I meant exactly what I wrote; I was evoking the image of a priest being ordained in his robes.


Yeah, that sentence above doesn't parse right either. You can be ordained, and you can be in robes, but you don't really "ordain something in robes". You just don't. Maybe "shrouded in vestments"? Feel free to disagree with me on this, it obviously doesn't matter.

My point, continuing a previous conversation with gwiz, is that people put faith in science much as religious people put faith in religion.


I'd say they put way, way more faith in science than religion. And they're right to: science brings us all kinds of amazing things every day. When I get on a plane, I'm relying on all sorts of science and engineering that I don't fully understand. My three year old knows to put chocolate milk in the fridge or it will go bad. People have long histories of relying on science and things working out. They have long histories of seeing something amazing, having no idea how it works, but later using that science and technology in their own lives.

If people got anywhere near that level of positive feedback from their religions, religion wouldn't be slowly dying in the developed world.

There are no legitimate demonstrations of quantum levitation that highlighted some of the features present here...


Well, yes, there's more stuff happening here than in previous demonstrations - but that's what people are used to with science; a progression of more features.

If it steps over the line, even a micron, it becomes pseudo-science. Yet you are willing to suspend your disbelief based on other past results you may not understand.


Very few people are going to understand all of the science and technology they use. I don't know how my anti-lock brakes work, or fully understand even the (what I assume is simple) tech in an airbag (what's the gas it inflates with? I don't know). And I may one day rely on those things to save my life. Almost anyone getting medical treatment is relying on very, very shakey knowledge of how the medicine or procedure actually works, or why things are done a specific way.

And they're not fools to do so. With science and technology, you can build a web of trust based on demonstrable results in the past. I know that there's standards bodies that test airbags, and medical associations that understand and approve procedures; I don't have to confirm this kind of thing personally on a case-by-case basis, nor could any one person fully understand all the technology in their lives. Hawking has to hire some tech guy to fix his voice box.

But that doesn't mean that things aren't tested or that there's "blind faith" involved. There's faith backed by reason.

Back to this video in specific: people may have thought this video was real, but very few would have sent off a cheque to buy one without knowing a lot more, without seeing it reported on by someone they have some trust in. And look at how fast it was brought down. How many people still believed after reading all the comments? Similarly, when scientists emerge trumpeting some new unlikely discovery, they're treated by other scientists with very appropriate and high levels of skepticism until their results are independently validated.

Could you benefit from a medium-term, important scientific hoax? Yes, with some real effort. But history has a lot more examples of people seeing big success using science for their religious hoaxes (from Greek temples on down to scientology). Even if people have the "amazing science" in hand with which to try to trick, they recognize where people's real blindspots are and aim for those.

I think his idea that the monetary system is going bankrupt is quite possibly true, especially in Europe. I don't see how Obama is pulling the strings of a big nuclear, pardon me, thermonuclear war conspiracy. His influence on any meaningful policy changes has been stunted by the ineffectiveness of congress.

[edit - After watching past 32:00:00] OMFG, this guy is nuts. Colonizing Mars? Galactic radiation threats? This is cult logic on a epic, Branch Davidian/Scientology scale. Crazy like a fox, perhaps. A retarded fox.

Hah, John Wayne was a member; why does that not surprise me? Sorry, but ye'ol Ron that is the last straw. I should have just looked up his background in the first place. Belonging to the John Birch Society is tantamount to pure paranoia to the tenth degree, with a ultra-right-wing-christian flavor.

I can't see it anywhere, but it seems like John Edgar Hoover would be a de facto member for sure yet it's not listed. The John Birch Society comes off more as a cult much like Scientology to some degree (both equally horrendous in their own way). One member that didn't surprise me too much was Mr. Koch himself (Daddy Koch). That one makes perfect sense...

Atleast a few people know just how ridiculous the John Birch Society is here on the sift. I'll have to look around and see if I can find a good program about them, as they most deservedly need their own defined space here on the sift for us to pummel into submission. Problem is most of the documentaries I've ever seen on them were done in the 1980's--so I'll have to look hard, there may be some connected to PBS.

