# More anti-drug rant from Cruise



## mcsiegs (Apr 27, 2005)

http://www.gawker.com/news/culture/toda ... 109869.php


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2005)

I agree with Tom Cruise's message - though he SERIOUSLY needs some rhetorical training...
...and some manners...


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

What the hell? Is Tom serious? He was certainly the 'jerk' this time, with all that 'I know what I'm talking about' crap. I'm gonna' go squirt him again.


----------



## M A R S (Jun 24, 2005)

I think I'm CRAZY, but i have one work for you.. Scientology Agenda!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Interesting re: this. I read that Tom Cruise as a child was diagnosed with ADD or dyslexia or some learning disorder and his mother was told that Ritalin might help. His mother was very much against the idea and Tom grew out of whatever the learning problem was.

This could be the basis of his anti-psychiatry stance which is clearly embodied in Scientology. Man oh man is that a weird religion.. yes it is a religion.

It's fine if it works for him, but he is just as evangelical about Scientology as any Fundamentalist is about whatever religion. Pretty scary.

Tom does have a personal bone to pick.

I find it truly irritating that he is monopolizing the news these days, as though nothing else is going on in the world.

Yawn.

I am interested in seeing "War of the Worlds" mainly to see Tim Robbins and Dakota Fanning, and to sit in an air conditioned theater. It's brutal here. My airconditioning bill will be $300 if it's a dime.

Sigh.

Tom has a chip on his shoulder, I suppose as we all do, but he is truly irritating these days. I don't understand how he plans to convert Katie Holms to Scientology when Nicole Kidman was so resistant. Isn't Katie Holms sp? a Christian if not a Catholic. Same as Kidman?

Tom is an a mission, that's for certain.

D


----------



## rainboteers (Apr 5, 2005)

What is scientology? I understand that it is some sort of religion but that is all I know about it.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Oh a mission! Thank you rainboteers, I'm languishing in the heat.

I'll find a link. It was established by a lunatic by the name of L.Ron Hubbard who wrote the book "Dianetics". It has a lot of sane things in it -- self reliance, strengthening the self -- but it is also nuts, has things to do with getting rid of "thetans" -- little beings in your brain or something.

It's really science fiction.

I don't have all the details, but there was a Scientology reading room on every corner in L.A. It's hip for the stars as is Kaballah.

Let me do a quick search on it as I'm interested myself....


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OK, can't say a lot about the details, just that I always found it "odd", thought of it as a "cult." Here are the basics... gotta read more myself before I say something awful....

*General Info*

The Church of Scientology was founded by Lafayette Ronald Hubbard 
(1911-1986). He was a very successful author, having published 
hundreds of novels, novelettes and short stories; most dealt with 
science fiction.

In 1950, his book "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" 
was published; it has since sold over 20 million copies worldwide. 
In 1951, Hubbard formed the religious philosophy of Scientology.

The Founding Church of Scientology was opened in Washington, DC 
during 1955.

Like many new religious movements, Scientology has been attacked by 
the Anti-Cult Movement. These criticisms appear to have reached 
their peak in the 1990s, and are now in decline.

*Official Website*

http://www.scientology.org

Sorry, fixed the link now, I hope

I'm going to read this. I just remember being lured into the 
Scientology center in Hollywood and being freaked out. As I 
understand it, it is recognized as a religion, tax exempt status 
and all that.

I just recall that L.Ron Hubbard was a little ... nuts. But hey, 
what do I know? LOL. And who am I to say. It's just so 
interesting that this is as evangelical as the best of the 
fundamentalist religions, but more specifically very 
anti-psychiatry. It pisses me off that Tom Cruise would have the 
gall to tell Brooke Shields she shouldn't have taken Paxil for her 
post-partum depression.

Lordy, leave the woman alone!

I find this as curious as Mormonism. It is such a "modern" religion. But like any religion it has good intentions, a desire to bring people together, to "empower" the individual. I can't say it's spiritual - L. Ron Hubbard isn't a deity ... it's more about how one conducts one's life, one's attitude -- that pearly white Tom Cruise attitude...

I think...
Gotta read the site.
But I was always sus about this. I recall trying to read Dianetics about 20 years ago and couldn't get through the first chapter. Can't make a comment until I have another look-see


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Well, as I see already, the site is a tad vague on what Scientology offers. I do recall when you go into one of these reading rooms you get a "personality test" that's mentioned. You get analyzed -- your strong points, weak points. Man, Scientology has an answer for everything.

They also like to charge MONEY. Celebrities have money. Years back, I recall that the Church of Scientology was accused of getting a lot of money out of celebrities by getting to know intimate details of their lives, or personal struggles -- drug addiction, being gay, etc. They would "blackmail" the person by saying, "We won't reveal this to the press if you go to 'another level' of therapy' which will cost X-thousands of dollars." I don't know if that is true or not.

This is where a lot of rumors got started that John Travolta was gay. He and his wife are members of the Church of Scientology.

But this is interesting, the "E Meter", I vaguely remember this... this sounds odd. I really should have a look at Dianetics again, but it's really.... weird. Something about the negative energy in your mind being caused by little "thetans" ... little "creatures" in your head. No I did not make this up. But I see the site doesn't mentioned "thetans" off the bat.

*
"The E-Meter? is a tool a Scientology auditor uses to see a thought. 
It operates below the level of a person?s awareness. It can zero in 
on the thoughts and decisions a person makes in life, and doesn?t 
remember, but which later stop him from having a happy and 
successful life. Fact is, if a person knew exactly what was causing 
a problem, it wouldn?t be a problem. 
Come in for a demonstration of the E-meter to see how it works. 
Call or email us for an appointment.* :shock:

I am broiling. I HATE summer. I really do.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Well, this is interesting, but a tad odd to say the least. One would indeed have to be "audited" and I nearly was in ol' Hollywood, LOL, to understand all of this.

There's a lot of "secret" "esoteric" stuff to Scientology. Plug in "thetan" into Google and you'll find a lot of anti-cult satire about Scientology.

Here's just a sample ... this is the weird stuff about Scientology... and if there are any Scientologists here I apologize, please elaborate if any of this is trash....

Too much to learn in one night, but some of this is coming back to me, God help me ... :shock:

Now this is from a Christian group, "The Watchman", debunking many "cults"....

"L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology, first gained 
notoriety in the minds of Americans as the author of numerous 
science fiction novels.

He would later use his skills to tightly weave the web of science 
fiction and religion. His theology, which today is accepted by 
millions, eventually leads to tales of preincarnate souls trapped 
in ice cubes from the planet Mars.

"One preclear (student of Scientology) said that this thetan 
(somewhat similar to `soul' or `spirit') had inhabited the body of 
a doll on the planet Mars 469,476,600 years ago.
"Martians seized the doll and took it to a temple, where it was 
zapped by a bishop's gun while the congregation chanted `God is 
Love.'

"The thetan was then put into an ice cube, placed aboard a flying 
saucer, and dropped off at Planet ZX 432, where it was given a 
robot body, then put to work unloading flying saucers.

"Being a bit unruly, it zapped another robot to death and was 
shipped off in a flying saucer to be punished. But the flying 
saucer exploded, and the thetan fell into space" (story as 
reprinted in Kingdom of the Cults, Dr. Walter Martin, p. 346, 985 
ed.).

*While this may be where the theology of the Church of Scientology 
eventually leads, it is not explained to the initiate in these 
precise words. Rather, it is touted to the world as the cure for 
all of man's problems and a way to gain every desire.*

The Watchman Fellowship library contains several hundred pieces of 
material from the Church of Scientology. One explains: "Today, 
Scientology philosophy provides the tools and technology to solve 
this puzzle and frees one from the unwanted conditions and 
situations in life.

"There has never before been such a technology to help man help 
himself towards greater happiness.

*"It provides exact principles and a practical technology for 
improving one's confidence, intelligence, abilities and skills... 
awareness, health and success in life.

"Scientology gives the only answers and solutions to the age-old 
questions of why people have trouble facing up to situations; why 
they have difficulty communicating with others; the causes of 
conflicts; and the solutions to why people don't use all the 
abilities and potentials they have.*

"Scientology is a religion by its basic tenets.

"All denominations are welcome in Scientology. The common 
denominator of all religion is the human spirit and Scientology can 
attain the long sought religious goal of knowing one's potential" 
(Scientology: What Is It? p. 1, 1990 ed.).

*While the claims are appealing, it is not until the basic theology 
is examined that potential students begin to realize that reaching 
these goals is to become a never-ending trek."*

*Dreamer's unsolicited comment:
I DID NOT MAKE THIS UP. This is what I understand Scientology to be about. Answers for everything, that take a lifetime and a lot of money to find. And we all have these little "beings" in ourselves that must be exorcised.... oh I've gotten myself into another hole.*

Nite 8)

Time for bed.


----------



## rainboteers (Apr 5, 2005)

I was doing some reading myself and found something where they think that Jesus and God are aliens! Not sure I understood it right, surely I didn't. I really try not to be judgemental about religion and such, but cults are different. ANY religious group that proclaims to have all the answers for EVERYONE really does scare me, people will really do some awful things trying to be "saved." The "thetans" thing really creeps me out :shock: , that is just as absurd as demon possession! I had no idea, I thought scientology had to do with science lol.


----------



## rainboteers (Apr 5, 2005)

Looks like we posted around the same time and you found the alien stuff as well. Seriously it has to be a joke. I don't even know what to say, just freakin scary :shock: .


