So am I. Well armed. I'm not a bad shot either.

My forefathers actually founded this nation, fought and died to create it. I owe them no less than to defend it against the dark creeping madness with my life if necessary, not that it's what I want. What else am I doing that's more important? Where else do I have to go? (Edit: thanks to our lack of functional Covid response and continued epidemic, no where right now, or for the foreseeable future.)

Yeah, I don't need to be devoured by the mouth of madness. Reading the words infects you, and once you're under Q's influence you'll believe anything. That's how cults work. I only needed to read chapter one of Dianetics to know the destructive self inflicted insanity it contained. Same goes for Q.

If I had the means to move to New Zealand, and if they would have me, I might have a difficult choice to make. Fortunately for them, I don't. Maybe time to add to my firearm collection instead.

Once again, I need to see that notarized release from my wife before I make out with anyone! ;-)
Progress is good, but needs to continue.
Yes, scripture is political propaganda, not fact. It will NEVER convince me of anything other than of a person's faith in stories that have been proven to be fables at BEST. (If they were read that way by more people, as fables, there would be less trouble with 'religion' and it's followers IMO).
EDIT: I only wish 'Christians' could see that non-Christians give the bible as much credence as we give dianetic's-the Scientologist bible, and stop trying to use it to convince those who don't believe in it.

Now that I've hijacked another thread, I'm taking this one to New Zealand....I fear it's the only way I'll ever get to go there again.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 29 Badge!

Your video, James Randi on Dianetics and Scientology, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^rottenseed:

Why was he bugging him while eating?


That's a power you pick up when you achieve OT9. It's the GastronomicInterruptus +1 skill. So kewl.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^MilkmanDan:
>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?

the bible is excellent as a fire starter or as toilet paper in a pinch. or if you need something to waive at people while you judge them.
if no bible, see if you can find L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics
Or John Smiths Book of Mormon
or Mohammed's Koran
or some other piece of ignorant lunacy written by fools

Joseph Smith. (dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb) Not that I care.


fixed for you

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^MilkmanDan:
>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?

the bible is excellent as a fire starter or as toilet paper in a pinch. or if you need something to waive at people while you judge them.
if no bible, see if you can find L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics
Or John Smiths Book of Mormon
or Mohammed's Koran
or some other piece of ignorant lunacy written by fools


Joseph Smith. Not that I care.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?


the bible is excellent as a fire starter or as toilet paper in a pinch. or if you need something to waive at people while you judge them.
if no bible, see if you can find L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics
Or John Smiths Book of Mormon
or Mohammed's Koran
or some other piece of ignorant lunacy written by fools

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

Am I arguing with you or Christopher Hitchens? I wonder if you have any original thoughts to share?

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

I've noticed many people whose consciences are seared by their ignorance don't really have any shame.

Conscience seared by ignorance? That sentence kind of makes sense if you say "sin" there or something... but ignorance? Does this apply to children? Or by "ignorance" do you mean something more like "doesn't agree with me"?

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against God and His followers have an agenda that goes far beyond their manufactured outrage... It comes from a heart polluted with sin.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

The bible perfectly describes the human condition. It exposes people as immoral hypocrites who have never once lived up to their own standard, let alone Gods standard. Shame isn't a secret because everyone is found to be guilty. The great lie of the world is that people are generally good. They're not. People are generally sinful and anyone with two eyes can see that.

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

The fact that you think Christianity is some kind of conspiracy to control people is just patently false. It's a matter of history what happened and why. Even Dawkins admits Jesus is a historical figure. That the authors of the gospels willingly martyred themselves for that truth should tell you something.

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

>> ^nock:

Yes, evidently I said deflation by definition = deflationary spiral... NOT. Also, you found a single article that says that the link between deflation and depression is "not closely related", written by 2 guys no one would consider economics titans by any means. They couldn't even support an argument saying it was not related. The preponderance of evidence supports deflation as a bad thing - I don't deny that there are people who suggest it's not related to bad things, but then again there are people who believe in Dianetics and Jeebus...
If you'd like to ignore the evidence, that's your choice. Doesn't make it right.


Unrelated personal attacks. If reports from the Fed itself aren't evidence, then it is a mirror on yourself I point your comment at me at. Here is a corresponding phot
o of inflation cycles that have non-corresponding "Great Depressions" in American history.


As to a fallacy of an appeal to authority has been invoked, I site their qualifications.

Patrick J. Kehoe - Patrick received his B.A. in Mathematics and Russian from Providence College in 1978 and his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University in 1986. A prolific researcher, Patrick has published in numerous prestigious publications, including Journal of International Economics, Econometrica, International Economic Review, and Journal of Economic Theory. He currently serves on several editorial boards and is a Fellow of the Econometric Society.

Throughout his career, Patrick has advised numerous Ph.D. students. He has been awarded several grants, including six from the National Science Foundation. His research focuses on monetary policy, time consistency and financial crises.

Andrew Atkeson - Ph.D. Economics, 1988 Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. Grants and Awards:
National Science Foundation Grants
1991-1993 with Robert E. Lucas, Jr.
1992-1994 with Masao Ogaki
1995-1997 with Patrick Kehoe
1997-2000
2000-2004 with Fernando Alvarez
2005-2008 with Ariel Burstein
2006-2009 with Harold Cole

More scholarly than you or I in the field I would wager. Accepting only main stream editorials (this source was actually a wiki article source) tends to fuel a group think which I never like to completely engage in, which is why I frequently view posts from Netrunner and the like. A healthy dose of life from a different perspective keeps ya honest. Anyway, please take this as it was meant, a nice conversation about a subject we both find interesting and controversial. Take the teeth off your comments as I wasn't meaning to make anyone's blood boil.

Yes, evidently I said deflation by definition = deflationary spiral... NOT. Also, you found a single article that says that the link between deflation and depression is "not closely related", written by 2 guys no one would consider economics titans by any means. They couldn't even support an argument saying it was not related. The preponderance of evidence supports deflation as a bad thing - I don't deny that there are people who suggest it's not related to bad things, but then again there are people who believe in Dianetics and Jeebus...

If you'd like to ignore the evidence, that's your choice. Doesn't make it right.

>> ^direpickle:

I think we should have a big iconoclastic symbol-burning party. I am wholeheartedly in favor of their right to burn the Koran. The fundies can burn physics and biology books, anarchists can burn the flag, Scientologists can burn psychology books, Anonymous can burn Dianetics, Atheists can burn the Bible, these guys can burn the Koran. Let's do it.
We can make it a competition! Whoever gets the most pissed off loses. You do not have a right to not be offended, and in fact I think it's the obligation of every free-thinking person to try to offend as many stupid beliefs as possible. Stir the fucking pot. Make people either 1) realize they're being jackasses by getting pissed off over nothing or 2) lose credibility with everyone else.


I'll see your book burning and raise you a Godwin!

I think we should have a big iconoclastic symbol-burning party. I am wholeheartedly in favor of their right to burn the Koran. The fundies can burn physics and biology books, anarchists can burn the flag, Scientologists can burn psychology books, Anonymous can burn Dianetics, Atheists can burn the Bible, these guys can burn the Koran. Let's do it.

We can make it a competition! Whoever gets the most pissed off loses. You do not have a right to not be offended, and in fact I think it's the obligation of every free-thinking person to try to offend as many stupid beliefs as possible. Stir the fucking pot. Make people either 1) realize they're being jackasses by getting pissed off over nothing or 2) lose credibility with everyone else.

would the fact i am a man a faith color or cloud my theories and conclusions in your eyes?
could you still be objective about my work knowing i had a belief system entirely different from your own?
or would you villify my work as false and unreasonable due to the fact i was a man of faith?
make it your mission to help me see reason,see the light of logic and abandon my silly,childish ways?

I think I'll let Sam Harris speak for himself, and link you this massive humiliation of Francis Collins, which he wrote a few weeks ago: http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/

I don't have a problem with Collins (or Miller, or any other religious scientists) being religious, or Christians, the problem only comes when the religion so clearly clouds peoples judgments on scientific or political issues. You could be the best scientist in the world AND wear magic Mormon underpants and a tinfoil hat while using all your money on dianetics counseling for all I care, as long as you somehow manage to maintain full scientific rigor and attitude in lectures, books and papers you do in your science. Its just that when you get down to it, neither this clownish behaviour or just regular christianity is REALLY compatible with a scientific approach. As much as I admire Miller and his butchering of creationism, he gets really dizzy when he actually tries to defend his god. In short: Yes, you can be both a great scientist and religious, but its sort of like being a great husband and occasionally cheat on your wife.