The browser plugin is disabled as that is the source of most vulnerabilities

Me too. I have disabled the browser plugin since the security shenanigans in 2012 (August, IIRC). The only website I use that needs Java applets is the site of the Bank I have an account on. I enable the plugin just before going to that site, and disable it just after.

He just wanted people to try these techniques to address to improve their lives.

I would want to know if these techniques are effective before investing time in them. And in fact, I would fear that a possibly false technique could make things worse instead of better. What attracts people to scientology? Is it word-of-mouth ("it worked for my cousin"), like homeopathy? Are you not worried that it hasn't been scientifically validated?

I think what you don't understand is Scientology. The practice of the religion has nothing to do with what you believe. L. Ron Hubbard said, "If it is true to you, then it is true."

This sounds a lot like relativism, which I think is a logical absurdity. And I have never seen a relativist that does not contradict himself. By the way, where do you apply relativism? To philosophy? To morality?

What I am absolutely certain of, is that the subject of Scientology (of which you are focusing on one microgram out of tons of material) has worked to help me improve my own life. Do I still believe in Xenu? What makes you think I ever did? It has no importance.

But isn't Dianetics focused on getting rid of body thetans? How is Xenu irrelevant?

By the way, I hope I am not impolite. Also, if you feel irritated by this discussion, then please tell me and I will stop replying.

I am a former member of the Co$ and currently practicing outside of the corrupt organization

I do not understand. Do you still believe in Xenu?

This article is something, coming from a tech site that has blatantly posted advertisements disguised as stories, intentionally or not.
The only reason the atlantic caught shit was that it was that CoS is easy an hated target, product placement articles are nothing new or interesting.

I have never seen evidence (apart from cynicism) that Slashdot actually does that.

any other apologist for any organization that has anything like "excommunication".

Bizarre comparison. "Excommmunication" simply means "everyone take note: this person is not inside the Church". Church members routinely read books written by excommunicated persons, and of course talk to them.

The Catholic Church is a teaching organization. The Catholic Church excommunicating a priest who starts to promote abortion is analogous to (hypothetically) Greenpeace firing its spokesperson because he started promoting mass deforestation. And I am sure Greenpeace would do this without thinking twice.

I'll just pose the question: Do you really think a US presidential candidate could claim to be anything but Christian and still win the election?

Except you omitted a critical information - this goes the other way around too. Look at the attacks against Santorum because he read verboten books written by Josemaria Escrivá.

Prejudice and closed-mindedness are human traits. The anti-theists (also called "neoatheists") simply put every bad action in history in two big lists:
1) Evil among members of big traditional religions
2) Evil from anywhere else.

Then they omit list number 2, and present list 1 in isolation as evidence that "religion is evil".

Oh, by the way: neoatheists who say that "religion is evil", but then scream of human rights violations because someone said "atheism is bad" are enormously inconsistent to say the least.

Sounds like they're doing it wrong. You want the followers of your religion to raise kids, as many as possible. First of all, because they'll also tithe when they grow up. And second, because they will vote.

At least, that's what Christians do in my country. And, sadly, it's working.

How would that work? These children would only start tithing and voting by age 18, when you (the priest/pastor) would be dead or retired.
So you would not benefit.

Also, Christianity says that *everyone* should be generous in child-rearing, not just Christians.
If Christians were only trying to grow themselves, they wouldn't try to legally restrict abortion. They would just prohibit abortion among their members.

But then again, I am probably responding to another Dawkins parrot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetic_modified_organisms#North_America

It seems they are tested.

It's pretty obvious when someone is using a wheel or fire.

But the wheel and the fire share the fundamental danger that people see in GMOs: they are a "pandora box", and "unforeseen consequences" could happen because of the "butterfly effect". People are afraid of what would happen if "artificial genes mix with the natural ecosystem". Well, I say: what would happen to a small tribe if it invents the wheel? The effects are unpredictable. It could - for one example - set in motion a chain of events that ultimately results in an industrial revolution, then the invention of atom bombs, then a nuclear catastrophe. In fact, the impact of inventing the wheel is _immensely_ greater than the impact of using GMOs.
In fact, if you are so scared of the butterfly effect, there is only one solution: advocate mass suicide, then set an example by killing yourself.

Their benefits are obvious.

The benefits of GMOs are obvious too:
1) Making plants that produce far more
2) Making plants that produce in soil and climate conditions where it was previously impossible
3) Making more nutritious plants (such as vitamin-enriched rice)
4) Making disease-resistant plants
5) etc.

The sky is the limit.

You have presented a fallacy of your own. It is not "Monsanto or organic". If you hate Monsanto, then you should try to get their patents revoked, not to ban GMOs.

Banning GMOs because you hate Monsanto is like banning computers because you hate Microsoft.

Here's a thought, reduce population growth instead.

This "original thought" exists at least since 1798 (when Malthus published his bullshit). And the elites have bought it.
Anyway, I don't think it is wise the castrate humanity's flourishing because some Luddites are scared of GMOs.

Oh, and vaccines. If you believe in this "butterfly effect" phobia, then you should absolutely freak out at the idea of mass vaccination.

Sure. You can always take an extreme position to prove your point. Who can argue against that?

The GP does make an excellent point. The domestication of animals, the invention of agriculture, the discovery of the wheel and of planned fire have made an _immensely_ greater impact on the ecosystem than GMOs. If you were there when the first man decided to make fire on purpose, would you scourge him?

No. Like "it is not natural so it must be EVIL!". You know, like those wackos who take herbs instead of industrialized pills.

How long do you want to wait to learn that GMOs damage the environment? Humans?

Developed countries demand testing and research before a GMO can be sold as food.

Thanks for the red herring.

The GP definitely makes a good point. Just like "haunted food must be labeled", forcing GMO labels would
1) Add costs - a farmer would have to cerfity his crop to be "natural" and that no GM pollen has fertilized his plants by accident.
2) Create unnecessary fear - "if the government mandates this stuff to be labeled, it must be dangerous"
3) Be motivated by unreasonable fear - in this case, "everything must be natural" Luddism