It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

German Official Wants nation wide Scientology Ban

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Ban baby ban



the heat is going up in Germany with many state presidents getting togeather to talk about really going ahead and banning them

apart from that there have been several tv shows talking with victims and ex members and their parctices

really bad things like saunas for children aged 6 and upwards to try and spiritually cleanse them



kids growing up in schools in denmark nowing nothing about life other then scientology and then truning on their father and hating him and wanting to have no contact




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by gigaplex
 


I don't want to sound condescending, but if you're an Atheist/Scientologist, who believes in life being created from another life form. What is the probability that a being like Xenu came into existence, in turn being responsible for life on Earth? Quite the paradox within your own logic.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Allow me join the drama. If taking advantage of supposedly ignorant people is the only reason for this proposed ban, then the government of Germany should ban any/all religious groups/cults/secular groups and anything else that doesn't have full, reputable proof for every single one of their claims.





posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The sauna thing (a.k.a. the purif) is not for spiritual cleansing. It is for getting residual chemicals out of the body. It addresses drugs that get lodged in fat cells and stick around a long time eating up vitamins and things like that.

The reason they do it is because auditing doesn't work well when a person has been on drugs/medication in the past.

They normally keep a doctor in the mix to be extra safe. So it's not really dangerous. I'll have to admit though, it was pretty tough to do. I would be jogging for 30 minutes and then go to the sauna for several hours. I was drinking insane amounts of water and taking quick breaks about every 15-25 minutes to cool off in a cold shower. Salt and potassium pills are kept by at all times just in case something happens but nothing did.

If a kid wants to do it, I don't really see any problem with it. Let him do it. It's not like it's going to kill him or something. My only stipulation would be that he does it on his own free will and with the consent of his parents.

After the program, there was a noticeable difference in my physical appearance. Mostly my skin. It looked a lot healthier. People that didn't even know I was doing the program mentioned that my skin looked different.

Lucky for me, I did this outside of the corrupt church of scientology and so didn't have to pay thousands of dollars. I got my program cheap!



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
You assume a lot of things. I don't believe that another being created me.

I don't know of any scientologist that believes Xenu created life. I don't know of any scientologist that believes they are made up of tortured alien souls either (a previous claim of yours). I also know of no scientologists that believe Xenu destroyed the universe. For some reason, you feel the need to exaggerate this story. I don't think this exaggeration helps any of the points you are trying to make.

I'll assume that since you didn't respond to my post on the mathematical probability of your religion being true that you must have discovered it is just as ridiculous as you claim everyone else's beliefs are.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by gigaplex
 



You assume a lot of things. I don't believe that another being created me.


Well if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe that smaller organisms can become bigger, stronger, more complex.

If you don't believe any being created you, than how would you explain anything. Further more, you've missed my question as in regards to Xenu.

If you don't believe in evolution, and don't believe in a creator, how would we obtain souls from life that once existed if the possibility of life never existed?


I don't know of any scientologist that believes Xenu created life. I don't know of any scientologist that believes they are made up of tortured alien souls either (a previous claim of yours). I also know of no scientologists that believe Xenu destroyed the universe. For some reason, you feel the need to exaggerate this story. I don't think this exaggeration helps any of the points you are trying to make.


I never said Xenu created life. I was implying that he was responsible for life, our spirits being those of dead aliens. I was also implying that he destroyed all life in the universe. I'm not purposely exaggerating what you believe in, but as far as I know, that's the case. No exaggeration of my own needed.


I'll assume that since you didn't respond to my post on the mathematical probability of your religion being true that you must have discovered it is just as ridiculous as you claim everyone else's beliefs are.


Gladly sum it up for you now. The odds of their being life on earth are small in context of our solar system, but in the terms of life developing in the universe is very probable because space is infinite or ever expanding. In light of calculating anything against the infinite presents a very large chance that ANYTHING can happen. I can easily see how we "lucked" out and through the evolution process been able to evolve to the point where we can debate our origin of existence.



Edit: Thanks. The filter shuts off from the mind to fingers every once in awhile.



[edit on 7-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues

...The odds of their being life on earth are small in context of our solar system, but in the terms of life creating itself in the universe is very probable ...


[Pedantic note] Surely the chances of anything creating itself are zero?

