BBC standing up to scientology

squiffy · 14 May 2007 at 12:05

cleanbluesky said:
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?

I believe once that person has reached the stage (they break or release all emotions) re-programming is much easier.

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 12:08

squiffy said:
I believe once that person has reached the stage (they break or release all emotions) re-programming is much easier.

That's what I think as well. If you can lead someone to confide something emotional in you, they confide trust as well. If we trust another who is untrustworthy, or not an equal (perhaps because their loyalty is not to you) then it leaves that person open to manipulation.

Dolph · 14 May 2007 at 12:29

Chrisp7 said:
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.

Because you do not argue that the status is unknown, hence you are taking a side. Why do you insist you are arguing neutrally yet take a stance?

The instant approach to any given hypothesis, in the absence of testing, should be that it is unknown. Not for, or against, but unknown. Anything else implies either bias or faith in the expected results. To state that you do not believe in the hypothesis as default is not logical or rational.

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?

But if you imply that something is not in the box, you are making an implict statement about what is in the box. You cannot do one without the other.

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

See above.

See above also.

The above doesn't answer the question though, because you fail to realise that the stance has implicit consequences. Claiming to know what is not in the box must imply knowledge of what is in the box, if you don't have that knowledge, you're making a statement of faith or believe.

Christo · 14 May 2007 at 12:35

Dolph said:
Because you do not argue that the status is unknown, hence you are taking a side. Why do you insist you are arguing neutrally yet take a stance?.

Show me one instance where I am taking a stance?

Dolph said:
The instant approach to any given hypothesis, in the absence of testing, should be that it is unknown. Not for, or against, but unknown. Anything else implies either bias or faith in the expected results. To state that you do not believe in the hypothesis as default is not logical or rational.

Again you continue to imply that I am arguing against the hypothesis when I simply am not arguing for either side.

Dolph said:
But if you imply that something is not in the box, you are making an implict statement about what is in the box. You cannot do one without the other.

Wrong again, I have not once implied or argued that there is anything or nothing in the box. You continue to imply that I have done, when I continuously repeat that I havent.

Dolph said:
The above doesn't answer the question though, because you fail to realise that the stance has implicit consequences. Claiming to know what is not in the box must imply knowledge of what is in the box, if you don't have that knowledge, you're making a statement of faith or believe.

Where is my stance?

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 12:41

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

Not forgetting the hip gangster wannabes

Dolph · 14 May 2007 at 12:41

Chrisp7 said:
Show me one instance where I am taking a stance?

Again you continue to imply that I am arguing against the hypothesis when I simply am not arguing for either side.

Then your arguements have nothing to do with atheism, you're arguing for agnositicism, which I would agree requires no faith. As I said a while back, the definition of atheism you're using is not the same one as nearly everyone else uses, and is only used by those who wish to make claims about the number of atheists in the world, or add people to the mix who do not proclaim it themselves.

Wrong again, I have not once implied or argued that there is anything or nothing in the box. You continue to imply that I have done, when I continuously repeat that I havent.

Your argument started with the (incorrect) idea that Atheism can be defined as non-belief. You have now changed it to 'not taking a stance', which is not the same thing. To take no stance means making no judgement on the validity of the hypothesis. This is not the same thing as not believing or accepting the hypothesis.

If your arguments hinge around not taking a stance, they have nothing to do with atheism, and your criticism of the charactisation of atheism as a faith-based position is entirely unfounded.

Agnositics don't take a stance, atheists do.

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 12:42

Dolph, I've noticed your readiness to engage on this issue and I agree with a lot of your points...

I'm just curious as to why you like to talk about it

Dolph · 14 May 2007 at 12:47

cleanbluesky said:
Dolph, I've noticed your readiness to engage on this issue and I agree with a lot of your points...

I'm just curious as to why you like to talk about it

The scientist in me gets annoyed with science being used incorrectly.

The philosopher in me gets annoyed with science used as a philosophy being presented as something it's not (ie better than everything else)

Then there's the part of me that sees a group of people trying to claim their beliefs are more rational than anyone elses, and totally failing to realise that it's only their faith in certain ideas that causes that to be the case.

Besides, without questioning things, how will any of us learn? Some people claim to welcome questioining, but will only allow it within their pre-defined limits. I try to encourage people to consider the possibility there may be something outside of their limits.

RDM · 14 May 2007 at 12:52

magick said:
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.

Whilst I agree it is impossible to disprove the existance of God (much like it is impossible to prove it) I do believe that you can logically disprove the existence of particular versions of god or Gods. Obviously you cannot use scientific method, but you can use logical process.

However the very traceable organic growth of religion would suggest to me that it is in its entirety a man made construct. The very evolution of religion alongside mans understanding of his world tends to lend itself towards disproving religion.

Shackley · 14 May 2007 at 13:14

RDM said:
Whilst I agree it is impossible to disprove the existance of God (much like it is impossible to prove it) I do believe that you can logically disprove the existence of particular versions of god or Gods. Obviously you cannot use scientific method, but you can use logical process.

Can you please explain your suggestion that you can "logically disprove the existence of particular versions of God or Gods" :confused:

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 13:16

Shackley said:
Can you please explain your suggestion that you can "logically disprove the existence of particular versions of God or Gods"

I'd say its possible to conclude that accounts given in various holy books are inaccurate due to contradictions. For example, inaccurate descriptions of things that have been given by a supposedly omniscient being.

RDM · 14 May 2007 at 13:21

Shackley said:
Can you please explain your suggestion that you can "logically disprove the existence of particular versions of God or Gods"

By examining the religion, it's beliefs, if there are any contradictions or inconsitantcies, how it was formed, who formed it, where it was formed etc.

Taking Scientology for example. It was formed by a man who originally stated that they best way to make money was to form a religion. It involes giving a lot of money to the religion. It is a very recent religion formed by a (poor) sci fi writer that seems to have some underlying (poor) sci fi themes to it. The way it operates, the people it targets and it's "belief" systems would all logically suggest it is a complete pile of rubbish. Logically I would have to say it doesn't offer the truth. I, of course, could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Flying Spaghetti Monstorism also has similar flaws, though probably rates a touch higher in the believability stakes...

You can take the same methods and examine the other major religions and probably come to similar conclusions.

bam0 · 14 May 2007 at 13:27

RDM said:
By examining the religion, it's beliefs, if there are any contradictions or inconsitantcies, how it was formed, who formed it, where it was formed etc.

Taking Scientology for example. It was formed by a man who originally stated that they best way to make money was to form a religion. It involes giving a lot of money to the religion. It is a very recent religion formed by a (poor) sci fi writer that seems to have some underlying (poor) sci fi themes to it. The way it operates, the people it targets and it's "belief" systems would all logically suggest it is a complete pile of rubbish. Logically I would have to say it doesn't offer the truth. I, of course, could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

Flying Spaghetti Monstorism also has similar flaws, though probably rates a touch higher in the believability stakes...

You can take the same methods and examine the other major religions and probably come to similar conclusions.

I don't think the above qualifies as logic, it's inductive reasoning.

RDM · 14 May 2007 at 13:30

bam0 said:
I don't think the above qualifies as logic, it's inductive reasoning.

<shrug> Inductive reasoning will do then

Not overly precious about the terms. At the end of the day my atheism stems from the fact that I looked around at the world, looked at what the major religions were telling me and could not personally reconcile the two.

Adnams Drinker · 14 May 2007 at 13:39

What is of most concern to me is not the ranting of a BBC journalist faced with an uncooperative, evasive interviewee (which is what the hoo-ha on YouTube is all about), but the fact that there are cretins walking this Earth that actually believe the crap Scientology spouts about Thetans, volcanoes and atomic bombs :rolleyes:

It's not like Hubbard was a decent sci-fi writer FFS - I made the mistake of buying one of his novels in my impetuous youth and gave up reading it after 25-30 pages. I've yet to have the misfortune of reading a more turgid pile of crap masquerading as literature.

Shackley · 14 May 2007 at 13:49

RDM said:
. . . if there are any contradictions or inconstancies . . .

Send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance.

Doesn’t mean that the original order was never given, just that it was garbled in the transmission.

V4NT0M · 14 May 2007 at 13:50

Van_Dammesque said:
yet, come every sunday songs of praise is on.

Rather that than Songs of Xenu pay per view.

I tried to look into scientology before, but cant find out anything at all without buying a book... Just look at their web site, if it was a legitimate 'religion' and not a business they would give you the information for free, the cost of the books indicates retail and profit, not knowledge and enlightenment.

cleanbluesky · 14 May 2007 at 13:50

Shackley said:
Doesn’t mean that the original order was never given, just that it was garbled in the transmission.

If that were the case, then the entire text would become ambiguous and of increasingly little value.

Shackley · 14 May 2007 at 13:59

cleanbluesky said:
If that were the case, then the entire text would become ambiguous and of increasingly little value.

Indeed. However, regardless of how meaningless the text may or may not be, the General who issued the original order still exists. The ambiguous and valueless text doesn't prove otherwise.

Likewise, I don't think that the fact that there are different descriptions of the same event in the gospels proves that the event never occurred.

RDM · 14 May 2007 at 14:04

Shackley said:
Indeed. However, regardless of how meaningless the text may or may not be, the General who issued the original order still exists. The ambiguous and valueless text doesn't prove otherwise.

You don't know that for sure though. To continue your analogy it could just be an NCO that wrote the order, the order doesn't prove the existence of the general in much the same way that the ambigiousness of the order doesn't prove the non-existence of the general.

Shackley said:
Likewise, I don't think that the fact that there are different descriptions of the same event in the gospels proves that the event never occurred.

It does however suggest that the Bible is the word of man and not the word of God and therefore open to considerably more intrepretation than generally allowed.