Scientology spokesman confirms Xenu story A Scientology spokesman has confirmed that Scientologists believe that mankind's problems stem from brainwashed alien soul remnants created millions of years ago by genocidal alien overlord Xenu. The admission follows years of attempts to dismiss the story, first leaked by defectors, as anti-church propaganda. In an interview …
I meant we don't have a shared belief system. Everyone has their own belief system, even if they try to overwrite it with an out-of-the-box one that's shared with a group of others. Atheists have lovely bespoke ones that are constantly being revised and updated. Or they should, at least.
Don't be silly girl. Of course they do. Either they have no beliefs - in which case they are brain dead. Or their beliefs are transient and logically disconnected from each other, so that none of them imply or are implied by any other of their "beliefs" - in which case they are almost brain dead (c.f. the so-called after-life experiences of bliss and glowing tunnels). Or they have a matrix of beliefs just like ordinary people do. The fact that they may never comprehend or articulate or codify or axiomatize the extent or the bases of that matrix is no reason to deny them the ability to think systematically. That's just an ethnocentric prejudice.
"A core doctrine of Scientology belief is that freeing the human body of attachment to alien soul remnants, or Thetans, created by Xenu when he kidnapped millions and brought them to earth for a fiery execution, is key to achieving spiritual progress and relief from worries."
That has since been MODified and Corrected [Core erected] to Deliver ..... A core doctrine of Scientology belief is that freeing the human brain and its imaginanations of attachment to alien soul remnants, or Thetans, created by Xenu when he kidnapped millions and brought them to earth for a fiery execution, is key to achieving spiritual progress and relief from worries...... for the Higher Elevated Lauded Levels which Provide Controls in Core Universal Beliefs.
"Scientologists pay an estimated $350,000 to reach OT III." Wow .... Of that would I have no Knowledge. HELL, of course, is Priceless, and QuITe whether Worth every Red Cent for All that IT Returns in Life is an Enigma to Ponder for Solution and Resolution in the Riddle of the Mystery in ITs Key Code Algorithm.
"Atheists don't have a belief *system* ..."
except for a belief that they don't have a belief system.
No disrespect meant, but atheists have a theory that there is no god and religious folks have a theory that there is a god.
One of the groups is gonna be wrong, since you cannot prove the non-existence of something, and you're gonna have great trouble proving that a god exists (If you find him under a sofa, then he's not exactly omniscient).
If you're gonna pick a side, you've got to believe one theory is right.
Let me put my popcorn down
im gonna have to have a crack at it now !
As for religion there normally isnt anything wrong with it at all
Unless ... (of course i was going to say that )
Its taken to an extreme.
almost every single society global has created a religion.
I dont believe that there is nothing there, i hope there is something there.
I raise my children in a christian belief system because i feel it will teach them good morals
I will also teach my children not to suicide bomb everybody who disbelieves
Waiting for the day when an atheist suicide bombs for people not beiliving in atheism :D
Only icon with a question mark please just ignore the letters I and T.
Im really not sure what my point is but im sure there is one :)
But it's not a direct opposition by definition, even though it can be oppositional - atheism just means you don't have a religion, essentially. It can be a default position, if you've just never found much about the whole God lark that appeals to you. You can be pretty neutral about it - it's just an absence of belief. Atheists are not a group - they're just the people left over after you take away the theists, and they range from the totally unconcerned to the rantingly radical and unhelpful.
It does bother me that there's an assumption that if you don't have religion, you must have something that occupies that role in your life, and it must be of equal size and shape and just as ready for a big barney to decide who's right. Some people just aren't fussed either way, and if they were pressed they'd have to describe themselves as 'atheist' in the same sense that people who aren't fussed about shagging are 'asexual'.
That's not picking a side - that's choosing not to pick a side at all.
Maiden, virgin...
Do you release that "maiden" is just the older English equivalent of the more recent Latin borrowing "virgin"? We'd probably still be using it today if Latin hadn't been the language of the church and hence the language used to describe Mary. You might also note the Shakespearean term "maidenhead" for the concept of "virginity" and the physical structure now called the "hymen".
Besides, Isaiah wrote his stuff circa 800 years before the Roman occupation of Canaan as described in the New Testament, so what has he got to do with it?
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing. The "virgin birth" means that Jesus was Mary's first born child. That's all it means.
Perhaps you're thinking of "The Immaculate Conception," which is a myth invented by the church at a much later date.
Not that any of that has anything to do with much of anything, but it'd be nice if you had your pseudo facts straight.
Paris, because some day she may have a virgin birth too, but we already know that her virginity is a thing of the past, just like Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
...is the "Organized" part.
Only in an organization, do you need a hierarchy, support structure, funding, followers in sufficient number to raise the appropriate funding...and then, of course, you need to "defend your turf", lest the "others" lure your followers to their heretical beliefs (along with their donations). It all goes downhill from there.
Believe what you want. Just don't hurt anyone else.
...Peace, Love and Linux
I think that what I should have said was I get smug (often masking frustration) when theists can't see that atheism is qualitatively different to theism. That was the ignorance I meant, not implying that theism == ignorance.
That said, religion and theism confuse the hell out of me - I just can't get my head around the idea of believing in something like that, so I probably frustrate the hell out of believers. I also probably frustrate them by my refusal to accept something that I can see no evidence for whatsoever.
Spokespeople for Scientology often try to hammer home the point that they have a great deal in common with other religions. But now we get this from Davis:
"For you ... as somebody who is not a Scientologist to talk to me about what my beliefs are or to ask me to explain any core religious belief, that's an offensive concept. Nobody should ever be asked to do that. "
This is in stark contrast to the proselytising nature of pretty much any other religion I'd care to mention. Frequently you can't get them to shut up about their beliefs.
I wonder if he's more worried that his belief in a prehistoric alien race shipped to Earth in a fleet of DC-8s is now open to ridicule, or that its disclosure endangers his revenue stream?
If people wish to believe in a creator being because they're scared of death I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't directly impact on my life. Start haranguing me with your belief system whilst I'm minding my own business and I will get annoyed and will tell you so in no uncertain terms. Start invading countries and costing me money indirectly in taxes because "God told me to" and I will again make my displeasure known.
Keep the bullshit in Latin so the mugus cannot understand it. Release doctored versions of Josephus's Jewish Antiquities for people prepared to learn ancient Greek to check the revised version of history.
That should keep the money rolling in for a few centuries. After all, it has worked before.
"A handwritten document summarising the Xenu story, in Hubbard's own handwriting, has also turned up, it adds."
He found a use for that story idea that his publisher rejected after all. :p
I once got a chance to skim through the slush pile of unsolicited stories sent to a SF publisher and I only remember one that was as stupid as the Xenu story.
Atheist believe there is no god, christians believe there is a god.
So pretty equal, innit?
Ooh, I forgot:
... and a holy ghost, and a holy communion, heaven and hell (if you chose the correct denomination), forgiveness for all your sins (if pop says it's OK) ...
But then, christianity seems mostly benign those days, pseudoscientology leans a bit harder on its disciples.
@Jonathan Adams:
" "Atheists don't have a belief *system* ..."
except for a belief that they don't have a belief system.
No disrespect meant, but atheists have a theory that there is no god and religious folks have a theory that there is a god."
You don't need to have a theory against something that there is no evidence for. I don't have a theory that there isn't really a holdall containing a pair of Hitler's underpants lying on the surface of Pluto. Why should I? A theory is only required to explain something. If some pictures came back from a passing space probe with of a swastika-emblazoned bag on farthest (planet/planetoid - delete as applicable), *then* I'd probably start coming up with a theory of no-hitler-pants-on-pluto, but you've got to have some observed phenomena to explain in the first place.
that in Christianity you spend can spend exactly £0.00 and get enlightened which I believe what Islam charges, hinduism charges etc etc for the other versions of enlightenment
Athiesm charges you £0.00 and you can make up you own road to being happy and not have to spend years studying a book
Scientology is different.... every stage of their pathway to happiness , they charge you for it.... repeatedly and again and again
Which is why its a load of old *******
Me? I'm a cockroach... which means after the coming nuclear war I'll be the one still living
Ethnocentric prejudice (@Luther)? That's the old cultural relativism argument which severely tests Anthropology - can someone from culture A objectively interpret culture B?
I sat in an Anthropology tutorial, with my very Christian mate, who argued that creationism was a belief system, and so was evolution by natural selection. We agreed to disagree, though not before I asked her if the world was flat, in typically constructive fashion. The thing was that everyone else on the course agreed with her, and not a single one of them had the faintest inkling about science.
There are two different cultures in today's homogenised world, I tell you: those who get science, and those who don't.
"I handed my life over to Scientology, paid 350k, and all I got was a lousy story"
Nevertheless, at least with Scientology it is perfectly clear that their business is a money extracting scheme involving the mental submission of their believers. On the other hand, I don't care what other folks do as long as they leave me alone with it and no one gets seriously hurt — or killed. Damn, now that is another one where Scientology clearly wins against a lot of other religions... head starts to spin...
Just practice the kindness, folks.
PS: I want a V for Vendetta icon
Theists have beliefs that they hold despite all evidence to the contrary. They call this faith.
Atheists choose theories that fit the evidence they have. They think of this as not being a gullible 419 target.
If new evidence contradicts a theory or belief, the atheists change their theories. Theists change the evidence.
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." -- Doctor Who
"O course there's a God" he replied, and my faith was restored for I knew Santa would never lie.
For those of you who are not entirely up to speed on the 'History' of Science Fiction..
It all started as drunken bet at a Sci-Fi convention between the late L Ron H and another writer. one Larry Niven of 'Ringworld' fame. Sadly the specifics of the arguement that led up to this challenge have evapourated into the mists of time like the methanol of cheap bourbon.
However the upshot of it was that to claim a victory one of them had to found thier own religion.
Faith will move mountains, all it takes is every pilgrim to take a teaspoon of dirt home.
Paris...because I'd take her home
I was always under the impression that agnostics were the ones on the fence, no current belief in God but open to change should the situation or evidence that they were wrong arise - burning bushes, quests for grails, that kind of thing.
Whereas atheists fundamentally (ouch) disbelieve in the existence of God and would not change from that position even if the Big Guy* appeared in front of them with all his little wizards.
I think what most people commenting here really are, are humanists: "a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters" (source: OED)
No idea what I am, although I do believe in the healing powers of beer and pizza if that helps.
Clam.
*Or Gal, or Evil Alien Overlord - whatever.
If I submit some remark on religion, and always get a platform for denigrating others in return, it's not unreasonable that someone would think there was a common "system" for this wondrous transformation...
Happily, and surprisingly, this wasn't the case today; there were posts from people who are actually secure in themselves/their beliefs, and don't feel the need to comment on how infinitely superior they are since they belong to "group A" rather than "group B". But skimming the comments, I couldn't help but notice the number of directed posts, letting those who might be religious know that they are all equally daft - a bit surprising as I could not find the smug religious poster they seemed to be targeting. hmm... This is bound to lead to some people's perceptions being colored just a tinge of red (with a bit of confusion added to the mix as they probably wonder "what triggered this attack??") So while your posts were as objective and rational as ever, I think given the context (the highly repetitive context), a bit of confusion is not only understandable, but to be expected.
"No disrespect meant, but atheists have a theory that there is no god and religious folks have a theory that there is a god."
Actually they don't, by and large. Unless you define me assuming that you, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, can't fly as the same as you beliving that you can fly.
We're born without any belief in gods and simply remaining in that state is not really equivalent to moving to a state where we believe some folkstory or other that our parents told us. Unless you're a intellectually bankrupt fool who is desperate to point the finger at others in a shallow attempt to distract attention from the fact that you in fact do believe nonsense without any supporting evidence, for example.
>>"It does bother me that there's an assumption that if you don't have religion, you must have something that occupies that role in your life, and it must be of equal size and shape..."
Quite.
And one side to that is that it's pretty clear that a great many supposed believers don't have that much of a hole that religion is filling either.
There are people who call themselves believers if pushed, but their token belief doesn't really extend much further than liking to think there might be a heaven when they're dead, and maybe saying a little prayer if they find themselves in deep shit, yet instantly forgetting that if things turn out OK.
Even though most have stopped going, there are still people who attend a church because their other half pushes them to do, it or their parents make them, they go through all the motions, and always have done, yet they don't really have significantly more belief than the token believers. If *they* had a hole, religion should clearly be filling it.
Yet despite that, the evangelistic believers will use themselves as a model of everyone else, and assume that everyone must have a god[s]-shaped hole just as large as their own, and that people are somehow defective if that hole isn't being filled by the right god.
I suppose there's always the excuse that the token believers "Just haven't been touched by [deity] yet!", but that would rather suggest a pretty bone-idle deity, which isn't much interested even in many people who are ripe for the touching, and which is happy for them to have their deity-sized hole left unfilled.
"What I find curious is how atheists or agnostics consider themselves to be above others with a religious belief, which in itself is an ironic display of belonging to their own 'belief'."
