Hackers declare war on Scientology.

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

qviri
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by qviri » Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:02 pm

Hah. Since when are 4chan "hackers"? They're /b/tards. Which doesn't mean I don't enjoy their hijinks every now and then...
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change

s_xero
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:56 pm

Post by s_xero » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:08 am

Good thing

Stupid cults. I am no son of the devil, but (SEMI-)religions
cause a lot of trouble. Good reason to shit on them. 8)

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:30 am

Well I'm sure anyone could make a case that the main religions have caused more "trouble" than all of the "cults"...... and I group all of them into one big failure of humanity, which is it's need for crutches when facing difficult questions.

I've asked many people just why they have a religious belief at all..... most had it implanted in them by their parents. They justify it by pointing to questions that cannot be answered, questions their particular brand of religion answers in it's dogma.

The one poor Scientology person I knew, apparently used it as a social network thing....... costly way to belong to a group, mostly composed of losers, from what I saw.

I think much of the fraud involved with religions in general, could be handled, maybe even stopped, if all religions were deprived of their tax-exempt status. Once the jails started filling up with religion-based thieves, things might change. If there was no money to be made from Scientology, the whole cult would die.
[size=75]"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke[/size]

Das_Saunamies
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:39 am
Location: Finland

Post by Das_Saunamies » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:10 am

LAThierry wrote: Do you think, for example, that Buddhists are incapable or love, respect or forgiveness? It's typical of Christians to assume or to make it come across as if Christianity had a monopoly on those virtues, when in fact they can be found in just about any social group.
No. You are putting words in my mouth. It's typical of people to do that when it suits their view of the ongoing discussion. And I'm fairly sure, too, that the same sort of set of values is omnipresent, as people strive for very much the same things. We are just people after all. The nuances and means to ends do vary, however, and I am comfortable with the ones present in my cultural background. (meditation and prayer have similar results, but they are hardly equivalents, no?)
Das_Saunamies wrote:To me, I find these 2 statements highly contradictory. You claim, on one hand, to spot the "fairy tale and fiction" within sacred texts and yet, on the other hand, believe in the concept of Salvation. Please give me an example of sacred text fiction that you decided must be false and contrast that with your reasoning that Salvation must be true.
I believe in the values, not in what is written word-by-word - again words in my mouth, now through interpretation. Only extremists treat the word as The Word, and I wanted to distance myself from those literal interpretations. The latter request for an example is thus invalid. There are many kinds of salvation, and I'll be sure to find mine. The capital letters were only misleading if you took me for a devout Christian, which I most apparently am not and never said I was. :P (but there WAS a chance of them being misleading, and I apologise for the misunderstanding caused)
nick075 wrote:All true, I'm sure, but you still haven't addressed my question as to why a cult/religion which asks for money (eg Scientology) is less deserving of respect, and freedom from having their website vandalised, than a cult/religion which calls for the murder of people who criticize it (eg Islam). -- I find its dogma risible and its practices contemptible.
Because I too find their practices contemptible, and saying they are simply asking for money is oversimplifying things. It all seems a very sinister scheme, not in any way a religion. That's why I call and consider it a cult: it is all for the benefit of the few on the expense of the many. The local protestants at least very much look after their own and the less fortunate, which I find a common practice among the Christian faith as a whole. (could be said that it's a universal thing, just dressed up differently in various regions)

And you hit the right note with the "not naive" comment: things are not black and white, there's all sorts of shades of gray. But the shades of gray and proportion of black in Scientology for me supercede those of the Christian religion I live with (we are born and raised Lutheran, which I see as a good thing, as few go nuts and take every word to heart). The Catholic church to me is a foreign institution with many backwards values (contraception, abortion) and many a taint in its current practice. Most recent ones to do with molestation I believe. Even so, they do a lot of good in the world too, whereas Scientology has yet to do a single thing.