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Rainboteers,
What I don't understand is how this became accepted as a legitimate religion, in other words recognized by the government as a tax-exempt "Church".

I also don't understand how people who follow through with this don't have a doubt or two about the Martian theory. As it says, someone first starting in Scientology -- it's like a step-wise program of "empowerment" -- isn't informed about the thetans/aliens.

Again, I'll have to try to read "Diantectics" again -- it initially sounds like yet another "self-help" type thing.

I also don't have a judgement about Sprituality or religions -- I'm a fan of Buddhism (a religion w/out a deity), and I have no problem with my Christian or Jewish friends, etc.

This has been endlessly dubbed a "cult". THAT I have problems with.

And see it gains credibility when it is represented by celebrities.

What is interesting is on the Scientology website, if you search for "thetan" there, nothing comes up.

*And again, apologies to anyone who IS a member of Scientology. Please shed some light on this if you can.*
Best,
D


----------



## g-funk (Aug 20, 2004)

I might be being naive, and I am of no organized religion, but isn't 'The Church of...' or the words 'religion' denote somekind of worship to a higher being etc? It's hardly a religion. Though cults/fads/religions these days seem to merge into the same thing.

On the surface it seems like common sense. Until you read the stuff about aliens and thetans :roll:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

"Religion" simply means a set of beliefs, a philosophy. Buddhism is considered a religion full of many philosophies on life, and a set of rules to lead a better life, but it has no deity. Communism is also a religion.

A religion can be Spiritual, and/or can have a Deity.

One can be religios without believing in a Deity, on can be moral without having a religion, one can be spiritual without having a religion.

I finally learned this but a few years ago! I'm 46. I was raised by an atheist, but consider myself agnostic. Until I really looked into "Religion" and "Spirituality" and "Theism" did I learn the difference.

Think of the saying, "Sam gets up every morning and *religiously* puts on his right sock, then his left sock, gets dressed under 5 minutes, eats toast and drives to work on Interstate 12."

Religion merely means a set of philosophies. Nazism would be considered a religion I believe. I know Communisim, despite the comment "Religion is the opium of the people" is considered a religion.

I hope this makes sense. It only made sense to me after reading several books on the topic.

Best
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Forgot to say, "Atheism" is in a sense a religion. It is ANTI-DEITY.

I'm not certain where the definition CAN'T be used for a set of beliefs.

But it has to have a philosophy, and some guide for living a "good life" a "more productive life", etc.

Some I suppose believe that Psychiatry/Psychology/Psychoanalysis are "religions." My guess is that Tom Cruise would say as much. "False beliefs, false religions."

It gets dicey as to how one defines these things.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Man I love researching things....

I plugged in "religion defined" into Google. There is quite a debate on the subject.

One must remember that a religion does not have to have a Deity, or necessarily a spiritual connection.

RELIGION DEFINED

Q: What does the word religion mean?

A: Definitions below.

1. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says: "a cause, 
principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" 
*(personal or institutional which can include or not include a 
supernatural concept).*

2. *Religion is a matter of opinion.* The First Amendment's religion 
clauses include protection of personal belief and restrict ("no 
law") the power of government respecting personal opinion--in 
contrast to action. In America, opinion (religious or political) is 
not to be established by law--religion is not to be established by 
law.

3. *Religion is whatever it is in life for which a person really 
lives, and all that he or she does in regard to that for which he 
or she really lives is worship.*

4. Religion is whatever the Supreme Court for the United States of 
America says it is.

5. *America's real religion is democracy* (its foremost export to the 
rest of the world)--"the social and political expression of the 
religious principle that all men are brothers and mankind a family" 
(A. Powell Davies).

6. James Madison's definitions of an "establishment" of religion 
include: the use of tax money for support of teachers of the 
Christian religion, the donation of a piece of federal land to a 
Baptist Church, congressional chaplains (read Madison's essays 
"Memorial and Remonstrance" and "Monopolies, Perpetuities, 
Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments"--printed in the book 
America's Real Religion --and the essays "Madison's Veto Messages," 
"Ecclesiastical Encroachments," and "Establishments of Religion"

*Simply Google "religion defined" and you'll see how difficult it is to define*


----------



## g-funk (Aug 20, 2004)

I get it now... Thank you for the info! I was a bit naive 

It seems to me that Tom Cruise is against psychiatry, ie the fact that psychological disorders may have a basis in genetics or biology and that drugs may help which enrages me, because those with first hand experience know that drugs can change your quality of life.

If I had to have a religion, it would probably be 'psychology' and I can see where he's coming from - I don't think we should rely on drugs and I believe therapy can be very powerful, but God the guy is so up on his high horse and I bet he's lucky enough to never have to find out just how much a pill can change the quality of your life. Until you can find a 'better' way, why the hell not? It's a personal choice.

