re: Will or can Scientology be destroyed.

quote:

---

It is. We have freedom of religion.

Scientology is not a religion, it's a cult.

---

Said clearly by someone who is religious and doesn't want to be seen in a similar light.

What differentiates the two? How do you even define a religion? Scientology has beliefs about spirituality and the afterlife, too. We accept most mainstream religions as normal because we were brought up around them. There is plenty of totally cookoo shite in the Bible that the followers of the religion have used a few thousand years to filter out and not accept as something that should be taught...

Sorry, rambling... my point is just that I feel like you're a religious person who is simply defending religion in general because you don't want Scientology to be associated in the same category. Unfortunately for you, it is.

quote:

---

The whole of all religious accounts are based on double hearsay. It's uncanny how much people invest their lives in such unprovable inexplicable nonsense. Mormons, scientologists, jehovahs witnesses, the list goes on and on....

---

From this can I infer you have no faith in any higher power? That we are just here for X number of years with no soul and become just done and over at death?

quote:

---

That's as, or more plausible than anything else we have right now.

---

You desire some kind of absolute proof I guess...

I don't...

quote:

---

Believe what you want, but it's silly to pretend that anyone else is any more wrong than you are because you believe something without evidence.

---

Help me with this. I obviously don't have the insight or intelligence that you have. Could you re-phrase or explain this sentence.

Thanks.

You seem to be making a bunch of assumptions about me or my faith from a couple of sentences. If I can't understand or you can't explain that one sentence, I doubt I can combine all that other stuff...

So if you don't believe in ANY type of faith, why would you even open a thread about ANY one of them? Showing us all how stupid we are and how much smarter you are?

Thanks again.

quote:

---

assumptions

---

Not at all. You specifically stated that you believe something and require no proof to believe it. What you believe is not important to my point. You'll notice I've never indicated specifically what I think you do believe, because it doesn't matter.

quote:

---

I doubt I can combine all that other stuff...

---

Sure you can.

quote:

---

So if you don't believe in ANY type of faith, why would you even open a thread about ANY one of them?

---

Are you a Scientologist?

quote:

---

revoke the tax exempt status of religion/churches...

---

I watched Going Clear last night because it was discussed yesterday. It's a HBO documentary on scientology. They discussed the tax exempt status. IRS didn't just give it to them. They fought them tooth and nail. Scientology started playing dirty and hired PI's to track uppers in the IRS so they could basically blackmail them into giving them the status. They began suing not just the IRS but people in the IRS personally. They told the director if they would just give them exempt status ALL of the lawsuits would go away. Exempt status given. Lawsuits gone. IRS was blackmailed into giving them the status.

quote:

---

You show me, by quotes, where I said this and I will leave for a month.

---

quote:

---

You desire some kind of absolute proof I guess...

I don't...

---

Now, let's hear it. Can't wait...

quote:

---

Sure you have.

---

What assumption have I made? If there were any, were they wrong?

quote:

---

Not one bit.

---

Yet, here you are.

quote:

---

By this logic, YOU are a Scientologist. I did not realize.

---

Your "logic."

This is simply meant to show that I don't need a direct belief in the topic to join it.

quote:

---

You did not quote what you said I said.

---

You certainly did. Polish it up if you like.

I'm not doing that. It isn't important to me that your confusion is cleared up. You said what you said, I posted it, and you're backpedaling and making a poor attempt at playing semantics.

What have I assumed that was incorrect?