F***ing Scientologists
Offline I spent some time on the official scientology website today www.scientology.org, interesting, and creepy. By interesting I mean it is interesting that it says absolutely nothing about what the core dogma of the church is. Apparently this knowledge is only available to OT level VII or something members who have paid thousands for courses and auditing sessions and years of time that leave you, well "a little off." Apparently for most, at this point when they hit you with the insanity that is Scientology, you are so mind fucked, and you have spent so much money, you just stick with it. If you type in any words that have anything to do with their dogma in the search portion of their site, nothing comes up. Words like "Xenu" or "aliens" or "hydrogen bombs" render no results.
I'm sure many of you know the basic dogma behind scientology, but for those who don't I'll give you a quick overview:
There was an alien named Xenu (or Xemu, no one really knows because L Ron Hubbard hand wrote this crap down on a small piece of paper and it is difficult to determine if it is a N or M in the name) who was part of the galactic confederacy 75 million years ago. This confederacy was made up of 75 or so planets, and 25 or so stars. Some of the planets were getting to overpopulated, and so Xenu kidnapped billions of aliens from various planets and brought them to earth in a bunch of spaceships that very closely resembled our DC-8 aircrafts on earth today (this is very specific). Xenu froze the aliens and placed them in or around volcanos in Hawaii. Xenu then blew up all the aliens with hydrogen bombs. But, the aliens did not die, they turned into "spirits" or "souls" called thetans. Xenu then mind fucked the thetans by forcing them to watch videos that filled their heads with a bunch of bat shit crazy pohilosophies (which is considered by scientologists the reason for all bad religion, the bad in people, basically thetans = "the bad in us"
.
The thetans then lerked around the planet for a while before finding humans to be their hosts. The thetans attached themselves to the humans and that is the reason for our shortcummings. Dianetics is the process of getting rid of the thetans in which an E-meter (some device that reads stress waves?) is used in sessions called "auditing" to slowly get rid of the thetans. This is blantant mind munipulation.
There is much more specifics, I coudn't be bothered to learned any more, but this is the gist of it. Not a single word of this is on their official website, and many newcomers don't hear about this for years (untill you are considered "clear" by the church, as in free of thetans), what a bunch of creeps.
To any Christians (and I'm sure many did) who were reading this and thought to themselves "wow, what a crock, that just sounds like a stupid story, so obviously made up, it's just silly, Xenu and thetans and e-meters, what a joke." What you are thinking/fealing about the rediculous dogma of Scientology is exactly what every rational thinking person thinks/feels about you and your silly little story, and how unimaginably rediculous it is that you just picked a silly story, and said "yyyup, I believe this one." Is the existence of Xenu any less possible than the god of abraham, or allah. Is the existence of thetans any less possible than demons. Is it really any less possible that some guy named L Ron Hubbard had a special connection with space aliens in the 20th century and brought forth truths of it, than some guy named Jesus from 2000 years ago had some special connection to some god named Yahweh and brought forth truths of it. No, they are equally silly stories. No evidence exists that either are truth. What do you think, that was a pretty silly story wasn't it?
- Login to post comments
Offline
I have a large Scientology library and study it via an expose and to help Scientologists get out of that cult.
Well, if your goal is to help as many people as possible, then share the material as much as possible.
I don't know how many people will get out from our efforts but possibly we can keep people from going in.
Send the whole lot of what you can email to [email protected]
Also, shoot me PM when you do. I will take care to make sure that the information gets out in a way that they can't cock block.
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."
=
- Login to post comments
Offline Hello,
First off the Latin word for apple is Malum, Malum is from the root word Malus, which means evil.
As to Crazynomore, allow me to teach you some logic.
In logic, if you distract from the argument via attacking the person via their position that is an ad hominem abusive. Now a informal logical fallacy can occur more then once at the same time.
In this case, you made an argumentum ad hominem abusive, and a Straw man. However, in argument there is a valid use of ad hominem via truth. And in that sense my proposition was not invalid.
