Ok fine, if you won't respond to my reply (#80) then at least can you explain why you think that I don't understand what faith is.

FYI, I think that faith is just one of several methods by which a strong conviction or what you might describe as a 'belief', is achieved. It is employed where there is a lack of proof to support that conviction.

Faith a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam Webster). The mechanics of the day to day application of faith, or how that faith is sustained are not relevant, it's the concept that's the issue. I don't use 'faith' as a means of achieving conviction. I either have what are generally agreed to be valid reasons, or I have a lower level of conviction, or even some level of doubt.

The reason Scientology is targeted is because they treat people and families badly. The practice of "disconnection" destroys families and this is well documented online (even though the Church says this policy does not exist).

Scientology is also targeted because of the bizarre nature of some of their beliefs (eg. OT III level talking about Xenu and other planets etc.)

Lastly, Scientology is targeted because of the controlling and brainwashing culture of the org.

The celebrity aspect simply makes these black spots more high profile but I think the COS would still be heavily criticized without the celebrity aspect.

This is the quote from Hubbard which shows the culture of the organization :

There are plenty of stories of people who took a few courses and then were hounded by scientology endlessly by phone and email/text to take more courses and donate money etc. Their own admission to rejecting "open-mindedness" is perhaps the most damning.

This guy's story tells what the experience of the average scientologist is like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKqOUMrCw8

Scientology tells you there is "priest-parishioner" confidentiality but there actually isn't.

Scientology uses the personal information gaining during auditing to control people. Yes there is proof of this and many testimonials available online.

Check out this long interview with Jason Beghe where he retells his experience with Scientology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHb0BZyF5Ok

Scientology does not brainwash people to make them happier. Scientology brainwashes people to extract money.

Scientology also brainwashes people to control them and prevent any free thinking/critical thought. They dole out heavy handed discipline and subject members to long hours of questioning (security checks). Hubbard was a paranoid person who likely had mental health issues. Hubbard's paranoia can still clearly be seen in the culture of the org.

Shocking, he allows people to quit? The Christian and Islamic gods have no such merciful viewpoint. Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam and the first four of the ten commandments make Jehovah's views pretty clear:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

Can you imagine a 5th 'worship only me' type commandment before you get the ones that actually deal with moral behaviour;

[5] Thou shalt quit fast, or not quit at all

lol. Scientology comes off as quite reasonable in comparison.

LOL, indeed. The mixing of so many different levels of things makes your analysis laughable. We all know you don't like religions, but if you think that this is a remotely reasonable analysis of anything, you've got your head shoved pretty far up your rear end.

While fundamentalist Islam is pretty quick and severe, most manifestations of it don't really have quite the same impact. And quitting Christianity, while it comes with a threat in the distance, is actually quite simple to do (with the possible exception of Mormonism). This is a very different process compared to quitting a cult.

made me think of this song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjZ_IlP9c5A

I find that video truly frightening.

Is this your way of avoiding responding to my view that your 'look how unreasonable Scientology is' post actually highlighted how reasonable it is when compared to similar aspects of your god and your religion?

Do you see the irony in your posts when you accuse another organised religion of brainwashing, excessive control and having ulterior motives?

As you should Mixing religion and military is always a witches brew.

My primary criticism of Scientology is how badly they treat people and families.

If you want to draw the parallel that Scientology and Christianity both have what seem to be far fetched beliefs thats fine with me.

I think you mainly take issue with organized religion and I don't feel any responsibility to defend organized Christianity. Some manifestations of Christianity exhibit what could be characterized as brainwashing more than others. Similarly, some manifestations of Christianity encourage free thought more than others.

To the extent that Christianity uses brainwashing and control mechanisms I think it is a bad thing. It may surprise you but I too have reservations about putting my son in Sunday school where he learns that all the bible stories must be absolutely literally true...

Did you see the comments in that youtube thread? Mostly it was along the lines of 'god bless our heroes'. At some point in the last ten years it seems like soldiers have been transformed from trained killers, most of whom aren't very intelligent or knowledgeable, just kids really, into defenders of our freedom and faith who can do no wrong. Appearing to be criticising them is a dangerous occupation.

I wasn't drawing that parallel, I was discussing the specific issue that you mentioned, that of forcing out skeptics at the earliest opportunity which could be seen as quite reasonable when compared to belief systems, or gods, that simply don't allow an alternative.

Gratified to hear it LZ. Can I just point out that my view on this far more nuanced now than the poorly thought through, sweeping and unfair 'religions brainwash kids' viewpoint that I brought to this forum way back when.

The culture of war in the US is appalling. Hopefully someday (soon) the public will get tired of war and pressure the government to at least attempt to live peacefully.

IME Christianity doesn't force out skeptics. Generally the communication is one way: pastor to member. The Catholic phrasing would be priest to parishioner, anyway you get the idea, communication moves in one direction from the top down.

Skeptics are not as much forced out as just not given any voice. If you disagree with what is being said in the teaching you can' t exactly raise your hand, ask a question, and then have a discussion about it.

I suppose skeptics or dissenters do have the option of opening up a church down the road with slightly different theology which often happens. Rob Bell is a good example of this. Rob was a mainstream pastor for a long time and then diverged from mainstream theology and is now doing his own thing. Rob Bell isn't persecuted per se by the rest of Christianity but he (and other dissenters) are certainly marginalized.

I do think it is acceptable that Christianity limit alternatives. I mean to say we can place unrealistic expectations on Christianity to be open minded. For example, If one does not believe in any Creator being then it would not make sense for that person to still try and identify as a Christian.

