I'm a Scientologist

[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.