Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult

[muchspl3]

HAIL XENU!!

its a cult, and a expensive one at that

[j2k4]

Legitimate credibility?

As opposed to what other kind?

In any case, "legitimacy" and "goofiness" are not mutually exclusive qualities; witness Pat Robertson...

Hocus-pocus is Hocus-pocus whatever guise it takes or however many believe in it.

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

I believe you are still impaled upon the hook of (Il)legitimate credibility, sir...

Please explain if your use of the term was within a stone's throw of serious.

[vidcc]

I believe you are still impaled upon the hook of (Il)legitimate credibility, sir...

Please explain if your use of the term was within a stone's throw of serious.

The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief may not be based on fact/reality.

Being accepted widely may legitimise something in ones mind but that doesn't make it fact/reality.

example:

The world was once stated to be flat and any scholar stating this in his day was "credible". Did his credibility have any legitimate basis in fact?

[What'spunk.]

I believe you are still impaled upon the hook of (Il)legitimate credibility, sir...

Please explain if your use of the term was within a stone's throw of serious.

The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief may not be based on fact/reality.

Being accepted widely may legitimise something in ones mind but that doesn't make it fact/reality.

example:

The world was once stated to be flat and any scholar stating this in his day was "credible". Did his credibility have any legitimate basis in fact?

That may be true, but how does it relate to the actual "teachings" of Scientology. We know what they are, we know that they are nonsense. That is not the same as an "incorrect fact" being popularly believed centuries ago.

If you wish to demonstrate that Scientology is "harmless fun" would you not do better to concentrate on what it "teaches", rather than posting about centuries old beliefs which we have subsequently learned to be incorrect.

[vidcc]

That may be true, but how does it relate to the actual "teachings" of Scientology. We know what they are, we know that they are nonsense. That is not the same as an "incorrect fact" being popularly believed centuries ago.

If you wish to demonstrate that Scientology is "harmless fun" would you not do better to concentrate on what it "teaches", rather than posting about centuries old beliefs which we have subsequently learned to be incorrect.

That post was in reply to a question about syntax from J2.

My views on scientology can be read in previous posts on this thread.

[What'spunk.]

That may be true, but how does it relate to the actual "teachings" of Scientology. We know what they are, we know that they are nonsense. That is not the same as an "incorrect fact" being popularly believed centuries ago.

If you wish to demonstrate that Scientology is "harmless fun" would you not do better to concentrate on what it "teaches", rather than posting about centuries old beliefs which we have subsequently learned to be incorrect.

That post was in reply to a question about syntax from J2.

My views on scientology can be read in previous posts on this thread.

Yes, you described it as "harmless fun". I really do find it difficult to see how someone would come to that conclusion. I have read a few books about it and done some research on the internet, including their own site and I think it is obvious that it is far from being harmless fun.

[vidcc]

That post was in reply to a question about syntax from J2.

My views on scientology can be read in previous posts on this thread.

Yes, you described it as "harmless fun". I really do find it difficult to see how someone would come to that conclusion. I have read a few books about it and done some research on the internet, including their own site and I think it is obvious that it is far from being harmless fun.

I would probably not have responded so, had you not quoted my reply about syntax to J2.


However in reply my words were

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

To expand for you all religion can be used to justify good or bad actions. Being a Scientologist does not make a person a danger to scociety, just as being a christian , jew, muslim etc. does not make someone a danger.
Interpretation of the teachings can.

religion in the hands of a "normal" person can have very good concequences, in the hands of a nutter can be very dangerous indeed.

[What'spunk.]

Yes, you described it as "harmless fun". I really do find it difficult to see how someone would come to that conclusion. I have read a few books about it and done some research on the internet, including their own site and I think it is obvious that it is far from being harmless fun.

I would probably not have responded so, had you not quoted my reply about syntax to J2.


However in reply my words were

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

To expand for you all religion can be used to justify good or bad actions. Being a Scientologist does not make a person a danger to scociety, just as being a christian , jew, muslim etc. does not make someone a danger.
Interpretation of the teachings can.

religion in the hands of a "normal" person can have very good concequences, in the hands of a nutter can be very dangerous indeed.

I'm not arguing with anything you say. I'm just saying that Scientology is demonstrably a dangerous cult, based on making money and controlling people. It uses pseudo science which actively damages people's sanity, removes them from their families, takes all of their money away and ruin's their life.

I just don't see how you can conclude that is "harmless fun". Whatever you may think of other groups of people. You may argue there are others as bad, I would almost agree, but they are not "harmless fun" either.

[j2k4]

Yeah, and your syntax still sucks.

I would much prefer you endorse my own formulation:

"pseudo-credibility"

I demand you submit to my superior construct.

Do it now.

[thewizeard]

it's probably unsuitable for weak-minded, follow the herd , type people...