@hpqp who said:

Randi calls charlatans all kinds of names, why is no one up in arms against that? Why should religious nuts/beliefs get special treatment?

There are two problems to that line of reasoning. First, Randi is not saying that people who believe in charlatans are idiots (which would be the more accurate analogy than the one you proposed)--he is making the factual (and tautological) claim that people who deceive people are charlatans (ie deceive people). In discussing people who fall for charlatans he often uses the word "credulous" (which basically means too trusting) not "idiocy."

Second, Randi can demonstrably show people how the charlatans are pulling off their tricks. In other words, he has factual evidence to prove they are charlatans. For most religions (I'm excluding Scientology since L. Ron Hubbard basically admitted to making it up to make money) it is impossible to provide such factual evidence (showing that they are false). The Crucifixion and (supposed) Resurrection, as just one example, simply doesn't lend itself to testing through the scientific method. Of course, we can look at other evidence (archaeological for instance) but like I said, for most religions there's no smoking gun either way (in support of or against).

So it comes back to the question of credulity. What do you believe? People look at the evidence and have widely different thresholds for how much evidence they need before they believe something. For some people, the fact that people they admire and respect believe in the religion is enough to convince them to believe as well. At the end of the day, I think for the vast majority of religious people, whether their religion is factually "true" or not doesn't matter. A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc.

The long-winded point I'm trying to make is that you, personally, choose not to believe until there is hard (empirical) evidence. That's your choice. I respect that, not the least of all because it is the same choice I make. Where I think you and I differ is that I do not demand everyone make the same choice as I do. When "New Atheists" call someone an "idiot" because that person chooses to believe in a religion, the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior.

New Atheists are of course free to point out the logical flaws, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and so forth that every religion contains. You don't have to respect ideas, but if you want to improve society you better damn well make sure you respect people. Showing respect for a person in no way, shape, or form implies that you agree with them. Showing disrespect, as other posters have already noted, is probably best way to ensure that your message never reaches the people who most need to hear it.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video South Park explains Scientology. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Perhaps I can be more clear. Christ existing is obviously a necessary condition for Christianity to be true - but it's not sufficient. I suppose some people might say "Oh, Christ never existed so Christianity isn't true", but I don't think anyone's doing that here - and that's why I thought it was an odd thing to bring up. I think most non-Christian people here would say something more like "Jesus probably existed, and probably said more or less the same stuff that's in the Bible - but he didn't do miracles, isn't the Son of God, and didn't come back from the dead".

The belief that Jesus is a myth seems to be more prevelent, actually, and many of the people I have debated here have claimed this. I think only a very unthoughtful and intellectually incurious person could actually believe it, as you'd be hard pressed to even find a secular historian who does. He is by far the most influential person in history, which continues to this day. That in itself speaks to His claims. Our great land was founded on judeo-christian values, and the freedom that we enjoy today was predcated upon those values of personal liberty.. Even the pursuit of science was founded upon Christian understaniding; It was thought we could determine the operation of the cosmos because the Universe is orderly and has regularity due to Gods oversight. Yet, even with all this some people close their eyes to the simple truth that Jesus Christ even existed. Yet, these are the same people who champion their own rationality as being superior.

This martyr argument is another one you come back to, but surely with any reflection you understand why it isn't convincing. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on martyrs - there's been plenty of, for example, Muslims who've chosen to die for their beliefs in a great variety of circumstances, sometimes very pro-active ones. But even if Christianity has the most (or most spectacular martyrs), certainly there are many people who've died for all sorts of causes: religious, secular, or personal.

While it certainly says Christianity is a powerful idea that so many have died for it, I don't think an idea has to be true to prompt this level of conviction.

I think the martyr argument is very powerful when you consider the original disciples. They were the ones who truly knew if Jesus was in fact risen. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, there isn't any plausible explanation as to why they would all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant their testimony. It is also powerful for the early church because it was formed in the times of the living witnesses of Christ, and it was under very heavy persecuation. It was to a persons great disadvantage to follow Christ, socially, economically, and was often putting your life on the line. Being a Christian then was like being a Christian in Iran today. There is no good reason why the church should have ever survived under those conditions, but it did more than; it thrived and expanded expodentially. Yes, people martyr themselves today..most notably members of Islam. Islam isn't under persecution though..people are indoctrinated from birth and told if they even think one bad thought about Allah they will face eternal torment. There is no atonement in Islam, so if you screw up once you're done for. Under these conditions, and considering that Islam advocates exterminating all other religions and people, it isn't surprising it creates conditions in which people willingly martyr themselves. These situations however are night and day in regards to motivation.

First off, I should say that I appreciate the effort you're putting into legitimate debate here. I do. While I disagree with your recent points, I also accept them as honest reasoning and I think we're discussing things on a better level than we have in the past. So thanks, and I'll try to rein in my own douchebag forum persona.

Anyways, I'll (hopefully) explain what I was trying to get at better. It is my belief that religions often effectively "poison the well" for detractors by saying that the detractors are doing so for alternative motives, or that those detractors cannot understand the truth because of some flaw. To illustrate this, I was saying that Scientologists are quick to call out detractors (who are, to be fair, usually former members with a grievance) for their character flaws or crimes. Facetiously (because I don't actually know Scientologist beliefs), I was suggesting that they might also blame detractors' disagreements on confusing Thetans.

I was attempting to illustrate how awkward this attack is to refute for the detractor. The detractor certainly does have "crimes" (because, as I think we all agree, people all do things they aren't proud of). And he certainly can't be convincing if he says he has no Thetans. How can he make the case for that, when he doesn't even believe in Thetans anymore, and is definitely no longer being cleared of them?
From a perspective of a non-believer, a Christian detractor is in a similar position. Many (or even most) will have personal grievances that make their arguments sound suspect. And all will have sins. Many will have sins associated with their departure. Given that it's common Christian thought that sin clouds thought (or bars revelation or conscience or similar), we're left with a tidy way to undermine almost all detractors.

The most common objection I hear from someone is not that they haven't done evil, or that they aren't guilty of crimes against God. It's not even that they would disagree that they deserve to be punished. It's that they just defacto reject Gods authority over them because they don't want to stop living the way they do. In a very real way, they reject God over their preference to sin as they wish. This is exactly what the bible means in John 3:19-21 when it says:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

Even Christopher Hitchens outright admits it. Skip to 6:26 for his confession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA

A person who is railing against Christianity due to personal grievances is not only not rational, but is completely disingenuous. Such a person willfully avoids the truth, because their objection isn't based on rational grounds, but emotional ones. I have yet to meet a single person who has a legitimate gripe against Christianity as it is described in the bible. It is all due to the failings of men who didn't live up to Gods word. Yet, to the world you're a Christian if you say you are, and every evil thing man has done in the name of Christianity is ascribed to it, ignoring the fact Christ specifically taught against it.

I understand your argument..but you're basically saying it's unfair because the bible accurately describes the condition of man. That it's easy for a Christian to pigeonhole unbelievers because man is in fact habitually evil and hypocritical as the bible describes.. Man has a sin problem, but how is it any different when one might reference a scientific worldview. To blame the wickedness of human beings on animal instincts, or the "reptile brain" (serpent consciousness), or chemical reactions. Survival of the fittest. Science even says that people who believe in God have it in their DNA to do so, and even associate it to a certain area of the brain. There is no real empirical evidence for any of this, so how is it much different than saying man is corrupted by sin? It really isn't. They are competing worldviews. Science says it's a physical issue, but the bible says it is spiritual. Only one can be right.

