• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More plausible: Scientology or Christianity?

EGarrett

Illuminator
E
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,086
I lean towards Scientology at the moment, because we at least have convincing evidence that the man they claim to be messiah actually existed.
 
Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves? I thought that the debate reference the plausibility of Santa Claus vs the Easter Bunny was still ongoing...
 
Both suffer from such incredibly glaring errors of basic facts that I couldn't pin one down as having ANY plausibility! :p
 
We know how scientology started and as Harlan Ellison explains, it was started as a get rich scheme (you should fast forward to about 6:30 into the clip to get to the pertinent info):



The upshot is that Scientology was created during an evening's drinkfest of a bunch of sciencefiction writers.

I think Scientology is less plausible because we know it was made up. Christianity has the benefit of 2,000 years to separate it's creators from the believers. We just don't remember that it was made up too.
 
EGarrett said:
I lean towards Scientology at the moment, because we at least have convincing evidence that the man they claim to be messiah actually existed.
Click to expand...
You may not realize this, but you might just have made fredcarr's day. :cool:
 
EGarrett said:
I lean towards Scientology at the moment, because we at least have convincing evidence that the man they claim to be messiah actually existed.
Click to expand...


L.R. also was quoted somewhere as making a bet that he could make up a religion and the rubes would pop purt their wallets. Factor in the thetan ******** and they are a bunch of kooks. Normally I can be respectful of any other religion, theirs is a ponzi scheme basically.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
We know how scientology started and as Harlan Ellison explains, it was started as a get rich scheme (you should fast forward to about 6:30 into the clip to get to the pertinent info):



The upshot is that Scientology was created during an evening's drinkfest of a bunch of sciencefiction writers.

I think Scientology is less plausible because we know it was made up. Christianity has the benefit of 2,000 years to separate it's creators from the believers. We just don't remember that it was made up too.
Click to expand...

What's really amazing about that interview is hearing someone who's more frenetic than Robin Williams. I didn't even clue in that Williams was the interviewer at first.

Ellison writes exactly the same way, BTW, for those who haven't read him.
 
Let see...

Milllons of years ago, an alien overlord, in order to control our galaxy's population problem, dumps billions of frozen aliens into volcanoes in Hawaii (that didn't exist at the time, BTW) then bombed them with nuclear weapons until their "theaten" escaped. After that, they were captured, brainwashed (or would that be "soulwashed?"), set loose onto the earth to cause psychological problems on humans that can only be removed by asking a bunch of embarrassing questions while holding onto soup cans connected to a glorified galvanometer...

...OR

An invisible man who lives in the sky sired himself through a "virgin" so he can exist in human forum and was be tortured and executed horribly as a sacrifice to himself to forgive the "sin" of a mythical naked woman who was conned into eating a piece of fruit by a talking snake. However, despite this "sacrifice" (How can it be a sacrafice when you allegedly come back 2 days later?) we still aren't forgiven and will be sent to burn in Hell for all eternity unless we kiss this omnibenevolent AND bloodthirsty deity's apocryphal ass.

You might as well ask whether Dragons or Unicorns are more plausible, EG.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
What's really amazing about that interview is hearing someone who's more frenetic than Robin Williams. I didn't even clue in that Williams was the interviewer at first.

Ellison writes exactly the same way, BTW, for those who haven't read him.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite writers.
 
Do Scientologists actually believe the Xenu stuff? And if not, do they simply view the "thetans" as a metaphor for negative thoughts?

I ask this because after I was familiar with the Xenu story, I talked to a friend who at one time had planned to write a book on Scientology. He mentioned that the psychology of it was the point, and Hubbard wanted it to be counted as a religion with all the benefits that implies. But IIRC, just the psychology stuff wasn't enough to be counted as a religion, so he made up the mythical stuff simply for that purpose.
 
Mark A. Siefert said:
Let see...

Milllons of years ago, an alien overlord, in order to control our galaxy's population problem, dumps billions of frozen aliens into volcanoes in Hawaii (that didn't exist at the time, BTW) then bombed them with nuclear weapons until their "theaten" escaped. After that, they were captured, brainwashed (or would that be "soulwashed?"), set loose onto the earth to cause psychological problems on humans that can only be removed by asking a bunch of embarrassing questions while holding onto soup cans connected to a glorified galvanometer...

...OR

An invisible man who lives in the sky sired himself through a "virgin" so he can exist in human forum and was be tortured and executed horribly as a sacrifice to himself to forgive the "sin" of a mythical naked woman who was conned into eating a piece of fruit by a talking snake. However, despite this "sacrifice" (How can it be a sacrafice when you allegedly come back 2 days later?) we still aren't forgiven and will be sent to burn in Hell for all eternity unless we kiss this omnibenevolent AND bloodthirsty deity's apocryphal ass.

You might as well ask whether Dragons or Unicorns are more plausible, EG.
Click to expand...
I think space aliens are more plausible than supernatural deities, and Unicorns, being horses with horns, are more plausible than winged, firebreathing lizards.

Please be aware that discussing which story is MORE plausible does not mean that either one IS actually likely or valuable.
 
Last edited:
Scientology is logically possible; Christianity is not. Scientology makes no claims that could not possibly be true, only which have nothing to do with reality.
 
All things equal, I'll follow whichever one is cheaper.

1) Scientology - tens of thousands of dollars for their BS "classes"

2) Christianity - free sermons at the denomination you choose.

I'll take the J-man.
 
From what I know, scientologists weren't even told about the Xenu stuff until they had reached a certain level of indoctrination, by which point they were brainwashed enough to believe anything. It was originally a secret doctrine.

Then xenu.net broke it on the internet and now everyone knows about it.
 
arthwollipot said:
From what I know, scientologists weren't even told about the Xenu stuff until they had reached a certain level of indoctrination, by which point they were brainwashed enough to believe anything. It was originally a secret doctrine.

Then xenu.net broke it on the internet and now everyone knows about it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's hard to keep good minions these days, what with the lure of the evil internet.
 
tomwaits said:
All things equal, I'll follow whichever one is cheaper.

1) Scientology - tens of thousands of dollars for their BS "classes"

2) Christianity - free sermons at the denomination you choose.

I'll take the J-man.
Click to expand...


Scientology = ponzi scheme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom