I'm a Scientologist

[Sabby]

Feel free to move this if its been placed in the wrong forum.

Snipped by admin. ~T

[Ptolemy]

What a bunch of PR hokey.

[Ptolemy]

What a bunch of PR hokey.

Whoops, I didn't watch the video to the end, I thought it was a video I've seen a long time ago. This is pretty funny, in fact. :D

[Inkidu]

I was actually in Books-A-Million buying the new Steven L. Kent book and I saw E. Hubbard books in the sci-fi section. Conversation that follows.

Me: Isn't that the guy who propagated that esoteric Scientology religion?
Brother: No he didn't really mean it to be a religion.
Me: Really, I was sure that's what it was?
Brother: Eh.
Me: No wonder I can't find my book though, these belong in the religion section, God Books-A-Millions organization sucks.

I was very ticked it took me a long time to find the book because it was behind a vampire book and I refused to believe it would be.   

[Will]

"...And I wasn't just standing there looking, or gaping..."

"I was murdering dolphins with my bare hands for their delicious pancreases."

*spews milk, falls over, cramps up laughing*

[Oniya]

I was actually in Books-A-Million buying the new Steven L. Kent book and I saw E. Hubbard books in the sci-fi section. Conversation that follows.

Me: Isn't that the guy who propagated that esoteric Scientology religion?
Brother: No he didn't really mean it to be a religion.
Me: Really, I was sure that's what it was?
Brother: Eh.
Me: No wonder I can't find my book though, these belong in the religion section, God Books-A-Millions organization sucks.

I was very ticked it took me a long time to find the book because it was behind a vampire book and I refused to believe it would be.

I'd actually heard that Scientology was the result of a bet between L. Ron and Heinlein about creating a religion.  Frankly, I find Church of All Worlds more palatable.

Having read exactly two of Hubbard's books (Battlefield Earth and the first of that god-awful dekology), I'd still call them science fiction, even if they are among the very few books that I've just had to put down without finishing.  In the same way, I separate Uncle Isaac's Foundation series from his extensive non-fiction books.

Hubbard was far more financially successful as a religious writer (and I think the financial aspect was his goal), but he did write (if not well) in both genres.

[The Witcher]

I think Hubbard said in a interview "I should start a religion that's were the real money is" but that might have just been a internet meme

[Oniya]

The name 'Dianetics' purportedly came from his daughter's name because 'If God can have a religion named after his son...'

[The Dark Raven]

*snicker*  If I have to pick a religion based on a sci-fi book, I'll take All Worlds every time...at least it makes sense imho.

And..it's Heinlein...he kicks patootie.

[Sabby]

Scientologists apparently know Ghost Magic. *is reminded of Clive Barkers Jericho*

[purpleartemis00]

I think Hubbard said in a interview "I should start a religion that's were the real money is" but that might have just been a internet meme

Nope that has been directly attributed to Elron Hubbard, not a internet rumor.

[Will]

I just watched this video again... I laughed even harder.  Ghost magic, hehehehe.

Thanks for sharing, Sabbat! ;D

[MercyfulFate]

Scientology, scary stuff.

[Gunslinger]

Why is it that when you look at scientologists they do nice things, help people in need and your like "wow thats pretty cool, they do stuff to improve peoples lives, that's not bad"

But when you see what they believe in kinda makes you go "What?... wow... ok... really? ... I gotta go"
???

[Sabby]

Thats not why Scientology is scary dude. Do a youtube search for "The Unfunny Truth about Scientology"

[Silk]

These guys are out of this world and not in a good way.

"It really is better than fucking the rings of saturn!"

sure is buddy...

[Will]

This video is a parody, the "ghost magic" guy is making fun of them.  The unaltered original video is also on Youtube.

[setojurai]

And yet Tom Cruise is still locked in Cartman's closet.

COME OUT OF THE CLOSET TOM!  WE KNOW YOU'RE IN THERE!

[Maaske]

My god, don't we just love the Scientologists? HAHAHA

Space cum in my veins, I lol'd, HARD.

Rofl, this is hilarious, thanks for putting that up.

[PhantomPistoleer]

Aww, Scientologists get such a bad rap for having equally inane ideas such as, a cosmically powered zombie that will reemerge to save all of humanity, a weather-controlling father-God consummated with a white swan to create progeny, life is a physical manifestation of an eternal wheel that reacts to choices gauged by a mutually-agreed to set of suggestive rules, etc.

[The Overlord]

I’ve head a lot of this and that regarding Scientology, some of which, all, or none may be true.

What I do know is that after watching that interview that Tom Cruise gave last year, he is either batshit fucking loco on his own, the church did it and gave him Superman complex, or perhaps all of the above.  ::)

[Nadir]

I don't like this. It is far too much like the 'humorous' propaganda cartoons Germany produced about Jewish people before WWII. These people made a choice to follow this religion. I am sickened that a person's spiritual beliefs, however ridiculous they sound, are the subject of crude jokes. 

[Sabby]

I don't like this. It is far too much like the 'humorous' propaganda cartoons Germany produced about Jewish people before WWII. These people made a choice to follow this religion. I am sickened that a person's spiritual beliefs, however ridiculous they sound, are the subject of crude jokes.

Ya know, this kind of reaction actually promotes racial devides and such even more >___> I'm really getting tired of it.

Scientology is just as stupid as Christianity, and thats we parody both of them. But right now, its difficult for me to find humor in Scientology, now that their many crimes are coming to the surface. Theres a difference between a church and a cult. Cults ruin lives on purpose, Churches by accident.

[Ramster]

It may be easy to say, "Oh, someone else will summon the seven dragons of reggae," but if I don't. who will?  O8)

[Sabby]

It may be easy to say, "Oh, someone else will summon the seven dragons of reggae," but if I don't. who will?  O8)

*See's the afro at the end and spits out his Pepsi*

[Jude]

I don't like this. It is far too much like the 'humorous' propaganda cartoons Germany produced about Jewish people before WWII. These people made a choice to follow this religion. I am sickened that a person's spiritual beliefs, however ridiculous they sound, are the subject of crude jokes.

Keep going, you're bordering Godwin's law.

(Hint:  I bolded the portion of your own statement that disproves it)

[Nadir]

Godwin's Law being that everything ends on the net up about nazis, right? Just like every dream you have means you either want a penis or boink your mother, and that you always turn into the person you hate, and there is always a miracle at christmas. 

I'm not sure I understand your point.

[Jude]

There's two parts to Godwin's law.  1:  Every conversation, assuming it goes on long enough, will eventually reach a comparison in some form to the Nazis.  2:  The person who makes such a comparison loses the argument.

The bolded part was a separate issue.  I just think the fact that they chose it makes them open to criticism, thus defeating your point in its premise.

[Nadir]

An opinion; I'm allowed to have one.

[Mnemaxa]

An opinion; I'm allowed to have one.

We can surgically remove that for you if you like. 

Anyways.....

there is no shortage of strange religions.  Scientology is mainly singled out because it has celebrity appeal.  There were an umber of such cults and religions that were born in the 60's and 70's that were equally appalling and equally questionable.  Most people forget about them....

[Jude]

And what's a cult?  An unpopular religion. :D

[Mnemaxa]

And what's a cult?  An unpopular religion. :D

Depends.

Cults and religions differ, largely in how they propegate and gain members and resources. 

Christianity is a religion.  It is vastly unpopular in some places.  Islam is also a religion.  It's even more unpopular in other places.  Neither could be called a cult.  Scientology is called a cult because of it's business practices, more than its religious values.  Likewise, most neo-Wiccan groups would be considered cults, rather than a religion, because of the lack of unity it suffers among it's own worshipers, but it's actually quite popular.


cult
  /kʌlt/
–noun
1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.the object of such devotion.
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

re⋅li⋅gion
  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/
–noun
1.    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.    a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.    the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.    the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.    the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.    something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.    religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8.    Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

Note that almsot all religions can be defined as cults, but the inverse is not true.....