So my overall point is an analogy. Both the Scientologist and the Christian believer have similar reasons to doubt the detractor. However, I think we'd both agree that the Scientologist detractor is right despite those reasons. So while I understand that you still would not accept the Christian detractor, my point would be that we can't completely refute him on these grounds because he could (in principle) be the same as the Scientologist detractor. The differences between the Christian and the Scientologist detractor (with regards to these ideas) are generally only differences from the perspective of someone who already believes Christianity and not Scientology (and certainly I think we'd agree that believing Christianity is more rational than believing Scientology - I'm just using it as a convenient analogy).

My point was that instead of looking at him (the detractor) in terms of his grievances, or in terms of factors (like sin or Thetans) that could cloud his judgement - it's safer to just consider his arguments, which will stand or fall on their own qualities regardless of the speaker.

Yes, I do understand your analogy. Yes, a scientologist might reject a detractor because they think he has thetans, but we know those are made up. There is a similarity in that basic approach, but since Scientology is easily disproven, there aren't any arguments to consider. In that case, people are rejecting his truth because its clearly not true, not because it isn't possible that people reject truth because they are corrupted by evil. It's still a strawman any way you look at it. The point here is, what is the best explanation for reality and the human condition. If it is true that everyone sins, and that people are hypocrites, then that is something you as an unbeliever have to come to terms with. If I can accurately portray the human condition better than you can, and give reasonable explanations for human behavior according to biblical truth, those are obviously points in favor of the bible and not some cheap tact. It's perfectly legimate to point out that the objective stance people claim to take (and the claim they lay to reason itself) is mostly just smoke and mirrors for their personal prejudices and very real rebellion against Gods authority.

Sorry for two posts, but I missed a section there in the middle.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

First off, I should say that I appreciate the effort you're putting into legitimate debate here. I do. While I disagree with your recent points, I also accept them as honest reasoning and I think we're discussing things on a better level than we have in the past. So thanks, and I'll try to rein in my own douchebag forum persona.

Anyways, I'll (hopefully) explain what I was trying to get at better. It is my belief that religions often effectively "poison the well" for detractors by saying that the detractors are doing so for alternative motives, or that those detractors cannot understand the truth because of some flaw. To illustrate this, I was saying that Scientologists are quick to call out detractors (who are, to be fair, usually former members with a grievance) for their character flaws or crimes. Facetiously (because I don't actually know Scientologist beliefs), I was suggesting that they might also blame detractors' disagreements on confusing Thetans.

I was attempting to illustrate how awkward this attack is to refute for the detractor. The detractor certainly does have "crimes" (because, as I think we all agree, people all do things they aren't proud of). And he certainly can't be convincing if he says he has no Thetans. How can he make the case for that, when he doesn't even believe in Thetans anymore, and is definitely no longer being cleared of them?

From a perspective of a non-believer, a Christian detractor is in a similar position. Many (or even most) will have personal grievances that make their arguments sound suspect. And all will have sins. Many will have sins associated with their departure. Given that it's common Christian thought that sin clouds thought (or bars revelation or conscience or similar), we're left with a tidy way to undermine almost all detractors.

So my overall point is an analogy. Both the Scientologist and the Christian believer have similar reasons to doubt the detractor. However, I think we'd both agree that the Scientologist detractor is right despite those reasons. So while I understand that you still would not accept the Christian detractor, my point would be that we can't completely refute him on these grounds because he could (in principle) be the same as the Scientologist detractor. The differences between the Christian and the Scientologist detractor (with regards to these ideas) are generally only differences from the perspective of someone who already believes Christianity and not Scientology (and certainly I think we'd agree that believing Christianity is more rational than believing Scientology - I'm just using it as a convenient analogy).

My point was that instead of looking at him (the detractor) in terms of his grievances, or in terms of factors (like sin or Thetans) that could cloud his judgement - it's safer to just consider his arguments, which will stand or fall on their own qualities regardless of the speaker.