Regarding wealth, what individuals in the USA do with theirs is probably no different from what othersm with similar mindsets, around the world do. I'm not one to judge how they live, as I know little of it, and have been told it varies greatly from what I see as "proper". What I do know, though, is that I don't find the television evangelists and such terribly credible or Christian.
But then, why should recognised characters in high and respectable positions live poor or ascetic lives? I'm sure what they have, they deserve. The distribution of wealth is ongoing, even if the golden chandelier of a bishop is not the one being auctioned off to do it. (that would be jealousy in action, and I think their church owns considerable portions of "their" wealth)
If there is indication of wrongdoing in how they got there or how they use their position, then I heartily object - which is very much the case with Scientology.

The methods indeed seem very clever, even though the mechanics are simple and have been employed throughout history by various organisations no doubt. But I'm still sure people who are adrift or somehow unbalanced will be easier prey than educated and critical people leading an already-happy life. The promises of social contact and "release from mental impurities" is what I think appeals to the average, shall we say, victim. Scientology also has the "fresh" appeal that few old religions have. People think they couldn't find the same sort of "salvation" (to use this wonderful term again) with a Christian religion, as they believe they know all about it due to their upbringing amongst one.

The last bit is partially true: a Christian religion wouldn't make one pay through the nose for it, or offer equally fantastic tales of pseudo-science. :lol:

And on Islam: As far as I can tell from what the press reports, only the hardliners and lunatics are calling for murder. Those, I hope, do not constitute the main body of Islam. Not that I particularily approve of the anti-Denmark activities either, but there's always one nutjob in the background who incites this sort of thing, blowing it out of proportion. Haven't they been arresting radical clerics in the UK? Most of the Middle East still seems to live in the IT Stone Age, so I for one find understandable why their media-criticism isn't at a very good level. Same goes for how intolerant they seem towards whatever comes from outside their little world, as they still live in an isolated sphere. If there were similar systems of education, employment, multimedia and IT in place, they'd no doubt play along a lot more nicely. But now instead of the Onion, they have the local crackpot. :roll:

And Bluefront, you seem to have declared yourself an archetypal religion rejectionist (if not hater). I thought that was the way to go, but my life feels richer with a bit of magic in it, not just numbers and logic. I'm not saying you should go out not, and buy your personal gilded Bible for only 9.99, but I don't think such harsh attitudes towards spiritual communities and endeavours help anyone.

My "religious beliefs" and tendencies stem from my own spiritual needs. "Implanted" are the values, perhaps, but they stick because they are sound ones. I know there are questions without answers, and I'm certainly not looking for a dogma to answer them all - but I don't rule a possibility out just because it's written down somewhere already. I just don't take it too seriously as The One Truth. :wink:

And you're on the right path about the money. If this sort of blatant scamming was punished, the whole thing would die, or at least be forced off the mainstream. Currently authorities apparently plead that it's adult people making poor decisions for themselves, and thus they can't intervene - which is of course technically the case.
Taxes and so on though, that sounds more like a States issue and a Republican warsong than anything else. Over here, if you belong to either of the legally sanctioned churches (Lutheran or Orthodox), you pay 1-2% of income to the church. I'm happy to do so, as I know the money will be used for a good cause, and for providing services crucial to our society, such as burials and marriage. Not all taxes are bad, as an organised society does need a superstructure to hold it together, and maintaining that needs due upkeep.
I'll voice my opinion though, that the States of USA seem more nations than regions of one country. The Federal Government should not become the main force in local decisions, only in international and countrywide matters.

But these are all just my opinions, coming from my limited knowledge and influenced by my cultural background.

PS. I need to start writing shorter posts, seriously. :shock:

Edit:
The bit about taxes was thought through further than was expressed. The end result, whether it's a tax-exempt donation or a tax, the money is out of your pocket and going towards an organisation. I see no harm in maintaining whatever institution has given your country its spiritual backbone for as long as deemed necessary.
Case: Define Mini
Parts: P8Z77-M Pro µATX, i5-3570K, STRIX-GTX960-DC2OC-4GD5, 8 GB G.Skill DDR3U, Xonar DX, WD B-G 1 TB, mx100 256 GB, RX-5300 PSU
Cooling: Noctua NH-U12P SE2 + Scythe SS PWM, 2x Noctua NF-P12
Extras: Eaton UPS, Dell 24" EIPS, MS Sculpt, Logitech G303, Synology DS213j 3+3 TB NAS

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:46 pm

nick705 wrote:
LAThierry wrote: I also would like to add that legitimate religions tend to happily share their sacred texts because they want their message spread. The Church of Scientology however will send their DMCA-lawyers after you for violation of their "copyrights" if you post any of their information online, for example, which is basically legal censorship racketeering.
Islam (which you'd presumably describe as a "legitimate" religion, whatever that means) prescribes death as the penalty for blasphemy, apostasy and a long list of other things, and plenty of its followers are only too willing to carry those edicts out. Which is more reprehensible?
How can anything be reprehensible if you've no religion upon which to base values? You're arguing one set of values over another, yet you don't even realise it.

nick705
Posts: 1162
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:26 pm
Location: UK

Post by nick705 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:11 am

Trip wrote:How can anything be reprehensible if you've no religion upon which to base values? You're arguing one set of values over another, yet you don't even realise it.
sigh... that's such an arrogant and narrow-minded point of view I'm not sure it's even worth trying to counter logically. Why are "values" exclusively the domain of religious fundamentalism?

I'm perfectly capable of empathising with another human being, with wanting to end their suffering, and with wanting to avoid subjecting them to pain, grief, sadness, humiliation, fear and death. Most of us feel that way, most of the time, therefore it's become a mutually agreed system by which we operate - whether you call it "values," a "legal framework" or anything else.

I don't need an irrational belief in a mythological being or beings to help me decide what's "right" and "wrong" (purely human constructs devised for our mutual benefit, but having a basis in behavioural patterns which benefit our ability to survive as a species).
Das Saunamies wrote:PS. I need to start writing shorter posts, seriously. :Shocked:
@DS there's a fair bit to take in there, I'll read through it properly when I've got a bit more time...:wink:

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:11 am

Das_Saunamies......I have a "harsh attitude" toward religions in general, because of their historical record of causing wars, and mass killings of persons whose beliefs differ from their own, which has continued to this very day with no end in sight.

Add to that a total lack of logic when dealing with their own dogma, and you come up with persons who are dangerous.....quite willing and capable of causing mass destruction.

OT....there's a religious fundamentalist where I work who firmly believes in the Noah's Ark story, the Adam and Eve thing, and that the earth is only 5000 years old. I annoy him by asking questions about dinosaurs, and "where did the wives of Adam and Eve's sons come from".

He says the dinosaurs were on the Ark.....and that the wives were actually daughters (un-mentioned) of Adam and Eve. He's good for a laugh anyway... :lol:
[size=75]"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke[/size]

LAThierry
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Post by LAThierry » Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:12 am

nick705 wrote:
Trip wrote:How can anything be reprehensible if you've no religion upon which to base values? You're arguing one set of values over another, yet you don't even realise it.
sigh... that's such an arrogant and narrow-minded point of view I'm not sure it's even worth trying to counter logically. Why are "values" exclusively the domain of religious fundamentalism?
It's worth countering the "values" argument because we hear it too often from politicians and religious figures.

I contend that a good person who happens to be religious would still be a good person if they stopped being religious. If they claim they'll turn into a criminal instantly without God at their side, let's call their bluff. I claim they won't have the guts to become a criminal, to have to face the shame of their family, the police, the district attorney, the justice system, the threat of jail or prison, a criminal record, the financial ruins that awaits them. Those are REAL threats that society applies to its criminals, unlike the intangible "face your maker" or "repent!" religious threats.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:45 pm

Who is to keep the police, politicians, and judges straight? Who is to prevent those from committing crimes when no one is looking, or from striving to take power for their own desires at the expense of others? Who is to encourage those who historically voluntarily help society to continue doing so? Upon what grounds will they plead their assistance? There is no logical defense of morality outside of religion, only fuzzy sentiments.

You mention social pressures (what one's parents might think), in our society there is increasing anonymity. And upon what basis will these ethics be founded upon?