He claims he 'knows' but in my mind how can you, without first hand experience or seeing someone close to you go through it. He's just spouting shite he's been indoctrinated with.

Of course, this is pure speculation, he may well have first hand knowledge and disclaimer, discalimer disclaimer.

I actually really like Tom Cruise. Especially in 'Risky Business'.... :twisted:


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2005)

It's also a heirarchy within the group - that is the key to understanding the "religion" concept. Modeled after the esoteric High Magic societies, the Scientologist doesn't really have access to the "high knowledge" until/unless they reach very high levels within the group. Down on the lowest mass level, it's yes, full of common sense for how to live well. Higher up, one learns about the Thetans and some of the secrets to the origin of life on earth. Higher still, the person learns the mission for mankind and what must be done, etc. in order to better the planet and the quality of life. Higher still (and rumor has it that both Travolta and Cruise are quite high up in the ranks) one learns additional "truths' reserved for only the most psychologically sound (things that the rest of the mere mortals could be driven mad by)

It's based on some of the old gnostic principles, some of the old High Magic tenets, some of the highest order Freemason beliefs, many of the New Age and 1970's EST principles and some of the European and Nordic groups of ritual magic. It's not a group to be taken lightly.

LIke any religion, the problem lies not in what anyone chooses to believe, but that organized groups always (at the heart of their system) believe that if they do not STOP or CHANGE the way OTHER people are living and thinking, then it bodes ill for mankind in general.

Tolerance is a lofty concept that has very little actual room in the world of religion. If you really dig, you'll soon discover that somewhere in there, usually at the highest ranks, there is a core belief that others cannot be left alone to their "incorrect" ways. There is a core belief that it is necessary to control other people in order to do "God's will" or to bring about the greatest good for the planet.

That is also true of the most intense of the New Age groups. They truly believe that the human race itself must be "enlightened" and moved forward as a group in order for the next phase of existence to be reached. THAT is where I walk out. That is where they are telling me that MY beliefs or lack thereof, are affecting their ability to progress. And that's where it all gets dangerous.

And that's where your religion steps on MY foot, which is why I tend to not enjoy them, grin.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Yup, there are certain hierarchies to cults, (I was once a member of the Skeptic's Society in California), as Janine says, and again one must move up the ladder very slowly to learn the true "esoteric" "secret" knowledge.
And I agree that Cruise is up there, but he had to pay a fortune to get that high, and he HAS a fortune.

I would say I'm a member of the cult of Ramachandran 8) but I suppose the difference is:

And some of this is the definition of a cult
1. One must give money and a great deal of time to be a part of the group 
2. One is required to abandon ones former life, or become separated from ones family
3. One is threatened for attempting to leave the group
4. One isn't allowed to question the tenets of the cult

It IS difficult to understand religion vs. cult, not to mention just defining religion. Now I need to look up cult, because all of THIS is vague. Per "The Watchman" there are thousands of cults.

But it is a way of living one's life. Based upon the tenets of the religion one has latched onto.

Hell, now I have to look up "cult" LOL.

Well wasn't that dude who made everyone drink poisoned Koolaide ... Jim Jones! ... he led a cult, and they were waiting for spaceships to take them away. David Koresh as well.

On and on and on and on..........


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Well, I only remember parts of things. This link taken randomly off of Google seemed reputable...

http://www.rickross.com/faq.html

Here's a link re: the definition of a cult....

Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as: 
*"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious 
beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion 
regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of 
disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great 
devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as 
a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of 
persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or 
intellectual movement or figure."*

This definition obviously could include everything from Barbie 
collectors to old "Deadheads," "Trekkies" to diehard Elvis fans. LOL :shock: 
American history might also include within such a definition the 
devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian 
Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph 
Smith. Both these religious groups were once largely regarded as 
"unorthodox or spurious."

*However, the most important concern today is not simply who 
might be somewhat "cultic" in their devotion now or historically, 
but what groups might represent potential problems regarding 
personal or public safety. That is, groups that are potentially 
unsafe and/or destructive.*

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote the definitive book about 
thought reform (often called "brainwashing") also wrote a paper 
about cult formation. Lifton defined a cult as having the following 
three characteristics:

*1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of 
worship as the general principles that may have originally 
sustained the group lose power.

2. A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought 
reform.

3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the 
leader and the ruling coterie.*

Dreamer's note:

I believe The Church of Scientology has been accused of all three things.

I really don't know enough about all of this, but again, I find the whole thing sus, and Tom Cruise a rather irritating individual.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2005)

Dear Cult Member, grin
Another VERY important distinction you omitted is this: if you were truly in a cult (as opposed to the charming connotation of Allegiance you really mean) you would feel thus:

You would be SO threatened by the very existence of psychoanalysis that you, as a Ramachandran, would need to take steps to try to ERADICATE psychoanalysis from the planet. You would feel that its existence is INHIBITING your Ramachandran experience and potential.

