You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Will Smith now a Raging Crazy (Scientologist)

Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 8:13am

Post 1 of 56

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sigh.

This is sad, especially for a seemingly devout and well-intentioned Christian guy. Hopefully it's not all true or finalized. As much of a badass Tom Cruise is, his acts are inexcusable, and he was in the same limelight as Will 5-10 years ago. Normally I wouldn't be so obtuse about my specific religion, but seeing someone move to something so cultish and silly makes me sad for the man. I hope the whole family doesn't go crazy on us. Not to be Captain Obvious, but this really makes me seriously think there's some sketchy brainwashing going on with this high-profile cult or that it's some facade for celeb tax breaks or something. I guess we'll never really know.

Sorry if I offend any Scientologists here, haha.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 9:32am

Post 2 of 56

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

It doesn't surprise me, actually. Smith was in the UK recently promoting I Am Legend, and in interviews I noticed that he seemed to have the exact same personality as Tom Cruise. It's that weird, overly-jovial, really cheerful, able to handle any social situation to a nauseatingly perfect level kind of self-control, where they seem to be constantly calibrating themselves to be ideally compatible with whoever they're interacting with.

Very clever and clearly works wonders for their careers, but it tends to leave me with a slightly creepy feeling. I'd hoped it was just coincidence, but this would seem to support my theory!

Hopefully it's wrong, though. I'm sure it won't affect his work, just like Cruise's Scientology has never really impacted on his acting, but it's still odd to see people embracing a cult that - on the outside, at least - seems so utterly bizarre.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 12:24pm

Post 3 of 56

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Scientology is genius. The core of their organisation is basically an industrial scale self-help program which generates ridiculous amounts of money.

I'm not religious, but I respect people's needs to be. The key issue is that religions on the whole are 95% self-help, 5% mythology. Heaven is for eternity, right?, which makes your life on earth insignificantly short, yet the vast majority of religious people won't dwell on the virtues of the afterlife.

Religions and their teachings significantly and undeniably improve the quality of life for billions of people while they are on earth. That is the reason most people become religious. Whether its the sincere belief that you are going to a better place when you die, or just the peace of mind each night that you've been benevolent and honest all day, all boils down to the same thing: happiness on earth.

Scientology has identified precisely why religion improves quality of life and has now packaged it in a purchasable form. Scientology has the requisite mythology portion, but at the core of its teachings are things which make every-day life better just like any other religion. The key to their success seems to be in the knowingly fine line they tread between religion and self-help scheme. The absurdity of their mythology story can be used as a publicity tool (because any publicity is good publicity) and once interested, the self-help scheme will benefit the convert just like any other religion.

Its basically a completely man-made, designer religion, 100% polyester, the perfect merger of marketing and self improvement. I only wish I'd thought it up first.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 3:17pm

Post 4 of 56

neoglitz

Force: 1011 | Joined: 15th Dec 2005 | Posts: 156

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Where's the kool-aid? evil
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 3:33pm

Post 5 of 56

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +4

[The following is based upon my personal experiences and is My Opinion, not that of FX Home or anyone associated with it]

Make no mistake. Scientology is an sinister, money-making cult which preys upon vulnerable members of society to deprive them of their money and to recruit them to collect more funds for the elusive leaders who sit back and let the money roll in.

My first encounter with the cult (it is not a religion) was in Amsterdam 24 years ago when, as a fresh faced student, I thought it would be fun to take part in a "personality test" (mostly because the girl asking me to do it was cute). My friend and I went to an office and answered 194 multiple choice questions and then had to be seen separately to get our "results".

My friend went in first and came out visibly shaken by what he had been told. I went in and, over a very slick ten minute sales presentation, was told I had confidence issues, all sorts of problems fitting in with society and would eventually kill myself (I seem to remember a graph was involved).

To be honest, I was pretty bullish as a 17 year old so it fell on deaf ears to me and I was looking around the guy's office waiting for him to shut up so I could make my excuses and leave. While doing so I started seeing the quasirelisgious book titles on the shelves all around and started thinking it was time to leave. The man continued on undeterred -only Scientology could help me now and the best way to begin was by buying a book costing 50 guilders. I didn't have money on me? That's ok they'd come back to my hotel with me to collect it.

Eventually I talked my way out (without buying anything or giving my details) and my friend and I left. My friend was actually quite upset by what he had been told - which surprise, surprise, was the same as I had been told despite us gving very different answers.

Outside we we approached by a couple who were campaigning to have Scientology banned in Holland who were comforting a girl who was in floods of tears. Guess what she'd been told?

I wish my experienes with Scientology ended there but they don't. About fifteen years ago a different friend of mine from university went missing while on a break in Amsterdam. He turned up several months later having been sectioned in a psychiatric hospital after having spent the missing period being indoctrinated by guess who...Church of Scientology.

