What Do You Think Of Scientology?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

No. Since you haven't met many atheists you cannot even know of this matter "generally". Would you feel better if the comment you quoted said: "religions are generally cults"? I don't think so.

Lansdowne5

Yes, I 'would' actually. That is of course, if it was backed up by study data. Like my statement is. . . . .

Two studies were done on separate occasions, both suggest that atheists, in general, are less moral than theists. :)

Do you have data that proves they do? The absence of data doesn't prove anything, and it can't possibly be used as a sensible argument. I don't have data to prove that pigs can't fly, does that mean they can? ;)

As for the religion I never tried to prove they are cults. I just brough up this example to show you how flawed the logic of studies are when you have many examples in front of your ...screen. Bus as you yourself have said, even if a theist and an atheist do the same amount of good in their lives still only one of them goes to heaven; ie only one is the right type of human. So what's the reason in arguingabout a belief that is flawed by it's very foundations?! :roll:

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

No. Since you haven't met many atheists you cannot even know of this matter "generally". Would you feel better if the comment you quoted said: "religions are generally cults"? I don't think so.

Lansdowne5

Yes, I 'would' actually. That is of course, if it was backed up by study data. Like my statement is. . . . .

Two studies were done on separate occasions, both suggest that atheists, in general, are less moral than theists. :)

Do you have data that proves they do? The absence of data doesn't prove anything, and it can't possibly be used as a sensible argument. I don't have data to prove that pigs can't fly, does that mean they can? ;)

Obeying orders is not necessarily a moral act... I agree people around you are benifited in some sectors but the twist is still there...

Now I don't have data to prove thesists appear morally superior(do they really? :roll: ) because they follow orders. But that doesn't mean they don't. May be some of them do.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

No. Since you haven't met many atheists you cannot even know of this matter "generally". Would you feel better if the comment you quoted said: "religions are generally cults"? I don't think so.

Teenaged

Yes, I 'would' actually. That is of course, if it was backed up by study data. Like my statement is. . . . .

Two studies were done on separate occasions, both suggest that atheists, in general, are less moral than theists. :)

Do you have data that proves they do? The absence of data doesn't prove anything, and it can't possibly be used as a sensible argument. I don't have data to prove that pigs can't fly, does that mean they can? ;)

As for the religion I never tried to prove they are cults. I just brough up this example to show you how flawed the logic of studies are when you have many examples in front of your ...screen. Bus as you yourself have said, even if a theist and an atheist do the same amount of good in their lives still only one of them goes to heaven; ie only one is the right type of human. So what's the reason in arguingabout a belief that is flawed by it's very foundations?! :roll:

That's at best. . . one hundred people? Which is only a small percentage of the amount of people who took part in the studies I'm referring to. >_>

As of yet, you have failed to show me an example of why the logic of the studies is flawed. For one, the internet cannot be considered a reliable source. You have no way of knowing whether what someone says is actually true or not. And for two, whether my belief is flawed is totally irrelevant to whether atheists are less moral than theists. ;)

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

No. Since you haven't met many atheists you cannot even know of this matter "generally". Would you feel better if the comment you quoted said: "religions are generally cults"? I don't think so.

7guns

Yes, I 'would' actually. That is of course, if it was backed up by study data. Like my statement is. . . . .

Two studies were done on separate occasions, both suggest that atheists, in general, are less moral than theists. :)

Do you have data that proves they do? The absence of data doesn't prove anything, and it can't possibly be used as a sensible argument. I don't have data to prove that pigs can't fly, does that mean they can? ;)

Obeying orders is not necessarily a moral act... I agree people around you are benifited in some sectors but the twist is still there...

Now I don't have data to prove thesists appear morally superior(do they really? :roll: ) because they follow orders. But that doesn't mean they don't. May be some of them do.

Who said it was? Who said that's even what I'm referring to? I certainly didn't. ;)

That's at best. . . one hundred people? Which is only a small percentage of the amount of people who took part in the studies I'm referring to. >_>

As of yet, you have failed to show me an example of why the logic of the studies is flawed. For one, the internet cannot be considered a reliable source. You have no way of knowing whether what someone says is actually true or not. And for two, whether my belief is flawed is totally irrelevant to whether atheists are less moral than theists. ;)

Lansdowne5

And as of the second, off-course your belief is relevant because that what I was bugging you for in the first place.

EDIT: But I know that the statement of the 1st paragraph about studies could be turned against me in the case they proved atheists were more moral, so I'm not pressing on.

