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.
Credibility??? (Score:5, Funny)
Bears' woodland sanitary habits
Pope's Nazi youth
Apple enthusiasts' devotion....
Re:Credibility??? (Score:5, Funny)
"The Pope was on vacation to Bermuda during the youth in question"
"And whats with those Apple enthusiasts, damn, like seriously, there more devoted than Xenu!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Credibility??? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Credibility??? (Score:4, Insightful)
That was my WHOLE point.
Your faith in me being Satan is perfectly "OKAY", and by that you probably mean "All right", which also means correct.
All faiths are EQUALLY correct. Correct means:
Free from error or fault; true or accurate.
In order for something to be correct you must base that on logical proof, material evidence, etc. This means that all "Faith" is equally based on nothing tangible in this world. It does not matter how many people share it, or if is only a faith of one person. They all have the same foundation!
Now to ACT upon your faith is a whole different story altogether........
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:Credibility??? (Score:4, Funny)
No factual evidence at all - riiight. A handful of frightened men just suddenly started a movement that was large enough to attract the attention of Nero within a generation? And those thousands of copies of eyewitness accounts just sprang from nowhere I suppose?
Besides, faith in the New Testament documents means either forensic proof, loyalty or faithfulness - just the opposite of your definition. Do I believe William Ramsay who spent a lifetime digging up the Middle East verifying the accuracy of the NT documents or some random slashdotter? Choices, choices...
If this is what passes for reasoned scepticism these days, then bring it on.
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:4, Funny)
Not sure about you, but I am pretty impressed that this guy was writing bad sci-fi years before he was born...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, on a more serious note, I remember Harlan Ellison explaining on the NPR radio show "Beyond 2000" how Elron wrote so prolifically. He said that Elron got so tired of having to take the paper out of the typewriter that he would buy a roll of butcher's paper, set it up behind the typewriter, put it into the roller, and then type a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quick, everyone grab your e-meters, you may still have time to save yourselves! And if not, better luck next planet - And avoid the volcanos!
Tell me about it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be more surprised if the site launched and everyone found out it was entirely on the up-and-up.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's the best build/spec for a claim? Is that frost or fire?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I personally prefer a Flame build, you puss-oozing brain damaged sad excuse for an inebriated baboon!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Credibility??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Credibility??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you expect from groups that require that members first suspend disbelief and accept claims of 'eternal life'?
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If God is the one making the rules, then he's on top. If not, the whole thing is a scam.
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll still be a scam, just a conventional, accepted and well-integrated one.
Scientologists are loons for sure, but let's not differentiate their own brand of crazy from all the others.
As Douglas Adams said- 'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ROFL... science confirms your views because you say so? That's rich.
You are an idiot. Science doesn't confirm his beliefs, as is your interpretation because you are a believer by nature and have a tiny closed little mind like believers do. Believers believe things like angles, fairies, spooky ghosts, and that everything is here by design.
When the GP said "science confirms", he meant that it is the function of science to confirm things. Or, in other words, we use science to confirm things. Science also disproves things. So he might have said "science confirms and disprov
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should that be important. Hell, the Anglican Church had an Archbishop of Canterbury who doubted the divinity of Christ. Does that mean the entire Episcopalian movement no longer qualifies as a religion?
The chief difference seems to be that a successful religion is a sect or cult that manages to get near-universal acceptance as a religion within the societies that it exists. Scientology is seen by most of society as a crazy-ass money-hungry cult with a pack of swirly-eyed true believers who pay their money and believe any and all nonsense that Hubbard and his heirs shove down their throats.
Mormons were in the same boat for decades. They were seen as sexually deviant heretics. Fortunately for them, in those days a cult could basically seize control of a large, unpopulated area and grow relatively undisturbed for decades, and by the time the greater society finally met them head on again, they're numbers were sufficient that they had to be dealt with as a religion.
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:4, Insightful)
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:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doctrines of real religions are not secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion, n. Large popular cult.
Cult, n. Small unpopular religion.
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
To some extent it is that, but there is a much creepier aspect. From what I have seen, Scientology seems to be more of a social club for wealthy people who are interested in learning how to use aggressive psychological attacks such as hypnotism.
I started reading Dianetics, and it really does seem like a manual for using psychological attacks. A thetan is like a soul, but also like an influence. Non scientologists are infected with alien thetans, and once you are "clear" of them, you can become an "operating thetan". Then you can begin infecting the minds of others. Before it had always confused me that non scientologists have to rid themselves of thetans, but scientologists refer to eachother as thetans.