Sure. And I am not commenting on what your views are or were. This is just my current predicament. My wife is fairly conservative in regards to Christianity while I am increasing liberal in my views. I don't see Sunday School providing caricatures of biblical narratives as being helpful, even to ones Christian faith.

This is not to mention the underlying message that "we are right and everyone else is wrong....about everything...."

EDIT:

There is plenty to criticize in Christianity but I think Scientology is in a league of their own in regards to thought control/brainwashing. It is helpful to look at what is normalized in each group and draw conclusions from there.

Also Christians will tell you everything there is to know about their religion for free. Many will go out of their way to do so.
The same cannot be said for Scientology.

While theists tend to be in denial about their own religion they are often quite rational about assessing other regions. For instance I have often heard non-catholic Christians ridiculing catholic beliefs about weird matter transformation during mass. So I would expect Christians to be reasonably good at analysing the holes in the Scientology belief system.

Besides if you take the positions that most invasive gods are proxies for manipulative aliens then Scientology is not necessaries less unlikely seeming than other religions.

All the arguments against scientology apply to the Catholic church. In particular it's basically a big scam taking money from society. The main difference is that it's much better established and very powerful.

If you felt that you had the Truth and that one of the ways to share that truth was to use brainwashing techniques, would you not do it? Would you place some ideal about an invented and arbitrary right for people to have their own thoughts, over the need to make this universal truth known to them?

To Believe, is a limitation. If one instead tags information with probability ratings of it being true or false, then over time one acquires a vast collection of linear ratings of knowledge units.

This produces a further and dramatic advancement of ones intellect. Or, one may choose to stick to Belief and Disbelief such that one advances to intellectual level of a computer, meaning advancing no further than 1's and 0's, or mere Beliefs and Disbeliefs, rather than developing linear understandings that fill the gray area that lies between the crude and simple black and white 1's and 0's.

Aren't you assuming that having the truth entails convincing as many people as possible of it? It does not follow that this is the case, it seems reasonable for someone who claims to have the truth to keep it to themselves and their brethren.

Your proposal appears to be way to complex to be practical.

Scientology and Mormonism are clearly frauds where as Christianity and Islam were formed by people who truly believed what they were saying.

Scientology= science fiction writer
Mormonism= con artist

Yes indeed, and why wouldn't you? Are you simply going to let other people make a mistake, through simple ignorance, that could harm them for eternity? I think you have a responsibility, not just an understandable desire, to ensure that everyone knows your Truth, to save them.


I don't agree.

Okay so all that would have to be done to refute your position here would be to find a religious group that does not go out and try and convert people?

How difficult do you think that will be?

In any case the point I am highlighting is that your comment has the kinds of hidden assumptions that have proved controversial in the past, primarily because you argue from principle rather than empirical observation.

Given you aren't posting much MB and a back and forth on this may take some time I'll elaborate a little on why I think you are wrong.

Firstly the hidden assumption in this caim

is that not having the truth condemns someone to an eternity of harm. This may be the case for some groups that claim the truth but not all. You are arguing normatively from an assumption, essentially saying if you have the truth and it saves you from an eternity of harm you should spread it by any means but once the assumption is denied any normative force is removed. If not having the truth does not condemn you to an eternity of harm why should those that have it spread it?

My second objection is that it seems clear that there are religious groups, ones that would claim knowledge of God, that don't try to spread the word. Many Judaic traditions are not seeking converts from non Jewish communities. Similarly there are Old Order Christian religious groups in the US that are among the fastest growing religious communities due to high birth rates that are not recruiting outside their communities.

While there are religious groups that are seeking to convert and those for whom brainwashing may be an option there are clearly ones that aren't.

You would simply have a found a religious organisation that doesn't meet the responsibility that I believe that they have to try to save everyone, which is most of them. It wouldn't refute anything that I'm saying.

It's not a hidden assumption, it's an explicitly stated view that anyone who believes that they have a universal truth about a god that could result in you spending an eternity in hell should you not accept it has a responsibility to try to save non-believers. I observe, empirically, that this isn't generally the case.

If you want to argue this point, you have to show how they don't have that responsibility.

We just moved, and BT (bless their cotton socks) won't be installing a phone line for another 10 days. I'm either using my phone's wifi - horribly slow - or a mate's broadband for work and so haven't been on much.

'not having the truth' includes not worshipping the god that will condemn you to hell for not worshipping him which of course you won't if you don't accept the Truth of his existence and the claims made about how that should influence how you behave.

There may (are) be exceptions to this, there may be belief that some gods won't condemn you to an eternity of harm for not accepting them, but if they are the type that will, then surely their believers have a moral responsibility to save those who currently don't believe?


For entirely different reasons, or not at all.

Agreed, and I think that if they believe that not believing will condemn the non-believer to an eternity in hell, then they have a moral responsibility to try to prevent that.

HAHAHAHAHA it is "The pot calling the kettle black" in my opinion.
All religion is crazy.

If the where anything remotely as a god it would have called "nature" that is the greatest power on earth and the universe, and the only one that the human kind should fear and admire/worship.

Christianity doesn't teach that we can personally save anyone. I can't sit here and convince you of anything, it would be an intellectual conversion, so to speak.

So I think you're partly right and partly wrong. Most Christians believe that they should actively share their faith, it is part of the Gospel message: "to the ends of the earth" and so forth, but there is also a recognition that as humans, we do not actually have the power to save.

So, while I think you're partly right, I think your language is a little too inclusive, that of Christians needing to try really hard to get the job done, that they need to convince people. Not to say that sharing your faith is not an important element, but there is a balance.