backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 383 comment(s) - last by ThePooBurner.. on Feb 20 at 3:53 PM


Scientology's website was Google bombed, bringing it to the top of search results for "dangerous cult."
Scientologist wage war on a digital battle field

The Church of Scientology rarely sees a lot of respect from the press and general public.  Critics – a group that scales from individual citizens all the way up to entire nations – label it as a cult and unscrupulous enterprise, preying on the minds and pocketbooks of its followers. 

In the United States, however, the controversial religion has, for the most part, avoided outright attack; aside from the occasional tell-all website and snarky TV commentary, it enjoys considerable support from Hollywood and the its followers amongst the public. 

That is, until now. What started with a simple video has now stretched deep into the digital domain, and if the critics are to be believed then the War on Scientology has just begun.

The video, which stars a crazed Tom Cruise, appeared on YouTube late last month.  Intended for internal distribution and leaked by unknown sources, the Cruise video was created by the Church of Scientology to honor Cruise with its “Freedom Medal of Valor,” for his work in exposing a billion people to the Church’s beliefs.  

In the eight-minute clip, Cruise explains his faith in a crazed fervor, interspersing brief statements with fidgeting, maniacal laughter, and wild hand motions. “We are the authorities on getting people off drugs...we can rehabilitate criminals’ way to happiness (sic) … we can bring peace and unite cultures,” he says in one part. “I won't hesitate to put ethics on someone else as I put it ruthlessly on myself … [Scientology is] rough and tumble, it’s wild and wooly.”

Understandably displeased, the Church of Scientology allegedly forced YouTube to remove the video, threatening to sue if it refused.  Not wanting to start a fight with a group known for its penchant for lawsuits, YouTube caved and took the video offline.

Since then, the Cruise video has been parodied several times.

The move earned the ire of hackers and protestors, furious over for what they feel is the Church's suppression of free speech. Protestors claim the YouTube incident is merely the latest chapter in a long history of frivolous lawsuits and copyright/trademark disputes, designed specifically to suppress the proliferation of material that the Church finds embarrassing.

Online, hackers took their own revenge, with the Church’s web presence suffering a series of crippling attacks:  its international website was temporarily taken down, and its U.K. website remained crippled for days.  On a different front, computer guerillas “Google bombed” the Church of Scientology’s official website, bringing it to the top of search results for “dangerous cult.”

Back on YouTube, an activist group calling itself “Anonymous” posted its first online threat against Scientology two weeks ago, citing the Church’s alleged “campaigns of misinformation, suppression of dissent, and litigious nature.” Two more videos have been posted since, all of them featuring stock video of cities, clouds, and landscapes, with the group’s mysterious vendetta read by a computerized voice-over.

In Anonymous’ first video, titled “Message to Scientology” and speaking directly to the Church, the group pledges that it will “expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form.”

Whoever Anonymous is – the group claims its members include “lawyers, parents, IT professionals, members of law enforcement, college students, veterinary technicians and more” – it appears serious; Anonymous acknowledges the Church as a serious opponent and notes that “we are prepared for a long, long campaign.” A later video warns Scientologists to beware of February 10th, a date on which Anonymous will launch several protests at Scientology facilities around the world, coordinated by groups on Facebook and YouTube.

Anonymous’ organizers claim they wish to stay incognito for ethical reasons. One protester, explaining the campaign to the The Guardian, stated that he “[didn’t] want them to get a foothold in the UK the same way as they have in other countries. [The Church of Scientology claims] to be a church and a religion but they charge people to attend their sessions and they are a registered trademark – that doesn't strike anyone as a religion.  At the start this was a hacker operation but it is more than that now. Scientologists say it's just a bunch of hacker geeks but that's going to be proved wrong on February 10."

According to organizers, Anonymous started with a “youth movement” among online communities but is now drawing protesters from all walks of life.  It distributes Leaflets throughout the United States, questioning the true nature of Scientology and its tactics.

The Church of Scientology is trying to both downplay the movement and fight back.  It dismisses the protesters and hackers as a “pathetic” collection of “computer geeks.”  Janet Laveau, a spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology in Britain, says that “we don't get into responding to such threats on the internet, particularly anonymous ones.”

According to Laveau, the surge of negative publicity actually created a “surge of interest” in the Scientology, which she hopes will bring many new converts, although it denies forcing YouTube to take down the Cruise video despite numerous reports to the contrary. “These selective and out-of-context excerpts … nevertheless resulted in people searching for and visiting Church of Scientology websites,” says Laveau. “Those wishing to find out the Church of Scientology's views and to gain context of the video have the right to search official Church websites."

In the United States, Scientologists hired an unnamed internet company to defend its sites from attacks and fight back against the hackers. The move was financed in part by a $10 million donation from actress Nancy Cartwright, who voices Bart Simpson.

The Church of Scientology has a long history of waging expensive legal battles to suppress public criticism.  In 2005, the Church lost a 10-year battle in the Netherlands against a number of internet service providers as well as Dutch writer Karin Spaink, who posted numerous revealing documents online revealing alarming, secret teachings of the Church. 

Invented in 1952, The Church of Scientology is the brainchild of science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Based around 18 central religious books, Scientology believes that humans came to earth via an all-powerful alien being named “Xenu,” who stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Many accuse Hubbard of maintaining a religious façade for tax and legal purposes, and Hubbard once told Reader’s Digest that "if a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."  Together, the religion’s exotic believes, questionable history, and penchant for secrecy has made for excellent fodder from the Church’s many critics.

Andreas Heldal-Lund, a Norwegian free speech advocate applauds the grassroots movement and says they've “won” the war against scientology.  However, she denounces the internet attacks, stating that “one of the biggest arguments against Scientology is they are a threat to free speech and here they can say people are hitting back at their free speech. It ruins our argument.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/6/2008 1:48:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The religion is based around 18 central religious books, include one which states that 75 million years ago an all powerful alien being Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs
Put that way, it almost sounds as ridiculous as gigantic arks filled with all the animals on earth, or men parting the ocean with their bare hands, eh?




RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/6/2008 1:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They claim to be a church and a religion but they charge people to attend their sessions and they are a registered trademark...
By the way, most churches, including Catholics, Mormons, and many traditional Protestant religions, maintain trademarks-- and often sue other organizations for infringing upon them:

http://examiner.net/stories/080107/new_174057100.s...

"Tithing" -- or charging people to attend services -- is usually optional these days (though strongly enforced by peer prressure), but as any student of history knows, such charges were mandatory throughout much of the history of the Roman Catholic Church.


RE: Total nonsense
By alifbaa on 2/7/2008 9:27:26 AM , Rating: 5
You're absolutely correct on the trademarks issue. Every organization has one, and has the absolute right to defend its use.

As for tithing, there is a difference between the Mormons asking for donations to sustain the operation of a church that is run almost exclusively by volunteers and the scientologists demanding money before "helping" someone in their sessions. This practice is especially disturbing when so much of that money goes not to the ongoing operation of the church or helping people but to spying on opponents of the church, suing those you don't agree with for frivolous reasons, expensive vacations and massive salaries for church leaders, etc.

