Scientology to be Criminally Charged in Belgium

Dolph said:
Once again, we enjoy the posts of atheist fundamentalists trying to push their faith onto everyone else in irrelevant threads by attacking those who don't share their beliefs.

It's rather ironic that the most intolerant people on the forums claim one of the good things of their views is that they'll get rid of intolerant religions...
Click to expand...

Hope you're not including me in that; I'm neither atheist nor proposing a ban on religions. I'm just utterly condemning them. :)
 
Dolph said:
Once again, we enjoy the posts of atheist fundamentalists trying to push their faith onto everyone else in irrelevant threads by attacking those who don't share their beliefs.
Click to expand...

I hoep you aren't inlcuding me in that either. I haven't tried to push my "faith" onto anyone.
 
Deadly Ferret said:
Hope you're not including me in that; I'm neither atheist nor proposing a ban on religions. I'm just utterly condemning them. :)
Click to expand...

RDM said:
I hoep you aren't inlcuding me in that either. I haven't tried to push my "faith" onto anyone.
Click to expand...

I didn't see either of you calling for charges against all other religions because you don't believe in them, or calling for religion to be wiped out.

It's posts like this that I was referring to

About time too! All 'religion' is pretty much bull. That "each to their own" attitude people seem to have is also bull, becuase the world has to live with the negative effects of peoples blind faith. One less religion = one step closer to a better place imho.
Click to expand...

and similar posts about how a "live and let live" attitude isn't acceptable from a few posters are the sort of thing I was meaning.
 
Dolph said:
similar posts about how a "live and let live" attitude isn't acceptable from a few posters are the sort of thing I was meaning.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they can be very frustrating. If all religions suddenly and magically ceased to exist I would celebrate, but I cannot condone the attitude of banning something because some people see it as wrong (whereas some others do not). I myself see religion as wrong, but I would never support a ban on it. Bans by their very nature are wrong, because they should only be used to stop things nobody wants...but of course if nobody wanted them, a ban wouldn't be necessary.
 
Dolph said:
I didn't see either of you calling for charges against all other religions because you don't believe in them, or calling for religion to be wiped out.

It's posts like this that I was referring to



and similar posts about how a "live and let live" attitude isn't acceptable from a few posters are the sort of thing I was meaning.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with being intolerant of intelorance? I'm not calling for a ban on religion and I definitely do not think thats the way to go, nor am I a fundamentalist, I like to think there is some logic behind my thoughts. I don't dismiss the idea that there could be a god, I just don't believe any of the ideas that religious texts describe about their gods to be true. I would in no way describe what I think as a faith, as you so put it, as I don't declare to know the answer that religions claim to, without anything to back them up. However I do feel they have a largely negative impact as a whole on many aspects of the world, whether that be down to people or not, we don't need to give people any more excuses as powerful as religion to do terrible things.
 
Last edited:
Samione said:
What's wrong with being intolerant of intelorance? I'm not calling for a ban on religion, nor am I a fundamentalist, I like to think there is some logic behind my thoughts. I don't dismiss the idea that their could be a god, I just don't believe any of the ideas that religious texts describe about their gods to be true. I would in no way describe what I think as a faith, as you so put it, as I don't declare to know the answer that religions claim to, without anything to back them up. However I do feel they have a largely negative impact as a whole on many aspects of the world, whether that be down to people or not, we don't need to give people any more excuses as powerful as religion to do terrible things.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance, but your intolerance extends beyond that, because not all religions, or people who follow them, are intolerant, yet you treat them the same as those who are. In effect, your view is no different to those who wish to convert others to christianity or Islam.

You also contradict yourself, you on one hand say you don't believe any of the ideas religious texts describe as being true, yet on the other hand you say you don't have faith. You cannot prove your beliefs are correct and those of others are wrong, yet you take a position, that's faith. You say there are logic to your thoughts, and there will be, but it will be based on logical extensions of your assumptions or beliefs (whatever they may be, frequently the assumptions that underpin the scientific method such as reductionism, Occam's razor and logical positivism). If you start with different assumptions, then the logical result is different, that's the fun thing with logic.

I don't begrudge you your beliefs and faith, so I have to query why you begrudge others theirs.
 
Tefal said:
Errr, does this include murder/*insert shocking crime here*?
Click to expand...

Not quite the same, as murder or theft violates someone elses rights in the act.

In a classical liberal/libertarian lawmaking system, you legislate acts that directly violate the rights of others, rather than restricting the rights of individuals who don't.
 
Deadly Ferret said:
1. (Concentrating on the first half of what you said, because my question was solely about the established religions and so what you said about Scientology's workings is redundant in this instance.)