It was pretty sickening to realize that so many scientologists know exactly what it is all about. They develop new psychological attacks. Then they train their followers. The followers then use those attacks to manipulate those around them so they can become more successful in their careers, and increase the size of the church. This money is then reinvested in developing new psychological attack methods.
Someone please correct me if any part of this is inaccurate.
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:5, Insightful)
Impressive. Two posts into the thread and someone's already trying to turn it into a debate over all religions. I'm not accusing you of being a Scilon - merely pointing out that it's a tactic the Scilons try to cultivate, because it turns the entire discussion into a debate about theology, effectively distracting everyone from the main issue.
Were this a thread about religion, for instance, it'd be fine, but the Co$ debate isn't about theology.
Organizations that use barratry ("The purpose of a lawsuit is not to win, but to harass") and violence (consider the similarities between the mysterious fates of Judge Swearinger's dog in 1998, and the fate of an outed anonymous protester's cat earlier this week) as a matter of policy are not religions.
Re:The main issue is lying liars. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The main issue is lying liars. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Answer honestly. If the CoS suddenly decided to go donation only would you agree they are now a religion or would you move the goalposts?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people wouldn't have a problem with the CoS if they were 1) donation only, 2) totally open about their beliefs and not trying to hide everything, and 3) didn't try to keep their members locked up inside the church, while cutting them off from outside influences like family. When was the last time you heard about someone that had trouble leaving any church that wasn't
Re:Yea, and some well know atheists.. (Score:4, Insightful)
As a more direct rebuttal specifically to the Osiris [egyptianmyths.net] resurrection thing, that was written in hieroglyphs. How else would we have known about it? It's not like there have been any native Egyptian speakers for a long, long time, so we had to learn about ancient Egypt through other methods [wikipedia.org].
But hey, why let the facts stand in the way of your chosen God, right? He's infallible, and if anyone that believes in him says anything about him, it must be true!
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)
Re:Yea, and some well know atheists.. (Score:4, Informative)
They were talking about the sacrament of communion as far back as 2500 BC: (from Wikipedia)
Since the ancient Nilotics believed that humans were whatever they eat, this sacrament was, by extension, able to make them celestial and immortal. The doctrine of the eucharist ultimately has its roots in prehistoric (symbolic) cannibalism, whose practitioners believed that the virtues and powers of the eaten would thus be absorbed by the eater. This phenomenon has been described throughout the world. One of the oldest of the Pyramid Texts is the Unas[14] from the 6th Dynasty (circa 2500 BC). It shows that the original ideology of Egypt commingled with Osirian concepts. Although ultimately given a high place in heaven by order of Osiris, Unas is at first an enemy of the gods and his ancestors, whom he hunts, lassoes, kills, cooks, and eats so that their powers may become his own. This was written at a time when the eating of parents and gods was a laudable ceremony, and this emphasizes how hard it must have been to stamp out the older order of cannibalism. "He eats men, he feeds on the gods...he cooks them in his fiery cauldrons. He eats their words of power, he swallows their spirits.... He eats the wisdom of every god, his period of life is eternity.... Their soul is in his body, their spirits are within him." A parallel passage is found in the Pyramid Text of Pepi II, who is said to have "seizeth those who are a follower of Set...he breaketh their heads, he cutteth off their haunches, he teareth out their intestines, he diggeth out their hearts, he drinketh copiously of their blood!" (line 531, ff). Although crude, this was a core concept, the conviction that one could receive immortality by eating the flesh and blood of a god who had died
Since when (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides among the easily duped?
Video? Nice! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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:Video? Nice! (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but it didn't go over very well [imdb.com].
Yes, it's the video channel that's done it (Score:5, Funny)
The last frantic grapsing of a desperate group (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The last frantic grapsing of a desperate group (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget: there's a sucker born every minute. And those suckers will continue to buy penis enlargement products from poorly written emails, and give their remaining money to Scientology.
A lot of these people also feel that the criticism and "attacks" on Scientology only *validate* it. How do you argue with that?
Re:The last frantic grapsing of a desperate group (Score:4, Funny)
Wouldn't it be mad if the penis enlargment companies were owned by the COS or a subsidiary?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Probably worth mentioning... (Score:4, Informative)
Scientology is the quintessential religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientology is no more ridiculous than christianity, islam, or judaism. OK, spaceships that look like DC3s, OK, that's weird, but no more so than virgin births, 5000 year old flat earth, talking snakes, noah's ark, or killing your first born.
