Debate thread

You may find these words soothing:

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-defends-scientology-785797

Tyson was asked about Scientology in connection to the new HBO documentary Going Clear. Tyson said he hadn't yet seen the film, but still opened up about his feelings on the religion.

"Let’s realize this," Tyson continued. "What matters is not who says who’s crazy, what matters is we live in a free country ... If we start controlling what people think and why they think it, we have case studies where that became the norm. I don’t care what the tenets are of Scientology. They don’t distract me. I don’t judge them, and I don’t criticize them."

Tyson also questioned the argument that Scientology shouldn't be granted tax-exempt status like other religions. "But why aren’t they a religion?" he asked.

"If you attend a Seder, there’s an empty chair sitting right there and the door is unlocked because Elijah might walk in. OK. These are educated people who do this. Now, some will say it’s ritual, some will say it could literally happen. But religions, if you analyze them, who is to say that one religion is rational and another isn’t?"

"It looks like the older those thoughts have been around, the likelier it is to be declared a religion," Tyson added. "If you’ve been around 1,000 years you’re a religion, and if you’ve been around 100 years, you’re a cult."

I for one feel much the same as Mr. Degrasse-Tyson. Although it's quite possible you are right; one can never be certain of another's intent. I think he would agree that his words could be seen or interpreted as demagogue, or sacrilege, or whatever, and that's ok because that's your though and your opinions and viewpoint - and I believe that's his point.

Oh, and Scientology is weird.

Scientology is not a legitimate religion because it was created with a purpose of using mentally unstable people for profit, worse that f2p.

That's what makes it different from Rastafari, for example. Rasta, by the way, are the only monotheistic religion which is real religion because it was composed mostly by subconscious, recycling christianity instead of following their disguised political discourse.

So problem is not in what they believe, it's in how they are made to believe. And that involves psychological abuse, directional and Ericsonian hypnosis and different nasty exploits on cognition bias.

Bringing up the reason for a faith's formation is a really sketchy metric for legitimacy.  Depending on point of reference, and which point in time we're looking at, the same thing could be used for large chunks of Christianity.  Baptists and their hellfire and brimstone, Catholics and their chants, and hundreds of years of insistence on Latin services when only the most educated had had any understanding fall into the same "how" category. 

While I believe Scientology is a problem, I do so only based upon the questionable actions of their organization.   Beyond that risks bias.

Exactly. They are not different in that aspect.

The problem is that the entire premise of most of what morsealworth is saying is based upon conjecture, redefinition, and bias.  The motivation behind the formation of most religions is impossible to determine, clouded by the fog of history.  At best, a religion's legitimacy is a measure of its adherents' honest faith in its tenets.  Even then, it's hard to judge because we don't know the minds and motivations of every follower.  The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Church of the Subgenius, and the Discordians all may be illegitimate in the short term but have the potential of gaining earnest adherents to its tenets, given enough time. 

We may be able to see subsequent things done in the name of a religion, but that only illustrates how humans can pervert any social construct to suit their own ends.  Rastifari is in no way immune to this abuse.  More than a few of its "adherents" use it as little more than a justification for marijuana use and a tool in the fight to legalize marijuana.  It resembles the popularity of Southwestern Native American spirituality in the 60's and 70's and the likes of Carlos Castaneda from the same time.  Much of it was little more than an excuse to take peyote.

Ohhhh, riiight. The only 'valid' or 'real' religions are those for which Morsealsworth has no inkling about the predecessors. Phew! Glad we cleared that up. I will note for future reference that should I found my own religion I will ensure all record of whence it came shall be hidden from inquiring minds. It shall, I am sure, form wholly, and holy, complete in my head, naturally, just like folk lore, and Shinto.

Gotcha, so long as you don't know who started it they are real. Check.

Nono, I totally get what you're talking about. If you don't know how something started, it is 'natural' and be 'real', and everything else is a fake derivative for political purposes.
I'm not twisting your words. I'm reading the ones you're typing into this thread.