The TV and schools tell us repetitively that religion isn't needed and provide just the response you've given. But, if you look around a bit you might realise just how many voluntarily act in the best interests of society. They are what holds society up, the very pillars of the community.

The same people I'm sure told you how it doesn't matter if Britons or Aborigines live in Britain: they'll each act the same if in Britain, magically the Aborigine transforms when he enters Britain of course. The reality is that culture, which grows out of religion (if properly defined), does matter. Change the culture, and you change the society (including the corruption and general crime rate.) If you create a culture that believes there is nothing and that only fools do anything but help themselves, you'll get such a society...

There is more to Christianity than fear of God. I fear God, but I also love God and love my people. A man may act nobly out of love rather than fear. If you've ever met a zealot, you'll know it is peace in their eyes not fear. They've been given a purpose, they're a part of something greater than themselves, they are destined to be saved, and their religion has usually filled them with noble sentiments.

Man in nature is a cannibal, rapes, steals, murders, and dominates. Christianity is what built the West, and sure there were civilisations prior, but they too were founded upon religions.

===

I was reading a book on Russia just now: it mentioned Scientology, how it has taken power in certain segments of the government, thus actually allowing it to reduce funding to mental hospitals which Scientologists apparently oppose.

I'm beginning to think this cult is a significant force, something like the Masons of old, only crazier.

seraphyn
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:26 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by seraphyn » Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:43 am

Trip wrote:There is no logical defense of morality outside of religion, only fuzzy sentiments.
Fuzzy sentiments? Morality is what my parents taught me, mt school educated me about, coupled with personal experiences and own thought. I don't need a church to tell me how to act, i need people who care to show me how to act from a young age, whether that is because they fear some sort of god's punishment if they don't or because they're just good people doesn't matter at all.
Our society may have been build on Christianity, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to wander from this path.

Upbringing and the effects of the state of current society is what will define a person, if god is part of that upbringing it'll just be another factor. Defining non religious based morality as fuzzy sentiments is kind of weak.

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:20 am

I personally don't think it takes anyone or any religion to tell you how to act, and how to treat others. You only have to be aware of the laws, and be observant. Obviously when you are a child you need some guidance.....like "don't hit your sister", "don't fall off the table", etc. But parents take that guidance further, and implant religious ideas in their children, rather than let the child learn about religion on his own, and come to his own conclusion. It's hard to break out of this religious "implantation" once you grow up.

Thus you see most religious people with the very same religion as their parents.......be it a cult or a more main-stream religion. None of these religions are best, and none are needed. Some however are worse than others. Scientology is close to the bottom....
[size=75]"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke[/size]

LAThierry
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Post by LAThierry » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:08 am

Trip wrote:Christianity is what built the West
When you make a claim, you have to be ready to back it up. Please provide facts supporting that statement.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:34 am

There is no logical defense of morality outside of religion, only fuzzy sentiments.
I am very sorry to say this Trip, the above statement is disgusting, and only goes to prove one of the many reasons the non-religous community dislike the religious comminity for. Religious people a), think they are better and their morals and beliefs are better, b), they try to impose their religion on people who are not interested.

You Trip unfortunately appear (on the above statement alone) to be no-worse than a phone salesman that is trying to sell you something that you dont want, and dont need.

Whether modern 1st world societies morality was based on Christianity (or other religions) is irrelevant. The simple fact that decent non-religious human beings are just as good as their religious counterparts proves this beyond doubt.

Lets not mention the many Priests and other people with religious power that many of the brainwashed look up to are rapists, paedophiles and missionary's of hatred.


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

nick705
Posts: 1162
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:26 pm
Location: UK

Post by nick705 » Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:56 am

Trip wrote:Who is to keep the police, politicians, and judges straight? Who is to prevent those from committing crimes when no one is looking, or from striving to take power for their own desires at the expense of others? Who is to encourage those who historically voluntarily help society to continue doing so? Upon what grounds will they plead their assistance? There is no logical defense of morality outside of religion, only fuzzy sentiments.
I guess it's been said already, but anyway -

You really are demonstrating one of the most poisonous aspects of religious belief - the arrogant assumption that blind faith qualifies someone to pontificate on matters of morality/ethics and, by implication or in practice, to tell the rest of us how we should be living our lives. No wonder there's so much religious-inspired hate in the world today, where each cult/sect/religion believes it has a unique, divine-inspired insight into what constitutes right and wrong.