You seem angry. Instead of making emotional reactions, give me logical reasons as to why God is not ontologically a Being. I'm on here looking for Atheistic arguments, and I get people like you acting like my Mother-in-Law. What gives.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
- Login to post comments
Offline First off the Latin word for apple is Malum, Malum is from the root word Malus, which means evil.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
Offline In logic, if you distract from the argument via attacking the person via their position that is an ad hominem abusive
What argument? That Scientology and Christianity have equally absurd teachings? How is this an attack on you? It is an observation, a conclusion I have come to by reading the teachings of both Christianity and Scientology. Why do you see this as an attack on you? How exaclty am I distracting from anything, this was the first statement I made to you? Can you now show me why I am wrong in thinking the teachings of Christianity are equally as absurd as the teachings of Scientology, let's diggin.
give me logical reasons as to why God is not ontologically a Being.
I don't bother much with the "philosophical reasons for why god is necessary or impossible, etc..." conversations although many here do and are much better at that, I'm no philosopher. It doesn't interest me as much, I'm far more interested in the individual, you and your choice of Christianity, why go from A=you believe in god to B=you believe in the Christian god. Now can you awnser why you choose to represent Christianity, and how you distinguish what you believe to be myth or made up in other religions from what you believe to be true in Chrisianity. Can you breakdown how you would defend the god of Abrahams obvious character flaws in the stories.
I'm on here looking for Atheistic arguments, and I get people like you acting like my Mother-in-Law. What gives.
Oh don't worry, many here will fill your need for pages and pages of arguments of all forms for/against "god." I'm more interested in what the heck you find appealling about the particular god you have chosen.
- Login to post comments
Offline
OK, the above having been said, let me tell you that on my way out of theism, I spent several years in the world of the occult.
The basic fact is that L. Ron Hubbard did not discover anything new. He ripped off earlier sources. How does this sound:
Well you are going to do what you want to do. However some things are going to make your life better. So you want to do the things that you should do. If you stick with us, we will teach you what you should already know on that score.
Apart from not telling people about hell, that is fairly standard religion. Even so, does it have the flavor of dianetics?
Pretty much it is a rip from Alistair Crowley.
Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.
Love is the law.
Love under will.
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."
=
- Login to post comments
Offline Hello,
First off the Latin word for apple is Malum, Malum is from the root word Malus, which means evil.
Let me clear this up. Malus is an adjective that means "evil." Mālus is also a noun that means "apple." An ancient Latin speaker would have been able to tell the difference, despite the fact that adjectives take their endings from the first and second declensions of nouns, and especially because "apple" is a feminine noun despite the fact that it takes masculine endings. For instance, mālī malae would mean "bad apples." Interestingly enough, mālus also means " the mast of a ship." If Eve had stolen the Forbidden Mast from the Ship of Knowledge of Good and Evil, do you think you would be making the same argument?
It's amazing what one year of Latin classes can teach you.
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
- Login to post comments
Offline Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,
First off the Latin word for apple is Malum, Malum is from the root word Malus, which means evil.
Let me clear this up. Malus is an adjective that means "evil." Mālus is also a noun that means "apple." An ancient Latin speaker would have been able to tell the difference, despite the fact that adjectives take their endings from the first and second declensions of nouns, and especially because "apple" is a feminine noun despite the fact that it takes masculine endings. For instance, mālī malae would mean "bad apples." Interestingly enough, mālus also means " the mast of a ship." If Eve had stolen the Forbidden Mast from the Ship of Knowledge of Good and Evil, do you think you would be making the same argument?
It's amazing what one year of Latin classes can teach you.
Here you go, more information than you ever wanted:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malus
Please note that the word Mālus is originally from the Greek μηλέα, while Malus is perhaps from the Greek μέλας. Note that they are two different words in Greek.
My apologies, my previous source was incorrect in that pomum means a fruit of any sort. But it made sense to me as I have had some Italian - and in Italian, pomodoro means tomato, which is derived from pomo d'oro - "apple of gold". Though in Italian, mele is apple. Ain't language fun?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline Answers,
You see, I taught you something about apples via the Latin. Kind of a cool piece to put under your hat. See, what would you do with Christians? They are funny, attractive, and very smart. The world is a much better place as a result. You have to kind of agree with me. No?
