Scientology

[ursus arctos]

Scientology

WOM, you do know that this Pope lives in a hostel, don't you?

[WOM]

Scientology

We got into this with Toro one time, and one of his lines of reasoning was that 'the Church' was valid because of 2000 years of people believing in it, and lots of bibles and big buildings and lovely stained glass.

While I agree that it's all lovely, none of it makes God real. Nor validates believing in things that simply (and provably) aren't true. Being able to trace the lineage of belief systems - and validate their reasons for existing - doesn't mean they're intrinsically more valid.

If he were a better writer, would it make his belief system better? No. If this all happened a thousand years ago would it make his belief system better? No.

[WOM]

Scientology

ursus arctos wrote: WOM, you do know that this Pope lives in a hostel, don't you?

Granted, but clearly an outlier. He hasn't sold the family home and given the money to the poor, though.

[ursus arctos]

Scientology

He's never had a family home.

Yes, Francis is an outlier, but I think that there is a qualitative difference between institutional wealth accumulated over centuries and personal wealth obtained in decades.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Scientology

WOM wrote: We got into this with Toro one time, and one of his lines of reasoning was that 'the Church' was valid because of 2000 years of people believing in it, and lots of bibles and big buildings and lovely stained glass.

While I agree that it's all lovely, none of it makes God real. Nor validates believing in things that simply (and provably) aren't true. Being able to trace the lineage of belief systems - and validate their reasons for existing - doesn't mean they're intrinsically more valid.

If he were a better writer, would it make his belief system better? No. If this all happened a thousand years ago would it make his belief system better? No.

Sure but it's not about evaluating the validity of a belief system in terms of its ideas. It's about its acceptability over time. When it fits into a long-standing pattern it gets to be called a religion.

[WOM]

Scientology

Sorry, no, I was joking about The Vatican being 'the family home'.

And I agree that there is a qualitative difference; but wealth tends to work its way to the top in religious organizations, and Scientology is no different. Vows of poverty at one end and gilded faucets at the other.

[WOM]

Scientology

Amor de Cosmos wrote: Sure but it's not about evaluating the validity of a belief system in terms of its ideas. It's about its acceptability over time. When it fits into a long-standing pattern it gets to be called a religion.

So an untruth, widely held for a long time has more validity* than hokum believed by fewer people for a short time?

*ie, religion vs cult

[Amor de Cosmos]

Scientology

I'm not touching "truth" with a ten-foot pole.

Once again. A religion is a collection of long-standing shared core beliefs with a high degree of acceptability, irrespective of their validity as ideas.

You really can't make one up. Or if you do the results won't be in for several centuries.

[WOM]

Scientology

Fine. We'll agree to wait patiently and meet again on this topic at a much later date.

[Reed John]

Scientology

While I agree that it's all lovely, none of it makes God real. Nor validates believing in things that simply (and provably) aren't true. Being able to trace the lineage of belief systems - and validate their reasons for existing - doesn't mean they're intrinsically more valid.

There's a big difference between a long tradition of people grappling with The Big Questions that govern their lives and society and a handful of people running an elaborate long-con for profit.

[WOM]

Scientology

Reed John wrote:

While I agree that it's all lovely, none of it makes God real. Nor validates believing in things that simply (and provably) aren't true. Being able to trace the lineage of belief systems - and validate their reasons for existing - doesn't mean they're intrinsically more valid.

There's a big difference between a long tradition of people grappling with The Big Questions that govern their lives and society and a handful of people running an elaborate long-con for profit.

I agree completely. Many differences, in fact. But it doesn't make one a religion by default nor the other not a religion by default.

'The Church' of 200 years ago might have existed to provide answers to The Big Questions. That same church today might be a con for profit.

[Reed John]

Scientology

WOM wrote:

While I agree that it's all lovely, none of it makes God real. Nor validates believing in things that simply (and provably) aren't true. Being able to trace the lineage of belief systems - and validate their reasons for existing - doesn't mean they're intrinsically more valid.

There's a big difference between a long tradition of people grappling with The Big Questions that govern their lives and society and a handful of people running an elaborate long-con for profit.

I agree completely. Many differences, in fact. But it doesn't make one a religion by default nor the other not a religion by default.

'The Church' of 200 years ago might have existed to provide answers to The Big Questions. That same church today might be a con for profit.

"The Church" varies widely from place to place. Even the two big Roman Catholic churches in my town are very different.

The problem with Scientology isn't so much that they're claiming to be a religion. It's that they're claiming to do psychotherapy or that they're a superior alternative to psychotherapy. Of course, now they don't claim that so as to get around laws against practicing medicine without a license. But they don't let the "preclears" see the notes taken about their sessions - which is shady as fuck and handy for future blackmail.

When it's handy for them to pretend to be "scientific" they will do so, but when anyone points out that their "science" has no scientific evidentiary basis, they claim it's "just spiritual." That won't do.

[Lang Spoon]

Firhouse is a fairly ‘spicy’ neighborhood isn’t it? Would be awful if some balaclava clad Provo front group were to cause any damage to the building.

[Patrick Thistle]

Hard to condone violence done in the name of religion but, yep.

[Lang Spoon]

The current head’s wife hasn’t been seen in public for a decade. I honestly believe they are capable of anything, Paul Haggis on the CEO and his temperament and “management style” is pretty terrifying.

[Patrick Thistle]

Leah Remini was the wife in King of Queens. Good for her for both getting out of the cult and then shining a light on it.

[elguapo4]

They've had an office on Abbey street in Dublin for years, I've never once been asked to take one of their free personality tests, even when I was delivering their post every day, it makes you feel unloved when even a cult doesn't want you!

[MrLeam]

I was once stopped in the centre of Edinburgh about 25 years ago and asked to do one of their "personality tests". I went upstairs to some room and got taken through a fairly standard test that lasted about 10-15 minutes or so. I answered honestly (well, pretty much so), we then had a brief general conversation before they declared I was the most cynical and sarcastic person they'd ever met and asked, relatively politely to be fair, if I could leave.

I often look back on that afternoon as the one where my hopes of a lucrative Hollywood career were finally dashed...