BBC standing up to scientology

Eriedor · 13 May 2007 at 20:06

Sleepy said:
Businesses are owned, so my question to you would be who owns Scientology and likewise who owns the Church of England for it too owns property and shares?
Why is that a distinguishing feature that separates cult from religion in this case. How does paying for the mystical secrets make them any different from those revealed freely. Other religions have secret knowledge revealed to the faithful or priests or high priests.Its not a pyramid scheme, thats a different con.

oh dear you are defending scientology? O_O

On the front of belief, what is the name of someone who does not believe in religious deities, but is open to the concept of a "god" just not a sentient one that has reasoning behind its actions etc.

Raz · 13 May 2007 at 20:06

Dolph said:
In science, the theory is as close to a fact as you can reasonable get. However, most people forget the qualifiers that go with any scientific theory. To use evolution as an example.

Evolution is currently the simplest predictive theory for the current state based on our believed starting conditions and current data.

What this means is that evolution is the simplest way the current situation could have been acheived, given our current understanding. It says nothing about this being how it actually was achieved.

That's the point.

Raz · 13 May 2007 at 20:08

squiffy said:
I believe the belief in God was created by people in society to inforce fear and control others, and to invade other countries, and to explain to the masses unexplainable events.

Because religion has been around for so long, it is part of our "belief" but just because the idea has been there for thousands of years bears no proof of existance of a all power being. Fancy words, "god works in mysterious ways" and other BS spoken by religious followers has no proof at all. IMO religious people are gullible people.

Technically, religion has been around in one form or another since the beginning (of mankind that is..) and as a result perhaps is intertwined within us.

Dolph · 13 May 2007 at 20:09

Chrisp7 said:
I didnt bring up Atheism you did Infact I have not once mentioned my own 'beliefs' in this thread, merely countered your original statement saying that atheists 'blindly believe' which is obviously a paradoxical statement.

Something you have totally failed to prove. Are you arguing that belief in logical positivism and the scientific method is anything other than blind faith for many atheists? What rational basis are they asserting their belief in those stances on?

It is not up to 'non believers' to prove that we are alone, it is up to believers to prove to 'non believers' that there is a god/belief.

Only if you take logical positivism to be true. In the absence of any evidence either way, the only truely rational stance is that the answer is unknown. It's back to the unopenable box analogy again. Is it rational to assume it's empty simply because you don't know if it is or not?

Sleepy · 13 May 2007 at 20:16

Eriedor said:
oh dear you are defending scientology? O_O

No I'm not, I'm asking people to justify their position that Scientology is a cult not a religion, where cult is used in the pejorative sense.

squiffy · 13 May 2007 at 20:18

Raz said:
Technically, religion has been around in one form or another since the beginning (of mankind that is..) and as a result perhaps is intertwined within us.

Doesn't mean it's true. And no offence have you ever posted in a non religious thread?

cleanbluesky · 13 May 2007 at 20:18

Sleepy said:
No I'm not, I'm asking people to justify their position that Scientology is a cult not a religion, where cult is used in the pejorative sense.

Considering the potentially ambiguous definition of 'cult' I think you'd have problem arguing it isn't

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cult

Sleepy · 13 May 2007 at 20:19

Raz said:
Technically, religion has been around in one form or another since the beginning (of mankind that is..) and as a result perhaps is intertwined within us.

Not true, burial rituals possibly a sign of spirituality only go back 30-40,000 years. Mankind is much older than that.

cleanbluesky · 13 May 2007 at 20:19

And this is a prime example of a pet peev on OcUK, when a person puts effort into a post and it gets ignored...

cleanbluesky said:
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.

Raz · 13 May 2007 at 20:21

squiffy said:
Doesn't mean it's true.

I'm not saying it is.

squiffy said:
And no offence have you ever posted in a non religious thread?

cleanbluesky · 13 May 2007 at 20:21

Sleepy said:
Not true, burial rituals possibly a sign of spirituality only go back 30-40,000 years. Mankind is much older than that.

Beginning of recorded history... not that religion isn't necessarily a symptom of another aspect of human nature.

After all, someone had to write the books.

Raz · 13 May 2007 at 20:23

Sleepy said:
Not true, burial rituals possibly a sign of spirituality only go back 30-40,000 years. Mankind is much older than that.

As a growing race yes perhaps, but it depends on when man started 'thinking'.

Mik3 · 13 May 2007 at 20:24

Early cavemen drawings show no sign of religion, that's not to say they never believed in some almighty being.

Sleepy · 13 May 2007 at 20:27

cleanbluesky said:
Considering the potentially ambiguous definition of 'cult' I think you'd have problem arguing it isn't

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cult

Thats not a helpful description of the word. It basically says that cult is rude word used to describe religions with which the speaker finds fault. It's an insult then?

Raz · 13 May 2007 at 20:27

Mik3 said:
Early cavemen drawings show no sign of religion, that's not to say they never believed in some almighty being.

True, but it doesn't necessarily have to be an Almighty Being that they believed in. A simple thought of believing the moon or sun to be Gods or the source of life could be seen as the tenants of a faith.

Mik3 · 13 May 2007 at 20:31

Raz said:
True, but it doesn't necessarily have to be an Almighty Being that they believed in. A simple thought of believing the moon or sun to be Gods or the source of life could be seen as the tenants of a faith.

True. I belive a lot of the drawings are of animals, maybe the first sign of pagans?

cleanbluesky · 13 May 2007 at 20:31

Sleepy said:
Thats not a helpful description of the word. It basically says that cult is rude word used to describe religions with which the speaker finds fault. It's an insult then?

You did say it had a pejorative quality.

Can you think of any concrete and accepted meaning of the term? I can think of two ways in which it is commonly used, as a way for The Church to afford legitimacy to their own divisions by calling them denominations yet referring to the 'denominations' of others religions as 'cults' - and as a way of describing social groups whereby an ordinary* living person is worshipped within the group

*I included the term ordinary there as I realised that my definition applied to Buddhists without that addition

Raz · 13 May 2007 at 20:34

Mik3 said:
True. I belive a lot of the drawings are of animals, maybe the first sign of pagans?

Exactly. While the Big 3 are similar and have the same roots, religion may have started off differently.

Perhaps our friendly and loving pagan, CBS, may care to contribute to pagan origins...

yak.h'cir · 13 May 2007 at 20:35

Sleepy said:
Businesses are owned, so my question to you would be who owns Scientology and likewise who owns the Church of England for it too owns property and shares?

EDIT: Must have been looking at an old website, Ron Hubbard is indeed dead!

My understanding was that Ron Hubbard (creater of scientology) keeps 10% of the income of the business as his take, as well as the profit he keeps from the $10000 worth of his books new recruits are required to buy. Other profits that go to him incude the sale of various items including E-meters which sell for $126 despite costing less then $15 to build.

There can be no doubt that this is a for profit organisation, with a few key members making millions from the business.

In 1968 the US state court ruled that scientology did not qualify as an corperation organized and operated entirely for religious purposes. The decision was furhter upheld in 1969 when the appeal was quashed due to the Washington group making $758982 in profit with over $100000 going straight into Hubbards pockets, along with use of a car and house.

Sleepy · 13 May 2007 at 20:37

Raz said:
As a growing race yes perhaps, but it depends on when man started 'thinking'.

Complex tool use predates this, as does the capability for speech.