Believing that the universe was created by ancient aliens who were bored trying to pass some time and that we all have a piece of those aliens in our souls is no crazier than believing that Jonah spent three days inside of a whale or Jesus suddenly woke up and walked out of his tomb after being dead for three days or that you're going to go to hell if you don't cut off your foreskin.
Not to mention the Scientologist practitioners have nothing on the other religions. I think the worst a Scientologist has done is tell Matt Lauer, or whatever his name is, that Psychiatry is all bullshit and that you should take vitamins when you're depressed. Which is dumb. But it can't touch Michael Bray saying that homosexuality should be against the law and punishable by death or 9/11 or the Crusades or anything else that people who follow the major religions have done in the name of them.
They're all equally fucking crazy, but Scientology seems to be the least dangerous religion but is also the least accepted. Is it just because it's new?
This isn't a, "YOU'RE DUMB FOR BELIEVING IN GOD HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA BUT BELIEVING IN ALIENS IS ALSO DUMB HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH" thread. I was just flipping through the channels and the Scientology episode of South Park was on so I stopped and watched it and it got me thinking why everyone makes fun of them when really, their beliefs are no worse than some of the stuff in the other religions. Bricktop fucked around with this message on 09-16-2009 at 01:06 AM.
quote:
Bricktop Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Why is Scientology so universally mocked for being crazy, while religions such as Christianity and Judiasm and Islam are accepted?Believing that the universe was created by ancient aliens who were bored trying to pass some time and that we all have a piece of those aliens in our souls is no crazier than believing that Jonah spent three days inside of a whale or Jesus suddenly woke up and walked out of his tomb after being dead for three days or that you're going to go to hell if you don't cut off your foreskin.
Not to mention the Scientologist practitioners have nothing on the other religions. I think the worst a Scientologist has done is tell Matt Lauer, or whatever his name is, that Psychiatry is all bullshit and that you should take vitamins when you're depressed. Which is dumb. But it can't touch Michael Bray saying that homosexuality should be against the law and punishable by death or 9/11 or the Crusades or anything else that people who follow the major religions have done in the name of them.
They're all equally fucking crazy, but Scientology seems to be the least dangerous religion but is also the least accepted. Is it just because it's new?
This isn't a, "YOU'RE DUMB FOR BELIEVING IN GOD HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA BUT BELIEVING IN ALIENS IS ALSO DUMB HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH" thread. I was just flipping through the channels and the Scientology episode of South Park was on so I stopped and watched it and it got me thinking why everyone makes fun of them when really, their beliefs are no worse than some of the stuff in the other religions.
It's new and the crazy shit it's based on is based on discoveries and thought that are current. There's really nothing else there. The big three Abrahamic religions have just been around longer and are more culturally indoctrinated. They also were created at a time when we didn't really know shit all about the world and how it worked so it was reasonable to believe that a Magic Sky Wizard threw lighting at the ground when he was pissed.
It's a similar process to why we wear black at funerals, but the Chinese wear white. It's just what's been done traditionally so it has weight behind it.
I'm not sure, but I think thats it.
http://www.xenu-directory.net/victims/
You also read up on the general abuse and slave labor practices they force on their members.
Yes, there are Christian churches that do shit like this too. But this is being done by THE Scientology church.
Don't you think that if tomorrow the pope had someone killed it would shake things up a bit?
What a revolutionary thought.
Take that, society.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Knight Rider:
if you think that is the worst thing scientology has ever done, you need to read more about scientology.http://www.xenu-directory.net/victims/
You also read up on the general abuse and slave labor practices they force on their members.Yes, there are Christian churches that do shit like this too. But this is being done by THE Scientology church.
Don't you think that if tomorrow the pope had someone killed it would shake things up a bit?
In your own words:
quote:
Blindy had this to say about Duck Tales:
Deflection go go go
quote:
How.... Mr. Parcelan.... uughhhhhh:
How edgy.What a revolutionary thought.
Take that, society.
Technically, a non Scientologist defending Scientology would be a revolutionary thought, given how they are attacked by all sides in today's society.
But if you can't answer the simple question that is posed, maybe you should stay out as it is obviously beyond your capability. Bricktop fucked around with this message on 09-16-2009 at 07:21 AM.
quote:
Blindy. stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
if you think that is the worst thing scientology has ever done, you need to read more about scientology.http://www.xenu-directory.net/victims/
You also read up on the general abuse and slave labor practices they force on their members.Yes, there are Christian churches that do shit like this too. But this is being done by THE Scientology church.
Don't you think that if tomorrow the pope had someone killed it would shake things up a bit?
Also, "Don't you think that if tomorrow the pope had someone killed it would shake things up a bit?" is hilarious since it is widely accepted by history that the Pope John Paul I was assassinated by corrupt church officials because he was shaking things up.
Ancient traditions, inherit and inscribed in the fabric of our society. Sometimes corrupt, sometimes benign, but always shaping and in turn being shaped by the civilizations that count themselves faithful.
Scientology.
Made up in the 1950's by a Science Fiction author in order to establish a cult an get rich off of the suggestible.
I don't see the difference. :smug:
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Yes, faith is faith, but that is irrelevant. Scientology is by every definition a cult. There is a difference between having faith in a religion that is actively exploiting you and one that is only trying to help you. And yes, there are some Christian cults, and Islamic cults- but the entire religion is not a cult. And if you try to start up a new Christian or Islamic sect, you are not going to be sued for copyright infringement. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 09-16-2009 at 09:32 AM.
I have a wife. We have a good relationship. I have faith that she will be faithful to me and will act in our collective best interests. I have no empirical evidence that she will do so, but only those already hardened against the concept of marriage will consider me a fool for thinking that.
My friend has a wife. He works, she does not. She spends all his money. She was a slut before they got married. Still, he has faith that she will be faithful to him and act in their collective best interests. He has no empirical evidence that she will do so, but anyone with half a freaking brain will consider him a fool for thinking that.
You point at both my friend and I and say "You are the same, because you both believe something you cannot prove."
I point at you and say "You have some mustard on your shirt."
Delphi Aegis fucked around with this message on 09-16-2009 at 10:08 AM.
quote:
And now, we sprinkle Blindy. liberally with Old Spice!
Let me explain it yet another way. Go with me here.I have a wife. We have a good relationship. I have faith that she will be faithful to me and will act in our collective best interests. I have no empirical evidence that she will do so, but only those already hardened against the concept of marriage will consider me a fool for thinking that.
My friend has a wife. He works, she does not. She spends all his money. She was a slut before they got married. Still, he has faith that she will be faithful to him and act in their collective best interests. He has no empirical evidence that she will do so, but anyone with half a freaking brain will consider him a fool for thinking that.
You point at both my friend and I and say "You are the same, because you both believe something you cannot prove."
I point at you and say "You have some mustard on your shirt."
No, I point at you and say, "That explanation is retarded. First of all, you are basing your wife's future fidelity on empirical evidence: she has remained faithful to you in the past. In other words, you are using a past pattern of behavior to predict a future pattern of behavior, and quite reasonably, too. You're using reasoned analysis to do this. Attributing this to faith is just plain dishonest.
"Your friend, on the other hand, is indeed an idiot. He chooses to predict pattern of behavior in spite of the empirical evidence. He ignores the facts because they and their implications are unpleasant. So, not only is he an idiot, he's also a spineless baby, literally propping up his relationship entirely on an unfounded belief."
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Having faith in something that is not exploiting you is not the same as having faith in something that is exploiting you. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 09-16-2009 at 10:23 AM.
quote:
Aw, geez, I have Blindy. all over myself!
No, the real difference is that the stated point of Scientology is to exploit people for money.
That's all any religion was at its outset: put on a little song and dance, make people behave how you want them to, and take some of their money. A religion is probably one of the most profitable and least productive businesses you can run, because really, what's so difficult about it? You invent some stories, you borrow some others, you throw in some locally famous people, and then you put on a show. The people who like the show feel good about themselves and they give you some money. If you're smart, you make sure that those people are impressed with an obligation to bring more people back next time, so you can make even more money doing the same amount of work.
Make no mistake about it: infant religions must be brutally expansionist, or they'll very likely fail. They must fight for their very existence against what is probably a very hostile dominant religion. They must market themselves cleverly to as many segments of the population as possible, crossing as many social and economic barriers as they can. By doing this, they'll grow in power, both economically and politically, and both these will legitimize the religion and its adherents. After they've consolidated their position within society, they can cement their ideology as needed, perhaps indulge in a purge of the fainthearted, and continue to assume a more and more dominant role in society.
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Blindy. with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
I'll tell you what. When any of those other religions come up with a "level" system, start selling classes and books that are required to advance (and receive the teachings that they say are required to be happy and saved), charge exorbitant amounts of money for said books and classes, and set up slave labor programs for people (complete with dorms where you can be supervised by a church official 24/7!) who can't afford to pay for them, and actively encourage their members to cut off all contact with their families, and threaten to sue and/or kill members who leave the church, then I'll agree with you that they are truly cut from the same cloth as Scientology.[qb]
You really don't believe that early Christianity/Islam/Buddhism was similarly brutal? Or does the fact that their atrocities were committed thousands of years ago excuse them?
quote:
[qb]Yes, faith is faith, but that is irrelevant. Scientology is by every definition a cult. There is a difference between having faith in a religion that is actively exploiting you and one that is only trying to help you. And yes, there are some Christian cults, and Islamic cults- but the entire religion is not a cult. And if you try to start up a new Christian or Islamic sect, you are not going to be sued for copyright infringement.
Faith is faith, and it is absolutely relevant to this problem. Cults are what people call small religions--it's purely a matter of semantics. Scientology purports to be able to help you. So do most other religions, as far as I'm aware. So why is Scientology's method of tithing(pay for personality tests, thetan levels lolololol) exploitation but Christianity's method of tithing (God sez give me 10% of your income lolololol) isn't?
Finally, your little remark about copyright infringement is a retarded non-sequitur. When Christianity and Islam got their start, concepts of intellectual property as we know it didn't fucking exist. What would've instead happened is that the funky new Christian cult would've been A) brought into the fold, the new religion needing all the adherents it could get, or B) the cultists brutally murdered for heresy.
Now, since you can't murder people as easily as you could in goatfucking times, Scientology is simply squashing heterodoxy with the tools available to it. It's actually a pretty good idea, when you think about it: they can remove any written records of heterodoxy, ensuring that they remain the single definitive source of information. There probably won't be any schism in the Church of Scientology come 2300 because of it, too.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Blindy. with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
My entire point is that we have evidence of the behavior of these churches. Scientology is an exploitative spouse, while most Churches are not exploitative.Having faith in something that is not exploiting you is not the same as having faith in something that is exploiting you.
All religions exploit. That's the whole point: they exploit your fear of death, your ignorance of the physical nature of the universe, and, perhaps most importantly, the impressionability of your youth to get you to give them money. They make you feel good about yourself, your place in the world, about what will happen to you after you die, etc. They even make you feel good about giving them money by using a part of that money for philanthropic causes and basic social safety nets. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this deal, but it's still exploitation, because it's based on fear and ignorance. They're offering a solution to some very difficult questions and problems, and all you have to do is some simple rituals and pay some money.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Do you think that the concept of State is exploitative simply because States in the past have committed such atrocities? I doubt it.
2- No, tithing is voluntary and in non-exploitative religions is not tied to the concept of salvation. It is not the same thing as "Pay us $10,000 for a course or you will never experience happiness."
3- The very fact that you think all Religions were founded by people wishing to put on a song and dance to exploit the masses means you are the person in my analogy hardened against the concept of Marriage.
4- The difference between a cult and a religion is not size, nor is it the oddness of belief, it is the nature of the relationship between member and Church. If the Church with-holds help or salvation absent the financial or material contribution of it's members, it is a cult. If the Church freely gives help and offers salvation regardless, then it is not a cult.
Do you have difficulty seeing the difference between a volunteer and a patron? Between a non-profit and a corporation? The same difference applies.
There have been times in the past where almost every Religion and Church has acted cult-like in one respect or another. I'm not going to disagree with you on that. However, you cannot forever damn a religion, church, or even a state based on its actions from decades or centuries or millennia ago under different leadership and circumstances.
quote:
If Karnaj was a glacier, they'd be a fast one:
All religions exploit. That's the whole point: they exploit your fear of death, your ignorance of the physical nature of the universe, and, perhaps most importantly, the impressionability of your youth to get you to give them money. They make you feel good about yourself, your place in the world, about what will happen to you after you die, etc. They even make you feel good about giving them money by using a part of that money for philanthropic causes and basic social safety nets. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this deal, but it's still exploitation, because it's based on fear and ignorance. They're offering a solution to some very difficult questions and problems, and all you have to do is some simple rituals and pay some money.
No, not really. Maybe you should learn something about the teachings of the modern Catholic Church before you make such broad and sweeping accusations. They are not the only Church for which this argument is patently false, but they are a pretty darn obvious one. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 09-16-2009 at 11:51 AM.
quote:
Blindy. screamed this from the crapper:
1- Yes, the fact that atrocities were committed hundreds if not thousands of years ago does excuse them. The world was a more brutal place, and in many (if not most) States the Religion was inseparable from the State.
Please clarify your position: do you believe that the suffering of the innocent people at the hands of early Christians, Muslims, etc. is a non-factor in the formation of those religions? In other words, do assert that their pain and death can be written off as a product of the times, rather than being an inherent trait of a youthful, expansionist religion? Further, should I take this to mean that the death and pain caused by Scientology is a result of its cult status, rather than an inherent trait of a youthful, expansionist religion?
quote:
Do you think that the concept of State is exploitative simply because States in the past have committed such atrocities? I doubt it.
quote:
2- No, tithing is voluntary and in non-exploitative religions is not tied to the concept of salvation. It is not the same thing as "Pay us $10,000 for a course or you will never experience happiness."
But such instances have happened in the past. Could not wealthy Christians buy indulgences to avoid temporal punishment for sins? Didn't abuse of this system contribute to the Protestant Reformation? And if institutional pressure to tithe isn't mandatory, perhaps it's simply extremely strong, and that's to say nothing of social pressure.
In the end, such minutiae aren't hugely important, rather the central concept: oney is much more important to a young religion than an old one, because the young religion's position is so much more precarious.
quote:
3- The very fact that you think all Religions were founded by people wishing to put on a song and dance to exploit the masses means you are the person in my analogy hardened against the concept of Marriage.
OK, but your analogy sucked, so we can't really derive too much from it.
quote:
4- The difference between a cult and a religion is not size, nor is it the oddness of belief, it is the nature of the relationship between member and Church. If the Church with-holds help or salvation absent the financial or material contribution of it's members, it is a cult. If the Church freely gives help and offers salvation regardless, then it is not a cult.
I think you're going to want to retract or restate this, and here's why. Go to your local clergyman and say the following: "I know this dude, right? He's pretty chill and whatever, but he denies the existence of the Holy Spirit and rejects Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. If he died right now, would he get into Heaven?"
The actual answer is, of course, unimportant, because the question violates your premise that salvation is available to everyone no matter what. Salvation can only be offered to adherents, because salvation is intangible. You can't give me something that doesn't physically exist. The best you can do is to say I have it, at which point I must believe you that I do. The difference is important, because I will not deny that a religious organization can give me tangible help(food, shelter, etc.).
Additionally, I take issue with the notion that material or financial compensation in exchange for salvation qualifies a church as a cult. As I said, salvation is intangible, so I have it only if I believe I have it. This is probably easier for me if my religious authority confirms it, so why should it matter if it costs me money or effort? Salvation's importance is wholly subjective, so the price is equally subjective: simple obedience, money, volunteer work, ritual, etc.
quote:
Do you have difficulty seeing the difference between a volunteer and a patron? Between a non-profit and a corporation? The same difference applies.
Ah, but these are all tangible organizations/individuals, all offering tangible services. I certainly don't see Wal-Mart offering anyone everlasting life in an ethereal Paradise, though it's been a while since I've been in a Wal-Mart.
quote:
There have been times in the past where almost every Religion and Church has acted cult-like in one respect or another. I'm not going to disagree with you on that. However, you cannot forever damn a religion, church, or even a state based on its actions from decades or centuries or millennia ago under different leadership and circumstances.
Well, it's not so much about damning specific acts in perpetuity, as it is about pointing out that all religions thrive on the same mechanism: irrational thought. I mean that, of course, not as a pejorative, but in that it requires faith. Further, Scientology, as a young religion, is doing many of the same things early Christianity and early Islam did to survive and thrive. The methodology is different, of course, accounting for the different times we live in, but the end goal is the same. When you think about it, we're actually living in pretty amazing times; it's entirely possible a major world religion of the future is coalescing in our midst.
quote:
No, not really. Maybe you should learn something about the teachings of the modern Catholic Church before you make such broad and sweeping accusations. They are not the only Church for which this argument is patently false, but they are a pretty darn obvious one.
And I hear no true Scotsman wears pants on Sunday. Seriously, though, is your point of contention that I insisted that religions force you to give them your money? OK, I restate it thusly: they very strongly suggest that you give them some of your money. If you're so upset that I might be able to apply this to the Catholic Church, then answer me this: do the teachings of the modern Catholic Church offer their adherents salvation and everlasting life in Heaven in exchange for certain behaviors and/or actions? Do they provide their adherents answers to the large, fundamental, pressing questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything? And finally, do these answers/explanations provide palliative comfort, compared to secular explanations?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
At least Karnaj isn't Somthor:
Please clarify your position: do you believe that the suffering of the innocent people at the hands of early Christians, Muslims, etc. is a non-factor in the formation of those religions? In other words, do assert that their pain and death can be written off as a product of the times, rather than being an inherent trait of a youthful, expansionist religion? Further, should I take this to mean that the death and pain caused by Scientology is a result of its cult status, rather than an inherent trait of a youthful, expansionist religion?
You seem to be arguing that, basically, the Crusades were actually about Religion. That the exploitation of South America by the Spanish was actually about spreading God. At best, Religion was a bullet point on that slide. Or do you think these things wouldn't have happened if people didn't believe in the Sky Fairies? Frankly, you're wrong. It can be an excuse for invading, sure, but at most it is just a political tool, and if it didn't exist, another would have taken it's place.
quote:
I think you're going to want to retract or restate this, and here's why. Go to your local clergyman and say the following: "I know this dude, right? He's pretty chill and whatever, but he denies the existence of the Holy Spirit and rejects Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. If he died right now, would he get into Heaven?"
He would say "Did he live a good life? Then yes." But then my local clergy is catholic and the church teaches that you don't even have to believe in God to get into heaven.
quote:
And I hear no true Scotsman wears pants on Sunday. Seriously, though, is your point of contention that I insisted that religions force you to give them your money? OK, I restate it thusly: they very strongly suggest that you give them some of your money. If you're so upset that I might be able to apply this to the Catholic Church, then answer me this: do the teachings of the modern Catholic Church offer their adherents salvation and everlasting life in Heaven in exchange for certain behaviors and/or actions? Do they provide their adherents answers to the large, fundamental, pressing questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything? And finally, do these answers/explanations provide palliative comfort, compared to secular explanations?
What I'm specifically responding to in the quote you wrote this about is that religions exploit your fear of death and ignorance of the order of the universe in order to get you to give them money.
First off, not every religion teaches that you need to follow their specific teachings and rituals in order to get into heaven, or attend church. Not every religion even proclaims to have the absolute answer for how the universe was created and the order behind it all. The Catholic church pretty much stops at "everything happens for a reason, so try to make the best of it"
Second off, if there was a non-profit donations based foundation that offered psychotherapy to people who needed it would you accuse them of exploiting people? They'd provide answers to the large, pressing questions. Make you feel good about yourself and understand your place in the world. They'd happily take your donations and use it to help others as well. I don't see this setup as being that different than what a non-exploitative religion does. You don't see the value (and frankly, it's hard for me as well, but I've seen what it does for my family and wife), but for them, it's there, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they aren't being asked to provide money in exchange for services.
I'll address the other half of your argument as I see it later- but my reply is going to basically come down to "you can be expansionist without being exploitative."
quote:
Karnaj impressed everyone with:
Snoota's real point is that the lack of empirical thought that allows the Scientology to flourish is the same that allows all religions to flourish. The only difference between the former and the latter is time elapsed. I've no doubt that Scientology will become an accepted world religion in a few centuries' time.
Time elapsed and the whole sanctioned and encouraged criminal activity thing.
There's no denying that a lot of religions have problems and a lot of religions, on the whole, can be and are interpreted by some to express violent thoughts and criminal urges. But only one of them actually has it as part of their actual agenda and creed.
Besides, Snoota's just trolling, and weakly at that.
Except for me and Parce because we're good little Christians. 
And we go: 'lol that is how we roll on cloud XIII, son' and go back to playing video games and eating chili all the goddamn day
And while their overall record while repressing religious groups is pretty bad, I'm gonna side with the German government on this one and say they're not really a religion, no matter how much they claim otherwise. Callalron fucked around with this message on 09-17-2009 at 12:33 AM.
quote:
Callalron thought about the meaning of life:
And while their overall record while repressing religious groups is pretty bad, I'm gonna side with the German government on this one and say they're not really a religion, no matter how much they claim otherwise.
Last I saw, Texas and France had bills/laws/resolutions/whatever being passed that were similarly declaring Scientology to be a business and not a religion.
That's not faith, that's medical quackery.
quote:
Blindy. got served! Blindy. got served!
You seem to be arguing that, basically, the Crusades were actually about Religion. That the exploitation of South America by the Spanish was actually about spreading God. At best, Religion was a bullet point on that slide. Or do you think these things wouldn't have happened if people didn't believe in the Sky Fairies? Frankly, you're wrong. It can be an excuse for invading, sure, but at most it is just a political tool, and if it didn't exist, another would have taken it's place.
No, I'm talking about those deaths and injuries more or less directly attributable to religion. Burning witches, imprisoning/executing heretics, that kind of thing. Larger scale events like wars and colonization, of course, have many causes, of which religious bigotry is often a component, but focus instead on individual events: the murder of a Jewish family suspected of poisoning the water supply of a Black Forest village, the torture and imprisonment of a man who publicly spoke heresy, etc. Can you now answer my question?
quote:
He would say "Did he live a good life? Then yes." But then my local clergy is catholic and the church teaches that you don't even have to believe in God to get into heaven.
Now that's interesting. Why do you suppose he would opt to say that? It certainly runs counter to the Bible(according to Mark 3:29, those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven). But, Christianity is a dominant, mature religion. Such interpretations can flourish, because there are probably two hundred million Christians in this country. If you bump into someone on the street, odds are good that he believes roughly the same things you do. Christians wield incredible economic, political, and social power. The entire country, more or less, shuts down for an annual Christian holiday. I mean, that's pretty rad.
Now, let's go back in time, say, 1700 years. Taking a break from heaping mud into a basket, or whatever the hell it is people did back then, you ask your local clergyman the same question. You think he'll be so lenient at your exposure of an unrepentant blasphemer?
So this all comes back the central question: do you think that the tolerance some denominations of Christianity observe today is a product of the times, or that of a mature, dominant religion? In other terms, if Christianity were only a few decades old, but with the same tenets and scripture, would your clergyman react the same way to a blasphemer in his midst?
quote:
What I'm specifically responding to in the quote you wrote this about is that religions exploit your fear of death and ignorance of the order of the universe in order to get you to give them money.First off, not every religion teaches that you need to follow their specific teachings and rituals in order to get into heaven, or attend church. Not every religion even proclaims to have the absolute answer for how the universe was created and the order behind it all. The Catholic church pretty much stops at "everything happens for a reason, so try to make the best of it
This is all well and good, but can you show me a relatively young religion that does this, or are the only ones exhibiting this kind of tolerance many centuries old?
quote:
Second off, if there was a non-profit donations based foundation that offered psychotherapy to people who needed it would you accuse them of exploiting people? They'd provide answers to the large, pressing questions. Make you feel good about yourself and understand your place in the world. They'd happily take your donations and use it to help others as well. I don't see this setup as being that different than what a non-exploitative religion does.
Psychotherapy is generally aimed at helping a person cope with a problem in his or her life. It's designed to respond to a specific problem: depression, trauma, phobias, etc. The desired result is to alter modes of thinking and/or behaviors. Their goals are specific and pretty well-defined. Most psychotherapists are trained and licensed, and some are even medical doctors who can dispense medication as needed(depends on the method) employed.
At any rate, their goals are wholly tangible and secular. They want to improve a person's life. That's it. Now, let me cut you off before you say that religions do the same thing; it's definitely the case. Religions nowadays generally want people feeling good, because if they feel good, they keep coming back. However, if a religion didn't sell their adherents a story on the afterlife and the universe and all that jazz, why the hell would it be called a religion. Religion demands a level belief that your hypothetical psychotherapy organization does not.
quote:
You don't see the value (and frankly, it's hard for me as well, but I've seen what it does for my family and wife), but for them, it's there, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they aren't being asked to provide money in exchange for services.
I have to ask again: if all a religion does is provide tangible services, why call it a religion? It has to offer something else: that intangible salvation I spoke of. You wouldn't adhere to the religion if you didn't draw comfort from its promise of eternal life/paradise. Moreover, there is a secular analogue to all services religions provide...except that one. Why, then, are religions so popular? It's really impossible the religions exploit peoples' fear of death, ignorance, and desire to obey social norms to keep the pews filled, so to say?
quote:
I'll address the other half of your argument as I see it later- but my reply is going to basically come down to "you can be expansionist without being exploitative."
Fair enough. Show me how.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
