Talk:Scientology

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive2

---

Typos

This article has a couple typos in the first paragraph. "Psychology" should not be capitalized the first time, and the second time it is misspelled and again inappropriately capitalized. HelpJazz 13:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks HelpJazz 13:33, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Hackers?

C'mon now, must we call them hackers? And if we must, can we possibly say "Hackers on steroids", add a reference to "Secret Websites", and possibly put in a few pictures of an exploding yellow van? Barikada 16:49, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Do you have anything serious to add, or just obscure jokes? If you want to improve the wording please be my guest; I'm only as good as my sources. HelpJazz 16:55, 24 January 2008 (EST)

It's not a joke. Hacker carries some unnessecarily dark connotations. The quotes above are from a video from Fox News on this very subject. I can find it for you, if you wish. Barikada 17:02, 24 January 2008 (EST)

A link's not necessary, but a straightforward response is always appreciated. What's wrong with the word hacker, what's a better word, and why can't you just change it yourself? The article called them a "hacking group" and I had no reason to call them anything else. HelpJazz 17:12, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Because pretty much any time I try to change something that might be even slightly controversial, I get banned.

The word hacker, thanks to the MSM, brings up images of people sabotaging networks/stealing information from the government/what have you. Where I come from, at least.

Could simply refer to them as "a group" instead of "a hacking group." Barikada 18:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Well if anyone is confused, they can see hacker, which is wikilinked within the article, and which doesn't bring up images of people sabotaging networks or stealing information. HelpJazz 19:39, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Alright. Barikada 19:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I've removed the reference to hackers. Barikada's complaint was legitimate, and although the link to hacker should mitigate that if it was necessary to mention it, I couldn't see that there was any real need to mention it. The YouTube video doesn't refer to them as hackers, nor even mention anything to do with computers. Their tactics, just going by the video, seem to lie in other areas. Yes, the other link does refer to hackers, so in that sense the use of the term was justifiable, but it still wasn't necessary. Philip J. Rayment 04:10, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I've never understood people's deal with the word hacker, but I also didn't watch many movies in the late 80's ;-) Is there a better word than simply "group", though, because it's more than just a group of people, right? It's people who are highly skilled in a certain area (namely using computers to illegally and skillfully disrupt other people's computers) and I don't know what word covers that. HelpJazz 10:00, 25 January 2008 (EST)

No need to specify computers, given that many Anons are handing out flyers in reality. Barikada 15:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Err... but flyers don't perfom DoS attacks. HelpJazz 22:01, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Indeed. Which is why I attempted to imply that not all of the activities perpetrated by Anonymous are internet-based. Barikada 22:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I'll say again, I'm only as good as my sources. I found a source that says they are hackers (and I still don't see why it's inaccurate), and it said nothing about handing out flyers. At any rate, just because they do more than computer-based attacks doesn't change their core purpose or definition. Nobody's been able to come up with any better word than "group of people". What's so wrong with using descriptive language? HelpJazz 22:12, 25 January 2008 (EST)

"Hackers" is a bit like "Fundamentalists". The origin of the word is good, but it's been appropriated by the media to mean someone bad.

As far as the legitimacy of its use in this article is concerned, the primary evidence, the video, made no reference to hackers and no reference to computer attacks. The secondary reference, quoting a third source, referred to them as hackers and said that the group had already launched denial of service attacks, but apart from that being their only documented tactic so far, there's no evidence that computer-based tactics are going to be their main mode of attack. In other words, they could be planning on using several approaches, and the denial of service attack just happens to be the first one. Actually, the video seemed to be indicating that a tactic would be infiltration.

Philip J. Rayment 02:48, 26 January 2008 (EST)

A chance?

This might be a chance worth making use of. Christianity and Scientology are certinly in opposition, and Scientology has a known way of destroying families by ordering new converts to sever all contact. They will be in the headlines for a time now, and they have a lot of skeletons in their cupboard which until now have been consigned to websites hardly ever seen. Why waste such a chance to spread the truth around, discredit the church, slow its growth, and score one for the real true religion. Im not entirely sure what that is, but its certinly not Scientology looniness. - Suricou Raven, Jan 24th.

Is it your opinion that Christianity and Scientology are in opposition? Whose opinion is it? The reason I ask is, opposition is not widely stated by Christian Churches. A few even use Scientology methods (it has been in the news). If it is certain, it certainly isn't obvious. Also, the Scientology website claims it is compatible. Whose opinion is that? TerryO 00:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Scientology is incompatible with virtually evrey religion in existence in the $cientology book the history of man L Ron states that man evolved from lower life forms. (gasp!) but how they evolved has absolutely no basis in either science or religion. according to Hubbard humans evolved form clams (the sources of our jaw pain and the now disproved Piltdown man. Also im many of his lectures and books he makes his disdain for Jesus Christianity and just about every other major religion. The final blow to the "you can be a Cristian and a $cientoligist" notion. Is the revelation one you spend 200000$ to get to 0t3 is that the memory of Jesus and all the old religions were implanted into the dead alien souls that now inhabit your body by The evil Galactic Lord Xenu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craan (talk)

Meow

Needs a cat. Can a sysop add one? -Foxtrot 13:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Cat problem

Scientology is a religion, not a science. JY23 17:17, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed. The category should be changed to "Religion." Funny, whoever put "Pseudoscience," but completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic resource. -Ilikecake 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

It's not a religion - it's an evil cult that destroys lives, and we should say so. Marcdaniels 16:34, 2 February 2009 (EST)

• For purposes of this encyclopedia, "Scientology" (no matter what our personal opinions are) is categorized by most major governments as a religion, including the Government of the United States. CP is an American wiki. End of discussion. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 17:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Missing Parenthesis

There is a missing parenthesis, and I have bolded where I believe it was meant to be in the following - "Later Hubbard refined his ideas and moved toward a structured system of belief involving the human soul, or "thetan" (each person's spiritual self, and the origins of life and the universe.) Luminite2 12:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Fair Game

Can this article include information on Scientology's Fair Game policy, stating that enemies of the church are "fair game" for being "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." -Birry 07:78, 14 May 2009 (EST)