Go read the wiki for scientology, it'll blow your mind. My favorite part is when it talks about Hubbard living out his days on a yacht in the Mediteranean while being served by teenage girls in short shorts. If they didn't obey his "every wish," they would be locked in a small, dark, damp room. If they still refused, he'd dump these teenage girls off at the next port with no money and no one to help them. All this while he was married to a woman living in California.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By Rob Pintwala on 2/7/2008 10:43:09 AM , Rating: 5
I don't think that $100 or less for a wedding is comparable to the $360,000 you have to spend over time to be taught the story of Emperor Xenu.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By Rob Pintwala on 2/7/2008 11:01:34 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not talking about what happened hundreds of years ago. What I'm concerned with is the state of affairs currently. I realize that Scientology is in its infancy, but other religions should take a cue from, let's say, the Roman Catholics. Yes, the Catholic Church was rife with corruption in centuries past, but they eventually came to their senses and cleaned up their ranks. It's difficult to compare the ethical failings of the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago to Scientology now; times have changed.

My point is - just because the Roman Catholic Church purportrated crimes against the common man hundreds of years ago does not excuse Scientology's crimes.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By blowfish on 2/7/2008 11:49:34 AM , Rating: 3
Woohoo! Sounds like Masher, AKA I must always have the last word - is a Scientologist!


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 4
Who was it that said (paraphrasing):

"It has been said that we could give a million monkeys a million typewriters and eventually they'd reproduce all the works of Shakepeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know that isn't true."

Sometimes I sadly find that to be a most accurate statement.


RE: Total nonsense
By rcc on 2/7/2008 12:45:07 PM , Rating: 3
I do believe the original version was an infinite number of monkeys, etc.


RE: Total nonsense
By littlebitstrouds on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By littlebitstrouds on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Ryanman on 2/11/2008 3:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Because the whole point is that we ARE arguing against religion. It's a form of power-grabbing and corruption, and you all know it.
On an individual level, I guess, you can take it as a way to live your life in a way that benefits humanity. The organization of Religion, however, has caused nothing but evil or at the very least good for its own good. And anyone who finds Scientology's tactics more repressive then Catholicism's needs a serious wake up call.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, my guess is athiest...


RE: Total nonsense
By jeff834 on 2/7/2008 10:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
As an atheist I'm moderately offended by that thought. My guess would be he thinks God tells him what to post.


RE: Total nonsense
By treehugger87 on 2/7/2008 11:50:24 PM , Rating: 3
Definately, Assholism.


RE: Total nonsense
By typo101 on 2/8/2008 3:40:09 AM , Rating: 5
Oh lets be fair. masher always uses facts and rationality in his posts, but he can have a rather extremist perspective with more than a touch of arrogance.

I really don't know what his religion is, and I don't care.

By the way, I thought one of the perks of being an atheist is we don't belong to a group. Each atheist can develop their own philosophies so their actions would not reflect other atheists actions/beliefs.


RE: Total nonsense
By maverick85wd on 2/9/2008 9:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh lets be fair. masher always uses facts and rationality in his posts, but he can have a rather extremist perspective with more than a touch of arrogance.


I can agree with that, one of the only things I disagree with potato-masher on is mp3 sharing... the religion thing I don't touch on public forums, I think it's a conversation reserved for having in person


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/8/2008 10:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but when it comes to these things there do seem to be some accurate stereo types involved... For instance:

Rabbid Southern Baptist: "Jesus is the only way to salvation, if you beleive anything at all you will burn in hell. In fact, if you beleive anything other than what I tell you to beleive you will burn in hell, there is no grey area, there is no margin for error, think what I tell you to think or burn" (actually pulling some of this from my very fustrated group of southern baptist friends who I got to listen to ranting for an hour last wed, throwing in the case of the S. Baptist minister/public school teacher).

Rabbid Athiest: "All religion is stupid, so I'm going to latch onto some serious bad mis-information about christianity to try and prove my point that there's no god. yes, I'll ignore the realities of the faith to make my point, because there's no god and everyone should beleive what I beleive or they're completely stupid". (this attitude is visible in this group).

Rabbid Catholic: "The church and pope are always correct. Everyone should always live their lives strictly by church doctrine, because that is how you get into heaven".

Personally I fall middle of the road. I am a roman cathlic, I do have deep faith in god. I don't however beleive everything the church teaches, and I even beleive that god hasn't given us all the answers in the bible like many seem to think because I don't think we're owed all the answers. For instance I beleive that there is intelligent life on other planets, and I think that such life would also be considered "gods childeren", and they probably think the same things about them selves that we think about our selves (created in image of god yada yada). I do even beleive in evolution, I see the creation of earth in this light. Was god planning to bring humanity to life in the same sense as parents trying to have a child, or were we an "accident" so to speak. Think that we may well be an accident, and I think that's fine, because in the end. Here we are. The "accident" would be evolution.


RE: Total nonsense
By ThePooBurner on 2/20/2008 3:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
The Bible makes it clear that God created worlds without end. So for anyone who calls themselves a Christian to not believe that there is life out there and that they are also God's children, as you do, isn't understanding the Bible. However, i would part with you on evolution. I'm a pretty strict creationist. From the sound of your post, though, you may want to check out www.mormon.org It sounds as though you have very common beliefs.


RE: Total nonsense
By AlphaVirus on 2/7/2008 11:23:53 AM , Rating: 1
*Imitates Catholic church*
*Sits down*
*Pays the church*
*Stands up*
*kneels down*
*Stands up*
*kneels down*
*Stands up*
*Sits down*
*Pays the church*
*Leave after 1 hour*

All joking aside I dont think its right for any religion to put its followers into a death grip. Whether they take their money, their freedom, or voice, religions should allow its followers to have some sort of their own personal opinion.


RE: Total nonsense
By sinjinx on 2/7/2008 12:48:59 PM , Rating: 5
I've spent quite a long time poking fun at various religions in the past. Fact is, they're pretty easy targets. And, as an athiest/agnostic, most of the stories that are supposed to explain the various religions seem far-fetched at best.

But, at some point I realized that there are people out there that need something that the church can provide. Some need a support network around them, some need to feel that there will be something for them in the afterlife. Some need contacts for business ventures. Some just want a feeling of belonging.

I know that when I lived in Northwest Florida, heart of the bible belt, that I felt tremendous pressure to attend a church. In fact, being somewhat athletic, I actually attended the baptist church on the corner because it had the best facility for miles. They even came to my house and asked me questions that made me a bit uncomfortable.

My opinion now continues to be that if someone can meet their needs (and yes, even at a cost) and gain some happiness by being a member of church, then who am I to judge? Just don't push it on me and I have no problem with it.


RE: Total nonsense
By FITCamaro on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 4:21:27 PM , Rating: 5
I hope you realize you pretty much described yourself as the definition of agnostic - you "don't know" or "can't know" if there is a god.


RE: Total nonsense
By Malhavoc on 2/7/2008 4:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I like the way that vampire in 30days of Night says, "no god". Gives me shivers of delight and fear at the same time, woot!


RE: Total nonsense
By Spyvie on 2/7/2008 7:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
For whatever reason, religious people are generally both healthier and happier than non religious people.

I'm sorry I don't have a link to post, but I clearly recall more than one legitimate study that reaches this conclusion. My own personal observations would also support this.


RE: Total nonsense
By 3v1lkr0w on 2/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 1:58:50 PM , Rating: 5
Call me a bad catholic, but I actually "pay the church", or more accuratly donate money durring collection very rarely actually. Something that I'm personally trying to work on because I do personally do look very favorably upon how the church (Disosis of Raleigh and my local church) are using donations.

The point is, you don't have to pay the Catholic church to learn about Christiantiy, attend services or do 99% of anything you could want to do. The few things where you do have to pay is more due to the fact that there are very real clerical duties associated with what it is you want done. I.e. marriage (which you have to pay no matter how you get married), burrial (you have to pay no matter what) and a host of other such things like this.