But I know what you mean.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


I'll take your word that you are not purposely exaggerating it but you do have SIGNIFICANT details wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying the whole Xenu thing and the scientologists I know don't deny it either. You have just gotten an exaggerated version of the story somewhere, that's all.

If someone has memories of past lives, if someone remembers past civilizations, not that someone told them but memories they've discovered on their own and then they hear that some guy named Xenu set off a bomb, it's not really going to sound quite as far fetched. So the core thing that leads to your absurdity claim is that you don't believe in past lives. But really, how are past lives any crazier than your mud to man theory which has less than a one in 100 duodecillion chance of being the case?

Space may or may not be infinite, I don't know. I do know that scientists claim there is a finite number of particles in the universe, not an infinite number of particles in the universe. So my calculation still stands. Or maybe you only believe the science that supports your religion?

Let me try and simplify this. If there was a universe that consisted of 100,000 particles in a random configuration and you needed a specific configuration of 100 particles to make something and only enough time had passed to rearrange the particles 10 times, you will more than likely not end up with what you are looking for. If under these conditions, you viewed this universe in its final state, found the configuration you were looking for but did not see anything that happened before this, you could conclude that it is highly improbable that this happened by chance. Believing that it did happen by chance would be a leap of faith.

You might say that because we are here, because these bodies exist, that proves the mud to man theory even though it is a statistical improbability. This is basically identical to someone saying that God is proved to be real because the bible is the word of God. It is called circular logic and it has no place in science. Your mud to man theory is a belief system just like christianity or any other belief system. I don't really have a problem with it but it should be noted that it is a belief system.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by gigaplex
 


You're not answering any of my questions, as you proceed to keep adding to the questions you're asking me.


So let me reiterate the primary one.

If you don't believe in god and you don't believe in evolution, how can you believe in anything?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by tayga

[Pedantic note] Surely the chances of anything creating itself are zero?

But I know what you mean.


It would appear so. The confusing thing though is that if that were the case it would basically prove everything false. If there is something, then it either had to create itself or something else had to create it and if something else created it you face the same question all over again. So somewhere down the line doesn't something have to create itself? It seems that it is either possible for something to create itself or there is another option that I am not able to comprehend. I could go either way on this one...


Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by gigaplex
 


Well if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe that smaller organisms can become bigger, stronger, more complex.



As far as I know, there is evolution. I can't see an evolution from mud to man happening in 4.2 billion years though. I can't say whether we did evolve from mud to man or not. There are possible scenarios that I would consider. I think that it would either have to be directed or the universe would have to be ridiculously old, not just 10 or 20 billion years (old enough for the math to work out).



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by gigaplex
 


You're not answering any of my questions, as you proceed to keep adding to the questions you're asking me.



Let me know if my last post answered any questions. And hey you are escaping my mathematics, that's not fair either!



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by gigaplex
 


Math is the language of the universe, but probability and math are two different things. Probability is the chance given that something will happen. Because the odds are stacked against something from happening, doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.


"That's a one in a million shot."

Never underestimate coincidence.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by gigaplex
 


I would also like to add that a similar "probability" pertains to your guy, Xenu as well. If our chances for life were so limited, I'm sure your alienman's odds were stacked against his own existence too. I don't understand your logic believing that life shouldn't exist here without some sort of foreign catalyst, but life can exist elsewhere, and evolve to such an extent that they're capable of interstellar travel, and..... Hydrogen bombs. So Anti-Climactic, isn't it?


It reminds me of this Dean Koontz book I read in 7th grade titled "Lightning." It had an exicting storyline for a 7th grader until these time travelers, angels, and Nazis all had "Uzis." No matter what kind of action was going on, they just all seemed to have Uzis. Doesn't make any sense to me why Xenu would even be dropping dated "hydrogen bombs" on the intergalactic community, while within 500 years we've gone from gun powder to Hydrogen bombs? The timeline of Technologies has a very 1954'ish feel to me.... Oh, wait... that's right after they developed hydrogen bombs and when the church of Scientology was founded. Odd.




[edit on 7-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by gigaplex
 


Math is the language of the universe, but probability and math are two different things. Probability is the chance given that something will happen. Because the odds are stacked against something from happening, doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.


"That's a one in a million shot."

Never underestimate coincidence.



It also means there is a chance it didn't happen that way - an overwhelming chance that it didn't happen that way. So not only is your theory not proven but it is also highly unlikely to be true.

Other religions have not completely proven their ideas and it is highly unlikely that they are correct yet they still believe. I fail to see how that is in any way whatsoever different from your religion.

If you were a true person of science you would be happy to admit that your theory may not be correct especially given the probability. We know that the probability of you being wrong is more than 1 in 100 duodecillion but how much more? Would it matter to you? Will you believe this no matter what the odds? Is there no possible number in the world of probability that would shatter your unbreakable faith? It seems that is the case.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by gigaplex
 


I don't have a religion. The religion in question is Scientology, and I find all your answers to be very evasive.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by gigaplex
 


I would also like to add that a similar "probability" pertains to your guy, Xenu as well. If our chances for life were so limited, I'm sure your alienman's odds were stacked against his own existence too. I don't understand your logic believing that life shouldn't exist here without some sort of foreign catalyst, but life can exist elsewhere, and evolve to such an extent that they're capable of interstellar travel, and..... Hydrogen bombs. So Anti-Climactic, isn't it?


It reminds me of this Dean Koontz book I read in 7th grade titled "Lightning." It had an exicting storyline for a 7th grader until these time travelers, angels, and Nazis all had "Uzis." No matter what kind of action was going on, they just all seemed to have Uzis. Doesn't make any sense to me why Xenu would even be dropping dated "hydrogen bombs" on the intergalactic community, while within 500 years we've gone from gun powder to Hydrogen bombs? The timeline of Technologies has a very 1954'ish feel to me.... Oh, wait... that's right after they developed hydrogen bombs and when the church of Scientology was founded. Odd.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]


Why is it odd that another civilization might develop space travel before developing a hydrogen bomb? Maybe there is some easier way to space travel that we have overlooked. Maybe they were not obsessed with making weapons the way we are. Isn't that possible? I bet it is more possible than 1 in 100 duodecillion (yeah, I'm going to keep hammering on that one).

Regardless, it doesn't have to be a hydrogen bomb anyway. Maybe that was the only way Hubbard knew to describe it. Maybe it was really something else and he got a detail wrong, it's not like he's god or something.

On top of that the whole incident might have been an implant (illusion) that he was describing how to erase.

Additionally, you keep referring to this whole thing like I blindly believe it or something. I have said repeatedly that I don't unconditionally accept things in scientology. I don't recall the event, I've never done the level, so I can't really say that it is true or that I believe it. But it seems you want me to believe it sooo bad.

You're argument is weak. Is this really all you got to prove the entire religion wrong?? yawn...

[edit on 7-12-2007 by gigaplex]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by gigaplex
 


My argument is sound. Your logic is flawed full spectrum. Don't start throwing insults because you're the dog chasing his tail and getting pissed about it. You think this fuzzy math or your pseudo-intellectualism is going to phase me?

Taking your "logic" into consideration...



Going with the idea that we are just meat bodies - If you look at the actual odds of what it would take to randomly create humans, it is way, way out there. Enough so that it probably didn't happen that way. It is just far too unlikely and that is why I do not subscribe to that belief system like you do. In fact, I don't subscribe to any belief system, I just think that the axioms above are the most logical explanation.


We don't evolve.



I don't believe there is a god either. To this point, I think we would probably agree.


And we weren't created.




[edit on 7-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by gigaplex
 


If you were a true person of science, you would base your opinion on the substantial amount of evidence pointing towards organic evolution, not disproving everything we've worked towards since Darwin on the basis of probability.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by gigaplex
 


If you were a true person of science, you would base your opinion on the substantial amount of evidence pointing towards organic evolution, not disproving everything we've worked towards since Darwin on the basis of probability.



I'm sorry it was so easy to disprove. I'll try to make it look more difficult next time.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by gigaplex
 


My argument is sound. Your logic is flawed full spectrum. Don't start throwing insults because you're the dog chasing his tell and getting pissed about it. You think this fuzzy math or your pseudo-intellectualism is going to phase me?



I don't think anything will phase you. That's kind of my whole point.

Seriously though, calm down. This is just a debate. I didn't throw any insults at you in that post. I don't hate you. I'm actually enjoying the debate. You're fun to debate!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join