Why is Ragging on Scientologists OK?

[wolveraptor]

I understood the first half of the post, but how the hell does Christianity recieve more weight in an argument? An argument on what? On which is more true? In that case, you could at least argue that the Israelites, the Romans, and most other historical figures in the Bible are known to have existed, whereas the only person we know is real in Scientology is L. Ron Hubbard.

The width of the target demographic validates a religion?

I think that at that time, he was referring to it's status as a religion rather than a cult. However, the only difference dictionary.com has given me between a cult and a religion is that the former is considered to be socially incorrect (a product of being parochial), and is associated with extremism.

Scientology, like the very early Christian church, is completely controlled by the central authority, and hasn't formed any splinter groups. You might find an individual who has his or her own version of Scientology, but there aren't any public sects in existence.

[Darth Wong]

In a sense, Scientology as a whole gets the scorn which is usually reserved for YECs in Christianity--though even YECs aren't openly mocked the way Scientologists are.

But you don't hear people saying that fundamentalist Christianity don't constitute a legitimate religion. You do hear people trying to say that about Scientology. The two groups are not remotely treated the same way; there is a license to scorn Scientology which even the most asinine, moronic Christian denomination doesn't suffer from.

[The Yosemite Bear]

sorry getting side tracked on thoughts of shiska appeal....

[Uraniun235]

Curious question: why are only Hollywood celebrities and entertainers involved in Scientology? Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people besides mega stars that are involved in that, but it seems from my p.o.v. that it has too narrow of a target audience to be considered a religion.

Because they have money. To get into the upper levels of the Church you either have to pay millions of dollars to take seminars, and be given their teachings. For celebrities it just means writing a check, but for average people you basically have to get a job in the Church and work your way up.
They also don't tell you the "secrets" about the church, like Xenu, and other assorted nonsense until you have spent so much time and/ or money on the church that to just walk away at that point is almost unthinkable for the dupes.

Celebrities get the full-service reach-around from Scientology. They don't get the same treatment that other people do, because it's valuable to Scientology for those celebrities to cast Scientology in a positive light.

[Erik von Nein]

Speaking of liberal vs fundamentalist Christianity, are there similar shades of belief in Scientology? Strong vs weak Scientologists?

Yes, actually, there are several who either don't know about or don't really follow the nonsense about DC-10s and Xenu. Instead there are those that take a lot of Hubbard's writings about finances, family life, dealing with friends and such and apply only that to their lives, or only follow thetans (which, apparently, quite a few of the ones I know view as people's souls rather than evil alien souls making their lives bad) or the reincarnation aspects of Scientology.

Now, these people usually don't make up much of the staff, mind, but they're out there.

[thejester]

When's the last time you saw a Church of Scientology bus driving around the lanes helping junkies? In Australia at least, Scientology gets ragged as much as fundy churches like Hillsong or Family First in part because they don't do the stuff you can respect churches for.

[Flagg]

Curious question: why are only Hollywood celebrities and entertainers involved in Scientology? Don't get me wrong, I know there are some people besides mega stars that are involved in that, but it seems from my p.o.v. that it has too narrow of a target audience to be considered a religion.

Because they have money. To get into the upper levels of the Church you either have to pay millions of dollars to take seminars, and be given their teachings. For celebrities it just means writing a check, but for average people you basically have to get a job in the Church and work your way up.
They also don't tell you the "secrets" about the church, like Xenu, and other assorted nonsense until you have spent so much time and/ or money on the church that to just walk away at that point is almost unthinkable for the dupes.

Celebrities get the full-service reach-around from Scientology. They don't get the same treatment that other people do, because it's valuable to Scientology for those celebrities to cast Scientology in a positive light.

Of course. But they still end up "investing" heavily in the church. I would guess that by the time most people sink that much time and money to get the secret of life and it turns out to be a horrid sci-fi story they would just shrug their shoulders and keep on with it.

[Rye]

Speaking of liberal vs fundamentalist Christianity, are there similar shades of belief in Scientology? Strong vs weak Scientologists?

I think there are, here comes some anecdotal evidence fro mthe internet, so feel free to salt the earth before continuing, I've chatted to one guy before who claims to be apart of the church, but rejects Xenu and the sillier scifi aspects. He said that Xenu et al were invented as a God/mythology equivalent so in court, when it was argued it wasn't a religion, they could fall back on that, when in reality it's just a front to protect the dianetics.

The guy that told me that was called Terryeo, and he seems to be on the scientology-related discussion pages a lot on wiki.

[drachefly]

So? How do you know the early Jewish priests didn't admit it too? You're simply taking advantage of the fact that the origins of the Judeo-Christian religion are lost in the mists of history. If there was as much obscuring of the origins of Scientology a thousand years from now, would it become more of a legitimate religion?

Because anyone nowadays has access to his admission, should they choose to google it. We do not have that for the ancient priests.

So? Even Jesus had his moment of doubt on the cross, and no matter how you spin-doctor it, his claims are more retarded than those of Hubbard.

Decisions are made on the available evidence, not the evidence that could have been gotten a few thousand years ago.

There's actually plenty of evidence that the Old Testament rules were made up for the benefit of the priests. The fact that it does not come in the form of an easily digested quote doesn't change that.

In a few thousand years, if Scientology persists yet L. Ron's plan was forgotten (somehow), then joining scientology would not be AS stupid. It would still be pretty freaking stupid.

How is it more stupid than joining a religion whose Great Prophet's Greatest Prophecy failed to come true in spectacular fashion? "This is a great money-making scheme" is more stupid than "I'm gonna come back and conquer the world in a few years?"

DW, I totally agree that several ancient religions were most likely started as a scam. I agree that believing in the literal truth of many of these things is absolutely ridiculous.

I was not in any way trying to dispute that when I effectively pointed out that 1,000,001 > 1,000,000. The craziness of the claims of Christianity is comparable to that of Scientology. Christianity has the 'coming soon' failure, and Scientology has the 'never forget another thing in your life!' failure at its most basic level. It'd be like if Christianity claimed that transsubstantiated wine would actually have a blood type.

But where Christianity has a pretty solid probability it was a scam, Scientology has near certainty.

[Darth Wong]

But where Christianity has a pretty solid probability it was a scam, Scientology has near certainty.

Even if we disregard the fact that you're using a non-Scriptural quote for this claim (yes, I'm trying to emulate the way religious people think), it's actually a logical fallacy. You cannot disprove an idea by attacking its author's motives.

[drachefly]

When the author is providing data rather than an argument, their credibility IS very important.

[drachefly]

That is to say, while the following exchange is a fallacy...

Abby: all A are B, and all B are C, correct?
Bob: correct
Abby: therefore, all A are C
Bob: Abby is a known liar, so I am not inclined to believe her.

the following is not:

Abby: All A are B, correct?
Bob: I do not already know this to be true, and Abby is a known liar, so I am not inclined to believe her.

[Darth Wong]

So it's about "credibility" now? You're attacking Scientology vs Christianity based on the credibility of its authors? That's a fucking laugh riot; the original authors of the Bible were a bunch of ignorant fucks who thought that the Earth was flat.

[Flagg]

So it's about "credibility" now? You're attacking Scientology vs Christianity based on the credibility of its authors? That's a fucking laugh riot; the original authors of the Bible were a bunch of ignorant fucks who thought that the Earth was flat.

Don't forget that we're not even sure who the authors even were.

[Elfdart]

sorry getting side tracked on thoughts of shiska appeal....

Oy vey!

Back on subject: The idea that Christianity (or any ancient religion) is more believable than Scientology is as fatuous as the idea that Superman is more believable than Spider-Man because the former is 30 years or so older than the latter. Neither is believable at all.

The older religions have more clout because they have more followers, more tradition and more force behind them.

[Zadius]

So it's about "credibility" now? You're attacking Scientology vs Christianity based on the credibility of its authors? That's a fucking laugh riot; the original authors of the Bible were a bunch of ignorant fucks who thought that the Earth was flat.

Don't forget that we're not even sure who the authors even were.

The Bible implies that the Earth is flat, so we know a bit about what the authors thought. Either they're liars, or extremely ignorant about science. Probably both.

[Cao Cao]

So it's about "credibility" now? You're attacking Scientology vs Christianity based on the credibility of its authors? That's a fucking laugh riot; the original authors of the Bible were a bunch of ignorant fucks who thought that the Earth was flat.

Don't forget that we're not even sure who the authors even were.

The Bible implies that the Earth is flat, so we know a bit about what the authors thought. Either they're liars, or extremely ignorant about science. Probably both.

It also says that women are inferior to men, questioning the patriarch of the household even if he's a drunk moron is unforgivable and that slavery is a-ok.
So we also know the authors were men with an agenda to bolster their own power and position in life.

[Darth Wong]

Don't forget the part about killing people who opposed the priesthood or mocked prophets. Anyone who reads the Old Testament and thinks there's any doubt of an agenda to enrich the priestly class is a fucking idiot.

[Flagg]

So it's about "credibility" now? You're attacking Scientology vs Christianity based on the credibility of its authors? That's a fucking laugh riot; the original authors of the Bible were a bunch of ignorant fucks who thought that the Earth was flat.

Don't forget that we're not even sure who the authors even were.

The Bible implies that the Earth is flat, so we know a bit about what the authors thought. Either they're liars, or extremely ignorant about science. Probably both.

I don't know that I'd call them liars for claiming the Earth was flat. I mean don't get me wrong, they may very well have been liars, but it was pretty much common knowledge that the world was flat at the time.

[Zadius]

Don't forget that we're not even sure who the authors even were.

The Bible implies that the Earth is flat, so we know a bit about what the authors thought. Either they're liars, or extremely ignorant about science. Probably both.

I don't know that I'd call them liars for claiming the Earth was flat. I mean don't get me wrong, they may very well have been liars, but it was pretty much common knowledge that the world was flat at the time.

I agree. The point was that they have no credibility, whether they were lying or just very ignorant.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I don't know that I'd call them liars for claiming the Earth was flat. I mean don't get me wrong, they may very well have been liars, but it was pretty much common knowledge that the world was flat at the time.

Actually, I believe it is a common myth that people in the ancient days believed the world was flat. Most ancient Roman scholars viewed the world as round and knew of the planets, moon and sun that traveled around it. If there was anything inaccurate about their overall view of astronomy, it was that they used a geocentric rather than a heliocentric reference point.

[Wicked Pilot]

That's a fucking laugh riot; the original authors of the Bible were a bunch of ignorant fucks who thought that the Earth was flat.

They weren't true Christians.

[Cao Cao]

That's a fucking laugh riot; the original authors of the Bible were a bunch of ignorant fucks who thought that the Earth was flat.

They weren't true Christians.

Heretic! The Bible is the word of God!

*lights torch and forms angry mob*

[Flagg]

I don't know that I'd call them liars for claiming the Earth was flat. I mean don't get me wrong, they may very well have been liars, but it was pretty much common knowledge that the world was flat at the time.

Actually, I believe it is a common myth that people in the ancient days believed the world was flat. Most ancient Roman scholars viewed the world as round and knew of the planets, moon and sun that traveled around it. If there was anything inaccurate about their overall view of astronomy, it was that they used a geocentric rather than a heliocentric reference point.

Most learned people knew. But most people weren't well educated, if at all. Mariners all knew the world was round, but they would pretty much have to considering the fact that they sailed "over the horizon" and witnessed the beaches dissapear before the hills.

[Darth Wong]

One thing to remember is that Christianity in its early days was the religion of the poor and illiterate classes. Learned Christians were few and far between. So much so that the New Testament even contains a defense of Christian ignorance by protesting that they may not be wise in the ways of the world, but they are wise in the ways of the Lord.