Well, if you want to forego the obvious advantages of having dedicated care-givers who act from a sense of duty to God and mankind, in favour of them being salaried professionals like everyone else, then I'd guess you would be right. — Wayfarer

I'll have to think about it a bit more then.

It wanted to build up a working model of the world, and it wanted to map out the best and worst ways to act in that world, so as to enhance survival. This is basic Darwinism and it is hard to gainsay the principle. — Mariner

It always annoys me when intent is attributed to evolution. Evolution is cause by death and sex or chance and uncontrolled attraction. The idiots of today may be the gods of tomorrow. The entire mammalian subsection derived from what was basically a rat, it wasn't some grand scheme, altering and growing to survive, it was a rat.

it depicts Hubbard as a charlatan, pathological liar, and possibly a paedophile. — Wayfarer

First two are true the last is likely. When he created the Sea Organization there was a subsection called the Commodore Messenger Organization. Is was comprised mostly of teenage girls at the time.

sole purpose is to enrich themselves at the expense of innocent victims. — Wayfarer

The sad part about Scientology is most of the money goes right back into the machine. Not even David Miscavich is living in extreme luxury, although he lives relatively well. That's also why it's been so successful thus far. Hopefully spreading the message will help prevent other victims.

But as they sell their material then they certainly should be taxed at the maximum corporate rate, as they are in Germany. — Wayfarer

While I agree, so should other religions. Not taxing religions in my opinion is counter to "keeping religion out of government." If anything, with the amount of property and money churches throw around, all tax-free Churches are right there in the pockets of government.

People who believe in a literal interpretation of Christianity, etc., are stupid. Even if there are a large number of such people, that does not make them any less stupid. — LD Saunders

Stupidity by definition is different from ignorance. Stupidity is lacking ability to process information not lacking information (ignorance). Also we have to take into account cognitive dissonance, which is a normal function of the human brain.

-But if the religion was consistent wouldn't it be less likely for members to doubt because of contradictory claims?

Religious belief doesnt work like other sets of beliefs, where each proposition will be weighted against the whole to rate the overall set consistency, and then compare different sets before adopting them. — Akanthinos

I'm aware but I still think as beings who strive for rationality, consistence would benefit, not hinder, a belief.

No problems, that I see, with the rest.

has a list of 'suppressive persons' (of which my brother and I are proud to be on) — fdrake

Congrats on making the list.

Religion isnt about consistency, tho. It is never going to be consistent, really, because by nature an overarching sets of ordering beliefs about the world is going to be as diverse and rich as the culture which created it. — Akanthinos

But if the religion was consistent wouldn't it be less likely for members to doubt because of contradictory claims?

When you say a soul is the soul of an alien who died 76 million years ago... that means nothing. Say what you will about Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but they generally do effectively sets meaningful behavioural guidelines to vast populations, and still have those cultures either maintain themselves or thrives. — Akanthinos

That concept is from a comedic South Park episode. Thetans can't die, they are eternal, ethereal god-like beings. Scientology claims that every person is a Thetan occupying a body. Scientology does not claim to know where Thetans derived, only that the current state started down-spiraling about 76 trillion years ago.

There is no lack of religious euphoria and meaning in Scientology. Some processes can drastically alter the personality (usually for the worst) but the subject feels euphoric and spiritual. Also when they finish they get showered with praise and have the option to get lambasted during a Graduation Ceremony for every step they complete. Within the church you are required to spread positive feedback otherwise you have to be "corrected" so a lot of Scientologist lie to themselves about the degree of help whatever process or course they just completed was. The placebo effect of self deception, the community support and the processes themselves create enormous meaning and work to maintain the religions and cultural structure.

If you look around on this forum, you'll find plenty of evidence that people can say stuff pretty consistently, and yet only ever say stuff that doesn't make any sense. — Akanthinos

Scientology does not make sense, unless your in, and then it is intensely correct.

I fail to see how anyone believing in the claims of Scientology isn't stupid. — LD Saunders

There are three main religions that occupy the minds of billions of people: Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. At least two of them are wrong, which means billions of people are accepting false claims. However statically there are some very smart people who accept the claims of the ones that are wrong. One can't blanket-insult Scientology as idiots and be in any way productive or accurate.

These claims have no credible evidence backing them up and are as outlandish as hell, and there is no credible way for the founder of Scientology to have any knowledge of such claims either. — LD Saunders

You don't know the claims, at least you know very few, a lot of Scientology is plagiarized from widely acceptable claims and practices. It works to prevent people from learning methods of critical thinking by labeling them as "False Data" and there is a brain washing technique called "False Data Stripping' Which is used to get people to eat crow and revert to Scientology's thought processes. Not to mention one of the first things you learn in Scientology is "what is true is what is true for you." The concept is constantly hammered in and because you live in a closed community the only ideas you consume are Scientological in nature.