[Jude]

I remember having that argument with my world's religions teacher.  Was very fun, I'll spare you the long and short and simply agree with you instead of being a prick about it :P

[Nadir]

And what's a cult?  An unpopular religion. :D

What defines a religion as unpopular to you? I am so not a fan of Christianity it hurts, but does that make it a cult? Well, is use to be... but that's not the point. My religion has very few followers, but it has a very low number of critiques compared to the number that Islam, Hinduism, or atheism has (and I'm talking about percent ratio) - does the lack of followers say it's unpopular? Or is it more popular than one of the leading religions in the world?

[Mnemaxa]

I'm curious about the long and short, you can always PM me.  I'm not easily riled, generally speaking.

Though, I note I misspoke when I said Islam and Christianity could not rightly be called cults....

[Jude]

An unpopular religion is simply a religion without a large following or societal acceptance.

As for what the "short" of it is, I simply argued with my teacher that the cult branding is a hypocritical label designed by mainstream society (which is religious) aimed at judging all other religions as illegitimate by definition during their inception.

[Mnemaxa]

Interesting argument - though, it holds true through the past, when Christianity was considered a cult by the Roman pantheists....

It should be interesting to see how Scientology evolves.

[Nadir]

An unpopular religion is simply a religion without a large following or societal acceptance.

Then I violently disagree with your statement of "unpopular" religions being cults. I am not offended, but my choice of religion, while not socially viewed as acceptable, is my choice, just like those who follow Scientology, or any of the other religions in the world. You labling all minor religions as cults is, in a word, ridiculous.   

[Jude]

Then I violently disagree with your statement of "unpopular" religions being cults. I am not offended, but my choice of religion, while not socially viewed as acceptable, is my choice, just like those who follow Scientology, or any of the other religions in the world. You labling all minor religions as cults is, in a word, ridiculous.

Or maybe it's ridiculous to honestly be convinced that you understand the mysteries of the universe (which is what a religion IS).  I'm agnostic myself because I wouldn't even dream of pretending to understand the inner workings of reality.  For all humans know and understand, the origins of life is kinda beyond us.

[Nadir]

... My religion claims nothing of the sort. What you describe is exactly why I dislike and distrust mainstream religions.

[Jude]

... My religion claims nothing of the sort. What you describe is exactly why I dislike and distrust mainstream religions.

I have to admit, I'm intrigued.  I've never come across a religion that doesn't try to be a kaleidoscope through which you view all things.  'cept maybe Buddhism, but I'd consider that a philosophy for that very reason.  Maybe I'd consider your religion a philosophy?  I have nothing wrong with philosophies, 'cause they don't claim to be absolute truth.  They're formulated attempts at truth, but they admit the "formulated" part (unlike religions).

[Mnemaxa]

There are sects of Buddhism that are philosophical in nature, but those are seperate and distinct from Buddhism as a whole.  Zen or Ch'an Buddhism is the specific instance.  Buddhism is definitely a religion, and not a philosophy.  Taoism, on the other hand, is a philosophy that can be viewed religiously, or can incorporate a religion into it's philosophical outlook.

I really should research Scientology.

[Jude]

There are sects of Buddhism that are philosophical in nature, but those are seperate and distinct from Buddhism as a whole.  Zen or Ch'an Buddhism is the specific instance.  Buddhism is definitely a religion, and not a philosophy.  Taoism, on the other hand, is a philosophy that can be viewed religiously, or can incorporate a religion into it's philosophical outlook.

I really should research Scientology.

See, I disagree with you there.  I think if you look at the original teachings and documents Buddhism is based on, it is a philosophy, but it's been perverted into a religion by certain sects.  Such as the Dhali Llama's circus.

[Mnemaxa]

All religions start off as philosophies, generally speaking.  They become religions later.  This si true of any of the ancient religions.  Christianity was based on a philosophy: love they neighbor, love one another, love the creator.  Buddhism was based on the idea of achieving a point of enlightenment such that that it put you outside the creation that deity made - by definition it implied that there was deity and creation involved.

Eden's point is still valid of course.  I can only imagine how long this movie would have lasted if it had been directed at say, Christianity, or Islam.  I've seen joke flash movies about those of course....but so publicly viewable?  I doubt it would have been let lie. 

There is no religion or philosophy that can claim 'we have no blood on our hands'.

[Nadir]

I'm not comfortable talking in a public area about my religion, but if you want to PM me about it, that's cool.

[TheWriter]

If Eden's religion is what I think it is, given its history hir reaction to the negative stimga that Scientology carries is entirely acceptable.  Having said that I laughed at the video, not so much at the additions but at the original testimonies as well.  Implying that in any major disaster or such, only a Scientologist has the power to help, for instance. 

Personally I don't see it as anything more than a self-help program with a self-importance complex, but having read the stories of things like Operation Freakout, Snow White, fair game and Auditing Process R2-45, the lengths they will go to do mimic the mindset of the Catholics back in the days of the Inquisition.  One has to wonder when the world's rich and famous will start a crusade against the humble Suppressive Person.

[Noisekick]

I believe in the Sumerian neopaganism and my religion sees intersexed individuals as sacred. I myself think they are sacred and thats why my religion suits me.

[Sabby]

Eden, all I meant by what I said was that your reaction kind of defeats itself. Your upset that the video is having a laugh at peoples beliefs, but really, jumping in and being all "Oh thats not right!" only manages to widen that cultural barrier your pointing out.

In a tolerant world, a black man and a jew could walk into a gay bar and call the priest at the other stool a kiddy fiddler, then they would all laugh, pool up some stools, throw a few 'niggers' and 'money hoarders' out there, then invite the pirates and ninjas over for pool.

But the one dude or dudette in the corner who goes "You can't say that! Thats racist!" he or she is the one holding society back.

So, I laughed at a video that quite openly has a go at Scientology. I can honestly say that if I were a Scientologist, I would still laugh. If I were a devout Christian, and saw a video online of the Pope getting hit by a train with bad sound effects and voice over for effect, I would be in stitches. If I were Asian, and someone on the street called me a chink and told me to go back to my country, I would chuckle and tell them to go fuck themselves right back.

Thats a tolerant world in my books. Everyone can say whatever they want about anyone and as long as its without malice or hate, its all good.

To the subject of Scientology, however, yes, they operate as a cult. Very different to a religion.

[Oniya]

In a tolerant world, a black man and a jew could walk into a gay bar and call the priest at the other stool a kiddy fiddler, then they would all laugh, pool up some stools, throw a few 'niggers' and 'money hoarders' out there, then invite the pirates and ninjas over for pool.

Sabby - have you ever watched the movie Blazing Saddles?  If not, run out and rent the DVD (or get it at the library).  See if you can find the version with the commentary, because that movie - as irreverent as it is - has a very powerful message about tolerance that I honestly feel is muted by the 'sanitized' version that you see on TV.

[GothicFires]

Tolerance is not about being able to laugh about all things equally. It is also about being able to respect other people's feelings in regards to what they believe. You can be funny with out being disrespectful regardless if you think that what the other person believes is nonsense.

A cult is a religious group that centers power around one individual. I have never heard of one person controlling Scientology. Cults are generally hard to leave, being reinforced by fear. To keep control of the believers the Cults are generally grouped in one area or have several groups in many areas. Scientology has world wide followers who can choose to stop believing in Scientology when ever they choose... that is not a cult.

I have avoided this thread because discussing religion with people not of my faith has generally given me a headache or worse. I am pagan. I have had to deal with being told by my Christian parents I was going to hell... to my face. Yet I will gladly tell anyone I am happy my mother is Christian because it helps her... and I don't believe in Christianity.

this is a copy of my favorite poem written during world war 2. It signifies how important it is to protect the rights for others to believe differently than you do and to give them respect even if they believe differently from you.

First they came for the Communists,
  and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
  and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
  and I didn’t speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
  and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

I watched that video in the first post of this thread. I am not a Scientologist and I didn't laugh. I found it to be not only disrespectful but offensive and not in the least funny. Though people have a right to say what they want, I really don't think it belongs here.

(edits because i really hate when i misspell or misstype words)

[Nadir]

I didn't try to counter your point when you first made it, as I can easily see where you stand on this subject and I believed it was useless to try and talk my point through with you. You were out-right rude to me when I tried to talk to you in private and I have no desire to play it out again in public, but seeing as you took the time to say this twice in one thread, I'll give you the attention you want. For my part I will attempt a mature debate, I hope you do me the same courtesy this time round.

You believe that's tolerance, fine.

I do not see it as such.

Saying that when I defend minority religions against this sort of slander widens the cultural divide or heightens the barrier (you were mixing two metaphors) is, honestly, condescending and rude. As I have stated - I am a member of a minority religion. For me, spiritual beliefs are deeply personal, beyond body and mind. It is not something that should be laughed at or mocked. I feel intensely uncomfortable when asked to talk about it with someone I do not know.

To have someone say 'Oh, you should be able to laugh at crude jokes we make towards your lifestyle' is arrogant and seriously rubs me the wrong way. I have had people tell me I am too sensitive about my sexuality, my intelligence, my friends, my happiness when they are mocked. I see it as an attack - because that's what it is. I am not a secure person. All my life I have been told I am stupid, and I have to follow where others lead, keep my head down and not bite back. It has taken a lot - and I mean A LOT - of shit to make me dig in my heels and say no more.

These sorts of 'jokes' are effectively bullying. These people have found something that makes them happy. GOOD FOR THEM. Why people feel the need to mock them for it is disgusting. I want nothing to do with them. Happiness is so hard to find - and I'm talking more than the brief laughs you get from trying to desecrate another's joy.

I will protect my right to be happy, and anyone else's for that matter. This has nothing to do with Scientology to me and everything to do with minorities being attacked for having something that is difficult to get and harder to hang on to - mainly because of 'humour' like this.           

[Nadir]

Tolerance is not about being able to laugh about all things equally. It is also about being able to respect other people's feelings in regards to what they believe. You can be funny with out being disrespectful regardless if you think that what the other person believes is nonsense.

A cult is a religious group that centers power around one individual. I have never heard of one person controlling Scientology. Cults are generally hard to leave, being reinforced by fear. To keep control of the believers the Cults are generally grouped in one area or have several groups in many areas. Scientology has world wide followers who can choose to stop believing in Scientology when ever they choose... that is not a cult.

I have avoided this thread because discussing religion with people not of my faith has generally given me a headache or worse. I am pagan. I have had to deal with being told by my Christian parents I was going to hell... to my face. Yet I will gladly tell anyone I am happy my mother is Christian because it helps her... and I don't believe in Christianity.

this is a copy of my favorite poem written during world war 2. It signifies how important it is to protect the rights for others to believe differently than you do and to give them respect even if they believe differently from you.

First they came for the Communists,
  and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
  and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
  and I didn’t speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
  and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

I watched that video in the first post of this thread. I am not a Scientologist and I didn't laugh. I found it to be not only disrespectful but offensive and not in the least funny. Though people have a right to say what they want, I really don't think it belongs here.

(edits because i really hate when i misspell or misstype words)

I love you. Seriously. I don't know you, but this was exactly what I've been trying to say. *hugs*

[GothicFires]

you're welcome *hugs*

[Jude]

You're comparing poking fun at Scientologists to what happened during Nazi Germany... really?  Godwin's law anyone?

[Nadir]

You've already said that.

[GothicFires]

i am having a difficult time trying to figure out a response that does not go outside the grounds of respectful discussion.

You're comparing poking fun at Scientologists to what happened during Nazi Germany... really?  Godwin's law anyone?

This comment either 1. shows no purpose in inputting intelligent and forwarding thought into the discussion at hand or 2. how obsessed you are with Godwin's law that you cannot see how poking fun at Scientologists relates to what happened in Nazi Germany

When you allow people to disrespect and hurt others with out standing up for them, even though you don't agree with their beliefs then you are the same as those who did the disrespect and hurting

So yes it fits

[Jude]

To be truthful I forgot my previous comments.  I'm amazed that twice on one post people have made nazi comparisons.

I'm rather surprised you can't tell the difference between respect and removing someone's ability to be something.  I'd never tell anyone they couldn't be a scientologist, or take away their rights for it.  But I will reserve the right to laugh at them.

It's pretty dangerous to go down the path of "you must accept all religions at face value and treat them with respect."  Some are not worthy of respect and/or are dangerous.  i.e. cults.

[GothicFires]

I didn't make a Nazi comparison... i used a poem written during the Nazi occupation that was about the Nazi's destroying people because they believed differently than they did. You are the one who called it a Nazi comparison... Perhaps you see a correlation?

You do not have to agree with what someone else does but as long as they are not breaking laws you SHOULD show respect for them because that his what, hopefully, you want people do for you.

It is easy to defend a joke that is not close to your heart. You are agnostic there is no loss for you to see jokes about religion which really makes me question why you are even in this conversation. What if we changed the joke to be about something you really cared about...

or what if someone said 'people who write adult material and role play on line are not worth of respect and/or dangerous' just because they do not agree with what they are doing and what they believe in so lets shut them down or make fun of them'

If a cult is not harming anyone then they should be left alone. I don't know why you are singling them out when there are many people in mainstream religions hurting others.

Religion, children, people with natural illness or disabilities should all left out of jokes.

[Jude]

More than anything I'm a skeptic, so I can see the flaws in my own beliefs.  I see the humor even in the things I do.  There is literally nothing anyone could mock that I would think of as "out of bounds."  I think trying to control the actions of other people because you're too insecure in your beliefs to allow them to be openly criticized is a small tyranny.

Opinions should never be silenced.  That's my opinion.

[GothicFires]

i'm not insecure about anything. Mockery is not criticism and tyranny is hurting other people by what you say and adding to their insecurity and affecting their rights to live and believe as they do.

So you are not sensitive to a persons religious beliefs, but that does not mean that other people aren't. If i must spell it out for you

Religious beliefs are not what we are defending... how you treat other people IS what we are defending.

[Kurzyk]

I have no organized religion or group I'm a part of. I have my own individual belief system.

This is my choice. Getting bogged down into the semantic differences of what is 'cult', what is 'religion' is meaningless to me.

Some people need community, some walk alone. Some need traditional or "popular" communities as was mentioned earlier in the thread, while others look for un-traditional and un orthodox. And as I mentioned, some are eclectic and just walk alone. Bottom line is, none of us have the answer, and there is no more or less truth in contemporary religion and/or cults than in myself.

However, in traveling the world, showing respect for other groups, whether they are text book religions, cults, or culture, is vital as we're all struggling to answer the fundamental questions.

Am I saying not to find humor in it? No. I don't believe that life should be taken seriously and questioning reality, culture and belief systems is something I feel is very important. But save the giggles for behind closed doors out of respect, for what you're laughing about brings hope and guidance to someone else.

As a note, I do respect those that publically publish intelligent pieces of critiscm and even some comedians for their comical pokes at the human race. I feel that's helpful on some level. But even that role has to come with a sense of responsibility. For simply spitting on people for their beliefs does not serve to support humanity's growth, but to undermine it.