Likewise, I as a cult member of the psychoanalytic institute of new york, would need to try to STOP Ramachandrans from expressing or acting on their views.

Instead, we culties enjoy debates. Sometimes we might even enjoy attacking our nemesis, but only in the spirit of wanting to make a CORRECT point and be recognized for it. We are not literally of the belief that allowing the other side to exist is harming mankind.

Very important distinction and one to really seriously watch out for if anyone is ever considering joining a group/cult-like dynamic.

Peace (or not - lol - but mutual respect for the right to live!)
Janine


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Dreamer and Janine, 
Nice exegesis on the origins of Scientology and its tenets. Its hierarchy is very, very much like the Freemasons, whom I cant really decide if I beleive are good or bad. There are 33 degrees in the Masonic order, and when someone says you are giving them the "third degree", the saying is derived from the severe "hazing" ritual you must go through to become a third degree Mason. The problem with most secret societies are that they protect their own even from the reach of the law, as they require blood oaths from their members to not divulge secrets or betray a brother. This is one of the reasons Catholics were never allowed to join secret societies, especially the Masons. The varying levels of secrecy ultimately make it impossible to know the true purpose of the organizations, and lend an elitism to higher members which make the higher members feel special, intelligent, and valued. After paying for X amounts of therapy to move up the ladder of Scientology, you have become so numb to the ridiculousness of it and so preoccupied with impressing your Scientology peers and gaining their acceptance, that it kind of bypasses rational thought. Thetans? Yes, of course. Obviously a government conspiracy keeping people from seeing the evidence that they exist. Dont tell new members? Oh, of course not. Too much truth would shrivel their undernourished brains. What should I tell new members? Ah, yes, we'll stick to the anti-psychitary rant. That will sell well with the health conscious. Ultimately, though, this reminds me of something I've seen with other actors at my talent agency - on the whole, actors dont seem to be a very smart bunch. I think a LOT of people with ADD go into it. That way they get the attention they want AND the money they need. Critical thinking or true creativity dont seem to be high on their lists. Of course, thats a gross generalization, and it is often wrong. Think what one may of Mel Gibson, but he is a good writer. Dustin Hoffman is a well studied man. Tim Robbins is a well-informed political advocate. Sharon Stone belongs to Mensa. But I think that they are really exceptions to the rule.

And I'm not completely putting Scientology down. Their detox system seems to be a fairly healthy idea. Except for the fact that it costs thousands of dollars. This isnt a non-profit. I've looked into it while I've been sick. Its definitely not worth that much. Surprisingly, it relies mostly on vitamins and running. The vitamins they use arent chosen very scientifically either. Your much better off going to a wholistic doctor and exercising in my opinion. Anyways, I hope your all doing well and enjoying your summer. I've been very, very busy this month. Lots of adventures.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

PS, gfunk you aren't naive. As I said, I never really understood this stuff as much as I do, (which isn't very well), until my 40s. It's complicated. As usual, one needs to be an expert to really debate the issue and there are no clear-cut answers.

I will say though that something is indeed a religion or cult when it becomes "dangerous" to the individual. But then how do we define "dangerous."

Many seem to CHOOSE to stay in cults that are destructive.

Freedom of choice? Freedom of religion?
It's all very dicey.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Oh DEAR oh dear oh dear.

Why is when there are interesting topics on this forum I'm always on my death bed and unable to rant? Is it intentional ?

Dreamer. Dreamer Dreamer Dreamer. :twisted:

Atheism is *NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT * ANTI-DEITY !!! It's is A-THEISM. LACK OF THEISM. LACK OF GODDAM BELIEF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ATHEISM IS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT A RELIGION ! IT IS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT A FAITH.



> Freedom of religion?


How about Freedom FROM religion ?

Back to bed now. But every time I have haul myself out of my pit to heave my guts up, I'll be thinking of you all.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

You know how some people wait on the Sunday morning paper just chomping at the bits to have their minds filled with the known and unknown things that go on in the world? I wait for Martin on Monday mornings. I read post all weekend and just think, "I can't wait till Martin reads that, he's gonna bust his other arsehole!". I knew this one would tear him up. He even had to use the Caps Lock key. 

Martin, dearest love who would call me a dimwit and bring a smile to my face, I think with the religious zeal at which you attack this...and people do not say athiest zeal, you have in fact created your own religion. :shock:

:lol:

Don't yell at Dreamer. She has excellent hearing. Oh, and you took the Lord's name in vain...Off to hell with you.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Hi Dreamer,

Thanks for gathering all the info on this thread. I read it all weekend, but did not post as my thoughts on the matter are too simple. I feel Cruise has lost his ever loving mind and that the Scientoligist may throw him back in the water.

