Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   The wife of Scientologist leader David Miscavige isn't missing. She's being held by force at a secret Scientology compound without contact with the outside world after questioning her husband's infallibility. See, very different   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Sea Org, David Miscavige, Leah Remini, Scientology, Mike Rinder  
•       •       •

14896 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2014 at 2:32 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-21 12:52:11 PM  

ransack.: No David Miscavige is his wife's missing head


No, like a lot of marriages, the Miscaviges' love life has lost a bit of the old spark.

David Miscavige is missing his wife's head.
 
2014-02-21 12:55:41 PM  

TwistedFark: TheJoe03: Old enough to know better: Frederick: I've always wanted to ask a scientologist, why -why did you decide to be a scientologist?

This. Especially Hollywood actors. I mean really, Aliens? Is your skepticism threshold really that low?

I have a hard enough time buying the stuff in the Bible.

A religion with aliens would actually make more sense than the Bible. The real problem with Scientology is that it's way too new so it doesn't have the mythical mystique of the ancient religions have. It's the same issue Mormons have and more people think those two religion are cults than the traditional religions.

Yet still, we had one running for president through a major party just a couple years ago.

I make no bones about it, I know that all religions are false, but I especially know that Mormonism and Scientology are false. I'd like to make a distinction here - I do not know if there is some super powerful creator, or if humans are actually living in a complicated computer simulation ala the matrix, or whatever, but I do know that religion is false. Omnipotence is false so long as we have free will. You can't have both at the same time. I don't see why anyone is worthy of being worshiped, even if they created me, and especially if they are not omnipotent and double/triple especially if they are and yet refuse to give me direction on what to do and then expect to punish me if I don't do whatever it is that they want me to do. Talk about a complete asshole.

Anyway, Mormonism and scientology and other modern day cults are demonstratively false. The fact that they not only exist, but seemingly flourish is a damning indictment of human nature. As a species, we are evidently farking terrible at critical thinking. Sure, there may be the random exception to the rule here and there, but it definitely appears that the majority of the human race is content to sit there, be told what to do, what to think about and to soil their pants on demand.

It's farking embarrassing.


Omnipotence and free will can coexist.  You are simply thinking about time as a linear function.  What if all time exists at exactly the same time and place in a way that our minds cannot process?

Or alternatively, in the multidimensional string universes, we have free choice, but there is one per-determined outcome that we must make - that action is the branch into another multiverse.
 
2014-02-21 01:00:56 PM  
http://www.xenu.net/ - all I needed to peruse a few years back to figure out my Scientologist friend was on the one way slide to being brainwashed.

/he's still in the cult
//hates me for asking him about xenu.net
 
2014-02-21 01:12:29 PM  

TheBigJerk: So are psychic aliens, or at least until the last decade or so. Isaac Asimov was considered a writer of "hard" scifi and his speculative fiction was quite open to the idea of ESP. He was a contemporary of Hubbard and provides a pretty good context to what was "believable" to folks during the creation of Dianetics


I am going to have to disagree with you here.

You called it out with "speculative" fiction. Very few people, especially "experts" thought it was possible.

Wheras everybody bought into gods back in the day.


TheBigJerk: And like it or not, a majority of Americans *still* believe in magic, it just varies as to what KIND of magic


Yep, but it is less than thousands of years ago (I hope...).


TheBigJerk: Xenu is trying to grow like mold in an ever-shrinking patch of shadow while all the other, more-established faiths keep trying to hedge him out


I am hoping atheism keep shining light on it...
 
2014-02-21 01:20:07 PM  
Is it just me, or....

i.dailymail.co.uk

.....  is this guy the next Bond Villain?
 
2014-02-21 01:30:06 PM  

TwistedFark: TheJoe03: Old enough to know better: Frederick: I've always wanted to ask a scientologist, why -why did you decide to be a scientologist?

This. Especially Hollywood actors. I mean really, Aliens? Is your skepticism threshold really that low?

I have a hard enough time buying the stuff in the Bible.

A religion with aliens would actually make more sense than the Bible. The real problem with Scientology is that it's way too new so it doesn't have the mythical mystique of the ancient religions have. It's the same issue Mormons have and more people think those two religion are cults than the traditional religions.

Yet still, we had one running for president through a major party just a couple years ago.

I make no bones about it, I know that all religions are false, but I especially know that Mormonism and Scientology are false. I'd like to make a distinction here - I do not know if there is some super powerful creator, or if humans are actually living in a complicated computer simulation ala the matrix, or whatever, but I do know that religion is false. Omnipotence is false so long as we have free will. You can't have both at the same time. I don't see why anyone is worthy of being worshiped, even if they created me, and especially if they are not omnipotent and double/triple especially if they are and yet refuse to give me direction on what to do and then expect to punish me if I don't do whatever it is that they want me to do. Talk about a complete asshole.

Anyway, Mormonism and scientology and other modern day cults are demonstratively false. The fact that they not only exist, but seemingly flourish is a damning indictment of human nature. As a species, we are evidently farking terrible at critical thinking. Sure, there may be the random exception to the rule here and there, but it definitely appears that the majority of the human race is content to sit there, be told what to do, what to think about and to soil their pants on demand.

It's farking embarrassing.


You can't "know" they are false. You have a belief. A faith one might say.
 
2014-02-21 01:33:31 PM  

TheBigJerk: Hell, the bible is pretty clear that Jesus' followers gave him nearly ALL their property


Um, point of order: Jesus had already been crucified, resurrected and ascended before the goings-on recorded in Acts.  So, converts didn't give it to Him, they gave it to Peter and the Apostles.
 
2014-02-21 01:34:28 PM  

daemoncan: Is it just me, or....

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x525]

.....  is this guy the next Bond Villain?


He's a current Bond villain.
 
2014-02-21 01:38:28 PM  

Old enough to know better: Frederick: I've always wanted to ask a scientologist, why -why did you decide to be a scientologist?

This. Especially Hollywood actors. I mean really, Aliens? Is your skepticism threshold really that low?

I have a hard enough time buying the stuff in the Bible.


There was an acting coach with a very successful acting course who became an early Scientologist.  He introduced it to several actors who went on to be successful.  Then, it became a thing you did simply because the core group around this coach did it, and obviously it had helped those other dudes.  So it snowballed.

As to why become a Scientologist - nowadays anyone who can google can find out their whole crazy belief system in no time, but it used to be a closely guarded secret.  They sued the shiat out of the first people who publicized it.

Rather than presenting everything all at once, which any sane person would reject, they'd get you to pay to audit until you reached the next level, you'd be fed another little dribble of the theology behind it all.  By the time you had the whole picture, you were already heavily invested in it, both spiritually and financially.  It's very hard for someone to admit that they've paid tens or hundreds  of thousands of dollars over decades to hear a bunch of bullshiat - much easier to pretend it isn't bullshiat, especially when every step of the way you only have to accept a tiny amount more bullshiat.  Combine that with all the collected blackmail material (it's like if the Catholic Church made you write out your confessions, filed them away and later said they'd have to tell everyone that horrible secret you've kept all these years if you ever left) and you have a pretty good recipe for once you're sucked in, you're all in, crazy shiat be damned.
 
2014-02-21 01:40:26 PM  

daemoncan: Is it just me, or....

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x525]

.....  is this guy the next Bond Villain?


f.edgesuite.net

A teeny-tiny Bond villain.

Goldpinky?
 
2014-02-21 01:42:21 PM  

Deucednuisance: TheBigJerk: Hell, the bible is pretty clear that Jesus' followers gave him nearly ALL their property

Um, point of order: Jesus had already been crucified, resurrected and ascended before the goings-on recorded in Acts.  So, converts didn't give it to Him, they gave it to Peter and the Apostles.


Huh, learn something new every day.

Hrm...that means doctrinally it was Jesus who did the killing on account of him being god.  Or something like that.  Though I suppose that never really changed.
 
2014-02-21 01:56:02 PM  

El Pachuco: daemoncan: Is it just me, or....

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x525]

.....  is this guy the next Bond Villain?

[f.edgesuite.net image 425x340]

A teeny-tiny Bond villain.

Goldpinky?


wow.  He might really BE shorter than Tom Cruise.
 
2014-02-21 01:59:47 PM  
liam76: TheBigJerk: So are psychic aliens, or at least until the last decade or so. Isaac Asimov was considered a writer of "hard" scifi and his speculative fiction was quite open to the idea of ESP. He was a contemporary of Hubbard and provides a pretty good context to what was "believable" to folks during the creation of Dianetics

I am going to have to disagree with you here.

You called it out with "speculative" fiction. Very few people, especially "experts" thought it was possible.

Wheras everybody bought into gods back in the day.

I've gotten the impression even "experts" thought psychics were possible as little as 60 years ago.  I mean I wasn't there taking a survey but...

And the same "everybody" that bought into gods in 0 CE are the same "everybody" willing to believe in ghosts, spirits, or psychics (dianetics is kind of a mish-mash) in 1952.

I wish I could find it, but there was a survey in the last 15 years that showed a large majority of Americans still believe in some brand of magic, (even when you exclude Jesus and the Abrahamics) which I actually one of the problems I've always had with White Wolf games, Dresden Files, Harry Potter, and any other fantasy setting that uses The Masquerade.

Actually that reminds me of (completely tangential) The Song of Fire and Ice series.  In Essos you have all these magical motherfarkers with powers out the ass and for the most part everyone just ignores or makes fun of them.  This is farking ridiculous to me because here in Realityville Realworld a farking salt stain will cause worship and religious fervor.  Someone who could actually show up and make fire from his hands or do that Jamie Madrox Multiple Man thing would be a farking GOD.

Still, Dragon-tits is the biggest Mary-Sue since Mary-Sue and is probably the most important character still alive in that series so whatever.
 
2014-02-21 02:13:19 PM  

TheBigJerk: Good job not reading further there son.  Glad you can't have more complicated thoughts regarding reprehensible behavior or the nature of casual destruction.


Yes; clearly my issue with your post was clearly that I'm too mentally limited to think about people doing bad stuff. You really nailed me there.

It's farking ridiculous of you to compare Scientology (adherents in the low five figures) with Catholicism (a billion adherents) and contrast levels of harm you think they cause.  Obviously Catholicism is going to be responsible for more suffering: there's fifty thousand Catholics for every Scientologist.
 
2014-02-21 02:37:12 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: You can't "know" they are false. You have a belief. A faith one might say.


Any theory must have a set of criteria that both prove it true (an ability to predict) as well as false ( negation of said theory). Science makes the tremendous leap of assuming that all observable behavior is ultimately based out of effects that can be observed.

Thus, Science deals with and only with knowledge that is knowable. Theories must be falsifiable as well as provable and this must be done within the limits of what is observable. As a theory pretty much all religions fail. Most aren't falsifiable; and none are provable via observation. IE, we can't see God(s) hand directly. Worse, we can't even see a consistent action by any deity in the observable world. IE, no God defends their temple from defilement.

As a scientific theory the existence of deities is by virtue of its inability to be falsified, false. Thus I and many others can indeed know without resorting to faith that as far as we understand the observable reality around us there are no Gods. The theory can't stand on its own merits due to being malformed and that is simply that.

Can that reality be false? Sure. Science actually highlights that in many areas. Theories regarding reality do in fact change, as well as what is 'known' because of them. We used to believe in ether binding everything to a single time-frame. Now we don't. And its verifiable via observation. Theories come and go. But I believe in them, have faith in them no more than I do in a spork. Once it fails me I find a better one and move on. Tools and math don't require nor demand this belief/faith/devotion that you are attempting to attribute.
 
2014-02-21 02:53:06 PM  

Gunther: TheBigJerk: Good job not reading further there son.  Glad you can't have more complicated thoughts regarding reprehensible behavior or the nature of casual destruction.

Yes; clearly my issue with your post was clearly that I'm too mentally limited to think about people doing bad stuff. You really nailed me there.

It's farking ridiculous of you to compare Scientology (adherents in the low five figures) with Catholicism (a billion adherents) and contrast levels of harm you think they cause.  Obviously Catholicism is going to be responsible for more suffering: there's fifty thousand Catholics for every Scientologist.


aaaaand?

Like i said, that makes them really hard to compare.  It's like comparing a Lamborghini and a Humvee, any one scale you put them on weighs more heavily in favor of one or the other because they are very different vehicles with very different purposes.

AND, the reason Catholics don't commit such acts on an individual level is partly  because they are so big.  No religion commits evil because god or the devil made 'em do it, every questionable or monstrous act served some kind of logical purpose for the leadership.  Scilons hunt down every apostate because losing or gaining 5 members is a big deal while Catholics are a lot more laid-back because losing or gaining 5 members is a rounding error.  Scientologists don't have to worry about big pictures as much as Catholics, and Catholics don't have to worry about one apostate wandering away as much.

But, what is interesting and what history seems to bear out is that when a religion starts, it is like Scientology and when a religion gets big, it is like Catholicism, completely separate from the particulars of their dogma or their makeup.  Which brings up around the the original point, someone said, "The only difference between a cult and a religion is time and money."  Those are the two motive differences, but the results are quite different indeed.

On a more specific note; kidnapping and brainwashing THAT cult's members as opposed to any OTHER cult's members is dicey because if you work the law wrong you end up explicitly supporting a few big churches as they stomp the fark out any small church.  Christian scientists are mostly harmless, but they believe prayer heals all and all medicine is forbidden.  You gonna kidnap their kids for ultimately being anti-vaxxers?

Like I said earlier though, you want the Co$ hit where it hurts you go for the money.  Money is their game and money is how they make up for all their other shortcomings (mainly lack of membership).  Go for their tax exemption and you'll not only hurt 'em, you'll hurt other religions that are doing bad stuff by association.
 
2014-02-21 02:58:35 PM  

mrming: machodonkeywrestler: You can't "know" they are false. You have a belief. A faith one might say.

Any theory must have a set of criteria that both prove it true (an ability to predict) as well as false ( negation of said theory). Science makes the tremendous leap of assuming that all observable behavior is ultimately based out of effects that can be observed.

Thus, Science deals with and only with knowledge that is knowable. Theories must be falsifiable as well as provable and this must be done within the limits of what is observable. As a theory pretty much all religions fail. Most aren't falsifiable; and none are provable via observation. IE, we can't see God(s) hand directly. Worse, we can't even see a consistent action by any deity in the observable world. IE, no God defends their temple from defilement.

As a scientific theory the existence of deities is by virtue of its inability to be falsified, false. Thus I and many others can indeed know without resorting to faith that as far as we understand the observable reality around us there are no Gods. The theory can't stand on its own merits due to being malformed and that is simply that.

Can that reality be false? Sure. Science actually highlights that in many areas. Theories regarding reality do in fact change, as well as what is 'known' because of them. We used to believe in ether binding everything to a single time-frame. Now we don't. And its verifiable via observation. Theories come and go. But I believe in them, have faith in them no more than I do in a spork. Once it fails me I find a better one and move on. Tools and math don't require nor demand this belief/faith/devotion that you are attempting to attribute.


The theory that they are false, in comparing known religions to eachother as well as other works of fiction does give us a theory with some credence.
We know people lie.  We know they do so for comfort, for power, for riches.  We also know people can believe in things that are not real.  Even somewhat sane people can fall victim to false memories and indoctrination and things of that nature.

Proof, no, but highly likely that it's all a bunch of rubbish.  Enough credence so as to relegate it all as nonsense out of hand, not worthy of any investigation.

Add to that there aren't many questions that actually get answered "because god".

In our ignorant past, it was easy to blame lightning, emotion, even babies on god.

Now, it's not so easy.  It's more like god is a set-up.  Framed to have done all those and more, yet nothing sticks.

Indeed, God is Verbal Kint.
 
2014-02-21 03:07:19 PM  
It's funny in that it sounds like Scientology has some tenants in common with the modern Church of Satan (Cos)...except the CoS does it in large to be assholes to the religous/general sheeple...it's more of an antireligion-religion who care only about the betterment/success of themselves as individuals.

from AvgAmerGuy's statement upthread
"After a while, you've learned techniques that allow you to control your emotions and this empowers you to act in very aggressive ways without getting caught up in your own sense of humility or empathy. People are there to be used, and you are there to use them. It preys on the tendency of people to go along and get along. The truly sociopathic make it to this level and stay there becoming more sociopathic."

That could be slipped into the rhetoric of CoS, seamlessly, I think they call it "Greater Magic"...or maybe lesser, I don't remember.
 
2014-02-21 03:16:54 PM  
just noticed "CoS" can be used for both^^ duh
 
2014-02-21 03:21:44 PM  

2KanZam: That could be slipped into the rhetoric of CoS, seamlessly, I think they call it "Greater Magic"...or maybe lesser, I don't remember.



What's also valuable is that they may grant you revenge upon your foes at the Food Network
 
2014-02-21 03:38:20 PM  

Wolf892: So what I've figured out is that David Miscavich is a Bond Villian who happens to be the head of an actual evil organization. That's crazy, too bad there aren't any real life Jame Bonds to deal with him. :(


The real life James Bonds are trying to keep the world from blowing up. Scientology doesn't register on their radar.

/The world is a dark and terrifying place...
//if you come away from a conversation with me and like life, I've done my job wrong.
 
2014-02-21 04:00:07 PM  
There is an American soap opera that has a story line going right now that is about a character constantly escaping from a mental institution that is called 'Miscavige'.
 
2014-02-21 04:03:25 PM  

Skirl Hutsenreiter: As to why become a Scientologist - nowadays anyone who can google can find out their whole crazy belief system in no time, but it used to be a closely guarded secret. They sued the shiat out of the first people who publicized it.Rather than presenting everything all at once, which any sane person would reject, they'd get you to pay to audit until you reached the next level, you'd be fed another little dribble of the theology behind it all. By the time you had the whole picture, you were already heavily invested in it, both spiritually and financially. It's very hard for someone to admit that they've paid tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars over decades to hear a bunch of bullshiat - much easier to pretend it isn't bullshiat, especially when every step of the way you only have to accept a tiny amount more bullshiat. Combine that with all the collected blackmail material (it's like if the Catholic Church made you write out your confessions, filed them away and later said they'd have to tell everyone that horrible secret you've kept all these years if you ever left) and you have a pretty good recipe for once you're sucked in, you're all in, crazy shiat be damned.


This is the thing that I think a lot of people don't understand...the completely off-the-wall stuff wasn't widely known to the general public until the last 10-15 years or so; their entire operation hinges on the iron-fisted control of information, which was exponentially easier prior to the advent of the Internet.  Scientology is presented to the uninitiated as a pragmatic, scientific approach to understanding the dynamics of human behavior...what makes us think and act the way we do, both within ourselves and toward each other.  There are plenty of detailed, pseudo-scientific anecdotes given to validate the presented axioms (this is important - ideas aren't stated as theories or observations the way, say, psychology is, but as scientifically proven TRUTHS; again, much easier to pull off before Google was around for rudimentary fact-checking).

Hubbard liked to wrap his science-fiction imagination around little everyday foibles that people could observe in everyday life, and they'd accept his explanation because it seemed to ring true with their observations...kind of the way you feel when you read something written be someone who shares the same closely-held political views as your own...like "this guy really GETS it".  Just as an example - one of Scientology's more pervasive principles is that everyone is "at cause" over his or her own situations in life; that is to say, you're directly responsible for the environment you find yourself in, without exception.  If you're minding your own business walking down the street and someone runs up and stabs you for apparently no reason at all, you did SOMETHING to "pull that in"...there's a mathematical kind of karmic balance at play by which you somehow deserved it.  This seems like a sweeping overgeneralization that all but the most gullible would balk at, but the reader is peppered with everyday examples of this principle in play that almost everyone can relate to; the office jerk who gets beaten within an inch of his life at a bar one fateful night - well, he "pulled that in" with all those "overts" he committed stealing lunches in the breakroom...of course, in reality the guy was just an asshole who finally mouthed off to a bigger asshole and got called out on it, but Hubbard would throw in more and more examples that made you think "oh yeah, kinda like that time X happened to Frank..." until they really could seem to agglomerate into a plausible body of proof.

My (apparently long-winded - sorry!) point is that before all the stuff about Xenu and body-thetans was common knowledge, it's not completely absurd to see how people who were genuinely only trying to improve their lot in life (or even help their fellow man) would allow themselves to accept enough of what Hubbard was saying to get more and more incrementally entrenched as you describe...the man was a piss-poor writer without even a basic understanding of the classical sciences that he claimed to master so readily, but he was a truly brilliant criminal.
 
2014-02-21 04:19:18 PM  

TheBigJerk: Isaac Asimov was considered a writer of "hard" scifi and his speculative fiction was quite open to the idea of ESP. He was a contemporary of Hubbard and provides a pretty good context to what was "believable" to folks during the creation of Dianetics.



It isn't a matter of what is believable, rather it is a matter of what doesn't over-strain a willing suspension of disbelief.
I'm willing to accept Larry Niven's Grogs and Thrintun for the sake of a good story, but that doesn't mean I think telepathic aliens are "believable."
 
2014-02-21 04:22:58 PM  
Holy crap!!! I didn't realize that Booker T, Dave Chappelle or Warwick Davis were Scientologists.
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-21 04:23:08 PM  

fireclown: El Pachuco: daemoncan: Is it just me, or....

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x525]

.....  is this guy the next Bond Villain?

[f.edgesuite.net image 425x340]

A teeny-tiny Bond villain.

Goldpinky?

wow.  He might really BE shorter than Tom Cruise.


The googles list his height as 5' 5".
 
2014-02-21 04:31:29 PM  

theropod: When can we get Scientology classified as "not a religion" and thereby no longer subject to First Amendment protection?


Do you really mean take away their non-profit status?
Because the first amendment protects more than just religion, speech and assembly rights would still exist.
 
2014-02-21 04:43:12 PM  

give me doughnuts: The googles list his height as 5' 5".


Like all the 5'9" guys with drivers licenses that say they're 6'?
 
2014-02-21 04:48:35 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Felgraf: YEah, that's actually the really goddamn scary thing about brainwashing: There's a lot of evidence that suggests that *intelligence is not a defense against brainwashing*.

Depends on what you deem intelligence to be.

More pointedly:
A lot of "smart" people can fall into believing anything, because they desire for it to be true, the subconscious makes it happen.  Rational intelligence is irrelevant.  The apt involved trait would be self awareness, or rather the part of it that deals with the capacity for introspection.

You may have to be smart to be self aware in that regard, but being smart does not necessarily include self awareness.


SO take it down a notch.
The great majority of people who follow a religion were indoctrinated into that religion while they were infants, children and teens.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination#Religious_indoctrination

That indoctrination typically includes things like:
bad things will happen if you leave the faith (hell),
varying degrees of parental disapproval (disapprove, to shunning, to death to apostates),
you should have children and raise them the same,
and don't question any of the teachings.

Indoctrination is brainwashing, wrapped with the authority of religion.
I wonder if the requirement is intelligence to BREAK the indoctrination.

Somewhere in my education (formal and informal) I developed the ability to critically think.
And I applied it to everything. Religion can never stand to be critically analysed.

God exists.
Therefore you must go to church every sunday or you go to hell.

LOL
None of the tenets of faith logically follow from the existence of a god, just people making rules so they can be in charge.

/Also. the rapture happened years ago and we were all left behind (tm).
 
2014-02-21 05:03:15 PM  
...always push power in the direction of anyone on whose power you depend. It may be more money for the power or more ease or a snarling defense of the power to a critic or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark or the glorious blaze of the whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise.

He doesn't have to know all the bad news and if he's a power really, he won't ask all the time, "What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?" And if you are clever, you never let it be thought HE killed them - that weakens you and also hurts the power source. "Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn't like me."

When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police.

  ---L. Ron Hubbard


I like him!
 
2014-02-21 05:11:28 PM  

generallyso: It sounds like your criteria is the number of people providing the source material and how long before modern record-keeping they lived rather than the fact one supposes invisible space ghosts and the other supposes invisible sky wizards.


The difference is rather simple:

Religon is a used car, whose odometer has rolled over several times, is covered in rust, dents and bumper stickers, and upon which no two pieces of the body match up in color or manufacturing date. There is little left from the original construction, apart from the frame, which is sagging badly as it's being held together with duct tape and faith.

Scientology is a factory fresh pile of sh*t which has been stamped out on a press, vaugely in the shape of a car.

I wouldn't want to try and drive either of them, but they aren't really the same thing.
 
2014-02-21 05:18:53 PM  

fyrewede: IlGreven:
The only difference between a cult and a religion is time and money.

AND how easy it is for you to leave without being either killed in the attempt or hassled and stalked for the rest of your life if you manage to escape.

Scientology is notorious for harassing "defectors."


Nope.  Christians are famous for harrassing expat atheists, too: "YOU WERE NEVER REALLY ATHEIST!"  And they were worse back in the Inquisition ages.

Meanwhile, even so-called "moderate" Muslims who abhor the violence some of their religion use on women say that the penalty for apostasy is death, and would gladly take out said punishment themselves.

Again, I say, the only difference between a cult and a religion is time and money. Influence, essentially.
 
2014-02-21 05:54:09 PM  
Skirl Hutsenreiter: There was an acting coach with a very successful acting course who became an early Scientologist.  He introduced it to several actors who went on to be successful.  Then, it became a thing you did simply because the core group around this coach did it, and obviously it had helped those other dudes.  So it snowballed.

