4 ms·

If you think Scientology is "weirder" than mainstream religions, it's b/c you are buying into the propaganda sponsored by its competitors.

lobster_johnson 14y ago
The issue people have with Scientology is not that it's "weird". It's that they are an organization created expressly as a kind of pyramid scheme designed to funnel money from its clueless members to its corrupt leaders, and that they will go great (and highly immoral) lengths to safeguard the structure of the organization. All the weirdness -- the bogus science, the alien mythology, the extreme secrecy and protectiveness, the level hierarchy, etc. -- is merely a side effect of that goal. The mythology, for example, is the carrot, and the secrecy is the stick; they need the mythology because they need to feed some new knowledge (even if bogus) at each level, and they need the secrecy to make that knowledge desirable in the first place, both to members and to non-members. Sure, all religions are "weird". But most religious organizations -- generally speaking -- genuinely have their members' best interests at heart. Scientology has no such concerns.
- uptown 14y ago
  "But most religiour organization -- generally speaking -- genuinely have their members' best interests at heart." I think that's highly dependent on whether you believe what's being preached. There's countless examples of mainstream religions exploiting their power for financial and organizational gain at the expense of individual followers. From a financial standpoint, just take a look at the Vatican City as an example of how much money has been funneled from their followers.
  - lobster_johnson 14y ago
    Apparently you missed my point. Most religious organizations have elements of corruption, sure, but Scientology as an organization is built to exploit its members by design.
    - uptown 14y ago
      I got your point. But again ... it depends what you believe. For argument's sake, let's assume there's no such thing as God -- then the entire basis for every religion is fraudulent and perpetuates falsehoods resulting in the manipulation of a community of people to think, act, tithe, and multiply according to the rules of that church. If all faiths happen to be incorrect, then aren't they guilty of the same sin ... perpetuating a fictional promise and manipulating a community (whether they know they're doing it or not) in an exploitive way? Or is it less bad because there's potentially a perceived positive effect on the individuals and the community? Look, I realize debating religion online is pretty futile, and I'm no fan of Scientology or any other religion for that matter. I do get what your saying. I also have no idea what your religious views are ... but I've had a ton of debates where people seem to be blinded by how they were brought up and can only see outward from the religious views they hold as the truth. I suppose somebody could probably make that same case for my perspective on things. Personally, I think religion is introduced way before most people have the mental capacity to comprehend what's being thrust upon them, and I wonder what the religious landscape would look like if it were the kind of thing people first-experienced later on in life.
      - brey 14y ago
        > For argument's sake, let's assume there's no such thing as God -- then the entire basis for every religion is fraudulent but it's not -knowingly- fraudulent, which is the major test for culpability.
        harshreality 14y ago
        Leaders of pentacostal/evangelical churches, perhaps? Are they knowingly fraudulent? There's no way to tell if most religious leaders truly believe, unless you catch one in an incontrovertible statement of disbelief. Even someone like the Pope could be going along with it for the prestige, or simply not knowing what he'd do with his life outside of the Church. From a non-religious perspective, either someone is brainwashed, or they are fraudulent. That distinction matters in law, but it doesn't have any bearing on the value of the religious institution.
- grandalf 14y ago
  Sure, all religions are "weird". But most religious organizations -- generally speaking -- genuinely have their members' best interests at heart. Scientology has no such concerns. I very much do not believe that is the case at all. I find it fairly absurd to believe it possible to accurately generalize about the members of any large organization in that manner. There are doubtless some very good people and some very bad people who are members of nearly any group, including religions.
  - lobster_johnson 14y ago
    The difference is that the heads of Scientology know that their religion is not only completely made up, but was designed from the ground up to serve as a money-making machine for the organization's leaders. While the history of the Roman Catholic church is rife with corruption, its structure, dogma and so forth are all focused on faith, not wealth. With the Catholic church, corruption is a side effect; with Scientology it is the raison d'être.
    - grandalf 14y ago
      are all focused on faith, not wealth How can you assert something like that? It's really quite preposterous. All religious organizations have a strong need to fundraise in order to continue to exist. Many churches I've visited are lined around the entire periphery with money receptacles that have candles on top. You pay a donation and then you may light a candle and access God, etc. The idea that faith motivates anyone (from clergy members to suicide bombers) is absurd. No matter how religious a person is, it's well known that faith is a goal and not a reality. Humans suffer from tremendous doubt. Angels, on the other hand, are faith robots which do not doubt... which is a consequence of their lack of free will. Humans are mostly the same. A sampling of San Francisco residents is likely to be just as prejudiced as a sampling of Alabama residents. Similarly, a sampling of Scientologists are just as likely to be corrupt as Catholics or Buddhists. As an even more general rule, all organizations tend toward corruption. What prevents corruption is not the virtue of individual members but things like transparency, competition, accountability, focus on results, etc. Religious organizations (and to a lesser extent political and corporate ones) have evolved and continue to evolve clever ways to avoid accountability, to avoid transparency, etc. Secular organizations suffer a big comparative disadvantage in that the results they claim to have delivered are typically expected to be observable by humans.
- dscrd 14y ago
  "Sure, all religions are "weird". But most religious organizations -- generally speaking -- genuinely have their members' best interests at heart. Scientology has no such concerns. " That argument kinda breaks down when you take a look at one of the oldest and largest existing religions: Catholicism. Should anyone be surprised that powerful Catholic countries in Europe are totally against Scientology? It's not so much that Scientology is significantly worse (even if it is), it's because they don't like competition.

lobster_johnson 14y ago

The issue people have with Scientology is not that it's "weird". It's that they are an organization created expressly as a kind of pyramid scheme designed to funnel money from its clueless members to its corrupt leaders, and that they will go great (and highly immoral) lengths to safeguard the structure of the organization. All the weirdness -- the bogus science, the alien mythology, the extreme secrecy and protectiveness, the level hierarchy, etc. -- is merely a side effect of that goal. The mythology, for example, is the carrot, and the secrecy is the stick; they need the mythology because they need to feed some new knowledge (even if bogus) at each level, and they need the secrecy to make that knowledge desirable in the first place, both to members and to non-members. Sure, all religions are "weird". But most religious organizations -- generally speaking -- genuinely have their members' best interests at heart. Scientology has no such concerns.

uptown 14y ago
"But most religiour organization -- generally speaking -- genuinely have their members' best interests at heart." I think that's highly dependent on whether you believe what's being preached. There's countless examples of mainstream religions exploiting their power for financial and organizational gain at the expense of individual followers. From a financial standpoint, just take a look at the Vatican City as an example of how much money has been funneled from their followers.
- lobster_johnson 14y ago
  Apparently you missed my point. Most religious organizations have elements of corruption, sure, but Scientology as an organization is built to exploit its members by design.
  - uptown 14y ago
    I got your point. But again ... it depends what you believe. For argument's sake, let's assume there's no such thing as God -- then the entire basis for every religion is fraudulent and perpetuates falsehoods resulting in the manipulation of a community of people to think, act, tithe, and multiply according to the rules of that church. If all faiths happen to be incorrect, then aren't they guilty of the same sin ... perpetuating a fictional promise and manipulating a community (whether they know they're doing it or not) in an exploitive way? Or is it less bad because there's potentially a perceived positive effect on the individuals and the community? Look, I realize debating religion online is pretty futile, and I'm no fan of Scientology or any other religion for that matter. I do get what your saying. I also have no idea what your religious views are ... but I've had a ton of debates where people seem to be blinded by how they were brought up and can only see outward from the religious views they hold as the truth. I suppose somebody could probably make that same case for my perspective on things. Personally, I think religion is introduced way before most people have the mental capacity to comprehend what's being thrust upon them, and I wonder what the religious landscape would look like if it were the kind of thing people first-experienced later on in life.
    - brey 14y ago
      > For argument's sake, let's assume there's no such thing as God -- then the entire basis for every religion is fraudulent but it's not -knowingly- fraudulent, which is the major test for culpability.
      - harshreality 14y ago
        Leaders of pentacostal/evangelical churches, perhaps? Are they knowingly fraudulent? There's no way to tell if most religious leaders truly believe, unless you catch one in an incontrovertible statement of disbelief. Even someone like the Pope could be going along with it for the prestige, or simply not knowing what he'd do with his life outside of the Church. From a non-religious perspective, either someone is brainwashed, or they are fraudulent. That distinction matters in law, but it doesn't have any bearing on the value of the religious institution.
grandalf 14y ago
Sure, all religions are "weird". But most religious organizations -- generally speaking -- genuinely have their members' best interests at heart. Scientology has no such concerns. I very much do not believe that is the case at all. I find it fairly absurd to believe it possible to accurately generalize about the members of any large organization in that manner. There are doubtless some very good people and some very bad people who are members of nearly any group, including religions.
- lobster_johnson 14y ago
  The difference is that the heads of Scientology know that their religion is not only completely made up, but was designed from the ground up to serve as a money-making machine for the organization's leaders. While the history of the Roman Catholic church is rife with corruption, its structure, dogma and so forth are all focused on faith, not wealth. With the Catholic church, corruption is a side effect; with Scientology it is the raison d'être.
  - grandalf 14y ago
    are all focused on faith, not wealth How can you assert something like that? It's really quite preposterous. All religious organizations have a strong need to fundraise in order to continue to exist. Many churches I've visited are lined around the entire periphery with money receptacles that have candles on top. You pay a donation and then you may light a candle and access God, etc. The idea that faith motivates anyone (from clergy members to suicide bombers) is absurd. No matter how religious a person is, it's well known that faith is a goal and not a reality. Humans suffer from tremendous doubt. Angels, on the other hand, are faith robots which do not doubt... which is a consequence of their lack of free will. Humans are mostly the same. A sampling of San Francisco residents is likely to be just as prejudiced as a sampling of Alabama residents. Similarly, a sampling of Scientologists are just as likely to be corrupt as Catholics or Buddhists. As an even more general rule, all organizations tend toward corruption. What prevents corruption is not the virtue of individual members but things like transparency, competition, accountability, focus on results, etc. Religious organizations (and to a lesser extent political and corporate ones) have evolved and continue to evolve clever ways to avoid accountability, to avoid transparency, etc. Secular organizations suffer a big comparative disadvantage in that the results they claim to have delivered are typically expected to be observable by humans.
dscrd 14y ago
"Sure, all religions are "weird". But most religious organizations -- generally speaking -- genuinely have their members' best interests at heart. Scientology has no such concerns. " That argument kinda breaks down when you take a look at one of the oldest and largest existing religions: Catholicism. Should anyone be surprised that powerful Catholic countries in Europe are totally against Scientology? It's not so much that Scientology is significantly worse (even if it is), it's because they don't like competition.