What is Sciencetology (hope I spelled that right) all about? What are the principal views of this movement?\nDo they believe in God?  If not, would that not make Tom Cruise an Atheist?
124039
Here's an article I found:\n\n"Welcome to Scientology"\n\nThe word Scientology literally means "the study of truth." It comes from the Latin word "scio" meaning "knowing in the fullest sense of the word" and the Greek word "logos" meaning "study of." \n\nScientology is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life. The Scientology religion comprises a body of knowledge extending from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these: \n\nMan is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability. \n\nRead more here:\n\nhttp://www.scientology.org/
644581
As far as I can read it, people who say they "believe in science" are saying that they believe that the methods of science can be trusted to reveal as much about how the universe works as is possible.  One of the most important aspects of this is that they are claiming that naturalism is correct - the first paragraph of my first Wikipedia source link explains it well.\n\nReally, the reason why many atheists will say they "believe in science" is because they often encounter people who will say that science cannot test magic, or that science cannot test the Bible, or that scientists are conspiring to hide evidence of aliens or creationism or the nonexistence of global warming or ... well, you see what I mean.  Believing in science may not exclude the last of these (though given how many scientists from how many directions look at those subjects, any global conspiracy would be worse than impossible to maintain), but it does exclude saying that science is _fundamentally_ blind to certain phenomenon.  If I believe in science, then I believe that anything which can be noticed, anything _real_, can be seen and studied with the methods of science.\n\n\nI assume that "I believe in science" may sometimes appear in other contexts, too - in those cases, the speaker is probably explaining why she (or he) does not believe a particular probably-pseudoscientific claim.
580038
Uhh, I doubt you'll ever see it. The Nascar community is heavily filled with Christians, and most of the racers and teams are too. Motorracing Outreach has become a huge part of the Nascar community. \nYeah, as someone mentioned the rednecks and scientology don't mix.\nIf people get offended by God than Nascar is so not their sport, b/c God is never getting out of Nascar. I will be happy to join the foot cramming up butt clan if someone wants to start something with my sport, LOL. \nI so don't get Scientology. It seems like a tree-hugging, hippy, hollywood, pretty-boy, rich girl, type of thing that has no place in the real world.
7099
Hi , here are a few details\n\nScientology is a system of beliefs, teachings and rituals, originally established as a secular philosophy in 1952 by science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, then recharacterized by him in 1953 as an "applied religious philosophy."\n\nScientology is officially represented by the controversial Church of Scientology. The Church presents itself as a non-profit religious organization dedicated to encouraging development of the human spirit. Providing counseling and rehabilitation programs, the Church offers itself as an alternative to psychiatry, which Scientologists believe to be a barbaric and corrupt profession. [1] (http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/heritage/pg011.html) Church spokespeople attest that Hubbard's teaching (called "technology" or "tech") has freed them from drug and alcohol addictions, depression, learning disabilities, mental disorders and other problems.\n\nScientology, however, has been the object of many allegations that sharply contradict the Church's self-description. Critics—including officials and the courts of several countries—have characterized the Church of Scientology as an unscrupulous commercial organization; it has often been described not as a religion, but a man-made cult that harasses its critics and exploits its members. Many of the Church's most controversial actions are, critics argue, a direct reflection of Hubbard's Scientology teachings.\n\n\nOrigins of Scientology\nScientology was expanded and reworked from Dianetics [2] (http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/Wolf/pg6.htm), an earlier system of self-improvement techniques originally set out by Hubbard in the 1950 book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Immediately prior to this work, Hubbard was intensively involved with the occultist Jack Parsons in performing the occult rites developed by Aleister Crowley. Some critics have seen many similarities in Hubbard's writings to the doctrines of Crowley [3] (http://www.xenu.net/archive/lrhbare/lrhbare08.html).\n\nBy the mid-1950s, Hubbard had relegated Dianetics to being a sub-study of Scientology, although it is still promoted and delivered by Scientology organizations. The chief difference between the two is that Dianetics is explicitly secular, focused on the individual's present life and dealing with physical and mental or emotional problems, whereas Scientology adopts a more overtly religious approach [4] (http://victorian.fortunecity.com/finsbury/124/last.htm) focused on dealing with spiritual issues spanning multiple past lives as well as the present day.\n\nHubbard was repeatedly accused of adopting a religious facade for Scientology in order for the organization to maintain tax-exempt status and avoid prosecution for false medical claims; these accusations have dogged the Church of Scientology to the present day, bolstered by numerous accounts from Hubbard's fellow science-fiction authors that on various occasions he stated that the way to get rich was to start a religion [5] (http://www.bible.ca/scientology-1million-start-a-religion.htm).\n\nThe word scientology has a history of its own. Although nowadays associated almost exclusively with Hubbard's work, it was coined by the philologist Alan Upward in 1907 as a synonym for "pseudoscience". [6] (http://www.instinct.org/texts/bluesky/bs3-4.htm) In 1934, the Argentine-German writer Anastasius Nordenholz published a book using the word positively: Scientologie, Wissenschaft von der Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens, or Scientology, Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge. [7] (http://www.scientologie.de/scientologie/index.htm) Nordenholz's book is a study of consciousness, and its usage of the word is not greatly different from Hubbard's definition, "knowing how to know". However, it is not clear to what extent Hubbard was aware of these earlier usages. The word itself is
85301
I think some people are confused. They don't really realize that many of the people they think of as "atheists" are actually god-fearing individuals.\n\nThey simply point at Hollywood or scientists and assume that these people are godless. They are largely wrong.\n\nI'm coming from a different frame of view. I think that faith divides people and causes them to do terrible things to one another. Worse than that, it justifies these actions. The idea that atheists are immoral is faulty. The idea that one cannot have morals without god is faulty. \n\nThe people who come down so hard on atheism are missing that it truly is a message of tolerance. It's an acknowlegement that there are no rewards or punishments in some made-up after-life, so it is incumbent upon the individual to do the right thing for no other reason than doing the right thing. It is selfless in that sense.\n\nThere is a man in Florida who is trying to start a town for Catholics where abortion (among other things) would be banned. Is it constitutional? I don't know. However, I think that if I were to try to start a town for atheists, secular-humanists, whatever you want to call yourself and the only rules would be "1. No worship of the supernatural and 2. Tolerate everyone" people would go crazy and decry it as a new Sodom or Gomorrah.\n\nAlso, atheists cannot recruit in the traditional sense. We cannot "show you the light." One must reach their own rational conclusions. The further truth is that most atheists do not fault people simply for believing in god. It's when they use their faith as justification for intolerance or violence that we really get up in arms.\n\nDespite our lack of organization, we have something going for us that no other "faith" does. We will never go away. Whether people worship Zeus, Jehovah, or (maybe in 1000 years) The Star Wars Trilogy, there will always be people who say, "This cannot be right."
612407
i dunno i've ran into some people on here like that but that's true how could you explain anything. science, no science is something people use i think to jump away from the fact that god does exsist whether they like it or not. i've tried to make people beleive in god but some don't. so all you can do is beleive pray for those people. HE IS OUR SAVIOR SO WORSHIP HIM! GOD BLESS.
57189
Absolutely a cult. Just because people are considered stars doesn't mean they're considered well educated or intelligent. Consider the high profile people who tout scientology who are also getting publicity for jumping on sofa's on national television.  That don't impress me much!  It is unfortunate that so many otherwise logical people are so deceived. I believe that Jesus Christ is the only one who raised from the dead...I mean aren't all of the others dead...budda, confusious, etc...People need to get into the truth, not into what just "feels good"...Perception of the truth does not alter the truth...give Jesus a call...he's expecting you...
606258
ima try to keep it simple.. more of a opinion than answer because of the topic which we won't really know.  \n\nIf you study science hard as hell, you will see how a single cell organism lived in the water, long ago.  When they adapted... to survive for food they grew to 'cilia' (hair) on sides to move thu water after only having on hair(flagella).  To get to the point... cells evolved into tadpoles. then to fish and snakes. then to amphibians like frogs or platypus which is land and water.  Then reptiles and mammals that live on land.  Most say the monkey group grew to human when more complex learning/thinking came...but this could be the beginning of man.  Then religion to explain it all.  THe big bang theory states dinosaurs could of died when a meteor hit earth and clogged the atmosphere with dust so bad that no light was here for years.  No grass, no oxygen.  If the bible says... let there be light... could that of been when it cleared up.  The whole point is there is no way to prove anything that will satisfy us wholely.  If i do not have the cross of jesus... they do not believe... if you tell them anything out of the norm... they doubt it. It will all be confusion until enough knowledge satisfies their interest whether they choose science or religion.  THis is all because we are becoming in need of security thru reality and facts relating to our own patterns.  Most people believe the bible for only its relating content to everyday life rather than the miracles, holy spirit, and other great feats not known or seen to man today.  A scientist will help fulfill these questions as well as an interpretor of faith.  It depends if your a theorist. So its a bad thing for a scientist to fail in his field. The unexplained is sorta why we even have religion.  You must stop collecting facts and give faith to the supreme being....because even the single cell organism came from somewhere and the power to adapt/evolve is unexplained. unexplained gives a sense of unsecurity where we "fear what we cant control" (heights, ghost, and other scary sh/it.  we feel we cant control our lives without that being explained, so we fear and act off of that. Hope i covered alot in a lil.  Good luck on the answer! peace out!
604284
Its not a religion, its a science fiction club.  Just like a Star Trek convention without the costumes.  Oh wait, they have the SeaOrg uniforms, that right they do have costumes.
575761
I've studied Scientology, and read books on both sides of the issue.  Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.  It's a field of study who's subject is you.  Scientology's hope for you is that you can achieve the state of "Clear" or a state of freedom from your traumatic memories.  Scientology helps people achieve this state through Dianetics counseling.\n\nThe aims of Scientology are a civilization without insanity without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights and man is free to rise to greater heights.\n\nScientologists believe strongly in community service, and have founded many social betterment organizations including, Narconon which helps people get off drugs, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights which works for psychiatric reform, the Applied Scholastics study tech organization, and the Way to Happiness Foundation.\n\nBUT, Scientology is very expensive.  Crossing Scientology's "Bridge to Total Freedom" can cost up to half a million dollars.  And some of the information available on Scientology makes the organization look like a bizarre cult and it's practices have encountered controversy.  Just google it, and you'll find a ton of information both pro and con.
375643
Hehe.\n\nWeren't there also the Galactic League of Atheists?
224023
That I absolutely have to disagree with. There are many scientists, including particle physicists, who believe in God. The web site below has articles by a number of them.\n\nMany of them argue against the evangelical 6000-year-old earth proposition. They maintain that the Evangelicals are driving people away from Christianity by insisting that people ignore the evidence of their own eyes.
656509
Hello, crazy guy! Are you trying to start your own crazy religion, like scientology, only less money-mad?\n\nDarwin's theory of evolution holds pretty well up to reality. How could you ever believe the opposite?
332135
Spock please don't be angry at me.i don't understand your question fully.can you please go into a little more detail how Christians reading Genesis proves Jim Darwinism right.i did some homework and typed Jim Darwin in my web browser and can't find one article on him.the only place he is listed is on yahoo groups.i expected to find Jim's teachings or his book but after countless searches i can't find anything on him.my conclusion is Jim Darwinism is a fun group where people can get to together and make up a funny religion.i guess this is his fantasy.though i don't understand why he would get hate mail.as a believer,I'm taught not to judge other people unless i be judged myself.i can't imagine Jim Darwinism ever becoming a legitimate religion because no-man can declare he is a God.for if you have a man who calls himself a God,this is not religion but a cult.we have seen to many cults where the "God" sucked money out of people and led them to suicide.Waco comes to mind.not to mention Christian rev. who exploit the tithe to their advantage.i loved reading his made up saint and creation theories.it was so funny!we still need evolution taught side by side with intelligent design because atheist's don't believe in God.\n                   God Bless
264082
L.Ron Hubbard - who wrote science fiction stories - invented Scientology.  Their main belief is that the person is a spiritual being (thetan) and during birtha and growth, a person can have unconcious programming (engrams) enter the mind and thus affect your life.  These engrams can manisfest as illness.  For a pretty hefty price, they can "audit" you and by using hipnosis, the can make you "clear" at which point, you will acheive the full potential that a thetan can attain.\n\nHere is an excellent description along with a price list for getting cleared.  It is an expensive religion and a sort of status symbol among hollywood types.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
360146
I've learned lots of things from Jim_Darwin, although sometimes he says he's Atheist and sometimes he says he's Agnostic. \n\nI guess it's that Atheists can be spiritual. The concept never occurred to me until someone (not Jim_Darwin) explained an experience he had. I would reference it, but the question was deleted for chatting. Had this person not been adamant that he was Atheist, I would have pegged him as a Pagan because of some Norse mythology he talked about. \n\nI've also learned a lot from the different questions I've answered from Atheists. Not all Atheists are belligerent, and a lot of the questions I've answered have caused me to really think, which has caused me to firm up my beliefs. Prior to coming here, I knew what I believed, but had never really put a lot of it into words. Thanks to a lot of the early questions I answered, who I later found out were Atheist/Agnostic or at least not Christian, I was able to put words to my feelings.
91426
"Dr" Hovind is a complete charlatan, and the arguments as far as Earth's rotation and the distance to the moon are fradulent.\n\nIn any case, I know a number of people, including one who is a priest, who believe in both God and evolution.  In this viewpoint, God is more of a supreme architect who created the basic structure of the universe, and evolution is one of the ways in which this universe operates, giving rise to life in all its complexity.  It's a reasonable viewpoint, given that you can neither prove nor disprove God.  Personally, I don't find God necessary, so I don't include such a being in my view of reality.  Can I prove this?  No, not really.  But a believer in God can't prove to me that this being exists, either.  As far as whether you're a creationist of an evolutionist, I'd say you're an evolutionist since you believe that life diversified through evolution.  Darwin was also a believer in God, although not a personal God you could communicate with.  His viewpoint was much more like the school of theological thought that was very popular at the time called Deism, which proposes a God that exists as a permeating force, but which does not perform miracles, or give prophecy to individual humans.  In other words they view God as more of a force of nature than an anthropomorphic God.   So, if the originator of the theory of evolution could believe in God, and felt that he was learning about the works of this God by understanding nature, then I'd say someone who believes in God and considers the process of evolution to be one of the achievements of that God is an evolutionist.  \n\nThe idea that a belief in God and acceptance of evolution as a scientific throught are impossible to hold at the same time is a straw man set up by religious con men who are mostly interested in controlling people's thought for the purpose of building up their own political power.  By creating a false dichotomy, they can get people to isolate themselves from other schools of thought, which makes them easier to control.