Scientology's Credibility Questioned Over Video Channel 450
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.
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably worth mentioning... (Score:5, Interesting)
(can't be screwed finding cites right now, worked for 26 hours straight, and now i'm plain out of it... little help?)
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Interesting)
The main issue is lying liars. (Score:2, Interesting)
Christian organizations don't have to abuse the courts, their lies are supported by the justice system. Try suing a church for lying about eternal life and miracles and the other absurd claims they make. Many local churches use social pressure, especially in small towns, to force people to comply or at least not to speak out against the bullshit.
I'm an atheist, by the way, so I'm sure you're hate me even more!
Re:Video? Nice! (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.suburbia.com.au/~fun/scn/pers/fun/xenu/revolt.html [suburbia.com.au]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_in_the_Stars [wikipedia.org]
Re:Scientology is the quintessential religion (Score:5, Interesting)
Yea, and some well know atheists.. (Score:0, Interesting)
For example they claim in that movie that Christianity copied belifes from other pagan religion such as the ressurection, virginal birth, baptism and other ideas..
The fact is that none of these pagan religion concepts existed before 100AD. There is no written historical account for these concepts before this time (such as mithras was born of a virgin, or osiris was ressurected). All pagan religions reference these concepts in written history after the birth of Christ.
Go a read Lee Strobels "The case for the real Jesus" chapter 4 for further clarification, and yes even atheists twist the historical truth for their own agenda.
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:4, Interesting)
In the end thought, both groups focus their worship on Allah, who is very not human.
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:The main issue is lying liars. (Score:4, Interesting)
And the guys protesting against them firmly support the free-zone (scientology without having to pay or be a member of the CoS), which they believe IS a valid religion, because it does none of the above.
Re:Yea, and some well know atheists.. (Score:4, Interesting)
The concept of resurrection is at least as old as writing. Does this automatically mean the account of Jesus being resurrected is copied from those fables?
Few writings from the past contradicting Christianity exist. Does this mean that any surviving writings are automatically true?
There was a mystery cult that existed around the same time as early Christianity that has many similarities to Christianity. Does this mean that Christianity copied Mithraism, or Mithraism copied Christianity?
Christians have, in the past, destroyed information that they found distasteful or contradictory to their beliefs. Does this automatically invalidate their beliefs, or does it just mean there have been assholes in the Christian faith? (Law of the Universal Distribution of Assholes)
I love when people are proven wrong by history.. (Score:1, Interesting)
If the lowly deciples of Jesus could read and write, (who were often poor and uneducated) why could'nt other religions write about these practices before his time? Are these pagan religions that stupid and uneducated not to be able to write about these concepts in recorded history before 100AD or were they just "illiterate" up until 100AD? How convenient of a rebuttal.
To further prove your ignorance of history, the osiris "resurrection thing" was NOT a ressurection, as you have no idea of Osiris and the history of his death, and I'll quote:
"The most popular account says Osiris's brother killed him, chopped him into fourteen pieces and scattered tthem around the world. Well, the goddess Isis feels compassion for Osiris, so she looks for this 14 body parts but only finds 13 of them. She then puts them back together and Osiris is buried. Be he does'nt come back to this world; he is given status of God of the netherworld- A gloomy, shadowy place of semi-consciousness."
This is'nt a ressurection of Osiris, he does not rise to an eqyption God or sits in any glory.
Your argument presents no new historical facts and is baseless.
Re:Scientology is the quintessential religion (Score:4, Interesting)
As to Jesus, there is precisely one contemporary (within a few decades of his death) chronicler, and that's Josephus, and at least some of the passages were doctored later on. The Gospels themselves don't appear until the end of the First Century.
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:3, Interesting)
A cult is a small unpopular religion.
A scam is wrapping pseudo-science under the cloak of religion when convenient, and calling it secular when it isn't.
Re:Scientology is the quintessential religion (Score:3, Interesting)
I would disagree with you 100%. In fact, those things are *more* believable today, and can in many ways be explained. Back then it was miraculous.
Some alien planes locking an alien god into a mountain, told somewhere in the middle of the 20th century? Well, I didn't live back then, but I'd say the majority of halfway sane people would consider such a story a wee bit dumb, hard to believe and maybe call anyone really calling that some sensible 'faith' a moron.
Noah's ark wasn't as stupid and impossible? Burning bushes and parting seas? You are "used" to the absurdities in the bible, thus they do not see as crazy, but they are.
Whether you take the bible, the quran or the vedes, all of them contain messages how you should interact with each other, and those messages are usually positive. In the COS, you're already surrounded by "enemies" who you have to outperform.
In islam, the rules of cooperation are only for muslims, not people of other religions. scientology is no different.
Re:Credibility??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Credibility??? (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Re:It is a cult/organized crime (Score:4, Interesting)
- mandatory giving of all possessions to the church upon joining: check
- mental degradation and programmation: check
- harassing of critics and ex-members: check
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:1, Interesting)
The similiarity in pronunciation is more than coincidental, which is why the meme caught on.
Google for a cult "training routine" called TR-0. You'll eventually find the cult's internal documentation, and maybe a video or two of it. The cult trains its followers to respond as robotically as possible. It also trains them (TR-L) to lie.
And much like the Cylons of BG, They Have A Plan. It's to "clear the planet" (to raise all 7 billion humans to a moderately-advanced state of indoctrination within the cult), after which "suppressives" (anyone who doesn't get on board) are to be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow". These phrases and their full context can be found in the leaked cult documents that have found their way onto the Intarwebs over the past decade or so.
It's further been rumored [google.com] that their highest-ranking members actually believe that Anonymous is operating under orders from the Marcab Confederacy [wikipedia.org], so it's only natural to keep playing the science fiction references up.
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:4, Interesting)
What we have to question is whether we should afford this particular meme the legal status of a religion. Society accords a special status to religious memes such as tax breaks, admission of its leaders into political debate and various other accommodations.
By popular acclaim Scientology is not a meme that we would like to accept as a religion. Its behaviour is agressive and antisocial at complete variance with the majority of other religions.
All memes have systems to protect themselves and to destroy other memes, medieval Christianity burned people who didn't follow the party line exactly, radical Islam still expects to convert the world using violence. However all sophisticated modern religions have adapted to the modern world in which diplomacy, brand promotion and the programing of children protect the meme and ensure its propagation quite nicely thank you very much.
One of the most unpleasant things about Scientology is that its main protective mechanism is to destroy anyone who leaves the "church". By definition this includes anyone who is skeptical or has no interest in religion at all, it is not powerful enough to attack other religions but it is very clear that should it ever become powerful enough it would seek to destroy members of other religions.
Basically it is a meme that behaves in a disgusting anti social manner and anyone who notes that this is the case is a target for members of the "church" to destroy. I have not noted this as a tactic of the Catholic church over the outing of its slow reaction to the complaints that some of its priests were molesting children, it did not in general try to destroy the complainants.
You can argue whether the "church" of Scientology is damaging its members, in the long run it will die out in a Darwinian fashion if it is harming them. It is notable that the success of many mainstream religions is because the community supports members of the church and the expense of kneeling on stone floors chanting nonsense has generally been outweighed by the lucrative support of fellow church goers - the meme is sucessful. This may change as we attempt to end discrimination or corruption in society through the rule of law, but it has certainly been a factor in the survival of mainstream religions in the past.
If Scientology does things that break the law then citizens should rightly be outraged. We should also be entitled to be moraly outraged if it uses uncivilised tactics to attack outsiders. The legal question of whether or not it is a religion is arbitary nonsense but we all have a right to decide whether it is moraly right or not to give it that legal status. In general you make your mind up about that based on what you know about them.
What I know about them is that most of the internet thinks that they are a scam and the only news stories I ever see about them are about how they gag people from learning more about them and about what legal cases they are fighting to try and destroy former members with. From what I know it sounds to me like they don't deserve the legal status of being a religion.
However its all a moot point as I believe that people are leaving it in droves and that its only a matter of time before it goes belly up anyway. I suspect that it is this tendency which the opportunist 'anonymous' group have spotted and seen as an opportunity to exercise their prankster skills over.
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:4, Interesting)
David Miscavige, the current head of the cult of Scientology, was raised in the Scientology environment. Whereas in the past the people at the top of the organization, like L. Ron Hubbard, knew it was all bullshit, the current leaders may actually be true believers.
I suppose that one could say this is Hubbard's greatest accomplishment. He's managed to create an organization and keep it around long enough that there's no one left who knows the organization's true origins. In addition, these people are likely to be much more fanatical in their devotion since, to them, it's not about scamming people out of their money, it's about saving the World.
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Credibility??? (Score:4, Interesting)
This really does not have anything to do with what we are talking about. Santa Claus only differs from a child's imaginary friends because we (as adults) participate in the "deception". Does it hurt when the child finds out that Santa Claus is not real? That the adults who previously told them all the stories, as facts, do an about face and say that they are lying is an old tradition. Is it a truth that has to be told to them? Probably not. I would expect that most children would inevitably conclude the same thing when presented with the complete lack of any evidence of Santa Clause's existence. Oh, and the fact that the adults are the ones paying for and bring the toys would be highly suspect.
The truth only hurts when you had an emotional investment in it's validity. That is pride and ego that you are speaking about.
Once again, you are using the word incorrectly. Scientology has as much credibility as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Pastafarianism, etc. They are equally capable of being believed. The fact you speak of truth when speaking about Scientology, is more of an indication of your bias against it, then a search for the truth.
Tell me please, is Xenu any more fantastic of an idea then say a bearded man coming down the mountain with 2 stone tablets from God? A man being crucified and rising from the dead 3 days later?
I realize some people may find that incredibly offensive, the idea that all faiths are equal. Well they are. None of them are based on any factual evidence at all. That is what faith means. Belief in the absence of logical proof, and material evidence.
So your their savior huh? Your realization of the "truth" empowers you to "deal" with them and convince them to abandon their faith and their way of life? To not do so is despicable?
Sounds an awful lot to me like the conversations that certain people had before the Crusades. They were doing those savages a favor by convincing them, with force if necessary, that their own faith was in fact not equal to another, and moreover superior.
Now for a disclosure, I am NOT a Scientologist. I can see a lot of people thinking that this post is a defense for them, when in fact it is a defense for ALL faiths equally.
The problems you may have with Scientology are related to how they are acting in accordance with their faith. In any case, your write as an anonymous coward to educate me on the perils of not confronting faith and "dealing" with it at some level. I would propose that you instead have only proven my point.
Re:Scientology is the quintessential religion (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is that Scientology came into existance when there was already plenty of science available to tell you the whole deal is fabricated.
Re:Credibility??? (Score:5, Interesting)
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]!
Re:Credibility??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Eviction notice for unpaid rent: http://picasaweb.google.com/kimask/EvictionNotice/photo#5182127102703520546 [google.com]
News story featuring interview with an man trying to get paid for fixing the air conditioner at a COS building: (very funny to watch when the COS member shows up) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETUrTLgUvrc [youtube.com]
Copy of an old alt.religion.scientology post quoting Scientology manuals on how to handle "tradesmen" demanding payment: http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/cos-bill.htm [skeptictank.org]