You are placing emphasis on the followers, i.e. those who directly commit the atrocities, being ultimately responsible for their actions and thereby attempting to render that as justification for it just being in the religions' names. However, I see it very differently. Yes, they are indeed followers, and followers follow leaders. (Or perhaps by followers you meant followers of the religion, which would be even more damaging to your argument because that would show the religion itself, rather than its representatives, to be the entity running them...) Who are the leaders? The representatives of the religion, the clerics. I therefore put it to you that although the followers are responsible for their actions in as much as it is they who make the final decision whether or not to thrust the sword/depress the trigger/pull the pin, it is the religion that sowed the seeds of said actions.
Click to expand...
The workings of Scientology are not at all irrelevant, because Scientology is a scam, you know it's a scam, and everyone at the top levels of Scientology also knows it's a scam. The Catholic Church inciting the people of Europe to go and kill thousands of Muslims to retake the Holy Land was certainly tragic in terms of the loss of life it entailed, but nobody was forced to go there, they went because they truly believed that it was God's command. Scientologists, on the other hand, are being scammed by the heads of their religion who KNOW their religion is horse doo-doo to go out and do their dirty work so they can get richer and richer. They're screwing over their own members and getting them to rough up anyone who criticises them for doing so.
2. No, that just won't do! I'm not talking about "individuals, organisations or states"; I'm talking about properly ordained clerics of the religion, and you can't get any more representative of the religion that that, not even Allah himself.
Click to expand...
No, come on man, clerics are human, there's bound to be a proportionately equal amount of bad eggs among them as among any other section of the population! Just because some of them are paedophiles/scam artists/thieves/whatever, doesn't mean their religion condones it! Scientology on the other hand goes out of its way to target people with criminal records for recruitment and TRAIN them to be their enforcers! As I said, their behaviour is very much similar to extreme Islamist organisations. Except of course their motivation isn't, because Islamist fundamentalists at least believe in something, whereas Tommy Davis just believes in lining the pockets of Tommy Davis! :)
Incidentally, I'm not in here defending Scientology. My point is that Scientology is to the established religions what the village bully is to the likes of Hitler and Stalin.
Click to expand...

Lol, I've been Godwin'ed! :p
 
I don't see how not believing in any religious gods, yet believing in the possibility of a god based on the fact we don't have enough knowledge to disprove or prove this as a fact is a faith? And my view is different to those who wish to convert people to their religion becuase of their intentions, it's not black and white. I genuinely feel we'd be better off without religion, but i'd NEVER force people to convert, even if my posts may have made it seem that way.
 
Last edited:
Samione said:
I don't see how not believing in any religious gods, yet believing in the possibility of a god based on the fact we don't have enough knowledge to disprove or prove this as a fact is a faith? And my view is different to those who wish to convert people to their religion becuase of their intentions, it's not black and white. I genuinely feel we'd be better off without religion, but i'd NEVER force people to convert, even if my posts may have made it seem that way.
Click to expand...

Ok, I don't think I can argue with any of that now you've clarified it :)
 
jellybeard999 said:
So you're putting your money on a man in the clouds making earth in 7 days, and the 400 year old man building a wooden oil tanker, catching every animal and sailing over mount everest.

I think I'd prefer to bet on science tbh
Click to expand...


Sure, the arguments aren't like that anymore and appear "more" in accordance with the current culture and what is considered "acceptable" to be heard and preached today but still that doesn't make them any more better. Religions in general are based upon the acceptance of a theory and are the result of the human mind. We have created them based upon the assumption that "we dont know" what life is. "God" hasn't made us in his image, we have made him in our image.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Not quite the same, as murder or theft violates someone elses rights in the act.

In a classical liberal/libertarian lawmaking system, you legislate acts that directly violate the rights of others, rather than restricting the rights of individuals who don't.
Click to expand...

How about drugs, under aged sex(mutually consensual), fights to the death(again mutually consensual) etc
 
manveruppd said:
The workings of Scientology are not at all irrelevant

No, come on man, clerics are human, there's bound to be a proportionately equal amount of bad eggs among them as among any other section of the population! Just because some of them are paedophiles/scam artists/thieves/whatever, doesn't mean their religion condones it!
Click to expand...

1. Not irrelevant to the debate, but irrelevant to the question in whose 'answer' you included the information about Scientology's workings.

2. Religions neither condone nor condemn; religions are not sentient.

Now as regards your point about bad eggs, does it not follow that the same could be said of Scientology, or are you suggesting that every one of its priests is corrupt/that there are no genuine (albeit misguided) clerics within the religion? In any case, the point is that no religion gives orders; its clerics do, and when those orders lead to wrong-doing, they are complicit in those crimes/atrocities/offences, in the same way we charge the hirers of assassins with murder as well as the assassins themselves.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom