Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Sun May 25, 2008 5:37 pm

still not getting the flaw, and TD brought the anology in first.

My analogy is that they're serving up something that is clearly not what they claim, so why use any? Cost is not a factor in that analogy as I said "all restaurants". You seem to be suggesting that some greater investment, presumably of money, gets you a better religious return, what else would your comment mean?

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:08 pm

some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s). until someone can prove there is no god, i shall disagree with those who beleive in him/them. i shall not, however, dismis their views on any subject because of this. similarly i shall not think anyone of any religion a hypocrite, if he condems the misdeeds of someone of another, unless he himself condones the misdeeds of someone of someone else, or indeed is guilty of them himself.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:13 pm

Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s). until someone can prove there is no god, i shall disagree with those who beleive in him/them. i shall not, however, dismis their views on any subject because of this. similarly i shall not think anyone of any religion a hypocrite, if he condems the misdeeds of someone of another, unless he himself condones the misdeeds of someone of someone else, or indeed is guilty of them himself.

Suggest you read that back, because frankly it's nonsense.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:20 pm

communistworkethic wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s). until someone can prove there is no god, i shall disagree with those who beleive in him/them. i shall not, however, dismis their views on any subject because of this. similarly i shall not think anyone of any religion a hypocrite, if he condems the misdeeds of someone of another, unless he himself condones the misdeeds of someone of someone else, or indeed is guilty of them himself.
Suggest you read that back, because frankly it's nonsense.

Some of the greatest people who have ever walked this earth have beleived in a god, or a number of gods. Until someone can prove that there is no god, i shall disagree with those who beleive in him or them. I shall not, however, dismiss their views on any subject because we disagree on that matter ( the exsistence of one, or a number of gods). Similarly, I shall not beleive anyone of any religion a hypocrite, when condemning the deeds (NOT beleifs) of someone of another language, unless they THEMSELVES either perputrate similar misdeeds, or condone others who do.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:25 pm

Very good of you to spring to my defence Prufrock, but better to defend the points rather than the person (and I assure you, despite my reluctance to even go there where religion is concerned; a totally fruitless excersise due to some people's inability to debate without bombast, )I'm quite capable of defending my own corner. Remember, at the end of the day, you may just encounter:

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:26 pm

Again, it is nonsense. You are going to disagree with those who believe in God until someone proves he doesn't exist? Seems a silly way of going about it really. As for the second bit, the fact someone speaks French really shouldn't have any bearing on the validity of their actions.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:29 pm

[quote="TANGODANCER"]Very good of you to spring to my defence Prufrock, but better to defend the points rather than the person (and I assure you, despite my reluctance to even go there where religion is concerned; a totally fruitless excersise due to some people's inability to debate without bombast, )I'm quite capable of defending my own corner. Remember, at the end of the day, you may just encounter:

i just felt a topic which was regarding scientology was being made a personal matter between you guys which is none of my or anyone else's business. i have tried as much as possible not to talk for you hence the extreme general nature of my last post. regarding the big man upstairs, fraid we'll have to disagree but we are each entitled to that.

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:38 pm

Prufrock wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:Very good of you to spring to my defence Prufrock, but better to defend the points rather than the person (and I assure you, despite my reluctance to even go there where religion is concerned; a totally fruitless excersise due to some people's inability to debate without bombast, )I'm quite capable of defending my own corner. Remember, at the end of the day, you may just encounter:

i just felt a topic which was regarding scientology was being made a personal matter between you guys which is none of my or anyone else's business. i have tried as much as possible not to talk for you hence the extreme general nature of my last post. regarding the big man upstairs, fraid we'll have to disagree but we are each entitled to that.

Without going to join the mainstream of the debate, I guess it's called "faith" or "belief", because no one is positioned to call it "fact".

As Spike Milligan said (not sure if his was the original quote) "A gambler must believe in some form of deity. If there is one, the gamble is good, it there isn't one, then it isn't going to matter"

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:39 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:Very good of you to spring to my defence Prufrock, but better to defend the points rather than the person (and I assure you, despite my reluctance to even go there where religion is concerned; a totally fruitless excersise due to some people's inability to debate without bombast, )I'm quite capable of defending my own corner. Remember, at the end of the day, you may just encounter:

self-righteous indignation from the man who made the first personal comment in this thread is a bit rich. "Bombast"? There is nothing in this thread that demonstrates it more than your post here and that picture, couldn't be more pompous.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:41 pm

communistworkethic wrote:Again, it is nonsense. You are going to disagree with those who believe in God until someone proves he doesn't exist? Seems a silly way of going about it really. As for the second bit, the fact someone speaks French really shouldn't have any bearing on the validity of their actions.

haha fair cop mental. but its your fault for being wrong on the other thread and getting that word in my head

obviously i meant religion.

