Atheist thread

Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

The idea of any religion to have people celibate for their entire life is such a stupid and unrealistic notion.. IF that is a part of a religion, THIS will always be an issue. Religion cannot successfully keep a group of people from sexual behavior, it only sets people up for deviant behavior. It causes more hate and hurt than anything
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

As the head of The Roman Catholic Church, what is he doing to help the victims and the authorities to get/make justice or avoid pedophiles in the clergy to re-offend? Even if granting them mercy is consistent with the Christian principles, it is as useless as prsying.

The article mentions several initiatives he has taken. I don't really see anything wrong with his approach from a Christian perspective, even if the article is slanted in that direction. Like it says that the Pope's decision to grant Rev. Mauro Inzoli clemency came back to haunt him because Inzoli was later convicted of child sexual abuse by an Italian criminal court, after new evidence emerged against him. That's not a minor detail. The new evidence led to a second church trial as well so how is this controversial? The article mentions that two longtime staffers involved in the discipline section for child abuse cases were dismissed, without giving any reason for this, thus implying that the Church doesn't take this seriously but the next paragraph states that the replacements for these staffers are already lined up and the Pope has recently approved even more staff to strengthen the office. So why is this even relevant? The Pope says those who abuse children suffer from a mental disease, which the abuse victims' advocate somehow interprets to mean that they are absolved from any responsibility and don't know what they're doing, even though that was never said.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the Catholic Church on almost everything when it comes to social moral issues so this is not a defense of the Church per se. But I don't think it's fair to castigate the Pope as someone who condones or enables pedophilia.

The idea of any religion to have people celibate for their entire life is such a stupid and unrealistic notion.. IF that is a part of a religion, THIS will always be an issue. Religion cannot successfully keep a group of people from sexual behavior, it only sets people up for deviant behavior. It causes more hate and hurt than anything

I actually think it's the other way around. The prospect of a celibate life attracts people with deviant sexual behaviour/orientations because it 1) gives them an excuse for never having a 'normal' adult relationship and 2) for those with malicious intent, it grants them closer access to children and puts them in a position of power.

I was talking to my grandma the other day and she was telling me about her sister who decided to become a nun when she was a teenager. Grandma (with her usual tact) said "she was actually popular with the boys you know, it's not like she needed to become a nun. In those days everyone understood that the monastery was the last resort for women who were either not interested in men or too unattractive to find one." :p
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^ Well I'll say this, the forced separation between men and women in many countries that are primarily Islamic have the same issue... And that Is all types of people, not just in power.. The suppression of sexuality in many end up coming out in some way!! and usually in wrong ways.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

For those who were not always but are now atheists and/or agnostic (which I am). What is the journey that made you come to your conclusions?
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

For those who were not always but are now atheists and/or agnostic (which I am). What is the journey that made you come to your conclusions?

I am a closeted agnostic lol :)

My story:
My parents are muslims,but religion has never played a big role in my family.There are some rules we follow (no pork, we don't celebrate christmas) but i don't think that they are too strict.I don't believe in god but i don't rule out the existence of a higher power.
But there are things that i don't like.I have noticed many things in my religion (this is only my experience,i don't want to speak for all muslims out there but i do think it is the case in most families):

I have never read the Quran so i can't say if this shouldn't be the case but there are so many things that are just wrong in my culture and i don't know if things are just interpretated wrong...
-women aren't being treated equal.They have to obey their husband, they have to be 'pure' before marriage (their virginity is sooo important for many muslim boys i can tell you...), they aren't really allowed to be independent... this is something i have experienced but i have also seen it with many friends.I'm not allowed to have sleep overs,my parents don't want me to have a boyfriend because 'mistakes' can happen,they don't want me to move out until i get married (to an albanian man of course) etc. They are also very sceptical about my friends (black,homosexual, serbian...).Boys are definitely prefered and no matter what they do they forgive them while girls are abandoned. My cousins had german girlfriends, they smoked or drinked and had sex and they lived alone... nobody really complained.
-beating, it seems to be something completely normal.We don't talk about it but it happens all the time.
-reputation.... now this is actually quite irritating for me because i have never cared about what others think.But there is this notion that others have to 'respect' you. You don't talk loud so that your neighbours won't hear you fighting, you don't divorce,you even lie to people if necessary (i wasn't beaten, I just fell) ... simply things that would bring 'shame' over your family. We have a term in Germany ,,Das Gesicht verlieren" (to loose your face) which describes it pretty well.I feel like many muslims fear their reputation.