Now in this specific case (back to Bill Maher), he's a comedian and a bit of a jerk. He doesn't make a lot of arguments; he is more like a football player who doesn't carry the ball, he just does perpetual endzone celebrations. Sometimes I think he's funny, but generally I find him annoying. When he does debate, he seldom makes any effort at the debate part - typically it's just ridicule, and winking at an audience who he can count on agreeing with him already. This doesn't stop some people from thinking of him as making great points, mostly because they agree with him.

But I don't care about his personal life.

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

Am I arguing with you or Christopher Hitchens? I wonder if you have any original thoughts to share?

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

I've noticed many people whose consciences are seared by their ignorance don't really have any shame.

Conscience seared by ignorance? That sentence kind of makes sense if you say "sin" there or something... but ignorance? Does this apply to children? Or by "ignorance" do you mean something more like "doesn't agree with me"?

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against God and His followers have an agenda that goes far beyond their manufactured outrage... It comes from a heart polluted with sin.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

The bible perfectly describes the human condition. It exposes people as immoral hypocrites who have never once lived up to their own standard, let alone Gods standard. Shame isn't a secret because everyone is found to be guilty. The great lie of the world is that people are generally good. They're not. People are generally sinful and anyone with two eyes can see that.

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

The fact that you think Christianity is some kind of conspiracy to control people is just patently false. It's a matter of history what happened and why. Even Dawkins admits Jesus is a historical figure. That the authors of the gospels willingly martyred themselves for that truth should tell you something.

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

Maher has a lifestyle that he doesn't want to be judged for. Much like most of the people here on the sift. The people with the biggest mouths about God are the ones with the most to hide.


I'm glad you mention this as it's important. A lot of people think religion works through fear or love or something - but this, this here is it: shame is the fuel that powers religion. If someone can convince you that they know the truth, but that you are limited by your secret sins - even your thought crimes - then they have power over you forever. You, yourself, will always know exactly how unworthy you are, while you can't know their sins in nearly the same way.

Religion failing you? Your fault. God failing you? Your fault. Doubts? Your fault. Your reason? Always suspect. Leader? Always right, because he has the clear channel.

There's a reason every religion moves towards shame. It works. The ancient Jews had trouble because their rules were almost all outward. People could actually comply with them nearly completely. So they had to expand the rules out again and again, hedging and hedging until everyone was brought back in non-compliance (as that's the space where religion works best).

Christianity solved this problem by focusing on thought crime, and crimes of attitude. Were you really giving that gift in the proper spirit? Did your thoughts stray morally for a moment? These are brilliant - the perfect, impossible to comply with rules. Each person is thus locked in a tidy prison where they believe that everyone else is more righteous (and thus "gets it", because they don't have secret sins like you do), and thus those people (or their text) should be trusted over reason. If you wanted to refute their ideas, your first step would have to be to live perfectly (impossible, and also requires tremendous further investment in the religion to attempt). And you don't have to pound it in directly: the best way to make someone feel shame is to praise the congregation; furthering the implication that everyone is in on the secret but you. If you can, get testimonials.

Again, you want everyone to put up a front that they're "in on it", that they see the emperor's clothes. It's the "everyone else" that keeps everyone going. Nobody wants to break first.

But if you want to see this technique refined to its most pure, and it's most directed, look at Scientology. Watch videos where Scientology leaders are questioned. Their response is often "What's your crime?", with the implication being that it's your secret crimes that prevent you from understanding Scientology (or, especially, make you hate it). And, in Scientology's case, they have an extra twist of the knife: if you're a member, they likely know your "secret crimes" because you told them in some session. The Catholics had something similar going with confession, but they didn't have the same panache.

So, sb, I wonder what your response would be to a Scientologist - maybe one who said your religious experiences are the result of impious Thetans trying to deceive you (maybe you got some wacky Jesus Thetans actually talking to you, who knows)? Really, you'd understand if you went through a few sessions. And all your misunderstandings - the reasons you think Scientology is wrong - are a result of your pride in your own position, the extent to which Christianity faintly mirrors the real truth of Scientology, and how all your secret crimes (which we can all agree you have - it's guaranteed by the Bible, and most other books of religion) distort your thinking. Oh, and how all the psychologists have tried to stop Scientology and hurt its members. PS: don't go to a psychologist for help. Or your family.

That should all sound familiar. Most religions work about the same way. And how do you counter that? You can't directly - because the well is completely poisoned.

And it's the same from idealogues of every stripe and sort. According to someone who loves "Agile Programming", a failed Agile Programming project is the result of not being Agile enough. The opposite idealogue believes the project failed because the spec going in lacked details. Christianity not working for you? Doesn't make sense? You're not Christian enough, or else Jesus would be talking to you (or not, depending on denomination).

Why are you doubting? Because your doubt has pushed out faith. Cant' have faith if you doubt, can't get revelation without faith. You gotta get rid of that doubt man.

End result: you're wrong, we're right, shut up. And tell your friends.

But I suppose all this means I have a secret crime. You tell me, I wonder, is my secret crime a Christian secret crime, a Scientology secret crime, or a crime against Islam? So many things I'll never understand without changing my life first to be able to understand...

>> ^Sagemind:

Funny - I actually expected a lot more - in the way of comments on this one...


The thesis of his doc is far too nebulous and subtle. That's not to say documentary viewers do not have an appreciation of subtlety. Heck, I'm lousy with the stuff! But who really cares whether age-segregated ministry is multiplying or dividing the church? If you're going to make a documentary about religion that you intend people to watch, the interesting question isn't about age-segregated ministry, for goodness sake. The interesting question goes a bit deeper than that, I should think.

Take Scientology for example. You think the upcoming documentary about Scientology is going to center on the question of the efficacy of print vs. new media advertising? Or do you think it'll be about something else?

@Farhad2000

Great post, love the satirical take on pathetic excuses for the US's many wars in the Middle East. Moreover, what you say about humanity's stupidity is sadly all too true.

That being said, I have one last contention to bring up with your first comment on Islam (because I'm a contrary little bitch): if a religious ideology's worth is to be based on its capacity to increase in numbers, then wouldn't recent sects like scientology and mormonism be the best the world has to offer, taking into account the growth rate over time? (yes, it's a rhetorical question; scientology and mormonism are both full of shit)

ty, but didnt take :-(

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Na-na na-na na-na na-na Lead-der!

*quality *doublepromote

Exactly! If only people could look at their own beliefs with the same skeptical eye.>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I don't know about the rest of you, but mormonism is one of the stupidest, most childishly-obvious moronic shams ever. It's not even funny there are people actually stupid enough to believe in that crap.
edit: and I think it looks all the more insane to someone who is not american.

Once you let go of magical thinking, EVERY religion looks just as stupid. Mormonism and Scientology get picked on more because they are more recent, but if you look at the stories that are the foundation for any religion, they are all absurd.
I mean, a woman gives birth to a child without a father? Wasn't that in Phantom Menace?

>> ^EMPIRE:

I don't know about the rest of you, but mormonism is one of the stupidest, most childishly-obvious moronic shams ever. It's not even funny there are people actually stupid enough to believe in that crap.
edit: and I think it looks all the more insane to someone who is not american.


Once you let go of magical thinking, EVERY religion looks just as stupid. Mormonism and Scientology get picked on more because they are more recent, but if you look at the stories that are the foundation for any religion, they are all absurd.

I mean, a woman gives birth to a child without a father? Wasn't that in Phantom Menace?

HBO has done such a good job with this series, I've started reading the books.

On it's face, that doesn't sound like a big deal but you've got to understand, I loathe fantasy. As in: I never read it, ever. I'd sooner read a Scientology brochure. I'd sooner read an instruction manual. For a VCR. I'd sooner read the Patriot Act.

The similarities to the Scientology videos are quite striking, really.

I am thankful for one thing about Scientology.

All these whacky ideas mean it will never be more than a fringe movement.

Kind of like Ron Paul.