That friend had unfortunately had some problems earlier in his life and the Scientologists had latched onto this, fed him lies and rubbish, brain washed him and, in attempting to use his problems to control him, created severe mental health issues. Tragically he never recovered and a couple of years later he took his own life. I have no doubt that what was done to him by the Scientologists was responsible.

Since my experiences I have warned everyone who will I can get to listen of the dangers of Scientology.

Scientology, Dianetics. It's all the same thing. The science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard told someone that if you want to get really rich set up your own religion. Then four years later he did. Now it is a secretive global cult that destoys people's lives.

A recent BBC Panaorama documentary shocked me with how bad things really are. The reporter was constantly followed 24 hours a day and every time he spoke to a critic of the organisation the local leader would turn up with a bound dossier of misinformation to discredit the interviewee, often in the middle of the interview! It was truly disturbing. Eventually the leader's brain washing techniques got the reporter to publicly snap on camera. He loses it big style while the leader continues to talk over him, maintaining the situation. It used to be on You Tube - the Scientologists had engineered the situation and filmed it then put it on You Tube to discredit the BBC.

Please warn your friends and family and stay well away from this organisation. The movie stars who head it up are there to give it credibility and to attract and disarm the vulnerable it feeds on. Don't be amused by stories of lizard people and aliens. Be very afraid and stay away please.

[To the mods - I guess you will have to delete this thread for legal reasons to protect yourselves. I repeat (if it helps) this is my opinion based upon my personal experiences and not the views or opinions of FX Home or anyone connected with it. However if even one person reads this before it goes though maybe it will do some good].
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 3:49pm

Post 6 of 56

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

I think provided that this thread remains objective and calm, theres no reason to delete it.

FXHome certainly aren't large enough or significant enough to incur the 'Fair Game' policy of the Church of Scientology (touch wood). Or at least not on the kind of scale that was employed against the BBC reporters.

Scientologist know the difference between an individual's opinion and a random company hosting a forum, so any attack would probably be directed personally.

Part of Scientology's allure is, surely, the fascination with their eccentricities? I'm really quite tempted to get tested, just so I can claim to have experienced it. I'd imagine a significant percentage of their recruitment comes from people who were intrigued enough by the ridiculous stories, then got sucked it.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 3:58pm

Post 7 of 56

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

To be honest since my student experiences I have always harboured a desire to sign up and get inside Scientology so I can make a documentary about it but having seen the BBC program I have would now have serious concerns about my well-being or my ability to extricate myself from the organisation.

Apologies if my original post comes over as a soap box rant but I hold some strong views on the dangers of Scientology and my emotions run deep once I get started (if this is now my first post in this thread then take it from me, the one that got removed was a bit of an epic).

My note to the mods was refering to my post in particular than the thread as a whole. In these over-litigious days I can fully understand why an openly critical post of an organisation such as Scientology might need to be removed. Then again the thread is headed "Raging Crazy"... smile

Xcession wrote:

Scientologist know the difference between an individual's opinion and a random company hosting a forum, so any attack would probably be directed personally
I'll raise the security level on my firewall and check my rear view mirror on the drive home..
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 4:53pm

Post 8 of 56

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

petet2 wrote:

My note to the mods was refering to my post in particular than the thread as a whole. In these over-litigious days I can fully understand why an openly critical post of an organisation such as Scientology might need to be removed.
You can only get in trouble for criticising somebody or something if you're simply making stuff up and lying. If you're telling the truth, as you say you are, then you're in the clear. They'd have to prove you're lying, which they'd have an extremely hard time doing.

As for FXhome the company, this is an public forum in which we encourage free speech, so long as everyone conducts themselves courteously. If one of our users or members dislikes a certain [whatever] then it's certainly none of our business. smile

Also, comments made by FXhome team members don't necessarily reflect the opinion of the company. We all have wildly differing opinions on just about everything here, we're rarely in agreement on anything. smile The only fully 'official' company stuff is that on the news page and in press releases or official documentation.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 5:21pm

Post 9 of 56

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Thanks.

I did edit and re-edit my initial post a few times before hitting submit. I didn't want to remove the vehemence from it because it is an issue that my expereince has made be passionate about but I didn't want to detract from the points I was making by merely slinging insults.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 6:01pm

Post 10 of 56

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Good post pete2. I've always been against Scientology. I recommend everyone watch this as well (with your speakers turned on, the music adds a lot, it's creepy smile):

http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/

Xcession, you had a fantastic post as well. However I can never truly feel good for someone who finds happiness in Scientology because of its blatant corruptness. A lot of people will say "yeah, but the Catholic church (for example) is corrupt *cites examples*." But you can practice Catholicism without that corruptness affecting you. There are just too many concentrated horrible stories about Scientology to accept it with an open mind. I am a very open-minded person, but this cult disgusts me.

And pete2, that's a brilliant idea for a documentary, seriously.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 7:37pm

Post 11 of 56

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The thing about Will Smith that, to me, makes him monumentally different than Tom Cruise is that he seems extremely conscientous and protective of his family and career. Look at his movie record: nothing is really 'hollywood crap'. It's bankable blockbusters, sure, but it is well-played mostly. 2 Academy Award nominations later, might I add. So I think the guy watches out for his career. Something someone like, say, Nicolas Cage could do good to look towards, while at the same time being completely entertaining.

Secondly, while his religion (Baptist) seems to be on the backburner in his career, it is at least vaguely present as is his extremely deep bonds with family. Why would someone like this open his loved ones up to a seemingly evil and potentially dangerous cult?

The whole thing puzzles me. Smith has always come off as a very keen individual, especially for a megastar actor, with a good head on his shoulders. But then again, I thought the same about Travolta 10 years ago.

Never about Cruise, though, sadly. And now they are saying Cruise was pressured by the church of Scientology to divorce Nicole Kidman and that she, surprise surprise, was negatively affecting his confidence and esteem. So, they made him get rid of her, pregnant and seemingly loving. And what's worse, he didn't even meet her face-to-face after that. He sent her a letter of divorce and flowers at the birth of their child. Didn't meet her, though. I wonder if Scientology had anything to do with it. Hmmm....

And although this part is entirely my opinion based on my religious background: I think it's a sad perversion of Christianity to see the cross be used as the Scientology crest. While some may think it nothing, it's a highly-recognizable, iconic, and passionate symbol of devotion to many Christian people. And to see it on something so ridiculous is sickening to say the least.

But again, that's completely my nastily-biased religious opinion. I could go on about Scientology but one word really sums it up further:

Dumb.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 8:05pm

Post 12 of 56

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Serpent wrote:

Xcession, you had a fantastic post as well. However I can never truly feel good for someone who finds happiness in Scientology because of its blatant corruptness. A lot of people will say "yeah, but the Catholic church (for example) is corrupt *cites examples*." But you can practice Catholicism without that corruptness affecting you.
This is an interesting point. I'm not a religious person, as most of you know, but what I've observed of others seems to show that with most faiths the religion and the Church are actually quite separate.

Hence you can have Catholics who have nothing to do with the inherent corruption of a giant monotholic organisation. You can have Christians that don't necessarily go to church every five minutes, but have extremely strong faith. ie, they adhere to the religion but as an individual, and they can see themselves separate from the 'Church'.

Scientology, on the other hand, seems to be entirely about the Church. You can't be a scientologist without being a paid up member of the Church. They're entirely inseparable, which rather removes the possibility of having an individual approach to the religion. You don't get scientologists believing in the 'mythology' but not going along with the 'organisation'.

I guess, for me, that's why I don't class it as a standard religion.

Atom wrote:

Never about Cruise, though, sadly. And now they are saying Cruise was pressured by the church of Scientology to divorce Nicole Kidman...
If you're going to make statements like that, please provide some evidence, or at least explain who 'they' are that are saying this. smile Otherwise it's just inflammatory speculation that could quite easily be made up, or straight from the gutter press (which is also made up). smile
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 8:11pm

Post 13 of 56

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Atom wrote:

Never about Cruise, though, sadly. And now they are saying Cruise was pressured by the church of Scientology to divorce Nicole Kidman...
If you're going to make statements like that, please provide some evidence, or at least explain who 'they' are that are saying this. smile Otherwise it's just inflammatory speculation that could quite easily be made up, or straight from the gutter press (which is also made up). smile
Haha, those "they" are probably just as sketchy as the religion itself. If I remember correctly, I heard it on the show Good Morning America and then also the next day on a local radio station's "Showbiz Top 5".
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 9:51pm

Post 14 of 56

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Shame, I always really liked Will Smith. Not particularly as an actor, but as an individual from what I gathered on award shows and interviews. He just seemed like a genuinly smart and funny guy. But I thought the same about Mel Gibson once, and he ended up about the same.

Ah well. sad
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 10:08pm

Post 15 of 56

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

As a person completely devoid of religion, I don't find Scientology even remotely as bad as others might. The corruptness is bad, of course, but upon reading the wikipedia entry, and reading through some of what the basic message is, the message itself seems well intentioned.

It seems just as silly to me as every other religion, as a matter of fact,(OMG!!1! I mean no offense to any other religion, as you should all know. I'm sure religious people think I might be a bit silly as well... so don't even think of flaming me.) and it's a shame that some are altering their opinions of people simply because of what they believe. If you liked Will Smith/Tom Cruise before you knew they were Scientologists, why the hell shouldn't you like them now?
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 10:25pm

Post 16 of 56

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman, I think the monumental difference in everyone's reasoning between Scientology-centered criticism and criticism of general religious faiths is that Scientology is an indisputably corrupt cult that has proven itself time and time again to lie, cheat, and steal from people until they're depraved.

Most other religions, on the other hand, might sound just as silly but are nowhere near as corrupt- at least, that's not their intention. I'm sure in the upper echelons of Scientology it's spelled out to the profiteers: the aim of this 'religion' is to make money and corrupt lives. Hence, it's a direct intention of the institution.

