Here is a blog article that I found interesting. I thought it was worth sharing and was curious to see what others thought about it.

Thanks

http://earthlingtoearthling.blogspot...s-believe.html

It's less credible because it was founded by a science fiction writer, who was a controversial figure at best. His documents have no real credibility as being true.

I think there are varying degrees of gullibility and silliness. I also consider religions like Scientology and Mormonism to be more far fetched if only because they were invented in more modern times, and are more clearly a hoax.

I agree with the posts.... and their religions seem so far fetched and crazy....but doesn't a guy living in a fish, or parting a whole sea seem just as crazy? I am not Athiest, I am Agnostic, because I don't think ANYONE knows...but ALL religions have things that seem far fetched and crazy...so whats the difference? Just because one was created thousands of years ago, does that give it more cred then one created a few decades ago? I don't think so.

My reaction is kind of how a scientist would react to reading an anti-vaccination post. It's not well-reasoned and has a lot of broadly inaccurate portrayals of information. That, and I just think it's ridiculous.

I mean, he says this:

Should we expect someone who knows nothing about the topic to be able to make a meaningful analogy between that thing he knows nothing about and something else?

To be fair, Trapped in the Closet is reasonably accurate as a source.

But the major differences are the depth of the scripture, the impact on culture, and the role in history. For Islam and Christianity, these aspects are huge. Where as in Scientology we have a very recent and well documented scammer obviously scamming people out of money.

And other religions dont scam people out of money?? That is far from the truth. Lets say Scientology is around for 2000 years....n it definitely shapes some people and possibly history....then would it be legit because of time and influence? No it would still be a crock...so whose to say the other religions arent the same and people werent sayin the same about that religion in their time. Matter of fact ..a lot of people though Jesus was crazy and fake right? Just saying...there isnt a difference. Although id lean towards believing a man lived in a fish before the Scientoligies story. But...there isnt a difference per say at all. The fact is...no one knows and no one is right. All religion is man made...and we know how uncompetent man is.

The longer a myth is perpetuated, the harder it is to break. So yeah... You better believe that if Scientology is still going strong in 2000 years, the non-believers will be having the same frustrating conversations with Scientologists as we do now with Christians.

All claims are not equally plausible, and this applies to religion as well.

COS is in a class by itself in the nakedness of its exploitation and charging payment to learn its teachings. Every denomination has con artists. But COS is structured as a con.

Shouldn't the opposite be true?

I don't know if the opposite would be true. I mean, if we were alive when it was created or close to it...then we know most of its BS. However, older religions died out to new religions all throughout history, or were at least updated with time, so I could see the argument. I mean, the Greeks thought Zeus was real, and other religions called BS and called it myth. Even Jesus's own story isn't original and was updated as time went by and derived from stories before it. So maybe with time, other religions will die and scientology becomes prominent. That would be scary. haha

Sure, they can do. But it's obviously pretty different to a religion founded by someone who, in modern times, was convicted of fraud. Who's life is well documented, well known, and well exposed.

There's no mystery in the life of L Ron Hubbard.

It still wouldn't be the same due to the type of documentation.

I'm an atheist, for what it's worth here. All I'm saying is that the historicity of Christianity and Scientology are hugely different. Not that Christianity is right, but it's certainly more interesting to discuss than Scientology.

Probably because they believe their religion is true, and therefore view this competing one as absurd and filled with outlandish and irrational claims. For an outsider it seems fairly obvious however that it is merely force of habit that makes Scientology seem crazier than the Abrahamic religions.

Yes, it is worrying to hear about people get blackmailed to stay in the cult and yes it raises questions when we hear about mystic rituals meant to raise your awareness about mystical alien entities from another dimension.

But few people bat an eyelid at ministers telling people they can't attain salvation without Christianity or when someone eats pretzels representing the body of an immortal deity.

At least Catholics (not certain about other denominations) believe it is the actual body of Christ and not just a representation. The wine is the actual blood. So in total the holy communion is a totally not weird, cannibalistic ritual.

I think the doctrine of transubstantiation is mainly a catholic thing. And it is equally ( or more) strange as any doctrine of Islam or COS.

What is the modern catholic take on transubstantiation?

My guess is that this part of theology is not that popular anymore.

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

Grunching.

A huge difference is the fact that Muslims and Christians were indoctrinated from birth, when their little heads still had that "Santa Claus ready" soft spot (paraphrasing Doug Stanhope). Scientologists start believing this crap as adults.

Both are crazy, but Scientologists chose to believe the crazy as an adult, without having it forced on their undeveloped brains.

Oh rwly?

So, there are no adult conversions to Christianity?

sigh...

And I guarantee NOW kids are taught Scientology from birth just like Christianity and other religions. It has been around long enough for that, so your argument makes no sense.

Yes, one of the earliest and most heated debates in the early Reformation was over this issue. Catholic theology held (and still does, unless it's changed since I was in school 12 years ago) that Christ is physically present during the Eucharist, and that there is a physical change in the bread/wine to body/blood (though from what the Jesuits taught me, they're a little willing to fudge on this being the same as our own meaty flesh and blood). Luther on the other hand considered this mystical nonsense and held that priests had no magical powers to change substances, and that Christ was only spiritually present in the Eucharist. Zwingli took issue with both of them and argued that there was no presence during communion at all, and that all "sacraments" (a word he argued against, charging that it was too mystical and superstitious) were merely symbolic rituals that served commemorative purpose, but produced no supernatural results (this made him run afoul of Catholics and Luther AND Anabaptists).

Yes, of course there are. And those people I categorize as just as foolish as the people who sign up for Scientology. I mean, really, how do you believe the myths in the Bible? They are no more credible than Xenu.

sigh...

Not at all. It simply means that those unfortunate humans will have a legitimate excuse for believing the Scientology crap, the same way so many Christian, Jews and Muslims do (the ones indoctrinated from birth, in case you're not following).

I have a very talented and charismatic friend of mine who has in fact begun work on starting his own religion. He believes it to be a profitable industry and he's perfectly comfortable with the risks involved (fraud, corruption etc.).

Just like there is pseudosciences like astrology, there are pseudoreligions. Several features distinguish the real from the fake. One clue is the sincerity of the leaders and the founders. Journalistic reports have shown that the Scientology leaders intentionally set up a fake religion solely for gaining personal wealth. Another is their total lack of dedication to charitable works. Look up pseudoscience, pseudoreligion, and reports about Scientology for more information.

Yes,

but I would replace the distinction between pseudoreligion and religion with unsuccessful enterprise and successful enterprise, all under the same industry umbrella. Their main product is hope.