Hi NoMoreCrazyPeople,
What argument? That Scientology and Christianity have equally absurd teachings? How is this an attack on you? It is an observation, a conclusion I have come to by reading the teachings of both Christianity and Scientology. Why do you see this as an attack on you? How exaclty am I distracting from anything, this was the first statement I made to you? Can you now show me why I am wrong in thinking the teachings of Christianity are equally as absurd as the teachings of Scientology, let's diggin.
Of course, how convenient. Simply to assert does not an argument make. Come one now. Syllogism, premises, conclusions. Put the puppies down and argue with me won't you.
I don't bother much with the "philosophical reasons for why god is necessary or impossible, etc..." conversations although many here do and are much better at that, I'm no philosopher. It doesn't interest me as much, I'm far more interested in the individual, you and your choice of Christianity, why go from A=you believe in god to B=you believe in the Christian god. Now can you awnser why you choose to represent Christianity, and how you distinguish what you believe to be myth or made up in other religions from what you believe to be true in Chrisianity. Can you breakdown how you would defend the god of Abrahams obvious character flaws in the stories.
Again, how convenient. Of course you don't bother with the philosophical reasons. I've discussed my arguments before and have written them on several occasions. But because you are holding puppies, I will do it again.
I being as a first principle of God IS and His Word IS true. Via this first principle or these axioms, I then argue deductively that via the instructions of the Bible, they are implications of the axioms. The evidence is of the consistency of the argument itself. So if the Bible says ABC, and we encounter ABC in the world, this is evidence of the consistency of the argument.
So, since God says He made stars, fish, and ribs, and we go and encounter stars, fish, and ribs, this is the proof of consistency of the argument via the axioms. Pretty simple. Though I also connect the first principles with the Imago Dei, giving it more merit then say Euclid had.
Now, before you put the puppies down, tell me your argument to KNOW anything? If you can't, then you can't read my notes. The fact that you can read is an ad hominem against atheism, since knowledge is consistently impossible in atheism itself.
Oh don't worry, many here will fill your need for pages and pages of arguments of all forms for/against "god." I'm more interested in what the heck you find appealling about the particular god you have chosen.
The truth appeals to me. The truth that you may be a vessel of wrath (Romans 9:21-22), and that God probably is deceiving you (II Thess 2:11), and that you may someday be thrown in the pit of hell (Revelation 20). But who knows, you may be rescued someday. You and I really have no decision since we are both bound by our nature. Only my nature is good, and your nature is, well, not so good.
__________________________
Hi AnswersinGenesis,
You were in the Occult? shocker there with your avatar picture. I've studied the occult myself. Not for practice, but to help people. Alister Crowley was insane and very fat. Though, i'm not sure being fat has anything to do with what we are discussing.
You've heard of the Parsons things with Hubbard and Crowley. So there is some connection I would agree. But Crowley was not really an Existentialist, Hubbard was. Crowley was trying to appease his "animal" like nature so as to be as consistent to an animal as possible. He did a good job. His first wife went insane and she killed herself.
Most Satanists today copy Crowley. They are not original. Before Crowley, you had Roman Catholicism. Rome was more Occultic in some way then Alister could ever dream of.
I think the OTO is dying or dead. But that's an Occultic debate, and I've never been in the Occult.
_________________________
Fun Stuff.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
- Login to post comments
Offline ANSWERS,
Hi Rev.Willie,
So you don't like organized religion. So you prefer disorganized religion? Get a filing cabinet and clean yourself up.
You sound like a heretic. Not sure what kind. Why don't you tell me, unless you are ashamed. Christianity via a system is found via the normative in Scripture. Are you a gnostic or something? Who knows. So you logically follow the mandate of Scripture via consistency. If you do not do this, you are not a Christian by definition.
Defend Free Will. Whom is your will free from? So then do you believe God is Sovereign. You have no arguments for God, so this should be fun.
I'm like a mirror, reflecting the light of Scripture onto these pages. Thus I speak objectivity.
______________________
Hi EL,
Capitalism was actually formed via a system by John Calvin. He was a Protestant Reformer. If it wasn't for him, we probably would not know of Capitalism of today.
The RCC is actually a protestant "church" from the Eastern Orthodox folks. According to Jude 3, the church sustains despite of heresy and paganism. RCC is extremely pagan, and a consistent RCC by definition is hell bound. I am willing to tell you why if you wish.
The Latin Vulgate is garbage. I prefer the SL, prior to Jerome. That was not Roman and is used well in textual criticism. If you have RCC family, they are still in the same boat you are, hell bound.
_____________________________
Hello Sapient,
Once again you have illustrated...One must act ignorant, dishonest, or both when defending belief in a god.
Answers in Gene Simmons is a conservative, we've had this discussion before. Whether you choose to portray reality honestly is up to you.
Tell me via logic and argument where I'm wrong. If an atheist is a conservative, it's because he is an inconsistent conservative. He has one foot in Christianity, and the other foot in Atheism. He thus has fence prints on his bottom.
I'm speaking of consistency. A consistent atheist, can never be a consistent conservative.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
- Login to post comments
Offline Hey Jean, is this your argument?
- Login to post comments
Offline Hi EL,
Capitalism was actually formed via a system by John Calvin. He was a Protestant Reformer. If it wasn't for him, we probably would not know of Capitalism of today.
Can you please provide some evidence for your assertion?
The RCC is actually a protestant "church" from the Eastern Orthodox folks.
Or the Eastern Orthodox Church was a Protestant church from the RCC, depending on how you look at it. In any case, it was the RCC that became popular in Europe, and it was the RCC from which the Protestant Reformation split.
According to Jude 3, the church sustains despite of heresy and paganism. RCC is extremely pagan, and a consistent RCC by definition is hell bound. I am willing to tell you why if you wish.
Or rather, anybody who isn't a Roman Catholic thinks that the RCC is hellbound. It's only by how you define the RCC that makes it hellbound (of course, the same can be said for the RCC, or other religions for that matter.) Go ahead and tell me why.
The Latin Vulgate is garbage.
It's where the Protestants picked their particular New Testament books from, so that would make the Protestant version of the Bible garbage too. Or are you saying that only the Apocrypha is garbage?
I prefer the SL, prior to Jerome. That was not Roman and is used well in textual criticism.
What is the SL? I can't find what Bible translation that is.
If you have RCC family, they are still in the same boat you are, hell bound.
Lol, most of my family is Roman Catholic, and I go to a Jesuit school. I don't think they're hellbound, I don't think you're hellbound, and I don't think anybody in the world is hellbound.
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
- Login to post comments
Offline Hi EL,
Can you please provide some evidence for your assertion?
Sure. Calvin's Institutes, 2 volumes, is where he discusses the Usury and the interest of the shekel. I'm in the middle of a move and my huge 10,000 volume library is in boxes. When I unpack, I'll find specifics. But the Institutes are fun reading.
Or the Eastern Orthodox Church was a Protestant church from the RCC, depending on how you look at it. In any case, it was the RCC that became popular in Europe, and it was the RCC from which the Protestant Reformation split.
Actually, Rome was not in "existence" until Constantine. They say they were via a phony list in the 4th century. But the list has been refuted as a fraud. At that time, there were many popes according to the region you were in. So if you were in Alexander, you would be Pope there. Rome did not become a one world religion until 1074 via Pope Gregory the VII.
Or rather, anybody who isn't a Roman Catholic thinks that the RCC is hellbound. It's only by how you define the RCC that makes it hellbound (of course, the same can be said for the RCC, or other religions for that matter.) Go ahead and tell me why.
I define Rome according to the CCC of 1994 and Vatican II, Flanery edition. I also have other books with the imprimatur. I also have older works such as Vatican I and Council of Trent.
You are saved via infusion of the 7 sacraments. Christianity is saved via the imputation of Christ's Righteousness. You have to go to hell to purge for your sins, Jesus did not die for all of your sins. Purgatory is a temporary hell. Unless you are a saint, and then the Vatican can vote you into heaven. The host is the literal body and blood of Jesus. They take John 6 out of context. So when you receive the host, (hoc est enim corpus), you are eating Jesus for real, His hands, feet, head, and human heart. And then your Jesus turns into poop. That is a different Jesus then the Bible. For Jesus never turns into poop.
t's where the Protestants picked their particular New Testament books from, so that would make the Protestant version of the Bible garbage too. Or are you saying that only the Apocrypha is garbage?