as for your point, yes. if somebody says to me a metre is 106cm long i will think them an idiot, because i can prove it doesnt. i can prove it doesnt because i can prove it is 100cm long. there are things we cannot explain, my personal beleif is there is a scientific explanation at the end of them, but until we find those, an explanation that god did them, whilst in my mind unlikely, isnt impossible, therefore i shant think one who beleives it an idiot. what i would say to be a silly way of going about it would to assume that because i beleive something, anyone who doesnt is a fool. there are seldom many, if any who agree with another person 100% in all things.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:44 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:Very good of you to spring to my defence Prufrock, but better to defend the points rather than the person (and I assure you, despite my reluctance to even go there where religion is concerned; a totally fruitless excersise due to some people's inability to debate without bombast, )I'm quite capable of defending my own corner. Remember, at the end of the day, you may just encounter:]

i just felt a topic which was regarding scientology was being made a personal matter between you guys which is none of my or anyone else's business. i have tried as much as possible not to talk for you hence the extreme general nature of my last post. regarding the big man upstairs, fraid we'll have to disagree but we are each entitled to that.
Without going to join the mainstream of the debate, I guess it's called "faith" or "belief", because no one is positioned to call it "fact".

As Spike Milligan said (not sure if his was the original quote) "A gambler must believe in some form of deity. If there is one, the gamble is good, it there isn't one, then it isn't going to matter"

quite, atheism is just as much a beleif as any form of theism. its mine and i'll defend it, but each has the right to their own.

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:53 pm

communistworkethic wrote:still not getting the flaw, and TD brought the anology in first.

My analogy is that they're serving up something that is clearly not what they claim, so why use any? Cost is not a factor in that analogy as I said "all restaurants". You seem to be suggesting that some greater investment, presumably of money, gets you a better religious return, what else would your comment mean?

A greater investment in your food would gain a better return. Hence the flawed analogy.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:05 pm

communistworkethic wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:Very good of you to spring to my defence Prufrock, but better to defend the points rather than the person (and I assure you, despite my reluctance to even go there where religion is concerned; a totally fruitless excersise due to some people's inability to debate without bombast, )I'm quite capable of defending my own corner. Remember, at the end of the day, you may just encounter:
self-righteous indignation from the man who made the first personal comment in this thread is a bit rich. "Bombast"? There is nothing in this thread that demonstrates it more than your post here and that picture, couldn't be more pompous.

Self-righteous indignation?

Nope, just a small attempt at humour to lighten the mood is all. Probably how everone else saw it as I only hear one dissenting voice. And...."first personal comment"? Try as a I may I can't see anything in there that differs much from anyone else's or even needs a reply, never mind a three-page bomardment. Must just be me.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:12 pm

Worthy4England wrote: Without going to join the mainstream of the debate, I guess it's called "faith" or "belief", because no one is positioned to call it "fact".

Exactly so Worthy. I'd be the most disappointed man on the planet if God made an appearance just to prove a point. Faith and belief is where it's at. That and the right to have it without the stones and mockery. That should be thr right of every man. Only time will tell the rest of the story.

qwertywarrior · Post by **qwertywarrior** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:29 pm

what a load of horseshit

people believe what people want, why can't I slaughter goats and drink their blood

someone will be offended by no matter what you post, woe betide anyone who ever brings religion into it

and dont forget the capitals or punctuation

at the same time of having to respoect other peoples beliefs or faith or just respect other people

how about other people respecting your right to disagree

don't even get me started on the stupidly infantile pc world we have become when my gran gets arrested for saying in public she is going to the paki shop

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:41 pm

Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).

Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:41 pm

qwertywarrior wrote:what a load of horseshit

people believe what people want, why can't I slaughter goats and drink their blood

someone will be offended by no matter what you post, woe betide anyone who ever brings religion into it

and dont forget the capitals or punctuation

at the same time of having to respoect other peoples beliefs or faith or just respect other people

how about other people respecting your right to disagree

don't even get me started on the stupidly infantile pc world we have become when my gran gets arrested for saying in public she is going to the paki shop

hmmmmm. i am very anti the pc brigade on certain issues, but why does she need to describe it as such? why not just the shop, or whatever sort of shop it is. my own view is that a word in itself cannot be labelled racist or discriminatory, it depends on its usage. however certain words do gain connotations, the one your gran used being a prime example. if she had called it the pakistani shop, because it sold things that were pakistani, i would agree with you.

as for respecting people rights to disagree, of course they are allowed that right, as long as they dont try to impose there view to the extent they prevent another from having theirs. thats not to say anyone on here has done, its just a general statement of my views on such matters

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:44 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).
Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.

thats not what i meant, i dont mean it as justification for the exsistence of god. i meant it doesnt have a relation to a person's intelligence, or their right for their opinions to matter.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:46 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Prufrock wrote:some of the greatest people that have ever walked this earth have beleived in (a) god(s).
Likewise it's most evil. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe act out God's word? That's what he said in his defence. Go on.

Aye Bruce. Clever ploy to blame the one witness who can't be called. They made Joan of Arc a Saint for much the same thing.

Daxter · Post by **Daxter** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:46 pm

qwertywarrior wrote:
don't even get me started on the stupidly infantile pc world we have become when my gran gets arrested for saying in public she is going to the paki shop

Well, to me at least, that is considered racist?

Connect with your social network account

Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Who is online