RE: Total nonsense
By redeem4god on 2/8/2008 2:39:16 AM , Rating: 1
Ok first of all both you and Masher are erroneously wrong on all of what you "think" are facts. Therefore, here is a little education.

Tithing is nothing like being charged and "entrance" or "attendance" fee. That is the equivalent of being charged for your presence at college. You pay for a seat there same difference. Tithing is written in the bible and states that 10% of everything you earn is rightfully gods. Whether you give it up is between you and him. A true non-denomination church only asks, never demands.

Second, not every religion and defiantly not the physical churches themselves have trademarks or copyrights. Go ahead Google cornerstone church and see how many churches show up with that name in different states with no relation to each other. Christian churches interweave their names without care and without suing each other. Third being a former catholic, I know for a fact, they do NOT have trademarks. People who write catholic books, design catholic cloths and items used in a church, possibly yes but not the Roman Catholic Church itself. They buy their items from private vendors just like any other business. THOSE are the ones with trademarks and copyrights. Furthermore, having written extensively on Martin Luther who originally exposed the Catholic Church for its iniquities, I can tell you that the same corruption is still there. They still put more faith in sacraments then in god and they allow the pope to be worshiped like a king among men. He even wears a crown out in public. I am continuously amazed at how people try to argue on a subject they no nothing about because they refuse to actually read the bible for themselves. Instead they have a biased one sided view. Athiests and Agnostics want christians to debate god, while we chose to declare him. Do your homework.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 5:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "Third being a former catholic, I know for a fact, they do NOT have trademarks..."

Oops -- the individual dicoese do most certainly maintain both copyrights and trademarks, and enforce them on occasion via lawsuit. See Archdiocese of St. Louis vs. Internet Entertainment Group for just such a suit.

Here's the specific legal verbiage on the Archdiocese of Detroit's site:
quote:
The Site and all audio and visual information, images, photographs, video, text, documents, products and other materials contained or displayed in, or made available through, the Site (the "Content") are owned by Archdiocese of Detroit, its affiliates and/or its third party licensors and are protected by U.S. and international copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws .


RE: Total nonsense
By Hoser McMoose on 2/7/2008 10:05:19 PM , Rating: 5
Yup, it was total crap when the pre-reformation Roman Catholics did it then and it's total crap when Scientology does it now.

The immoral behavior of one religion is no excuse for immoral behavior by another in my books.


RE: Total nonsense
By andyjary on 2/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By treehugger87 on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/8/2008 8:35:23 AM , Rating: 1
If you don't like his comments, simply don't read them.


RE: Total nonsense
By SavagePotato on 2/8/2008 10:22:15 AM , Rating: 1
A different kind of volunteer, one that has actually payed to be there in cash dollars.

I don't think the local catholic church charges it's parishioners thousands of dollars to man the church barbecue.

All religions are scary in their own way, Scientology is just the scariest freak show of the bunch. Why? the money and power they have. It's a rational fear that an organization with that much money behind it could come to even more power, power over governments etc.

I'm not particularly worried about the crazy Christian wife swap lady on youtube gaining the ear of presidents anytime soon. Something like Scientology though, makes me hope someone puts them down soon before they get the power to start forcing their perspective on others.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 8:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why? the money and power they have...I'm not particularly worried about the crazy Christian wife swap lady on youtube gaining the ear of presidents anytime soon."

I can promise you that Pope Benedict -- or Billy Graham for that matter -- gets far more ear time from Presidents than any Scientologist will this century.

Will Scientology one day become a major world religion? Possibly so...but it will be several hundred years away, if ever.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/8/2008 1:06:16 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, there's a big difference between having folks tell you to that paying tithing is a part of choosing between heaven and the alternatives, and what the Scientologists say to get their dollars. Mormons make billions of dollars. They're also the ones responsible for starting the drug war. A lot of these organizations are big on this war in Iraq, the propaganda campaign around Iran, create problems with nipple slips and paranoia around sexuality (it's ok that children learn how to kill with guns in games, but it's the end of the world should they see a naked breast!), discriminate openly against homosexuals, cry out whenever their rights are violated but are the first to come out against other people's rights. Did you know students at BYU aren't even allowed to have sex unless it's their spouse? How insane is that? The US allows such organizations to pull this kind of BS? Mormons are as big a part of the problem in the world as any organization. Some have said that Scientologists reject those who've been under psychiatric care. Did you know that Mormons will reject you for being homosexual, or having an abortion? I happen to know a bit more about that cult than others, having once been associated with them.

All religions cause problems. All religions discriminate. I don't see how Scientology stands out in the crowd in this regard. I remember awhile ago Tom Cruise got shot down for recommending that an actress - I forget her name - take vitamins instead of drugs (prescribed by a doctor). Looking at the girl you could see she was malnourished and probably hadn't seen a proper meal in ages. The vitamins probably would have helped her a lot more than those drugs.

Now, speaking of wild and wacky celebs and their religions, did anyone hear about what Mel Gibson was up to a year or two ago? Isn't he Catholic? I think he's gone Mad!


RE: Total nonsense
By skroh on 2/7/2008 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 4
I knew it was inevitable that someone would make a comment equating all religious belief with Scientology and implying that, since any belief in the spiritual or supernatural must be false, all religions are essentially cults. I just find it disapponting that such low-rent philosophy is posted by someone who represents DailyTech.

Whether or not one prefers an entirely naturalistic, materialist worldview, surely we can draw some distinction between a belief system that represents the shared experiences of millions of people over thousands of years who claim to have had meaningful encounters with an active, self-revealing deity, and a belief system created from whole cloth by a hack pulp sci fi author 50 years ago.


RE: Total nonsense
By Proteusza on 2/7/2008 9:49:20 AM , Rating: 3
Frankly, if we declare all religions as having unlikely, implausible and downright strange, that doesnt improve things for Scientologists.

It could be argued that people believe in the Abrahmic religions due to societal pressure to conform, and thus what we see as strange seems quite normal to those whose family and friends all accept such truths as true.

However, in the case of Scientology, because it is so new, there is no precedent, and therefore no societal pressure to conform. Anyone who therefore decides to believe in Scientology has either been brainwashed (we know that the "Church" of Scientology uses a form of hypnosis) or is simply lacking in grey matter.


RE: Total nonsense
By skroh on 2/7/2008 10:18:49 AM , Rating: 5
Well-said. I think another useful way to distinguish a cult from a religion is that, while representatives of religions may engage in criminal behavior from time to time, cults usually include criminal behavior--fraud, extortion, unlawful imprisonment, etc.--in their regular practices, something that Scientology certainly stands accused of.

By extension, a classical religion that turns to such behavior on an organized scale (such as the Spanish Inquisition and other episodes in Christian history) is choosing to become a cult, although they can clean up their act and regain their legitimacy (as in the Reformation).


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By geddarkstorm on 2/7/2008 12:27:24 PM , Rating: 5
They don't teach that doing that is right. In fact it's wrong by their own beliefs (but of course laws and belief cannot alone stop crime). That's the difference.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 12:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
They covered up - and, in fact, aided in the continuance of - these crimes. If your best friend molested a kid and you helped him intimidate the witnesses and got him another job with accessible children, you would be able to discuss your beliefs with him in a jail cell.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 4
They were all acts committed by man. We are all sinners. That is what it means. They did not do those things in the name of God, but in the sins of man.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 2:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They were all acts committed by man. We are all sinners. That is what it means. They did not do those things in the name of God, but in the sins of man.
How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? A bunch of people at high levels in a religious organization knowingly allowed child molestation to occur. Why does "because they didn't say it was for God" give the organization a free pass?