No, the Latin Vulgate came after the Regional Conference of Carthage. But they did not DECIDE. Gnostics and heretics were putting pagan books in the Bible, so they made a statement regarding what was already known to stop the heresy. This was around 457-458.
What is the SL? I can't find what Bible translation that is.
Syrio-Latin. Very old. Augustine used this. This was before Jerome, way before. There are some Coptic (Egyptian) copies that have been found. Jerome's Latin Vulgate was a perversion from the SL.
Lol, most of my family is Roman Catholic, and I go to a Jesuit school. I don't think they're hellbound, I don't think you're hellbound, and I don't think anybody in the world is hellbound.
Let me put it in a way you will understand, Roman Catholic style. Unless your family believes in the Biblical Jesus, and not the eat me Jesus into poop, they will be bound in fire via purgatory, FOREVER. 
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
- Login to post comments
Offline Sure. Calvin's Institutes, 2 volumes, is where he discusses the Usury and the interest of the shekel. I'm in the middle of a move and my huge 10,000 volume library is in boxes. When I unpack, I'll find specifics. But the Institutes are fun reading.
The nonsense that capitalism originated from the Puritan work ethic was created by Max Weber in the early 1900's.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html
"'Capitalism,' a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, is a misnomer for 'economic individualism,' which Adam Smith earlier called 'the obvious and simple system of natural liberty' (Wealth of Nations). Economic individualism’s basic premise is that the pursuit of self-interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate. Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge. There is no natural limit to the range of their efforts in terms of assets, sales, and profits; or the number of customers, employees, and investors; or whether they operate in local, regional, national, or international markets.
The emergence of capitalism is often mistakenly linked to a Puritan work ethic. German sociologist Max Weber, writing in 1903, stated that the catalyst for capitalism was in seventeenth-century England, where members of a religious sect, the Puritans, under the sway of John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, channeled their energies into hard work, reinvestment, and modest living, and then carried these attitudes to New England. Weber’s thesis breaks down, however. The same attitudes toward work and savings are exhibited by Jews and Japanese, whose value systems contain no Calvinist component. Moreover, Scotland in the seventeenth century was simultaneously orthodox Calvinist and economically stagnant.
A better explanation of the Puritans’ diligence is that by refusing to swear allegiance to the established Church of England, they were barred from activities and professions to which they otherwise might have been drawn—landownership, law, the military, civil service, universities— and so they focused on trade and commerce. A similar pattern of exclusion or ostracism explains why Jews and other racial and religious minorities in other countries and later centuries tended to concentrate on retail businesses and money lending."
Actually, Rome was not in "existence" until Constantine. They say they were via a phony list in the 4th century. But the list has been refuted as a fraud. At that time, there were many popes according to the region you were in. So if you were in Alexander, you would be Pope there. Rome did not become a one world religion until 1074 via Pope Gregory the VII.
M'kay. Still doesn't refute the fact that Protestant religions wouldn't have a Bible without the RCC, even if it was formed in 1074, or 616, or 1215, or whatever.
I define Rome according to the CCC of 1994 and Vatican II, Flanery edition. I also have other books with the imprimatur. I also have older works such as Vatican I and Council of Trent.
You are saved via infusion of the 7 sacraments. Christianity is saved via the imputation of Christ's Righteousness. You have to go to hell to purge for your sins, Jesus did not die for all of your sins. Purgatory is a temporary hell. Unless you are a saint, and then the Vatican can vote you into heaven. The host is the literal body and blood of Jesus. They take John 6 out of context. So when you receive the host, (hoc est enim corpus), you are eating Jesus for real, His hands, feet, head, and human heart. And then your Jesus turns into poop. That is a different Jesus then the Bible. For Jesus never turns into poop.
I agree that the RCC is bullshit; I just wanted to see your definition.
No, the Latin Vulgate came after the Regional Conference of Carthage. But they did not DECIDE. Gnostics and heretics were putting pagan books in the Bible, so they made a statement regarding what was already known to stop the heresy. This was around 457-458.
So what does that have to do with the Protestant version of the Bible? If that was the officially recognized version of the Bible (regardless of whether or not it was the "correct" version), then what did the Protestants take from? How else can you explain that the books that are in the Protestant Bible are exactly the same as the books in the RCC bible? Both versions are the same, it's just that the Protestants took out a few books.
Syrio-Latin. Very old. Augustine used this. This was before Jerome, way before. There are some Coptic (Egyptian) copies that have been found. Jerome's Latin Vulgate was a perversion from the SL.
Did the Protestant version of the Bible come from the Syrio-Latin translation, then?
Let me put it in a way you will understand, Roman Catholic style. Unless your family believes in the Biblical Jesus, and not the eat me Jesus into poop, they will be bound in fire via purgatory, FOREVER.
That's your interpretation. They think they're right, and you think you're right. The whole thing is silly. There is no hell.
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
- Login to post comments
FUCKING SCIENTOLOGY HOW DOES IT WORK?!!?!
seriously dumb shit.
I'm curious about one thing. When scientologists have children, do they keep Scientology a secret from them, or do they tell everything for free?
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
It gets worse. The Nation of Islam -- a wacky invention in its own right, which teaches that white people were created by an evil scientist -- has recently teamed up with Scientology. A curious development, considering there is both written and audio documentation of L. Ron Hubbard making derogatory comments about black people; not to mention that one learns at the upper levels that religions like christianity and islam are the result of Xenu's brainwashing.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Whatch this funny video of 2 scientologist cooks sent by the church to revenge picket at the property of this guy who made a few tapes about scientology. This is their move of intimidation, send a couple homeless looking guys to stand with signs in front of your house. CREEPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO5fZrfaY6g&feature=related
Here's the core dogma:
Making $$$ by any means.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Bwahahahaha... ^5
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
I read somewhere that RRS and Anon didn't get along and Sapient sided with CoS over Anons.
or so said the email.
Lisa McPherson - why Scientology won't ever be truly harmless until it is a distant memory...
Hello,
I know a lot about Scientology. I was raised by two "foster parents' who were very high in Scientology and Martial Arts. The man was rated #10 in he world of all time Martial Artists in the history of Martial Arts of all time.
He would apply the "tech" all the time in his classes. When I began to study logic intensely at the age of 15, I began to see the logical fallacies of Scientology. This angered them extremely and they hate me to this day. They view me as a SP (Suppressive Person) and a PTS. (potential trouble source). Thus, if they are around me, they may go bankrupt, since they may need more money for auditing to rid the body thetans off of them.
I have a large Scientology library and study it via an expose and to help Scientologists get out of that cult. They believe men are basically good, which is paganism. Oh wait, atheists believe that too?
Scientology is nothing more then a different flavor (a copy of a different flavor) of Existialism. Existience precedes Essence. One must do all they can to amplify the dynamic of their existence. Of course, for a great fee.
My Foster Mom joined the Sea Organization and divorced my Foster Dad after I left. She signed a contract to devote herself to that organization for the next 1 billion years. I have an original copy of the contract. They will not let anybody contact her and she is trapped in Clearwater Florida for the next billion years. Wait, 99,990,910,199. Oh that's better. She's on her way.
More could be said. They will soon go through their own "wall of fire" when they die and burn in hell. Wait, that goes for atheists too.
.
Good Stuff.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
You have quite the imagination equating atheists with paranoid scientologists. Your the only one who has tried to pull that rabbit out of the hat, is that what your logic classes taught you?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
It's pretty obvious to me he hasn't had any philosophy classes.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Are you an X-Scientologist now Christian?
