Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 29 Badge!

In reply to this comment by shuac:
It's actually the exact opposite. The cult channel is for cult-related stuff (scientology, branch-davidians, westboro baptist church, reverend Sun Myung Moon, etc.) not for cult classics (Buckaroo Banzai, Rocky Horror Picture Show, etc.)
>> ^SpaceOddity:

LOL i would've added it to Cult but I assumed it was cult as in "cult classic"



Good to know, thanks for educating me

It's actually the exact opposite. The cult channel is for cult-related stuff (scientology, branch-davidians, westboro baptist church, reverend Sun Myung Moon, etc.) not for cult classics (Buckaroo Banzai, Rocky Horror Picture Show, etc.)
>> ^SpaceOddity:

LOL i would've added it to Cult but I assumed it was cult as in "cult classic"

Yeah, but we're talking about atheists, and you don't really see many atheists out there arguing against Allah or Krishna.

>> ^wraith:

Yeah shiny, that is the reason. The same reason that non-Scientologists and ex-Sceintologists argue in Scientology fora, because Scientology has touched their hearts.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That's a point many Christians have wondered about; namely, why do atheists spend so much time on something they say holds no water? On the Christian forums I frequent, there are usually many atheists there asking questions and holding debates. The reason, I believe, is because God is dealing with their hearts. You may be ready to move on to another stage of life. I know that God has a plan for you, and so I am happy for you that have come to this place. God bless you.

Yeah shiny, that is the reason. The same reason that non-Scientologists and ex-Sceintologists argue in Scientology fora, because Scientology has touched their hearts.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's a point many Christians have wondered about; namely, why do atheists spend so much time on something they say holds no water? On the Christian forums I frequent, there are usually many atheists there asking questions and holding debates. The reason, I believe, is because God is dealing with their hearts. You may be ready to move on to another stage of life. I know that God has a plan for you, and so I am happy for you that have come to this place. God bless you.

When the teasers first came out, I heard it was. A quick search just now resulted in this.>> ^Enzoblue:

So is this the story of L Ron Hubbard? Confused.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/news#ni32418388

It's always been known that Paul Thomas Anderson's (Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood) The Master was in some way inspired by the life of L. Ron Hubbard, the man who not only gave the world the cinematic gift that is Battlefield Earth [sic (puke)], but who founded the Church of Scientology. The first two teaser trailers for the film, however, played coy with how strong that connection is. They've simply been relatively plot-free (but beautifully shot) glimpses at the troubled life of an alcoholic played by Joaquin Phoenix.

This full trailer, however, gives us our first substantial look at the eponymous figure inspired by Hubbard, played in the film by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who seems to be having a spot of trouble trying to recruit and keep Phoenix into his organization.

scientology, when other religions aren't dumb enough for you.

Your video, James Randi on Dianetics and Scientology, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^rottenseed:

Why was he bugging him while eating?


That's a power you pick up when you achieve OT9. It's the GastronomicInterruptus +1 skill. So kewl.

Well played. I concede.>> ^A10anis:
You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

>> ^messenger:

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.
I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.
I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

You are a moron, fond only of the nonsense you spout.You have nothing of intellect to convey, so be quiet and know your place...

Buddhism is a religion. A religion doesn't have to have gods. Perhaps what you mean is Buddhism isn't a religion that requires total control. Jainism is another example of a religion without gods.

I didn't make clear my point about laws, etc. and control: I'm reading into your comments that anything that is about control is always a bad thing, or is always for nefarious purposes. I got this impression because you ended your argument with the conclusion that religions are all about control, as if that was a slam-dunk making them all cults. I pointed out a series of other instances where requiring control over a person wasn't evil, and was even benevolent. This should lead to the conclusion that a religion that asserts control over someone's life may be doing so with good intent. I also did this to highlight the difference between "control" and "excessive control" which you left out. Parental control is normally a good thing. Excessive parental control is a bad thing. Where's the line between control and excessive control? Dunno.

I think you overstated your challenge to me, as there is no religion that requires the relinquishing of free will. They either require or suggest self-control in certain areas, if that's what you mean, but none require relinquishing all decision-making, not even the extreme ones like Jainism, orthodox Judaism, or fundamentalist Islam.>> ^A10anis:
Buddhism is not a religion in the context of this discussion. Neither is the law etc! That said, I will gladly concede, if you can name me a religion/cult which does not require total submission and the relinquishing of free will. I'm done...>> ^messenger:
All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.

>> ^messenger:

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:
>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

All faiths do not have the same agenda. That's a ridiculous statement, even if you restrict it to long-established religions. For example, Buddhism seeks to help you find the best person you can be for its own sake, not for the service of some higher power. That's not excessive, and equating it with Scientology in terms of degree of control is not accurate. As for control, yes, all systems --both religious and secular-- involve control. This includes laws, government systems, psychotherapy and parenting. You left out the word "excessive". It's important. Cults are perceived to have excessive control. What constitutes excessive is a matter of debate or personal opinion, but tarring them all with the same brush is still simplistic.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^messenger:
A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...