[Serephino]

More than anything I'm a skeptic, so I can see the flaws in my own beliefs.  I see the humor even in the things I do.  There is literally nothing anyone could mock that I would think of as "out of bounds."  I think trying to control the actions of other people because you're too insecure in your beliefs to allow them to be openly criticized is a small tyranny.
Opinions should never be silenced.  That's my opinion.

So... if I were to say you're an idiot for being agnostic, and a pervert for writing adult material, that wouldn't upset you at all?

I have to agree with GothicFires and Eden here.  Making a mockery out of someone's belief system isn't tolerance, it's ignorance.  Do I think Scientology beliefs are kind of out there?  Yes.  It scares me frankly, but I don't have to believe in it.  Those that do have chosen to do so.  They have that right, and as long as they aren't hurting anyone it isn't my business.  I just roll my eyes and walk away. 

[Oniya]

The problems with any religion really tend to occur not with what you* believe, but with what you* want to make me* believe.

Just as you* have every right to swing your* arm, until it impacts my* nose.


*You, me and the associated possessives are used in the generic sense, and are not intended to refer to any specific person.  If you specifically feel that they are meant to refer to you or me, you are specifically wrong.

[Jude]

So... if I were to say you're an idiot for being agnostic, and a pervert for writing adult material, that wouldn't upset you at all?

I have to agree with GothicFires and Eden here.  Making a mockery out of someone's belief system isn't tolerance, it's ignorance.  Do I think Scientology beliefs are kind of out there?  Yes.  It scares me frankly, but I don't have to believe in it.  Those that do have chosen to do so.  They have that right, and as long as they aren't hurting anyone it isn't my business.  I just roll my eyes and walk away. 

Well, no, you have to know a fair amount to parody, so I wouldn't say ignorance really fits.

As for the rest, I'm OK enough with myself and my beliefs to not care what strangers think of how I feel about the world.

[Rhapsody]

A cult is a religious group that centers power around one individual. I have never heard of one person controlling Scientology.

Obviously, you've never heard of L. Ron Hubbard or David Miscavige. 

Cults are generally hard to leave, being reinforced by fear. To keep control of the believers the Cults are generally grouped in one area or have several groups in many areas. Scientology has world wide followers who can choose to stop believing in Scientology when ever they choose... that is not a cult.

Except for the fact that Scientology can sue you, can seek to ruin you, file frivolous and malicious lawsuits against you... Don't believe me? 

"In 1976, the Church was found legally liable for the malicious prosecution of an ex-Scientologist named L. Gene Allard who left Scientology in 1969 and was then charged with grand theft."

"In Operation Freakout, the Church of Scientology attempted to eliminate journalist and writer Paulette Cooper via having her imprisoned, killing her or pushing her to commit suicide, or having her committed to a mental institution as revenge for her publication in 1971 of a highly critical book, The Scandal of Scientology."

"In a long and contentious trial, Lawrence Wollersheim, a former Scientologist, alleged that he had been harassed and his business nearly destroyed as a result of "fair game" measures. During appeals, the Church again claimed "Fair Game" was a "core practice" of Scientology and was thus constitutionally protected "religious expression"."

"In the March 11-16, 1981, Danish court case of Jakob Anderson vs The Church Of Scientology of Denmark, ex-Guardian's Office operative Vibeke Dammon testified[25] that the Church did in fact practice Fair Game and had done so in Anderson's case, in an attempt to get Anderson committed to a psychiatric hospital."

That's from 30 seconds of skimming on the Court cases involving "Fair Game" wiki page.  Do some research; for many, it's far harder to leave Scientology than it is to join.  They take your money, they force you to write potentially damaging confessions of sins.  They can cut you off from your family and friends.  Sea Org in the 70s could demand that you have abortions, because Sea Org persons were not permitted to have children...

It's a cult, and there are many countries worldwide that denounce them as such.

[GothicFires]

I am not going to debate the cult standing of Scientology. We have a difference of opinion and they are going to stay different.

However I will stand beside a person's right to be able choose their religion with out fear of persecution and ridicule.

Scientology is not the only religion with its issues. If anyone has a problem with a religion it should be discussed with respect to all persons participating in that discussion. The method used in this video is unacceptable. The video is not funny and to accept it in this avenue opens the door to that type of behavior not only against other religions but other subject matter. I am wondering how fast this thread would have been closed if the video was a parody of gays or transsexual people.

Its not about disagreeing with how someone believes or if Scientology is even actually a religion. Its about respect due to your fellow man simply because they are human just like you are. Please note I do not use the word 'you' to single out any specific individual that has posted in this tread.

Having the freedom of speech does not alleviate a person from the responsibility of using that freedom wisely and respectfully. I think that if a discussion about the validly of Scientology continues it should probably be done in another thread so the points that people make don't get lost in the issue that some of us found the video distasteful in its method.

[Jude]

I was avoiding making a serious post, but screw it.

First of all, this idea that making fun of a religion will eventually lead to serious persecution (using the holocaust example you did in the poem) is a nice example of the slippery slope logical fallacy.  There's is nothing guaranteeing, or even suggesting, that you can't make fun of a group of people without taking away their rights and doing them harm.  Making fun of their beliefs does not always lead to lead to taking away people's rights (which I can agree is bad).

Furthermore this idea that mocking someone on the basis of their religion is the same as mocking them on the basis of their sexual orientation is a false comparison.  Religious choices are in no way comparable to biological conditions.  First of all, there's the choice aspect that makes them different.  You're choosing that religion, whereas someone is stuck with a particular biological predisposition.  But more importantly religious choices are always conflicting.  Your view of spirituality is in direct opposition to others' takes on religion.  If you're right, others are wrong; homosexuals never claim that you should be gay (and if they did, they too would be open to ridicule).

I agree that people should, unless a reason presents itself otherwise, be treated with a certain degree of dignity and respect.  But your ideas aren't a part of you.  In fact attaching yourself onto an idea to the point that you become hostile or "offended" at mockery is a great sign of close mindedness.  Religious ideology is simply a guess at truth, if you can laugh at someone for still believing the earth is flat, why can't you laugh at them for believing anything else?

And if you're so sure that you're right, why do you care what other people think?  Sure you might not like someone because they poke fun at what you believe, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.  Controlling the actions of others is a serious thing, I find it absolutely ridiculous when people place the "offense card" in an attempt to silence opposition.  It's completely contrary to the idea of freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas, which are the two most important concepts Democracies are based upon.

You pay lip service to freedom of speech, then at the same time affirm you don't actually believe in it.  Ideas, even insulting and mockery, should be allowed to compete.  You can naturally discourage people's behavior by showing that whatever has occurred bothered you, but when you start telling people what they "should" do, that's oppression of expression and ideas.  And those're two things I'll never really stand for without an argument.

[GothicFires]

you mean you were participating in this conversation the entire time with out being serious about it?

the point about the poem is not about the holocaust as you seem to be hung up on. It is about a person being regretful that he did not stand up for others because they were not only of a different faith, but a different way of life than he was... that is the point.

Making fun of other's beliefs may not always lead to the taking away of people's rights, but it is very likely to hurt their feelings and certainly, most assuredly with out a doubt make the person who is ridiculing the other person look like a jerk.

making fun of someone based on religion or sexual orientation or the way they look or the way they speak or where they live... the list can go on and on... is not a false comparison... they are all hurtful... and they are all WRONG

As for as my view on spirituality... and for many others (backed up by Eden in this thread)... I don't view other religions as wrong even if I don't believe in them. I have already stated that I am happy my mother is Christan though I do not believe in Christianity  (in case you missed or forgot that post). So your reasoning that others not believing the same way you do makes one of you wrong is not correct. And not all religions claim that you should be of their religion or even have a religion. Not that I can remember the name of it, but I watched a news cast on one religion in Iraq that does not accept converts... you have to be born into it. So that argument cannot apply to religion as a whole.   

and how can you say that your idea's aren't a part of you... if your brain didn't function with ideas you would be a vegetable in a hospital ward. Your ideas are what leads your actions. They are what defines you and makes you who you are.

