Neil deGrasse Tyson needs to be set straight about Scientology abuses

Discussion in 'Scientology and Anonymous' started by anon8109, Apr 1, 2015.

  1. anon8109 Member

    When asked if he watched Going Clear, Neil said he didn't but that he knew what is was all about.

    He then repeated Scientology's own "I'm not a Scientologist but.." defense that Scientology is just like any other religion, and made no mention of the abuses.

    He was either misrepresented or misunderstood by the journalist, or Neil should have the wisdom not speak on subjects he knows nothing about.

    I hope someone reading this can get the message through to him that it's the lies and horrific abuses before he makes a fool of himself again defending the cult.
    • Like Like x 6
  2. Tony O tweeted at him on this topic. Not sure it will register.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. anon8109 Member

    He probably never heard of TO.

    He might pay attention if it comes from Prof. Kent or Prof. Touretzky, or better yet both of them.

    Neil has the ability to do some real damage by spreading this misinformation and 'acceptable truth", given how well-known and respected he is. people think of him as Carl Sagan's protege.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Incredulicide Member

    I'm imagining him offering to interview former Scientologists "who have killed in the name of their religion like any other" as if there aren't any, then having a room full of women turn up.
    I want to see the look on his face when woman after woman says "I was given the choice between losing my eternity or aborting my unborn child."
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Anonymous Member

    AFAIK, Neil is a professed atheist with less than zero interest in "religion."

    I think it predictable that for anyone in his position (Pop Scientist) he must abide by the American ideology of "respect religions" and "respect religious beliefs."

    If he crossed over those lines or was even seen to be crossing those lines, he may achieve even greater disdain than he receives for his atheism, and thereby lose much ground in the pantheon of "pop scientists."

    I was saddened when I read of his ignorance about the cult of scientology, but after giving it some thought, I think I understand why he maintains a position of willful ignorance.
    • Like Like x 3
  6. PresidentShaw Member

    I completely understand where Mr Degrasse Tyson is coming from with his arguments. Sadly I'm disapointed that he made those comments BEFORE doing proper research, he would quickly realise that scientology isn't a religion but a self help scam and that it doesn't fit any descriptions of what a religion is in any way shape or form.

    I'm certain that if confronted with proper evidence he would be ready to change his mind.
    • Like Like x 3
  7. PresidentShaw Member

    Actually he has clarified time after time that he does not identify as an atheist, yet atheists keep claiming him as one of their own.

    • Like Like x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

    I'll stand corrected. :)
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Hugh Bris Member

    I lost a lot of respect for DeGrasse when it was shown he was using, shall we say, less than truthful stories about people he didn't like in his public speeches.
    Then he used the 97% of climate scientist believe climate change as reason to hop on board the bandwagon.

    I realized he was no longer speaking as a scientist, but, as Night Owl says, a pop scientist.

    It's interesting to note that in schools Pluto was reckoned a planet, with the caveat that the orbit was pretty weird. Wasn't it Neil who helped overturn Pluto's status, ie, he went against the consensus,

    And not too long ago a scientist overturned a consensus that bacteria couldn't live in the stomach. A bacteria causes peptic ulcers, and he proved it the hard way, by drinking the bacteria...yuck. Now that's a serious scientist.
    See History section of the Wikipedia article for details
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Anonymous Member

    A few years ago, I watched some videos from a conference called "Beyond Belief."

    The usual suspects - Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett were in attendance, along with Neil.

    Each made presentations, refuting the Intelligent Design Theory.

    For his turn, Neil presented several photo-slides of examples of grossly deformed human babies. Neil proposed that an 'intelligent designer' would never come up with such horrifying failures.

    Because it was essentially a gathering of professed atheists, I made a correlation-causation kind of mistake when I wrongly connected Neil with the atheists, many of them militant atheists. My Bad!

    Until the posting from President Shaw, I had never read or heard Neil's comments on atheism. The video clip and his voice make his position extremely understandable. Science can't approach faith or religion with science. There can be no expectation of useful or valuable results.

    Neil is only interested in science, a practice for him which places him on the fence when it comes to questions of religious belief and/or faith.