I'd like to speak on behalf of agnostics, somehow you've confused us with atheists. Sure, American dictionaries have over the last 15 years merged the two definitions, but in the rest of the world agnostics and atheists have two entirely separate viewpoints.
As an agnostic I do not deny anyone's beliefs. Everyone is entitled to believe what they like, even if it is a little far-fetched like Scientology. I am open to the possibility that there is an element of truth in the religious beliefs of others, partly because there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove such beliefs. I would quite happily accept the existence of the Christian 'God' or winged faeries if I have first-hand experience demonstrating that either of those examples exist.
I'm not going to mock someone for their beliefs - they might be right. Furthermore, if someone were to mock my personal beliefs, I wouldn't like it, so I have no intention of inflicting exactly that discomfort on others.
If there is any essence to a "holier than thou" attitude from agnostics then it is derived from our willingness to accept that anything is possible, we just need to experience it first-hand in order to be convinced. In the meanwhile we wish that everyone else could accept our viewpoint, that is to be open to the possibility that we might be wrong, and a willingness to improve our perception of the possibilities of this universe by learning from first-hand observations.
Sarah, I think your posit is pretty accurate except that you fail to recognize that not only are there "weak" atheists (people who just don't know/care/bother with one or more deities), but there are also "weak" theists. A weak theist would have some sort of internalized belief in some deity or deities, however it would not affect their daily lives. In a sense, this means that if you don't have a religion, the lack thereof must occupy at least as much of your daily life as someone with a religion - ie none of it. A weak theist position can also be a default position, since, in many cases, one hears about some deity or another before one really has the capability to analyze - the act of analysis changes any position from default to non-default. In many cases weak theists and weak atheists are also agnostic: if pressed they would indicate that the existence, or lack thereof, of one or more deities is unprovable.
Strong atheists, like strong theists, are a whole different breed. Though sometimes also agnostic, these are the types that spend some significant portion of their daily lives devoted to their religious (not necessarily shared) belief system. The vocal members of these groups are the ones who call everyone ignorant for their obviously foolish ideas, etc. The less voracious of these (on both sides) can be very good people, but they do, even the atheist side, have a belief system - this is not a "default" position to take.
That being said, as far as I can tell the CoS don't see Xenu as a deity, proper, but rather an alien. If that is the case (and they have no other deities), then, technically, they would be atheists... and strong ones at that.
"There's lots of historical evidence that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad etc. were real and great leaders of people, just like Joan of Arc, Ghandi, Martin Luther King etc."
Actually there's not really any creditable historical evidence for Jesus existing. It doesn't make the teachings any less useful/inspired unless you're really hung up on literalism.
While we're at it, there is good evidence that Joan of Arc was really 'Jeanne Darc' but her surname was changed to d'Arc as it sounded more aristocratic. By later writers I hasten to add.
something like founding The Grand Order of Nihilists isn't it? Or is it Proof of nihism?
for all the historical evidence of Jesus et al crowd, read Frank Herbert's Dune as that's what it's all about, a hero who is just a normal (although exceptional) man who is made into Messiah by a downtrodden and persecuted people (sound familiar)? Then his teachings end up corrupted and result in Jihad.....hmmmmm
so i always thought of myself as 'non-religious' because i don't follow any religion. they mostly do not add up and i reject religion because of the inflexibility (mainly) and intolerance. and the death, suffering and destruction in it's name.
but i do believe there is some sort of 'source' god thing, and spirit. and that there is really so much more out there than we could possibly know. since i am learning each day, my personal unique beliefs system is always changing.
anyway, my point is that you cannot label me and put me in a group. i have beliefs that always change.
these 'define the group name' discussion would be pointless, but they're not because they're funny.. hehehe.
oh, and i've heard scientology is not just a load of nonsense but that they're a rich and dangerous lot... scared? NOT !
@AC 17:11 to paraphrase: "virgin" just means "first" - thanks for that, and you may be right, but the collective church has since definitely equated it with Immaculate Conception and the idea that Jesus is *literally* the son of a beardy God. Which is not too far from Xenu.
@Andy B - I didn't know the Jeanne Darc thing (you learn a lot here at el reg :-) and it's certainly plausible - and similar to the history of Jesus and writings in the bible. The point is that it's the *ideas* that are important, not the book they're written in or who said them. But try saying the bible is just a bunch of stories to a strong Christian, or questioning the history of the Qur'an!
Strength of belief exists on a graded scale and the names of them seem to get confused in a number of discussions, so here's my bash at sorting them out:
Strong theist: there is only one God(s) (and that's my God(s)!) who created all things. He/they will smite you with eternal torment if you don't believe and our relgious texts are literal and cannot be questioned! Now get down on your knees and PRAY!!!
Theist (Gnostic?): There definitely is a God who should be worshipped (even if you haven't been touched by one yet), though many religions have plenty useful things to say and all Gods are just the one anyway (though I have a sneaking suspiscion it's my one) so can't we all just agree with that and be happy?
Weak theist: I'm pretty sure there's something out there, but I don't know what. After all, this can't be all there is can it?
Agnostic: err, dunno really, haven't thought about it....
Weak atheist: There's no proof of a god so I don't believe, but there's no proof against it either so, yeah, whatever dude.
Strong atheist: There's no proof an god (and, for goodness sake, just one little hint would do) and it's not possible to prove the non-existance of a thing, but the evidence against it is so overwhelming that please, for the love of humanity, please grow up and stop believing in super-natural imaginary friends so you can open your eyes and take in the complex beauty of the real world and universe and the capabilities of animal and human kind!
I'm a strong atheist (if you hadn't guessed :-) so definitely don't have any beliefs in the super-natural. I do have one axiom for living though: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - also known as: "what goes around comes around" or "Karma" - and it seems that everything else can be pretty much derived from that. Despite this being shared with numerous other people, including one commenter, it is *not* a belief or religion!
I may also make assertions like "I think the the opposite of Faith is Curiosity" and find questioning things a useful way of improving life for all, but, again, this is just a way of life and not a belief or religion. Here's a good question for you: what's the difference between a belief and a religous belief? When you answer that fully you'll understand why religion, and the belief in gods, makes strong atheists so angry.
Strong Atheism and Zen Buddism, with its notion of constant questioning, probably have a lot in common, but I haven't done enough reading/thinking/asking questions to say for sure.
[El reg *so* needs a proper forum for this sort of discuss. C'mon vultures, just get the slashdot software installed :-]
becoming an omnitheist? That's someone who believes in Jesus, Muhammet, Microsoft, Zeus, Xenu, Krishna and every other God ever conceived, up to and particularly including the Flying Sphagetti Monster. Of course, you can't follow ALL the commandments all the time, but not even the most fervent monotheist can do that. It's all relative. Advantages of omnitheism include
So many religious holidays you hardly have to work at all
Backing of a horde of deities, saints and blessed ones for all occasions
Always having a local church/temple/mosque/sabbat just around the corner
Not being bothered by fanatics trying to convert you to their belief system
And above all; getting a choice of paradises when you pass on.
Bless you, my brothers and sisters in faith and/or faithlessness.
If you're going to accuse other people of ignorance, it's a good idea to get your own facts straight.
1. Ian Rogers represents a prominent strand of modern theological thought. The original Hebrew text of Isaiah uses a word that can equally well be translated 'virgin' or 'young woman'. Matthew and Luke are keen to present the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of ancient prohecies and may have over-egged the pudding, so to speak.
2. The Immaculate Conception is sometimes (mistakenly) taken to be equivalent to virgin birth, but in fact is a purely RC doctrine that Mary was conceived free of original sin. Dating back to the 15th century, it became dogma only in the 19th.
Wikipedia has good articles on both these points.
We now return you to our regular programming.
"Atheist believe there is no god, christians believe there is a god. So pretty equal, innit?"
Er, no. Christians believe that there is a *particular* god and that they happen to be the leading authorities on Him and His preferences. That's not remotely equal.
I am an atheist, not because I believe I have some insight that others lack, but simply because "no god" is a better working hypothesis than any "particular god". The "no god" hypothesis leads me to prefer rules based on objective evidence rather than personal insights. The alternatives all seem to come unstuck when you bump into someone who personal insights differ from one's own.
I am not an agnostic, because I also believe that the "no god" working hypothesis is more intellectually honest than any "maybe" alternative. Agnosticism may win points with the philosophers, but in practice an agnostic either acts in accordance with a particular religion (perhaps the one they grew up with) or in accordance with the "no god" hypothesis. We might as well admit that, and define ourselves by our behaviour rather than the gloss we put on it.
If I drop a brick, I believe it will fall. Can I prove it? No. Would I be anything other than a complete twat if I hedged my bets on the matter? No. Agnostics are just atheists who haven't realised that the fence isn't wide enough to sit on.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
