The more absurd the belief, the more zealous the believer

[AnonOrange]

On home page of this web site; TruthAboutScientology.com -- there is a scientology "completions list" search form. I searched for all the "stone" records and it came up with one, "Jeffery". That's a pretty common name, but still, does anyone have any idea if it was the Riverside County Commissioner? Because in the unlikely event that it was, I think the voters would have a beef about his nondisclosure and conflict of interest.

We've wondered about that a lot ! I guess we should just ask him.

Did you go to Gold Base ? You looked interested. Good raid, nobody got in trouble. I had my own little deal in Hemet and that was fun too.

 

[alexm]

My friend I am going to have to dissect this as much as I can because if there is one thing I can't stand it is flagrant generalities and absolutism. This is based on experience, nothing more.

1) Unitarinism (pretty lame and reasonable)
-No, not very reasonable and not very religious either. The UUA is a liberal, political and religious humanist society. It is not a church or religion, rather a place where all people can get together. It is disgustingly politically correct organization with no mention of God just in case Charlie atheist gets offended. The UUA claims to have no creed yet it is more a gathering place for the questioning and non-believing. Most people are Humanists and agnostic with no talk or worship to any kind of God. Humanism itself, especially Secular Humanism holds exactly all form of life cycles events (births, naming, weddings and funeral events) as any other religion would offer and deifies humanity to the point of Godlike. This is way scary, sorry to say and the biggest reason why I left Secular Humanism after only a few months of checking it out and attending meetings; same goes for skeptic societies. I myself have been to three Unitarian churches throughout North America and they are all basically the same.

2) Bhuddism (not too crazy)
There is a great debate amongst scholars especially as to how secularist and atheists see Buddhism, which is seen somehow as a non-theistic religion but this is very bad terminology. Buddhism believes in an ultimate reality, known as Nirvana. This ultimately reality is not a deity or a creator God, which is the westernized idea of an ultimate reality. Rather Nirvana is an impersonal experience but it is also spiritual so when I see and hear fundie atheists like Sam Harris take up Zen meditation, I simply shake my head and wonder why. There are gods, demigods, vega god, spiritual dimensions and other higher beings in all forms of Buddhism. There is also something in Buddhism similar to that of exteriorization in Scientology or out of body experiences in New Age groups. Theravada Buddhism is Transtheistic meaning that these gobs are imperfect and not the purpose of the religion. Mahayana, which is very pantheistic and sees Buddha hood, Bodhisattva hood as well as Nirvana as omnipresent and obtainable without necessarily being a monk; unlike Theravada. Buddhists do not deny the existence of ultimate reality but merely see it in another way, which is different from the west. If a Buddhist does deny ultimate reality then he or she needs to switch religions. Rather Buddhists do not believe in a creator God. This does not make them atheists or agnostics, it makes them non-monotheists but they still believe in things, which are above our reality and therefore false according to materialism. I myself have been affiliated with three Buddhist organizations off and on for over 10 years including Thai Theravada, Chinese Pre Land, Tibetan Buddhist and Japanese Soto Zen.

3) Christianity (substantially more crazy)
-A pretty strong statement seeing is how there are over 4,200 churches and denominations within Christianity alone. Which version are we looking at, the racist, homophobic Westboro Baptist Church or the woman ordaining, gay marrying, pro-life United Church of Christ? Let’s get specific before we generalize.


4) Catholicism (incrementaly more crazy)
-The same as Christianity and Catholics also have splits that are not homophobic and allow nuns and priests to marry. These liberal or modern churches also bless same sex unions.

4) Judaism (more crazy with matzo balls)
-I am Jewish and if there is one thing I know is that I am sure you probably no nothing or very little about Judaism. In fact I will take a wild guess and say you grew up a Christian, probably Roman Catholic but I may be wrong. Judaism is not understood well by the Christian world. It is in fact grossly misinterpreted. Judaism and Christianity are completely different regardless of what the Evangelicals tell you.

Judaism for the most part believes that this life is meant to be enjoyed and unlike Catholicism, we are not living in this life in order to score points to get in heaven. That is 100% Christianity. Jewish people of all kinds dance, sing and celebrate life in a very positive way. If you have never been to a Shabbat at the kotel, you will never understand. Please do not say anything about my religion unless you are making a valid argument, which does not reference matzo ball soup. This is something not all Jews eat by the way.

Also if you are a fan of Religulous you know even less about all religions, but particularity Judaism since the only Jew he interviewed was an Anti-Zionist, which is a political movement just do not tell the Orthodox that, supporter of the President of Iran and a Holocaust denier. Yeah great research there Bill boy.

6) Islam (getting pretty crazy)
-Again which part? You mean the Muslims of Turkey who have had a secular government with equal rights for all religions since the time of the Ottoman Empire? Or how about those nonexistent terrorists from Albania, or Bosnia committing the horrible act of re-estasholishing Christian churches and Jewish synagogues since after they were ban by the truly totalitarian state atheism. Sure, Iran and Saudi Arabia are effed up, but come on. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the word and by 2025; Islam will be the most populated religion on the Earth thus taking over Christianities 2000 plus rule.

7) Mormonism (clearly in the damn crazy)
-By beliefs it is hard for me to believe that Jesus was revealed in the Americas, that Adam and Eve lived in Jefferson country, Missouri and that the Native Americans are coloured red because of a curse. I know my friend Dana from Cincinnati is a Mormon one of the greatest human beings I have ever met, so who cares if I think he is wrong? He is a great guy and totally sane. Unlike some Scientologists I have met.

8) Scientology (about as nutty as it gets) (sorry !)
-Don't be sorry to apologize for having your beliefs. You have the right to think as you wish. You are a very courageous person and I tip my hat to your fight against Scientology but I think that being an anti-religious, absolutist called Scientism simply makes one, not necessarily you, think with the same mentality of the people one hates.

Most of the people you listed above sound crazy because they believe that they are right 100% of the time and know life in and out 100%. This can also apply to science, atheism, secularism, humanism and materialism.

I had the great pleasure and displeasure of being a Scientologist. I am 100% totally skeptical of anyone who speaks with the same mentality; meaning that they or their little group knows everything and everyone else is wrong. I especially can’t stand generalities and absolutes regardless of whether they are political, social, religion or secularist, atheistic, “skeptical” or materialistic.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Good post alexm.

 

[alexm]

Good post alexm.

Hey, I could be completely wrong but I'm trying.

 

[Tiger Lily]

Hey, I could be completely wrong but I'm trying.

Alexm -- I liked it too. You weren't wrong at all; you were cautioning people to look at the way things are, instead of how you want them to be. The world would be a much better place if people made a habit of doing that. Blind adherence to one viewpoint is not helpful no matter which side you are on.

Well done!
TL

 

[AnonOrange]

NOT a good post Alex, even though you spend a good effort on it.

It's real simple: If your religion violates the laws of science (classical physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc)

THEN IT IS FALSE ! IT IS CRAZY, PERIOD.

Try hard all you want to prove your delusions, but it's much simpler than you think. All so-called sacred texts are wrong and crazy.

If those texts can be so wrong about basic science, why should your trust them as a way to guide your life ?

Here's my standard bet to you:

Give me ANY of the famous sacred texts: Torah, New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon, (and I'll throw in Dianetics) and I will bet you (honor bet) that I will find NONSENSE in ANY random page you pick.

On the other hand, we'll go to a science book store and I dare you to find A SINGLE error (without using Google), in ANY PAGE in ANY BOOK in that store. (some may have an errata sheet included. That won't count for the bet)

Good luck, and remember why you got into scientology in the first place.

PS: I do agree about how leftist the Unitarian churches are and I see that also at CFI West (skeptics) in Hollywood. Shermer's Skeptics Society on the other hand is not liberal, but libertarian. As far as Buddhism, my two friends are great, but I find them very gullible about all kinds of stuff. Some Mormon engineers I worked with in Utah are the smartest people I ever worked with. Religiosity is UNRELATED to intelligence. It's all about cognitive dissonance and the smartest ones can hold that barrier better than the dumb ones.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Paul, let's face it, if there was ANYTHING positive to come out of that these, you would have jumped in joy.

Let's try it again and hope 25-30 people do the test. You'll get the same results.

Maybe, maybe not. I couldn't even get Alanzo to do it, so if you can drum up a willing 25-30 I'll be impressed. However, as I said before, even if it "seems to work" it's no proof of anything as it would be easy enough to fake it. Still, if anyone wants to give it a go, I'm willing. Details at http://www.paulsrabbit.com/telepathy.htm. Note it can be done completely anonymously.

What do you think of this guy setting newspaper alight and lighting LEDs with his bare hands, AO? The LEDs bit is at 8:00-8:30, although just seeing that and none of the rest of it would miss out on the flavour of the whole video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlZndMuYW04

Paul

 

[Alanzo]

NOT a good post Alex, even though you spend a good effort on it.

It's real simple: If your religion violates the laws of science (classical physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc)

THEN IT IS FALSE ! IT IS CRAZY, PERIOD.

Try hard all you want to prove your delusions, but it's much simpler than you think. All so-called sacred texts are wrong and crazy.

If those texts can be so wrong about basic science, why should your trust them as a way to guide your life ?

Here's my standard bet to you:

Give me ANY of the famous sacred texts: Torah, New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon, (and I'll throw in Dianetics) and I will bet you (honor bet) that I will find NONSENSE in ANY random page you pick.

On the other hand, we'll go to a science book store and I dare you to find A SINGLE error (without using Google), in ANY PAGE in ANY BOOK in that store. (some may have an errata sheet included. That won't count for the bet)

Good luck, and remember why you got into scientology in the first place.

PS: I do agree about how leftist the Unitarian churches are and I see that also at CFI West (skeptics) in Hollywood. Shermer's Skeptics Society on the other hand is not liberal, but libertarian. As far as Buddhism, my two friends are great, but I find them very gullible about all kinds of stuff. Some Mormon engineers I worked with in Utah are the smartest people I ever worked with. Religiosity is UNRELATED to intelligence. It's all about cognitive dissonance and the smartest ones can hold that barrier better than the dumb ones.

The "laws of science"?

You do realize that human beings are not completely rational creatures, right?

They do have emotions, and they do think and believe things, and have a whole life inside them that can not be tested or even manifested physically.

To limit a human being to only what can be tested physically is to limit that human being.

There is plenty in the experience of a human being: those things that make him happy, like love and and a sense of belonging, and speculation and philosophizing and beliefs in things - all things that are totally outside the "laws of science" that are not crazy.

They are actually essential for the health and happiness of human beings.

To deny these things, and to label them all crazy because they are outside "the laws of science", is also a mistake, and a fanaticism in itself, AO.

 

[Dulloldfart]

On the other hand, we'll go to a science book store and I dare you to find A SINGLE error (without using Google), in ANY PAGE in ANY BOOK in that store. (some may have an errata sheet included. That won't count for the bet)

An error measured against what? Current majority scientific thought? Are we talking about erring with Galen rather than being right with Harvey?

Paul

 

[AnonOrange]

Maybe, maybe not. I couldn't even get Alanzo to do it, so if you can drum up a willing 25-30 I'll be impressed. However, as I said before, even if it "seems to work" it's no proof of anything as it would be easy enough to fake it. Still, if anyone wants to give it a go, I'm willing. Details at http://www.paulsrabbit.com/telepathy.htm. Note it can be done completely anonymously.

What do you think of this guy setting newspaper alight and lighting LEDs with his bare hands, AO? The LEDs bit is at 8:00-8:30, although just seeing that and none of the rest of it would miss out on the flavour of the whole video.
Paul

Paul, I appreciate your dedication. That's the most important quality of a scientist. Really. I'll help you promote your new test as much as I can and I hope others do to. It should be announced on WWP and Clambake, but I can't post there.

About your video above, I think I remember a skeptical debunking of that guy. He's a FRAUD. If I remember well, (at 1:08) in the video, the way that is done is by having an electrical pad at his feet and a grounded table where the patient is lying. The electricity goes from the (scammer) though his arms and onto the patient. Also note that he patient has WIRES TO HIS HANDS FOR GOD'S SAKE ! He may just have a foot switch to turn on the juice (I don't remember exactly)

I think Randi outed him. Search a bit and if you can't find it I will. He's basically a small time magician.

About turning on the LED. They require very little voltage and it could be the normal potential difference between two humans. If the test was done in HIS office, then he must have been standing on an electrical pad.

And, just so you know, there is no such a thing a "chi" or the original "elan vital" that the French used to talk about. It's all BS.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Thank you for offering your opinion. How about the newspaper bursting into flames?

