Why is Ragging on Scientologists OK?

[NeoGoomba]

Maybe its just a simplistic answer, (or possibly someone else said the same thing earlier in the thread) but I sort of get the feeling that maybe it has a lot to do with the seeming human brainbug of "the good ol days" where ancient ideas are treated with a little more reverence, if not outright devotion, than new ones. People may bash Scientology over other religions simply because since the rest may have a deep rooted history, they give it some sort of respect, even if they disagree with the religions themselves. With Scientology, you can completely trace its formation to present day, and so it doesn't have that sparkle of "antiquity".

[drachefly]

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.

1) The untrustableness of the ancient writers was only revealed through the ridiculousness of what they tried to convince people of. The untrustableness of L. Ron Hubbard was revealed years before he even tried to convince anyone of anything. THEN he went out and tried to make people believe ridiculous things.

2) If the source claims revelation from God (or memories from Body Thetans, as the case may be), then their ignorance on other subjects is irrelevant. And the earth being flat was surely ignorance. If they had known better, they would have used other images. They are just saying, "trust me on this". Trustworthiness is a significant part of the subject.

Wong, I'm trying to figure out what your point is: that you don't trust the original authors of the bible? Well, forgive me for not being surprised. But the question at hand is, "Why is it socially acceptable to knock on Scientologists?", not "Why aren't we Scientologists?"

My suggestion was just the transparentness of the religion's creation. We do not know for sure how Judaism or Christianity got started; but we know EXACTLY how Scientology got started.

[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.

1) The untrustableness of the ancient writers was only revealed through the ridiculousness of what they tried to convince people of. The untrustableness of L. Ron Hubbard was revealed years before he even tried to convince anyone of anything. THEN he went out and tried to make people believe ridiculous things.

So? Why is one worse than the other? You simply look for any distinction between the two and then arbitrarily declare that the Scientology variant is worse, when they are all just variations of irrational self-serving bullshit.

2) If the source claims revelation from God (or memories from Body Thetans, as the case may be), then their ignorance on other subjects is irrelevant. And the earth being flat was surely ignorance. If they had known better, they would have used other images. They are just saying, "trust me on this". Trustworthiness is a significant part of the subject.

And how the fuck is trustworthiness not reduced by massive ignorance?

Wong, I'm trying to figure out what your point is: that you don't trust the original authors of the bible? Well, forgive me for not being surprised. But the question at hand is, "Why is it socially acceptable to knock on Scientologists?", not "Why aren't we Scientologists?"

And your answer is to claim that Scientology is somehow more deserving of scorn for reasons which are no more valid than the reasons why Christianity is deserving of scorn.

My suggestion was just the transparentness of the religion's creation. We do not know for sure how Judaism or Christianity got started; but we know EXACTLY how Scientology got started.

Do we? Who knows what happened inside Hubbard's head? The fact that he saw a profit motive is no worse than the Bible continually exhorting people to give to the priesthood or help build the Temple. He could have been "divinely inspired" (to use the Christian bullshit term) just as much as the Bible writers were.

[Darth Servo]

He could have been "divinely inspired" (to use the Christian bullshit term) just as much as the Bible writers were.

In other words, "drunk"?

[Max]

One is rooted in history, receiving support from reputable philosophers, the other is rooted in a known dumbshit, supported only by eccentric entertainers who have a habit of jumping religions. That's why I think Christianity should at the very least receive a bit more weight in an argument.

OK, you're starting to piss me off. You made a post like this earlier, Stravo made a detailed response to it, you blew him off with a one-liner, and then you posted basically the same shit again. Either answer the points, shut the fuck up, or expect consequences.

All I meant was from the historical viewpoint, Christianity has survived for over 2 milleniums, often being the target of true persecution (From others of different faiths, and even those of a different denomination of the same general religion), suffering countless divisions from within the Church, and successfully reaching all continents on the globe (Through force or otherwise). And now here it stands today, still quite powerful and influencial despite all the turmoils and rifts it's went through. So yes, this is a product of age, but it's not just a matter of "Oh, it's been here, longer so it deserves it", it's what it has achieved to earn (Whether you agree with the acts it took or not). Now if Scientology somehow can't manage to survive a couple of decades because it was "persecuted" online by a few interwebbers, then no, it doesn't deserves the same level of respect as Christianity.

[Cao Cao]

I'd point out that Nazism has survived the utter destruction of it's main regime in World War II. People still believe in it and carry out it's teachings despite the fact that what it preaches is utter bullshit.

Age certainly affects some people's perception of Christianity but this by no means grants it more legitimacy than a younger religion such as Scientology.

[Max]

It's not the age itself that gives it weight, it's the time period. Christianity was able to grow because of the way people were then, and it became implanted into humanity. People still just passively accept it, whereas Scientology takes a legitimate leap of faith, considering people are too young to have "been born into it." Christianity is deeply rooted in every facet of humanity and there's no escaping it. Some of the most brilliant people have been Christians. The most intelligent Scientologist I'm aware of is John Travolta.

Plus we're comparing something that survived 60 years to something that survived 2000...

What has Nazism accomplished since it's downfall?

[Max]

Not to segue, but I thought Nazism doesn't exist anymore. The Nazis were a political party, were they not?

[Spyder]

Scientology is an easy target that can be attacked with endless peer support and limited reprisal, if any at all. The only people that don't find Scientology completely rediculous are people that don't understand Scientology and Scientologists.

Christianity is a difficult target that will mount heavy resistance and in many cases you'll probably be on your own when trying to press your points. Disputing the existance of the Lord will in almost certainly result in conflict, often with people that are important to future success such as teachers, bosses, parents, in-laws, that woman from trading spouses and the US President.

Going with the status quo is the easiest way to remove a significant number of barriers to an easy life and may even open doors that would otherwise be closed.

In application to political views,

Liberals: Ever see another liberal make an argument that you completely disagreed with but didn't want to say anything because you feared it would make you unpopular?

Conservatives: Same question; Ever see another conservative going on a rant about something which you know, somewhere inside your head, is wrong but for the sake of not wanting to risk unpopularity, or worse wind up looking like a liberal, you keep your trap shut?

I'm willing to bet good money that I'm not the only one on this board that's had to downplay athiest beliefs as "I'm just not particularly religous" in order to maintain relationships with friends and family.

[Darth Wong]

It's not the age itself that gives it weight, it's the time period. Christianity was able to grow because of the way people were then, and it became implanted into humanity.

In other words, Christianity is more respectable because it became popular way back in an era when people were incredibly ignorant. I'm not seeing how this logic works at all.

[haard]

Not to segue, but I thought Nazism doesn't exist anymore. The Nazis were a political party, were they not?

They were, but although there might not be a German nazi party (I dunno), there are in a lot of other countries (Sweden, for example).

[Elheru Aran]

Not to segue, but I thought Nazism doesn't exist anymore. The Nazis were a political party, were they not?

They were, but although there might not be a German nazi party (I dunno), there are in a lot of other countries (Sweden, for example).

There are a number of fascist neo-Nazi organizations in Germany, but the NSDAP itself is strictly prohibited. Most other 'Nazi Parties' are just neo-Nazi skinhead groups that don't do much except spout rightist propaganda-- get the kikes, Pakis, and homos out, blahblah, that kind of thing.

[drachefly]

DW, I think you just pointed out the distinction:

They all may be equally DESERVING of scorn, but I am not talking about what is fair, I am talking about what might be the actual explanation. Unfair as it may be.

[Darth Wong]

DW, I think you just pointed out the distinction:

They all may be equally DESERVING of scorn, but I am not talking about what is fair, I am talking about what might be the actual explanation. Unfair as it may be.

Which is not relevant to this discussion, since it is agreed at the outset of this thread that Christianity gets more respect. We're asking if there's any good reason for this, and the answer, quite clearly, is that there is none.