All I'll say is that statistics can be proved wrong (although I don't believe those anyway), future-wise, and that won't take the atheists to convert to Christians, for sure!

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

That's at best. . . one hundred people? Which is only a small percentage of the amount of people who took part in the studies I'm referring to. >_>

As of yet, you have failed to show me an example of why the logic of the studies is flawed. For one, the internet cannot be considered a reliable source. You have no way of knowing whether what someone says is actually true or not. And for two, whether my belief is flawed is totally irrelevant to whether atheists are less moral than theists. ;)

Teenaged

And as of the second, off-course your belief is relevant because that what I was bugging you for in the first place.

You've seen the results of the studies before, but here it is one of them again - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_theists_morality.pdf

You have 'faith'? That's a good argument from an agnostic. :roll:

And my belief is not relevant. Why would it be? My statement is not based on my belief, but on data from the studies I have seen.

EDIT: But I know that the statement of the 1st paragraph about studies could be turned against me in the case they proved atheists were more moral, so I'm not pressing on.

All I'll say is that statistics can be proved wrong (although I don't believe those anyway), future-wise, and that won't take the atheists to convert to Christians, for sure!

Teenaged

Who proved atheists were more moral??? And by all means, feel free to prove the statistics wrong. ;) So far, all you've given as evidence for athiests and thiests being morally equivalant is "what's on your screen". Go conduct a study on another thousand people and then come back with the results. ;)

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

That's at best. . . one hundred people? Which is only a small percentage of the amount of people who took part in the studies I'm referring to. >_>

As of yet, you have failed to show me an example of why the logic of the studies is flawed. For one, the internet cannot be considered a reliable source. You have no way of knowing whether what someone says is actually true or not. And for two, whether my belief is flawed is totally irrelevant to whether atheists are less moral than theists. ;)

Lansdowne5

And as of the second, off-course your belief is relevant because that what I was bugging you for in the first place.

You've seen the results of the studies before, but here it is one of them again - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_theists_morality.pdf

You have 'faith'? That's a good argument from an agnostic. :roll:

And my belief is not relevant. Why would it be? My statement is not based on my belief, but on data from the studies I have seen.

I read the statistics of the survey (nothing more) and I will say this and don't get offended please: from my experience I would say that theists tend to be very pretentious about their priorities. This may as well mean that you may be one of the few truly adamant Christian (although I don't know you, that would be a possibility for you not accepting what I say). In other words Christians are more contended with the way they live even if they have flaws because for them it's enough that they are believers, meaning that this in itself isd so good that compensates for the rest.

Now when it comes to atheists, judging by  myself (as an agnostic) tend to be more strict judges of themselves and their tendency to scrutinize religion and life in general has passed on to when judging themselves. Thus there's always a self-doubt which may destort the reality of what each think he/she holds close to his/her heart.

Besides those surveys are based on what people "think of themselves", or generally what they believe, not what they act like. There is a huge difference. In no way do I believe that either side has an advantage of morality against the other. Those surveys should be carried out with action in mind and not what people profess to believe or hold sacred. I know MANY pretentious religious people in real life. Trust me.

I read the statistics of the survey (nothing more) and I will say this and don't get offended please: from my experience I would say that theists tend to be very pretentious about their priorities. This may as well mean that you may be one of the few truly adamant Christian (although I don't know you, that would be a possibility for you not accepting what I say). In other words Christians are more contended with the way they live even if they have flaws because for them it's enough that they are believers, meaning that this in itself isd so good that compensates for the rest.

Now when it comes to atheists, judging by  myself (as an agnostic) tend to be more strict judges of themselves and their tendency to scrutinize religion and life in general has passed on to when judging themselves. Thus there's always a self-doubt which may destort the reality of what each holds close to his heart.

Besides those surveys are based on what people "think of themselves", or generally what they believe, not what they act like. There is a huge difference. In no way do I believe that either side has an advantage of morality against the other. Those surveys should be carried out with action in mind and not what people profess to believe or hold sacred. I know MANY pretentious religious people in real life. Trust me.

Teenaged

Being morally good and being a Christian cannot be separate from each other. When you give your life to Christ, you start to display the fruit of the spirit. The two are synonymous. :) 

Anyway, I think this discussion has gone far enough. You believe atheists and theists can be just as moral as each other, and that my data is inaccurate. I do not hold the same view. I think the discussion is pointless unless one side will change their opinion, which seems. . . unlikely. 

Being morally good and being a Christian cannot be separate from each other. When you give your life to Christ, you start to display the fruit of the spirit. The two are synonymous. :) 

Anyway, I think this discussion has gone far enough. You believe atheists and theists can be just as moral as each other, and that my data is inaccurate. I do not hold the same view. I think the discussion is pointless unless one side will change their opinion, which seems. . . unlikely. 

 

Lansdowne5

I'm telling you all these things because I've seen it myself. I have seen people like you (too few) and MANY others who say as much as you but do only 1%. And I'm not exaggerating here.

Holy ****!  I watched some videos.

I seriously think Scientology should be heavily investigated by the US government, just like they investigated that cult in Texas last year.

FREAKS.

Two studies were done on separate occasions, both suggest that atheists, in general, are less moral than theists. :)

Do you have data that proves they do? The absence of data doesn't prove anything, and it can't possibly be used as a sensible argument. I don't have data to prove that pigs can't fly, does that mean they can? ;)

Lansdowne5

*cough* bull **** *cough* post studies

What do you think the theist/atheist ratio is in prison?  It doesn't support your argument.  Additionally atheist statistically are more likely in the educated and high IQ crowds, again not where you find the bulk of criminals.  

To say "all religions are cults" is a nasty generalization. You'd have to know what every religion was before you could make that sort of claim.Lansdowne5

To say "all religions are cults" is to use the simple textbook definition.

cult  

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

7. the members of such a religion or sect.

8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

To say "all religions are cults" is a nasty generalization. You'd have to know what every religion was before you could make that sort of claim.Sitri_

To say "all religions are cults" is to use the simple textbook definition.

cult  

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

7. the members of such a religion or sect.

8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

It's quite obvious which definition would be meant by the statement. If not, there would be no point using the word in the first place, as it would just be a synonym with the same meaning. . . . .

To say "all religions are cults" is a nasty generalization. You'd have to know what every religion was before you could make that sort of claim.Lansdowne5

The point wasn't that all reigions are cults, the point was that the end result is often the same.

-

However I do agree there is a difference between a religion that openly states its beliefs, allows members to join or leave as they please, and has public access to its rituals, and a cult where members face physical consequences for departure, must heavily personally invest before gaining access to their full beliefs, and where the public is not permitted to see what occurs during ceremonies.

-

While someone raised Christian from childhood is certainly psychologically bound by "fear of hell" and ingrained Christian-morality, they are in a different place than a Scientologist who fears legal reprecussion, physical violence, or financial ruin if they quit.

It's quite obvious which definition would be meant by the statement. If not, there would be no point using the word in the first place, as it would just be a synonym with the same meaning. . . . .

Lansdowne5

While intended as pejorative, it is a synanym.   Darwinism is not synomomous to "belief in evolution" but we still see that misnomer tossed about quite frequently.  

This reminds me, Funky was it you modded for saying the word "fundie," how is that any more offensive than "darwinism?"

The point wasn't that all reigions are cults, the point was that the end result is often the same.

-

However I do agree there is a difference between a religion that openly states its beliefs, allows members to join or leave as they please, and has public access to its rituals, and a cult where members face physical consequences for departure, must heavily personally invest before gaining access to their full beliefs, and where the public is not permitted to see what occurs during ceremonies.

-

While someone raised Christian from childhood is certainly psychologically bound by "fear of hell" and ingrained Christian-morality, they are in a different place than a Scientologist who fears legal reprecussion, physical violence, or financial ruin if they quit.

subrosian

So it would be fair to say christiany was a cult by your definition, and only isn't now because it has been socially and politically hobbled?

I think of them as I do any other religion, that they're wrong. But I do think, what little I know of it, that Scientology has quite a strange set-up as to how you "progress".btaylor2404

I remember I did a presentation on Scientology a few years ago for one of my classes.

I think it is a load of ****. And they do go to great lenghts to preserve their image or even harass members/exmembers. I think the celebrities dig it because the way you progress in Scientology is by going through lengthy and expensive audits. Nothing like achieving a higher operating level with an expensive ceremony that can only be done on the ocean. :|

Hubbard was a liar, claimed he was a war hero and a nuclear physicist, but was neither. 

Then there's the head of the Glactic Confederacy "Xenu" flying a boeing in space. I would find it more rational if people were to believe in 'the force' and try to become Jedi's.