So you believe people are not basically good? (Although many atheists do NOT believe that men are basically good)
Ah I can't get enough of that Xtian "love". I guess I just don't love you enough since I would never throw you into a fire for eternity. Although, as messed up as your foster parents were it helps explain why you find an abusive god appealing. You basically left one abusive religion for another. People often do the same thing with abusive relationships. You don't have to live in fear you know. You can cast aside those crazy beliefs and live your life free of the oppressive threats of Christianity. Apply the logic you used to reject Scientology and you can reject the oppression of Christianity. Maybe we need the equivalent of the YWCA to help people escape abusive religions.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
So the genocidal maniac Xenu, the hydrogen bombs, the body thetans, the auditing, and the overall bat shit crazyzess of scientology didn't sit well with you? But the genocidal maniac Yahweh, fireballs, plagues, eternal torture, forbidden apples and talking snakes and overall bat shit crazyness of Christianity clucked your chicken. Odd, they are both flamboyantly rediculous, equally I would say.
And his logic gap and now we get his big , fat fallacy from force. Compelling stuff.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hi NoMoreCrazyPeople
hmmm, where to start. I do believe in the God of the universe. That bumper sticker that says, "What Would Jesus Bomb?". I really like that one. Because the term Yahweh is referred to both the second and first person of the Trinity. Thus God the Father gave the fire to God the Son, and God the son bombed Sodom. Cool huh? So Jesus bombed that wicked city. This is in Genesis 19:24 and is known as a theophany.
Genocidal though was logical fallacy number 1
maniac was logical fallacy number 2
We don't know if it was apples. The Latin word for apple and evil are the EXACT same term. So in Church History, the apple arose out of legend. Though the Biblical account real. So who knows what the fruit was.
Talking snakes? That's nothing. You should read about Balaam's Ass.
overall bat shit crazyness is Logical fallacy #3
Of course you would say they are equal. But Scientology does not claim a god. Though some have said via OT 8 that Hubbard is a god, but no proof.
You made 3 logical fallacies. 6 of them if you account for Scientology. The logical fallacy was:
argumentum ad hominem abusive.
This is suppose to be a forum of reason. Where is your reason? Were you mugged? Did somebody steal your reason? Perhaps you lost it with your car keys. And what's with the language. Consistent Atheism, but have a little class. After all, you do believe in empirical Utilitarianism don't you? Perhaps you should calculate the risk factor of the greater good with foul language and logical fallacies.
Other then that, it was nice meeting you. Your Atheism gives glory to God (II Thessalonians 2:11). You were probably made as a vessel of wrath, and God may hate you (e.g. Romans 9:13).
When you find logic and reason again, look me up, we'll talk then.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Apple = pomum
Evil = malum, pravus, malus, malus peior pessimus, nocens, maleficus
http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=English&to=Latin
What is the logical fallacy called when you are flat out wrong?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
No, not cool, horrible.
Great so we agree, your god/s is/are violent.
Why? Genocidal: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
Is that not what he does when he whipes out people who aren't "his people?" Isn't this hole game according to Christianity just one long extermination of people who aren't "his people?" Except death isn't the end, he continues to torture those who aren't in his group long after death. Is that not what Xenu did to all the aliens when he systimatically gathered them up and blew them to pieces in Hawaii? I would say the word fit's both imaginary characters.
Why? Maniac: An excessively intense enthusiasm, interest, or desire; a craze; A manifestation of bipolar disorder, characterized by profuse and rapidly changing ideas, gaiety, or irritability, and decreased sleep. Violent abnormal behavior.
Is that not exactly what Yahweh is like? Excessive intensity, bi-polar, rapid changing ideas, easily irritated, violant, etc... This seems to perfectly describe the god of abraham. Way over the top, easily looses his cool and lashes out, isn't consistant from day to day. I'm not to sure about Xenu however I would assume anyone who can round up billions and blow them up would harbour such characteristics. The word surely fits the character of the god of abraham.
As if the kind of fruit has any bearing on the stories absurdity. As if small details like this have any effect on the overall absurdity of the bible
I'm not comparing their claims and saying they are the same. I am weighing in the claims and saying they are equally absurd in their own right, and they are.
No I have not, I am in no way attacking you, I am directly attacking the character of the diety you represent, and the overall absurdity of the stories that go along with the diety you represent. So no argumentum ad hominem here.
Now that's an argumentum ad hominem.