The more absurd the belief, the more zealous the believer

[Zinjifar]

Accuracy is not important in a Crusade.

In fact, accuracy sucks in a Crusade. It's kind of a buzz-kill, really.

What's important in a Crusade is the Crusade.

And wearing cool T-Shirts so everybody knows who gets credit.

Zinj

 

[AnonOrange]

What do you think of Jack Houck's spoon-bending parties, AO?
http://www.jackhouck.com/pk.shtml

Paul

Are you guys trying to make me go crazy ? Is this a conspiracy ?

Just 20 seconds ago I replied to another spoon bending post.

Please Google "Spoon Bending" randi.

 

[Alanzo]

Are you guys trying to make me go crazy ? Is this a conspiracy ?

Just 20 seconds ago I replied to another spoon bending post.

Please Google "Spoon Bending" randi.

Proof that spoon-bending is real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oOMZ-8TSiE

 

[AnonOrange]

I don't mind having this debate. but I think you are being very disengenuous when you alter what I say and then argue against your alteration as if it was my point. Either answer me or don't, but don't shift and alter the meaning of what I say.

The Anabaptist Jacques

The problem is that when I use the word "Science" I'm taking about the Scientific Method, the process of science.

You seem to be referring to the existing body of knowledge, which has been improved many times and will continue to be improved.

 

[AnonOrange]

Proof that spoon-bending is real:

That made me laugh, but in case people take it seriously:

Proof that spoon bending is FAKE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZGq3VYMVkQ

(That's the first link that came up on Google. I didn't watch it. I trust Randi will give you a good show)

 

[Zinjifar]

The problem is that when I use the word "Science" I'm taking about the Scientific Method, the process of science.

False. You're talking about your own made-up word for your own baseless beliefs. Your 'Science' is no more science than Ron's was.

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

The problem is that when I use the word "Science" I'm taking about the Scientific Method, the process of science.

No.

The problem is that you do not address what TAJ writes in his posts. You don't stop, and read the words in his post, and ask your self, "What the fuck is he going on about? He writes a lot of words here, but what, exactly, is he saying?"

And then you don't re-read those words he wrote and really get what he is writing about, and then write your post to correspond to that.

That's the problem.

You seem to be referring to the existing body of knowledge, which has been improved many times and will continue to be improved.

Nope.

Different.

Re-read it again.

 

[Alanzo]

Proof that spoon-bending is real:

That made me laugh, but in case people take it seriously:

Proof that spoon bending is FAKE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZGq3VYMVkQ

(That's the first link that came up on Google. I didn't watch it. I trust Randi will give you a good show)

If anyone took that post seriously, then I am turning in my Ex-Scientologist decoder ring and disowning my red cape.

I think you need to lurk moar.

You assume a bunch of idiots exist here who are lolling around in the mud puddle of religionism and superstition.

Nothing could be more halfway from the truth.

 

[Tiger Lily]

Another group that's been TOTALLY useless are the psychologists/ psychiatrists. Have you seen a liscenced psych at any of our protests ?

This one cracks me up! I thought they were the BIGGEST SP's.

-TL

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

The problem is that when I use the word "Science" I'm taking about the Scientific Method, the process of science.

You seem to be referring to the existing body of knowledge, which has been improved many times and will continue to be improved.

The scientific method is a way of doing science; it is the craft of science. You said science was not a craft, but now you say it is a method. I never used it as a body of knowledge. I said it was a craft. I used the definition that Kuhn uses, that Pickering uses, that Feyerabend uses, that Karl Popper used, that Eiinstein used, that MIT uses, that NASA uses, etc, etc,.
I admire your zeal for science, but, to me, you do not seem to show any respect for science if you only consider 19th century science as science, and argue against the tenets of modern science which has progressed a great deal since then.
The scientific method aint' an exact science, you know.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[parrotnutz]

Lawd! This video scares the crap out of me!


Orange, did you ever take a scientology course or do auditing?

 

[everfree]

So, it's quite clear that our environment facets our thoughts and beliefs, but I maintain that the scientific process is a good way to prevent that.

I won't be going on any crusades any time soon as Alanzo humorously suggested, and if I did it wouldn't be against the scientific method: the scientific method is a wonderful tool that has increased human understanding greatly. I love the gaining of knowledge and understanding, it's what I live for really.

Compare that with the nonsense of religions, which blindly accepts "Truths" without any kind of debate.

Although such intellectually dead religion is certainly common, not all religion is like that for everybody - most if not all religions have mystical aspects or branches that are more involved with direct religious or spiritual experience.
It is this mystical experience gained through meditation, prayer and other means that provides the basis for those beliefs. This is what I mean by "intuition" and "faith"; not blind belief but individual insight into the Ultimate Nature of Reality, whatever that may be.

I'm sure that at one point in time or another such experiences were available in most any religion to some degree or another, though perhaps more prevalent in some than others. Sometimes those experiences can be very powerful and as such can be a real force for personal and perhaps even societal change for the better.

I think that these religious experiences are therefore valuable in human experience, even essential. Yes, even scientists look for these flashes of insight and experience. In the late sixties Carl Sagan, noted scientist and author of one of my all time favorite books "The Demon Haunted World", wrote a fascinating essay (under the pseudonym Mr X) on his experiences smoking marijuana - the use of "entheogens" in religious ceremony is widespread through human history - and the insight it gave him into religion, art and many other subjects, primarily social issues.

Here's a link to it if anyone's interested, but I should warn that the only copy I could easily find is on some sort of marijuana-related site so you may not want to look at it at work: http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

Rather than rail against any and all religion as unthinking belief and superstition, I believe a more beneficial approach is to reproach religion used as justification for harming others. I'm not a fan of it impeding the ability of science to gain knowledge of the physical nature of reality either. Are there any other reasons to oppose it than it not leading to betterment?

I should say that I hold no particular set up religious beliefs at this time and adhere to no dogma whatsoever. I think that whereas blind belief is any easy way to start down a path towards destruction so is unilateral condemnation.

 

[Alanzo]

I should say that I hold no particular set up religious beliefs at this time and adhere to no dogma whatsoever. I think that whereas blind belief is any easy way to start down a path towards destruction so is unilateral condemnation.

But blind belief and unilateral condemnation are the twin sisters one chases down that path in the hope of getting laid on the altar of glorious transformation!

A transformation so strong that nothing will ever be the same for anyone ever again!

In fact, Blind Belief = Unilateral Condemnation!

And Unilateral Condemnation = Blind Belief!

Can you see the posters and the banners coming out of this?

The slogans that keep everyone's thinking on track??

LET'S HAVE AN ORGY!!!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

You have completely altered the meaning of what I have said. This is what I mean by a straw-man fallacy.



I don't mind having this debate. but I think you are being very disengenuous when you alter what I say and then argue against your alteration as if it was my point. Either answer me or don't, but don't shift and alter the meaning of what I say.

The Anabaptist Jacques

This presumes that AO understands, or is even at present capable of understanding, what you have previously written.


Mark A. Baker

 

[me myself & i]

This presumes that AO understands, or is even at present capable of understanding, what you have previously written.


Mark A. Baker

Well Mark, prior to Hubbards introduction of the 'WOG theory of Being' to budding Scientologists (i.e. the world is full of nothing but idiots and I alone have discovered why and will show you how to be above those idiots) such a presumtion was considered to be at minimum decent, and potentially useful. Lol.

And, I can't recall the last time both you and Zinj joined forces to exert your collective intellectual (and sometimes witty) prowess over one individual before. At least not against one whom at least displays some semblence of having a sincere heart (i.e. unlike a 'run of the mill' troll like me).

Lol.

Nonetheless. Carry on.

mm&i

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Well Mark, prior to Hubbards introduction of the 'WOG theory of Being' to budding Scientologists (i.e. the world is full of nothing but idiots and I alone have discovered why and will show you how to be above those idiots) such a presumtion was considered to be at minimum decent, and potentially useful. Lol.

And, I can't recall the last time both you and Zinj joined forces to exert your collective intellectual (and sometimes witty) prowess over one individual before. At least not against one whom at least displays some semblence of having a sincere heart (i.e. unlike a 'run of the mill' troll like me).

Lol.

Nonetheless. Carry on.

mm&i

I don't think any of us are trying to beat him up. It's just that we're not terribly impressed by the quality of his "science", presence of "heart" notwithstanding.

Faith is faith, no matter what dogma you espouse.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Moonchild]

Speaking of science....

Undoubtedly the universe is unfolding as it should..........

What opinion would the Co$ or indeed Hubbardites of any stripe have on this I wonder?


http://www.nih.gov/news/health/apr2009/ninds-28.htm

 

[GreyLensman]

It's a straw-man argument. I've seen just as much fanaticism among some materialists about how there isn't any spirits or spirituality as I ever did elsewhere. I also question your judgment re the above referenced religions, ologies, and isms.

And then you have Apple people. They stand outside new temples for days to witness the glass doors opening to their version of heaven, where consumer products mix with aesthetics and only a slight upcharge. Sure they smell a bit after putting in that much time on the street, but many of them have dwellings they can return to afterward.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Towards a Moderation of Views

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/?ref=opinion


Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

And, I can't recall the last time both you and Zinj joined forces to exert your collective intellectual (and sometimes witty) prowess over one individual before.Nonetheless. Carry on.

mm&i

Whatevery other uncertainties exist in life, I can categorically stipulate that Mark and I have *no* 'collective intellect'

Zinj