Slashdot Mirror
Scientology's Credibility Questioned Over Video Channel
stonyandcher writes to share that the Church of Scientology has come under fire for some items on their recently launched video channel. Most notably, claims have been leveled that dignitaries in one of their videos were faked and at least one of the people featured in the video is claiming their statements were taken out of context.
Calling Scientology a "religious group" stretches it in my books: they are a scam that hides behind being a cult which promotes itself as a religion.
Shh.
...CoS has already been busted (albeit not overly publicly) for releasing a video compilation of death threats, hate mail, etc, which had said death threats in higher res than their supposed 'original' posting on youtube. Suss as....
(can't be screwed finding cites right now, worked for 26 hours straight, and now i'm plain out of it... little help?)
You're doing it wrong.
Something the person at the top when looking into themselves honestly believes.
Shh.
I am certain this has been stated many times, but here I go anyways, cause I'm new and want karma... For me it is not necessarily what they believe. You could believe that the waffle I toasted this morning is the 'Supreme Being' and bathe in maple syrup (thanks Canada!) as part of your religious rituals and I could care less... What gets my goat is that you must pay to pray, so to speak. If I wanted to learn about the beliefs of Christianity, Islam, Wicca, or even Voodoo, there are books out there and for the most part, a 'holy person' you can throw questions at. They won't ask for cash if you want to advance your knowledge of their belief system. Scientology requires that for you to become a more true believer, you pay, and through the friggen nose (I think the CoS has more to do with this than their individual adherents). I could be wrong, who knows.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Belief Systems Classified by Time Since Inception
0 - 0.5 years : Eccentricity
0.5 - 10 years : Scam
10 - 100 years : Cult
100 - 5,000 years : Genuine theology that reflects the true nature of being and the foundation of our civilization
5,000 + : Myth
Perhaps the flamebait is a little too hasty for the parent. Perhaps.
I think the word credible may be misunderstood and certaintly not used correctly by the original poster. This is why it offends people.
"Credible" refers to the capacity, or worthiness, for a person to believe in something. To say that a religion, any religion, lacks credibility is to say that no one could believe in it. For those that do believe in a particular religion, this would be hurtful and deemed offensive by its members. Hence, the flamebait, or even a troll moderation.
I think what the quote should of said was that religion has no basis in logic, or material evidence. The original poster, and the parent may have been trying to state that a religion, any religion, exists devoid of any factual evidence, logical proof, quantifiable and repeatable results. IMHO, the very word religion describes the situation the poster may have been trying to relate to us.
Belief, per its definition, can be used to describe an acceptance of the truth, or conviction in the truth, with or without a foundation of "cold hard facts". Belief is neutral, or has no position either way.
Now "Faith" on the other hand is not neutral, it is not ambiguous. Faith is usually accepted to be the belief in something in the absence of material evidence or logical proof.
I am a "scientist". The scientific method, logic, reason, etc. are all very important to me. I have a strong belief that our world should be run on factual evidence and that reason and logic should guide our decisions.
However, to believe in something that (as of yet) has no evidence, or proof, is equally important. It provides us with inspiration and strength. My Faith is very important to me as well, and I think it is an important part of us all. To mock someone else's ability to have faith, or the fact that they have it, is to mock your own. IMO, that is what is offensive by the original poster, and the parent.
I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt though that may not have been what they meant, as I initially read it a little bit differently before remembering the true definition and usage of the word "credible".
How the heck should I know if they were frightened. You want to state their beliefs as fact simply because Nero gave it attention?
Hmmm.... Okay. Maybe then if Bill Gates acknowledged the Tooth Fairy she would be real.... simply because a bunch of people started saying it and he noticed it. I am sure pragmatism had nothing to do with anything back then.
Really? Eyewitness accounts? From 2,000 years ago? Well Golly Gee Willickers! I stand corrected.
Trying saying that out loud a couple times and then think about it some more. There is no forensic proof. Loyalty has nothing to do with Faith. Faithfulness can be synonymous with Loyalty, but Loyalty does not automatically imply faith.
The opposite of my definition would be belief based on factual material evidence and logical proof. A word for that might be reason.
That is a problem with people in religion. They like to confuse words to support their own faith. Faith, Belief, Reason, Skepticism (spelled correctly), Logic, etc. are all words that we should use correctly when communicating our ideas. The original point of my post.
As I predicted, the very notion that all faiths are equal and that they are not based on anything "real" would offend someone. I think you need to deal with a rather important fact:
You C A N N O T prove that god exists, or more accurately, change your sets of beliefs from being based on intangible and irrational assumptions TO proven and repeatable results from experiments derived from logical theories about material evidence being presented.
God does not have an email address, you can't find him in a Starbucks sipping a Frappachino, and he will not be visiting orphans tomorrow.
Now EQUALLY true is the fact that nobody can DISPROVE the existence of God either.
Which brings us back to my original point again, which is that all faiths are equal. None of them, by the very definition of the word, are based on anything "real". I have not said they are bad, in fact I said they are good. I love my faith, I just know it for what it is. It is my unwavering belief in something I cannot prove or even put into words. Some people would mock me and others for that. The so called "hard core scientists".
Well in order to be a good "scientist" in my opinion, you must also be open to the possibilities. The possibility that you don't know shit, or more accurately, your understanding of the universe and how it works might not be the truth.
You have stated that I am presenting "reasoned skepticism" and doing it rather poorly. Well I would challenge you, in a friendly way too, to prove to me the existence of God and provide the factual evidence behind the New Testament.
I am truly open to anything, since I have faith that nothing is impossible. I am not opposed to the idea that the evidence may exist, just that it has been found and presented to the world. So please give me your logical arguments, your material evidence. Show me the money Mav[LAG]!