So I have been thinking about this what makes one religion more insane than another one? Take for example, Scientology.

Scientologists ACTUALLY believe the evil alien ruler Xenu killed a lot of aliens (Thetans) from around the universe by bringing them to earth & blowing them up inside volcanoes. They believe the souls of these aliens (these souls are "Body Thetans") have attached themselves to us & cause many of our mental & physical ills. Members who know about Xenu will attempt to deny it or pretend like it doesn’t matter. They are required to sign a contract binding them to silence on the matter. Lower level members don’t know about Xenu & accordingly deny everything because they honestly don’t know.

To rid ourselves of "Body Thetans" & also “engrams” (past negative experiences stored in our unconscious mind) so that we can become “clear”, we have to go through "auditing" with a member of the “church” who uses an "e-meter" to measure our “reactive mind”...... & we have to pay lots & lots of money for “auditing” (purchased in 12.5-hour blocks, costing anywhere from $750 for introductory sessions to between $8,000 & $9,000 for advanced sessions) & to take courses on Scientology to advance to higher “levels” in the “church”. The “church” has also taken a very hostile stance towards psychiatry & psychiatric drugs irrespective of the fact that some people require medication to remain adequately functional in everyday life. They deny the reality of chemical imbalance & profound mental disturbance & accordingly do NOTHING to effectively stabilize the dangerously unstable. The “church” has been known to withhold prescription pharmaceuticals from member (with deadly results).

This may sound completely insane, but how is that more insane than a supernatural being that created the world in 6 days, creates two people who somehow populate the world, then this divine being floods the whole world killing everyone and everything except a man named Noah and his family and of course two of each animal (plus the others for sacrificing)they somehow go years without food or water and then when they finally land somehow Noah can evenly distribute every single animal to its proper location. Then they somehow repopulate the world and somewhere down the road God destroys the city that Lot lives in because there were no moral people there, then he asks Abram to change his name to Abraham, circumcise himself and everyone else (including slaves) then he asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son, but stops him at the last second (to make sure that he fears God) then down the road he leads non-existent Hebrew slaves out of Egypt by casting 10 plagues upon the people of Egypt (which there isn't any evidence of in any Egyptian record), those people then wandered the desert for 40 years and had bread fall from the sky (the mana) and never left a trace of physical evidence of ever being in Egypt or wandering in the desert. Then down the road God "makes" a woman named Mary pregnant with a son. This was supposed to be the son of God, but there are really no first hand accounts of this messiah, but he could heal sick people, make people's arms grow from stumps, walk through walls and buildings, turn water into wine, and rising from the dead.

I am really quite curious as to how any rational person could believe either one of these things, and how someone believing in one can call someone believing in the other insane! Someone please explain this to me.

Tags: Atheism, Belief, Christianity, Discussion, Insanity, Rational, Religion, Scientology, Thinking

Views: 1154

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why do you expect us to listen to you when basic tautologies seem to confound you? Please think before you speak 'cause today is one of those days where this just fucking sickens me:

...just happened to be in the perfect place for us to have this conversation

Think it through.
Think it through.
Think it through.


*cough* Think it through. *cough*

Oh, and don't get me wrong -- I am sympathetic to the fact that your beliefs were called insane in the original post. By all means, contest that to your heart's content, but what you wrote was just so... ugh. If you can't manage to figure it out on your own, I'll explain it after you've taken a crack at it.

@steven price - this is where the anthropic principle comes in - there are perfect places where no people ever were, and there may have been people in places that weren't perfect for them - then by a simple stroke of chance, people showed up at a place that was perfect for them, and here we are, no deity required.

As for Feenstra's cough, could I suggest you offer him a Ricola?

I'm not going to pretend I am not being a dick, neither will I make excuses -- I'm taking the low road on this one, and I don't think it's a bad thing you are taking the high road --, but I will provide a reason:

The post has a fatal error which honest reflection should have revealed. It isn't the sort of error which makes me right and him wrong; it's the sort of error which leads to a point which just doesn't make sense. I think at least highly enough of Steven to think he can work it out on his own with a little effort. I think Steven does both us and himself a disservice by holding such a low standard.

Dick or no dick, you could still benefit from a Ricola, that's a nasty cough --

Oh, I've just been contemplating the value of dicks lately, even if it results in a bit of throat troubles for me. (Wait, what?)

Wasn't that the plot of Deep Throat, when it was first released?

You're on your own - you're beyond Ricola --

What ISN'T irrational about walking through walls? The forces that hold atoms together are very strong. If you were just a subatomic particle, depending upon what kind of particle you were and the nature of the wall (thickness, material) you'd have a chance, but if you mean going through the wall with both you and the wall maintaining structural integrity, forget it. I suppose I could put you in a cannon and perhaps blast you through the wall depending again on the nature of the wall, but your structural integrity would suffer in the process.

BTW, I don't think they know exactly how much dark matter is in the universe since the estimates vary quite a bit (75% to 95% of the total). The same goes for how big a sphere you would have if you took all of the empty space out of all lof the matter in the universe, anywhere from the size of an orange to a basketball (maybe the latter figures in dark matter). Anyway, the other day I heard Stephen Hawking say that at one time the universe was the size of a single subatomic particle, which seems quite a bit smaller than an orange or basketball, but perhaps that was before all of the matter had come into existence.

(there is also a picture of a sub-atomic particle here, but it's a bit small)

As opposed to a LARGE sub-atomic particle --?

I'd ask if you if you happened to have a pic of one of those, but I know you all too well, you'd find one --

Large is relative.


Blog Posts

Out of the fog

Posted by Belle Rose on March 1, 2015 at 6:27pm 1 Comment

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 7 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service