Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Scientology
Does anyone know much about Scientology? I know very little about it and have not found much informaiton on it. Truthfully, I haven't looked all that hard! 
Anyways...just curious as to what it is all about.
Anyways...just curious as to what it is all about. 0
Comments
John Travolta comes over as such a nice person in real life, I can't help but like him... I've seen people he's worked with interviewed, and nobody's ever had a bad word to say about him....and if any of that is down to his faith, then more power to his elbow!
*I'm gonna see whut I ken find out.....!*
there you go....!:thumbsup:
Search the web for scientology victims. You'll find plenty.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/scientology-victims-express-bitterness.htm
L. Ron Hubbard is the one who started Scientology???!!!???
Reckon I'd better do my homework.....:o
I will not post without checking first...
I will not post without checking first...
I will not post without checking first...
I will not post without checking first...
I will not post without checking first...
I will not post without checking first...
I will not post without checking first...
I will not post without checking first...
I will not post without checking first...
Thanks Brian....
I never really liked Ron Hubbards science fiction that much - figured his religion couldn't be more exciting that Battlefield Earth.
-bf
www.clambake.org
I WILL NOT POST WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST......!!
I WILL NOT POST WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST......!!
I WILL NOT POST WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST......!!
I WILL NOT POST WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST......!!
I WILL NOT POST WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST......!!
I WILL NOT POST WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST......!!
I WILL NOT POST WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST......!!
I WILL NOT POST WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST......!!
I WILL NOT POST WITHOUT CHECKING FIRST......!!
What are you talking about?
"Her" new avatar, ajani_mgo, HER new avatar.... what on earth makes you think I'm a bloke?!? *LOL!!*
Simon, now that's not very kind, is it....? *tut tut tut!!*
I wouldn't want you to become sensible or serious or BORING!
What does all this have to do with being reincarnated from space aliens long ago who were chained to volcanos and blown up with "atomic" weapons?
M.
(and I want to see where this thread is going)
..........How's that Magwang?
.....Couldn't be a bloke... I'm with Tara on this one... I'm going to keep trying with the Feminine Gender trick again next time.... :rockon:
Scientology....the intelligent design people got nothing on these guys...that is their creation theory: the Thetans.
:crazy:
pob:tongue2:
I was just thinking, could the rise of such "condemned" and "antisocial" religions like Scientology and even "Buddhism" (as known by the ignorant) show a problem with modern society? Instead of seeking solace in more "traditional" faiths like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, there are those who might fancy far-fetched Scientology...
Masao Abe writes about Nietzschean nihilism and scientific rationalism as presenting us with a demand to rethink the very foundations of our cultural and religious life. As Heidegger says, expanding on Nietzsche's famous statement that "God is dead": What greater challenge to the theists?
Masao Abe also makes a comment which I still find very useful:
What's so extreme about atheism? While it could certainly be seen as one end point on one spectrum (atheism <-> die-hard theism), does that necessarily warrant the word extreme?
I ask in part because I am atheist. I have no belief in any deities, and I'll even go further and say that I highly, highly doubt that there are such beings. But on the other hand, I don't believe in unicorns or fairies or leprechauns and I don't think that people who don't believe in those creatures are extremists just because they can be placed on one side of a 'belief in mythical creatures from Britain /northern Europe' spectrum.
Sure, there are extremist atheists. I think most things can be taken to extremes - perhaps even the middle ground. But I don't think traditional belief systems are anymore "middle" than atheism or scientology. They just seem less wacky since most of us have had more experience with them. Isn't it just as wacky to think that man was literally made out of dirt by the very hand of a god (whether it is Yahweh or Prometheus)?
(Edited just to correct typo)
It appears as extreme to me to assert that God is thus or thus, at one end, or that there is nothing divine, at the other. Both positions assert without evidence and lead to intolerance of the opposing belief structure.
You simply need to read the writings of the dogmatic religious or the dogmatic atheists (like Dawkins) to understand that these absolutes are sources of intolerance and general nastiness. Even 'tolerance' of the opposing view becomes patronising.
This is why I term them both 'extreme' and that they embody the attitudes of eternalism or nihilism which the Buddha warned against.
to believe in speculation or not believe in speculation, is biased. You gotta stay open to possibilities no matter how small.
You start going either way and you loose yourself
speculate
/spekyoolayt/
• verb 1: form a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. 2: invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of financial gain but with the risk of loss.
— DERIVATIVES: speculation (noun), speculator (noun).
— ORIGIN Latin speculari ‘observe’, from specula ‘watchtower’.
Your comment doesn't really make sense, Celeb'.....
so saying no one believes in speculation is untrue.. i disagree with that.. many ppl have forgotten who they are to a false indentity and look at things in a light that isn't there own... hence believing in stuff they normally would not.
Scientology is a prime example
using brainwashing methods, and ways to make ppl sugesstable it makes them believe pure speculation in that a alien called xenu waged war on the universe and kidnapped loads of aliens and took em to mount vesuvious to kill them.. but as they went in the volcano their souls escaped.. so xenu built giant soul capturing devices and tried to capture them.. but many souls escaped these and went into apes living on the surface..
now to any person thats rubbish cus its only recently been written by a science fiction author, not to mention the brainwashing, and the pyramid scheme run within the religion.
In an normal state of mind completely free of delusion,brainwashign and so forth.. this is sheer speculation.. even to the person who practises.. they are well aware that its speculative.. yet they still believe and convince themselves it can't be even though they know it is, they want it to be real so they ignore themselves.
and since there is no proof at all it is indeed classed throughout the world as speculative beliefs... and yet ppl believe in it..
plus everyone knows what the word speculation,speculate means in general terms in the english language: try google
Definitions of speculation on the Web:
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture"
profit and all that malarky is probably something from the 1200's or some crap.. i've never come across ppl use the word like that. Maybe in actual stock market affairs it is but for general use.. its just someone spouting stuff that cannot be proven and has no actual basis or realistic value.. usually random comments made out the blue that don't hold any ground..
for example:
me saying "i can run faster than 350mph on a road in suffolk" that is mere speculation and a piece of utter trash it is that only the idle would actually believe.. yet if im secretly jesus u cud be open to the most minute possibilitie couldn't you?
Well, my response is that many atheists (such as myself) do not see a need for proof that deities don't exist but rather that the burden of proof is on theists to prove that deities exist (not the other way around) just as I would not see a need to prove that purple people eaters from outerspace exist. And I would certainly have to see a lot of very good evidence of one before believing in such a creature.
I have read some of what you would probably call dogmatic atheism. But I disagree with the word dogmatic since, at least by one definition, dogma is "the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted" and there is nothing that all atheists agree on except that we do not have a belief in a deity/deities (and even then, some disagree on what it means to be atheist). Certainly, there are certain types of atheists, but nothing compared to religious denominations. Because of all this, I think it is unwise to take the beliefs/writings of some of the more outspoken atheists as speaking for the rest of us (whether good or bad) or to stereotype the beliefs of atheists beyond the simple lack of belief in deities. As I said previously, I do believe that there are extremist atheists as much as there are extremist anythings, but I do not believe that atheism in itself is extremist. I would even go as far as to say that 'extremist atheists' are atheists who happen to be extremists when it comes to other beliefs of theirs. Certainly people tend to be more passionate in their beliefs than their lackings of belief?
And I certainly do not think that atheism leads to intolerance, especially compared to those religious traditions that you consider non-extremist. I certainly do not consider myself intolerant, and the atheists I have personally known are among some of the most tolerant people I have known (even when I was not atheist). I realize that the beliefs of other people are not necessarily a threat to me, though I disagree with them trying to force their beliefs on others if and when they do. On the other hand, I have met far too many people who insist that atheism in unpatriotic (as Americans), pure evil, not to be tolerated, a threat to society, etc. etc. etc. The sad truth is that in America, at least, atheists are one of the most hated and mistrusted groups (as shown by several recent studies, including one that showed what type of people others would vote for as president) . It is for that reason that many of us, perhaps less extreme atheists, are forced to hide our nonbelief and try to blend in. Unfortunately, that probably only adds to the stereotypes of atheists based on those atheists that are more outspoken.
But even atheists can speculate. Do I sometimes wonder if maybe some sort of being exists out there that I might consider to conform to the definition of "deity"? Sure. But like with flying spaghetti monsters, if someone asks me do I believe in one I have to emphatically say, "No, I really don't think so." But hey, anything could happen, right? We could even be in the Matrix, for all I know. But until I see enough good evidence for it, I'm not going to worry about machines sucking my life force out of me (except for my laptop).
And meanwhile, if there are deities, so what? Even if I knew for certainty that a deity existed, would the fact that they are a deity be reason enough to worship them? And what would really qualify as a deity, anyways? And would they or my belief in them have any impact on my quest for enlightenment for better or worse?
