• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Explain Atheism to Justinian2

One reason that homosexuals of the 1950 era seemed to have tones of 1.1 was that they had to be very secretive about their sexuality. It's the need to have secrets (covertness) that leads to the 1.1 tone (covert hostility).

It was the need to constantly justify one's homosexuality that frequently led to LRH describing them as having a hostile attitude. This was the justification, anyway.

Sexual perversions, like seeing prostitutes, also have a 1.1 tone associated with them as one has to sneak around and keep secrets.
 
Last edited:
OK, that one got away from me. I'm not obsessed with making every statement absolutely perfect. If I did that, my statements would read like legal contracts. And who reads legal contracts - except lawyers?

I mean who reads legal contracts with the attention to detail they require.

You'll be apologising to Belz... for accusing him of lying, then?
 
I didn't write that. You did. And, as usual, when somebody repeats what I said, it's a lie.
I said that I had never personally met a person that admitted to being an atheist or gay while growing up (0-18 years) in my home town. That home town was NOT Boston (Boston was 25 miles away). I had read about gays and atheists, but they were more of an abstraction to me than a reality.

Nice try:

I was born and raised in a WASP town. I don't know anything about atheists. I never even knew they existed before recent posts on this site. I thought they were an anomaly as uncommon as gay people.
 
Nice try:

The following was post #10 - a few posts below the post you quoted.

My town had no colored people, no Asian people, few Catholics, and no Jewish people. We were WASP.

My college was pretty much the same.

I doubt that I ever met an atheist in person. I certainly never met an atheist that raged against religion.
I am familiar with Protestants, Masons, Catholics, Jews and Scientologists. Atheists are unknown.

I'm differentiating between knowing what an atheist was and having met, in person, an atheist that admitted to being an atheist.

Before this month, I didn't know that atheists were nonreligious, that they thought they were superior due to their atheism, that there were so many in the world or that many were intolerant of religion.
 
Last edited:
The British prostitute I was most attracted to looked like Rachel Ward (voted one of the ten most beautiful in America). I had frequent company with this prostitute while the movie 'Thorn Birds' (starring Rachel Ward) was playing. I loved her British accent.

Looking back on it, this prostitute was plausibly an Atheist who wrote her own rules. She was into prostitution because working at McDonalds paid minimum wage and enslaved her. She had to make money to support her two children. I was impressed by the fact she wrote her own rules to survive better. I enjoyed helping her and her family by supporting her little business (as she fondly called it).
Nobody is impressed that a hooker provided you with the services you paid for. Don't kid yourself that you were "helping her" either, because you paid for a service that she provided. You can't claim altruistic motives every time you patronize a business.

Unfortunately this probable atheist and British prostitute fell in with drugs and the drug culture and quickly went downhill. Perhaps someone with religious mores would have heeded the danger of drugs and have avoided them.
Perhaps. And perhaps religion has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. Oh yes, it pretends to, but a big selling point of Christianity is the belief that everyone is a sinner, and as long as you repent and ask forgiveness of Jesus, you'll be okay again lickety-split. Go ahead and sin away - you know you want to; just make sure to repent before you die. Not very moral, IMO.

It's interesting that you assimilated the ten commandments.
Some of them are decent. Most of them are crap. (Not coveting, not making idols, not working on the sabbath.) Also the list seems to be forgetting things like: rape, slavery, child rape, assault, respecting all humans as equal, regardless of their gender or national origin.
Atheists seem proud of their sometimes absolute ignorance of religion.
Can you show any examples of that from this thread or from the real world? Most of the atheists I know are very educated about the various religions. We may not all be seeking those beliefs, and we may not find truth in those beliefs, but we know what they are. Were you at all surprised that the atheists here knew all about Xenu, e-meters, body thetans, and the supposed superpowers of the various OT levels?

I like to understand religions and evaluate them for myself. I don't like to have peer pressure cause me to make a black/white decision on any subject or person.
Me too. I recognize that all of them are utter crap when it comes to objective truthfulness, and most of them are extremely bigoted and immoral.
Whether people are religious or nonreligious, I resent them telling me what I should or should not believe. That's why I'm demanding that atheists show religious tolerance. (just kidding about the word demanding) Whether or not people are religious or nonreligious, they should show religious tolerance. Religious tolerance is the law in the USA (enforced in the workplace and schools).
I am absolutely tolerant of other religions. People are free to believe and practice however they want. They are not free to insist that I do the same, and they are not free to try to enact laws which put their religion at the forefront. If you want to hold onto tin cans while someone shouts at you, go for it. I'm perfectly free to think you're wasting your time, but I'm not going to stop you.
OK, that one got away from me. I'm not obsessed with making every statement absolutely perfect. If I did that, my statements would read like legal contracts. And who reads legal contracts - except lawyers?

I mean who reads legal contracts with the attention to detail they require.
The other way to not let your statements "get away from" you, is to make truthful statements. I don't need to write legal documents to accurately tell you about my life experiences. Quit embellishing or embroidering what really happened, and you'll find it's easy to stay consistent. Also, nobody is impressed with all your alleged sexual conquests (with attractive prostitutes no less!), so if you want to quit embellishing your life story, that would be a good place to start.

Ha. Had to look up MILF. What you're talking about is illegal, but I'm sure both the mothers and the boys would love to follow that suggestion if they could.
WRONG. I don't know a single mother who wants to get busy with a 12-year old boy, and it's disgusting that you think so.


But do go on. Tell me one more time that you're not a misogynist, and that you think of women as more than just vessels to satisfy your sexual urges. Pretty please.
 
Last edited:
OK, that one got away from me. I'm not obsessed with making every statement absolutely perfect. If I did that, my statements would read like legal contracts. And who reads legal contracts - except lawyers?

I mean who reads legal contracts with the attention to detail they require.
More has gotten away from you than you seem to realize.
 
This this has been placed on Moderated Status, pending a review and clean out.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Independant Scientologists now think that statement about homosexuals was inconsistant with LRH's other materials and was merely reflective of the 1950 era.

LRH was talking about criminals when said: "No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst." Criminals according to the Scientology tone scale have a tone of 1.1.

Your society removes the 1.1s from their midst by sending them to prison or deporting them. Universities remove them by not accepting them, by flunking them and by expelling them. Industry fires them.

Of course people that are not 1.1 also get flunked and dismissed.

So why are "Independant (sic) Scientologists" correct in their interpretation and the True Scientologists wrong?

Can I just go through the 1000s of words that LRon output and cherry pick the ones I want to prove that the "Independant (sic) Scientologists" are Suppressive Persons? Or do I just leave that up to the COS?

:th:
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom