Forums | MacLife

It is my belief that Scientology can be completely reconstructed with just a few basic tools:

First, have a friend drop three and a half bricks at 10 second intervals, with the half coming last.

Second, obtain copious amounts of both tequila and LSD.

And thirdly, consume said products while reading the work of either Descartes or Sartre (but really, any crazy French philosopher would do.)

Follow my three-step plan and you too can come to the mind-blowing conclusions of Old Mrs Hubbard!

Maybe this will prompt the South Park writers to come up with an episode that's:

A. Funny.
B. Intelligent.

I doubt it.

sturner wrote:

And to top it off, Hubbard writes bad Sci-Fi, and worse, is a truely hackneyed writer.

Wrote.

True he certainly isn't writting anything now.

Last edited by sturner (2006-03-15 2:11 pm)

Seeing how Hubbard is dead he also was apparently pretty bad at the mind over matter stuff his religion claims.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

You can say what you want about Scientology.  (Let's hear it for religious tolerance.)

You can have your opinions about Isaac Hayes' decision.

But it was his decision to make, not yours.

It's just a smurfing TV show anyway.

God forbid we comment on things we find stupid.

So are we supposed to be good liberals and tolerate everything, even the utterly ridiculous? It's bad and "intolerant" to call bullsmurf when we see bullsmurf?

I swear, it's this attitude that'll kill the left.

Where I"m sure they all three get on each others nerves.

Like Mr Garrison said: "Tolerence only means that you put up with it!"

Pariah wrote:

So many people have no clue at all what "tolerance" means as a political idiology.

A hint: It does not mean accepting every kind of bull crap just cuz someone "believes" it.

it is hard to have tolerance for the beliefs of a rather evil cult.

Know what I mean?

Despite the cultish aspects of Scientology, I think Hubbard had a couple of ideas that are likely to be true. The "Thetans" would not be one of those ideas.

It makes sense to me that if you beat your child unconcious and tell him/her how stupid he/she is that they are likely to have self-esteem problems and do poorly in school.

It also makes sense to me that toxins such as food preservatives, drugs, and even ultra-violet radiation (which causes sunburns) can be stored up in your fat cells and that it is probably healthy to get rid of them by taking Niacin, sweating them out, etc.

Of course, if you would like to join the Church of Scientology and have them solve these problems for you, they are going to charge you for it, which makes me think they're not really much of a church at all.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

It makes sense to me that if you beat your child unconcious and tell him/her how stupid he/she is that they are likely to have self-esteem problems and do poorly in school.

Yes, but that's just common sense, not spiritual insight.

dvpierce wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

It makes sense to me that if you beat your child unconcious and tell him/her how stupid he/she is that they are likely to have self-esteem problems and do poorly in school.

Yes, but that's just common sense, not spiritual insight.

And what, exactly, is "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife?"

People have no common sense - if you don't make stuff a religious imperative...

People don't need religion to be moral - in fact, I think true morality comes from doing the right thing even without the threat of punishment from an angry deity

We believe that personal experience, conscience, and reason should be the final authorities in religion. In the end religious authority lies not in a book, person, or institution, but in ourselves. We put religious insights to the test of our hearts and minds.

I prefer that sort of approach rather than just latching onto a "revealed" faith.