You think the film crew was in on the act, or were they being scammed too?

Paul

 

[AnonOrange]

The leading edge of the anti-religion movement

Here's the shape of things to come: YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, religionists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFjM38KjzlA

Fight nonsense with better nonsense !

 

[Zinjifar]

Thank you for offering your opinion. How about the newspaper bursting into flames?

You think the film crew was in on the act too, or were they scammed too?

Paul

I don't think the filmcrew was necessarily 'in' on any scam, although, they would have a vested interest in having something to film.

I'm not really into 'debunking' this kind of stuff, since I don't see such things as inherently 'impossible', but, there's nothing in the film that couldn't be done by a smart stage magician; with our without cooperation from 'witnesses'.

The newspaper bit bothered me the most because it would be the simplest thing to fake and I've seen it done. It involves using a bit of normally combustible chemical compound that's stable while damp, but burst into flames as it dries. I have no evidence that this was done in the film, but, of all the demonstrations, it's probably the simplest to fake.

Zinj

 

[AnonOrange]

Thank you for offering your opinion. How about the newspaper bursting into flames?

You think the film crew was in on the act too, or were they scammed too?

Paul

There is a highly flamable type of paper that the magicians use, the slightest spark will ignite it. Penn & Teller use it to fake the burning of the American Flag on stage.

Could be some of that inside the newspaper. On thing is absolutely certain (GUN TO MY HEAD CERTAIN) is that this fraudster does not us Chi to light up newspapers.

 

[Dulloldfart]

There is a highly flamable type of paper that the magicians use, the slightest spark will ignite it. Penn & Teller use it to fake the burning of the American Flag on stage.

Oh, I get it. He used that highly-combustible stuff and simply shot sparks out of his hands to light it. Fair enough.



Paul

(I'm not being serious)

 

[AnonOrange]

The "laws of science"?

You do realize that human beings are not completely rational creatures, right?

To limit a human being to only what can be tested physically is to limit that human being.

They are actually essential for the health and happiness of human beings.

To deny these things, and to label them all crazy because they are outside "the laws of science", is also a mistake, and a fanaticism in itself, AO.

The scientific method, particularly it's rigorous methods of testing (which can occasionally be cheated) is specifically designed to get the emotions of the tester and testee OUT of the equation. That's what pseudosciences (like scientology) don't do and that's why they are FAIL.

Humans can ONLY be tested physically. That includes talking to them and measuring them. Can you please explain what else there is ? Clearly ?

Whey I use the word "Crazy", I use it in the sense that someone can be crazed while in love, crazed by religion or crazed by a celebrity. What I do believe is that these people can lead pretty normal lives anyway and function in society just fine.

It's like the compliment: "Man you're crazy !", which I've been subjected to several times.

Insane is a medical problem. Crazy is a personal problem that people chose as they wish.

 

[AnonOrange]

Are we talking about erring with Galen rather than being right with Harvey?

Paul

That flew over my head.

I'm talking about easily seen errors. Math mistakes, obviously impossible stuff, etc.

 

[Alanzo]

The scientific method, particularly it's rigorous methods of testing (which can occasionally be cheated) is specifically designed to get the emotions of the tester and testee OUT of the equation. That's what pseudosciences (like scientology) don't do and that's why they are FAIL.

Humans can ONLY be tested physically. That includes talking to them and measuring them. Can you please explain what else there is ? Clearly ?

You deleted the things from my post which were examples of what else there is that can not be tested, that fall outside "the laws of science", and which are essential for human happiness.

Here is what you cut out of my post, with emphasis:

"They do have emotions, and they do think and believe things, and have a whole life inside them that can not be tested or even manifested physically.

To limit a human being to only what can be tested physically is to limit that human being.

There is plenty in the experience of a human being: those things that make him happy, like love and and a sense of belonging, and speculation and philosophizing and beliefs in things - all things that are totally outside the "laws of science" that are not crazy.

Whey I use the word "Crazy", I use it in the sense that someone can be crazed while in love, crazed by religion or crazed by a celebrity. What I do believe is that these people can lead pretty normal lives anyway and function in society just fine.

It's like the compliment: "Man you're crazy !", which I've been subjected to several times.

Then wtf do you care what they believe - if they lead pretty normal lives anyway and function in society just fine?