I would never make fun of a person who believes the world is flat. I'm not that mean. I would show them the scientific evidence that we have that the world is not flat. Besides, speaking of false comparisons... there is tangible evidence that the world is not flat (the world itself) there is no definitive proof that any one religion is absolute.

Again you seem to ignore what is written. I do not think that people should not be able to speak against Scientology, or anything of that matter. If you don't like it by all means say so. But if a person is going to be a jerk in the manner in which they use that speech... then yes I am going to stand up and say that it is unacceptable.

why would anyone want people to think they are a jerk anyway? My problem is not the subject matter. but the way it was presented.

[Kurzyk]

Ideas, even insulting and mockery, should be allowed to compete.  You can naturally discourage people's behavior by showing that whatever has occurred bothered you, but when you start telling people what they "should" do, that's oppression of expression and ideas.  And those're two things I'll never really stand for without an argument.

Intelligent debate and discussion is different than being insulting and mocking. It's treating others with respect and having the humility in understanding that neither you nor them truly has a clue about anything in the larger scheme of things.

[consortium11]

Intelligent debate and discussion is different than being insulting and mocking. It's treating others with respect and having the humility in understanding that neither you nor them truly has a clue about anything in the larger scheme of things.

I wonder where this leaves A Modest Proposal, generally considered one of the great works and an intellectual highpoint of the debate over England's treatment of Ireland... and is entirely based around insulting and mocking its targets.

Likewise, the work of Aristophanes is infamous for being insulting and mocking... but again many of his plays (while completely ineffective at shaping popular opinion), are brilliant satires of the pro-war faction of Athens.

You can throw in 1984 and Animal Farm... both deeply insulting and mocking to those who subscribe to certain political views... and do they not facilitate intelligent debate?

It may well be that mocking and insulting with nothing else behind it aren't good forms of argument... but to dismiss all works that are mocking and insulting out of hand is to rule out great swathes of intelligent pieces on a given subject.

As for as my view on spirituality... and for many others (backed up by Eden in this thread)... I don't view other religions as wrong even if I don't believe in them. I have already stated that I am happy my mother is Christan though I do not believe in Christianity  (in case you missed or forgot that post)

Going off-topic, but isn't there a certain logical fallicy here.

If you yourself are not Christian and do not believe (whether you follow them or not) those ideas/ethos (of whatever sect), then aren't by definition you stating that those ideas are "wrong"? Otherwise you'd believe them...

You can be perfectly happy for someone while believing those ideas are wrong; imagine two very good friends who are on opposite sides of the man-made global warming debate... one may be perfectly happy for the other to believe differently (and may even actually be happy they do if because of their beliefs positive events have happened in their lives), while still thinking the other is wrong.

[Kurzyk]

I wonder where this leaves A Modest Proposal, generally considered one of the great works and an intellectual highpoint of the debate over England's treatment of Ireland... and is entirely based around insulting and mocking its targets.

Likewise, the work of Aristophanes is infamous for being insulting and mocking... but again many of his plays (while completely ineffective at shaping popular opinion), are brilliant satires of the pro-war faction of Athens.

You can throw in 1984 and Animal Farm... both deeply insulting and mocking to those who subscribe to certain political views... and do they not facilitate intelligent debate?

It may well be that mocking and insulting with nothing else behind it aren't good forms of argument... but to dismiss all works that are mocking and insulting out of hand is to rule out great swathes of intelligent pieces on a given subject.

Oh I completely agree with that and support it. Might have been a semantic misunderstanding but you summed up what I was trying to say. :) Intelligent discussion, satire or even mocking can be constructive depending on how its done. But as I said previously there's a responsibility that comes with it and should also have a respect for the general struggle of humanity trying to figure things out.

Just laughing at people without taking the time to build a constructive argument in the proper context and exercise tact can be hurtful and disrespectful.

[GothicFires]

Going off-topic, but isn't there a certain logical fallicy here.

If you yourself are not Christian and do not believe (whether you follow them or not) those ideas/ethos (of whatever sect), then aren't by definition you stating that those ideas are "wrong"? Otherwise you'd believe them...

You can be perfectly happy for someone while believing those ideas are wrong; imagine two very good friends who are on opposite sides of the man-made global warming debate... one may be perfectly happy for the other to believe differently (and may even actually be happy they do if because of their beliefs positive events have happened in their lives), while still thinking the other is wrong.

No there is no fallacy here. I had a problem in my childhood with the christian belief that if you are not christian then you are going to hell. I could not believe that a Tieben monk who wouldn't even kill a cockroach because it was god's creature would be eternally tormented because they were of a christian faith. I looked at how many other religions in the world there was and could not see how all of them where wrong and only one be right. I do not agree with all of the Christian philosophies, nor do I believe in heaven or in hell but I do believe in god and that there are many ways to see god.

So yes I do believe differently from my mother with out believing that she is wrong.

Though I am not familiar with these 'great works' as you have describe above and will admit that i have neither the time nor the inclination to go research them. But a profound discussion and intelligent debate could be accomplished with out insulting or mocking someone. Just because it has been done in the past does not mean that people should use it as a reason to insult or mock someone in the future.

[Oniya]

... I was required to read Animal Farm in high school history.  I read 1984 on my own when the year itself arrived.  Aristophanes is more familiar to those in classical studies, and 'A Modest Proposal' wasn't brought up until I studied British History in college, but the first two are probably more a part of our culture than most realize.

Heard the term 'Doublespeak'?  Or 'Thought Police'?  What about the phrase 'All ___ are equal, but some are more equal than others'?  All three come from George Orwell (the first two from 1984, the latter from Animal Farm).  It is disturbingly ironic that Orwell's works have been removed from Project Gutenberg, but I was able to find the full text saved elsewhere on the web.  The other links above are Gutenberg links.

[PeacethatPowerbrings]

Well I guess there can be a line drawn between helpful satire, and simple mockery. It is one thing to make a satire of religious beliefs, humourously exploring logical inconsistencies or oddities, see Monty Python's Meaning of Life. It encourages people to take humorously illogical, or quirky things about religion or culture, and be able to laugh about them, without simply pointing out something, and saying...."how absurd."

As in 'A Modest Proposal' one can bring to the surface real issues, and we can laugh over our own fallacies, which I believe to be a good thing, however, I believe it is only truly effective when used in a manner of self-examination. As in Meaning of Life, when the chaplain leads the students in a chant of 'Please don't boil or fry us..." etc, it is funny as a standard joke, simply out of place, but also satirical, in that someone who has experience in that particular church culture would find it a humorously true part of the film.

[Mnemaxa]

Obviously, you've never heard of L. Ron Hubbard or David Miscavige. 

Except for the fact that Scientology can sue you, can seek to ruin you, file frivolous and malicious lawsuits against you... Don't believe me? 

"In 1976, the Church was found legally liable for the malicious prosecution of an ex-Scientologist named L. Gene Allard who left Scientology in 1969 and was then charged with grand theft."

"In Operation Freakout, the Church of Scientology attempted to eliminate journalist and writer Paulette Cooper via having her imprisoned, killing her or pushing her to commit suicide, or having her committed to a mental institution as revenge for her publication in 1971 of a highly critical book, The Scandal of Scientology."

"In a long and contentious trial, Lawrence Wollersheim, a former Scientologist, alleged that he had been harassed and his business nearly destroyed as a result of "fair game" measures. During appeals, the Church again claimed "Fair Game" was a "core practice" of Scientology and was thus constitutionally protected "religious expression"."

"In the March 11-16, 1981, Danish court case of Jakob Anderson vs The Church Of Scientology of Denmark, ex-Guardian's Office operative Vibeke Dammon testified[25] that the Church did in fact practice Fair Game and had done so in Anderson's case, in an attempt to get Anderson committed to a psychiatric hospital."

That's from 30 seconds of skimming on the Court cases involving "Fair Game" wiki page.  Do some research; for many, it's far harder to leave Scientology than it is to join.  They take your money, they force you to write potentially damaging confessions of sins.  They can cut you off from your family and friends.  Sea Org in the 70s could demand that you have abortions, because Sea Org persons were not permitted to have children...

It's a cult, and there are many countries worldwide that denounce them as such.

By those definitions, that would make many groups of Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Islamic believers, and Christian churches cults as well.  Note that there is no 'all inclusive' statement there - but there are cases where specific groups of all of these religions have done illegal, terrible things to promote their beliefs including bombing buildings, kidnapping, brainwashing, and other acts that violate human rights. 

But try and make fun of any of those religions in the same manner as this person did with Scientology, everyone and their brother will come down on the perpetrator like a ton of bricks.

[Serephino]

I suppose there is a right way and a wrong way to do things.  Making a mockery out of a religion isn't the right way. 

There have been things talked about that would suggest Scientology is a cult.  Cults are no laughing matter.  Of course I can't really say too much because a lot of ignorant people still view anything to do with Witchcraft as a Satanic cult.  Being a witch, I know better, and I know all too well the prejudice people often have. 

[Jude]

the point about the poem is not about the holocaust as you seem to be hung up on. It is about a person being regretful that he did not stand up for others because they were not only of a different faith, but a different way of life than he was... that is the point.

Then why choose such a polarizing example?  Try "treat others how you want to be treated" instead of pulling out a Holocaust poem to try and make a point about what humor and mockery is and isn't acceptable.

Making fun of other's beliefs may not always lead to the taking away of people's rights, but it is very likely to hurt their feelings and certainly, most assuredly with out a doubt make the person who is ridiculing the other person look like a jerk.

Don't people have a right to be a jerk?  It's certainly not illegal.  In a free society people have a right to say and do whatever they want regardless of how it might offend others.  Until it does actual harm, people have the right to say and do whatever they want, and it should stay that way.  The argument that you should avoid offending people is sort of silly.  Offense is entirely in the mind of the beholder, what offends you varies from person to person.  A Hindu would probably be frustrated to see you eating a hamburger, but that doesn't mean I should avoid eating Hamburger around Hindus.  Ultimately many choices you make and your background defines what you are offended by, and you don't have the right to control my behavior to force me to tip-toe around your ideology.

making fun of someone based on religion or sexual orientation or the way they look or the way they speak or where they live... the list can go on and on... is not a false comparison... they are all hurtful... and they are all WRONG

Again, you ignore the big differences between sexual orientation and religion despite the fact that I specifically discussed this multiple times.  If you believe they are equivalent put forward an argument as to why.  And if you believe something is wrong put forth an argument why; typing it in caps adds no intellectual force despite the fact that you seem to think it does.

As for as my view on spirituality... and for many others (backed up by Eden in this thread)... I don't view other religions as wrong even if I don't believe in them. I have already stated that I am happy my mother is Christan though I do not believe in Christianity  (in case you missed or forgot that post). So your reasoning that others not believing the same way you do makes one of you wrong is not correct. And not all religions claim that you should be of their religion or even have a religion. Not that I can remember the name of it, but I watched a news cast on one religion in Iraq that does not accept converts... you have to be born into it. So that argument cannot apply to religion as a whole.

I think you've gotten to the fundamental problem with your way of thinking.  Truth is not flexible.  Truth is fact.  Religion is a claim of truth.  If you believe one thing, you must believe all others are wrong, or else you're claiming there is no truth.  In which case, Religion is entirely arbitrary as are all things.  People who are really concerned about "offense" and "tolerance" love to pretend that all religions can be right, it feels good to say so.  But it's completely irrational.  No, all religions can't be right.

and how can you say that your idea's aren't a part of you... if your brain didn't function with ideas you would be a vegetable in a hospital ward. Your ideas are what leads your actions. They are what defines you and makes you who you are.

What really defines a person, in my opinion, is the decision making process they go through.  Ideas are simply conclusions they've reached, but ideas change over time for a person who isn't dogmatic in the extreme.  But of course this is an incredibly vague matter of personal opinion and perspective which likely differs depending on what philosophy or religion you belong to.  I merely don't think that ideas are a part of people, but the tendency to hang onto an idea as if it is an extension of yourself keeps you from reaching the truth.  When you make that idea part of your identity you get defensive and become illogical when it is attacked instead of considering that there may be faults (and realizing that just because you have a faulted idea doesn't mean you are faulted).

I would never make fun of a person who believes the world is flat. I'm not that mean. I would show them the scientific evidence that we have that the world is not flat. Besides, speaking of false comparisons... there is tangible evidence that the world is not flat (the world itself) there is no definitive proof that any one religion is absolute.

But there's a fair amount of evidence that a ton of religions in the world are absolutely bunk as long as you don't let them distort things to an asinine degree.  The majority of religions I've studied fail any degree of scientific examination for obvious reasons.

Again you seem to ignore what is written. I do not think that people should not be able to speak against Scientology, or anything of that matter. If you don't like it by all means say so. But if a person is going to be a jerk in the manner in which they use that speech... then yes I am going to stand up and say that it is unacceptable.

And I support your right to voice your opinion.  The only thing I'm not in favoring of is directly claiming that other people expressing their opinion is outright wrong, and thus should not happen.  When certain ideas become "out of bounds" for moral reasons in the average person's mind, the tyranny of majority tends to prevent them from the freedom of their expression.  Case in point, FCC rules against swearing.

why would anyone want people to think they are a jerk anyway? My problem is not the subject matter. but the way it was presented.

Jerk is a vastly oversimplified term.  When analyzing a person's behavior there are so many dimensions to take into consideration.  I don't think it's fair to say someone's a jerk just 'cause they offended someone else.  There's much greater degrees of nuance.  But even so, I stand up for people's rights to be a jerk despite the fact that I don't like it when they act that way towards me.

Ethics is not a matter of like and dislike.  You do not categorize certain areas as "wrong" or "right" simply because those behaviors offend others unless you're a relativist, in which case you have no business making judgments about anything ultimately.

[Mnemaxa]

I think you've gotten to the fundamental problem with your way of thinking.  Truth is not flexible.  Truth is fact.  Religion is a claim of truth.  If you believe one thing, you must believe all others are wrong, or else you're claiming there is no truth.  In which case, Religion is entirely arbitrary as are all things.  People who are really concerned about "offense" and "tolerance" love to pretend that all religions can be right, it feels good to say so.  But it's completely irrational.  No, all religions can't be right.

This is faulty reasoning, I think. 

Not even scientific truths can be proven inviolate and unchanging; many of them are dependent on inductive reasoning to begin with, the idea that 'if this experiment works such and so 100 times, then it must do so 1000 times'.  Liquids do not flow away from gravitational pull.  This was a 'fact'.  It was a 'truth'. 

And then they supercooled helium, and it did exactly that - it flowed up the side of a container in defiance of all physical laws - as we understood them.

So we had to change a 'fact'.  Because it wasn't 'truth' anymore.

Unless you can make a reasonable claim for omniscience, you cannot state that 'If you believe one thing, you must believe all others are wrong, or else you're claiming there is no truth.'  One may, if so desired, call people who accept all religions as valid and truthful 'irrational' and say that they 'lack conviction', but it cannot be said that they are wrong for seeing that possibility.  Because that is their opinion and point of view, you must accept that the expression of that belief is acceptable.

Not even Einstein could prove his theories consistently.  We JUST proved that his matter-energy equation is correct this year.  It is not impossible that there are as many correct paths to succoring the ephemeral existence we call life as there are people in the world.  No one can prove a negative after all...but they can't disprove one either. 

[Jude]

This is faulty reasoning, I think.

Ok... why?  I agree that science doesn't deal with facts.  It deals with probabilities.  Even perception isn't fact, there can be failures with it (optical illusions, gestalt psychology, etc.).  But we're not talking about science, we're talking about truth.

Unless you can make a reasonable claim for omniscience, you cannot state that 'If you believe one thing, you must believe all others are wrong, or else you're claiming there is no truth.'  One may, if so desired, call people who accept all religions as valid and truthful 'irrational' and say that they 'lack conviction', but it cannot be said that they are wrong for seeing that possibility.  Because that is their opinion and point of view, you must accept that the expression of that belief is acceptable.

I agree that their expression of that belief is acceptable, I just think it's a ludicrous belief.  The tenets of various religions directly conflict each other, so how can you possibly believe all of those religions are correct?

Not even Einstein could prove his theories consistently.  We JUST proved that his matter-energy equation is correct this year.  It is not impossible that there are as many correct paths to succoring the ephemeral existence we call life as there are people in the world.  No one can prove a negative after all...but they can't disprove one either.

Deductive reasons can be offered as to why all religions cannot be correct.  It's quite simple, you take the statements of "truth" in the various religions and show how when you reduce them to the claims they made, those claims do not agree.  I challenge you to show me two religions which such cannot be done with, and if you can, then those two religions are by far the minority, they are the exception not the rule.

It's really quite simple, if someone says my cup is blue and another person says it's red, it's either blue or it's red.  You can't say "well I respect both of you so I'm going to say the cup is both blue and red."

[Oniya]

It's really quite simple, if someone says my cup is blue and another person says it's red, it's either blue or it's red.  You can't say "well I respect both of you so I'm going to say the cup is both blue and red."

No, but you can say that the light reflected by the cup has a wavelength of 380–450 nm.

Also, by extension of Pascal's Wager (wherein he showed that there is more potential gain in belief than in disbelief in a Supreme Being, and more potential loss in disbelief), it can be argued that there is more gain in allowing for the possibility of any Supreme Being, rather than limiting the possibilities to just one.

[Jude]

No, but you can say that the light reflected by the cup has a wavelength of 380–450 nm.

Also, by extension of Pascal's Wager (wherein he showed that there is more potential gain in belief than in disbelief in a Supreme Being, and more potential loss in disbelief), it can be argued that there is more gain in allowing for the possibility of any Supreme Being, rather than limiting the possibilities to just one.

The wavelength comment is nitpicking, but still.  And Pascal's wager has numerous problems.  Also believing in something simply because it might advantage you shows irreverence for truth.

[Mnemaxa]

It's really quite simple, if someone says my cup is blue and another person says it's red, it's either blue or it's red.  You can't say "well I respect both of you so I'm going to say the cup is both blue and red."

Part of the problem is that you are equating 'truth' with 'faith'.  Religion is presented as having truths.  But at it's core - at the core of all religion - is faith.  You either have faith that these things are true, or you do not.  All religions cannot be proven true, and their truths cannot be reconciled with one another as a general rule, you are correct.  But accepting other religions as valid is not a matter of reconciling truths.  It is an acceptance of their faith as being a valid and effective measure of the truth of their religion.  I could believe that the practices of a Christian are capable of earning them eternal life after death by the side of their God.  I could also believe that a Wiccan's faith in the Goddess and the God will earn them a place in the spirit world upon the passage of their physical body into death.  I do not have to reconcile the truths of their religions to one another.  Both religions may be correct.  No one can prove that they are not.  No one can prove that they are.  The truth in either of those religions is something that they accept on faith. 

If a belief structure is capable of supporting both of the other belief structures, then there is no reason that the cup cannot be blue AND red - and in the correct light, under the right circumstances it can be, even in the physical world.  Their faith is what determines their truth - red or blue.  Until such time as it is possible to measure and prove the belief structure validity of a religion and its truth, you can only exclude all religions' validity with a statement of "I don't know enough yet to prove or disprove it - I have to say that this is true, because that is what I know, regardless of what anyone else tells me".  You only think the cup is red or blue because that's what you have proven to yourself and you accept on faith.  You can't prove that it is true to me even with scientific analysis, because the systems and methods for that analysis have to be assumed true and correct by me to begin with.  And in the end, we could still both be wrong - the cup is actually purple, or it is both red and blue at the same time.  That doesn't make it any less of a cup.

The problem with the video is less a problem of "let's make fun of this religion" than it is "let's make fun of this religion because everyone knows it's a stupid and evil cult because everyone says so".  All other arguments aside, that is what the core disagreement is about.  Having opinions, voicing opinions, arguing for and against those opinions are fine.  But in the end, it is a question of free speech versus religions freedom versus civility in a public forum.  Sooner or later, one of the three looses. 

[GothicFires]

The problem with the video is less a problem of "let's make fun of this religion" than it is "let's make fun of this religion because everyone knows it's a stupid and evil cult because everyone says so".  All other arguments aside, that is what the core disagreement is about.  Having opinions, voicing opinions, arguing for and against those opinions are fine.  But in the end, it is a question of free speech versus religions freedom versus civility in a public forum.  Sooner or later, one of the three looses.

No... the problem is disrespect and making fun someone's religion. People follow this religion/cult/evil cult so not everyone thinks that it is stupid. If it is acceptable to do this to scientology what keeps it from being acceptable to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Paganism, Hinduism and any other list of hundreds of religions in this world where some are so small that they contain no more followers than the number of people in their village?

Then what stops it from being just about religion? Free speech is one thing. Is ridicule and mockery required? They are not the same thing as humor. If it is not acceptable to physically punch someone... why is it acceptable to verbally punch someone?

I think i am done in this thread... not because I think i am loosing or winning a conversation. But I really don't want to read about people who thinks its ok to be rude to others just because they have the right to say what they want or that they think what the other person believes in is wrong or stupid.

[Jude]

Part of the problem is that you are equating 'truth' with 'faith'.  Religion is presented as having truths.

Why can't we stop here?  People who create religions (or claim they perceived them from some cosmic influence) claim they are just relaying the truth to people.  Faith is trust in that truth that is presented.  That's all there is to it.  I don't see how the rest of what you claim is anything but additional extrapolation added to prove your point that isn't an innate part of the religious experience.

All religions cannot be proven true

Most religions predict certain things can happen that are out of the norm.  As such, there's an observable implication which can be derived from them.  If you believe in scientific proof, then surely you can apply the same standard of observation to the religious observable implications and use that basis as truth.  Just because no one has observed anything supernatural in support of religion does not mean it could not happen, I don't see how you can make such a strong claim.  For example if Christianity is true, wouldn't God appearing before the world 4000 feet tall and proclaiming such be 'good enough' proof?

and their truths cannot be reconciled with one another as a general rule, you are correct.  But accepting other religions as valid is not a matter of reconciling truths.  It is an acceptance of their faith as being a valid and effective measure of the truth of their religion.

I'm not sure if I understand your definition of validity, but it seems here that you're claiming that simply believing in something could possibly make it true for that person.  That would essentially mean there is no truth, which makes this entire discussion pointless.

I could believe that the practices of a Christian are capable of earning them eternal life after death by the side of their God.  I could also believe that a Wiccan's faith in the Goddess and the God will earn them a place in the spirit world upon the passage of their physical body into death.  I do not have to reconcile the truths of their religions to one another.

And I could believe my toe is the deity that created the heaven and the stars but that doesn't make it a rational claim.  Believing two conflicting statements is clearly contradictory.

Both religions may be correct.  No one can prove that they are not.  No one can prove that they are.  The truth in either of those religions is something that they accept on faith.

A central tenet of the Christian religion is the belief that there is only one god.  This would mean the Goddess could not exist.  Yet you claim it's not incorrect to believe in both.

The problem with the video is less a problem of "let's make fun of this religion" than it is "let's make fun of this religion because everyone knows it's a stupid and evil cult because everyone says so".  All other arguments aside, that is what the core disagreement is about.  Having opinions, voicing opinions, arguing for and against those opinions are fine.  But in the end, it is a question of free speech versus religions freedom versus civility in a public forum.  Sooner or later, one of the three looses.

The way you attempt to define religion and the direction you take your argument is completely incomprehensible to me.  Maybe I'm lacking imagination to understand the specifics of your argument, but I certainly can't see the logic in it.  If you could explain it more simply, I could probably follow it, but I can't really debate this with you if I can't follow the steps involved in your crafting your points.

EDIT:  I've edited my post to try and soften my words, because I didn't want to come off as rude, or belittling but I don't think I did a very good job.  I respect your arguments thus far, which is why I wrote what I did, just your last post threw me entirely for a loop.  I do think you're an extremely intelligent and well-read individual, and it's a pleasure to debate with you.  Please do not misconstrue what is expression of my confusion to be aggression or condescension.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if we've reached a point that I just *can't* understand because you're better read than I am (I certainly think you're more eloquent than me).  If we're at an impasse, I'd prefer to just bow out of the discussion than keep going if it's going to seem like I'm being rude to you, because I really don't want to insult you.  It's been a pleasure discussing this with you Mnemaxa.

[Mnemaxa]

Most religions predict certain things can happen that are out of the norm.  As such, there's an observable implication which can be derived from them.  If you believe in scientific proof, then surely you can apply the same standard of observation to the religious observable implications and use that basis as truth.  Just because no one has observed anything supernatural in support of religion does not mean it could not happen, I don't see how you can make such a strong claim.  For example if Christianity is true, wouldn't God appearing before the world 4000 feet tall and proclaiming such be 'good enough' proof?

I'm afraid you misinterpreted the statement slightly - the whole sentence is
All religions cannot be proven true, and their truths cannot be reconciled with one another as a general rule.
Taking the pieces separately isn't inappropriate, but it does change the meaning slightly if you do not add the last third of the sentence to the first:   All religions cannot be proven true as a general rule, and their truths cannot be reconciled with one another as a general rule. I may not have made the intent clear, for which I apologize.

Scientific method is a very effective way of proving a truth.  Unfortunately, it is a fact - a truth, if you will - that scientific methods are always changing and growing, and that what cannot be proven now we are forced to accept on faith.  Einstein's E=mc² was not proven until this year.  We were essentially forced to accept it on faith while we strove to prove it.  We did prove it.  That neither invalidates other theories nor completes all theories, but is simply one more aspect of the overall truth that we can understand currently and accept as proven truth.  There is no reason that multiple religions, which presents various 'truths' as yet unproven, cannot each be proven to be true and correct.  An individual's belief in a religion might determine its validity.  It may not.  That doesn't invalidate their belief, or the idea that it is a potential truth.

I'm not sure if I understand your definition of validity, but it seems here that you're claiming that simply believing in something could possibly make it true for that person.  That would essentially mean there is no truth, which makes this entire discussion pointless.
And I could believe my toe is the deity that created the heaven and the stars but that doesn't make it a rational claim.  Believing two conflicting statements is clearly contradictory.

A central tenet of the Christian religion is the belief that there is only one God.  This would mean the Goddess could not exist.  Yet you claim it's not incorrect to believe in both.

Irrationality and belief in paradoxical or conflicting statements are not necessarily one and the same.

Truth is not a fixed thing.  Truths can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misconstrued - which does not mean they are not true all of the time, or any less truth.  It means that they are not fully understood.  A central tenet of the Christian belief is that there is one God, yes.  Yet some will also state that the Son of God is God.  Contradiction: God cannot be the son of God, and God.  Two completely separate entities existing simultaneously. 

We have created states of matter in which a single object appears in multiple places at once.  We have scientific proof that this is real, possible, and factual.  Bose-Einstein condensates were the first of the states of matter where we could detect multiple existences of a single particle, and prove that they were one particle.  The following video starts off as a kid's video, but the explanations in the middle area are the important data.
Are We all Connected? What IS Entanglement?!
And he's right, it is rather mind boggling and really has no impact on day to day life that we know of.

So, we have proven that one thing can be in multiple places.  We have also potentially proven some versions of Christian belief are now possible, despite an apparent internal contradiction: the Son of God and God are separate entities, and a single entity.  It opens a doorway into the potential for multiple versions of the truth to be true, because the potential for truth can no longer be stated as provably false.  This is 'faith in an unproven but possible truth'.  Can there be multiple singular Gods and Goddesses?  There can be a multiple singular particle, proven scientifically and evidenced.  A belief structure that accepts one as possible, can accept the other as possible.  But it is a belief structure that is separate from and incorporates other belief structures. 

The way you attempt to define religion and the direction you take your argument is completely incomprehensible to me.  Maybe I'm lacking imagination to understand the specifics of your argument, but I certainly can't see the logic in it.  If you could explain it more simply, I could probably follow it, but I can't really debate this with you if I can't follow the steps involved in your crafting your points.

There is logic here, but explaining the logic is difficult at best, and undoubtedly there are flaws and arguments that cannot simply be explained or put forth as linear, straightforward statements.  Which is not a fault of yours, or mine, but simply a limitation of the language and the differences between how people relate information, as well as differences in understanding and beliefs.  I did try though.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if we've reached a point that I just *can't* understand because you're better read than I am (I certainly think you're more eloquent than me).  If we're at an impasse, I'd prefer to just bow out of the discussion than keep going if it's going to seem like I'm being rude to you, because I really don't want to insult you.  It's been a pleasure discussing this with you Mnemaxa.

I understand your concern, and appreciate it.  I doubt I could continue much further, as we are approaching the point where 'faith', 'truth', and 'reality' become fuzzy at best.

[Sabby]

You were out-right rude to me

Honestly, your version of rude seems to be "Didn't agree with what I said" you PMed me moments after the video was posted, asked I remove it, and all I said was I don't believe it should be removed at all. You PMed me a second time and STRONGLY urged me to take it down, and I strongly urged you to drop it.

So, I'm very confused as to where I was rude.

[Nadir]

I'm not going to go into it here, Sabby.

[Sabby]

I'm not going to go into it here, Sabby.

Fine by me.

[Trieste]

'Kay, so way back many moons ago, Sabbat posted a rather offensive video mocking a religion. The staff debated whether to leave it up or take it down, but decided in the interest of laissez-faire adminning (which we exercise as much as we can get away with it, 'cause hey, who wants to be an iron fist?) that we would leave it alone.

This was in part because our members are usually very good at hitting the 'report' button when something gets out of hand. I have no idea why I am seeing quotes like this:

I am wondering how fast this thread would have been closed if the video was a parody of gays or transsexual people.

... and yet, I see no moderation logs. I have no emails of reported posts. I have no PMs to my staff (unless they just haven't mentioned) and I had no reason to believe this thread had gotten so heated, so I hadn't checked it in a couple days.

Staff is not omniscient. Use the report button. This whole thing? Never should have gotten as far and as frustrating and as personal as it has. Thanks.

Video will be removed, thread will be locked. Sorry, Sab; it was riding that line between offense and black humor, and it was bound to tip over for at least some people.