Under which legislature is a 1 million year contract unvoidable by default? — Akanthinos

Publicly the contract is symbolic but within the group we used to talk about the logistics of returning in the next life. If you die before you become OT you go to what is called an implant station, which causes you to forget your past lives. The contract isn't enforceable in any legal respect, only within the Scientology culture are there consequences.

Doesn't it fills you with shame, having to realize you believed in such undiluted bullcrap for any amount of time? — Akanthinos

These types of questions are what I mean when I say most miss out on 99.9% of what Scientology is. As a religion Scientology is more consistent than any evolved religion because it was created by one person.

werent there times, often even, when you thought, "wow, this shit reads like bad sci-fi"? — Akanthinos

Most of the time I thought the stories were cool and I couldn't wait to remember my past lives and reach total freedom. When individuals told me their own past life stories however, I noticed that some of them were very childish. One of the things that helped me was my family being poor, I did very little auditing (it takes the big bucks, hundreds of dollars for a set of 12 1/2 hours of auditing) and therefore wasn't fully brainwashed.

Scientologists aren't stupid either, most of my friends and colleagues IQs were higher than the average of 100, including my parents.

This seems to be a reaction to Abrahamic faiths, rather than a standalone religion — BaldMenFighting

It is rumored that he claimed to be the Antichrist when they (it was after his death) released OT 8.

Scientology is a hodgepodge of various religions and philosophers. He believes he is the reincarnation of budda for example. Also Dianetics (the first Scientology book) is an alteration of Freud's therapeutic techniques; it replaces sex with pain as a basis of all aberration.

Thetans have a huge age, lots of zeroes added, feels like somebody is trying to impress us. Of course, l say this in the absence of any evidence, but is there actually any evidence for "a 76,000,000,000,000 year old soul called a thetan"? If not, then it seems like someone's trying to impress us with how ancient they are. — BaldMenFighting

The number comes form early auditing (what Scientologists call counseling). In it you are required to state the time of the painful incident, I guess when they "discovered" past lives everyone wanted to have an older and older incident, to one-up eachother. An interesting book is "Have you lived before this life" it's an out of print Scientology book that contains 70 stories of past lives that came up in Scientology auditing. The oldest that I've heard of is actually 78,000,000,000,000 years ago.

All the other statements are a bit "out there" so I won't bother.

Have you visited Operation Clambake? — fdrake

Not until now, thanks for sharing the website.

A non-explanation is not a solution. It is a cop out. — Dfpolis

That may be true but one needs information to conclude, I don't believe we have enough to dis/prove a god.

You seem not to understand how deduction works. — Dfpolis

Deduction may be the wrong word. Does belief, perception or answer work?

On the other hand when I say "see" I mean "perceive." Perceiving empirically, without delusion or malfunction. That being said there is no emperical evidence of a god, none, anywhere; but that of the universe is insurmountable. We're pretty sure the universe is here.

Given those facts one can deduce that god is not and the universe is. No assumption of a creator is necessary to prove the existence of the universe as we experience it. A god however, one that is invisible from all facets or who has simply not visited this section of the universe can't be proven or disproven as of now, which is why I'm not a dogmatic atheist.

We can see rainbows, but we cannot see the law of conservation of mass-energy. — Dfpolis

One can "see" the conversation of mass-energy. Otherwise it wouldn't be a scientifically proven phenomenon.

For science to work, everything must have an adequate explanation, even if we do not know it. — Dfpolis

Yes and no, science is the process of discovering reality not the collection of ultimate conclusions.

The distinguishing things about God is that, as the end of the line of explanation, God cannot be explained by something else (or he would not be the end of the line). So, God must be self-explaining. — Dfpolis

Or non-existant.

Existence is not the ability to act in this way or that way, but the unspecified ability to act. — Dfpolis

A bit nitpicks but I believe "interact" would be a more accurate expression. "Act" implies intent or intelegence. Rocks exist but don't act.

The universe cannot do any logically possible act. — Dfpolis

I disagree, they occur in and thus by the universe, all of your actions and thoughts are included within that. If one goes by the multiverse theory even more so.

One had to first conclude there is a god, without evidence, to go by your concept. But I do like the concept.

If there is a god and I ever meet him, I will ask why he exists. If he does not know, I will throw my hands up in disgust at the meaningless nature of existence. — Devans99

I'm with you.

Devans99

You'll get no argument from me that there is a possibility of a god. My only certainty is that god's of human invention are just that, inventions. I personally think a non-created universe is more likely but not a certainty.

This is to misunderstand Ockham. His principle is that we are not to multiply causes without necessity. It is not, as you suggest, that we have no need for causes. — Dfpolis

Occam's point is to pick the simplest solution when given a choice. We see the universe but we don't see god. The simplest deduction is the universe is and god is not. That does not mean there is no god, it's simply one of the methods I use to justify my opinion.

The purpose of who designed the designer is for atheists to point out the added complexity of a designed universe. If god can just be, so can the universe.

A thetan isn't all knowing but is all powerful, at least at its full potential. The shape occupying syndrome occurred to beings who had little conception of the consequence.

All apologetics aside I had a similar realization before I decided to reject Scientology. I decided I didn't need salvation and worked from that to rejection.

What's the story about how a mighty OT comes to be a neurotic wimp that has to or wants to or ought to, go through the process of rehabilitation? What power, other than our own has bound us to this mortal coil? — unenlightened

The thetan's power is that which binds. How it is explained, although this concept is more esoteric meaning less Scientologists know about it, is before thetans were bound to physical form they simply were (their form does not exist as something measurable, it is static). Then they started making shapes, a cube or a pyramid. They would show these objects to their fellow thetans and the thetans would validate the shapes. Because the shapes were praised thetans began "becoming the shapes that they made" so that they would be validated, not the shapes. This started the downward spiral from a pure existence of being to being something and needing praise. That is how it began, but not even remotely all that is said to be removed from our abilities.

It's almost as if the goat is a combination of the devil and the devouring mother archetype.

Infinity is not an "isness" in that an infinite amount of anything can exist at one time. But time, as far as we know, is indivisible; one can take a second and divide that moment forever, ergo that single second is infinite. Also in the multi-universe model all universes don't have to exist now and all possible universes will never exist, but infinity does not require every combination, only continuity.

Well I believe I understand. Unfortunately just as I understood I was suddenly 1,000 pounds and could not get up. Then I doubted and because I doubted, I died. I am in the belly of the beast, swimming in a lake of acid with a thousand goats screaming as their skin melts from their bones. At least I have my phone.

Maybe The Great Goat is that goat which does not eat. Why base greatness on gluttony? Why not masticational abstinance?

It wouldn't, but unfortunately most theists don't believe in "a god" but "the (one) true god/s." I'm open to a god/s but not of any human invention.

The pont of the "who designed the designer argument" is not to ask who designed the designer but to simplify Occam's Razor. It is simpler to say the universe IS than to state the universe was created, because that is what we know. To say "God is and thus the universe is" is more complex than "the universe is." You get the drift.

My opening statements weren't intended as an insult, nor were they an appeal to authority. Just an observation, very few redefinitions stick (call it a premonition that people won't use the redefinitions, if a rude one). Although I admire your presentation.

I may still be missing the point but if minds change why assume theism and atheism are fixed positions? Why throw out any labels for that matter? A person's label is what they are now not what they will be after they've mulled and chewed.

fdrake: this post is a response to an OP from a different thread which appeared here due to merging. SnoringKitten's post, which Grey vs Gray is replying to here is as follows:

Hi, the following seems long winded but it's actually one simple statement repeated & fleshed out, before it returns back to the one simple statement.

PROBLEM:

There is a lot of confusion today between the terms Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism.

We now see people who are Agnostic Atheists, Agostic Christians, Atheist Agnostics and that's just the beginning.

I'm not sure what the dictionaries state on the matter but l'd like to cut through all the confusion.

FACT #1: Our beliefs fluctuate, as the Muslims believe: Faith (Iman) goes up and down.

Therefore: Labels addressing our thoughts in toto, are not useful, as we hold manycontradictory internal beliefs. Those contradictory beliefs are a good thing because it means we have an internal dialogue going on, it means we have reasoned our faith.

FACT #2: Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism - these labels are NOT meaningless.

Deep inside, we know what each of these things is. We just know.

SOLUTION (= middle way between Fact #1 & #2, & the carnival of chimaeric appellations arising from the three labels Atheist, Agnostic, Theist): Let each of these terms relate to what the lips profess, regardless of the backend operations in the mind, the arguments to-and-fro in the backs of our minds. The label "Atheist" / "Agnostic" / "Theist" relate to the end conclusion of our bourgeoning internal dialogue on the matter with its many concessions to atheism & theism - the label is the END product of ALL that:

Atheist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there definitely is no God"

Agnostic thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY the arguments are stacked perefectly equal either way, hence l stand mute on the matter"

Theist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there is a God." Note that, at least in Islam, the religious adherents are called "Believers" ("Moomins" like in the children's TV show). Thus even though Atheism / Theism are unfalsifiable, the Theist is actually defined as a Believer not a Knower and is thus right with science.