Maybe in historically sketchier sects of Christianity, like Mormonism or Catholicism there's a "deprive people of their assets and dignity" creed, I dunno, that's not my religion (I don't think there's such a creed, though). But I assure you my friend that mainstream religion- while, understandably as ridiculous-sounding in its 'myth' as Xcession put it (rolleyes)- is nowhere near as cruel in its intention as Scientology is.

Digressing, the reason we're viewing these Scientologists differently is because we've seen largely what it does to people and how it changes their attitudes- Tom Cruise being a prime, prime example (Did he act like that pre-Scientology? No.). Christianity may change people's outlooks on life, but it is only often in extreme cases that people completely change attitudes. Scientology's process of brainwashing is not so mild.

The mere fact the Scientology already has people drawing comparisons to actual religions only means that the cult has already worked on us, at least in part.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 10:34pm

Post 17 of 56

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I too don't find Scientology much worse then Christianity, Islam, Jehovas Witnesses or anyone else of that long list of religions, cults and such myself. Ben's description of Scientology applies to pretty much all of the above for me.

But what people believe is part of their personaliy, not just an asset. So it's understandable to me that some change their perception of Smith now based on their image of scientology and throw him into the "he's one of THEM" bin - if you know what I mean.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 10:47pm

Post 18 of 56

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hmmmm....

So- and I mean no disrespect here- Sollthar, do you consider cults an religions one in the same? Or do you just see equally-overlapping lines in either?

Because the big difference I see here is that cults use newly-created ideas whereas religions are based off of texts from a higher power. And I know this obviously doesn't make the religion seem any 'less crazy' to proponents of atheism- as it espouses the same qualities of 'myth' as new cults, I just thought I'd clear those general distinctions from a theologian perspective.

If you believe that all religion seeks to inevitably corrupt as Scientology does, then you hold sentiments I cannot even begin to comprehend. Religion has shown historically its capacity for good (and I'm not saying that it hasn't shown bad as well) whereas Scientology- young in its establishment- has exhibited no such altruism.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 10:52pm

Post 19 of 56

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Oh no here we go.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 10:57pm

Post 20 of 56

neoglitz

Force: 1011 | Joined: 15th Dec 2005 | Posts: 156

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

petet2 wrote:

In these over-litigious days...
Statistical speaking, there are less lawsuits today and certainly many less litigated matters than twenty-five to thirty years ago. You just hear about it more in the press today, especially the frivolous ones.

tarn wrote:

but what I've observed of others seems to show that with most faiths the religion and the Church are actually quite separate
That has always been my problem with organized religion/church and it will always continue to be a problem because people cause those problems. From my experience, I think that this is where groups like the above and many, many others feast upon those people who are weak in an area of their life and then exploit that to gain their commitment to it. Scary, scary world. Like I said eariler "where's the kool-aid?"
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 11:01pm

Post 21 of 56

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

Oh no here we go.
I'm not trying to start a dispute, so if I'm offending please advise me. I'm just curious for distinction.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 11:15pm

Post 22 of 56

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

And pete2, that's a brilliant idea for a documentary, seriously.
One to be undertaken with lots of forward planning and a number of people looking out for you from the outside. And probably a sworn legal document from the person going in that they wish to be forcibly removed from Scientology and deprogrammed should they begin to believe too much of what they are being told.

Evman wrote:

As a person completely devoid of religion, I don't find Scientology even remotely as bad as others might. The corruptness is bad, of course, but upon reading the wikipedia entry, and reading through some of what the basic message is, the message itself seems well intentioned.
This is the same Wikipedia entry that includes the following extract from the teachings of L Ron Hubbard, the "Source" of Scientology:

When a planet had been engulfed, the Helatrobans would attack it with "little orange-colored bombs that would talk" and the clouds themselves would talk: "And here you'd have a gray cloud going by and it'd be saying, 'Hark! Hark! Hark!' you see? 'Watch out! Look out! Who's there? Who's that?'"

Hapless people on the planet's surface would be kidnapped using a small capsule "placed at will in space. It shot out a large bubble, the being would grab at the bubble or strike at it and be sucked at once into the capsule. Then the capsule would be retracted into an aircraft." A victim would then be implanted for up to six months and the Helatrobans would "fix him on a post in a big bunch of stuff ... put him on a post and wobbled him around and ran him through this implant of goals on a little monowheel. Little monowheel pole trap. And it had the effigy of a body on it."
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 11:29pm

Post 23 of 56

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

That was near nonsensical...
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 11:36pm

Post 24 of 56

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I come from a Christian background, and I've never been "offended" when someone asks questions, and tries to sort out Christianity in their minds.

I think Scientology is a joke. I'm sorry. I'm an open minded person, but when something goes so far into saying, "We are re-incarnations or aliens" I have to actually take a step back and wonder why anyone could possibly believe that. Right now, if you're not 'religious' you're probably thinking, "But Fill! Alien souls is just as crazy as an omnipotent God creating the earth!", but there's actually tons and tons of evidence supporting it. Atleast it has something to back it up. Scientology, however, has... scarce evidence, and the creator was a Science Fiction writer. He even made this statement, “If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion.”

I don't know. I mean, I'm sort of angry about Will Smith being a scientologist. The Fresh Prince of Belair a... scientologist?! Uh-uh, that doesn't work.

There's one thing for sure. The guy was a damn good rapper in his day.
Posted: Thu, 10th Jan 2008, 11:58pm

Post 25 of 56

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

That was near nonsensical...
Welcome to the world of Scientology.

Religions such as Christianity and Islam are based upon records of events which took place on this planet involving (in the main) humans. Whether or not you believe the supernatural aspects of those religions there is historical evidence to substantiate at least some of the events.

Scientology was dreamed up by L Ron Hubbard, evolving from a series of self-help books and techniques before he created a science fiction universe to sit behind it all to create some mysticism. That's L Ron Hubbard the former science fiction writer. There is no evidence whatsoever for the claims he makes regarding other worlds and alien species - he just made it up. A lot of the science he quotes is wrong (e.g.: the structure of Magellan Clouds, the age of the Universe).
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 12:03am

Post 26 of 56

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Fill: you're forgetting that all the different religions' Gods are actually probably the same being since its 'convenient' at best, that the believers of the 17 or so major world religions, were individually and simultaneously created by their own specific gods. Although i'm not religious, the ability for civilisations worldwide to have independently conjured up the same image of an omnipotent being is one of the few things which makes me occasionally doubt my scepticism.

If we assume that God does exist, in all likelyhood Xenu was just L. Ron Hubbard's reference to the exact same being (or beings) that everyone else believes in. Just in the same way that many religions believe in reincarnation, or resurrection, or different lifetimes, the story of Thetans populating the empty vessels roaming the earth is really only a rewording of the same story.

Anyway, my point is that the stories aren't the important bit. Even Scientologists tend to play-down the Xenu story. Its what a religion does in the name of its beliefs, that gives reason to trust or doubt it.

Scientology does put its money back into the community and given the comparative insignificance of the religion, their income is probably no more than the much larger religions. Whats worrying is their behaviour - the whole secrecy thing, the money = enlightenment thing, the Fair Game thing. None of those are morally sound, no matter which way you look at it. A religion without morality is no religion at all. If you're going to dismiss a religion, do it on indisputable grounds.
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 12:04am

Post 27 of 56

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Interestingly the dictionary (as in a proper printed Oxford English Dictionary) defines "Cult" and "Religion" as almost the same thing. Anyone interested in this comparison could do worse than check out "The Root of All Evil". It's a two part documentary by Richard Dawkins examining the ability of the major religions to manipulate and control people. Also worth a watch is the Panorama episode that's already been mentioned ("Scientology and me" I think it was called). What's interesting is that there are some startling similarities between them. Also note that the Dawkins documentary does actually look at religion today and not just historically and also that he's a respected academic, has written extensively on the subjects talked about and isn't just some nutter with a camera and some ideas.

You can find both parts of "The Root of all Evil" ("The God Delusion" and "The Virus of Faith") and The Scientology documentary on Youtube.
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 12:13am

Post 28 of 56

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Dawkins is a conundrum. I'd say hes able to manipulate in the same way that i'd claim religion can. I'm a scientists, so cold hard facts are my bible and reasoning is my religion, but even I can recognise that Dawkins is a master in the fine art of "Blinding With Science".

His arguments are cool, collected and eloquent. He knows that the key to reasoning is for everyone to be incapable of disputing any sentence he utters. His cunning is therefore in his semantics but its still only words - since science is no more capable of disproving god than religion is of proving him, Dawkins ought to be approached with the same caution that we do of any religion.

Last edited Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 12:26am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 12:22am

Post 29 of 56

Videoace123

Force: 1056 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 392

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm actually greatly diturbed by this, since anything you read about Will Smith is that he tries to go for the extra mile, stuff like that. He's like a Tom Hanks in acting, and I've read so many amzing things that he's done.
It's very creepy and sad that Will Smith would go to scientology; HOWEVER, EVEN IF HE BECOMES A SCIENTOLOGIST IT DOESN'T MAKE HIM ANY LESS OF A PERSON, AN ACTOR, OR AN ARTIST.
It would be great if this wasn't true, but if it is, we can just hope he doesn't become a creep like Tom Cruise, and to not judge him by his religion.
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 12:31am

Post 30 of 56

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Videoace123 wrote:

I'm actually greatly diturbed by this, since anything you read about Will Smith is that he tries to go for the extra mile, stuff like that. He's like a Tom Hanks in acting, and I've read so many amzing things that he's done.
It's very creepy and sad that Will Smith would go to scientology; HOWEVER, EVEN IF HE BECOMES A SCIENTOLOGIST IT DOESN'T MAKE HIM ANY LESS OF A PERSON, AN ACTOR, OR AN ARTIST.
It would be great if this wasn't true, but if it is, we can just hope he doesn't become a creep like Tom Cruise, and to not judge him by his religion.
Videoace123... How old are you?
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 12:31am

Post 31 of 56

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Xcession wrote:

Dawkins is a conundrum. I'd say hes able to manipulate in the same way that i'd claim religion can. I'm a scientists, so cold hard facts are my bible and reasoning is my religion, but even I can recognise that Dawkins is a master in the fine art of "Blinding With Science".

His arguments are cool, collected and eloquent. He knows that the key to reasoning is for everyone to be incapable of disputing any sentence he utters, so his cunning is in his semantics.

Religion is a bizarre concept. Its so deeply engrained in our species that no true answer exists and we each have to come to our own conclusions. Dawkins tries very hard to be infallible, but it dawned on me recently that attempting to persuade anyone towards any school of religious thought, is equally as untrustworthy, no matter how infallibly you word it. As a result I distrust Dawkins's motives almost as much as I distrust Scientology. In his favour, Dawkins has yet to resort to "eye for an eye" tactics to get his point across!
I know exactly what you mean, the fact that he seems to know what he's talking about can quickly lead a person into the realms of "He seems to know what he's talking about and therefore I must believe all he says". A lot of his more confrontational stuff unnerves me just a tiny bit because I can't help but wonder why he doesn't wish to allow the innocent masses to enjoy their (mostly) harmless delusion - obviously dangerous fanatics are another matter. There does seem to be a lot of logic in his arguments and in his ideas though when you put yourself in as close to an impartial position as you can get; largely his views on science and religion in general and his readiness to admit mistakes or gaps in scientific knowledge (something which, in my experience, religion does not).
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 12:56am

Post 32 of 56

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Xcession wrote:

Its what a religion does in the name of its beliefs, that gives reason to trust or doubt it.
Exactly. But you must ask yourself, "Did Christopher Columbus kill thousands of Natives of the Carribean islands in "God's name", or did he just say that to justify his beliefs?" The Muslim religion is considered flawed, because some people have blown themselves up in the name of Allah. But does the Muslim religion really tell people to be involved in suicide bombings? Obviously not. I think it's the followers of the religion that make the impact. Sure, if a religion told its followers to kill one another, it obviously is seen as flawed, but if someone misinterprets text, and does something terrible, then are we to blame the religion, or the person?

Bryce, your comments are hilarious.
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 1:26am

Post 33 of 56

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Xcession wrote:

Although i'm not religious, the ability for civilisations worldwide to have independently conjured up the same image of an omnipotent being is one of the few things which makes me occasionally doubt my scepticism.
Yes but you have to remember that the Greeks and Romans believed in many gods, and the Egyptians as well, even worshipping the Sun itself.

The omnipotent God story was simply the next generation of these beliefs, cause as we all know, simpler is better! biggrin

Also, the archetypal aspects must be considered. Why is it, that societies that had no contact at all with each other created remarkably similar stories involving a hero on a quest, with almost 1 to 1 correspondence in terms of story. Most people believe it's part of the brain that has evolved that is necessary to survive as a communal aspect, which leads to inherently similar stories.

If anything though, the idea of an omnipotent god is actually a fairly recent development in the grand scale of things, and since civilizations around the world have been connected post Greek/Roman empires, this makes sense. Not to mention that Judaism/Islam/Christianity were all cut from the same cloth so to speak.
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 1:36am

Post 34 of 56

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

All groups with hidden power structures seem a bit sinister to me - scientologists and freemasons and whatnot! Groups who (think they) have some amazing divine knowledge, but instead of freely sharing (Judeism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, Satanism, Druidism, Science, Hinduism, Christian Scientists, Quakers etc) try to use their secrets for power over other people (scientology, moonies, amway, etc) [ok, so I'm kidding about amway, but only just - google the free ebook 'merchants of deception' for one guys experience which seems not that uncommon]. Withholding knowledge in order to elevate yourself is a power play, it is wanting to have (your top-level deity here)'s judgement over right and wrong, worthy and unworthiness for yourself, so cannot be considered acting to serve (deity of choice again here).

As for Hubbard, I suspect he was a bonkers old sci-fi hack who lost the plot, but (as is common with delusional schizophrenics) thought he had the secrets of the world. He must have been quite convinced, so was convincing to those around, and someone decided to monetize (I hate that word too, sorry) that following, realising that keeping everyone following hubbard, he'd personally have secondary 'power', pretty much building up the industry of pseudo-science nonsense machines and tests. He must have increased in cynicism, I can't believe hubbard himself wanted to be so secret in his world shattering discoveries but I may have missed the mark on that one. I imagine hubbard to be 100% hatstand, not personally cynically exploitative.