[Patrick Degan]

Why is ragging on Scientologists OK?


Because... they're just so funny?

[Ariphaos]

Try figuring out what the difference between a cult and a religion is to begin with.. Far as I can tell its no more then a matter of size (sometimes) and a matter of general acceptance by others.

A religion that hides its practices from the public is more worthy of derison than one that acts openly (presuming it is still accountable, and society at large is not irrationally hostile to said religion).

In theory, Christianty could trump Scientology here, and probably does, but there is a marked difference between the Bible being currently publically available and RTC holding the copyrights to their 'holy knowledge'

[

Christianity did not grow during a time of incredible ignorance so much as it flourished among the ignorant. The Latin vulgar for 'christian' persists as the word 'cretin'. It's meaning has not much changed, much was made of the vaunted stupidity of christians in general.

[Spyder]

It's not the age itself that gives it weight, it's the time period. Christianity was able to grow because of the way people were then, and it became implanted into humanity.

In other words, Christianity is more respectable because it became popular way back in an era when people were incredibly ignorant. I'm not seeing how this logic works at all.

Nothing makes ignorance more palatable then tradition.

[nick012000]

I'll also point out that Scientology makes provably false claims.

Most notable here is that the evil Emperor Xenu used gigatons of nuclear weapons to detonate volcanos, and wipe out 13-14 trillion aliens simultaneously, 75 million years ago. This can be disprovenby the lack of radioactive material indicated in the fossil record at this time, not to mention the lack of the rock that would result from the billions of tons of ash resulting from the incinderations of trillions of aliens. The result of it would have caused a mass extinction to rival the one that occured ten millon years later.

[drachefly]

Forget about THOSE. Scientology is situated atop Dianetics, a set of personal improvement excercises which make grandiose claims but absolutely fail to deliver. Perrfect recall? Well, NO.

[mr friendly guy]

I'll also point out that Scientology makes provably false claims.

So does a lot of other religions.

Christian fundies claim the earth as only 6000 years old, which various dating methods show to be false. But lets be generous and take claims only from more moderate Christians who disagree with science. A lot of Christians who aren't fundies (and who aren't catholics) disagree with evolution because God created all the animals at the same time. Yet the evidence for evolution would by virtue show the Christian version of creation to be false.

[nick012000]

I'll point out that if young Earth Creationism is correct, it can't be disproved simply because God created everything to be mature. Adult plants, adult animals, adult humans, adult universe. The apparent age of the universe would simply be an illusion.

[Morilore]

I'll point out that if young Earth Creationism is correct, it can't be disproved simply because God created everything to be mature. Adult plants, adult animals, adult humans, adult universe. The apparent age of the universe would simply be an illusion.

So God has a twisted sense of humor?

Besides which, in Genesis, there are two mutually contradictory Genesis stories, so YEC can't be true even by their own evidence.

[drachefly]

Not really. When you read it, it comes across more like, "Last week in our creation myth..." than a contradiction.

[Darth Wong]

I'll also point out that Scientology makes provably false claims.

Coming from a fundie with a ridiculous bullshit story about Jesus teleporting his mother's car away from a collision, this is fucking hilarious.

[Admiral Johnason]

I'll also point out that Scientology makes provably false claims.

Most notable here is that the evil Emperor Xenu used gigatons of nuclear weapons to detonate volcanos, and wipe out 13-14 trillion aliens simultaneously, 75 million years ago. This can be disprovenby the lack of radioactive material indicated in the fossil record at this time, not to mention the lack of the rock that would result from the billions of tons of ash resulting from the incinderations of trillions of aliens. The result of it would have caused a mass extinction to rival the one that occured ten millon years later.

And how is this different than a Q-like being poofing the world into existance 6000 years ago and only having two people to populate it. So tell me why the fact that aside from several southern states imbreeding is extremely rare and also why an ark made of wood, that would have taken thousands of workers years to complete and many more to polulate with flaura and fauna was made by a single family in the period of a few years with only the resources of a farmer.