By any objective test then, your fervent, almost fanatic, belief in the "laws of science" is no more dysfunctional or functional than their non-scientific religious beliefs.

It's when beliefs in religion, or beliefs in science, become dysfunctional and when those beliefs limit or suppress the individual that you should ever give a shit.

Don't you think?

Insane is a medical problem. Crazy is a personal problem that people chose as they wish.

Crazy is good, then.

I'll take crazy any day over insane.

 

[AnonOrange]

You deleted the things from my post which were examples of what else there is that can not be tested, that fall outside "the laws of science", and which are essential for human happiness.

Here is what you cut out of my post, with emphasis:

"They do have emotions, and they do think and believe things, and have a whole life inside them that can not be tested or even manifested physically.

To limit a human being to only what can be tested physically is to limit that human being.

There is plenty in the experience of a human being: those things that make him happy, like love and and a sense of belonging, and speculation and philosophizing and beliefs in things - all things that are totally outside the "laws of science" that are not crazy.

Then wtf do you care what they believe - if they lead pretty normal lives anyway and function in society just fine?

By any objective test then, your fervent, almost fanatic, belief in the "laws of science" is no more dysfunctional or functional than their non-scientific religious beliefs.

It's when beliefs in religion, or beliefs in science, become dysfunctional and when those beliefs limit or suppress the individual that you should ever give a shit.

Sorry about deleting part of the post. I often do that to limit the repetition and I only keep what I think is relevant.

Emotions CAN be measured (or evaluated) to used a better word. You can also measure the more intense emotions with a blood test.

Note that I said you can measure by talking to someone too, although be ready for wide error bars. (That's just as good as what an auditor does, since I maintain (as well as the FDA) that the e-meter does nothing)

So, what people have "inside them" can be extracted to a certain extent with a cooperative patient, by a psychologist. You can also do that by writing/e-mailing the person. That's what I mean by measuring or evaluating.

Now I asked you, what other way is there ? (One that has been properly tested and verified to work)

There's nothing fanatic about accepting (if you prefer "believing") in a method that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt and has all transformed all our lives during the last 200-300 years. (the scientific method). There is however a problem in believing in things that totally break this incredible progress, like scientology, new age thinking and the other religions.

"To limit a human being to only what can be tested physically is to limit that human being."

Again, what else is there ?

 

[Alanzo]

Sorry about deleting part of the post. I often do that to limit the repetition and I only keep what I think is relevant.

Emotions CAN be measured (or evaluated) to used a better word. You can also measure the more intense emotions with a blood test.

Note that I said you can measure by talking to someone too, although be ready for wide error bars. (That's just as good as what an auditor does, since I maintain (as well as the FDA) that the e-meter does nothing)

So, what people have "inside them" can be extracted to a certain extent with a cooperative patient, by a psychologist. You can also do that by writing/e-mailing the person. That's what I mean by measuring or evaluating.

Now I asked you, what other way is there ? (One that has been properly tested and verified to work)

There's nothing fanatic about accepting (if you prefer "believing") in a method that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt and has all transformed all our lives during the last 200-300 years. (the scientific method). There is however a problem in believing in things that totally break this incredible progress, like scientology, new age thinking and the other religions.

"To limit a human being to only what can be tested physically is to limit that human being."

Again, what else is there ?

All right. You are not fully reading the post.

Let's take these things one or two at a time:

1. Love

2. A Sense of Belonging

See number 1 and 2 above?

Do you agree that these things are not consistent with the laws of science, but that they are part of being human??

Do you agree that these things make human beings happy? Do they enrich the lives of the humans who experience them?

In an earlier post, you said this:

It's real simple: If your religion violates the laws of science (classical physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc)

THEN IT IS FALSE ! IT IS CRAZY, PERIOD.

What if your religion teaches you to love people better and more fully, and gives you a sense of belonging - even if it teaches these things through Virgin births and magical thinking?

Is it really inherently false or "crazy"?

PERIOD?

I'll say it again - please do not ignore it and then ask me what I am basing my conclusions on:

Human beings are not inherently rational.

They have inner lives that have nothing to do with "the laws of science" but everything to do with their own happiness.

If they are sufficiently functional in society, and are happy, then tell me, AO, who the fuck are you to tell them they are crazy just because their beliefs do not match up with "the laws of science"?