Does anyone else think it's cute how there Scientology ads are popping up next to the quick reply box?
Does anyone else think it's cute how there Scientology ads are popping up next to the quick reply box?
(Thanks Evilmunky)
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes.
(Thanks Evilmunky)
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes.
Didn't sound like it from your 'All religions should be banned' comment.. which ironically didn't sound particularly tolerant either. You are also ignoring that some people join various religions of their own free will as adults.
For the sake of discussions, I don't mind people comparing religions in their infancy - that's assuming people have factual information as to how each religions started off. But every religions has to keep up with what's generally acceptable in society. Even if Christianity had behaved in the same manner at Scientology at the beginning, were accepted as such, it doesn't mean we should accept it now. We can't undo the past, there is no practical (humane) way to 'ban' religion, but we can at least prevent new mistakes being made and ensure that no religions cross a line deemed acceptable by society as it currently exists (maybe one day, that would mean banning religion altogether - but personally, I doubt it will happen until humanity solved all mysteries - or some anti-religious dictator manage take over the world and impose his view) [continued...]
[...continued] We must recognise between what's dangerous and what's not (at a minimum). A religion that preach that the sky is red is nonsense, but is unlikely to negatively impact most people's life, and most can go on with their productive lives believing the sky is red (as long as their career choice is not affected by the colour of the sky). A religion that preaches that twins are evil and should be aborted or abandoned at birth on the other hand will clearly negatively impact society, and something will need to be done about to prevent it. And that's why I think recognition and a certain level of control by the government (according to the 'general population's will') is important. Granted, the line I've drawn in this example is just my own - it may well be that most people will not accept the existence of a religion that preaches that the sky is red. But I do think that many, even amongst atheists, will acknowledge that some beliefs can be more damaging than others hence they do not deserve the same content. However, you seem to have such a one sided view of religions that you can't acknowledge that there are different shades of grey.
I could easily put up a billion who believe that the earth is flat, and prefer them over a 'few thousand' who believe that happiness comes from strapping explosives to themselves and detonating it in as big of a crowd as they can. What some of you seem to be implying, is that if the belief can be proven/seem irrational, then it must be dangerous.
Last edited by TooNice; 10-09-2008 at 05:30 PM.
I have a hard enough time worrying that the American presidential campaign revolves around personalities and religion without the additional worry that a Scientologist will get elected. The current loony was dreadful, but imagine one who believes all the Xenu crap.
(Thanks Evilmunky)
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet intakes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)