I love my family and i love many of our traditions.I don't want to 'misbehave' but there are many things i don't like and that i want to do differently.But i feel like i can never be really 100% free because if i do something very wrong (in their eyes) it will hurt them so much.

But sometimes I am actually thankful.Because i still live a better life than many muslim women out there.I live in Germany and here things are quite different.It's like having two lifes, and i see the good and the bad in both of them.Sometimes I was proud of my religion but then i think of my friends and their lifes.They are allowed to do things that I am not and it makes me sad.

The good thing though... nobody has ever pressured me to believe in god or be part of the religion.I was always interested in science but i think that there are things that can't be really explained.So to me both things are possible,but i could never relate to the idea of a god.I don't see why i should devote my time to someone who has done nothing helpful.In this moment there are people starving and wars going on and he is just sitting there and watching us? I don't like the idea.I don't like to blindly worship someone who's extistence has never been proven.But i understand that there are people who gain hope and strength from their religion and aslong as they are peaceful I'm ok with it.
So that's the reason why, i hope my text wasn't too long.I hope i could give some insight... i have been browsing this thread for quite a while but i didn't dare to say anything, now i had the courage with the right question :)
 
Last edited:
^ Very interesting, thanks for sharing (Respect77 as well) :)

You say you're a closeted agnostic. Does that mean that your family and friends don't know that you're not religious either?

I'm open to the idea of a higher power as well. There is no evidence for it at this time but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. So in that sense, I am agnostic too*. But I am convinced that "God" as described in any of the major religions I'm familiar with does not exist because all of these religions make ontological claims that are very easy to disprove. I know there are many religious people who manage to reconcile scientific facts like evolution and the Big Bang with the creation myths from their holy books but for me it makes no sense. The whole concept of "original sin" is obsolete if humans evolved over millions of years and there were no original Adam & Eve. And if that's the case, there was no need for redemption either so what was the point of Jesus sacrificing himself?

Another issue for me is what Respect77 also mentioned, that the God of the OT (and the Quran) is such a deeply unpleasant character. Even if I believed He existed, it would be really hard for me to worship someone like that. It seems the only argument religious people have is that God must be worshipped because He created everything. It's like a child being told she must love her parents no matter how cruel and abusive they are because they brought her into the world. What kind of insufferable narcissist demands constant worship anyway? If the Bible is to be believed, God is all-powerful and always has been, so why are we expected to be so grateful and impressed with his creation?

*We actually have a term for this in Dutch: ietsisme (something-ism). I recently discovered that the international Wiki even has a page on it :p https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism

Ietsism (Dutch: ietsisme (<small style="font-size: 11.9px;">pronounced</small> [its&#712;&#618;sm&#601;]) – "somethingism") is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcendent force. It is a Dutch term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect – or indeed believe – that "there must be something undefined beyond the material and that which can be known” than can be proven, but on the other hand do not necessarily accept or subscribe to the established belief system, dogma or view of the nature of a Deity offered by any particular religion. Some of the English language related terms are agnostic theism (though very many ietsists do not believe in one or more gods and are thus atheists), eclecticism, deism and spiritual but not religious. Ietsists might call themselves Christian or followers of an other religion based on cultural identification with that religion, without believing in the dogmas of that particular religion. In terms of statistics this might influence outcomes when people are asked about their religion or beliefs without more in-depth interviewing.

I wouldn't say I'm an ietsist though, because even though I acknowledge that a higher power is possible, I don't believe in it given the lack of evidence. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
 
Last edited:
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

You say you're a closeted agnostic. Does that mean that your family and friends don't know that you're not religious either?

Well my friends know but my parents don't.I don't really see the point in telling them because they already know that i condemn some of their views.But i don't think it would be a big deal if they knew,i think they would be just dissapointed,maybe? I have already told them that they don't take their own religion very seriously.They don't read the Quran, they don't pray....
My sisters are the same,they don't really believe in god.My brother is very young he has to make up his mind yet.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Thank you all for sharing.. Just to clarify for those who may not be familiar with the definitive difference between agnostic and atheist. (which it looks like most know but....) Agnostics are basically open to the idea of a higher power and atheist do not believe one exists.. That can be very open, I personally do not believe in any of the traditional belief systems (organized religion) but I am not apposed to the thought of a higher power that none of us comprehend or actually know much about.. I'll say religious thoughts that appose science and/or are repeated stories through ancient myths strike me as BS quickly.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Thank you all for sharing.. Just to clarify for those who may not be familiar with the definitive difference between agnostic and atheist. (which it looks like most know but....) Agnostics are basically open to the idea of a higher power and atheist do not believe one exists.. That can be very open, I personally do not believe in any of the traditional belief systems (organized religion) but I am not apposed to the thought of a higher power that none of us comprehend or actually know much about.. I'll say religious thoughts that appose science and/or are repeated stories through ancient myths strike me as BS quickly.

That's a common misconception. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief or disbelief in a higher power, only about whether knowledge of a higher power is possible. Most theists and atheists are agnostic. If you say "I don't know for sure if God exists but I believe He does" you're an agnostic theist. If you say "I don't know for sure if God exists but I don't believe He does" you're an agnostic atheist. Both the Pope and Richard Dawkins describe themselves as being agnostic - it shouldn't be seen as a middle ground between theism and atheism.
 
Last edited:
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

I agree with Linda's post, agnostics don't claim to know whether deities exist or don't exist.

You can disagree with Richard Dawkins' scale if you want but it gives a guidance of people's spectrum of belief. I personally identify myself as a 6.9, I find the existence of god absurd and highly improbable but I don't claim to know for certain there is indeed no god.

1.Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3.Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4.Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

And a short explanation between gnosticism and agnosticism.

Gmjq3bEfCnMccRCLM6X4hggQ4O5KANrLGV3_QbrtILsODfGqf_S7JLecwtC18B3TR3Y0yZdWIzalRcp9GB6gibixmQIR24Yvv_O889S2NeqpMdEvH1qjMh8uoNlZ01Qeax76I4m29lchjCRRCCkF2OA=w390-h377-nc
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Linda could you expain the dictionary definition than:

Agnostic . a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Athiest . a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:


That is what I've based my understanding on.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^^Explain Wikipedia's definition then:
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence of God or the supernatural are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[1][2][3]

According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist".[2] Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets[4] rather than a religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Linda could you expain the dictionary definition than:

Agnostic . a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Athiest . a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:


That is what I've based my understanding on.

The primary definition of agnostic is in the first part of what you just quoted: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena". The word comes from the Greek gnosis (knowledge) with the prefix a- (non, un). It is possible that such a belief leads to indifference or a non-commital position regarding the existence of God, which is why it is often mistaken for a middle ground between theism and atheism, but this is definitely not always the case. Agnosticism and (a)theism deal with different questions: one is about knowledge, the other is about belief. You can be devoutly religious but still admit you don't know for sure that God exists - it is called faith after all - and that would make you agnostic. You can disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of God but still admit you cannot prove that no God or higher power exists, and that would make you agnostic as well. Hope that's more clear :)
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Yeah, I'm aware you can't prove a negative, the burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim. It's established though, agnosticism has nothing to do with the belief, lack of belief or being in the middle ground. It's not having the knowledge and the certainty of the existence or non-existence of gods.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

My problem with that statement is that it seems to assume there is a burden of proof on "the belief that God does not exist". There isn't. The burden of proof is only on those who say that God does exist. That is the positive statement that you have to prove, not a negative that God doesn't exist.

That is not relevant to agnosticism though. The only thing that matters here is whether something can be proven, not whose side carries the burden of proof or which position is more likely.

My problem with the definition that Wikipedia provides is rather the use of the word "God" where I think a more generic term like "higher power" or "the supernatural" is more accurate. God evokes a more specific being for most people, like the God of the Bible or the Quran, which is possible to disprove in my opinion.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Many people have the need of holding onto what they think is something/someone stronger than themselves and that's a higher power combined with their religion. I'll put into context what's happening in my country with the organized crime and violent related incidents especially occurred in the north and and some other states in center and south.

Many Mexicans identify themselves as Catholics, the 82.9% of the population in the last census done but in general many of them are Catholics whenever it's convenient to them, the big religious festivities, to deny women the right of legal and safe abortions, to discriminate and even as far as murdering people from the LGBT community. There were many reports of transgeder women being killed just last year but people don't want count them as part of the statistics of femicides just because they weren't biological women.

That doesn't happen in the zones I mentioned earlier, people look for protection in their god to feel safe of snipers, drug lords and even the authorities (police/the army) because they are themselves collided with the criminals. I get why they seek protection of the "almighty," the "Virgin" of Guadalupe, saints, angels, etc but it's useless; many innocents have been murdered in the cartels disputes to gain control and territories.

If Yahweh didn't feel remorse of murdering innocent babies, drowning thousands, people throwing a temper tantrum because the very same creatures he made weren't perfect as he is; he hasn't shown any signs of caring or doing something about the hundreds of children tortured or sexually abused by the people who represent him here on earth, the thousands dying because of wars and starvation every year, it's clear he won't give a crap about innocent ones dying because of the organized crime but fetuses are more precious than living children because life is sacred before they're even born.

Talking about holding onto a higher power, I did it as wellat the beginning of my adolescence until I was 16. Growing up, religion wasn't a huge part of my life but my parents baptized me, told me the basics about the trinity, the virgin, heaven, hell and forced me to do the first communion but in all honesty, I cared much more about Michael and cartoons as a child than god but I still "believed" because I was told to do so. My life hasn't been hard because of religion Iike many girls and women brought into theocratic Muslim countries but it has been hard because of other people. As my depression grew, I wanted to truly believe in god to give me strength, to take away the pain and sadness children and other people made me feel due to the rejection and mockery for using a walker, I was even told if I prayed hard truly believing, god and Jesus would cure me and would leave the church walking by myself; I'm mad I was so desperate at that time abd bought into such ridiculous bullshit. The more I wanted to hold into it, the more doubts I had as I was reading the Bible by myself, my prayers weren't answered and felt it just masked my depression for a while. At 17 I couldn't take it, came to my senses and said to myself I don't believe in god anymore and that day I lifted part of the weight I had on my shoulders. The depression comes and goes but that day I decided to be atheist, I freed myself from the slavery of god, religion, fear of the final judgmentand an eternal torture in hell for all the "sins" I've committed through out my life.
 
I've noticed that in a lot of former socialist states, nationalism and "traditional values" are closely tied to religion. Even if the people themselves aren't that religious, they still see religion as an expression of their national identity, perhaps because it was suppressed for so long by a foreign (USSR) influence. The Church and the nationalist far-right are natural allies in that sense - and both are hungry for power.

We have parliamentary elections on March 15 and the far-right PVV (led by Wilders) is projected to make significant gains as well. Just like Orbán, Wilders is anti-Muslim immigration and anti-European and he sees himself as a defender of traditional Dutch values (and he has a Hungarian wife too :p). The difference is that social liberalism is a major part of our national identity so Wilders focuses heavily on that. His whole shtick is that our cherished liberties like LGBT rights and women's rights are under threat from increasing Muslim immigration so we must close our borders immediately and not let in any more Muslims. The acronym PVV stands for "Party For Freedom". There was a piece on Wilders in the NYT last week that was spot on. Don't mistake Wilders for some kind of liberal saviour though. His bigotry towards our large Muslim community is truly vile and he routinely lumps them all together as "scum" or Islamic fanatics. He has proposed things like banning the Quran, banning Muslim schools (but not Christian or Jewish schools), a tax on headscarves, banning the construction of new mosques, extra surveillance on Muslims, ban on Muslim immigration, etc. He admits that most of these proposals are "symbolic" because they violate the Constitution and the PVV will never have the required votes to introduce constitutional amendments, so his supporters say he's just a provocateur and he's railing against political correctness. Sounds familiar? -_-

That's why it never really made sense to me when people speak of an international far-right movement because all these far-right parties have as many differences as they have commonalities. Well over 80% of PVV voters support gay marriage and adoption by gay couples, which is significantly more than Democrats in the US in 2016 (70%). On the other hand, I am certain that banning the Quran or the construction of mosques is a lot more sensitive among the far-right in the US than here, given that religious freedom is such a central American value. It used to be a big part of our identity as well (the Netherlands was a place of refuge for religious minorities for many centuries) but it doesn't resonate as much with people today. It's not as relevant to most people as freedom of speech or freedom of the press are, which even I as an atheist have to disagree with. A country without freedom of religion is not a free country at all.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

I'm in favor of people having the right to profess the cult or religion they want, the Constitution acknowledges after all, what I'm against the religions themselves and the values they teach. If people are not using their religion to harm others and threatening to take away their rights, let them be they're not a threat to society and the government. That's not what is happening in Mexico.

I didn't tell you yesterday, even though Catholicism is still the most prominent religion, Evangelical Christianity is on the rise being the second most prominent one in the country. In Mexico there is a separation of church and state since the mid 19th century but the some groups of evangelicals are using their money and influences with political parties to directly attack women who demand abortions, single mothers and the LGBT community.

You know where there are secular governments, clergy or religious groups have no business in government's affairs or the laws politicians propose but these zealots are trying to interfere through out the states in the Republic to keep abortions criminalized even if women or little girls were raped. Not all the fault is on the evangelicals though, most of the authorities are Catholic, they should check their beliefs in the door but their backward values don't allow them to make exceptions for little girls even though forcing living children going through something they are not prepared in any way is more barbaric and brutal but it's more important to save unwanted fetuses. Mexico City is the only state where voluntary abortions aren't criminalized in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Back to the evangelicals, they did marches last year in favor of the "family" but just the normal ones. Don't quote me on this one because I haven't checked if it's legal for gay and lesbian couples to adopt children through the Republic besides Mexico City; anyways, I don't get how they're affected personally by gay or lesbian married couples wanting to adopt children, I don't see the homophobes offering to adopt them instead. They prefer children condemned to live in orphanages or the streets instead of allowing them the chance to have a home. The horror, the horror, they'll have two moms or two dads and "will make them gay!" >_>

Islam taken to the extreme is the most harmful religion nowadays because out of the three main Abrahamic ones is the one which has evolved the least, Muslims (not all) live in the 7th century but religions in general are still slowing us down as societies, many of their backward teachings don't have a place for the 21st century.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Respect,

You said you're from Hungary correct?

I have a question, might be random but I believe I read that Hungary and Czech Republic have the lowest religious population. Is that correct? And is the porn industry over there increasing? Is that practiced among Christians themsleves?
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

growing number of people in porn have little to do with religion.. more so the lack of religion if anything!! There are many people that call themselves Christian, Muslim or whatever and do not practice half or most of the core beliefs. I mean if I were to tell you how many 'Muslims' I know in the united states that drink, have pre marital sex, but don't eat pork because it's haram.. That would take up a large amount!
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Oh yeah, definitely, you have to watch out for all religions when it comes to an aspiration for power and control over people's lives. In Christianity the irony is that there is not such an order in the Bible that you have to Christianize your state. Usually the reasoning for an aspiration at having control in politics or the public sphere by Christian churches is that "God will punish the nation if we let sin prevail". And of course they are very selective about what "sin" matters and what doesn't - usually it's homosexuality and abortion that are singled out (when abortion isn't even mentioned in the Bible.) But you won't have them fight so vehemently against, say, corruption. Oh sure it's gay people who will ruin a nation not suffocating corruption. Oh and they don't have such a problem with heterosexual "sins". Sure, especially in evangelical churches you will have them preach against those too, but still you do not see churches in the public sphere attack cheaters, divorced people, people who have sex outside of marriage etc. so much as they attack gays. Obviously because they don't want to go against a big majority of society. They will just bully the minorities and otherwise vulnerable people - the easy targets. Let alone the irony of churches having such a hung-up about homosexuality when they cannot solve the pedophilia problem within their own ranks.

As for Biblical family values. This video sums it up.


But they are supposedly the light of the world that should protect our morals. LOL.

It reminded of Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian explaining a traditional biblical marriage. :lol:


Talking about abortions: "The lord isn't technically pro choice because it never occurs to him to give you one." "Don't confuse God with Santa. He only bothers to check if you're naughty or nice AFTER he's killed you."?


So, I don't know where "pro-life" people got the urge to save fetuses if god himself had no regards for them in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^ I'll like to add not only is there picking and choosing of what is considered 'sin' depending on individual lifestyles.. It's layering of 'sin' by some magical meter of importance..

Example how many Christians say that homosexuality is "AN OBOMINATION".. How horrible right? Abomination is a BIG word!!

Now eating "unclean things" is also an abomination.. Along with re=marrying someone you divorced, cheating on spouse, wearing clothes of the opposite sex (mind you women did not wear pants 2000 years ago) , refusing to hear the law, Pride... freaking Pride is an 'abomination'..

next time someone acts prideful I'M Picketing.. haha! "YOU'RE ARE DOING ABOMINAL ACTS"
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Yess.. I watched this when it aired and I'll just say, good for her!!!
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Since we were talking about the far-right earlier in this thread, I thought I'd share the prognosis of the Dutch elections that were held today. The final result will be known tomorrow morning as all ballots are counted by hand. Turnout was 81% compared to 75% in 2012.

VVD: 31
PvdA: 9
PVV: 19
CDA: 19
D66: 19
SP: 14
GroenLinks: 16
SGP: 3
PvdD: 5
ChristenUnie: 6
50Plus: 4
Denk: 3
Forum voor Democratie: 2

The PVV is Wilders' party. I was nervous all day but I'm relieved about the result. It was already clear that Wilders wouldn't be part of any coalition but it's still good to know that he only got 13% of the vote, even if that makes him the second, third or fourth largest party in our fractured political system :p
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^Does that mean the far right didn't win and Muslims won't be deported?

About Leah Remini's show, Scientology and the Aftermarth, I was left in disbelief the difference there is treatment to average Scientologists and celebrities who are in; the Sea Org members are treated like slaves and celebs don't care about the punishments they're sumitted even though some of them are/were aware of. The policy of disconection against people who leave the organization is hearbraking. They were part of a dangerous cult.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^Does that mean the far right didn't win and Muslims won't be deported?

Well, the PVV still jumped from 10% to 13% of the vote so they did win a few extra seats but they were nowhere near winning the election. And there were other parties with a very progressive, pro-European message (like GL and D66) which gained far more seats. There was never any chance of the PVV being in government since the other parties had already ruled out working with them, although for some reason most international media omitted this from their reporting. The media were also obsessed with Wilders' more extreme comments like closing mosques, banning Muslims and outlawing the Quran, when these things are obviously unconstitutional and would never be approved by Parliament. Wilders himself admitted these comments were merely symbolic although I have no doubt he would put them into practice if he could.

I just feel relieved that this odious man was rejected by the overwhelming majority of my country and we can go back to business as usual. And whatever the next government will be, it is sure to be reliably pro-European, which is important at a time when Russia and Turkey are becoming more agressive.

@ Respect77, speaking of Erdogan, this never gets old (turn on subtitles) :p

[youtube]R2e2yHjc_mc[/youtube]

The man is indeed nuts but he has large support among the Turkish diaspora. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually wins the referendum granting him more power.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

I agree John is less complicit than Tom but it's mentioned in the Going Clear doc he knew his former friend Spanky Taylor (the person who introduced Scientology to Priscilla) was in The Hole but did nothing about it; it didn't specify the extent of his knowledge though. Perhaps they blackmailed him to use his deepest secrets against him if he leaves the cult (there are way too many rumors of John having affairs with men for example) but he has benefits staying in it, less than Tom, I bet but still.

Since I found out about the treatment The Sea Org members recieve and basically many of them are Tom's slaves, I have mixed feeling towards him. On one hand, I like many of his movies, he's a very talented actor, on the other as a person the fact he's ok the people working around him being exploited and abused, makes him absolutely despicable and contemptible. I know many of the former members rationalized the craziness and abuse they went through but after a while they snapped and couldn't take it anymore, Tom could single-handedly end Scientology if he wanted to do the right thing. I wonder if he will ever say enough is enough.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^^Well played respect, well played! If fellow Scientologists themselves thought Tom went off his rocket taking into account the cult itself has batshit crazy beliefs, Cruise really lost his marbles and the media and the general public thought Michael was crazy. Someone has to have a colossal ego, to be out of their mind to attack a peer reviewed field of medicine that has proven its effectiveness treated various mental illnesses or disorders or anyone seeking psychiatric treatment without shred of evidence what they're talking about to think their so called religion is the answers to those illnesses just because the psychiatric association laughed at the claims of L. Ron Hubbard. If religions/cults are that detrimental to humankind, they must dissapear.

I'm still puzzled Brooke Shieldz went to Tom's wedding despite his vicious attack towards her because she took medications to treat her postpartum depression. I assume he invited her but if I were Brooke, I wouldn't have gone to his wedding.
 
Last edited:
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

They really used Mission Impossible music in the background the entire Tom Cruise speech? hahaha! Makes for one long/bad trailer for the movies....
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

I truly believe political correctness has given Islam and Muslims a lot of pass on regressive and detrimental ideas and behaviors that shouldn't have s place in the 21st century. It's sad to see some western Muslim women don't take advantage of living in freer countries compared to women who live in places where Islam is a theocracy.
 
Back
Top