    I continue to believe that he believes that it would be counter-productive for him to take up an antagonistic position in relation to scientology beliefs or abuses.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. BigBeard Member

    I find it disturbing that a professed scientist is making such sweeping statements without actually watching "Going Clear". And without any investigation of the documented abuses of $cientology. That is NOT how a scientist should be acting.

    • Like Like x 4
  12. Ogsonofgroo Member

    People actually watching the movie are so wtf different from the apologists. A mud pit of confabulation from the '50's, not quite in the same race nao imho. Expose.

    Thanks to Mr. Hubbard, a lying conniving, drug-disillusioned dick-tater... oh ... and moar parts per engrams lol, should he lived so long to see the fail of his bloated and gross ego, the world has suffered.


  13. He's certainly interested in the effect of religion on science. I've seen him give a talk about how Al-Ghazali's championing of "occasionalism" contributed to the decline in science within the Islamic world. He's also talked about how religious belief can lead people to be satisfied with a certain level of understanding of the natural world rather than to keep looking more deeply.

    So I think what could get him interested in Scientology is the pseudoscience aspect of it.

    Scientology pretends to be a science but is both wrong about virtually everything it claims to know about the human mind and dogmatic that nothing further can be learned than what it knows already. Moreover, it's attacks on real mental health fields bear more than a passing resemblance to creationist attacks on science, complete with trying to sneak their programs into schools and use lobbying in place of scientific discussion.

    However, that's not really NGT's domain. And while there is a lot of other bad science in Scientology, they mostly keep it to themselves.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Jeff Jacobsen Member

    He confused the reason for complaints about Scientology. We hardly care about their BELIEFS nor whether they are any wackier than Christianity's. It's the abuses, the deaths, the harms, the ACTIONS of Scientology we are against. Neil needs to look at the evidence about those.
    • Like Like x 4
  15. amaX Member

    I tweeted him the link to ex-Scientology kids. I sent that link because I still think that the stories from the kids who grew up in this terrible cult gets people's attention quicker.

    ***How about if all of us with twitter accounts send him the link to ex-Sci kids?***

    Let me help you get started:
    • Like Like x 7
  16. thanks for this thread, anon8109. I had no idea about his comments and his history of becoming a pop scientist. I just knew he was Carl Sagan v2.0 and seems like a cool dude. I guess I was wrong.
  17. Anonymous Member

    Recently, I came across this on Jerry Coyne's blog. Photos of the first American Penny:


    The 'heads' side of the coin has an embossed text stating - Liberty Parent Of Science & Industry.

    What the fuck happened, America?
    • Like Like x 5
  18. YouSeeNothing Member

    Religion can be a private thing. I think those who frequent this site tend to forget that the general population could give a rat's ass about Scientology as "just another religion." They did spend millions to achieve that end, right? Also, hi, BB! :)
    • Like Like x 1
  19. What do you expect from an affirmative action "scientist"?
    Tom Smith
    This message by Tom Smith has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 4
  20. Ogsonofgroo Member

  21. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Is there support for that label? By itself, it comes across sounding like simple racism.
  22. xander meehan Member

    I am going to add to cents for "The Humans are Dead,".... I know many atheists/humanists that send their children to church so that they will be good moral people. They had learned that in life that one of the important parts of life is to be a GOOD MORAL Person, regardless of believing in a Creator or Not. MANY of the most despicable people inhabiting this world absolutely do not believe in moral or immoral, or right or wrong, period. There is nothing that could be defined as Good or Evil. Hence in their mind there is no Evil. There are only decisions, with outcomes, period
  23. The Wrong Guy Member

    Scientists Who Are Actually Really Stupid: #1, Neil deGrasse Tyson

    By Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, December 21, 2015

    Neil deGrasse Tyson made the decision a long time ago to be a sort of media cheerleader for science instead of an actual scientist, and although he isn’t a great communicator, it was the right decision because he was unlikely ever to trouble the Nobel committee. Also, he is stupid and his politics are dumb.

