There is an alternative to mainstream religion that is friendly, warm and welcoming-- Scientology. LoisScientology is a finger in the eye of organized religion because it is an obvious scam based on the model of organized religion. And, it's a finger in the eye of science because try's to abscond the notion of rationality. Yes, but its adherents don't see it that way and there are thousands of them.
There is an alternative to mainstream religion that is friendly, warm and welcoming-- Scientology. LoisScientology is a finger in the eye of organized religion because it is an obvious scam based on the model of organized religion. And, it's a finger in the eye of science because try's to abscond the notion of rationality. According to the founders son, it's based on satanism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl8jovbs91Q
Frankly, I don't know why Scientology gets such a bad rap. Are their beliefs really any more ridiculous than those of mainstream Christianity or other religions? Is the creepy, cultish behavior among some of the high level members really any creepier than the suicide bombings of random civilians by radical Islamists, the Catholic Church's facilitation of mass child rape and exploitation, much of protestant Christianity's shameless bigotry towards LGBT people, etc.?I think because they bastardize the term "science" into something mythical to help validate their belief system. MzLee Yeah, that does smart a bit. And it doesn't help that "Scientology" is just a stupid, improper mutt of a word, the component parts of which have little to do with the religion they're supposed to describe. Its prefix "scient" (i.e "science") means "knowledge", while its suffix "(o)logy" means "story of" or "study of". I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure Scientology is concerned with neither the story nor the study of anything resembling knowledge. I think a better description of Scientology would be "belief in fiction" (this works for pretty much every other religion too). A quick visit to an online Latin dictionary helped me invent a new word to replace "Scientology": "Fidesfictio". Or would it be "Fictiofides"? I'm not sure what the rules are for constructing new words out of Latin roots. Oh well. I guess Scientology has a better ring to it than either of my dorky, made-up words. Okay, I admit, this post is becoming increasingly pointless. My deepest apologies. ;)
According to the founders son, it's based on satanism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl8jovbs91QWell, Laveyan Satanism was based heavily on Ayn Rand's philosophical system of "Objectivism"--a philosophical system which also happens to be probably the single biggest influence on both neoconservatism and modern libertarianism. So, if we can call Ayn Rand the mother of Laveyan Satanism, neoconservatism, and modern libertarianism, I don't see why we can't add Scientology to that list of her destructive, anti-social, reality-challenged offspring.
It may be that you left your church and its ideas too soon, Durkan. This may not be the place for you yet. Possibly you should go back to your church and work on your dichotomies to find what really works for you rather than asking others to justify your concerns. OccamHmmm. Perhaps you need to work on your approach, because that really couldn't be more patronising or contemptuous. But that illustrates my point exactly. How can you seriously expect to even begin to chip away at the massive monolith that is organised religion if you treat all its adherents as far beneath your exalted self? As a new member of this forum - but a long-standing non-religious person - I've been disappointed by the snide, thoughtless and smug elitism of several commenters.
I'm pretty sure Lee meant Durkan, who was sort of a jerk in his posts. OccamI'm still here. Perhaps you could focus on the points I was making, rather than just make personal comments. Anyone who came here expecting a reasoned, honest discussion would be disappointed.
Maybe the fact that you are having trouble expressing your point should lead you to consider the value of your point. We’ve explained the problems with the “complete package", but you keep repeating that like it means something. I made some great friends in college organizing fund raisers for Oxfam, FYI. You say, “satisfied deep within myself" without defining it or distinguishing it from other types of satisfaction.Why would I need to? I'm talking about a personal experience which was largely highly positive, and one that is obviously shared by millions of other religious people. Yes, it was based on what I eventually realised was a false belief, but I still had a better time there than elsewhere. Don't knock it unless you've tried it.
Do you know that not everyone is “satisfied" by church. Even with my Christian friends, I know people who complain about what they don’t get from it, and a few who just leave and nobody ever calls to check up on them. Some package. You got lucky when you found a good community and my guess is you are unaware or not looking at any of the bad that came with it.I had plenty of dreadful experiences too. Remember, I left, years ago, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to join a church, a point you seem not to have got. If church was so awful all the time, do you think people would be so keen to keep going? I suspect that, at heart, you sincerely believe that a person must be much more stupid than you to take part in religion. But you don't want to admit that. If I'm wrong, then agree that religion supplies a deeply-felt need in many people's lives, people who are not any less intelligent than you.
Comparing religion to drugs should tip you off to the problem with your argument. Would you go to a AA website and argue for how great it is to be drunk? Would you tell people they aren’t going to get anywhere making logical arguments for why they should keep their addiction in check? Would you suggest medical science MUST come up with a drug that gives them the benefits without the side effects?You still haven't got it. Religious beliefs and practices have been central to human existence for as long as homo sapiens has been around. There are some reasons for that. What do you think they are?
So, I have tried “it", I believe I said that. And I don’t think people are stupid for going to church. I think the world discourages everyone from examining their lives. I already agreed that religion supplies a need. It provides a pre-packaged answer that supplants the need for that self-examination. And some of it is correct and useful, it couldn’t have survived if that weren’t true. Your last question is a good one, but we’ve already covered the affirmative answers, the positive aspects of religion.
I don’t think it is valuable to only look at those positives, then conclude that “we", whatever atheist community there is, MUST supply an alternative for those things, OR ELSE. We need to be aware of what doesn’t work in hierarchical charismatic led groups too. Daniel Dennet proposed that we provide religion as theatre, where you could go and participate, but all the people performing the rituals would be actors. Others think you should create new rituals, and some are trying them out.
I’m open to discussing the pros and cons of those ideas. You just want to tell me what I should do and what beliefs are central human existence. Basically, you’re a fundamentalist with respect to your personal ideas.
As a new member of this forum - but a long-standing non-religious person - I've been disappointed by the snide, thoughtless and smug elitism of several commenters.I won't disagree with you there. We atheists have been known to be smug sons-of-biscuits. But wouldn't you agree that theistic arguments tend to be equally "snide, thoughtless and smug[ly elitist]"? And, they have the added disadvantage of being irrational, illogical, and fallacy-prone. I think there's a tendency towards a double standard when assessing the tenor of arguments on both sides. Any attack on religion automatically comes across as disrespectful and smug, while the nonsense spouted by religious apologists just seems like the default position. I think this tendency unfairly maligns us atheists. For instance, Richard Dawkins is often described--in both his debates and his writings--as being abrasive and disrespectful, even by many atheists. Yet he's usually the most calm, soft spoken, reasonable person in the room. Christopher Hitchens on the other hand...
As a new member of this forum - but a long-standing non-religious person - I've been disappointed by the snide, thoughtless and smug elitism of several commenters.I won't disagree with you there. We atheists have been known to be smug sons-of-biscuits. But wouldn't you agree that theistic arguments tend to be equally "snide, thoughtless and smug[ly elitist]"? And, they have the added disadvantage of being irrational, illogical, and fallacy-prone. I think there's a tendency towards a double standard when assessing the tenor of arguments on both sides. Any attack on religion automatically comes across as disrespectful and smug, while the nonsense spouted by religious apologists just seems like the default position. I think this tendency unfairly maligns us atheists. For instance, Richard Dawkins is often described--in both his debates and his writings--as being abrasive and disrespectful, even by many atheists. Yet he's usually the most calm, soft spoken, reasonable person in the room. Christopher Hitchens on the other hand... Which means there is room for both personalities. Hitchens was the one who could shout as loudly as the preachers. That is needed as well as the calmer approach. Dawkins is a quiet intellectual. Hitchens was a street fighter. We need both types. Lois