#1  
Old 07-01-2012, 10:56 PM
Do You think that Scientology is a cult




This ois what Rupert Mordoch thinks


http://au.news.yahoo.com/entertainme...olmes-divorce/

he says that the Scientology religion is weird on how they pretray them selfs also there are now around 200,000 followers

I think there is not only this religion which can be weird there are many other ones being brought forward and l just dont unerstand which draws normal people and celebs to them

I think that in the end Katie was concerned about her daughter and her own life

Rupert also says we should watch the devorce proceedings and he said we will see creepy things on what this religion is all about

Do you think these type of reliions should be watched and you wouldnt think that normal people and celebs would get into things like this
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-01-2012, 11:28 PM
This is a topic more appropriate for the politics forum.

Moreover, whatever someone's thoughts on Scientology, it is a religion that people on these very boards follow, so once again it's an egg-walking procedure to talk shit about it because then you're insulting followers of the forums.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-02-2012, 12:23 AM
Cults and religions are the same thing. The only difference is numbers.

One dozen bottle rockets and one gross bottle rockets are all still just a bunch of bottle rockets.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2012, 12:33 AM
Perfect quote:
Quote:
...the marriages' ends may have resulted in a difference of opinion on which religion to teach the kid: the crazy one (galactic dictator brought aliens to Earth) or the sane one (man conceived immaculately, walks on water, comes back from dead, is now available for consumption via Necco wafers)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-02-2012, 12:47 AM
The problem with scientology vs other religions is how secretive it is. If they were an open door, then there probably wouldn't be so much commotion over it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-02-2012, 01:53 AM
I'd be curious to learn who on these forums is a scientologist.... Not to ridicule or poke fun, but to genuinely know the reasoning behind their beliefs. (Coming from a fellow schmoe, not just something I could easily google or whatever).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-02-2012, 05:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Cults and religions are the same thing. The only difference is numbers.

One dozen bottle rockets and one gross bottle rockets are all still just a bunch of bottle rockets.
I share this opinion for the most part. I would classify myself as a Deist and find organized religion to be useless (for myself). Im in the boat of people that do not mind what others worship or what their spiritual beliefs are as long as it causes no one else harm; and they practice without affecting anyone negatively or pushing their beliefs on others unfairly.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-02-2012, 08:21 AM
Not gonna speak against anyone's beliefs because ultimately whatever religion you follow, you BELIEVE in that religion.
I believe what I believe, I follow my religion and...gonna leave it at that.
Don't get me to goin'.
Don't want to insult any fellow Schmoes that follow Scientology, that's not right.
Belief is a strong thing, I won't slant anyone's and I hope they won't slant mine.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-02-2012, 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
The problem with scientology vs other religions is how secretive it is. If they were an open door, then there probably wouldn't be so much commotion over it.
I did a lot of research on scientology and other cults for a script. Scientology also has a special division devoted to pampering celebrities. Other religions certainly dont do that.

They do this for prestige and power.

Here's that secret scientologist video Cruise made that was never meant to be public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-02-2012, 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyRazor View Post
Belief is a strong thing, I won't slant anyone's and I hope they won't slant mine.
Precisely what someone with a small penis and pussy religion would say.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-02-2012, 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
The problem with scientology vs other religions is how secretive it is. If they were an open door, then there probably wouldn't be so much commotion over it.
It doesn't help either that they're very aggresive against people who criticize them.

And there is also the "Operation Snow White" incident.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-02-2012, 02:14 PM
Heck, I think that Christianity is a cult, but on the topic of Scientology: I think they're horrifying. From the stories that I've heard and the grasp that they've had over celebrities, it's some pretty Sci-Fi shite. I know that the media has a way of bloating any rotten carcass of a "story" into a spectacle, but I definitely believe that Scientology has a lot to be secretive about...And this is coming from the grandson of a Freemason. (I'm aware that it's not what it used to be, but you get my point.)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-02-2012, 02:37 PM
I agree with Badbird. It's a cult, but I have no problem with Scientology. Met a good many Scientologists, attended a private school entirely staffed by Scientologists in Oregon, and I can't say a bad thing about them.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-02-2012, 03:00 PM
I think this pretty much explains the Scientology scam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9AGVARpqdk
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-02-2012, 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KcMsterpce View Post
This is a topic more appropriate for the politics forum.

Moreover, whatever someone's thoughts on Scientology, it is a religion that people on these very boards follow, so once again it's an egg-walking procedure to talk shit about it because then you're insulting followers of the forums.
Religion is not mutually exclusive to the politics board. Every religion is open season as far as I am concerned and this MISC board will do just fine. I don't think anyone needs to walk on eggshells as to not insult anyone. There are ways to talk about something and not be insulting.

Until anyone can prove their religion is 100% true and real, they are all fake and phony to me, but you believe what you want. I am not going to look down, make fun or discriminate anyone for their beliefs. Just don't try to push it down my throat.

I should watch Dogma again.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-02-2012, 08:38 PM
Same goes with Atheism which is not be proven to be 100% true and real.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-02-2012, 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Same goes with Atheism which is not be proven to be 100% true and real.
At least atheism has never used "god" and "religion" for reasons of bigotry and intolerance.

Not saying that atheists can't be assholes, but I've never seen an atheist who is as hateful as many "religious fanatics".

Just sayin'.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-02-2012, 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
At least atheism has never used "god" and "religion" for reasons of bigotry and intolerance.

Not saying that atheists can't be assholes, but I've never seen an atheist who is as hateful as many "religious fanatics".

Just sayin'.
Woah hold on a minute there.
Plenty of atheist look down on Christians for their beliefs.
I don't know any "religious fanatic"s who are hateful.
But then again don't let facts get in the way of a good story right?

And yeah Scientology is a cult. Tom Crusie, Katie Holmes and John Travolta are crazy. Just watch two specific episodes of South Park.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-02-2012, 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
At least atheism has never used "god" and "religion" for reasons of bigotry and intolerance.

Not saying that atheists can't be assholes, but I've never seen an atheist who is as hateful as many "religious fanatics".

Just sayin'.
Just because you've never seen something doesn't automatically mean it didn't happen. The very few examples of state atheism has shown to be very violent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Mexico under Plutarco Elķas Calles

Quote:
The effects of the war on the Church were profound. Between 1926 and 1934 at least 40 priests were killed.[31] Where there were 4,500 priests serving the people before the rebellion, in 1934 there were only 334 priests licensed by the government to serve fifteen million people, the rest having been eliminated by emigration, expulsion, and assassination.[31][32] By 1935, 17 states had no priest at all.[33]
The Soviet Union

Quote:
Within about a year of the revolution the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution).[50]
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge

Quote:
Religious people were killed in the killing fields, as the leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, suppressed Cambodia's Buddhists: monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing other religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was razed. The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed. Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed.
North Korea

Quote:
Although the North Korean constitution states that freedom of religion is permitted,[71] free religious activities no longer exist in North Korea as the government sponsors religious groups only to create an illusion of religious freedom.[72][73] Cardinal Nicolas Cheong Jin-suk has said that, "There's no knowledge of priests surviving persecution that came in the late forties, when 166 priests and religious were killed or kidnapped." which includes the Roman Catholic bishop of Pyongyang, Francis Hong Yong-ho
People's Socialist Republic of Albania

Quote:
The Agrarian Reform Law of August 1945 nationalized most property of religious institutions, including the estates of monasteries, orders, and dioceses. Many clergy and believers were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic priests, monks, and nuns were expelled in 1946.[37]

The clergy were publicly vilified and humiliated, their vestments taken and desecrated. More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture, and some were executed or starved to death. The cloister of the Franciscan order in Shkodėr was set on fire, which resulted in the death of four elderly monks.

Parents were afraid to pass on their faith, for fear that their children would tell others. Officials tried to entrap practicing Christians and Muslims during religious fasts, such as Lent and Ramadan, by distributing dairy products and other forbidden foods in school and at work, and then publicly denouncing those who refused the food, and clergy who conducted secret services were incarcerated.[37] Catholic priest Shtjefen Kurti had been executed for secretly baptizing a child in Shkodėr in 1972
Cuba

Quote:
Cuba began arresting many believers and shutting down religious schools, its prisons since the 1960s being filled with clergy. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has amended its statutes to declare itself a "secular state" rather than atheistic.

In 1961 The Cuban government confiscated the Catholic schools, including the Jesuit school Fidel Castro had attended. In 1965 it exiled two hundred priests.
And I've quoted the estimated staggering number of deaths in another thread.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-02-2012, 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KcMsterpce View Post
This is a topic more appropriate for the politics forum.

Moreover, whatever someone's thoughts on Scientology, it is a religion that people on these very boards follow, so once again it's an egg-walking procedure to talk shit about it because then you're insulting followers of the forums.
This is not a politica

l it is about Scientology which is a religion

Rupert Murdoch is not a polition he is in the media even though l have to say he is still in alot of trouble also

He only pointed out whatt he thought about scientology and his concerns about it

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/84...hind-the-split


This link also from a australia show called Current affair goes into more detail on waht happens to the children in this cult and waht is expected of them

There are former members who said there were dangers and alot of brain washing

Also alot of celebs who were into sceintology have left one of them is Lisa Marie Presley and a few others who are mentioned in this clip

Last edited by Bondgirl; 07-02-2012 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-02-2012, 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaw2929 View Post
I'd be curious to learn who on these forums is a scientologist.... Not to ridicule or poke fun, but to genuinely know the reasoning behind their beliefs. (Coming from a fellow schmoe, not just something I could easily google or whatever).

Well it would be interesting to know if there was any members who are followers of this cult or religion

it would be also interesting to see what there opinion would be and if waht we hear is true or false
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-02-2012, 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Religion is not mutually exclusive to the politics board. Every religion is open season as far as I am concerned and this MISC board will do just fine. I don't think anyone needs to walk on eggshells as to not insult anyone. There are ways to talk about something and not be insulting.

Until anyone can prove their religion is 100% true and real, they are all fake and phony to me, but you believe what you want. I am not going to look down, make fun or discriminate anyone for their beliefs. Just don't try to push it down my throat.

I should watch Dogma again.
I also agree with what Erroneous has said here about walking on egg shells

I can only say that it is great to start a thread which can be interesting and sometimes it is good to have a thread that can be abut on edge
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-03-2012, 01:09 AM
Why can't God (or whatever deity/deities that you worship) be the ultimate (team of) scientist(s)?

...and I'd like to say that in all sides of the religious spectrum, there are people who do it right and there are people who do it wrong. The wrong people always represent them all, unfortunately...because the ones who do it right are boring for headlines.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-03-2012, 09:29 AM
Quote:
Religion vs. Atheism
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-03-2012, 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Halloween View Post
I will never understand silly posts like this. You are not funny nor clever. Everyone does things like this now to make a point rather than actually make a real point. It is also insulting to think that we can not discuss things maturely. It is sad that some people rather just close a thread rather than debate their points.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-03-2012, 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Until anyone can prove their religion is 100% true and real, they are all fake and phony to me, but you believe what you want. I am not going to look down, make fun or discriminate anyone for their beliefs. Just don't try to push it down my throat.
I'm certainly not in favor of shoving stuff down people's throats, but shouldn't anyone who actually believes what their religion teaches be compelled to prosthelytize? Shouldn't we lose respect for people who don't prosthelytize?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-03-2012, 02:04 PM
I believe those who attempt to convert others to their faiths prey on the weak and vulnerable. Be it the Jesuits of centuries past, or theistic parents of an innocent and naive child. Telling someone with basic intellect of a 4 year old about superstition and the powers of chanting is robbing them of the chance and choice to see and discover it for themselves when they are of age to be critically minded.

Life is mostly about self-discovery and learning, and what is learned has to be proven a posteriori. If someone were to tell you how the universe was governed without proof it's second-hand information that cannot be credible knowledge. And any religion preys on those who cannot see or understand this. It's how they keep their numbers.

Reason is the death of any religion.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-03-2012, 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
I believe those who attempt to convert others to their faiths prey on the weak and vulnerable. Be it the Jesuits of centuries past, or theistic parents of an innocent and naive child. Telling someone with basic intellect of a 4 year old about superstition and the powers of chanting is robbing them of the chance and choice to see and discover it for themselves when they are of age to be critically minded.
I don't disagree with that. I do think there are plenty of people with the best of intentions who prosthelytize to young people, but I do think that that's usually done dangerously and poorly.

Prosthelytizing to an adult is a different matter, though. I'm certainly not claiming that religions as an entity don't care about numbers, because large, large factions of them do. But there are also individuals who individually believe something that causes them to prosthelytize and I feel that's a much more respectable position than those who believe in something that could benefit others but don't tell anyone about it.

Quote:
Reason is the death of any religion.
Reason is why religion can't be empirically proven true. It certainly can invalidate it in your eyes because of your standards for it (all of which are fine), but it doesn't kill it beyond that.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-03-2012, 03:35 PM
Its not so much that Scientology is a cult so muc that every cross section of society, whether it be divided by religion, race, colour, sexual orientation, etc, has its share of respectables and crazies.

I think if anything its probably more a case of seeing more of the crazies of Scientology then the respectables. At the end of the day though, they are every where and are by no means restricted to the demographs i've listed above.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-03-2012, 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
Reason is why religion can't be empirically proven true. It certainly can invalidate it in your eyes because of your standards for it (all of which are fine), but it doesn't kill it beyond that.
^ This

...religion, at its most core of cores, is based on one's CHOICE to believe, ultimately.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-03-2012, 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I will never understand silly posts like this. You are not funny nor clever. Everyone does things like this now to make a point rather than actually make a real point. It is also insulting to think that we can not discuss things maturely. It is sad that some people rather just close a thread rather than debate their points.

Yes that image is silly and has nothing to do with what we are all talking about on this thread


I also thiink it s better to ignore members like that because in other words they want a reaction and they will not be getting it from me

I also find that religion can be a money grabbing think for some people and sometimes you see the head of the churchs with expensive houses and cars

I know in the churrh you are supposed to give donations but sometimes we dont expect the money to go to the head of the church and to be spent on there own needs


I dont go to church because some of the followers are fools who beleive in anything

That is why you have to be careful

Oh on katie and Tom do you know that the three ex wifes were 33yrs old when they separated

Isnt that weird


Also l agree also that alot of religous people do prey on the lonely

I was sitting one day on a bench eating my lunch and this man of god came to me telling me l should follow god

I told him to leave me alone and bother someone else

Last edited by Bondgirl; 07-03-2012 at 10:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-04-2012, 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Just because you've never seen something doesn't automatically mean it didn't happen. The very few examples of state atheism has shown to be very violent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
Wow. Did you really just pull the "Atheist Atrocities" card? The fact that those were power hungry, totalitarian dictatorships had more to do with the atrocities committed, rather than the belief, or lack of belief, by any leader.

There is no dogma or set of principles that govern atheists. It literally means one thing: a lack of belief in gods. That's it.


The truth about ‘atheist’ atrocities
By George A. Ricker

In most discussions between believers and nonbelievers there comes a time when people start arguing over atrocities. Non theists recite a litany of abuses of groups and individuals perpetrated by various religious sects. Religionists counter with their own list of savageries perpetrated by this or that “atheist” regime, usually the names Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung are invoked. And so it goes.

This sort of dispute always seems singularly unproductive to me. It is a given, recognized by even the most casual student of history, that human beings are capable of great violence, and when any group of humans perceives there is a threat to be defeated or a benefit to be gained by attacking another individual or group of individuals, organized violence is often the option of choice. Such actions are not unique to any particular group.

However, there is a basic flaw in the characterization of atheism as the motivating force behind atrocities committed by political regimes. It should be noted at the outset that Hitler’s Nazi regime was not atheistic. Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic, at least nominally. Now his version of Christianity was probably badly warped and ultimately may have had little or nothing to do with any recognized Christian dogma, but he was, at a minimum, a theist. He did believe in a god and, at various times, expressed the opinion that his actions were in accordance with the divine will. It’s also true that the overwhelming majority of his followers were practicing Christians of one sort and another. So the atrocities committed by Hitler and his regime could not be laid at the door of atheism, even if the argument from atrocities had any validity.

That it does not have any validity ought to be clear to anyone who understands what atheism is and what it is not. Atheism is the absence of god-belief. It is not a political agenda or an economic philosophy. It offers no moral guidance and has no dogma to follow.

There is absolutely nothing in the statements “I have no belief in gods” or “I believe there are no gods” that ought to cause anyone to do any harm to anybody. There is nothing about atheism that suggests or implies an action agenda against anyone who practices a religion of any sort. Although individual atheists may be antagonistic toward religions, there is nothing about atheism that requires such hostility. Atheism is not the opposite of religion. It is the absence or lack of theism (god-belief).

Were terrible atrocities committed by communist regimes? There’s no question about it. Were those regimes overtly atheistic in that they denied the existence of a deity and sought to promote a non theistic view of things? That certainly was the case in, at least, some of them. Doesn’t that mean that atheism was responsible for some, if not all, of the atrocities committed by those regimes? Not at all.

Here’s why.

The regimes in question (i.e. communist regimes like that of the Soviet Union, Communist China, et. al.) were totalitarian and dogmatic in nature. The state was all, and the needs of the state were of paramount importance, regardless of the wishes of individuals. For all their claims of openness and liberation, those societies were invariably oppressive and intolerant of any dissent.

To the extent those regimes were hostile to religion, the hostility came chiefly from the identification of religions and religious organizations as competing sources of influence. In some cases, the antagonism was exacerbated by the recognition (and this was especially true in the Soviet Union) that the church had been aligned with the forces of oppression in the regimes that had been overthrown by the revolutionary movements that led to the creation of the totalitarian states in question.

It is also the case that many, if not most, of the atrocities committed by such regimes against their people had nothing whatever to do with any sort of anti-religious sentiment but were the product of other causes. Agrarian reform produced widespread famine and millions of deaths in both the Soviet Union and Communist China as did the drive to industrialize previously agrarian economies and the tremendous dislocations associated with such efforts. Add to those elements the paranoia of the ruling class and the absolute determination to suppress any voices of dissent that might pose a threat to that ruling class, and the kind of organized violence against any perceived enemy within the societies in question is an entirely predictable outcome.

But it is an outcome that has nothing whatever to do with atheism. That does not mean no atheist might act to perpetrate violence against someone else. Atheists are not exempt from feeling the same passions that may lead to such actions. What it does mean is that the commission of organized mayhem by this or that government cannot be laid at the door of atheism. Even if that government actively promotes atheism, which is itself a problematic notion, there is nothing about atheism that could or should lead to any sort of atrocity.

Some might argue that even though atheism per se might not require or suggest any sort of action against others, atheism might lead to such actions because it does not impose moral restrictions against them. However, this is a weak reed on which to base any sort of attack. Since atheism is not a moral code and suggests no moral guidelines, it cannot be the case that immoral actions can be charged to atheism’s account. Atheists have moral values as well as theists. They just don’t get them from atheism.

So the argument that atheism is somehow responsible for the atrocities committed by various totalitarian regimes in the 20th century fails for several reasons. Atheism offers no rationale for committing such acts. Most of the atrocities in question had nothing to do with questions of religious belief or its lack. Finally, while atheism may not itself offer any sort of moral guidance, that does not mean that atheists lack morals or are immune from moral strictures.

Conflating atheism with communist regimes and then claiming the atrocities committed by those regimes is somehow the fault of atheism is an intellectual shell game that has no real validity. Those who engage in it do so either because they do not understand the nature of atheism or because they are more interested in clouding issues than in promoting genuine understanding.

Finally, it must be emphasized that atheism is not any sort of dogma. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. It is nothing more than that. As such atheism is the epitome of free thought. Any attempt to impose atheism or to undermine the rights of conscience of other individuals or groups of individuals in the name of atheism goes beyond the scope of atheism itself and must be attributed to other factors.

There is nothing about atheism that can be legitimately used as the basis for attempting to force anything on anyone. To suggest otherwise is to betray ignorance of both the nature of atheism and the history of the 20th century.

© 2007 by George A. Ricker


Link
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-04-2012, 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Just because you've never seen something doesn't automatically mean it didn't happen. The very few examples of state atheism has shown to be very violent.
Basically what you are suggesting is that a correlation exists between the type of people who do not believe in the fundamentality of an objective transcendental metaphysical being and an amoral predilection towards using the state in a way which abuses human rights. But what you're doing is both a mix of ad ignorantiam and affirming the consequent.

So, for example, I am positing that for the last one hundred years invisible and untraceable infinitely powerful particles called bullshitons, which exist only in pudding, are what allows the sun to continue to exist. Should all the pudding of the world cease to exist, the sun would literally fall out of the sky, killing all life. Prove me wrong, motherfucker.

Now, quite amazingly, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pinochet, and Mugabe do not believe in the existence of these particles in pudding. Therefore, not believing in this is correlated with being a mass murdering fuckhead.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-04-2012, 01:03 AM
I failed scientology back when I was in high school.
I was always better at things like gym an' stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-04-2012, 02:25 AM
GOOD GRIEF PEOPLE THERE ARE BAD ATHEISTS AND BAD RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-04-2012, 03:52 AM
I believe the U.S. Government recognizes Scientology as a religion. For me - somebody who's not a very religious person - it's just another thing that baffles me where people's beliefs on certain things seem really outlandish.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-04-2012, 11:04 AM
You never would have guessed that a science fiction writer invented this religion.

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

- L. Ron Hubbard
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-04-2012, 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473 View Post
GOOD GRIEF PEOPLE THERE ARE BAD ATHEISTS AND BAD RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!
Atheists make up less than 1% of the US prison population, yet they make up anywhere from 5-15% of the population (depending on how you define "non-religious").
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-04-2012, 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Atheists make up less than 1% of the US prison population, yet they make up anywhere from 5-15% of the population (depending on how you define "non-religious").
Atheists make up only 2% of the U.S population. Not everyone who says they are not religious is an atheists. The number of people who say they have a religion is down. But the number of people who believe in an after life is up.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-04-2012, 09:53 PM
Geez l never thought there would be so many posts on this subject but it goes to show that alot of members here have alot of opinions on it

i was watching the news this morning and they were saying that katie Holmes is going to make her court case public so it will be interssting to see what the court thinks of this religion or cult

There are so many religions that have diffrent values and they love to pass it on to there followers all there beliefs

Sometimes you wonder what Scientology is all about and what restrictions they have on the people who follow them

I do think that by the news report this morning it seems as though Katie was really scared of her involvement in this cult

Do you know she arranged her escape a couple of monthes ago and her father flew in on the day she wanted to get away

Also by reports she feels as though she is being watched since she has left

I really think she was scared for her safty and also the welfare of her daughter

Sometimes in a wise way it might be good to beleive in your self instead of jionig religous groups

If there was a god out there why didt he help Katie she in other words had to think for her self instead of beleiving in somethnig
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump