That is indeed interesting.

Also, the main product that Abrahamic religion and Scientology peddle is the same: Eternal life in an supposedly ideal state. One through prayer and obedience to clergy, the other through "auditing" and obedience to clergy.

We should probably note here that many Abrahamic adherents aren't religious (I especially think this has long been an increasing trend in typical "western" countries) in the sense the word is applicable to this discussion. That is to say that their belief is individual rather than the result of an organized and authoritative collective. We can't directly compare dogmatic institutions to individuals.

How did you determine these were [among] the criteria for distinguishing real religions from fake religions?

From common sense and reading what experts have to say. Doesn't it make sense that if the leaders of a supposed religion do not sincerely believe their own proclamations that it is likely to be a pseudoreligion? Pseudoreligions have similar characteristics to cults that distinguish them from real religions. They tend to be insincere, dangerous to members , exploitative, secretive, and closed. For more discussion about this topic, you may be interested in this checklist about cults published by two Professors who specialize in the study of cults:

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

With the slight nit-pick that "pseudoreligion" might not be the best word, in the spirit of the thread, I'd certainly agree that if a religion's leaders don't believe their own message, it's all the more reason to reject it as "crazy."

However, "journalistic reports" haven't established that the leaders of either Mormonism or Scientology didn't believe their own messages. A number of early leaders the LDS church (I think the number is 11) went to their graves attesting to seeing and/or handling the mythical golden plates of Mormonism, despite having long ago been excommunicated from the group--they not only had nothing to gain by continuing their claims, but seemed to have a motive to discredit the group, yet didn't. Likewise, Hubbard seemed to be obsessed with cleansing himself of harmful engrams, ordering an engineer on his staff to build a super-duper engram-killing machine because he was extra infected. He certainly seemed to believe what he was peddling.

"Real" religions like Christianity and Islam have many of the same characteristics. The difference is which characteristics, and to what degree, but that isn't very helpful, as outsiders of the faiths will assess them differently than insiders. Non-Christians would likely say Christianity exhibits most of the traits you list, while I'm sure you would say it exhibits zero, and likewise for Muslims, etc.

What struck me was your second criteria--charity. That seems awfully no-true-Scotsman-y. It seems convenient to pick a characteristic of your favored religion and make that a requirement. Is a belief system that doesn't have a component of charity a pseudoreligion?

Wikipedia link on the eleven witnesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

---

I'll grant that the source below can't really be seen as unbiased, but it's at least very well documented.

http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses

You haven't really studied Scientology or you would know better. Here are two quotes from the founder to get you started. There is plenty more evidence against Scientology. Study more on your own before making any more wild, unsubstantiated claims. I'm done.

"Scientology...is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard's "Creation of Human Ability" p251

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." - L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd Eshbach, in 1949; quoted by Eshbach in OVER MY SHOULDER: REFLECTIONS ON A SCIENCE FICTION ERA, Donald M. Grant Publisher. 1983

I'm sure we can find plenty of clergy in Abrahamic religions that don't believe many claims of their respective holy works or even typical claims of their own denominations. So these religions must be pseudo-religions too?

As long as "personal faith" is accepted as religious evidence, you're inevitably hitting a brick wall and it won't be possible for you to show that one religion is BS and another one is not. The only "spiritual" argument you can make is "I know I am right and he is not" (which is made surprisingly often), but a neutral observer would have to allow the Scientologist the same right.

Yeah I think the religion v. pseudo religion argument is difficult to present cogently.

Guilty as charged. I have no idea what religion Hubbard started, since it apparently wasn't Scientology.

Personally, I tend to think newer groups like LDS and COS are crazier than, say, Catholics, not because their specific beliefs are crazier, but because the beginnings of both groups are both pretty well known and on the surface both appear to be straight up frauds. But it isn't a position I'd bother to defend vigorously, because "That belief is crazy," or "Those members should know better," are going to be impossible to quantify.

My point to you was that you're using criteria that you seem to think supports your group's claim of sanity, but the first probably doesn't (the apostles didn't seem to understand many of their important teachings, and many modern church leaders reject some of them), and your second (charity) seems to have been specifically chosen because you can confidently claim it for Christianity, not because it is a hallmark of sane thinking.

I worked on a ship a while ago that would travel to various Caribbean islands. When we would pull into harbour on several occasions we would be moored next to the "Freewinds" which is a Scientology vessel. The ship is really fancy and we got to tour around the vessel and the people showed us around.

From what I remember visiting the "Freewinds" was part of the final step of training in Scientology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewinds

It was all very nice but I did feel creeped out and I can't put my finger on why. Also during the tour they gave me a huge book with all of their teachings in it which I read.

I can't find any pics of this book online but it was seriously big, think of like a really huge reference book from the library.

From my memory I don't think Scientology is much of a religion, they don't believe in a deity. It is more of a self help program.

The main concept is going "clear" which entails getting hooked up to a machine and then being interviewed. This process is meant to "clear" you from your past hurts and issues. Becoming "clear" is the key to living a full and successful life unfettered by the issues of your past.

IIRC there was an implied atheism to the whole thing.

In reference to OP and the general discussion I think using the descriptor "crazy" is counterproductive. IMO people charge others as being crazy to boost their own ego while at the same time avoiding any actual discussion of beliefs and context.

