Scientology.

Um...are they even trying to create something believable? I have no idea how someone can believe in scientology.

It's so unbelievable, I can't understand how people openly admit they do support it. (like Tom Cruise.)

WTF? Are there any scientologists here? If indeed there are, I'm not trying to offend. Please explain the reason of your belief in that story.

Or isn't it a religion like Christianity? I think I'm missing something here.

I dont care about their belief being ridiculous, Its the whole scamming people out of their money and taking over their lives that pisses me off.

I dont care about their belief being ridiculous, Its the hole scamming people out of their money and taking over their lives that pisses me off.

Ingenemployee

Not sure what to think about it, but I noticed that the Discovery channel started airing some scientology advertisements early morning through late afternoon.

To be honest, it makes me think of this

I don't get what is necessarily more believable about a guy who looks like us sitting on a cloud who knows everything we're doing, loves us unconditionally, has the power to do everything, etc.Vandalvideo

Any religion can look absurd if you scrape them down to the bare essentials. Mormonism has magic underwear, Christianity has a man that sacrifices himself to please himself because of a mistake he himself made, Hinduism has bathing to clean something that you can't even see, Satanismhas the root of a name of a character, but gets offended when it gets associated with said character, etc.

I dont care about their belief being ridiculous, Its the hole scamming people out of their money and taking over their lives that pisses me off.

I don't get what is necessarily more believable about a guy who looks like us sitting on a cloud who knows everything we're doing, loves us unconditionally, has the power to do everything, etc.Vandalvideo

, I dont know much about scientology though, so I cant go any further into this.MuddVader

I like this poll.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with their beliefs but I hate them for doing what they do (torture, stuff like that).

[QUOTE="MuddVader"], I dont know much about scientology though, so I cant go any further into this.Vandalvideo

Any religion can look absurd if you scrape them down to the bare essentials. Mormonism has magic underwear, Christianity has a man that sacrifices himself to please himself because of a mistake he himself made, Hinduism has bathing to clean something that you can't even see, Satanismhas the root of a name of a character, but gets offended when it gets associated with said character, etc.

dracula_16

Mormons do not have magic underwear. :lol:

I don't know much about Scientology.

Does it seriously have to do with Aliens? =0MuddVader

[QUOTE="MuddVader"], I dont know much about scientology though, so I cant go any further into this.Vandalvideo

:lol: the worst part is that pretty much sums it up :|

Most of the higher up applications and beliefs of the various religions seem a tad silly when you step back and give them a good looking over. If you want to know why people follow the precepts of their particular religion then you might want to start with what they practice and how they integrate their beliefs into their daily lives.

It's been a while so my Scientology is a bit rusty but I'm sure if you just skimmed through the Dianetics book you would find alot of useful practices in there that could greatly benefit your life or at the very least give you an understanding as to why people would find Scientology a viable belief. It's not nearly as odd as you might think as a great deal of it is mainly just positive mindset exercises and self-actualization mantras.

[QUOTE="MuddVader"]Does it seriously have to do with Aliens? =0Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MuddVader"]Does it seriously have to do with Aliens? =0wii4panta

Most of the higher up applications and beliefs of the various religions seem a tad silly when you step back and give them a good looking over. If you want to know why people follow the precepts of their particular religion then you might want to start with what they practice and how they integrate their beliefs into their daily lives.

It's been a while so my Scientology is a bit rusty but I'm sure if you just skimmed through the Dianetics book you would find alot of useful practices in there that could greatly benefit your life or at the very least give you an understanding as to why people would find Scientology a viable belief. It's not nearly as odd as you might think as a great deal of it is mainly just positive mindset exercises and self-actualization mantras.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MuddVader"], I dont know much about scientology though, so I cant go any further into this.MuddVader

Mormons do not have magic underwear. :lol:

I don't know much about Scientology.

stepnkev

Of course they do, but you will never hear a Mormon refer to it as such because they want to make it sound more professional. It protects them for Satan, or something like that. Sikhs also wear special underwear, but it's not magic.

http://www.mormon-underwear.com/underwear_faq.html#secret

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

I dont care about their belief being ridiculous, Its the hole scamming people out of their money and taking over their lives that pisses me off.

thriteenthmonke

[QUOTE="MuddVader"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Allow me to give you Vandal's Scientology Crash Course. Apparently there is this alien who escaped an intergalatic federation. Upon coming to Earth, he set up the people here as his underlings. Blah blah blah, fighting intergalactic powers, blah blah blah, yay for Xenu.thriteenthmonke

click the link I posted, it sums it up nicely too

I find all religions (or cults) to be equally unbelievable.

Note: Please don't report/mod me for saying this, it is only my opinion (silly religious guidelines are so strict I fear getting modded for saying anything.)

[QUOTE="stepnkev"]

Mormons do not have magic underwear. :lol:

I don't know much about Scientology.

dracula_16

Of course they do, but you will never hear a Mormon refer to it as such because they want to make it sound more professional. It protects them for Satan, or something like that. Sikhs also wear special underwear, but it's not magic.

http://www.mormon-underwear.com/underwear_faq.html#secret

So where does it say the underwear is magic in that link?? :lol:

Allow me to give you Vandal's Scientology Crash Course. Apparently there is this alien who escaped an intergalatic federation. Upon coming to Earth, he set up the people here as his underlings. Blah blah blah, fighting intergalactic powers, blah blah blah, yay for Xenu.Vandalvideo

And what about the torturing people, stealing money etc?wii4panta

Again the question was a curiosity as to why people would get involved in such areligion and my answer was an attempt to explain that not an attempt to explain away all the various shady practices and odd higher learning courses that theScientology devolves into if you attempt to get that deeply involved. But as far as those shady practices go, I'm sure you could apply your line of questioning to any major religion that currently exists especially during the days of its infancy. Scientology is new and so it's an easy target but I find it amusing how people seem quick to forget the massive death and destruction that their particular relgions were responsible for when they were busy fighting for supremacy.

I find all religions (or cults) to be equally unbelievable.

Note: Please don't report/mod me for saying this, it is only my opinion (silly religious guidelines are so strict I fear getting modded for saying anything.)

I like this poll.

ZuluEcho14

Scientology is a violent and dangerous cult responsible for numerous crimes, including the greatest infiltration of American government in all of history, and anyone that compares Scientology to other religions simply has no idea what he's talking about.

I don't get what is necessarily more believable about a guy who looks like us sitting on a cloud who knows everything we're doing, loves us unconditionally, has the power to do everything, etc.Vandalvideo

Scientology has presented itself in a much more ridiculous fassion. Not to mention it was written by a science-fiction writer in the eary 1900's.

I recently had a similar conversation with another user. I don't see how one (or the GS religious guidelines) can treat Scientology any different than any of the other religions. Who's to say what it's influence will be in 2000 years, should it be disrespected because it's young? Would not the Roman's say the early Christian's were following some odd religion. Now I don't believe in it one bit, but think it should be treated and respected the same as all the rest or I'd have a problem with our rules.btaylor2404

It's not disrespected because it's young; it's disrespected because it is violent, intrusive and exhibits almost every cult behavior known to social psychology.

There's no difference between disrespecting Scientology and disrespecting some off-the-wall polygamist suicide cult or Al Qaeda.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I don't get what is necessarily more believable about a guy who looks like us sitting on a cloud who knows everything we're doing, loves us unconditionally, has the power to do everything, etc.gamer_10001

Scientology has presented itself in a much more ridiculous fassion. Not to mention it was written by a science-fiction writer in the eary 1900's.

damn it.. the urge to debate... must resist.

Don't... want... to...get...modded. Sigh.

New religious guidelines suck.

[QUOTE="gamer_10001"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I don't get what is necessarily more believable about a guy who looks like us sitting on a cloud who knows everything we're doing, loves us unconditionally, has the power to do everything, etc.FamiBox

Scientology has presented itself in a much more ridiculous fassion. Not to mention it was written by a science-fiction writer in the eary 1900's.

damn it.. the urge to debate... must resist.

Don't... want... to...get...modded. Sigh.

New religious guidelines suck.

I've debated religion many times since the new guidelines and have yet to be moderated under them. It really isn't that hard to debate religion without calling the opposite side names.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]I recently had a similar conversation with another user. I don't see how one (or the GS religious guidelines) can treat Scientology any different than any of the other religions. Who's to say what it's influence will be in 2000 years, should it be disrespected because it's young? Would not the Roman's say the early Christian's were following some odd religion. Now I don't believe in it one bit, but think it should be treated and respected the same as all the rest or I'd have a problem with our rules.Theokhoth

It's not disrespected because it's young; it's disrespected because it is violent, intrusive and exhibits almost every cult behavior known to social psychology.

There's no difference between disrespecting Scientology and disrespecting some off-the-wall polygamist suicide cult.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]I recently had a similar conversation with another user. I don't see how one (or the GS religious guidelines) can treat Scientology any different than any of the other religions. Who's to say what it's influence will be in 2000 years, should it be disrespected because it's young? Would not the Roman's say the early Christian's were following some odd religion. Now I don't believe in it one bit, but think it should be treated and respected the same as all the rest or I'd have a problem with our rules.btaylor2404

It's not disrespected because it's young; it's disrespected because it is violent, intrusive and exhibits almost every cult behavior known to social psychology.

There's no difference between disrespecting Scientology and disrespecting some off-the-wall polygamist suicide cult.

The violent periods of the major religions occured 2,000 years ago; they've mellowed out a bit since then. :| Do you think I'd be a Christian today if Christians still burned homosexuals at the stake?

It's slightly counterproductive to judge a religion by its bad origin unless that origin is very recent.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

[QUOTE="gamer_10001"]

Scientology has presented itself in a much more ridiculous fassion. Not to mention it was written by a science-fiction writer in the eary 1900's.

Theokhoth

damn it.. the urge to debate... must resist.

Don't... want... to...get...modded. Sigh.

New religious guidelines suck.

I've debated religion many times since the new guidelines and have yet to be moderated under them. It really isn't that hard to debate religion without calling the opposite side names.

As far as I understand it, you only have to "offend" someones beliefs to get modded. How the heck is it even possible to debate against a religion (or religion in general) without doing this? The last moderation I got had nothing to do with calling people names, useing foul language, nor did I target any individual. I just gave my honest opinion.

I'm simply too fearful of saying anything. I feel I can't even debate religion anymore.

I recently had a similar conversation with another user. I don't see how one (or the GS religious guidelines) can treat Scientology any different than any of the other religions. Who's to say what it's influence will be in 2000 years, should it be disrespected because it's young? Would not the Roman's say the early Christian's were following some odd religion. Now I don't believe in it one bit, but think it should be treated and respected the same as all the rest or I'd have a problem with our rules.btaylor2404

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

It's not disrespected because it's young; it's disrespected because it is violent, intrusive and exhibits almost every cult behavior known to social psychology.

There's no difference between disrespecting Scientology and disrespecting some off-the-wall polygamist suicide cult.

Theokhoth

The violent periods of the major religions occured 2,000 years ago; they've mellowed out a bit since then. :| Do you think I'd be a Christian today if Christians still burned homosexuals at the stake?

It's slightly counterproductive to judge a religion by its bad origin unless that origin is very recent.

Theo, the inquisitions? Salem Witch trials? Those aren't 2000 years ago. How is it counterproductive? If X religion has committed 1000 murders, averaged, in the name of god over it's life time, and Y religion has committed 10 isn't that relevant? If we must throw out the bad origins, than why not the questionable origins, regardless of age?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

damn it.. the urge to debate... must resist.

Don't... want... to...get...modded. Sigh.

New religious guidelines suck.

FamiBox

I've debated religion many times since the new guidelines and have yet to be moderated under them. It really isn't that hard to debate religion without calling the opposite side names.

As far as I understand it, you only have to "offend" someones beliefs to get modded. How the heck is it even possible to debate against a religion (or religion in general) without doing this? The last moderation I got had nothing to do with calling people names, useing foul language, nor did I target any individual. I just gave my honest opinion.

I'm simply too fearful of saying anything. I feel I can't even debate religion anymore.

If your honest opinion is offensive (example: "Religion is a bunch of superstitious nonsense"), then there are ways to express your honest opinion without having to be so explicitly offensive (example: "Religion feels more like a fable than a practical idea"). The same rules go for atheism: God knows I've said some stuff about that a few times, but I haven't been modded.

I think that in order to get moderated under the new rules, there has to be some attempt to be offensive. It's not difficult at all to discuss religion without insulting the other side; people do it every day at my school and I've seen it done here on GameSpot. But people who just want to try and offend by making shock statements like in my example deserve to be moderated.

Theo, the inquisitions? Salem Witch trials? Those aren't 2000 years ago. How is it counterproductive? If X religion has committed 1000 murders, averaged, in the name of god over it's life time, and Y religion has committed 10 isn't that relevant? If we must throw out the bad origins, than why not the questionable origins, regardless of age?

btaylor2404

More people are executed in Texan prisons every year than in the entire Inquisition period, and the Salem witch trials were secular; people believed witches existed back then regardless of their religious beliefs, and witches have never been considered good things. In addition, nobody alive today was around during those times, and they occurred long after the origins of Christianity, so I don't see your point here: attacking something based on its origin (unless the origin was very recent) is the Genetic Fallacy. It doesn't matter what people did hundreds or thousands of years ago; white people owned black people up until just two-hundred years ago, therefore white people should be held responsible for slavery for all time?

Something of recent origin is criticised because its origin is bad and going on all around us; the origin of a violent cult is bad, therefore the cult is criticised and we try to get rid of it. If Scientology was, say, a hundred years old then I wouldn't be criticising it for its origin; but right now, its full of crazy, violent crap and has committed tons of crimes against innocent people (most of whom were its own followers) all over the world as part of its origin, and that is simply unacceptable.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"] Theo, my friend, do you not think each of the major religions in the world have had much, much more violent periods? That they aren't intrusive, or haven't been? Now on the crime they committed against the government, that's just nuts, but I'm sure we could dig up dirtier deeds by others. Again, I don't agree with them one bit, but I do think they should be respected and treated as other religions are on GS. Meet me half way here :P. MuddVader

The violent periods of the major religions occured 2,000 years ago; they've mellowed out a bit since then. :| Do you think I'd be a Christian today if Christians still burned homosexuals at the stake?

It's slightly counterproductive to judge a religion by its bad origin unless that origin is very recent.

They were several centuries ago. :| Are you saying they occurred recently? I missed that in the newspaper.