/Goes to read all the backgrounds on all the candidates from thorough sources...
//Really surprised the John Birch thing hasn't come up far more often and much more earlier...

Oh yeah and the UN IS F@$KING SATAN!!1!1 Just so you know.

I don't know what you want this guy to do; suck your dick? He got on the innertubes, apologized and said they were taking measures to discipline the guy. Is every company man supposed to be a crack orator?

If I had an important urgent message to send, I would read it off carefully, too. Wouldn't you? >> ^shagen454:

Fuck FedEx. They treat their employees like shit and it's in my belief that that our government helped fuck the post office in order to help private companies like FedEx and UPS. FedEx is like a corporate Scientology, the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top.

Fuck FedEx. They treat their employees like shit and it's in my belief that that our government helped fuck the post office in order to help private companies like FedEx and UPS. FedEx is like a corporate Scientology, the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top.

Ok I've been looking into this campaign against the "Church of Scientology" for awhile and I have a question. Anyone ever thought of going to the police? This is the main problem I have about THIS REPORT and every other Report about Scientology I have seen. There's been accusations flying everywhere...shouting matches and legal threats, even an accusation that the Church has murdered people. I don't see any investigations, I see internet based "Experts" touting one theory or another and making wild claims without substantiating evidence of any kind.

If you have evidence you go to the Police...if you were kidnapped and HELD against your will you GO TO THE POLICE. You do not go to a news agency first. I don't get what's so hard to grasp about this...I can understand a few people feeling that they shouldn't go to the authorities for one reason or another but everyone ever?

So I call Bullshit on this woman's story. I've heard enough about the Church of Scientology to believe that it's a strikingly stupid and ridiculous organization even when described by it's memebers. That doesn't make them criminals who kidnap people, and I wish more people would be objective about accusing people of crimes they may or may not have committed.

I was just going to post this - you beat me to it though.
Damn that Scientology - biggest bunch of con-artists out there...

By "closest at hand", I didn't mean that you grabbed it right away. While you did spend years coming to Jesus, it's no coincidence that you did, IMO. You say that among religions, you were particularly prejudiced against Christianity for it's implausibility. This doesn't surprise since it was the one you were most familiar with, and so the one you had seen the most problems with, until you investigated the other ones, and found them even worse. As you have noted several times yourself, growing up in the West, you were also strongly prejudiced towards Christianity, since a large part of our cultural ethos and moral code stems directly from it, even for us atheists. So, if you were going to discover that one religion was the true one, it would almost certainly be a strain of Christianity as it's the one that fits your own culture's moral code the best. If you'd chosen Voodoo instead, then your careful search of religions would be something worth pointing to as evidence.

I was prejudiced against Christianity because I didn't believe Jesus was a real person. I had never actually seriously investigated it, and I was also remarkably ignorant of what Christianity was all about, to the point that it might strain credulity. So no, it wasn't due to familiarity, because there wasn't any. I was just naturally inclined to reject it because of that doubt about Jesus.

At the point at which I accepted it, I had already rejected religion altogether. I was no more inclined to accept Christianity than I was Voodoo or Scientology. I had my own view of God and I viewed any imposition on that view as being artificial and manmade. The *only* reason I accepted Christianity as being true, as being who God is, is because of special revelation. That is, that God had let me know certain things about His nature and plan before I investigated it, which the bible later uniquely confirmed. My experience as a Christian has also been confirming it to this day.

These definitions, especially the ones about Satan are really self-serving. You declare that you have the truth, and part of that truth is that anyone who disagrees with you is possessed by the devil, which of course your dissenters will deny. But you can counter that easily because your religion has also defined satanic possession as something you don't notice. Tight as a drum, and these definitions from nowhere but the religion's own book.

My view is not only based on the bible but also upon my experience. I first became aware of demon possession before I became a Christian. I had met several people who were possessed by spirits in the New Age/Occult movement. At the time, I didn't know it was harmful, so I would interact with them and they would tell me (lies) about the spiritual realm. I thought it was very fascinating but I found out later they were all liars and very evil. It was only when I became a Christian that I realized they were demons.

I don't think everyone who doesn't know Jesus is possessed. If not possessed, though, heavily influenced. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and does the will of the devil, whether they know it or not. The illusion is complex and intricate, traversing the centers of intellect, emotion, memory, and perception, and interweaving them; it is a complete world that you would never wake up from if it wasn't for Gods intervention. The devil is a better programmer than the machines in the Matrix.

Actually, it was a very different feeling from that. I didn't feel I was the target of any conspiracy. I had stumbled into one --my group of friends-- but I was ignorant of the conspiracy before I had my experience. After I had it, I realized that they were all part of something bigger than me that I could never understand, and that I was actually in their way, that my presence in their group was really cramping their style a lot, slowing things down, forcing them to get things done surreptitiously. I realized they weren't going to directly remove me for now, but I didn't know how long their patience would last. So I removed myself, and hoped they'd leave me alone. In hindsight, they were horrible friends to begin with, so it was no loss for me. Losing those friends was a very good move for me.

Whatever they were involved in, it sounds like it wasn't any good. I can get a sense for what you're saying, but without further detail it is hard to relate to it.

Again, you're claiming you are right, and everything untrue comes from Satan, and if I have any logical reason to doubt your story, you can give yourself permission to ignore my logic by saying it is from Satan and that's why it has the power to show the Truth is wrong. So, any Christian who believes a logical argument that conflicts with the dogma is, by definition, being fooled by Satan, and has a duty to doubt their own mind. Even better than the last one for mind control. It does away utterly with reliance on any faculty of the mind, except when their use results in dogmatic thoughts. Genius. Serious props to whoever came up with that. That's smart.

God is the one who said "Let us reason together". I accept that you have sincere reasons for believing what you do and rejecting my claims. If you gave me a logical argument which was superior to my understanding, I wouldn't throw it away as a Satanic lie. I would investigate it and attempt to reconcile it with my beliefs. If it showed my beliefs to be false, and there was no plausible refutation (or revelation), I would change my mind. The way that someone becomes deceived is not by logical arguments, it's by sin. They deceive themselves. You don't have to worry much about deception if you are staying in the will of God.

Like, if you say you believe God exists, I say fine. If you say you know God exists, I say prove it's not your imagination. If you say evolution is wrong, ordinarily I wouldn't care what you believe, except that if you're on school board and decide to replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, then I have to object because that causes harm to children who are going to think that they are real science, and on equal footing with/compatible with/superior to evolution.

Have you ever seriously investigated the theory of evolution? Specifically, macro evolution. It isn't science. Observational science is based on data that you can test or observe. Macro evolution has never been observed, nor is there any evidence for it. Micro evolution on the other hand is scientific fact. There are definitely variations within kinds. There is no evidence, however, of one species changing into another species. If you haven't ever seriously investigated this, you are going to be shocked at how weak the evidence actually is.

evolution is unproved and unprovable. we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

sir arthur keith
forward to origin of the species 100th anniversay 1959

You may be right. I may be right. I think it's more likely that I'm right, but that's neither here nor there. How do you know you're not seeing things that aren't there? My experience proves the human mind is capable of doing so and sustaining it. The bible could have been written by several such people. Maybe in that time and place, people who ranted about strange unconnected things were considered to be prophets, and once plugged into the God story, they went to town. I'm not saying it's true, just a possible theory.

There isn't anything I can say which will conclusively prove it to you. The reason being, because my testimony is reliant upon my judgement to validate it, and you don't trust my judgement. You are automatically predisposed to doubt everything I have to say, especially regarding supernatural claims. So asking me to prove it when you aren't going to believe anything I say about it is kind of silly. All I can say is that I have been around delusional people, and the mentally ill, very closely involved in fact, and I know what that looks like. I am as sharp as I ever have been, clear headed, open minded, and internally consistant. You may disagree with my views, but do you sense I am mentally unstable, paranoid, or unable to reason?

Also, the prophets in the bible weren't ranting about strange, unconnected things. The bible has an internal consistancy which is unparalled, even miraculous, considering that it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years in three different languages.

If I was "in it" and deceiving myself then, I was in something and deceiving myself before. My beliefs about all supernatural things remain unchanged by my experience, that's to say, I still don't believe they exist.

I didn't either, so I understand your skepticism. Until you see for yourself that material reality is just a veil, you will never believe it. But when you do see it, it will change *everything*.

First, not claiming to have created anything doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did [edit] claim it and the records were lost. Two, hold the phone -- this rules out Christianity. Genesis states the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago, or something. You can argue that this is metaphorical (why?), but surely you can't say that world being flat, or the sun rotating around the Earth is a metaphor. These are things God would know and have no reason to misrepresent. Since it's God's word, everyone would just believe it. And why not? It makes just as much sense that the Earth is round and revolves around its axis.

There is no reason to include Gods who made no claim to create the Universe, which is most of them. If their claims are lost in antiquity, we can assume that such gods are powerless to keep such documents available. What we should expect to find, if God has revealed Himself, is an active presence in the world with many believers. This narrows it down to a few choices.

I don't argue that this is metaphorical, I agrue that it is literal. I believe in a young age for the Earth, and a literal six day creation.

[On re-reading the preceding argument and the context you made the claim, it is a stupid see-saw argument, so I'm taking it back.] Consider also there are tens of thousands of different strains of Christianity with conflicting ideas of the correct way to interpret the Bible and conduct ourselves. Can gays marry? Can women serve mass? Can priests marry? Can non-virgins marry? And so on. Only one of these sects can be right, and again, probably none of them are.

The disagreements are largely superficial. Nearly all the denominations agree on the fundementals, which is that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. There are true Christians in every denomination. The true church is the body of Christ, of which every believer is a member. In that sense, there is one church. We can also look at the early church for the model of what Christianity is supposed to look like. The number of denominations doesn't speak to its truth.

2. The method itself doesn't take into account why the religion has spread. The answer isn't in how true it is, but in the genius of the edicts it contains. For example, it says that Christians are obliged to go convert other people, and doing so will save their eternal souls from damnation. Anyone who is a Christian is therefore compelled to contribute to this uniquely Christian process. I can't count the number of times I've been invited to attend church or talk about God with a missionary. That's why Christianity is all over the world, whereas no other religion has that spread. Also, there are all sorts of compelling reasons for people to adopt Christianity. One is that Christians bring free hospitals and schools. This gives non-truth-based incentives to join. The sum of this argument is that Christianity has the best marketing, so would be expected to have the largest numbers. The better question is why Islam still has half the % of converts that Christianity does, even though it has no marketing system at all, and really a very poor public image internationally.

Yet, this doesn't take into account how the church began, which was when there was absolutely no benefit to being a Christian. In fact, it could often be a death sentence. The early church was heavily persecuted, especially at the outset, and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It was difficult to spread Christianity when you were constantly living in fear for your life. So, the church had quite an improbable beginning, and almost certainly should have been stamped out. Why do you suppose so many people were willing to go to their deaths for it? It couldn't be because they heard a good sermon. How about the disciples, who were direct witnesses to the truth of the resurrection? Would they die for something they knew to be a lie, when they could have recanted at any time?

3. This kinda follows from #1, but I want to make it explicit, as this, IMHO, is one of the strongest arguments I've ever come up with. I've never presented it nor seen it presented to a believer, so I'm keen for your reaction. It goes something like this: If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect. If the bible is his word, then it should be instantly apparent to anybody with language faculties that it's all absolutely true, what it means, and how to extrapolate further truths from it. But that's not what happens. Christians argue and fight over the correct interpretation of the bible, and others argue with Christians over whether it's God's word at all based on the many, many things that appear inconsistent to non-Christians. In this regard, it's obvious that it's not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. If it's not the word of God, then the whole religion based on it is bunk.

The issue there is the free will choices of the people involved. God created a perfect world, but man chose evil and ruined it. Gods word is perfect, but not everyone is willing to accept it, and those that do will often pick and choose the parts they like due to their own unrighteousness. We all have the same teacher, the Holy Spirit, but not everyone listens to Him, and that is the reason for the disagreements.

I didn't say people needed it. I said having a religion in a scary universe with other people with needs and desires that conflict with your own makes life a lot easier and more comfortable. Religion, in general, is probably the greatest social organizing force ever conceived of, and that's why religions are so attractive and conservatively followed in places with less beneficial social organization (i.e., places without democracy), and lower critical thinking skills (i.e. places with relatively poor education).

People come to Christianity for all sorts of reasons, but the number one reason is because of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as Christianity without Him. I became a Christianity for none of the reasons you have mentioned, in fact I seem to defy all of the stereotypes. I will also say that being a Christianity is lot harder than not. Following the precepts that Christ gave us is living contrary to the ways humans naturally behave, and to the desires of the flesh. As far as education goes, Christianity has a rich intellectual tradition, and people from all walks of life call themselves followers of Christ. You're also ignoring the places where Christianity makes life a lot more difficult for people:



In contrast, in times and places where people on a large scale are well off and have a tradition of critical thinking, the benefits of having a religion as the system of governance are less apparent, and the flaws in this system come out. It becomes more common for such nations to question the authority of the church, and so separate religion from governance. The West has done so, and is leading the world. Turkey is the only officially secular Muslim nation in the world and has clearly put itself in a field apart from the rest, all because it unburdened itself of religious governance when an imposed basic social organization structure was no longer required.

Then how might you explain the United States, where 70 percent of people here call themselves Christian, 90 percent believe in some kind of God, and almost 50 percent believe in a literal six day creation?

You're right, and you may not know how right you are. Modern scientific investigation, as away of life, comes almost entirely from the Christian tradition. It once was in the culture of Christianity to investigate and try to understand the universe in every detail. The thought was that understanding the universe better was to approach understanding of God's true nature -- a logical conclusion since it was accepted that God created the universe, and understanding the nature of something is to reveal the nature of its creator (and due to our natural curiosity, learning things makes us feel better). The sciences had several branches. Natural science was the branch dealing with the non-transcendent aspects of the universe. The transcendent ones were left to theologists and philosophers, who were also considered scientists, as they had to rigorously and logically prove things as well, but without objective evidence. This was fine, and everyone thought knowledge of the world was advancing as it should until natural science, by its own procedures, started discovering natural facts that seemed inconsistent with the Bible.

This isn't entirely true. For instance, Uniforitarian Geology was largely accepted, not on the basis of facts, but on deliberate lies that Charles Lyell told in his book, such as the erosion rate of Niagra Falls. Evolution was largely accepted not because of facts but because the public was swayed by the "missing links" piltdown man and nebraska man, both of which later turned out to be frauds.

That's when people who wanted truth had to decide what their truth consisted of: either God and canon, or observable objective facts. Natural science was cleaved off from the church and took the name "science" with it. Since then, religion and science have both done their part giving people the comfort of knowledge. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is immutable and all-encompassing prefer religion. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is verifiable and useful prefer science.

The dichotomy you offer here is amusing; Christianity is both verifiable and useful. I'll quote the bible:

Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

>> ^messenger:

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Wow, who knew that cults have douchebags too.


One bad apple spoils the bunch, right? =P

Funny, as with most embarrassing scientology videos, the original was pulled from youtube. I found a mirror, though =)

I always go back to evolution.

Humans have, since the beginning, striven to "understand." We evolved over the thousands of years with this "defect."

I think it isn't a defect. I think it gave us an evolutionary advantage somehow. Otherwise, it would have gone the way of the appendix.

Doesn't make me like it, but it also means there is no point in trying to argue someone out of their beliefs. It is a waste of effort. They've got some gene, or brain structure, or something, that makes them susceptible to needing this kind of structure in their lives to make sense of it "all."

I like what the atheists are doing with their billboards and TV appearances -- concentrate on GENERAL education. Get the 'rational' word out there, as a life line to those poor folks born into households of faith and don't know that there is an alternative.

An It Gets Better project for non-believers, if you will.



In reply to this comment by Phreezdryd:
>> ^bareboards2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Phreezdryd" title="member since October 17th, 2010" class="profilelink">Phreezdryd, I read your comment (and agree wholeheartedly!). You underestimated my ability to skip over certain loooooooooong back and forths.

I tried to read a lot of the above.

Mormonism starts with a known con artist. Scientology starts with an apparently well medicated science fiction author, and possibly on a bet. Christianity didn't exactly begin in the friendliest of climates, and we may never know who actually started it, besides what the text claims. The list goes on of course across the planet.

Not to mention all the "cults" that have ended badly, or still skirt the edges of society today. Even the people who just believe in their personal psychic or tarot cards, astrology, etc.

The mind boggles at this effort throughout history to answer things possibly unknowable. And that's evidence enough for me to think none of them have a clue.

>> ^bareboards2:

@Phreezdryd, I read your comment (and agree wholeheartedly!). You underestimated my ability to skip over certain loooooooooong back and forths.

I tried to read a lot of the above.

Mormonism starts with a known con artist. Scientology starts with an apparently well medicated science fiction author, and possibly on a bet. Christianity didn't exactly begin in the friendliest of climates, and we may never know who actually started it, besides what the text claims. The list goes on of course across the planet.

Not to mention all the "cults" that have ended badly, or still skirt the edges of society today. Even the people who just believe in their personal psychic or tarot cards, astrology, etc.

The mind boggles at this effort throughout history to answer things possibly unknowable. And that's evidence enough for me to think none of them have a clue.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Replace my old rant with a question.
Has this group done something noticeable yet ? I mean a measurable change in something, another way to phrase it would be "have they done anything they said they would "
I am most ignorant on this group.


Small stuff like the arrest of Chris Forcand, world-wide protesting against Scientology(Project Chanology), created a website during the Iran protests along with Pirate Bay and other hackers to subvert censorship of news and happenings in Iran to Iranians, they helped Wikileaks set up mirrors around the world when everyone was trying to censor the leaks that were being released, they were instrumental in taking down the websites of the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan governments during their respective protests, they destroyed HBGary's credibility(a company competing for a government contract to create false identities online in order to subvert political movements), they attempted to boycott Koch Industries products because of the Koch brothers' history of donating money to political groups that try and destroy the middle class, retaliated against Sony (completely disabling the Playstation Network for over a month) after they prosecuted a fellow named George Hotz for his work on developing open-source software on the Plastation 3, organized protests against BART officers who disabled cell phone service to attempt to disrupt protestors from assembling violently after a police shooting.

Here you can find some more information if you'd like to read about it. I've been following them for a while now and this seems to be relatively accurate.

@Stormsinger of course 99% of them are script kiddies, but that 1% has a terryfing knowledge of 0day exploits and computers and is extremely proficient in doing whatever the hell they want to do.

In my experience, these guys want one thing more than most:

1. Freedom of information

If anything gets in the way of that, they will do what they can to try and destroy it.

Well, being that China already hols 36% of our debt, or $5,040,000,000,000, I think it's safe to say we're on our way there.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^hpqp:
In 100 years a scientologist will be one of the serious contenders for the Republican presidential nominations.
It'll never happen. The elections will stop once we become a Chinese territory.

scientology is honest; they want something from you and if you give it to them you can feel like you belong. like any religion. they use the money they make being assholes to pay the fines and avoid punishment while never addressing the problem... on a smaller scale it would implode, on a large scale you get corporations and churches

>> ^hpqp:

In 100 years a scientologist will be one of the serious contenders for the Republican presidential nominations.

It'll never happen. The elections will stop once we become a Chinese territory.