So do I think differently about Will Smith? If he loses his money, that's his business. If he loses his naturalness (which he seems to be), it's a big shame and he loses me - all that is Will Smith is leaving town and another 'on message' clone springs up. It's like the bodysnatchers...
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 2:02am

Post 35 of 56

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Did anyone else notice that big pod in Will's back garden...?
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 6:32am

Post 36 of 56

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Sollthar, do you consider cults an religions one in the same?
No, there's a difference between a cult and a religion. Hence there's two words for it. I'm sure wikipedia can clear that up.
So I don't generally consider them "the same". I only consider them the same or highly similar in terms of their capacity "to lie, cheat, and steal from people until they're depraved." as you put it, which is a distinction you only make for scientology. And I just don't think that's very exclusive for scientology.

Because the big difference I see here is that cults use newly-created ideas whereas religions are based off of texts from a higher power.
Naturally. Obviously though, I don't believe in "texts from a higher power" since I don't believe there is a higher power. To me, all those older texts, bible, tora, koran etc, are simply very strong books written by man which had a huge influence. Some good books I might add, I really enjoyed reading the bible - like I enjoy reading other fictional books. They contain morality ideas you might agree or disagree with and I can respect them for some content, but there's no truth to be had from any of them in my view.
So to me, the difference is only really "based on newly created ideas" vs "based on very old ideas". But I'm well aware of the theologian perspective. I just don't share it.

If you believe that all religion seeks to inevitably corrupt as Scientology does, then you hold sentiments I cannot even begin to comprehend.
Oh no, you misinterpreted me there. I don't believe that any religion actively seeks to corrupt. I don't believe either a scientologist or a christian actively thinks "Hah, let's be evil and corrupt the world!". All believe in the truth of their words and the goodness of their actions. And probably all of them see some sort of evil within those who disagree. Unfortunately, that's how the human mind works.

On a sidenote, I'm pretty sure that if atheism was organised as a cult or religion, it would become just like that too.

Hopefully I've made myself more clear now.
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 2:50pm

Post 37 of 56

pscamm

Force: 2225 | Joined: 5th Nov 2006 | Posts: 300

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Now here's a dodgy topic if ever i saw one *L*.

These 'people' have one main aim with ref to smith, cruise and travolta and ppl in high level positions & thats to drag in the poor, easily influenced nobodys who have nothing better to do with their lifes than copy their 'hero's' (not to mention the fact they got millions to spend too *L*). How many blokes do you know who instantly change their hair to match beckham when he changes it ??? Lambs to the slaughter one might say.
This is just one of their methods of recruitment told to me by the boss of one of their churches....He also told me what would happen if the 'church' of scientology got into office/government at the top level !

You'd all better Just hope it never happens, believe me
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 3:22pm

Post 38 of 56

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I have a solution - why don't you all just follow me instead?

I was born in the centre of a supernova and all the elders of the stars imparted their wisdom to me before sending me on a rescue mission to earth. I killed off the dinosaurs who refused to believe, and with space surgery sliced the others up into my image and formed mankind blah blah blah (this is no more crazy than the stuff scientologists really believe, the Xenu/Xemu nonsense, volcanoes, etc)

What I can offer you is the secret to eternal life itself - 100% cash-back guaranteed (apply in person for a refund). First lesson is just $1, then add a zero each subsequent lesson (you'll be shocked how many lessons I can invent, and each time you'll find you need just one more lesson for eternal enlightenment/whatever piffle I'm offering you today). Yes, I will take Paypal.
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 3:27pm

Post 39 of 56

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

I'll take 4!
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 3:30pm

Post 40 of 56

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I'll have what Xcessions having

EDIT: Do you offer family plans?
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 3:31pm

Post 41 of 56

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I'm going to take 5, so that I'm on a purer level of being than Xcession and CX3. They are but mere peons.
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 3:45pm

Post 42 of 56

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Yes but we'll both be $10,000 richer thus making us still... peons... unsure

... You're mean Tarn and I'm telling
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 9:47pm

Post 43 of 56

Videoace123

Force: 1056 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 392

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Videoace123 wrote:

I'm actually greatly diturbed by this, since anything you read about Will Smith is that he tries to go for the extra mile, stuff like that. He's like a Tom Hanks in acting, and I've read so many amzing things that he's done.
It's very creepy and sad that Will Smith would go to scientology; HOWEVER, EVEN IF HE BECOMES A SCIENTOLOGIST IT DOESN'T MAKE HIM ANY LESS OF A PERSON, AN ACTOR, OR AN ARTIST.
It would be great if this wasn't true, but if it is, we can just hope he doesn't become a creep like Tom Cruise, and to not judge him by his religion.
Videoace123... How old are you?
12, but I have the social life of a softmore in highschool, and an opinion about the government that a 35 year old would have. I also am in algebra, but just by meeting me youd think I was the dumbest, "don't give a hoot as long as I go to a movie on Friday" person you'd ever meet.
PS: Did anyone know John Travolta is a scientologist?
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 10:25pm