The sooner we can consign this garbage to the middle ages where it belongs, the more chance we'll all have of a decent future for ourselves and our children.
Trip wrote:Man in nature is a cannibal, rapes, steals, murders, and dominates.
As Andy pointed out, if you want to defend Christianity's record I really wouldn't go there if I were you... :P

peteamer
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:24 am
Location: 'Sunny' Cornwall U.K.

Post by peteamer » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:32 am

Well... everyone is bashing you Trip...

And I'm afraid old Friend that I'm gonna have to join in...


and say...


That I really don't like what you've done with your hair today....





:mrgreen:

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:40 pm

Gah, not the hair.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:48 pm

andyb wrote:
There is no logical defense of morality outside of religion, only fuzzy sentiments.
Religious people a), think they are better and their morals and beliefs are better, b), they try to impose their religion on people who are not interested.
Of course. If one believes in truth, it's, well, the truth.

Christianity's record is what it is, and I find it respectable on the whole if not going by a false version of history, but the West was built out of it, and it can only be criticised using some set of values that must be derived from a religion. Remove Christianity, and there's no West. A new religion could certainly come along to found a new society, but Christianity seems to have the best record of any and to be the true religion.

Christianity is no different than any other religion if judging it objectively. This is a logical argument: there's not much else I can add... I'll just have to disagree and that's that I suppose.

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:11 pm

nick705 wrote:
Trip wrote:Who is to keep the police, politicians, and judges straight? Who is to prevent those from committing crimes when no one is looking, or from striving to take power for their own desires at the expense of others? Who is to encourage those who historically voluntarily help society to continue doing so? Upon what grounds will they plead their assistance? There is no logical defense of morality outside of religion, only fuzzy sentiments.
I guess it's been said already, but anyway -

You really are demonstrating one of the most poisonous aspects of religious belief - the arrogant assumption that blind faith qualifies someone to pontificate on matters of morality/ethics and, by implication or in practice, to tell the rest of us how we should be living our lives. No wonder there's so much religious-inspired hate in the world today, where each cult/sect/religion believes it has a unique, divine-inspired insight into what constitutes right and wrong.

The sooner we can consign this garbage to the middle ages where it belongs, the more chance we'll all have of a decent future for ourselves and our children.

Well, I gotta add one response here because this is truly what I'd wanted to address. The current popular way of thinking is just this, that if we do away with nationalism and religion that we'll all magically come together. The error with this thinking is that religion, as well as nationalism, do provide positive benefits within a society.

They fight like organisms, sure. But without them, there is not a unified organism but a lack of an organism. Without religion and nationalism, there's chaos, not order.

Religion and nationalism encourage those within to act for the betterment of their societies. Without these forces, man tends to act for his own interests. And of course there are problems with abstract nationalism, which I'm not advocating, such as unnatural ties to things a man has no experience with or grounded connection to. But social ties and religious grounding clearly have positive forces within a society, even if societies tend to fight. And, modern societies, as powerful as they are, also tend to fight. But this is a flaw in man, not a flaw in social ties and religion. If you destroy the religion and the social ties, you're left with flawed man, with nothing to improve him. Wielding the power of modern technology, man will destroy everything without religion and social ties. It's said the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and this is just such a case. In attempting to prevent another WWII, this "movement" to destroy religion and nationalism will only bring war and destruction about again and again. It's an unfounded faith, an ideology (which is really a flawed religion), in man, that he will be perfected if he but removes the polluting forces of religion and nationalism. Such is a false religion and perhaps the greatest evil of our day.

seraphyn
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:26 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by seraphyn » Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:55 am

Trip wrote:Well, I gotta add one response here because this is truly what I'd wanted to address. The current popular way of thinking is just this, that if we do away with nationalism and religion that we'll all magically come together. The error with this thinking is that religion, as well as nationalism, do provide positive benefits within a society.
I do agree with religion having a positive benefit to society as well as the statement that doing away with religion won't really change anything, but i don't agree with your statement that without religion we would fall into chaos. Nationalism is a different story though, i think the world would fall apart if it wasn't for people having pride in where they live, working to better their part they call home. In a perfect world, we would call Earth home, but in reality humanity isn't even close to consider themselfs Earthlings, rather Nationlings.