There are many facets to belief and to simply chalk it up to "those people are crazy" doesn't add anything of value. Accusing other people of being crazy relieves us of our responsibility to understand what other people believe and why.

Interesting sidenote Beck was raised in a family of Scientologists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToFsrOJrdCY

Yeah I agree. I meant to put it in scare quotes, too

Religions morph over time.

And those that last awhile gain credibility. And then they can raise their own children in their faith which has a much higher conversion ratio and grows membership.

You say 'science fiction' writer as if this somehow makes his views less credible than say, a carpenter, and given that Dianetics is a theory of Mind, something we have good reason to believe real, that makes it more credible to me than any unprovable god theory. You say Hubbard was 'controversial' as if that further undermines his credibility, and yet Jesus was also controversial, was he not? Should we then doubt his credibility too?

Were the circumstances reversed between Christianity and Scientology, I suspect that you would now be arguing the exact opposite. In past conversations you've seemed convinced that the numbers of people who believe something has some relationship with, or adds weight to whether or not that thing is true, whilst simultaneously denying Islam despite there being almost 2 Billion people who believe it true. I've always found that to be illogical and contradictory. Can you be sure that you wouldn't now be a Scientologist were the circumstances reversed?

It would be interesting if you one day put forward a coherent argument.

Christianity and Islam have become part of our culture. Religions generally follow the same path. All start among a small group of fanatics. This over time develops into a cult. If the religion is lucky, it garners some acceptance which is fueled predominately by youth indoctrination. Over time, religions tend to hit a tipping point and then fade into obscurity. The only thing interesting about Christianity and Islam is that the eventual successor may not be a religion that takes it place, but a combination of agnostic/atheist. If you study it from a purely sociological perspective, this could actually happen for the first time in history (communist forced conversions not included). Assuredly, it will not happen in my lifetime, but statistically I’m looking at 100-150 years. Once it happens, it will happen quickly and usually based on a significant historical event (first atheist president, for example). It will be a massive strain on our human society as a whole, because we have such an ingrained desire for spiritual belief, but that will go away with time as well.

Nothing about this description is particular to religion.

What statistics?

And you base this on... ?

I would assume you have some sort of factual basis for this. And I then would assume that assumption is incorrect.

Is your position that all religions are equally plausible?

If I start a religion, it will be as equally plausible as Christianity, which is as equally plausible as Scientology?

The fact that L Ron, who being a science-fiction writer, wrote books which are virtually inseparable from science fiction should give us pause. It's almost as if he made the whole thing up. To add to this, he was a known fraudster, and was even reported as stating he was going to start a religion.

I'm all for listening to objections about Christianity, but if you want to argue that everything is just as likely, I don't think you're being honest.

Bottom line is religion is a sham and a scam.

Perhaps all religions are a sham, but the question is if some are more plausible than others.

It seems to me that religions that survive for centuries figure out how to address these problems, and turn some negatives into positives.

For example, a Scientologist might patiently explain that LRH's sci-fi writings were only to set the foundation for the spiritual revelations he was preparing--they were the COS's version of John the Baptist. Given enough time and power (a la Christianity) the details of this so-called "fraud" could easily be morphed into vague stories of oppression by suppressives. I mean, of course he was going to start a religion--he had discovered truths of galactic import and wanted to share them!

I'm not sure MB was saying all religions are equally plausible. I think he was saying that, given the same time and power as Christianity has enjoyed, modern-day religions like Scientology and LDS might appear no more implausible than Christianity

If they involve a deity the existence of which can't be proven then yes. Do you have a good reason why you treat them differently?

Sure, why not? If you know that your god exists, what does it matter to whether or not you're right who agrees or doesn't agree with you?

I hope that the irony of this statement isn't lost on you.

Does this make him wrong?

I'm not really making an argument so much as asking you how it is you assign greater or lesser credibility to particular religions, it seems pretty arbitrary to me the way that you do it. Simply an application of faith, rather than having good reasons. We've established that I don't consider your personal experiences to be good reasons, so we don't need to go over that ground again.

So I'm not arguing that everything is equally likely, this is obviously untrue, I'm explaining my view that certain things (religious beliefs) within a very specific and narrow context (they involve an unprovable deity) are all equally likely, as equally likely as beliefs that involve various versions of vampires are to me. If I don't believe in vampires then it adds nothing to know that 90% of vampire believers believe in one particular type, or not, etc. Presumably you feel the same way about vampires, now simply extend that to Christianity and Islam, or any of the historically extremely popular religions that have fallen into disuse over time.

Do you think it's possible for you to be objective in this analysis? What qualifies you to decide which are more plausible?

Since following this thread I became really interested in Scientology. There is a documentary called "Going Clear" which I strongly recommend. I watched it on Youtube a week or so ago but I think it is pulled now.

There have been a few comments made about LRH in this thread. From my research it seems LRH did actually believe in what he taught (by the end of his life).

Chris Shelton's Youtube Channel also has some great general information on the cult and their practices.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF3...QHI7Z5xAwKQDJg

But somehow your approach is less arbitrary?

And by established, you mean it has simply been asserted.

I can just pretend like I don't even need to engage in any form of meaningful reasoning and can just assert random nonsense. Why? Because I've already assumed it was nonsense!

Also, welcome back to the work of the special "religious beliefs" category that's special and distinct from all other forms of thought argument.