Re:Scientology is the quintessential religion (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientology is just a little more direct than the catholic church, but the motives are the same.
They won't ask for cash if you want to advance your knowledge of their belief system.
I think that is the best part of their belief system, it restricts the followers to a select group of quantifiable gullible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indulgences and penances (which I assume you're referring to) is asking forgiveness for screwing up. You're not paying the church for permission to read the next book in the Bible.
I think that is the best part of their belief system, it restricts the followers to a select group of quantifiable gullible.
I'm fairly certain that as long as you have money, you're qualified. While those who make more cash than
It is a cult/organized crime (Score:5, Informative)
Please read for a start:
http://www.exscientologykids.com/ [exscientologykids.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a very bold statement. I thought we were in the middle of a war against radical Islam...
Re:It is a cult/organized crime (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Scientology is the quintessential religion (Score:5, Insightful)
When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth.
When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.
When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth.
When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth.
etc... etc... etc... Jesus was just a guy that had Pagan mythological stories thrown on his name decades after his death to start a religion. Nothing more.
Re:Scientology is the quintessential religion (Score:4, Insightful)
You make it sound as though I have a problem with their beliefs. But I've got to tell you, I don't give a flying DC3 what they believe. I could care less.
Yes, I consider myself religious, but (unless he tells me that he wants to sit down and have an intelligent discussion about it) what the next guy chooses to believe is up to him, and whether it's deism, humanism, theism, or FSMism, that's fine by me. I have a problem when he (and yes, this includes members of my own religion) uses coercion or threats or violence or elitism etc. to force his views... and hence my beef with Scientology.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pretty sure my parents didn't consider that too terribly rediculous at several points during my youth...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 dum
Re: (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 mid
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is that Scientology came into existance when there was already plenty of science available to tell you the whole d
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: (Score:3, Informative)
The earliest we can prove that the gospels themselves existed date to just decades after the man supposedly died. They were likely originally written before that. It takes time (especially in the ancient world) for a document to spread around and become notable enough that others start mentioning or quoting it in their own writings.
Well I never (Score:4, Informative)
For an organisation that thinks we're all possessed by dead aliens using the ramblings of a drug addled hack who freely admitted he was in it for the money as the gospel, you can colour me shocked that they might have a somewhat warped view of the rest of the universe.
Judgment shall cometh (Score:3, Funny)
Pay attention all!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Xenu is my Homeboy (Score:3)
Radar article on Scientology (Score:4, Informative)
Detailed forum thread on subject w/Screen shots (Score:4, Informative)
Not really news, CoS has always been questionable (Score:4, Informative)
You can also find out why we protest. [whyweprotest.net]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are more reasons, if you want to go looking for them. Wikipedia is a good starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you're that keen on only seeing specific articles - there's a billion filters you can apply. Might want to use the full site. Or are you not nerd enough to figure out filter settings?
Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters. (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology and the Internet [wikipedia.org] explains the history.
In brief:
- attacks on USENET involving forged rmgroups in 1995.
- attacks on USENET involving Hipcrime-style spam for many years since then.
- legal attacks that resulted in the compromise of every user of the anon.penet.fi [xs4all.nl] anonymous remailer in 1996.
- Angry about copyright term extensions? What we jokingly refer to as the 1998 Mickey Mouse Protection Act was passed into law as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act [wikipedia.org]. By a staggering coincidence, Sonny Bono [wikipedia.org] was a Scilon.
- Angry about the DMCA? The Mickey Moust Protection Act wasn't enough of a legal club, and guess who was one of the first organizations to use it in mid-1999?
- And guess who was behind the DMCA attacks against Google in 2002.
- And last but not least, guess who was behind the DMCA attack against Slashdot itself [slashdot.org] in 2001.
Sorry you haven't been paying attention for the past decade, dude, but this is news for nerds, and it is stuff that matters.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Make money. Make more money. Make others produce so as to make money . . . However you get them in or why, just do it." and "Make sure that lots of bodies move through the shop,"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:who gives a shit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well all those cults like to hole up in their little compound off out of our way.
This cult likes to convert celebrities and use them to evangelize their cult, spread itself across the country, and litigate anyone who tries to slow their acquisition of money.
Basically, Scientology has a much greater chance of affecting me or someone I know than any of those other cults. Mainly because those other cults were actually "cults" run by some crazy messiah-delusion leader, while Scientology is a deliberate scheme for accruing vast amounts of wealth and power in the guise of a cult.