Anonymous vs. Scientology

[Evans]

The hard part of everything right now is to keep the newfags in check, and make sure that no one does anything stupid. Something like the "anyhrax" attack in LA (which ended up being wheat germ and corn starch) can come across as Anon attacking pretty damn easily, and it's hard to explain that it's not the entire group that's doing this, and the majority don't condone illegal activites.

You people chose to act under the guise of anonymity, so deal with the consequences.

[Xanthos]

Cartman is the supreme leader of the Church of Scientology, so I'd advise asking the producers of South Park to kill him. XD

"Mr. Cruise, you can come out of the closet now."

Not all "religion" lacks logic, mind you.

[Dr Mario]

Not all "religion" lacks logic, mind you.

It does, by it's very nature. Since the supernatural is defined as being above the rules of the natural, and logic is a naturalistic tool for understanding and predicting natural event chains, then the advocacy for a supernatural being is by definition dealing in the non-logical.

It might not actually be wrong, but it's a mistake to step into logic and science when you're a religion. It rarely works out in your favour.

[Sprung]

It does, by it's very nature. Since the supernatural is defined as being above the rules of the natural, and logic is a naturalistic tool for understanding and predicting natural event chains, then the advocacy for a supernatural being is by definition dealing in the non-logical.

It might not actually be wrong, but it's a mistake to step into logic and science when you're a religion. It rarely works out in your favour.

Nah, I believe in God. I also am very interested in space/exoplanets/dark matter/etc. (just random examples)

I think it's healthy to have knowledge from both sides.

[Xanthos]

It does, by it's very nature. Since the supernatural is defined as being above the rules of the natural, and logic is a naturalistic tool for understanding and predicting natural event chains, then the advocacy for a supernatural being is by definition dealing in the non-logical.

It might not actually be wrong, but it's a mistake to step into logic and science when you're a religion. It rarely works out in your favour.

Well, it's hard to say. As far as supernatural beings go, it is more of a faith issue. However, different things in the Bible can be proven scientifically in their own right.

[Strongbad]

Nah, I believe in God. I also am very interested in space/exoplanets/dark matter/etc. (just random examples)

I think it's healthy to have knowledge from both sides.

A lot of people are like you now days. One of my friends is a Christian and a biology major.

[Dr Mario]

Nah, I believe in God. I also am very interested in space/exoplanets/dark matter/etc. (just random examples)

I think it's healthy to have knowledge from both sides.

Well, it's hard to say. As far as supernatural beings go, it is more of a faith issue. However, different things in the Bible can be proven scientifically in their own right.

Right. Guess I wasn't clear on my point.

Religious people can certainly think in a logical matter. That's not my contention. The contention is that religious belief itself can be logical. I don't think that it can. It's operating on a whole different paradigm, one rooted in mysticism and revelation rather than empiricism and testing.

[Chibi-Suke]

It does, by it's very nature. Since the supernatural is defined as being above the rules of the natural, and logic is a naturalistic tool for understanding and predicting natural event chains, then the advocacy for a supernatural being is by definition dealing in the non-logical.

It might not actually be wrong, but it's a mistake to step into logic and science when you're a religion. It rarely works out in your favour.

Which is exactly wy I laugh at the words "Fundamentalist Scientist". I mean, even catholicism accepts evolution now!

[Xanthos]

Right. Guess I wasn't clear on my point.

Religious people can certainly think in a logical matter. That's not my contention. The contention is that religious belief itself can be logical. I don't think that it can. It's operating on a whole different paradigm, one rooted in mysticism and revelation rather than empiricism and testing.

But such things as artifacts can be found and scientifically processed and matched up, for example.

Also, records from countries not specifically related to the Bible have listed the effects of events mentioned there. There can be logical correlations detected in such things as that.

Yes, much is metaphysical, but there ARE some things that can relate.

Which is exactly wy I laugh at the words "Fundamentalist Scientist". I mean, even catholicism accepts evolution now!

That's a genuine oxymoron right there.

[Dr Mario]

But such things as artifacts can be found and scientifically processed and matched up, for example.

Also, records from countries not specifically related to the Bible have listed the effects of events mentioned there. There can be logical correlations detected in such things as that.

Yes, much is metaphysical, but there ARE some things that can relate.

None of which have any influence on the core religious belief (read: statements on the existence of God) within a theological system. That is at the base of all religion and not subject to logic under any religion which claims a supernatural object. And if you can't prove the actual core with logic, then questioning the following ideas within that framework using logic only becomes possible if you take the core idea as an axiom. Meaning you can get to any damn conclusion you like via the insertion of your religions version of "GODDIDIT", but you can never rule out any conclusion for precisely the same reason. On the other hand, if you don't take the core as axiomatic, you have to make all your arguments from outside the framework. Which can and does address those claims, but falls flat against any argument made from within the framework once that damn unjustified axiom is invoked.

In essence, you can't make the argument for belief using sound logic because you can't get a testable premise. You can have valid logic in this case (since validity is only dependant on the consistency of the reasoning and conclusion, not the truth of the premises you're working from) but you can't have sound logic because the axioms remain unproven. Which means any conclusions you derive from those axioms will always be suspect even if they are the result of valid logic sequences.

The flipside to this is that you can't disprove the idea of God, only individual claims about Godhood. Even then, it's often rather tricky and generally best accomplished by attacking the internal consistency of the claim rather than the individual actions therein.

I hope that gives a more solid idea of what I'm trying to say here.



Course, the Bible is a good example here. You can't disprove it externally from the believers POV (God is axiomatic there and thus trumps a lack of evidence even when that lack is in places where there bloody well should be evidence. Exodus and the Deluge are the big ones there.) but you can demonstrate its internal inconsistency quite easily (frex, the fact that at least one story of Jesus birth is incorrect. Herod died in 4BCE and Judea couldn't have been subjected to a Roman census prior to 6CE, when it actually became a part of the roman empire. Therefore, at minimum, either the Matthew or Luke Gospel must be incorrect in it's telling of Jesus' childhood. Then there's the 2 different genealogies given in Luke and Matthew, both of which are different to the line of David given in 1Chronicles). The fact that its overall narrative has more holes than a whores fishnets helps, but it's hardly unique in that manner.


edit: Sorry for the jumpy structure. I'm tired and preoccupied with developing a new fiction story. I think I've cleaned the post up to a readable state now.

[windwaker]

Have any of you guys watched the videos of the picketing on YouTube? Some hilarious stuff.

I doubt Scientology is shivering in its boots though.

[Stark]

Me and a friend are going to birmingham on sunday for the protests, I'm going to get my friend to bring a camera so that we can have our picture taken with some anonymouseseses (masked ones because don't want $oC to have evidence )

[maca]

Which is exactly wy I laugh at the words "Fundamentalist Scientist". I mean, even catholicism accepts evolution now!

If one accepts evolution, one must accept that life on this planet has come into existence by chance, in tiny steps, over very long periods of time. That humans were not designed. It could be supposed that God chose evolution to bring about the existence of life, but then we'd have to accept that God is trying to make us believe we weren't created by him.

Also, what we're seeing with scientology is how all religions began. Two thousand years ago, people didn't know of electricity or aliens and spaceships, so their imaginations were limited to things like, walking on water and healing the blind.

[Chibi-Suke]

If one accepts evolution, one must accept that life on this planet has come into existence by chance, in tiny steps, over very long periods of time. That humans were not designed. It could be supposed that God chose evolution to bring about the existence of life, but then we'd have to accept that God is trying to make us believe we weren't created by him.

Also, what we're seeing with scientology is how all religions began. Two thousand years ago, people didn't know of electricity or aliens and spaceships, so their imaginations were limited to things like, walking on water and healing the blind.

or it could be that the only way that god could create life was in steps, or that god really doesn't care if we know who made us. This is why I'm an apathist. (not to be confused with agnostic or atheist, it's not that I don't believe, or don't know. I just really don't think it matters.)



*glomp*

[Anonymous]

Me and a friend are going to birmingham on sunday for the protests, I'm going to get my friend to bring a camera so that we can have our picture taken with some anonymouseseses (masked ones because don't want $oC to have evidence )

I'll be in Columbus Ohio. If you see pics or vids, I'll be holding the sign that says I CONTROL THE MEST, I CONTROL THE UNIVERSE