Anonymous: Anonymous Idiot, or Anonymous Hero? (Trees And Things)

JimmyHavok: Re: Scientology Is The Future

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:46:53 EST

It strikes me that monotheism was a reaction to the age of empires. It reflected the larger political trend of feudalism, where each local leader had a higher leader he was subject to.

A modern religion would reflect the distributed networks of po

3fingerspointback: Fad religions

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:19:22 EST

Scientology and Raelism both try to incorporate modern science into their doctrines, but unfortunately their tenets are both too easily falsifiable to be appealing.

Scientologists have their e-meters, which measure...thetan mind control? Really? &

thefadd: Re: Scientology Is The Future

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:59:26 EST

If you couldn't tell, I started post #19 with "That said..." because it was initially part of post #18 but I thought it needed its own thread, just forgot to make the fix.

I was also going to say something about judaism, christianity and islam being

thefadd: Scientology Is The Future

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:46:35 EST

That said, I do believe Scientology and the Raelians are the future of religion. Many scholars posit that the "apocolypse" foretold in the judeo-christian-islamic branch of religion is an ending to "the worl

thefadd: Interactions With A Scientologist

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:44:57 EST

I don't really have much to say to or about Scientologists. I did have this encounter once with a young pairing. The guy spoke while the girl stood by demurely:

Obvious Scientology Guy: Would you like to take a survey?

Me (never stopping from m

Lou: Perhaps the last post on this subject

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:06:39 EST

I was really hoping this would be more active since it's a subject I'm interested in.

That being said I think I'll keep the ol' trap shut. I'm starting to feel like Tommy Lee Jones in MIB where he's jumping up and down in front of the monster roac

port1080: Re: A

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:48:00 EST

I think sometimes people shoot their wad in the sub-q comments, and then don't have a whole lot to say when the story runs. On Plastic, sub-q comments are limited to something like 200 characters and you can only post one sub-q comment, which makes i

pO157: A

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:31:17 EST

It is odd how this place works. Stories in the subQ that look exciting get like 7 posts, while other ones you would not expect get a ton. It's kind of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. Or something.

On topic: Did anybody here have their hometo

Lou: Wondering

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:22:44 EST

Ok, here's a short poll...

This discussion has no discussion because:
A. It's not as interesting as it was in the subq.
B. Xenu keeps intercepting the posts.
C. The editors are being held hostage in some roach infested non-disclosed location

Lou: Seperated at Birth?

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:47:57 EST

Why is it every time I hear about Xenu, I think of this cat>

skeptic: Re: Scientology

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:09:20 EST

treesandthings does not have as large a membership as its parent web-site, plastic, and I remember that on a few occasions, people who were under discussion on plastic did post their own comments. When we discussed the career of the late Jack Chalker

3fingerspointback: 4 (funny)

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:35:55 EST

...but that's a nervous laugh, because right as this story posted, we got a big spike traffic from somewhere that's slowing the site down.

postillion: Re: Leave them alone

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:11:31 EST

I read somewhere a comment by a professor of religion who said he considers Scientology a multi-national corporation, not a religion.

Of course, the problem with this multi-national corporation is that it makes its profits with cult methods such as enco

MayorBob: One thing that can be said for sure here.

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:33:22 EST

The Church of Scientology won't be coming after TnT for anonymous attacks.

pO157: Re: Scientology

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:04:26 EST

Tom Cruise has already stated in a published interview "Fuck you if you don't like my religion" so obviously, he will not be receptive to my criticism (not that he reads treesandthings anyway). The more fool he.

Don't be so sure of

skeptic: Re: Leave them alone

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:13:34 EST

Actually my previous comment at least partially addresses that question, but I can state my answer more explicitly. While all religions are too some extent parasitical, in that they consume people's time and money for the propitiation of imaginary de

port1080: Re: Leave them alone

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:11:00 EST

It's the whole notion of "your right to throw a punch ends where my face begins". I don't give a damn about Scientology in the abstract, but I do care when the CoS tramples on other citizens free speech rights, gains unfair tax exemptions, does illegal th

zyxwvutsr: Re: Leave them alone

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:07:57 EST

I think it's because people think it's possible that Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, etc. really were spiritual people who honestly believed they were telling the truth about God. Because they are more contemporary, we know a lot more detail about the lives of peo

skeptic: Scientology

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:52:57 EST

I dislike religion in general. I recently read Christopher Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (which, incidentally, does not even mention Scientology - perhaps there will be a later, expanded edition which does,

profwhat: Leave them alone

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:50:53 EST

Someone explain this to me -- why are the Scientologists so hated? Why can't their critics just look at them with the same bemused tolerance that people usually use for faiths they don't believe in?

port1080: A little surprised...

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:20:18 EST

Just some added background - "Anonymous" is the collective efforts of mostly a bunch of pranksters and script-kiddies from sites like 4chan (link goes to wikipedia article, here's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.