Hmm, I wonder how deep this particular rabbit hole goes.  What if the 'acting coach' was in cahoots with a couple of major studio executives? How many -- or how few -- conspirators would it have taken to launch an influential cult, simply by selecting a few credulous, good-looking, and modestly-talented people and turning them into influential superstars who would credit Scientology for their success?

It would explain a lot if the Scientology celebrity recruitment process were the exact opposite of what everybody's been assuming.  It's not that actors are inherently a bunch of gullible nitwits, it's that gullible nitwits can easily be trained to become actors.
 
2014-02-21 06:28:29 PM  

namatad: Indoctrination is brainwashing, wrapped with the authority of religion.
I wonder if the requirement is intelligence to BREAK the indoctrination.


That would fall in line with what I posted.

Intelligence wouldn't guarantee the ability to analyze your own thoughts.

*shrugs*

As I said, it depends on how you define intelligence.  Some of our greatest minds are also religious.  Some of those minds aren't necessarily all that sharp, but have a good memory.  The ability to rapidly recall pertinent information is not necessarily equal to the ability to perceive concepts and understand the inter-workings of things.

Myself...I'm fairly smart, but at times my memory is poor.  On an IQ or asvab test, I score good on patterns, mechanics, things of that nature, very reliably from test to test.   Math is so/so, because I don't necessarily recall the relevant methodologies. Not so hot on shifting data from column A to column B or word associations.(some of the words I've seen employed are off the wall obscure terms, considering I actually read a LOT and this is not an area I typically can't recall).

I love psychology though.  I understand some aspects of it that a rocket scientist astro-physicist CERN / Hadron collider engineer may not.

More shortly put, there are varying areas of "intelligence" and no accurate overall test.  They're all rough approximations, some of which are heavily dependent on whether or not your education included a specific minor detail within a broader topic, relegating it almost to trivia.

Some people can barely walk and chew bubble-gum at the same time, yet they can shift data from A to B like no other.

Is that "intelligence"?

I personally don't think so.  I'm of the variety that thinks calculators should be allowed on tests, as well as reference materials such as encyclopedia's or the internet at large.  Of course, your test's would not only be "why did X happen", but also "what would have happened if it had been Y".

We should not be tested on recall ability as much as functional knowledge and understanding.  Logic is something that's severely under developed in schools.  Math doesn't count as it's somewhat abstract, and once you have the basics down, it's more a matter of recall of the relevant methodology, and the drudgery of applying them.

IMO, the way we're taught what to remember, and then later how to think, is maybe a bit ass backwards, and we lose a great opportunity with younger minds by trying to cram in facts past capacity.  Facts, which, barring apocalypse, can be dug up at any given time.

At those younger years, we're giving them fish instead of teaching them how to fish.  If we'd teach them how a little younger, we could save energy on not having to spoon feed them, and more time showing them how to actually solve problems and think critically.

*shrugs again*

/tangential, I know
//and TLDR, obviously
///slow afternoon when you're laid up with a broken foot
 
2014-02-21 06:34:32 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Khazar-Khum: AverageAmericanGuy:

So it's not a religion that asks you to accept it all at once. You're gradually eased in. The teachings are both allegorical and prescriptive. You learn how to take control of your own life and emotions, and the sense of belonging and support keeps most people involved, much like a regular religion.

Except that, unlike every other religion, you have to pay through the teeth for the enlightenment. If you go to  a Rabbi and ask him about Judaism, he'll gladly talk to you for free. Same with every priest, pastor, imam, priestess or whatever you want. Many will happily give you information, maybe even a copy of their holy books--which, incidentally, can also be found in any library, or openly for sale. In Scientology, you have to pay for the books, which cannot be found anywhere else and are not sold to outsiders.  If you feel awful and need to talk, Pastor is there for you. In Scientology, you have to pay. And pay, and pay, and pay. It's not at all unusual to hear of people who sank several hundred thousand dollars into it.

And a professor of English may love to chat with you about Shakespeare on Sunday afternoons at the park, but if you really want to learn at a deep level you're going to have to pay up.

You ever see how much college costs these days?


College is a religion, now?
 
2014-02-21 06:43:59 PM  

omeganuepsilon: namatad: Indoctrination is brainwashing, wrapped with the authority of religion.
I wonder if the requirement is intelligence to BREAK the indoctrination.

That would fall in line with what I posted.

Intelligence wouldn't guarantee the ability to analyze your own thoughts.

*shrugs*

As I said, it depends on how you define intelligence.  Some of our greatest minds are also religious.  Some of those minds aren't necessarily all that sharp, but have a good memory.  The ability to rapidly recall pertinent information is not necessarily equal to the ability to perceive concepts and understand the inter-workings of things.

Myself...I'm fairly smart, but at times my memory is poor.  On an IQ or asvab test, I score good on patterns, mechanics, things of that nature, very reliably from test to test.   Math is so/so, because I don't necessarily recall the relevant methodologies. Not so hot on shifting data from column A to column B or word associations.(some of the words I've seen employed are off the wall obscure terms, considering I actually read a LOT and this is not an area I typically can't recall).

I love psychology though.  I understand some aspects of it that a rocket scientist astro-physicist CERN / Hadron collider engineer may not.

More shortly put, there are varying areas of "intelligence" and no accurate overall test.  They're all rough approximations, some of which are heavily dependent on whether or not your education included a specific minor detail within a broader topic, relegating it almost to trivia.

Some people can barely walk and chew bubble-gum at the same time, yet they can shift data from A to B like no other.

Is that "intelligence"?

I personally don't think so.  I'm of the variety that thinks calculators should be allowed on tests, as well as reference materials such as encyclopedia's or the internet at large.  Of course, your test's would not only be "why did X happen", but also "what would have happened if it had been Y".

We should not be te ...


I would argue that memorization is not intelligence.
It is ridiculous that spelling bees still have the draw that they do.
LOOK OUR KID IS A ROBOT!

vocab tests are a function of exposure and recall
cultural reference tests are a function of wealth and leisure (you havent read dante in the original? you dont speak greek?!  you havent read all of the classics? LOL)
where the test of intelligence gets more "universal" and interesting is in the things that you mentioned.
patterns, problem solving, and other strange abilities ... critical thinking
certainly reading comprehension is a useful skill.
Base knowledge in how the universe works allows me to read a report or study on a completely new topic and get a tacit understanding, or better.

A robot who has memorized the bible, but is unable to discuss what they have read from a critical point of view is completely uninteresting.

ALAS, the discussion devolves into fights about IQ, not being able to "TEST IT", and cultural blah blah blah .

In the end, my only question is, can I have an "intelligent" discussion with you? On pretty much any topic?
YAY


/csb - I had a great discussion the other day with a religious person who was having premarital sex. What made it quite interesting is that she is brilliant, religious and not a hypocrite. She considered the sex a sin and that she was flawed. But at least she acknowledged the sin and flaw, rather than choosing to pretend the sex wasnt a sin in her faith.  So many people might feel guilty about the sex, but not enough to consider it a sin.

But we were only able to have the conversation because she COULD think critically. 
Rather than the mindless robots that wouldnt even consider having the sex. no thinking for them. just obey the rules.
 
2014-02-21 06:44:03 PM  

Hickory-smoked: College is a religion, now?


If atheism is, college surely is.

They not only teach, they take large sums of money, provide for feeling superior, and directly influence moral behavior(leaning decidedly liberal in most places), even provide a lot of foot in the door in the grand good ole' boy schematic.

/half joking of course
//neither is a religion
 
2014-02-21 07:01:55 PM  

namatad: ALAS, the discussion devolves into fights about IQ, not being able to "TEST IT", and cultural blah blah blah .


Inevitable, really.  But really, it was my first thought on the topic.  All depends on how you(collective) define "intelligence", knowing everyone associates it with whatever they feel like.  One of those things that's entirely too flexible, almost meaningless at times.

namatad: n the end, my only question is, can I have an "intelligent" discussion with you? On pretty much any topic?
YAY


Not sure if you're asking me, or referring to the collective "you", as in that is the foundation upon which you judge others.

Me, depends on my mood, and the presence of assholes whom I cannot resist kicking about, a personal addiction flaw, I enjoy being right, always, but especially so when the other party starts out so incredibly smug.  I like taking, or at least trying to, take people down a peg.  Also fun to exercise that part of how I think, even if I'm "trolling", I do tend to not be dishonest.(as where some are just after the bites, even to defend that which they agree with)

If one can present reasons and explain some of the critical thought, or in other words, convey actual understanding/comprehension of concepts, we can talk, even agree to disagree.

IE in the current thread about an atheist church, people keep repeating how it's "stupid" as objective fact, when it's clearly a subjective opinion.  If they could admit it's an opinion and that they know no one else cares, I'd not ever reply.  That they flaunt it as such...that's what makes it worth it.  Giving them hell for it, but it's slowing down now.

On my way to watch a movie and put my leg up at any rate.  I will favorite you however, you seem fun and interesting, and not completely "The internet is serious business!", and maybe most importantly on Fark, not overly judgemental.
 
2014-02-21 08:20:03 PM  

AndTheyAllLived: Oh, and that bullshiat phrase reminds me:  there's also a real power in people having a common made-up language to make them feel that they're part of something special and exclusive.


Very true. There are a lot of Scientologists who can't have a conversation without using the made-up terms. The special lingo adds to their sense of belonging and exclusivity. I used to be very conversant in Scientologese, but part of my job was to review and edit promo material that was going out to the public, and making sure it was expressed in common "wog" terms, and not filled with Hubbardisms. (Many of the terms were existing common English, but with archaic usage instead of more modern usage. If you dug deep enough in the Oxford English Dictionary, there were examples of the word or term used "Hubbard style", but they'd only make sense to language historians and Scientologists.)
 
2014-02-21 09:35:44 PM  
People, look at Angry, Gay Pope. com.... Click on Twin Peaks.. I live just a couple miles from there. ya its very strange..
 
2014-02-21 10:18:51 PM  
f.edgesuite.net
 
2014-02-21 10:20:53 PM  

Biner: AndTheyAllLived: Oh, and that bullshiat phrase reminds me:  there's also a real power in people having a common made-up language to make them feel that they're part of something special and exclusive.

Very true. There are a lot of Scientologists who can't have a conversation without using the made-up terms. The special lingo adds to their sense of belonging and exclusivity. I used to be very conversant in Scientologese, but part of my job was to review and edit promo material that was going out to the public, and making sure it was expressed in common "wog" terms, and not filled with Hubbardisms. (Many of the terms were existing common English, but with archaic usage instead of more modern usage. If you dug deep enough in the Oxford English Dictionary, there were examples of the word or term used "Hubbard style", but they'd only make sense to language historians and Scientologists.)



And how much of the Tom Cruise uproar was anything beyond language?  He looked good, the production values were fine.  It wasn't the crazy laugh, it was him saying LRH, KSW and SP.  Either it was people getting Google curious, or "Holy sh--, they use a different language, which is the definition of different!  That's how we KNOW who the other guy is.."

I honestly wish nobody had ever heard the name Xenu.  So much distraction, and reporters don't write about how the mechanisms work on "normal" people.  And I am very sad for Shelly Miscavige.  I think she's another Annie Broeker... I don't think they killed her, but I do think she's scared, sad and alone.

(Farkers - Annie and her husband were L Ron Hubbard's heir apparents.  Annie died the same way I suspect Shelley's living.)
 
2014-02-21 10:44:17 PM  

El Pachuco: daemoncan: Is it just me, or....

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x525]

.....  is this guy the next Bond Villain?

[f.edgesuite.net image 425x340]

A teeny-tiny Bond villain.

Goldpinky?


I wonder if he's as tall as Tommy.
 
2014-02-21 10:44:25 PM  

furiousidiot: ...always push power in the direction of anyone on whose power you depend. It may be more money for the power or more ease or a snarling defense of the power to a critic or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark or the glorious blaze of the whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise.

He doesn't have to know all the bad news and if he's a power really, he won't ask all the time, "What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?" And if you are clever, you never let it be thought HE killed them - that weakens you and also hurts the power source. "Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn't like me."

When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police.

  ---L. Ron Hubbard



That is straight out of Machiavelli's The Prince and is perfectly exactly how minions close to kings, popes and presidents have been working the surviving-whilst-profiting-near-power game since forever.

One of the most famous aforementioned minions is Thomas Wolsey (mover, shaker and thiever for Henry VIII).

Gotta give Hubbard credit for being a master of understanding, creating and radiating the illusion of power.  He's a psychopath, but people who destroy for power always are.
 
2014-02-21 10:49:52 PM  
Biner:  I spent nearly 20 years as a non-Scientologist (wog) working at a middle-management level in a company run by Scientologists. (Using policies written by Hubbard.) I know more about Scientology than a lot of Scientologists. I've worked with Hubbard's daughter. My sister is in the Sea Org. So I'm pretty familiar with Scientology.


Any thoughts on exactly what the 'religion' part of Scientology is comprised of?
 
2014-02-21 11:16:02 PM  

OooShiny: Biner:  I spent nearly 20 years as a non-Scientologist (wog) working at a middle-management level in a company run by Scientologists. (Using policies written by Hubbard.) I know more about Scientology than a lot of Scientologists. I've worked with Hubbard's daughter. My sister is in the Sea Org. So I'm pretty familiar with Scientology.


Any thoughts on exactly what the 'religion' part of Scientology is comprised of?


They have their own creation myth that involves aliens, spirits and nuclear bombs.

I shiat you not.
 
2014-02-22 12:46:28 AM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: How is it the organization that broke into IRS offices gets to be tax exempt, again?


Lawyers. They filed so many suits the IRS just caved in.
 
2014-02-22 01:31:27 AM  

TwistedFark: OooShiny: Biner:  I spent nearly 20 years as a non-Scientologist (wog) working at a middle-management level in a company run by Scientologists. (Using policies written by Hubbard.) I know more about Scientology than a lot of Scientologists. I've worked with Hubbard's daughter. My sister is in the Sea Org. So I'm pretty familiar with Scientology.


Any thoughts on exactly what the 'religion' part of Scientology is comprised of?

They have their own creation myth that involves aliens, spirits and nuclear bombs.

I shiat you not.


That pretty much sums it up. It's simply a belief system. A way to explain the unexplainable. They have a creation myth that, in my opinion, is no more outlandish than those of other religions. Oddly, though, that whole story is not discussed among believers the way that Genesis is discussed among Christians. When they learn the story (pretty far into their "training"), they are told it is super secret and not to be shared with anyone. By then, most of them are brainwashed enough to buy into the idea that having that knowledge before being properly trained for it is unhealthy, and even deadly.
 
2014-02-22 02:57:09 AM  
Is it just me, or does that picture not look like they are the same person?

Maybe "she" isn't missing.  Maybe "she" is actually HIM!
 
2014-02-22 07:18:40 AM  

generallyso: Cerebral Ballsy: Bullsh*t is bullsh*t. And all religion is bullsh*t.

Scientology though.. That's a cult.


All religions start as cults so its not especially meaningful to label them as one or the other.


A cult is a religion that's difficult to impossible to leave.
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report