Should Enron have been allowed to say, "But that wasn't in our mission statement" and gotten off with a wag of the finger?


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 3:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
It's entirely relevant. Only the people involved in the scandal at Enron were prosecuted. Maybe you'd like to imprison the janitor as well? What kind of logic is that?


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
>Whereas none of the enablers in the church were.

Never said that, did I?

>Straw man, I believe.

Likewise.


RE: Total nonsense
By VashHT on 2/8/2008 11:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
The point is the even though the church opposes molestation they did nothing to prosecute those in their ranks, in fact they helped them and protected them. If they put their own priests above their own laws then that leaves the floor open to anything, if they don't even have to follow the religion they preach how than even claim to be teaching anything that is belief based. Yes the catholic church officially opposes molestation of children, but they should have thrown the priests that did it out of the church and left them at the full mercy of the law. I come from a catholic family, and all of the catholics I know refuse to accept that those priests were actually molesting children. They all claim that the people who came out were lying and just hated the church. When people can't admit faults in their church then they can be lead to believe terrible things.


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/8/2008 11:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
That's incredible. Most of the Catholics I know were outraged and ashamed. Certain appeals now have to be clearly labelled as not to be used for the defense of preists charged with sex crimes in order to gain any traction.

That people would go to such lengths to deny that these things happened is damned scary.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 4:30:57 PM , Rating: 3
If it's so wrong and they acknowledge it, then why cover it up? Why not expose it and denounce it?

Then there's the case of the minister in Colorado last year who was a homophobe in his sermons that had a secret gay relationship.

We're all sinners, but people seem to be presenting the churches and organized religions of the world in a more respectable light than those of the cults. And really a religion is just a socially accepted cult. They both have systems of beliefs that are unprovable, they both have dirty little secrets and questionable practices, they both have legions of followers who maniacally follow their leaders, they both preach the way to "salvation" is through them and non-believers are at a disadvantage, etc. The only difference is that over time and by developing more followers, a religion has become socially accepted where a cult has not achieved that status.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:10:17 AM , Rating: 4
> "surely we can draw some distinction between a belief system...over thousands of years..., and a belief system created from whole cloth by a hack pulp sci fi author 50 years ago. "

That's just the point. At one point, Islam, Christianity, etc, were all newly "created from whole cloth". The primary difference between a cult and a major religion is in its age and number of adherents. The line between the two is not only extremely fuzzy, its erased automatically by time. Is Chondogyo -- the Korean religion founded 200 years ago -- a cult? How about Sikhism, founded 500 years ago, and with tens of millions of followers today? What about Rastafarianism, only a mere 70 years old?

I'm sure you realize from the early history of the Christian Church, it was widely considered a cult, and its members treated as such.

Did Hubbard fabricate "divine revelations" in order to gain fame and fortune? Almost certainly...but the same was said of Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and even Siddharta Gautama.

By the way, I don't represent DT. The views and opinions expressed herein are my own, and do not reflect those of DT, nor its owners or management.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 10:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, I was just about to post a similar statement. Then Firefox crashed.

To add to the idea that time transitions cults into religions is the number of followers. The more people that follow that system of beliefs, the more mainstream they become, and the more accepted they become by wider society.

And all religions/cults instruct their followers that theirs is the only "true" way to salvation (terminology varies, the idea is the same).


RE: Total nonsense
By Yawgm0th on 2/7/2008 1:01:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And all religions/cults instruct their followers that theirs is the only "true" way to salvation (terminology varies, the idea is the same).


Not all religions profess that their way is the only way to "salvation" -- in fact most don't. It is extremely ignorant to claim otherwise.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 1:24:33 PM , Rating: 1
Pretty much all monotheistic religions do-- Islam, Catholicism, all the various Protestant faiths.

You can find a little more slack in the Vedic and Far East religions, but still the central tenet is that those who don't adhere to the belief system are going to suffer additionally in some manner.


RE: Total nonsense
By Janooo on 2/7/2008 3:10:18 PM , Rating: 3
You are wrong about Catholicism. They do not comment on other religion's way of 'salvation'.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:23:29 PM , Rating: 3
Except the whole "no-one can get to God except through me" bit sure...


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, don't forget the whole 'I came not to change the law, but to fufill it' bit, either.


RE: Total nonsense
By Janooo on 2/7/2008 5:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
And how is that related to other religions?


RE: Total nonsense
By damncrackmonkey on 2/7/2008 10:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
If someone speaks of gods other than God, they are to be stoned to death. That relates to other religions, right?


RE: Total nonsense
By feraltoad on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By Iliketofrolic666 on 2/7/2008 7:30:32 PM , Rating: 4
You are incorrect as is much of the media. The popes statements were taken out of context. BTW I am an atheist, so no ad hominem attack for you.

The document said the Catholic Church alone has "the fullness of the means of salvation."

The Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches separated in the schism of 1054, and since then the Orthodox community does not recognize the pope's primacy - a defect, according to the document. Protestant denominations, meanwhile, lack "apostolic succession," the ability to trace their bishops back to the 12 Apostles, it said.

At the same time, the Vatican "would not deny that Lutherans or Methodists or Evangelicals ... have elements of the faith but do not constitute a church in the technical sense," Cunningham said.

Still, "not everyone's going to love this clarity," he said.

George Weigel, who has written biographies of Pope Benedict and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, said the document contains nothing new, and questioned why it had been issued now.

It "does not deny the presence of God's grace in other Christian communions, but the Catholic Church is never going to say ... that it is anything other than the most properly ordered expression of the will of Christ for his church," he said.

--http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-te.pope...


RE: Total nonsense
By feraltoad on 2/8/2008 4:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the better citation, the Catholic church states it is THE TRUE CHURCH of GOD, but they aren't going to say God can't give out grace as he so chooses to whomever he chooses, as is his wont. Just like everyone else they are saying, "we are the authority". They are all selling a product, and all claim their's is the soley unadulterated.


RE: Total nonsense
By Mojo the Monkey on 2/7/2008 2:28:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Funny, I was just about to post a similar statement. Then Firefox crashed .


Lies planted by Church of Scientology to confuse the issue.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:22:23 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe firefox decided it wanted feedback. Then crashed...


RE: Total nonsense
By exanimas on 2/7/2008 7:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, before I read your post I was about to make a joke about Firefox crashing being one of the signs of the Apocalypse... But yours is much better.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/8/2008 7:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
Its funny because it true...


RE: Total nonsense
By skroh on 2/7/2008 10:39:06 AM , Rating: 5
My contention is that such a depiction of all major religions is simplistic. Even a person of faith would consider most, if not all, belief systems other than his own to be incorrect. That is why he believes what he does rather than what they do. But not all truth claims are equally robust or equally sincere. It isn't just time and popularity that distinguishes them.

Let's take one example--Judaism--and contrast it to Scientology. The authors of Hebrew scripture are spread over hundreds of years, many if not most of them claiming that their accounts are based on recurrent personal encounters with the deity they describe. Those accounts, in most cases, describe events that were witnessed by thousands if not millions of people. Does anyone, even Hubbard, claim to have spoken with Xenu or seen (or even ridden aboard) the craft that brought humanity to Earth?