I've seen people crazy, absolutely crazy in love, so the Oprah interview, while thinking he was over the top, was not too distubing for me. Then I saw the Matt Lauer interview and I went...oops, he's outta here. " I _know_ these things." Yep, scared me. :shock: He must have recently hit the next level and is high as a kite. Somebody put a tail on him and let him go on out of the universe.

So hey, don't the Mormon's work themselves to death on reaching different levels they will achieve after they die?

I tell ya, it's enough to make a non-denominational person look sane. 

Most sincerely,
terri


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

:lol:

I'm sure that's not the case Terri*. I reckon that whenever people see a religiously orientated thread and see my Avatar on it, they just take a deep breath and scroll past it. I know I would, I'm as tedious as hell, but I can't help myself. And I'm not shouting at Dreamer.....I wouldn't dare !! I'm trying to keep in the good books of all the mod's......  But anyway, I'm allowed, because she hasn't replied to a three page email I sent her about six years ago...... :evil:

But on the Tom Cruise theme, I thought this was funny:

_Tom Cruise has called together the world's press to tell them once and for all that his relationship with actress Katie *Holmes *is not a publicity stunt. He added they'd be together in their swimsuits on a South Of France beach next Thursday, just to prove it. He explained they were just two young people in love - well, one young and one middle aged - who both happen to have movies to promote, and they've made a long term commitment and will be together until the DVD's are out._


----------



## g-funk (Aug 20, 2004)

That is so unfair Martin.

They will at least make it until the films make terrestrial tv


----------



## g-funk (Aug 20, 2004)

Martin, I really want to know this and I don't know why, but do you watch Big Brother? I imagine you would have so much to rant about it


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

No, I don't GFUNK. Not because of any pretensions that it's the death of TV, which is it - but becasue I don't give a s**t, I hardly watch TV anyway - except for 'Have I got News for You', but because it's too embarrassing. I've caught glimpses of it, and I have to turn it off because it's so.....embarrassing. It's a freak show anyway, this time around.

What I DO rage about however, is the seemingly unending plethora of Cookery programs, and the 'zany' chef thing. ARRRRRRRRRRGHH. Kill them all. There was even a 'Cookery Quiz' program on a while back, did you see it ? I was so astonished that I sat at watched the whole rancid thing. The best round was when the contestents (helped out by a zany chef) had to identify the name of a dish from a picture. Speechless, absolutely speechless.

Oh, and I was going to start a thread on this, but nobody but us Brits will know - R.I.P Richard Whitely.  I give more of a s**t about his passing that I did for Princess Dianna, which was zero incidently.


----------



## g-funk (Aug 20, 2004)

That made me quite sad too. Love Countdown.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

LOLOLOL *terri**, I was waiting for Martin to weigh in on this as well. OK, again these terms are very difficult to define, so... I Googled again. Man my fingers hurt, but I'm having fun 8)

*And Martin, you didn't fully read the definition of religion* ... it is a difficult thing to define, and I'm happy to say that atheism COULD be considered a religion. It is a philosophy, a way of approaching life, a set of rules you live by, nothing more.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html

All from the above link.....

*"The terms ?theist?, ?atheist?, and ?agnostic?, though widely used, can be particularly confusing. This is largely because often different people use these terms in different ways. Below, the various common definitions of ?theism?, ?atheism?, and ?agnosticism? are explained.*

*Definition: ?Theist?
Theism is the least problematic of the three terms defined here; it is the belief in a god or gods. Classical theism is belief in one God, and involves affirming certain theistic doctrines about his nature.*

The doctrine of divine omnipotence, for instance, holds that God is all-powerful; the doctrine of divine omniscience that he is all-knowing. Other doctrines affirm God?s immutability (unchangeability), eternity (timelessness), impassibility (freedom from passions), and aseity (self-sufficiency). Someone who believes in all or most of these doctrines is a classical theist; someone who believes in a god but does not conceive of it in this way is a theist, but not a classical theist. Such non-classical theists include pantheists, who believe that everything is God, that God is identical with the universe.

*Definition: ?Atheist?*

*Atheism is usually taken to be belief that god does not exist.* More recently, however, some atheists have attempted to define atheism in more cautious terms, as nothing more than the absence of belief in God. This has complicated matters, introducing an ambiguity into the definition of ?atheism?. One solution to this ambiguity is to distinguish between ?weak atheism? and ?strong atheism?.

Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God. On this definition, strictly speaking, anyone who isn?t a theist is an atheist. Someone who doesn?t have an opinion about religion, having never really thought about it, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist. Someone who has thought about religion, but hasn?t reached any conclusions about it, lacks belief in God, and is therefore a weak atheist. Someone who has thought about religion, and has reached the provisional, tentative conclusion that God doesn?t exist, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist. And someone who confidently and dogmatically affirms that there is no God, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist.

*A strong atheist, on the other hand, is someone who has the positive belief that God does not exist. It is not necessary to feel complete certainty that God does not exist in order to be a strong atheist; the essential difference between strong atheism and weak atheism is that strong atheism is defined in terms of possession of the belief that God does not exist, while weak atheism is defined in terms of absence of the belief that God does exist.*

Technically, then, every strong atheist will also be a weak atheist, though not every weak atheist will be a strong atheist. Everyone who believes that God does not exist will lack belief that God does exist, but not everyone who lacks belief that God does exist will possess the positive belief that God does not exist. In practice, however, weak atheism and strong atheism are taken to be mutually exclusive; one cannot be both a weak atheist and a strong atheist. A weak atheist is therefore someone who both lacks belief that God does exist and lacks belief that God does not exist. Weak atheists are thus what people often refer to as ?agnostics?.

*Definition: ?Agnostic?
Agnosticism is usually used to describe what has above been called ?weak atheism?, indecision as to whether or not God exists. Although this is the most common conception of agnosticism, it is not its original sense, nor its classical sense. This view of agnosticism has occasionally been called ?weak agnosticism?.*

*The term ?agnosticism? was coined by Thomas Huxley. For Huxley, agnosticism was a rational method: proportion one?s belief to the evidence. An agnostic, on this view, is someone who does not claim certainty when all that is available is probability, someone who measures their beliefs to the strength of their reasons for so believing.*

Agnosticism in this second sense is consistent with both theism and atheism. If the evidence establishes theism, then one who believes in accordance with the evidence will be both an agnostic and a theist. Similarly, if the evidence establishes atheism, then one who believes in atheism will be both an agnostic and an atheist.

Classically, however, agnosticism has carried a different meaning both to its common meaning now and to the sense in which its inventor used it. *Classically, an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God?s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him."*

*Book Recommendations*
Clarence Darrow
Why I Am an Agnostic and Other Essays
Prometheus Books (1994)
ISBN: 0879759402
Details at: Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.co.uk

Susan Jacoby
Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism
Metropolitan Books (2004)
ISBN: 0805074422
Details at: Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.co.uk

Bertrand Russell
Why I Am Not a Christian: and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects
Touchstone (1967)
ISBN: 0671203231
Details at: Amazon.com Amazon.ca Amazon.co.uk

Thomas Paine
The Age of Reason
Carol Publishing Corporation (1976)
ISBN: 0806505494
Details at: Amazon.com Amazon.

Love,
D
Martin I DO love you. Not another certain irritating individual on the Board who doesn't like "Repulicans/Pro-Bushers/Dreamer", LOL


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

PS, Dear Homeskooled,
I really appreciate your posts here and in the Bush thread. More articulate than I!
L,
D


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Martin how dare you speak about the Queen of Hearts like that.

You know what I think are the best life philosophies and beliefs, the most naive ones. I used to shake my head ruefully every time someone said something like 'Who cares, just enjoy life' or 'If God exists he just wants you to be happy.' But now I realise they were probably right. The next time Kerry Mcfadden (dull, average looking, large breasted, blonde British celeb) or Dolly Paton do a candid interview, read it and listen to every word, cos' it proably makes a great deal more sense than anything else. 
These women know, they talk sense. 
Nobody has any idea what I'm on about do they?

By the way there is a modern proof for the existence of God by Norman Malcolm (protege of Wittgenstein), that is meant to be very soild. It shows that God's existence is firstly possible, and secondly necessary. I'd be very interested to read it. Has anyon else read it.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Scientology has helped Tom repress his rampant homosexuality to the point that he has fooled the public and himself with three wives and even children. It's gotta work.

Don't take this post seriously.

However, one of my friends told me she had to find a male escort for Tom one night when she was working in NYC.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Gimpy said:


> However, one of my friends told me she had to find a male escort for Tom one night when she was working in NYC.


 :shock: :shock: :shock:

Wow, now see, I don't care if Cruise is gay, don't give a hoot. But this is exactly what I was talking about. The Church of S... has got him by the proverbial coconuts ... it's a theory of how they operate. If he wants to keep that secret, and I assume he would to keep his career in gear, that would be the ultimate weapon against him to get more and more and more money out of him. And he has a relatively endless supply.

I'm not saying this is happening. SO much rumor and innuendo and garbage in Hollywood, but this is exactly the rumor I heard about John Travolta ... about 15 years ago! :shock:


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2005)

Here's a pretty interesting reply article from Psychiatry:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160966,00.html


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2005)




----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

L Ron Hubbard apparently had a nervous breakdown when he was a young lad in the Navy (or whatever military branch). He begged the government for psychiatric help and they denied him. That's probably why he hated psychiatry.