When I was Christian, belief in a god (The God) was an essential part of my worldview, a basic assumption. And as I left Christianity, the question still seemed very important. But now, the very question itself seems unimportant. And perhaps this is part of the reason why I think that being an atheist is just a very small part of my identity - if even that - and that it shouldn't necessarily be seen as some huge factor in identifying anyone (anymore than being not-scientologist or not-hindu). Certainly there are those who consider their atheism as part of their identity, but for me atheist is just one of many things that describe me (along with "freckled, likes singing Phantom of the Opera songs, and loves spicy food"). In other words, it wouldn't even make it on my personal ad if I had one.
if u think the green stufff on ground is grass.. and clouds are nothign but clouds.. u aren't seeing anything at all but labels and names.. u miss the beauty that is in all objects
is same with god.. they don't see any real image.. they just fear the name.. no real god would actually be letting ppl worship it by 'name' and ascend to heaven.. on that pretext.
not to mention that no god would say.. u u gay guys over there.. ur evil and wrong and sinners.. and why? because ur living life the natural way that you are meant to.. and you are being urself..
durrh.. i don't think so.. in terms of an almightly being.. a god may exist but not under any of what christians say.. its so flawed and human like.. and the contradictions and wisdom are so utterly lame and non-existant.. its generally implausible
if u look at god without preconceptions.. u see what he really looks like in ur mind..
don't hold back,don't try too hard, always keep a level head... in a fight its not the angry,reckless and confusd idiot who wins but who keeps their head and is in the present.. the man with no minds ..
most so dubbed christians will never get that.. and will never be able to look at things in a non-biased way .. or even see things with their own eyes.. most ppl are little but moutons who follow a mouton who jumps off a cliff
I definitely agree that we should be attached to labels. They can come in handy at times, but we have to be careful that their usefulness is not overpowered by the damage caused by attachment.
And as for gods, if they do exist I certainly hope that they aren't like most of the ones I've heard about - especially the god of the Bible. My ideal god would be truly compassionate, understanding, and she would have to have a great sense of humor.
She would say, "Oh, I don't mind that you didn't believe in me, I really didn't give you any reason to believe since I wanted to stay out of everyone's way. And let's get to know each other before you feel obligated to worship me. Actually, forget worshipping me - let's just be friends. And let's talk some. You probably have a lot of questions you want answered."
That would be nice. But then the likelihood of having that god is even less than the likelihood of having any god. And who's to say that gods aren't selfish, jealous beings. Makes me wonder, though, what our perception of gods worldwide and throughout time has to say about us humans as a whole, and by culture.
I agree entirely about the gods, particularly the mono-Gods. They tell us far more about the tribes that invented them and their attitude to other people and the world than they do about any 'supernatural' powers.
Perhaps that is why my own preference goes to our more ancient British view of "powers" which, by and large, are about as interested in human affairs as the common light switch! It was either Pratchett or Adams who said that the gods, having come into existence in the first seconds of the universe's life, have too many of their own questions to be concerned with ours.
Hindu deities, too, are much more fun that stuffy old Yhwh/Allah. In the Brahma Samhita, the Creator, Brahma, has to be enlightened by Lord Krsna before he even begins the task of creation. I've always found that a wonderful paradox - and one which is constantly posed by kids in RE classes - about 'what came before creation?': if creation hadn't yet happened, how can there be any'one' to enlighten or be enlightened?
I find it fascinating that atheism is a product of montheism. When Socrates was accused of 'atheism', it meant that he was disrespectful towards the gods, not that he denied their existence. Assertion that there is no divine-type power is very new in human history.
in short any ppl who r 'christian' or 'muslim' are really wasting their time.. on an image they created and were given to by other moutons..
just curious, as I've never heard that word before.
_/\_
metta
It is the French for 'sheep'. It gives us the English 'mutton'.
As an aside: Walter Scott suggests that we use French words for meat once prepared for eating ('mutton', 'beef', 'veal', 'cutlet', etc.) because of our Norman overlords, whereas the Saxon peasantry carried on use Germanic words ('sheep'. 'ox', 'calf', etc.)
Also, the French have an expression (Retournons a nos moutons) which means to get back to the subject in hand.
Considering the stigma of atheism even in modern societies, I believe that it is quite probable that there have been atheists throughout history and prehistory. In fact, I'd be more surprised if there hadn't been atheists throughout time. As such, I don't consider it to be a product of monotheism - and in fact, I'm sort of curious about your choice of words (using the term "product" as opposed to just saying that it developed later). What might be interesting, then, is why atheism is more visible today. Apart from a greater level of texts in modern society, I think the that greater religious freedom and the development of modern science and its growing acceptance have been major contributions.