NOTES:

* Agnosticism thus becomes unthinkable for a sentient being, a human with higher faculties intact. How can we, as creatures of refined aesthetic, be so perfectly on the fence between two rival beliefs? Have we no aesthetic inclination either way, at the very least?

Also how can two rival beliefs be so perfectly matched as to justify Agnosticism as a permanent camp?

* Agnostic Atheism = intellectual dishonesty. Atheists know that they cannot scientifically dismiss God, as God / Atheism are unfalsifiable. Therefore, they sit on the fence. Yet devoid of aesthetic (such that they cannot even feel preference for one camp over the other), they try to voice their materialism in a simultaneous declaration of Atheism, which totally contradicts the entire point of Agnosticism in my scheme.

* Therefore l feel we can now do away with "Agnosticism" + "Agnostic Atheism". This leaves just Atheism and Theism. Therefore my solution is elegant.

CONCLUSION:

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are now redefined as what the lips actually profess, not the mind in toto.

It follows that Agnosticism as such doesn't exist.

It also follows that Agnostic Atheism is intellectually dishonest.

I would also like to make the charge of intellectual dishonesty against Atheism because God/No-God are unfalsifiable concepts, and as l've explained: Muslims at least consider the religious to be Believers, not Knowers, hence you cannot accuse them of being unscientific in violating unfalsifiability. I'm happy to leave that for another discussion though.

Feel free to argue but l'd like to state: Beyond page 1 of this debate, l will likely switch off as will most other casual visitors.

Please read this OP thoroughly before raising a point that has already been covered. I believe this OP is watertight. It's imperative that we adopt these new definitions of Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism. — SnoringKitten

Grey vs Gray's reply to SnoringKitten continues:

No one will follow your reasoning. No one will care. Of course your concept will influence people but ultimately their understanding of the words has to do with their experience and current attitude of a god.

What an atheist will say is (what I am): You claim that there is a god? Wow that is amazing, but where is the proof? (The argument or lack there of is given and their attitude is unchanged.) Oh, we'll I don't believe that, I am not convinced. I am an atheist.

What a theist will say: The universe was created, I just can't conceive of it starting from nothing. Nothing can't come from nothing. There must be a god.

What a dogmatic theist will say: My god is the real god, everyone else is wrong and will suffer forever if they don't believe. I want to impose my beliefs because they are right. There is one true god.

What an agnostic will say: The universe could have been created. I don't know. The universe could also have come to be from something else or nothing. Who knows. Is this really important? We don't have enough information to believe either, why be so convinced either way and argue over something no one can prove for a long time yet if at all.

Of course the agnostic position is real, there is a spectral distribution of every human attribute.

Global revenue for books is about 8 times more than music in 2017. — fdrake

That might be due to the fact a large percentage people pirate their music ( https://www.statista.com/topics/3493/media-piracy/ ). In addition to books costing 10-40 times more than songs. Although it is hopeful, statistics can be misleading.

Currently it's at the top, Congrats.

It has always been the case that the majority don't read for pleasure. E-books and audio books maintain reading culture, although the latter to a lesser extent. The printed book isn't "special" when compared to its electronic form, at least not in the gnostic sence.

Technology has made possible a more eco-friendly method of passing stories and information. While I own over four-hundred physical books and enjoy the smells, the nostalgia and textures, I also use and enjoy other mediums of acquiring information and stories. Movies, documentaries, video clips, articles even wiki; as long as we use and teach skepticism and multi-sorce verification, we'll be okay.

There are eight billion humans and thus more readers than ever (although I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of readers has dwindled). I see no reason to fear for our future, at least for now.

There's a law of distribution in this universe, the name escapes me, where the amount you have determine how much you will get. Obviously there are exceptions but there are always exceptions.

Religions fundamentally are an expression of culture, at least, in their origin. Stories of the brave, the honest, whatever that culture accepts as good. Some stories are passed on more than others; their telling becomes exponential. People hold onto them, cherish them and most importantly follow the lessons they tell.

Religion is the collection of these stories. Each region has different ones that became popular. Some stories are seen across many cultures.

The problem however is when some stories do more harm than good as the world changes. As we gather more information with science the stories are being dropped off one by one. Religion will be either to be turned into a conglomeration or eventually lost entirely.

On modern cults: the mechanism is the same but they are composed, usually by one person, of many borrowed stories combined with a magnetic personality and a sprinkle of altered or new stories. Religions are mostly random, cults are mostly devised.

Your question of interaction. I think it needs a little clarification.