Anon Vs Scientology.

anyone not heard about this story? personally i think its rather cool. but it'd
be nice to know the opinions of fellow couch potatoes.

if you want other people's opinions, it might be nice to either give a brief
description or better yet, a link, for the background information. for the
people that haven't heard about this story 🙂

http://www.google.com/search?ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=anon+vs+scientology

it's not exactly well hidden 😉

for what it's worth it's just another iteration of the same religion themed
brain damage that's been around since the dawn of man.
"your doctrine is reprehensible to us but we will justify using destructive
attacks because our cause is the just one and yours is evil".

*yawn*

it's an awful lot of hyperbole to describe what is essentially a bunch of
skript kiddi3z ddosing a few websites.

point taken, kurai 🙂
sorry, it's first thing in the morning, kids first day back at school and my
brain hasn't started up yet!! i'm still in lazy holiday mode. my bad!

i kept expecting the all your base music to kick in

anonymous : "you are on the way to destruction. you have no chance to survive
make your time"

pricks, the lot of you.

scientology stinks.

of brainwashing, kidnapping, murder and just plain evil.

any attempt to damage and/or destroy it should be encouraged and supported.

anon are quite funny too.

i hope one of your kids gets inducted, then you may just change your arrogant,
smart-arsed tunes.

*shrug*

it's no more and no less fucktarded than any other religion. say the above
about any of the others and you'll get all sorts of bile and venom and
assorted other demonstrations of hatred directed at you.

at least the scientologist brand of brain damage doesn't tend to lead to a
whole lot of shooting and blowing up of unbelievers.

and what is there, in any of that verbiage, that refutes what i said ?
(it smells something like a sociology term paper to me. i'd give it a
generous b. raises some reasonable talking points, but makes way too many
absolutist assumptions.)
it's a matter of degree and you seem to be just as willing to draw arbitrary
and subjective lines about what is a "real religion", politics or
psychological warfare as the protagonists.

perhaps the people you need to go and have your argument with are the ones who
are quite comfortable with the idea of killing in the name of their chosen
creed. you call it abuse of religion, they call it righteous defence of the
faith.

even assuming for a moment that your opinion on what makes a religious view
the "right" one is valid, my earlier dismissive comment about the clams holds
true. they aren't big on acting upon the whole "death to the unbeliever"
mindset and the religion "abusers" outnumber them by a whole hell of a lot.

i'm not terribly invested in either school of thought mentioned in the first
paragraph - religion, to me, seems like a coping mechanism invented by minds
that have trouble dealing with the reality of the world around them.
some have a mild, almost asymptomatic case, some have a helping of rabid
homicidal psychosis slathered on top.

my point was that (as must be glaringly obvious by now) i am completely
atheistic and that the initial premise for either just doesn't hold water for
me. it's just a matter of degree as to how far the thing is taken.

obviously this whole post is a sterling case of reductio ad absurdum, but this
isn't really the place to debate the finer points of a thousand years of
theological philosophy, so i'll confine myself to condensed pithiness
(relatively speaking 😉)

p.s. ...

dmfaust : "religion does not lead to "shooting and blowing up
unbelievers", people who abuse religion do."

dear old charlton heston and the n.r.a. trot out a very similar tired old
saw. it's equally problematic.

hrmmm. i think we are going to have to agree to differ on the whole "it is
in *direct opposition* to what the religions teach" thing.

i see it as more a case of "it is in *direct opposition* to the parts of
the religions that i think are nice and fluffy and i'll just conveniently
forget about the existence of the nasty parts that i don't like".

it's just another way of saying "my particular variant of $random_faith
is the one true way[tm] and all that nonsense the other lot believe is
patently absurd and they are simply doing religion wrong".

i don't disagree for a moment that the psychotic end of the spectrum are a
blight on humanity.

however, once you take on board the whole notion of ordering one's life around
the framework of an inherently irrational faith based system as a good thing
then it's not hard to see how the process can be pushed to extremes rather
quickly.

really ? 🙂

http://tinyurl.com/23as2u

with this background knowledge, i now understand your inherant dislike towards
god (on the forum).

being the reincarnation of l. ron hubbard myself i have to admit i'm still
pissing my pants laughing seeing stupid people wasting their money to afford
some guys a wealthy life. remember my words 50 years ago: the easiest way to
make millions is to found a cult.
may big ellron be with you 😉

:lol:
that's a classic. very nice work indeed. problem is, very sad but true.

funny man has heard the clip.
stephen hawking is declaring war on scientology.

this hoax campaign gets a solid 2/10 from funny man - total waste of funny-time.