We have on the one hand a faith built upon experiences of many people, in many places, over many years; on the other hand a faith built on one book written by one man with no experiential evidence (as far as my limited knowledge of Scientology can say) to back it up. That is what I meant by whole cloth, and while we may not be able to make precise distinctions between more or less convincing beliefs, surely we can agree there is a spectrum and Scientology is near the bottom of that spectrum?


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "Those accounts, in most cases, describe events that were witnessed by thousands if not millions of people"

Barring purely secular events like the reign of Kings, and who begat whom, there are no events in the Judeo-Christian mythos that were "witnessed by thousands if not millions".

There are claims to such in certain points in the Talmud and particularly the Christian bible. However, those claims occurred long after the supposed events themselves.

That's the benefit of being an ancient religion. You can make up whatever you like about the early history, and no one can dispute it. In fact, if one traces the evolution of Judeo-Christian thought, you can see just this occurring many times throughout the ages. The early conception of "Sheol" (hell) was far different than what we believe today, for instance. The Judaic belief in an afterlife was fabricated from whole cloth after the Diaspora, for another...primarily because the original belief (that one received the rewards of a just life while still on Earth) were incompatible with a people that were getting their **** handed to them on the regular basis.


RE: Total nonsense
By murphyslabrat on 2/7/2008 3:06:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
That's the benefit of being an ancient religion. You can make up whatever you like about the early history, and no one can dispute it.

However, the Torah (the first five books in the traditional Christian bible) have the God-card: God guided the writers-through visions, dreams, or direct communication-in the writing of what happened. If you don't believe in God/a god, it is ridiculous; but otherwise, it makes sense. Not to mention, the facts were often in story already, and the writings were compilations of these oral/written traditions.

After that, the writings are either progressive and generational, such as the Kings and Chronicles, or the writings of prophets. Whether made up or not, the facts contained were experienced by most of the people of Israel, and are mostly relevant in terms of provability.

quote:
...primarily because the original belief (that one received the rewards of a just life while still on Earth) were incompatible with a people that were getting their **** handed to them on the regular basis.

In the very beginning, while not spoken of directly as "where you might go when you die," the scriptures do talk about Lucifer (the nice guy we know as Satan) being ejected from the presence of God. This is most likely a reference to the place, referred to throughout even the Jewish cannon, where God manifests himself in a special way.

The idea that the "rewards of a just life are experienced here on earth", is not one that was ever incompatible with the Jewish state. The scriptures are full of stories about good men being prosecuted wrongly, and they are not always vindicated. Stories like Joseph and Moses are there, but more often it plays out more like with Jezebel: quickly and brutally killed, and mostly because of here own affluence.

Despite that, this idea of earthly rewards for "good living" are expressed in peace and contentment. For instance, a proverb from Solomon: "better is the corner of a rooftop than a household with squabbling." This idea of contentment is directly the product of righteousness and wisdom, and often precludes expression of earthly wealth. Of course, this is not at all to detract from the promises of earthly wealth with the practice of wise business, just sometimes these rewards come in the form of realizing the wealth already possessed.

Basically, the promise of reward for a just life is as follows: righteousness brings peace with God, and anyone who is wise (not to be confused with intelligence) can see that as being worth far more than the riches of the greatest king.


RE: Total nonsense
By damncrackmonkey on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By LTG on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By TomZ on 2/7/2008 10:53:33 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know what Scientology has been up to lately, but in the 1970's they were a seriously scary organization. Kind of like a church/cult/mob/terrorist group combined into one.

And, as you probably know, top Scientology members were convicted of a number of very serious crimes in the 1970's and did jail time.

Reading about L. Ron Hubbard, he was also a seriously messed up guy. I would say he ranked right up there with Hitler and people like that. He could have been even more seriously dangerous had he been more successful. To base a "religion" on the "teachings" of such a person is unbelievable.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 12:07:10 PM , Rating: 1
Which is similar to how the Pharisees and Saducees (sp?) approached Jesus. You can draw all sorts of parallels to Scientology and any of the major religions in the world. Of course, the followers of any religion will tell you that theirs is different from the rest because it's what they believe.


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:07:42 PM , Rating: 3
Or because they'd rather think critically than simply accept that events two thousands years apart are entirely equivocal.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 11:30:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Did Hubbard fabricate "divine revelations" in order to gain fame and fortune? Almost certainly...but the same was said of Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and even Siddharta Gautama.
But I think it's way dumber for Scientology because, while the backstory is equally silly when taken at face value, at least nobody has direct quotes of Jesus saying how funny it would be to sucker people out of their money.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 1:40:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
at least nobody has direct quotes of Jesus saying how funny it would be to sucker people out of their money.


Jesus gets his tax money from the mouth of a fish. Don't you think that's funny?


RE: Total nonsense
By Noya on 2/7/2008 2:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 2:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
That was always one of my favorites too...


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 10:29:26 AM , Rating: 1
You have to understand that in todays world, it is popular to think of faith in God as 'mythology'. The truth is they are all suffering from hubris. They seem to believe that if God were real, he would show up at their door to prove it. But at the same time they doubt the existence of God, they believe that life just happened out of nowhere, and without a missing link, they believe we evolved from primates, some of who chose to stick around because it was just that fun to be a monkey. I see the world where everything has a purpose, everything from man to single cell organisms make this world into something habitable, each doing their part. but somehow, people believe it is more intelligent to have faith in an unproven theory than faith in God, and not even realize they don't have proof for their theory. To be completely honest, I struggle with my faith based purely on thinking that it's not possible, or logical for a being like that to exist. But that is just pride. To reiterate, everyone has faith in something unprovable.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 10:36:03 AM , Rating: 3
> " they believe we evolved from primates, some of who chose to stick around because it was just that fun to be a monkey."

Please. If you want to discuss evolution, at least represent it accurately.


RE: Total nonsense
By GreenyMP on 2/7/2008 10:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think that he represented evolution more accurately than you represented religion.


RE: Total nonsense
By EuroGamer on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "As far as facts go, could you give me the link to the article that proves human evolution?"

Sure:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/07081...

Molecular biology has proven evolution wholly independently of Darwin's theory of natural selection.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 1:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So your arguments are 1. I don't use my brain a whole lot. And 2. I must be a high school dropout.
It's also possible that you don't use your brain a whole lot because you went to a useless high school. Just as likely, I would say.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 2:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
"So your arguments are 1. I don't use my brain a whole lot. And 2. I must be a high school dropout. I'm guessing you were captain of the debate club. But I could be wrong too. As far as facts go, could you give me the link to the article that proves human evolution?"

There is numnerous ways it has been proven... DNA evidence, and fossil records are the top 2.

You mentioned the "missing link" above, and that is why you are being called uneducated. The "missing link" has been found, and many links in between, and scientifically classified with names... We are so past that argument that its not even funny. For you to even suggest that the missing link has not been found shows your lack of knowledge on the issue.

Please check this link, it will help you toward enlightenment....

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html#chart

did you know that yours, mine and any african, asian, native american indian on the planets DNA are 99.999% exactly alike?

did you know that all human DNA and chimpanzees are 99.2% exactly alike? And did you know that our DNA is 97% exactly alike with dogs? 77% exactly the same as any insect as well. Thats right, we are more alike an insect than we are different. DNA has also proven that we all decended from a small group of about 10,000 people that surviced 70,000 years ago.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 4:33:54 PM , Rating: 1
And your scientific explanation is, it just happened? What is it then that pushes life to change? You must believe DNA just happened too. I have a theory for you, a very plausible one. First there was nothing. then it blew up. Suspend your disbelief please. It will make sense. Now some things that weren't there before that have now blown up, and presumably away from each other now form together, while still moving away, from, well nothing. Fast forward through the stars and planets and solar systems just happening, and we look into a puddle of mud and again, seemingly from nothing, life starts. Then it changes, because the slime can see, although it has no eyes yet, that there are other things to do, places to see, of which it doesn't know that it wants to do, but it does try to get there so that someday it can become bi-pedal and have free will, so it can then point out each others differences and decide to destroy itself(humanity plus all living organisms) with total nucular (thx George) war, so that it can then turn back into slime.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 4:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now some things that weren't there before that have now blown up


How can something not there blow up?

quote:
presumably away from each other now form together, while still moving away


How can something be moving away from nothing, and from each other and still come together?


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 4:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "What is it then that pushes life to change?"

Do you truly not know even the basic summary of evolution? Animals within a species vary. Some of that variation is inherited. Some of that variation influences the ability to survive and reproduce. Therefore, over time, advantageous traits become more common.

We see evolution ocurring today, in real time. Man discovers antibiotics, uses them widely. Bacteria which happen to be more slightly resistant proliferate, spawning ever-more resistant species. Soon, we have "superbugs" -- new variants wholly resistant to antibiotics.

> "You must believe DNA just happened too"

You must believe God just happened too.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 5:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
I was speaking more in the very beginning, where it matters most, what pushes life to change. Why would life become more complex. Everything I see in nature tends to break down, become less over time. As far as your bacteria, has a bacteria ever decided to become something other than bacteria?I mean I f i was being hunted down by antibiotics, I would be like "screw this man, being a bacteria sucks. I'm gonna be a virus" or something like that. I can't even get my mind wrapped around God, much less on where God came from. You win on that one.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 5:39:31 PM , Rating: 3
> "has a bacteria ever decided to become something other than bacteria?"

Sure. The entire doman of Archea (extremophiles) originally evolved from bacteria. In fact, pretty much all animals did if you trace things back far enough.

> "Why would life become more complex"

Life doesn't automatically become more complex. By far the most succesful species ever are the single-celled organisms. There are far more of them alive than humans on earth.

Some species become more complex because an ecological niche exists in which a more complex organism can better filll it. Over time, the species evolves to fit the niche. And sometimes-- when conditions change, for instance -- a species can "devolve" to a less complex form.

And get off this "decides to become" kick. That's not how evolution works, and I think you know that.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 5:58:29 PM , Rating: 3
Bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes are believed to come from the same unknown(gotta love it) ancestor.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html
http://www.earthlife.net/prokaryotes/archaea.html


RE: Total nonsense
By EuroGamer on 2/7/2008 4:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Just happened? The Universe has existed for BILLIONS of years (unless you believe in "creationsism" which says the Earth and the Universe is 2000 years old and that dinosaurs are a creation of Satan himself...

Primoridal soup (which is what I assume you're talking about with slime) is far more complex than you make it out to be, which given your blog of text, isn't surprising.

You cannot ever paraphrase a scientific theory in a few words. You can do that with religion and such but doing that with science is like saying (given that this is a tech site, so a computer analogy will be used) that a PC is a bunch of wires and soldering (while that isn't wrong, it's a gross simplification).

Evolution is proven on a micro scale. As for the macro scale, I doubt it'll stay a theory for long.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 4:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
Creationists believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old (or maybe 10000 years).


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 5:15:25 PM , Rating: 3
I knew someones panties would get in a knot. I was talking about the big bang. I thought that was obvious. I think it is interesting that the explanation for the universe is that it just happened, and the same for life. It just happened. And given the limited space, how could I not simplify it? Work with me here.


RE: Total nonsense
By Iliketofrolic666 on 2/7/2008 7:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Counter-argument:
I think it is interesting that the explanation for God is that it just happened.(See what I did there? :-) )

If your argument is that the universe needs a cause, than God needs a cause as well.

P.S.
My magic ball predicts that your response will contain special pleading.


RE: Total nonsense
By Iliketofrolic666 on 2/7/2008 7:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
*If your argument is that the universe needs a cause, than by your logic God needs a cause as well.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/8/2008 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think it is interesting that the explanation for the universe is that it just happened, and the same for life. It just happened. And given the limited space, how could I not simplify it?
The difference between science and religion is that, if given more space, one could write several books on the reasons we believe the Big Bang "just happened". But there isn't anything you can add about God "just happening", other than the fact you believe it to be true.

If you want to have faith-- fine. But don't confuse it with science. Do we know what caused the Big Bang? No, but we have vast realms of data which support the fact that it did.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 4:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
And to answer your question, it sounds like an intelligent way to design things.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 5:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I believe it was Intelligent design, not that it just happened randomly... As for your other long winded question on the big bang, the truth is, no-one knows what was before that.

What is your point by all that? Are you still claiming to be ignorant enough to think some god just zapped us into being 7000 years ago?


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 5:46:08 PM , Rating: 3
Why do have to call my question long winded? Don't hate. At least someone gets my point, no one knows. I think it's unlikely that we were zapped into being, but I don't have so much faith in the scientific religion (or community) to say we weren't. I haven't read the part of the bible that says God zapped us into being 7000 years(give or take) ago. So I really am not the authority on that. Maybe there is a tree that has 7000+ rings on it somewhere that has I heart Adam buried in the layers. I do know that in evolution that we have come to the point now where Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time instead of the classic evolution of man from ape to briefcase. And it all gets shrugged off. I guess that's why it's called the ever-evolving theory of evolution.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 6:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
"Why do have to call my question long winded? Don't hate. "

Not hating... It was just your big bang comment/train of thought above was hard to follow when reading.

I am glad to see you do know a bit more than you originally let on... But if you know what Homo erectus and Homo habilis are, how can you question evolution, and say "where is the missing link"? They are a part of the procession from ape to man, they are a very big part of what used to be considered the missing link. Now it is no longer missing, and I think you know that... You are just posting as if you dont... Not sure why


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 6:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have a hard time following my train of thought quite a bit. Something is always running through there. I read up on all sorts of things that interest me. Evolution is one of them. I like to know all sides and the more I read about evolution, the less convinced I am. But then again I don't need to believe it. If you don't like the term missing link, call it what you want. Some theories in evolution still have Homo sapiens appearing spontaneously. To have believable science, you can't prove it with "let's just assume man evolved from some unknown" and call it fact.
Did you read this story last year? If you don't like the source, you can google it elsewhere.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug09/0,4670,Huma...