He made most of his "discoveries" while tripping HARDCORE in the deserts of Africa. (he wrote to someone that he had been "popping pinks and greys"...anyone know what these are/were?)

Scientology seems to make great sense to those weary of taking the wrong cocktail of drugs and having no answers because it has immediate answers and immediate scapegoats. So did Nazism.

Scientology...man...yeah. They will not treat you if you admit to having been on psychiatric meds (which is a really bad marketing tactic because they lose too many cult followers that way). They keep a bust of LRH in the room where they have meetings. Their pamphlet on psychiatry shows something like a surgical table or something else representing lobotomy.

If you want treatment from them, they put you on a weird lie detector thing and if you waver on the answers, you have to take more "courses" before you can get that treatment. This will take forever and cost hundreds. (Really bad for someone in the worst phase of their DP begging to throw down all the money they had to get the actual treatment that was promised.)

All that being said...make your own choice...they have bits and pieces of good stuff..but not much...and they do anger me.

Oh yeah.

Tom Cruise. SO gay. I have never been attracted to him, and I have always thought he was gay. Which is to say nothing about some gay guys I know who are totally hot and who I would get in a jealousy hair-pulling fight over. But he is not one of them. Yet, I do sense The Gay. Half of me wonders about Katie Holmes...she's so in love right now, but I'm sensing that eventually she'll have a HUGE crash...maybe even be suicidal over it. I don't know why, I just feel that way. Something is wrong with this whole thing. Maybe I'm crazy. Oh wait. I am. But regardless (hey it's the crazy people [ not including Hubbard] who usually come up with the head on stuff anyway, right? )

You just wait. One day Katie is gonna slip up and accidentally wear white after Labor Day and Tom will have a fit and then the truth will be OUT!


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

oh and about New Agers:

if anyone here in New Mexico tries ONE MORE TIME to impress me with the whole schpiel about how Chinese medicine treats the whole body while Western medicine treats just the parts, i'm gonna be like "China...isn't that where they kill all their baby girls?"

or just kick them in the balls.


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

oh! and another thing.

i also heard that celebrities get a different kind of treatment from scientology than the common folk. The celebs get more of an actual "counseling" deal and a little less of the weirdo/intimidation stuff. so of course the celebs will endorse it. if they were just a misguided youth walking into the center asking for help they might not be so positive about it.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> Chinese medicine treats the whole body while Western medicine treats just the parts


It's just a fad, it'll pass with time. To be replaced by another equally useless one, unfortunately, but that's the game....


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

to get the rumor mill grinding again, my sister told me last night that she heard the reason Cruise went all blitzkrieg on this Katie Holmes deal was because Rob Thomas' (Matchbox 20) wife caught Rob and Cruise in bed together. So, he plotted this marriage with Katie Holmes to deter any suspicions.

This is seriously what my sister told me.


----------



## Sojourner (May 21, 2005)

I'm not sure of the exact time period is involved with Hubbard, but "pinks and grays" might be a reference to the prescription painkiller Darvon, which I would need to take in the 1960s for menstrual cramps.

Also, Cruise's "children" are all adopted. He has no natural children, if I am not mistaken.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

He'd have to be gay to dump her:


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Even more from the rumor mill:

I met this girl last night who is a friend of a friend. I don't know if you know what Outward Bound is but it is this program where you basically go off into the woods for 6 weeks and you are supposed to learn a lot about natur and yourself. Anyway, she went on it and the actress Selma Blair (Sarah Michelle Gellar's kissing partner in Cruel Intentions, Legally Blonde, The Sweetest Thing, Hellboy) and they became friends and Selma said it was a known fact around Hollywood that Cruise was gay.

Lending more creedence to my previous story, apparently Cruise was caught in bed with some dude so he had a little audition for who wanted to go along with a fake engagement to quell any rumors. I think Scarlett Johannson was in the mix somewhere but she quickly turned him down. Somehow, Holmes decided to go along with it. Why? Because she was probably infatuated with Cruise from the first time she saw Top Gun and thought it would be a fun ride despite his gayness.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2005)

--


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2005)

--


----------



## Sojourner (May 21, 2005)

Back when Rock Hudson was rumored to be homosexual, his partner was named. Who's Cruise's?


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Just like I am the last person on earth hanging on to my Cisco stock, I guess I'll have to see some hard evidence about this Cruise stuff. I remember when it came out definitely about Richard Chamberlain...broke my Thorn Birds heart. 

Clooney, too, huh?

Must make clear the gay thing doesn't bother me...it just makes watching a movie different if I know their sexual preference is different.

Anyway, Cruise lost me after his tirade with Matt.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2005)

--


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Okay about everyone else, but please, *please* don't tell me Andy Garcia is, because...because...well,...I just love him. 

Here's to everyone's unique nature. 

Except Cruise, who may be working on becoming the next leader of another planet. :roll:


----------