In any case, i don't think religion, nationalism etc need to be banned/dissapear or something, they have their pro's and cons but are overall good things which help people get through life. However, organisations which take on the form of a movement such as these just to scam people out of money, or to get some sort of subsidized funds / tax break should be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Which brings us back to topic ;)
That is the main reason i support any and all actions (except violent) against Scientology. It's a scam which preys on people who are in search of actual help.
[size=75][b]Main rig[/b]: P180, Q6600 @ 2,9GHz with TRUE, 2GB RAM, 8800GT with Accelero S1 + ziptied Nexus fan. Total fans: 4, all Nexus Real Silent @ 5v[/size]
[size=75][b]2nd rig[/b]: Lian Li A05b, P4 2,5Ghz with Andy, 2GB RAM, 7600GS Passive. Total fans: 2, both Nexus Real Silent @ 7v[/size]

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:58 am

Of course. If one believes in truth, it's, well, the truth.
Was that statement designed to not actually mean anything.?


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

djkest
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Post by djkest » Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:36 am

I think he's saying that people create their own reality. So for example, if you believe Scientology then it's the truth, to you. You could get into the whole argument of what is truth and what is real. Does something on the news make it real? How about something in a book? How about something in your hands, does that make it the truth? You could misunderstand what you are holding.

I realize this is a lame argument, but I think that is what he is saying, at least.


BTW, war on Scientology is kind of funny. They aren't hurting anyone, are they? (the kooks)

walle
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:52 am

Post by walle » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:09 am

My take…

You’ve gotten this all backwards Trip, and I’m going to address this because this needs indeed to be addressed. It is all about the human mindset, nationalism is a myth, those in power view themselves as the state and therefore their interests equals the nations interest, but their interest do not equal yours nor mine (take a look around you please). It is a common misconception, that without nationalism and without those in power running this planet (they are, and they’re in a minority, mind you) that there would be chaos. Again; its all about mindset (or thought), it would only be chaos in the minds of those in control since they as a consequence would loose their power and control. We have been conditioned into believing, and into thinking that we should identify who we are by division, the very tools used for that identification thru division is nationalism, religion and the colour of your skin. That my friend (and all others reading) is pure and utterly bollocks!, the only ones that are gaining from this are those in a position of power, you, do not gain from this, I, don not gain from this, in fact; no one gains or stands go gain from this but (again) those in a position of power. And in case you have not been living in an eggshell for the past 7 years, those in power wish to gain further control and are doing so by scaring us shitless whilst removing our freedoms piece by piece, day by day. You have your view on the importance of nationalism and religion, I have mine, and I now give you my take, in case you by now don’t like it, or don’t like me, or don’t like what I have to say, to that I simply say; deal with it. It is not only, Trip, that we fight with other tribes (despite belonging to the very same) but we even fight within the very tribes we identify our selves with, partisanship is what we seem to thrive on and the only time we are not fighting within the tribe, is when those running the show decides that its time to “danceâ€

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:59 pm

walle....I'm not at all sure I agree with everything you just said. It certainly seems like certain people have it in themselves to rape, murder and pillage, more so than others, regardless of whether they are religious or not. The numbers just don't add up to support your case.

I sure don't think a religious label stops people from hurting others. To me it seems the only thing between civilized behavior and anarchy is the fear of being caught and punished. That is similar to what Trip implied.....in that humanity is very close to the brink of purely animal behavior, being held back by a few laws......religious or civil.

From what you just said, I think you believe that civilized behavior is an intrinsic part of humanity....which I don't believe, just as I don't believe religion plays much of a part in civilized behavior either. In this country every murderer on death row claims to be Christian, though he never behaved like it.

Scientology hurts people who are the most vulnerable.....all the while hiding behind a religious label. For that reason the religion/cult is guilty.
[size=75]"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke[/size]

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:32 pm

Andy,

a friend of mine just penned this: The Archaeology of Globalism. I figured you'd find it amusing if ignorant, outdated, and wrong :D

I'll catch up with the rest of the thread shortly.

walle
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:52 am

Post by walle » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:29 pm

Bluefront wrote:walle....I'm not at all sure I agree with everything you just said.
That was not the point with my post (having people agree) it was to present a different view.
Trip wrote:a friend of mine just penned this: The Archaeology of Globalism.
That was a great read Trip, a conspiracy theorist thingy? I loved the title, really. :)

Trip
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: SC

Post by Trip » Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:01 pm

Thanks :) I wouldn't put it quite into the conspiracy category though, more common ideology or dominant paradigm. He meant it more as: the end result is they're all very similar globalists, but a conspiracy doesn't necessarily have to exist for such.

Erssa
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Erssa » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:01 pm

Trip wrote:Christianity is what built the West
West was built inspite of Christianity.
AZBrandon wrote:Scientology charges money for "salvation" and elevation to higher levels in their church.
Charging money for salvation. Reminds me of a certain cult, that used to practice the same thing before...

So many people here have criticized the greed of scientology. I am ok with this statement, if it's coming from the mouth of an atheist. But every christian should take a moment to think about all the churches in the world and how they were build and at what expense, how many lives were spent to build them. I will tell you they weren't build just on a prayer.Take a look at the abomination called São Francisco Church and Convent of Salvador. The contrast of a golden church and a poor country like Brazil makes me sick. Muslims don't get off the hook either. Mosques are just as extravagant as churches.
Das_Saunamies wrote:And on Islam: As far as I can tell from what the press reports, only the hardliners and lunatics are calling for murder.
40% of british muslims want Sharia law to UK. 40% is not exactly a small minority. Muslim leaders are also advocating Sharia. Average British family has maybe 1,3 kids. Average muslim family has a lot more. It won't take that many generations before muslims are a majority and then they will pass Sharia law democratically. Like Archbishop of Canterbury said: Sharia in UK is unavoidable. The same will happen in USA in reverse. People living below the bible belt will outbreed the seculars. Evolution is school will be banned and creationism will be taught as science. Hooray for democracy.

Just couple of examples how mainstream muslims deliver justice:
3 months ago a gang rape victim was sentenced to six months prison and 200 lashes for adultery, because she was raped in a car.

English teacher was sentenced to 40 lashes, because she named a teddy bear Mohamed.

Finnish girl was thrown in jail for a month and deported for kissing her boyfriend in a public place in Dubai.

French boy was gang raped in Dubai, the doctors found sperm of 3 men, so the officials were threatening to charge the boy with criminal homosexual activity. One of the perpetrators is HIV positive, which the officials tried to conceal.

Last Thursday American woman was arrested by Sharia police, because she was drinking coffee in Starbucks with a male colleague.

I could go on and on about how fcked up the mainstream muslim law system is, but I see no point. You either got my point, or you didn't.
I thought that was the way to go, but my life feels richer with a bit of magic in it, not just numbers and logic. I'm not saying you should go out not, and buy your personal gilded Bible for only 9.99, but I don't think such harsh attitudes towards spiritual communities and endeavours help anyone.
Eating magic shrooms probably makes the life of junkies richer and more magical, but it's not a good reason to support their life in hallucinations and delusions. Belief in Holy God shouldn't be condoned any more then belief in tooth fairy or bogeyman.
Das_Saunamies wrote:I have seen Christian and Islamic organisations do a world of good globally, and I'm sure the total of the actions taken in either's name would be more good than bad, so I have no reason to wish their websites ill.
Good like the crusades? Good like inquisition? Good like Salem witch trials? Good like killing abortion doctors? Good like Munich 1972? Good like 9/11? For defense of Scientology, I have to say I have never heard of Scientology suicide bombers or holy wars... And believe it or not, most people are good by nature. All the good things done in the name of religion would have probably happened even without religion.
Das_Saunamies wrote:PS. The Intelligent Design people are to me a fringe faction, and I find them being able to substitute the theory of evolution with theirs alarming.
Like most religions they live by Adam Savages motto: "I reject your reality and substitute my own"
[color=blue][size=84]Antec Solo case /w Seasonic S-12 430W, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2, X2 4850e /w Scythe Ninja, 2x2Gb DDR2800, WD Raptor 150GB, 500GB WD GP in Antec MX-1, BenQ G2400W, Logitech diNovo Laser, Logitech z-680[/color][/size]

Erssa
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Finland

Post by Erssa » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:02 pm

walle wrote:It is all about the human mindset, nationalism is a myth
You must have misunderstood the concept of nationalism. Nationalism isn't about state, it's about culture. Multiple cultures will eventually conflict. Like in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Israel, US civil war, Finnish civil war etc... They were all results of conflicting cultures.
We have been conditioned into believing, and into thinking that we should identify who we are by division, the very tools used for that identification thru division is nationalism, religion and the colour of your skin.
You are wrong. Identifying oneself with a group is not a result of conditioning. We are born to a family, your family is automatically more important to you then other people, people don't need to be conditioned to love their children, because it's a survival instinct selected through evolution. The same thing applies to larger scale. Your village is more important then other villages, your town is more important then another towns etc, people who understand your language and can communicate with you are inherently more important and closer to you then those who don't... And the same way we associate ourselves with everything, be it country, sex, religion, skin color, language, football team, music taste or your favorite color. And I'll emphasize it again. It's a natural process.
People, all humans, inherently know what is right and what is wrong; you know, I know, and everyone else knows, so the day we start doing what we know to be right opposed to do what we are being told to be right (and I have established by who) that will be the day when this planet will be off towards a great heading.
You are somewhat right, we all have some inherent knowledge of right and wrong, they come with our instincts. But people living in a society cannot be freed of influences. Inevitably everyone is affected. By the time you are able to think for yourself, you have already soaked too much influences. You wrong to assume, that free thinking will result in similar moral compasses. We would still have the same heading, that we currently have.

People following their moral compass will inevitably fall into political/value factions. Every single issue and opinion associate people with different factions. For example emergence of communism is inevitable and communist people would want to hang together and individualists would want to stay away from them. Racists would socialize with only their kind and people from a different ethnic group wouldn't want to socialize with racists. Pedophiles would have stick together despite their differences, because there would be shunned by factions that would normally be higher in hierarchy. When we are old enough to think for ourselves, we can form a hierarchy for these associations, that can even surpass the natural hierarchy which places family at the top. Eventually our factions would divide us into societies.

That is what's wrong with todays countries. Societies are too big, diverse and therefore too conflicted to work properly.
[color=blue][size=84]Antec Solo case /w Seasonic S-12 430W, Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-SH2, X2 4850e /w Scythe Ninja, 2x2Gb DDR2800, WD Raptor 150GB, 500GB WD GP in Antec MX-1, BenQ G2400W, Logitech diNovo Laser, Logitech z-680[/color][/size]

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:40 am

Another Scientology protest.....Clearwater, Florida The beginnings of a much-needed trend perhaps?
[size=75]"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke[/size]

klankymen
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Munich, Bavaria, Europe

Post by klankymen » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:32 am

Trip wrote:There is no logical defense of morality outside of religion, only fuzzy sentiments.
Ok, where do you think these original moralities came from? Do you really believe that god reached down a big hand and gave the 10 commandments to moses on a mountain? Don't you think it's more likely that moses just thought the commandments up by himself?

Do you believe that Jesus was the son of god, and communicated by telepathy with god regarding what to do? Or was he already born with the knowledge of what god wanted people to do?
Or was he just a clever guy that wanted to clean up peoples morals?

If you really seriously believe the former cases than the latters, there is no point arguing with you - just be careful that you don't go too far north, you'll fall of the edge of the world.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Post Reply