    Here's the relevant excerpt:

    Tyson has a complex relationship with the Almighty. He loves to bait Christians, despite claiming — at least some of the time — to be an agnostic. Incredibly, he believes that Christians have no right to call Scientology crazy. His silly, provocative comparisons between Christianity and Scientology are becoming a regular thing.

    Needless to say, the argument against Scientology isn’t — or isn’t only — restricted to its goofy belief system or even that it’s essentially a tax dodge cooked up by a bad sci-fi writer. Rather, Scientology is a litigious, dangerous cult that cuts impressionable people off from their family and friends and brainwashes them into handing over all their money and devoting their lives to its comically absurd strictures.

    Here's the complete article, with over a thousand comments:
    • Like Like x 3
  24. anon8109 Member

    Not a great article, it sounds more like a WWP rant, but he does make a few good points.
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Random guy Member

    ^^My thought too^^
  26. The Internet Member

    No that is incorrect. 97% of published, peer reviewed papers support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Papers are not the same thing as people with beliefs.

    That paper by Cook which mentions "97%" included a survey of the authors of those papers which validated the method of sorting papers into "pro" or "con" or "inconclusive." There were two other surveys of the literature by independent parties using different methods that came up with basically the same results.

    I thought we reviewed all this in the climate change thread. How come you no learn?

    You and everyone else have no choice but to accept a strong scientific consensus as fact. Doesn't mean the consensus is correct. Only that there is no other competing authority out there capable of sorting ideas that are most likely true from ideas that are unlikely to be true.
  27. The Internet Member

    Individuals do not overturn a consensus. The consensus, which is a summary of all the relevant peer reviewed evidence, shifts as new evidence is added to the literature.

    The definition of the word, "planet" depends upon what people feel is useful. Because we've discovered so many things in orbit around our sun, it's not so clear where to draw the line between planets and other big rocks. Scientists debate these things, hoping to come up with a definition that will remove as much ambiguity as possible. So again, one person isn't responsible for a change in a definition.
  28. DeathHamster Member

    People like the Breitbart crowd feel some ownership of the Scientology label, and believe that they're the only ones allowed to throw it around in terms like "Climate Scientology".
  29. The Internet Member

    Tyson's argument makes sense and it is not a defense of Scientology. He wants to use evidence as the standard for accepting or rejecting ideas. He doesn't want to use apparent absurdity or unpleasantness as the standard for rejecting ideas.

    So if you say, "The beliefs in Scientology cause people to behave like criminals," he would probably say, "but are those beliefs based on evidence or not?"
  30. anon8109 Member

    Saying that scientology is like any other religion because they all have supernatural beliefs is like saying that North Korea is like any other country just because they all have armies.

    Saying that scientology is like any other religion because they all have supernatural beliefs is like saying that the mafia is like any other business just because they all try to make a profit.
    • Like Like x 2
  31. The Internet Member

    Those are terrible arguments.

    Scientology is like most other religions in promoting ideas as true without sufficient evidence. Of course apart from this shared quality, religions have other qualities to distinguish one from another.
  32. anon8109 Member


    So Pluto is just like any other planet because like most other planets it is a large body that orbits the sun.
  33. The Internet Member

    "Orbiting the sun" is a quality shared by Pluto and the other planets, correct.

    You have to focus upon the quality shared by two things in a comparison, if that quality is what matters to the speaker. If you can't do that, you will seem like a person who might have been hit in the head very hard at some point in the past.

    Apples and oranges are both round. But that similarity does not mean that apples are "just like" oranges.
  34. anon8109 Member

    Thanks for proving my point.
  35. The Internet Member

    I am not so sure. "Saying X is like Y is like saying A is just like B," strikes me as fishy business.
  36. Disambiguation Global Moderator

  37. DeathHamster Member

    I orbit the sun.

    What do you mean by "just like"? Does it mean the same as "only like", "exactly like" or "nearly like"?
  38. The Internet Member

    If you are a "large body," you could be a planet.

    Wouldn't happen to have your own atmosphere?

    Ok I am drunk-like.
  39. DeathHamster Member

    Hey, I shower!
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Kilia Member

    Somebody on Twitter needs to direct him to Leah Remini's book on Amazon.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins