6 ms·

+ ~90% of the world's population are religious (depending on how you look at it) and they mostly grow up in communities wherein everyone is basically the same r

+ ~90% of the world's population are religious (depending on how you look at it) and they mostly grow up in communities wherein everyone is basically the same religion, ergo, they are not generally 'missionary' , 'proselytizing', nor do they feel they have access to 'special information'. In fact, it's the total opposite: for most of the world's religious, 'religion' is just part of every day, normative culture in most places. It's kind of mundane, actually. Jehova's Witnesses, referenced in the article, are a totally different ballgame. They are 'default proselytizers' and have a substantially different world view than most folks directly around them. + As for why 'Flat Earth' is considerably dumber than Scientology: 'Dianetics' - the Scientology predicate is very close to psychotherapy. Scientology itself is bizarre, but also very interesting 'armchair philosophy'. For example, I think Hubbard's concept of 'tone scale' is brilliant, though it belongs in a blog of ideas, obviously not an institution. But Scientology is very complex, there's a lot going on, many levels. I can see how it is 'rational' for people to get caught up in it, eve if it's crazy. Scientology leaders are not stupid. There are tons of otherwise very smart people caught up in Scientology ... it's not just full of idiots and crazy people. But 'Flat Earth' is utterly stupid. It's like saying 'the sky is not blue'. It's the denial of a simple, almost arbitrary fact and it makes no sense at all. I don't think regular people get trapped in 'Flat Earth' conspiracies. Something has to be almost 'wrong' I think to fall for this one. I think the term 'deprogramming' would be apt for a regular person caught up in a cult. For 'Flat Earth' - I don't know what one would do with one of those people.

scarejunba 8y ago
It’s all just layers of shit for people who are incapable of knowledge acquisition. Maybe one thing is piles of chicken shit mixed with pig shit and the other thing is one pile of horse shit but it’s all just shit. Flat Earth crap, anti-vaxxers, chemtrails, Scientology, Mormonism. They like to draw distinctions between them but it’s all just a matter of the kind of shit. Waste of time trying to say which one is stupider than the other because they’re all stupid. Not a worthwhile distinction irrespective of what percentage of world population believes whatever.
- tntn 8y ago
  There are distinctions between them. Some of the things you mention make claims that fall into the domain of science (I.e. are falsifiable) and some do not (those regarding spirituality, miracles, etc). That is an important and worthwhile distinction. Incidentally, a lot of the problem of the anti-vaccine movement is not the facts (though there is a lot of that, too) but rather risk analysis. It is extremely probable (pretty much certain) that some vaccines have been associated with harm to some people in the past (and some maybe still do today) but the risk of that is so much ridiculously lower than the risk of not getting the vaccine that it is irrelevant.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    The distinctions are fictional. The standards for evidence falsifying are placed arbitrarily high post acquisition of evidence in order to ensure no evidence falsifies. It is a useless way to spend time.
    - tntn 8y ago
      I'm not talking about falsifying it to the people who believe, and probably nothing will change their mind. I'm talking about looking at the claims, determine what evidence would be sufficient to disprove them, and determining whether that evidence can be acquired. For flat earth, it's easy. I ask myself (not a flat earther) whether the earth is flat, walk outside and make any one of the many observations that indicate the earth is round, and call it a day. For other things, it is not so easy. Is there a god? How could you disprove that to yourself (different than choosing not to believe because of a lack of positive evidence)? Did Xenu bring billions of aliens to Earth a bajillion years ago and kill them all? Probably not, but how would you even disprove that? It left no trace other than spiritual beings that remain on earth and cannot be detected. I remain convinced that the specific claims impose their own difficulty to falsify (and yeah, many are designed to be hard to falsify). But yeah, I agree these exercises are a pretty useless way to spend time.
      - scarejunba 8y ago
lisper 8y ago
> nor do they feel they have access to 'special information'. I'm pretty sure that if you actually went and asked them you'd find that most of them consider the Word of God to be pretty special. (More specifically, the fact that they and their group recognize the True Word of God is what makes them feel special.) > I think Hubbard's concept of 'tone scale' is brilliant I think you just made my point for me.

scarejunba 8y ago

It’s all just layers of shit for people who are incapable of knowledge acquisition. Maybe one thing is piles of chicken shit mixed with pig shit and the other thing is one pile of horse shit but it’s all just shit. Flat Earth crap, anti-vaxxers, chemtrails, Scientology, Mormonism. They like to draw distinctions between them but it’s all just a matter of the kind of shit. Waste of time trying to say which one is stupider than the other because they’re all stupid. Not a worthwhile distinction irrespective of what percentage of world population believes whatever.

tntn 8y ago
There are distinctions between them. Some of the things you mention make claims that fall into the domain of science (I.e. are falsifiable) and some do not (those regarding spirituality, miracles, etc). That is an important and worthwhile distinction. Incidentally, a lot of the problem of the anti-vaccine movement is not the facts (though there is a lot of that, too) but rather risk analysis. It is extremely probable (pretty much certain) that some vaccines have been associated with harm to some people in the past (and some maybe still do today) but the risk of that is so much ridiculously lower than the risk of not getting the vaccine that it is irrelevant.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  The distinctions are fictional. The standards for evidence falsifying are placed arbitrarily high post acquisition of evidence in order to ensure no evidence falsifies. It is a useless way to spend time.
  - tntn 8y ago
    I'm not talking about falsifying it to the people who believe, and probably nothing will change their mind. I'm talking about looking at the claims, determine what evidence would be sufficient to disprove them, and determining whether that evidence can be acquired. For flat earth, it's easy. I ask myself (not a flat earther) whether the earth is flat, walk outside and make any one of the many observations that indicate the earth is round, and call it a day. For other things, it is not so easy. Is there a god? How could you disprove that to yourself (different than choosing not to believe because of a lack of positive evidence)? Did Xenu bring billions of aliens to Earth a bajillion years ago and kill them all? Probably not, but how would you even disprove that? It left no trace other than spiritual beings that remain on earth and cannot be detected. I remain convinced that the specific claims impose their own difficulty to falsify (and yeah, many are designed to be hard to falsify). But yeah, I agree these exercises are a pretty useless way to spend time.
    - scarejunba 8y ago

lisper 8y ago

> nor do they feel they have access to 'special information'. I'm pretty sure that if you actually went and asked them you'd find that most of them consider the Word of God to be pretty special. (More specifically, the fact that they and their group recognize the True Word of God is what makes them feel special.) > I think Hubbard's concept of 'tone scale' is brilliant I think you just made my point for me.