Post 44 of 56

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Videoace123 wrote:

PS: Did anyone know John Travolta is a scientologist?
Did anyone *not* know? wink I have recollections that he was into it before Tom, anyways it's been a long long time!
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 11:29pm

Post 45 of 56

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

pdrg wrote:

Videoace123 wrote:

PS: Did anyone know John Travolta is a scientologist?
Did anyone *not* know? wink I have recollections that he was into it before Tom, anyways it's been a long long time!
Why do you think he made Battlefield Earth?
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 11:37pm

Post 46 of 56

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Videoace123 wrote:

Bryce007 wrote:



Videoace123... How old are you?
12, but I have the social life of a softmore in highschool, and an opinion about the government that a 35 year old would have.
Normally I'd say something that would sound fairly caustic, or even Condescending here, but I feel like you've unintentionally already done my job for me...
Posted: Fri, 11th Jan 2008, 11:43pm

Post 47 of 56

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Videoace123 wrote:

12, but I have the social life of a softmore in highschool, and an opinion about the government that a 35 year old would have. I also am in algebra, but just by meeting me youd think I was the dumbest, "don't give a hoot as long as I go to a movie on Friday" person you'd ever meet.
It's like watching him try to inspire a pissing contest into the wind...

I guess that wasn't as caustic or condescending as Bryce could make it, but I hope it will do for now. smile
Posted: Sat, 12th Jan 2008, 2:59am

Post 48 of 56

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Videoace123 wrote:


12, but I have the social life of a softmore in highschool, and an opinion about the government that a 35 year old would have.
I often feel like I have the social life of a 12 year old; with all of the tree-climbing, cartoon watching, tomfoolery I get in to.
Posted: Sat, 12th Jan 2008, 6:19am

Post 49 of 56

King of Blades

Force: 1700 | Joined: 29th May 2006 | Posts: 794

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Videoace123 wrote:

12, but I have the social life of a softmore in highschool, and an opinion about the government that a 35 year old would have. I also am in algebra, but just by meeting me youd think I was the dumbest, "don't give a hoot as long as I go to a movie on Friday" person you'd ever meet.
You see, the great thing about the Internet is that you can say whatever you'd like-- because you'll never have proof.

I can say that I'm a 54-year-old man and is a veteran in the U.S. military. I can say that I'm a 16-year-old girl who's looking for her soul mate. I can say that I'm Will Smith.

I can say countless things about myself. And the possibility of it being true is unbelievably small.

So, your statement could be false. But the fact that you're 12 years old could be true.

Say what you'd like; talking yourself up on the Internet usually gets you no where.
Posted: Sat, 12th Jan 2008, 6:43am

Post 50 of 56

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

[quote="King of Blades"]

Videoace123 wrote:

12, but I have the social life of a softmore in highschool, and an opinion about the government that a 35 year old would have. I also am in algebra, but just by meeting me youd think I was the dumbest, "don't give a hoot as long as I go to a movie on Friday" person you'd ever meet.
Quote me all you want from 4 years ago, I don't have to worry about most hilariously self-defaming statement on FXHome anymore. smile
Posted: Sun, 13th Jan 2008, 2:39pm

Post 51 of 56

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I've met some sophomores in HS that were social dweebs and some pretty darn dumb 35 year olds-so your point is....?

I've also encountered a 12yo or two who had a grossly inflated opinion of themselves.
Posted: Sun, 13th Jan 2008, 9:22pm

Post 52 of 56

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Ah come one guys. He's just a little kid. Leave him be.
Posted: Sun, 13th Jan 2008, 9:36pm

Post 53 of 56

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Ah come one guys. He's just a little kid. Leave him be.
Having been a little kid more recently than you, Sollthar, I can say that's the worst thing to say to someone who is starting to become a teenager. Not sure if that was your intention or not. wink
Posted: Sun, 13th Jan 2008, 9:40pm

Post 54 of 56

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

Sollthar wrote:

Ah come one guys. He's just a little kid. Leave him be.
Having been a little kid more recently than you, Sollthar, I can say that's the worst thing to say to someone who is starting to become a teenager. Not sure if that was your intention or not. wink
Yeah, it's also stuff like what we've been saying that got me to grow up a little when it was said to me.
Posted: Sun, 13th Jan 2008, 9:41pm

Post 55 of 56

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Most definitely. I squirm at some of the stuff I said in the past that I look back on. Kind of neat though, as I was nearly completely unaware of it at the time. Development is a strange time.
Posted: Wed, 23rd Jan 2008, 1:11pm

Post 56 of 56

RodgerDodger

Force: 430 | Joined: 23rd Dec 2003 | Posts: 143

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Back on the topic of Scientology:
I've discovered some reading material about Scientology online: the NOT's (New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans), and the "L" Rundowns, which the church (I wince every time I call it that) uses to audit people who want to become Scientology members. Honest, I'm not making this up...scary stuff.
The link is
http://www.xenu.net/archive/secret.html