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 6:57:02 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry man... Fox news = zero credibility. It is an irrelevant right wing ragnews organization puching lies like this, and will do anything to discredit free thinking and puch its right wing religios agenda.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 7:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
You need to get off the Fox news isn't credible kick. If you were a conservative, you would know they don't lean this way, they just decided not to follow the big 3 and you got sucked into the hype. Stop drinking the kool-aid. Seriously. Like I said, if you don't like the source, research the material. I originally read it on yahoo when it came out, but look into it. Get your head out of the sand and don't be so afraid of Fox news, and I can tell that you don't because of your ignorance of it's political leanings. At least they tell you the political affiliation of the reporters/hosts/guests, and yes they do get left and right wingers. Can't say as much for the other channels. And I am one of the 4 people that watches MSNBC on occasion.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 7:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, and it's an AP story.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 8:29:30 PM , Rating: 1
OK, you are right, I saw FOX and I didn't look, assuming it was more of the crud they put out. I read it, and yes, it makes sense. Dating bones is difficult and new finds change the thoughts on the exact lineage we came from and time in which we think certain species lived...

none of this changes the absolute rock hard fact that we evolved from Apes... Just our knowledge of precisely when, and how on each branch of our family tree.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/8/2008 8:16:04 AM , Rating: 2
Fox news fair, unbiased and no evidence of hypocrisy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whYi8sCF5Pg


RE: Total nonsense
By adiposity on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 3
For the record, monkeys do look like they have fun. Maybe they stuck around because it's not socially acceptable for humans to throw their own feces.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 2:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
I should also point out that your "why are there still monkeys" comment further shows your ignorance. Not every group changed, or had the need to change. Keep in mind it takes millions of years.

Think of cats, for example. Why are there so many species? Because different groups in different areas developed different needs, and evolved accordingly.

Let me give you a quick run down of what science has proven on human evolution.

millions of years ago the Indian plate began pushing into Asia pushing the himalayans upward, disrupting global wather patterns and making much of Africa's jungles into savannas over many millions of years.

Eventually the apes that were living in trees in some areas had little trees left so they had to leave the safety of the trees to go onto land, and these apes developed the ability to walk upright. Not all apes were in this situation - and not all evolved the same

Food became more and more scarce and our plant eating ancestors had to improvise and start scavenging meat. The addition of the high protein content from meat made their brains grow (again over hundreds of thousands of years) and they got smarter and smarter and learned to hunt and make crude weapons out of stone.

Later still, fire was invented (or I should say they learned to harness fire) and they went from huddling scared and cold in the dark to being warm and safe, as animals that hunted them are afraid of the fire... and soon enough became the head of the food chain. Now that primitive ape-man was no longer spending 100% of his time surviving, and huddling in the dark, he had time to relax, and dream, and imagine, giving rise to even larger brains and smarter hominids that we are today.

Modern man appeared on the scene appx 150,000 years ago and began to prosper. Earlier versions of apelike man died off. Appx 70,000 years ago there was a global event, most scientists beleive to be the massive supervolcano in Toba disrupted global wather patterns and killed off many species. Man was down to about 10,000 people. Easily on the endangered species list if one existed. Of those 10,000, we are all descendants, some left africa and went into the middle east, then india, south asia, australia and north asia, some went into Europe and met up with Neanderthol, another humanoid species that was dying out. Some even crossed the bering straight from Asia to Alaska and thier descendants became what we call native americans. The human genome project analyzed DNA from people all over the world from all races and it proved that we all came from about 10,000 african people that survived 70,000 years ago. Some left africa, and thier descendants populated the rest of the globe

This is all proven science, not a theory. As ignorant as it is to ask why are there still apes is, another ignorant comment from uneducated people is "well if they found the missing link I'd believe it"... The missing link was what it was called when it was missing, 100 years ago. It has long since been found and mapped out.


RE: Total nonsense
By jimbojimbo on 2/7/2008 3:13:31 PM , Rating: 3
You guys are all wrong. Xenu brought us here on giant DC-8 ships. If you all pay me $1000 up front I'll prove it to you.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 4:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
I love it. In all of the different articles on evolution I read, there is not a unified theory. Now that I think about it, the only thing that evolves is the theory. If the missing link was taken care of years ago, why do scientists keep thinking they've found it, then sweep the evidence to the contrary under the rug?


RE: Total nonsense
By EuroGamer on 2/7/2008 4:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
Want a missing link? The platypus. Now if that isn't a link to something (which people like you can VISIBLY see), then I don't know what is.

Anyways, every creature on Earth is a missing link. We are constantly evolving into the next species.

Please straycat, find your home alley, get on google and read up on evolution thouroughly.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 5:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
"If the missing link was taken care of years ago, why do scientists keep thinking they've found it, then sweep the evidence to the contrary under the rug?"


Your question makes no sense. Then again, neither do you.

Unified theory? Either you have heard zero of the theory of evolution, or are too dimwitted to pay attention to how we evolved. Get your head out of the bible and try to educate yourself man !!!


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 6:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
What color is the evolutionary kool-aid anyhow? By the way, name calling means I win.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 10:36:33 AM , Rating: 2
So if they are all "unprovable", what makes it better to believe in an "unprovable" God versus an "unprovable" evolution, for example. Other than hubris to believe that a theory involving God is more respectable than a theory involving science? The "threat" that not believing in not only God, but God as religion X defines God will damn the non-believer to eternal damnation while evolution doesn't threaten the non-believer with fire and brimstone?


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 10:41:19 AM , Rating: 4
Last time I checked, God and science were not mutually exclusive.


RE: Total nonsense
By James Holden on 2/7/2008 10:45:23 AM , Rating: 1
Don't tell that to theoretical physicists ....


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 10:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
Don't even get me started on the theory of physics!


RE: Total nonsense
By LTG on 2/7/2008 10:53:21 AM , Rating: 5
Many of the greatest scientists in history have been and will continue to be devout religious people.

Just because you don't believe the earth is only 5000 years old doesn't mean you don't believe in God.

Many physicists consider themselves to be discovering God's creations.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 5:34:18 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. There are 3 schools of thought on this.

1. We evolved totally at random.
-this is what an athiest thinks
2. We evolved based on the laws of nature that are governed by an unknown higher intellegence that many would call god.
- this is intelligent design.
3. We were zapped into being appx. 7000 years ago by go
- this would be what an uneducated, narrow minded ignorant Christian would think. Anyone that thinks this in this day and age has no place in an intelligent conversation.


RE: Total nonsense
By Xerio on 2/7/2008 6:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are as bad as the religious nuts that say, "Join my church or you're going to hell."

Either people believe the same things you do or they are unintelligent? Nice.


RE: Total nonsense
By retrospooty on 2/7/2008 8:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
If you are referring to the fact that I said "anyone who thinks we were zapped into being appx. 7000 years ago by god is an uneducated, narrow minded and ignorant." then I disagree. I stand behind that comment. I stand in front of it all wrap myself all around it.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 7:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
I knew it-you're a hater.


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 12:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
I never said they were. Please read the post. The OP discussed evolution and God as both being unprovable and I was discussing his post in context.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
Neither is unprovable, an argument has been laid out for evolution. All you have to do to prove God exists is find the Babel fish.


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
>Neither is unprovable [if you have the right axioms in place]

The ability to prove anything hinges on axioms. Those of science and religion often differ, but they reach the same critical point if you consider the underpinnings of the universe.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 4:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
Go on...


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 5:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sure. So evolution can be regressed all the way to the big bang - then the question becomes 'How did the big bang happen?' and we've 'answered' that. Then we move on to 'why was there a super-heated very dense mass of matter sitting out in the middle of the universe to begin with? How did it get there?' again, we have an 'answer' - The Uncertainty Princple (an uncertain theory, at best, though). But then the question just becomes 'How did the Uncertainty Principle get there? Maxwell's Equations? Einstein's Special relativity? The laws of Quantum Physics? Where is Schroedinger's cat? etc.' And,we're not really sure about those.

Now, I won't really touch the religious view because 1. I don't think it's eclusive of any of those I just outlined and 2. there's way too many versions.

In the end, both theories have unanswered questions, and have to take things for granted - axioms. People use axioms everyday - they're essential to make any kind of sense out of the world. Some may be inconsistent, or less plausible, but everyone uses them.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 5:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
'why was there a super-heated very dense mass of matter sitting out in the middle of the universe to begin with? How did it get there?


