is scientology.

- Propaganda for the beeb: "Oh look we do anti-religous program to make up for the pro-religion programs!" - Rollocks, the beeb are pussies.

Stag · 14 May 2007 at 11:41

Van Damm, at least with Islam and Christianity you get condemned in your next life not in this one!

Also you are wrong about it not being taken seriously, it may be relatively minor in this country (It's growing) but looking at what it's doing in the US is scary.

Van_Dammesque · 14 May 2007 at 11:47

Stag said:
Van Damm, at least with Islam and Christianity you get condemned in your next life not in this one!

heh heh.

Also you are wrong about it not being taken seriously, it may be relatively minor in this country (It's growing) but looking at what it's doing in the US is scary.

True it is on the rise, but if the beeb want a message of "dont be fooled by this garbage" then they would be better off tackling the main religions due to largers numbers alone. I think they are picking on one of the small boys and haven't got the bottle to take on one of the big boys.
I also find it ironic that they show this, yet, come every sunday songs of praise is on.

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 11:48

magick said:
I watched a series a on Channel 4 a while ago in which this sikh guy (i see him on tv a lot but can't remember his names) goes round 'trying different religions'. He tries scientology and to be honest it didn't really seem that bad. He met people who are into it across europe and went to a main center of it in russia where they did the psychological stuff and they allowed it to be filmed.

The people involved with scientology seemed like nice people and all of them said there lives have become much better since they got involved with scientology.Nothing really seemed to sinistar about it apart from at the end the sikh guy asked the guy showing him round about scientology and an alleged connection with UFO's to which the scientology guy just said "well ufo's are a very complex subject".

So you don't consider the fact that they got him to talk about issues that made him cry at the end 'sinsiter'?

Why would they want that kind of intimacy from him? What do you think they would do next?

Christo · 14 May 2007 at 11:52

Dolph said:
Are you stating that disbelief should be the instant approach to any hypothesis? That's the only way such a view makes sense. Rational people view a hypothesis as unknown until they've evaluated evidence. When you start evaluating evidence, then you can take a position, unless you're biased.

Are you stating that belief should be the instant approach to any hypothesis? Again you are making statements on the assumption that I disbelieve. Why do you continue to argue with that bias when every time I am not siding on any one side.

Dolph said:
Actually, non-belief that the box contains something translates directly as belief that the box is empty, there is no third way in that regard. You have chosen to take a default position, based on assumptions and ideas you believe to be true. Criticism of those assumptions and ideas is allowed you know .

If you look at my comment again more closely you will see that it says 'I am implying nothing with regards to what is or isnt in the box'. Why do you continue to put words in my mouth?

Dolph said:
If you are trying to say that the contents of the box is unknown, then you wouldn't be an atheist (apart from under the new trendy definitions that try to encompass as many people as possible, rather like recruiting). You'd be agnostic.

I am not talking about my own beliefs and havent done once as it is irrelevant to the point.

Dolph said:
See above. It seems you're confusing agonisticism with atheism and arguing cross points to prove it. If you are saying that in the absence of evidence, the hypothesis is untested, and therefore you make no judgement on it, you are agnostic.

See above.

Dolph said:
If, on the other hand, you say that in the absence of evidence, the hypothesis is false (disbelief), that would make you atheist, but it would also mean faith is going in from your side to make that view, and it's not rational, it's solely based on faith.

What exactly do you mean by non-belief? Do you mean the hypothesis is untested or should be considered false?

See above also.

dustiestrat · 14 May 2007 at 11:56

ot be honest looking at scientology i'm surprised the vatican hasnt gone out of its way to squesh scientology because it has potential if it picks up any more speed to be another big boy specially with its celebrity endorsement. and the fact that less ppl are going to church and choosing a faith makes it even worse.

magick · 14 May 2007 at 11:57

cleanbluesky said:
So you don't consider the fact that they got him to talk about issues that made him cry at the end 'sinsiter'?

Why would they want that kind of intimacy from him? What do you think they would do next?

No I don't as the way it seemed to me they were trying to get him to release his emotional blockages.

Mobius 1 · 14 May 2007 at 12:01

i wonder if there are any scientologists on the boards

anyhoo, i cant wait to see this later. so its 8.30 on bbc1?

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 12:02

magick said:
No I don't as the way it seemed to me they were trying to get him to release his emotional blockages.

And for what purpose? 'Emotional blockages' are not released in isolation, and considering that the guy who tested him didn't share anything at all, why do they want that sort of emotion from him?