Scientology.

[QUOTE="MuddVader"]

[QUOTE="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.

Theokhoth

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

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="MuddVader"]
Crusades? as in i'm saying those werent 2000 years ago.

MuddVader

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

He didn't bring up the Crusades. :|

To be honest, I don't see how you can disregard what other religions have done in the past in this case. Killing in the name of religion has gone on forever and will continue...not to mention that there are many recent crimes that other "accepted" religions can be linked too. While I personally do not support scientology, I do not think that you can throw it away on the basis of crimes while simultaneously explaining away past crimes of other religions

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

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?

Theokhoth

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.

To be honest, I don't see how you can disregard what other religions have done in the past in this case. Killing in the name of religion has gone on forever and will continue...not to mention that there are many recent crimes that other "accepted" religions can be linked too. While I personally do not support scientology, I do not think that you can throw it away on the basis of crimes while simultaneously explaining away past crimes of other religions

Lindsosaurus

Okay, then, assuming you're white, you're guilty of owning slaves. It's the same thing. No religious person alive today was around during the Crusades or the Byzantine Wars and religions have significantly changed since those days, just like white people and slavery.

But Scientology continues to perpetuate these violent crimes against humanity.

Scientology isn't even a religion. It's a cult. It was founded on the principal of money-making and exhibits every cult-like behavior in the book. Religions don't.

[QUOTE="MuddVader"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

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

Theokhoth

He didn't bring up the Crusades. :|

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="MuddVader"]
Youre about 1000 years off on your approximation though was all I was pointing out lol.

MuddVader

He didn't bring up the Crusades. :|

"2,000 years ago."

[QUOTE="Lindsosaurus"]

To be honest, I don't see how you can disregard what other religions have done in the past in this case. Killing in the name of religion has gone on forever and will continue...not to mention that there are many recent crimes that other "accepted" religions can be linked too. While I personally do not support scientology, I do not think that you can throw it away on the basis of crimes while simultaneously explaining away past crimes of other religions

Theokhoth

Okay, then you're guilty of owning slaves. It's the same thing. No religious person alive today was around during the Crusades or the Byzantine Wars and religions have significantly changed since those days, just like white people and slavery.

But Scientology continues to perpetuate these violent crimes against humanity.

I get that, but that isn't my point. I don't blame Christians today for the stuff that happened in the past and nor do I blame all of scientology for current crimes. It may be a reason to dislike them, but it isn't a reason to conclude it isn't a religion. Not all scientologists agree with the crimes that have been committed and nothing in their beliefs condone criminal behavior. While they are surrounded by a lot of controversy that may be valid, it is also controversial because it is a new religion and any new religion stirs up controversy. And I still stand by the fact that many other current Religions have crimes associated with them as well yet they are still considered religions

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Lindsosaurus"]

To be honest, I don't see how you can disregard what other religions have done in the past in this case. Killing in the name of religion has gone on forever and will continue...not to mention that there are many recent crimes that other "accepted" religions can be linked too. While I personally do not support scientology, I do not think that you can throw it away on the basis of crimes while simultaneously explaining away past crimes of other religions

Lindsosaurus

Okay, then you're guilty of owning slaves. It's the same thing. No religious person alive today was around during the Crusades or the Byzantine Wars and religions have significantly changed since those days, just like white people and slavery.

But Scientology continues to perpetuate these violent crimes against humanity.

I get that, but that isn't my point. I don't blame Christians today for the stuff that happened in the past and nor do I blame all of scientology for current crimes. It may be a reason to dislike them, but it isn't a reason to conclude it isn't a religion. Not all scientologists agree with the crimes that have been committed and nothing in their beliefs condone criminal behavior. While they are surrounded by a lot of controversy that may be valid, it is also controversial because it is a new religion and any new religion stirs up controversy. And I still stand by the fact that many other current Religions have crimes associated with them as well yet they are still considered religions

O rly?

You sure?

Scientology disagrees.

Technically they are considered a Religion but your cult argument is one I can agree with. The only thing I took issue with was disregarding scientology based on crimes when that is a truth of so many religions.

[QUOTE="Lindsosaurus"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Okay, then you're guilty of owning slaves. It's the same thing. No religious person alive today was around during the Crusades or the Byzantine Wars and religions have significantly changed since those days, just like white people and slavery.

But Scientology continues to perpetuate these violent crimes against humanity.

Theokhoth

I get that, but that isn't my point. I don't blame Christians today for the stuff that happened in the past and nor do I blame all of scientology for current crimes. It may be a reason to dislike them, but it isn't a reason to conclude it isn't a religion. Not all scientologists agree with the crimes that have been committed and nothing in their beliefs condone criminal behavior. While they are surrounded by a lot of controversy that may be valid, it is also controversial because it is a new religion and any new religion stirs up controversy. And I still stand by the fact that many other current Religions have crimes associated with them as well yet they are still considered religions

O rly?

You sure?

Scientology disagrees.

I see that but if you notice, it seems to be a fading practice, and I find this synonymous with other religions that have evolved from previous criminal behavior and again I emphasis that there are plenty of established Religions that also condone criminal behavior.

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

Misconception. We don't believe they're 'magic', the adults just wear them for... whatever reason. I really don't know.

Yeah, I'm a Mormon (questioning, though), and even I think that Scientology's beliefs are far fetched.

[QUOTE="MuddVader"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

He didn't bring up the Crusades. :|

Theokhoth

"2,000 years ago."

[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.

What would you like to debate. I'm not saying Scientology makes any more sense than any other religion I'm just saying it sounds a lot stupider than other religions. That's mostly because I've grown up and accepted most of the major religions as the norm for religious beliefs (Hindu, Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, ect.).

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

And for scientology, I respect their beliefs, because it is a religion. I prefer to believe in Islam and I'm open to other religions, but I don't believe in Scientology at all. Even though the words of scientology aren't my cup of tea, I'll still respect them as an established religion.

in the beginning there was nothing.....then it exploded. is that what they believe i dont rememberSithdoom

I don't care for scientology and I don't know anyone who does. It should be ignored just like any other scam.

And for scientology, I respect their beliefs, because it is a religion. I prefer to believe in Islam and I'm open to other religions, but I don't believe in Scientology at all. Even though the words of scientology aren't my cup of tea, I'll still respect them as an established religion.

ehsan8888

I had a co-worker whom´s dad gave him all his monoey to scientology just so he could be a bigger part of that philiation of the "church", they had to sell theyre house and move in to the projects.. After i heard that story i´ve always looked on scientology with a soar eye.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

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.

Theokhoth

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.

I don't buy that. I got modded for simply saying that religion receives too much respect. That is all I said.

It was in regard to the religious topic moderation on these forums.

I think the new religious guidelines are complete idiocy.

(edit: now I fear I'll get moderated again... sigh)

It's a dangerous cult, and a pathetic, stupid excuse for a religion.

I think Scientology is just as stupid as any other religion, however, everyone is free to join the club if they want.

I think Scientology is just as stupid as any other religion.

TheFlush

I posted those words exactly, but instead of Scientology I said Mormonism. I got moderated, and I bet you won't.