One theory is that two or more membranes collided. As a theory it will be tested and accepted or rejected, I don't think that counts as an axiom.

PS there wasn't any matter involved in the big bang, that came later as the universe cooled.

I suppose the axiom is if there was "something" be it God or the big bang (whatever caused it) what caused what something?


RE: Total nonsense
By DASQ on 2/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 2:02:45 PM , Rating: 2
So, some being must have created mankind. Then what, do tell, created God? People believe in God because they're afraid of death. I'm not afraid of death.

If someone gets a part of their brains destroyed, often they can become completely different people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injur...
In death, the brain is completely gone. If losing half the mind can change the person, even to the point of being child-like or like that of a vegetable, then the death of the mind must surely mean an end to that person altogether. If it was purely a matter of spirit, then brain injury alone wouldn't be able to affect personality or identity. The spirit, after all, would be the prop under such reasoning.

Since you like Socrates so much, I'll pull my favorite of his and paraphrase - All the world's a television, and everyone in it merely actors - So, even actors like Adolph Hitler, who inadvertently set India free from England while putting another in a series of camps, must be seen as what they really were: actors on a stage, not to be despised or hated, but merely actors following a script.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 2:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Since you like Socrates so much, I'll pull my favorite of his and paraphrase - All the world's a television, and everyone in it merely actors "

Err, aren't you paraphrasing Shakespeare there, not Socrates? :)


RE: Total nonsense
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/7/2008 2:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts.

Shakespear didn't coin it either. But he did use as a central theme in "As You Like It."


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 3:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, aren't you paraphrasing Shakespeare there, not Socrates? :)


I wish it was fresher in my mind than it is. The quote, roughly, is that of Shakespeare's, but the philosophy is much older. I know I've read it somewhere in Plato's dialogues. I'll have to wring it out of my volume sometime tomorrow. It's got something to do with people, in the pre-mortal life, choosing which parts they would play. The first would quickly choose the tyrant. He then goes on to show how foolish such a wish would be. When I read it, I was struck by how similar it was in meaning to what Shakespeare said.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 4
I am so glad you have life dialed in. You seem so at peace, very little anger there. I for one am with Socrates "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing"


RE: Total nonsense
By diablofish on 2/7/2008 11:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
And "All I really know is I don't wanna know"


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I appreciate your compliment. Anger is definitely a wasted emotion. I often look at Socrates as, perhaps, the prototypical Christian. Rather than spend time thinking about the body and earthly concerns, he tried to think of heavenly things. I think his reason was that when death came to him the body would stay with the earth and his mind would ascend to heaven.

However, I differ with him strongly with his beliefs in the gods. For someone who knew nothing, as he claimed at one point (I can't recall which of the stories your quote is from), he seemed awfully sure of himself even unto the end.

My father is agnostic, my mother Buddhist, and I'm an atheist. God is a figment of our imagination, created to give us comfort with our final hour. By opening my senses and sensing, the world exists for me. Even if the fiction were true, and there was a God, then surely it created itself in the same instant that it created me.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 12:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
So everything was created at the same time? Then we shall surely be brothers to the end of time!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZKtACxZcM


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 12:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
"I think, therefore I am" never really answered the question as to whether or not 'you' exist.

In any case, just to play with what you said a little, one of the basic laws of physics is that matter cannot be destroyed or created.


RE: Total nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 2/7/2008 12:33:12 PM , Rating: 5
> "one of the basic laws of physics is that matter cannot be destroyed or created. "

To be precise, the statement is that, outside a singularity, matter-energy is conserved.

Inside the singularity known as the Big Bang, both matter and energy were created in great quantities.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 1:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
If you would follow the link, we could experience the joy together brother!


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 1:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Do I have to watch all of it? It was a bit painful.


RE: Total nonsense
By straycat74 on 2/7/2008 1:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
Wait till it hits the radio, unless it already has........


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 10:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it couldn't be any worse than what's on the radio now.


RE: Total nonsense
By rug47 on 2/7/2008 7:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
wow....that actually made my wiener smaller :(


RE: Total nonsense
By Dharl on 2/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 2:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the Christian religion this promotion of cannibalism and blood drinking, as you so eloquently put it, is the breaking of bread, and drinking of the fruit of the vine. One a physical representation of the body of Christ hung on the cross.


Christians believe that the body and blood of Christ are represented in the bread and water/wine. By eating it, they are symbolically eating the flesh and blood of a person. This is symbolic cannibalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament

It's an ancient belief and custom, older than the Old Testament: cannibalism was believed to imbue the eater with immortality. This is nothing new: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Cannibalism_-_...

I am well aware of the fact that OT God commanded genocide (Canaanites) as well as infanticide (ok, I know Abraham wasn't a baby, and it was stopped before it was carried out). Were God alive and well today, certainly he could be tried for crimes against humanity, if fetters could be fitted and punishment meted.

A big reason I rejected Christianity was because I came to the realization that the God of the Bible, OT and NT, was a terrible deity - worse than any the earth has known in history, regardless of whether or not It exists.


RE: Total nonsense
By PlasmaBomb on 2/7/2008 3:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. His noodly appendage will strike you down...


RE: Total nonsense
By clovell on 2/7/2008 4:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
>The Catholic Church refers to itself as a cult. Examine the following excerpted from dictionary.com :

How in the name of sanity does an excerpt from dictionary.com prove that the Catholic Church refers to itself as a cult?


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 11:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way, most churches, including Catholics, Mormons, and many traditional Protestant religions, maintain trademarks-- and often sue other organizations for infringing upon them
I think that any religion that wants tax-free status should not be allowed to have trademarks, copyrights, etc.


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 12:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think that any religion that wants tax-free status should not be allowed to have trademarks, copyrights, etc.
Can you give me an example of a religion that doesn't have a TM or copyright to its name?


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 12:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you give me an example of a religion that doesn't have a TM or copyright to its name?
None that I can think of. What's your point?


RE: Total nonsense
By wordsworm on 2/7/2008 1:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I don't feel any organization should be free from taxation. I figure a religion isn't much different from a club. It should be required to pay all the same taxes as any other organization. In any case, I had thought you were saying that Scientology in particular shouldn't enjoy the same tax free status as other religions/cults.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 1:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think the reason why religious organizations is free of taxation is to help enforce our beleif in freedom of religion. It's seen as a safe guard against the government waging war on a relgious orginization through taxation.


RE: Total nonsense
By BMFPitt on 2/7/2008 2:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's because religions are supposed to (at least in theory) be a benefit to society, and that taxing them would hinder their ability to do good. There are certainly a lot of good things that go on in the name of religion, just because some church builds houses for the homeless doesn't make it reasonable for the MegaChurch down the street to not get taxed on the profits they make from their in-house coffee shop and money changers.

I feel that much of the good stuff (as well as the bad) would go on with or without faith. Good people would still form community groups that would help each other, and those in need. Bad people would make up some other justification for arbitrary hatred of groups of people that did nothing to them.


RE: Total nonsense
By Locutus465 on 2/7/2008 2:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well at a certain point, even a church can cross the line between religion and fraud. Just ask Tammy Fea Baker. Perhaps this is why I stick to my roman catholisism, the church may not be perfect, but they're not out to defraud anyone... I'm not so sure about the mega churches, and deffonetly not at all sure about the sciontologists (sp?)